January 28, 2006

Can someone tell me if the network is the same one as NFL total access?

posted by johnwalker821 at 09:05 PM on January 28, 2006

That is some serious BULL(****)!!!! Right there. As a college student who lives for football games on a weekend basis, this is not only a disappointment, its 100% outrageous. At least they're keeping the games on their regular stations. Still, this worries me some in the near future. Hopefully the greedy men and women running the NFL decide to not dig into the pockets of their viewers. They make quite a bit as is.

posted by chemwizBsquared at 10:28 PM on January 28, 2006

Before we all know it, all sports ( WELL IMPORTANT ONES ) will be on cable. First we had the NBA All star game, now its monday night football, a tradition for decades. These networks and sports leagues are nothing more than giant corperations now. I give it 5 or 10 more years before ESPN and TNT control NFL and NBA games. All we'll have left on network television is hockey, golf, and WNBA games

posted by BossHogg313 at 12:58 AM on January 29, 2006

This is going to get out of hand. I always thought that MNF was a stretch. I can never seem to watch a whole game as they run so late. When is this going to end? They are doing the samething with College games. Its got to be all about the money..

posted by daddisamm at 07:03 AM on January 29, 2006

I have watched and loved football since watching with my dad growing up. I have 3 sons and 5 grandsons and a granddaughter.We get together weekends to watch the games when possible. If not we are on the phone to each other talking about this play or that penalty.I have already noticed this year saying or hearing "I don't get that channel". It can only get worse going down this path.And at what level do we cut off the fans who must buy groceries before cable? I was taught the most important thing in sports is sportsmanship! We will ALL lose alot!! GO BUCS.

posted by newberry at 07:21 AM on January 29, 2006

What does sportsmanship have to do with this? It's business. When I saw the NFL Network coverage of the Super Bowl last year in Jacksonville, I figured it was only a matter of time before the league began pushing out ESPN and the broadcast networks. Taking the Cowboys' Thanksgiving game to their network is the first big shove. As my wife saw while covering the bowl last year, the network gets the best access to the players. Every team has a permanent setup where a player can walk out of the locker room and speak live to Rich Eisen and the other hosts of NFL Total Access. The network also gives the league more control of its message. If something's embarrassing to the NFL, every fan who watches their network for the news gets the NFL-sympathetic spin. The network already covers Super Bowl week better than anybody else. In 10 years, I think all nationally broadcast NFL games will be on the league's network. Unless they buy ESPN.

posted by rcade at 07:51 AM on January 29, 2006

I think the NFL will continue to allow networks to bid on football programs, regular and postseason. They make over a $Billion selling rights to broadcast. Especially now because not everyone has NFL network. But even when it's on everybody's dial, I still gotta think they will double dip and show some games on NFL network, but still sell rights to game packages to highest bidder. If they show all games on NFL Network they would make less $. The concept being that ABC,CBS,FOX,TNT etc. will be (and have been) willing to get into bidding wars for the right to televise the games. Without that competition there's only the value of the ratings and advertising to gain, and the inflated TV contracts to lose.

posted by sumokenobi at 10:37 AM on January 29, 2006

It'a all about the money. I'm fortunate in respect to being able to foot the bill for entertainment. I will not spend a dime on this bull. Strength comes in numbers, and if we band together we can show the networks our displeasure, they may re-think this poor decision. First the price of gas goes up for no reason other than lining the pockets of the few, and now sports entertainment jumps on the bandwagon. It may be time to turn off the game on TV and take the wife to sunday movies!

posted by mustang71 at 11:32 AM on January 29, 2006

Once again cooperate greed has chose to victimize the consumer, whom they claim to covet. To the average joe broadcast network has always been the least expensive, most accessible form of entertainment in our society. Because of the accessibility of sporting events many professional participants have become household names with broad recognition universally. Even to those with limited knowledge of the sport . I realize this trend of pay-per-view and premium channels is the future . But from my own point of view this piecemeal approach may just backfire. I could imagine a number of things happening : 1) Although unlikely at first, fans could just loose interest. Growing up in the 60s, 70s and 80s I was a big boxing fan and could tell anyone who would listen who the fighters and the top contenders were in all weight categories and as well as which organization they fought for. Today I can name on one hand all the current boxers I know. 2) Limiting access to games and players would limit marketability. Fans vote with their dollars. If I don’t know how good the athlete is because I never get to see them play I’m sure as hell not going to buy his jersey or his shoes or anything else he endorses. And I better not see commercial advertisement on a block of time I paid for! 3) Networks will have to fill the sports vacuum left by this migration. For the first time another league might become a viable reality. Could soccer or rugby fill the slot? I know after a generation passes our youth will be interested in what they watch on a regular basis. I just know as a Dallas fan I feel betrayed. I have watched the Cowboys play every thanksgiving for as long as I can remember. The nfl network is not available here in my local market. The bastards.

posted by kosmicdebris at 12:34 PM on January 29, 2006

I must say that as a sports fan that pays little attention to hockey, I enjoyed the NHL on NBC presentation that I watched this Saturday. I think it may actually give more exposure to the sport. In relation to this thread, perhaps if the NFL moves to pay-per-view or premium channel status, soccer could seize the opportunity, as kosmicdebris suggested. Interest has been rising for years in the sport, with youth leagues becoming more prevalent, and it's possible that the states could finally jump in on the trend... But it still won't be bigger than American football (at least not for another generation.)

posted by RScannix at 01:07 PM on January 29, 2006

Well I personally would find a way to pay if I had too. Sports are a big part of my families entertainment. I am not saying I would like it but I would probably find a way. I don't think they would really do that though because as stated before no one will condone watching commercials on a premium pay channal so they would lose advertising dollars. I also don't think they would give up all the billions the networks pay for the broadcast rights. They have tasted that money and not getting it would really hurt the income of the league.

posted by skydivemom at 02:37 PM on January 29, 2006

If you are like me, then give up on pro football. I will not pay one penny to support a bunch of over paid steroid loaded, knife weilding, gun toting hoods, posing as a sportsman. They have been pampered throughout life because of their athletic ability,they think any thing they do will go unpunished. To hell with them! I get more pleasure watching college games than paying to kiss Tagliabue's a--.30

posted by westcoast at 04:13 PM on January 29, 2006

I might not pay to see Shawn Taylor spit on someone but if he was going to shoot someone.......well maybe........nahh, I'll save my money and poke my head out the door. hooray for the national fleecing league.

posted by kosmicdebris at 04:22 PM on January 29, 2006

If you are like me, then give up on pro football. I will not pay one penny to support a bunch of over paid steroid loaded, knife weilding, gun toting hoods, posing as a sportsman. They have been pampered throughout life because of their athletic ability,they think any thing they do will go unpunished. To hell with them! I get more pleasure watching college games than paying to kiss Tagliabue's a--.30 So where do you think NFL players learn to take steriods, wield knifes, and tote guns? College football has a LOT more of the above than the NFL...by a magnitude of 50 at least!

posted by bdaddy at 05:45 PM on January 29, 2006

I am disturbed by this announcement, because I don't have DirecTV or NFL network. But I do wonder why the NFL hasn't taken even a moderate advantage of available technology, and gotten into our wallets in a much more palatable way: I have TWO suggestions, that would cost us a bit, but actually give us something in return, that we do not have now: #1. Allow fans to subscribe to THEIR team(s) games! I would NOT pay the ridiculous price for NFL Season Ticket, even if I had DTV. (You can only watch so many games, not 12-15/week for me). I would gladly pay a REASONABLE fee to be able to see every Dallas Cowboy game, just as my neighbor should be able to sign up & see his Steelers, or whatever. And wherever! I hate having to go to sports bars to see 12 of the 'Boys 16 games, here in Kansas. #2: Sell Pay-Per-View games on an A-La-Carte basis! Gotta go to Aunt Hattie's for your parent's 50th anniversary? You should be able to purchase the game YOU want to see that day! Even at HER house! NOT the Browns vs Detroit game (or Cards/Texans, whatever), that no-one cares about! I think a reasonable price range would be $3.99-5.99 per game, (a la carte), and a season pass for your team should cost no more than $59-79. So tell us, would you pay it? If not, what would you pay? (Per game, & per season). Remember now, this is not having to pay for something we always got for free. We have NEVER been able to see our chosen teams complete schedule unless we live in their home neighborhood. This would be a MAJOR improvement for the huge percentage of fans who don't cheer for their local home team. (I am SO tired of the Chiefs being rammed down my throat!). I am sure the technology is there... Your thoughts?

posted by Ol'Jim at 08:59 PM on January 29, 2006

WTF are you all talking about? PPV? Seems like the NFL and NBA and MLB are just trying to take the broadcasts in-house and then force their way onto basic cable and satellite so they can suck up more of the ad revenue.

posted by yerfatma at 06:15 AM on January 30, 2006

As long as the games being broadcast on the NFL Network are regional games, and not the national ones, AND they are still broadcast on the local station in the markets of the teams involved, there is little or no impact on the everyday fan. They would not have gotten the games any way. The concern for me is that the very first game that NFL Network is broadcasting in a NATIONAL game, one of two Thanksgiving games. I think it will prove to be a poor decision by the league to start this in this way. The viewership numbers for that game will be down, as the only homes able to receive it are in the Dallas and Washington areas and those that have access AND subscription to NFL Network. Unless and until NFL Network is on a mojority of Basic or a least second-tier menus, would you pay national advertising rates to feature your product in very limited markets? If this is about the money, and if I were an exec at the league, I would start small, simulcast games on both their traditional networks and the NFL Network, but, would the big 4 (er, 5 now that MNF is on ESPN) agree to pay the price to have to share the broadcast rights for a game? All in all, until NFL Netwok is in at least 50% of American homes, this is not a wise decision, IMO.

posted by elovrich at 08:59 AM on January 30, 2006

I also agree that all the games will not be put on NFL Network. Too much money to lose. But still the Thanksgiving game was a huge blow. This stuff is traditional. Eat Thanksgiving then sit down together and watch the game. Why do they have to take that away. They just seem to stomp on the little guy that has been so loyal all these years. I have only been a constant viewer for 5 to 6 years but i have come to rely on that Sunday Afternoon Panthers game. But if they ever make me pay for it i wont do it. I'll just get the game re-cap off the internet, untill we have to pay for that.

posted by threemoney21 at 12:57 PM on January 30, 2006

The article says this: ''The league runs the 2-year-old NFL Network, which is in about 40 million homes. The addition of games to its lineup almost assuredly will increase that number.'' But the NFL says this: ''NFL Network is currently available to 65 million U.S. homes via satellite service such as DirecTV and the Dish Network, as well as through the nation's top cable operators including Comcast, Cox and Adelphia.'' I wonder if someone is inflating the numbers a bit?

posted by Steeler_Fan at 07:46 PM on January 30, 2006

I want to point out that both of these quotes state "available". Yes NFL Network is "available" on my cable network here. For a price, in addition to what I already pay, which is more than ever, and goes up at ever-increasing intervals. To get NFL Network, "all" I have to do is pay an additonal fee per month for this one channel, or a larger fee for the "sports tier". You know, the one that includes all of the regional fox networks throughout the country, just in case I really want to watch the Florida-Florida State womens' swim teams face off. Now, what I would like to know, how many homes is the NFL Network actually in already? And I mean seperate addresses, not a count of the number of Digital cable boxes are programmed to receive it, as this would tally some homes at 2, 3 or more....

posted by elovrich at 08:12 PM on January 30, 2006

I know DirectTV has the NFL Network as part its basic package.

posted by willthrill72 at 03:02 PM on January 31, 2006