NFL backs down - NE - NYG game to be televised nationwide

[esoxx]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-patriots-giants-tv&prov=ap&type=lgns

Hopefully this is the start of the end of the NFL Network/Cable TV debacle.

[packinpatland]

So glad I paid the big bucks for the NFL channel. :roll:

[esoxx]

Exactly. This situation needs to get resolved and people are right to be pissed on every level. People pay for the NFL Network and now those that don't get to watch the game too.

There needs to be a solution here b/c this is just a gathering sh!t storm that will only get worse. Hopefully this cave by the NFL starts to gather the needed momentum to get it resolved.

[FritzDontBlitz]

The consumer and the fans finally win for a change.

[MJZiggy]

NBC and CBS? Wow, when the local senator mentions anti-trust exemption, stubbornness subsides quickly doesn't it...

[gbgary]

Exactly. This situation needs to get resolved...

right! the solution needs to be NO games on nfl channel. huge portions of the country miss these games and it's stupid for the nfl to do this. i couldn't believe monday night football (and thursday night for that matter) ended up on espn for the same reason. i've got directv and i don't miss a single thing but not everyone can say that.

[packinpatland]

If there were no games on the NFL channel, how would fans, like me, watch the Packer games here on the east coast?

What I've had a hard time understanding is..........when the Packers are on Fox, or CBS on Sunday, then the game is not on the NFL channel.......in this area. Yet, the Patriots are on both channels each Sunday. Is this a glitch?

[MJZiggy]

They'd watch them by Sunday Ticket...and yes, that sounds like a glitch cuz I can't get Redskins here and if I'm watching the Packer game and the local station cuts to the game, I have to change channels (or at least I did last season--I haven't seen it happen this season so maybe they changed it for tivo.)

[FritzDontBlitz]

If there were no games on the NFL channel, how would fans, like me, watch the Packer games here on the east coast?

What I've had a hard time understanding is..........when the Packers are on Fox, or CBS on Sunday, then the game is not on the NFL channel.......in this area. Yet, the Patriots are on both channels each Sunday. Is this a glitch?

The Patriots are the marquee matchup, so they gety national exposure whenever they play. Usually the 3 pm games are the national telecasts.

[The Leaper]

i've got directv and i don't miss a single thing but not everyone can say that.

If it is so easy to get DirecTV, then why are people whining?

People will spend $100 a week to fill up their monstrous SUV with gas...but aren't willing to pay LESS to switch over to satellite when they offer crazy good deals to come aboard?

People just like to whine...and they deserve to have games taken away from them.

[Zool]

I'm confused.

Why exactly are we entitled to watch a football game? Does the NFL really owe me anything? If I got sick of them today and stopped watching football altogether, would I owe them something?

[Scott Campbell]

I'm confused.

Why exactly are we entitled to watch a football game?


Screw socialized health care. I want socialized football.

[FavreChild]

The consumer and the fans finally win for a change.

The NFL is the big winner here - make no mistake about it. Millions to sell the rights to the two networks, hundreds of millions in ad dollars.

Not to mention the fact that now they actually look like the "good guys." Just for taking millions and millions of dollars in exchange for "letting" us fans see the game.

[cpk1994]

The consumer and the fans finally win for a change.

The NFL is the big winner here - make no mistake about it. Millions to sell the rights to the two networks, hundreds of millions in ad dollars.

Not to mention the fact that now they actually look like the "good guys." Just for taking millions and millions of dollars in exchange for "letting" us fans see the game.Not really. With one move, the NFL just about destroyed their bargaining position with the cable companies. Cable compaines will be strengthend in their stance by the fact that the NFL caved.

[FavreChild]

No way.

The NFL can say, "See? We compromised. Now it's YOUR turn."

Nothing will change. The NFL has not "caved" in the least. Very smart move on their part.

[The Leaper]

The NFL is the big winner here - make no mistake about it. Millions to sell the rights to the two networks, hundreds of millions in ad dollars.


I dunno. If they were truly winning, they wouldn't need to give up the right to be the sole distributor of this game. I doubt they are making any money off simulcasting on other networks. The other networks aren't doing this for charity...they will demand their $$$$ too.

[cpk1994]

No way.

The NFL can say, "See? We compromised. Now it's YOUR turn."

Nothing will change. The NFL has not "caved" in the least. Very smart move on their part.No it wasn't a good move. Now the cable comapnies will hold stronger becuase their buddies in Congress will continue to go after the NFL. Why should Cable back down when it has now been shown the the NFL will back down with enough pressure? The NFL just screwed itself.

[The Leaper]

The NFL can say, "See? We compromised. Now it's YOUR turn."

I don't see how the simulcasting has any real impact on the NFL Network/cable company tiff. The cable companies aren't going to make any money off of the simulcasting...and the NFL isn't going to change their stance that they want their Network to be available on basic tier packages.

Congress is meaningless at this point...Washington will basically be out of business for a year due to the upcoming election campaigns. No politican is going to be elected based on their ability to get the NFL Network on local cable outlets...but they can get some quick facetime by rattling sabers.

This is a game few people outside of the Northeast care about anyway...which is precisely why the NFL is doing this. If they didn't, the ratings for this game would be abysmal.

[FavreChild]

Exactly right, Leaper. That's the point. Many people *think* that the NFL is "caving," but this move does nothing except bolster the league's reputation. That's why I can't believe that the headline story is that the NFL is "giving in." They aren't "giving up" their broadcast rights, first of all.

Secondly, I guarantee they are getting tons of money for allowing the simulcast. They aren't just handing NBC and CBS millions and millions of dollars in ad revenue.

And finally, this gesture is just a goodwill move. It will have no impact on the dispute with Time Warner and the other cable companies, other than just that - goodwill. Many fans will *think* that the NFL is "caving" and that they, the fans, are winning. False.

[cpk1994]

The NFL can say, "See? We compromised. Now it's YOUR turn."

I don't see how the simulcasting has any real impact on the NFL Network/cable company tiff. The cable companies aren't going to make any money off of the simulcasting...and the NFL isn't going to change their stance that they want their Network to be available on basic tier packages.

Congress is meaningless at this point...Washington will basically be out of business for a year due to the upcoming election campaigns. No politican is going to be elected based on their ability to get the NFL Network on local cable outlets...but they can get some quick facetime by rattling sabers.

This is a game few people outside of the Northeast care about anyway...which is precisely why the NFL is doing this. If they didn't, the ratings for this game would be abysmal.I think it does have impact on the tiff with the cable compaines. THe NFL is cracking and the Cable compaines know it. This just makes the cable companies hold even stronger to their demands while all the pressure is on the NFL.

[FavreChild]

How is the NFL "cracking?" The league has absolutely nothing to lose with this goodwill gesture - and tons to gain.

[MJZiggy]

The NFL can say, "See? We compromised. Now it's YOUR turn."

I don't see how the simulcasting has any real impact on the NFL Network/cable company tiff. The cable companies aren't going to make any money off of the simulcasting...and the NFL isn't going to change their stance that they want their Network to be available on basic tier packages.

Congress is meaningless at this point...Washington will basically be out of business for a year due to the upcoming election campaigns. No politican is going to be elected based on their ability to get the NFL Network on local cable outlets...but they can get some quick facetime by rattling sabers.

This is a game few people outside of the Northeast care about anyway...which is precisely why the NFL is doing this. If they didn't, the ratings for this game would be abysmal.I think it does have impact on the tiff with the cable compaines. THe NFL is cracking and the Cable compaines know it. This just makes the cable companies hold even stronger to their demands while all the pressure is on the NFL.

I disagree, because in this instance, the NFL has sidestepped the cable companies. They put it on free TV. No one needs cable to get this broadcast, so the NFL has made it available, and it makes the cable companies no money and makes them look no more attractive. And FC's right. This move makes the NFL a ton of money. The locals pay for the programming and get cash from the local and regional ads and a share of the nationals, but make no mistake where the money from this venture is headed. Even if Congress is forcing this move, the cable company is getting no benefit from it.

[The Leaper]

How is the NFL "cracking?" The league has absolutely nothing to lose with this goodwill gesture - and tons to gain.

How do they gain anything?

NBC, CBS and their local affiliates are the ones profiting...they wouldn't be doing this if they weren't. The NFL does not stand to gain anything from sharing their product with the other networks.

[MJZiggy]

NBC and CBS pay for the programming. And they would be doing it for the viewers. The more viewers they have the more ad revenue they make. Everyone will make a lot of money on this.

[KYPack]

I got a question. Why didn't FOX get a shot at the feed?

NBC owns Sat/Sunday nite
CBS is the Net of the AFC

Didn't FOX want a chance at this game? The Jints draw big money for FOX, shouldn't they get their piece of the pie?

[CaptainKickass]

How do they gain anything?

NBC, CBS and their local affiliates are the ones profiting...they wouldn't be doing this if they weren't. The NFL does not stand to gain anything from sharing their product with the other networks.

I don't post much, but I feel compelled to answer.

This is both the NFL Network and the broadcasters way of saying a big ol "F - YOU" to the cable companies who will not comply with the NFL Networks stance. The NFL Network gains by acquiring ad revenue from the local broadcast affiliates of NBC and CBS. Plus - a percieved win to the fans of the NFL.

The "profit" from the simulcast of this game on network TV can be shoved in the faces of the cable companies and then the NFL network can say - "See, this is the type of revenue you are missing out on because you are too stubborn to eat the cost of adding the NFL network to your basic subscription packages". Which, by the way, would actually cost cable companies ZERO dollars to do so. The infrastructure already exists, and implementation would be a breeze because they are already broadcasting the channel for those who "pay".

1.The NFL Network, NBC and CBS all come out smelling like roses for being the "good guy" in the eyes of the fans.

2.The cable companies get actual dollar figure data on just what they are missing out on, further solidifying the NFL networks position.

3.The NFL Network "proves" to the fans and its advertisers that it doesn't need government intervention to advance in potentially "solving" the dispute.

4.History is made once again by the NFL and the broadcasters and can/will/is being marketed as "historic".

This is one of the most brilliant marketing moves I've ever seen regarding the broadcast of anything.

[MJZiggy]

Perhaps they got outbid? I figured ABC would be the "alternative programming" network as they like to be--expect a Lifetime special. hey maybe FOX didn't want it because they'd have wanted to make one of their FOX productions out of it. Maybe Howie and Terry get on their nerves.

[The Leaper]

Didn't FOX want a chance at this game? The Jints draw big money for FOX, shouldn't they get their piece of the pie?

I'm sure FOX got a chance at it...but perhaps the viewed their current programming choices as being more profitable to them, especially in light of the fact that 2 of the other major networks will be showing the same meaningless football game.

TV networks base the bottom line on everything they send across the airwaves. NBC's ratings have been in the toliet for a couple years now, so showing anything related to the NFL probably is a plus for them...and CBS stands to benefit because of their AFC ties and the fact this game's sole interest level resides in New England.

[gbgary]

cutting out huge chunks of the potential audience by getting away from the big 4 broadcasters is biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you. the nfl is king, the cash cow, the new america's past time. i know espn threw the most money at them, for mnf, but i can't see how they thought that was a good idea. "now that we're number one let's crap on the fans." the ones that made them number one. http://images.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/crazy.gif

[MJZiggy]

I think the networks are counting on the "perfect season" as piquing the curiosity of the viewers. Taking the "can they really do it" angle might give them a little nationwide push.

[The Leaper]

NBC and CBS pay for the programming. And they would be doing it for the viewers. The more viewers they have the more ad revenue they make. Everyone will make a lot of money on this.

The NFL will NOT make more money. That is my point. I agree with the Captain that it is a shrewd move on their part...but not because it is a windfall of cash for them. If it was such a windfall, then why not get rid of all the NFL Network games altogther? If the NFL is making such a HUGE PROFIT off this, as some are suggesting, then they are FOOLISH for keeping games on the NFL Network in the first place and losing all that additional revenue.

Sure, the NFL gets some additional $$$ from CBS and NBC...but not much. The NFL also will LOSE ad revenue because of this...because advertisers are not going to pay money for ads on the NFL Network when 10 times as many people will see the game on NBC and CBS. The ad revenue windfall is going to go straight to NBC and CBS...which is why those networks are doing this in the first place.

As the Captain points out...this is the NFL's way to prove to cable that the NFL is very profitable and worth the price they demand. A meaningless game will bring in millions of revenue for CBS and NBC...revenue that cable companies are missing out on during their holdout.

The NFL stands nothing to gain here in terms of $$$ from this deal in the short term...although it could have impact in the cable debate down the road and wind up being a profitable move in the end.

[packinpatland]

I think the networks are counting on the "perfect season" as piquing the curiosity of the viewers. Taking the "can they really do it" angle might give them a little nationwide push.


I know the reason I'm watching is to see if the Giants can win...........not to see the 'Perfect Season'.

[FritzDontBlitz]

If the NFL was gonna make more money by showing the games on free TV WHY would they be trying to push the games to cable in the first place.

The NFL doesn't get the ad revenue. The TV stations do. That's why the NFL can charge so much for the TV deals when its time to renew. Its based on how much money the stations will be able to charge advertisers to run ads during the games.

I don't think it hurts the cable companies at all, because they were going to either lose money by accepting the NFL's offer for the games or risk angering their customers by raising their prices to accomodate the deal. Less than half the cable subscribers in America even watch the NFL, so they would be getting charged for something they had no intention of using.

I just read an article quote that puts cable's position in better perspective. From the New York Times:


Cable Plays Hardball With the N.F.L.
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: November 14, 2007

But the NFL Network stalemate has the league running to legislators and regulators to compel cable operators to carry a channel whose lead attraction is eight games that start on Thanksgiving — games that before the 2006 season were seen Sundays on CBS or Fox (some nationally, some regionally) and ESPN (nationally). The scarcity of games lets cable operators say they carry enough: 248 on CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN.



So, this big brew-ha-ha is about 8 lousy games being forced upon cable when they already broadcast 248 other games through the local affiliates they already carry at LOWER PRICES, so why let the NFL gouge them for 8 more?

[cpk1994]

NBC and CBS pay for the programming. And they would be doing it for the viewers. The more viewers they have the more ad revenue they make. Everyone will make a lot of money on this.

The NFL will NOT make more money. That is my point. I agree with the Captain that it is a shrewd move on their part...but not because it is a windfall of cash for them. If it was such a windfall, then why not get rid of all the NFL Network games altogther? If the NFL is making such a HUGE PROFIT off this, as some are suggesting, then they are FOOLISH for keeping games on the NFL Network in the first place and losing all that additional revenue.

Sure, the NFL gets some additional $$$ from CBS and NBC...but not much. The NFL also will LOSE ad revenue because of this...because advertisers are not going to pay money for ads on the NFL Network when 10 times as many people will see the game on NBC and CBS. The ad revenue windfall is going to go straight to NBC and CBS...which is why those networks are doing this in the first place.

As the Captain points out...this is the NFL's way to prove to cable that the NFL is very profitable and worth the price they demand. A meaningless game will bring in millions of revenue for CBS and NBC...revenue that cable companies are missing out on during their holdout.

The NFL stands nothing to gain here in terms of $$$ from this deal in the short term...although it could have impact in the cable debate down the road and wind up being a profitable move in the end.

Actually, the cable companies will make money of of their local ad drop ins that they always do.

[FritzDontBlitz]

NBC and CBS pay for the programming. And they would be doing it for the viewers. The more viewers they have the more ad revenue they make. Everyone will make a lot of money on this.

The NFL will NOT make more money. That is my point. I agree with the Captain that it is a shrewd move on their part...but not because it is a windfall of cash for them. If it was such a windfall, then why not get rid of all the NFL Network games altogther? If the NFL is making such a HUGE PROFIT off this, as some are suggesting, then they are FOOLISH for keeping games on the NFL Network in the first place and losing all that additional revenue.

Sure, the NFL gets some additional $$$ from CBS and NBC...but not much. The NFL also will LOSE ad revenue because of this...because advertisers are not going to pay money for ads on the NFL Network when 10 times as many people will see the game on NBC and CBS. The ad revenue windfall is going to go straight to NBC and CBS...which is why those networks are doing this in the first place.

As the Captain points out...this is the NFL's way to prove to cable that the NFL is very profitable and worth the price they demand. A meaningless game will bring in millions of revenue for CBS and NBC...revenue that cable companies are missing out on during their holdout.

The NFL stands nothing to gain here in terms of $$$ from this deal in the short term...although it could have impact in the cable debate down the road and wind up being a profitable move in the end.

Actually, the cable companies will make money of of their local ad drop ins that they always do.

I never thought of that. By carrying the game on local affiliates - stations already broadcasted by the cable companies - the cable companies get the game without forking over a penny.

[MJZiggy]

The cable companies get it, but have to have it on the lower tier where NFL wants it--and no one has to buy a cable subscription to get it.

[the_idle_threat]

The NFL also will LOSE ad revenue because of this...because advertisers are not going to pay money for ads on the NFL Network when 10 times as many people will see the game on NBC and CBS. The ad revenue windfall is going to go straight to NBC and CBS...which is why those networks are doing this in the first place.


Bingo.

I was waiting for somone to mention this. The NFL will be pissing off the advertisers who paid for time on the NFL network thinking the game would be shown exclusively on that channel. Maybe it's a good strategy for the NFL in the greater scheme of things, but the NFL does stand to lose something from this move in the shorter term.

[FavreChild]

Actually, that is not correct.

This is a simulcast - it is still the NFLN feed, and the NFL will still get the ad revenue. 30-second spots are being sold for $200k, which is about double the normal rate for the NFLN. However, because the game is now being simulcast by two networks, the advertisers will be actually getting extra bonus viewers. In other words, they will get an extra bang for their buck.

The NFL is still making its money, and they are racking up tons of goodwill from both advertisers and consumers.

That's how it will work. The networks benefit because they basically get to air free programming (they normally have to pay for rights to anything they air). The NFL gets the ad revenue. The NFL, the networks, and the advertisers all benefit.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003688906

[Jimx29]

I got a question. Why didn't FOX get a shot at the feed?

NBC owns Sat/Sunday nite
CBS is the Net of the AFC

Didn't FOX want a chance at this game? The Jints draw big money for FOX, shouldn't they get their piece of the pie?are you kidding me? a chance to show "are you smarter than a 5th grader", followed up by American idol rewind or a NFL game?

Fox knows their viewers :lol:

[FavreChild]

The NFL also will LOSE ad revenue because of this...because advertisers are not going to pay money for ads on the NFL Network when 10 times as many people will see the game on NBC and CBS. The ad revenue windfall is going to go straight to NBC and CBS...which is why those networks are doing this in the first place.

This is a simulcast, so the NFL loses nothing. The NFL gets all the ad revenue.

The networks are doing this because they get to air free programming, instead of paying for the rights as they do for all other programming (even when it is produced by their own network).

Broadcasting rights are complicated stuff, no doubt. All I'm trying to get across is that the NFL is still the party in control, and they are gaining tremendously from this move, despite what it might appear.

[FritzDontBlitz]

Don't let Jerry Jones blow smoke up your ass. The NFL just lost the PR war bigtime, and they know it.

[RashanGary]

That's how it will work. The networks benefit because they basically get to air free programming (they normally have to pay for rights to anything they air). The NFL gets the ad revenue. The NFL, the networks, and the advertisers all benefit.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003688906

You just said the networks were not getting any advertising dollars. How do they win by having the game then? Where do they make their money?

[RashanGary]

OK, I just read it. They get whatever advertising slots are left over at this point. NFLN isn't getting much out of this other than (like you said) looking like good guys to the fans and advertisers that are getting something they wouldn't have gotten for nothing.

[RashanGary]

I'd switch right now except I'd be giving up Brewer and Bucks games on FSN Wisconsin. If dish could find some way to get me that channel, I'd say F-U to cable forever.

[Bretsky]

Me too; if the NFL network has a great broadcast this can be some effective advertising for more of us to say piss off to the cable slimebuckets as well

[esoxx]

Everyone has an opinion on who's getting over here, the NFL or Cable.

I don't really care who stands to gain between these two bloated entities.

I just know who's getting dicked and that's Joe Consumer.

The bottom line is I now get to see the game on Sat night. I don't care if someone caved or someone didn't. The bottom line is the game can now be seen.

This is movement and the only inertia seen in this longwinded and overblown stalemate.

I'll take any movement at this point, even if it's a fronting as a goodwill gesture.

[Jimx29]

I seriously doubt I will be watching the game anyway, and I have NFL network.
I'm sick to fuckin death about the pats and "perfection" :roll:

[The Leaper]

I'd switch right now except I'd be giving up Brewer and Bucks games on FSN Wisconsin. If dish could find some way to get me that channel, I'd say F-U to cable forever.

I get the FSN Ohio channels on DirecTV at the regular tier price. You have to pay extra to get the other FSN channels, but your local one usually is included in a regular package.

[The Leaper]

This is a simulcast, so the NFL loses nothing. The NFL gets all the ad revenue.

The networks are doing this because they get to air free programming, instead of paying for the rights as they do for all other programming (even when it is produced by their own network).

Even if it is a free program for the networks, you claim they aren't getting any ad revenue. So why would they basically throw 3 hours of potential revenue producing airtime down the drain to show something that isn't producing a dime for them?

The networks would not be doing this if it did not make financial sense for them. They aren't going to be a prop of the NFL. While the GAME is simulcast, I'm assuming the advertising isn't. The networks will keep their own ad revenue...or get numerous chances to air their own promotional ads in place of other ads.

[MJZiggy]

No, you missed their profit point. The networks get free programming but they also get the spots that haven't been sold yet. Don't know how many there are, but evidently there are some.

[Zool]

I seriously doubt I will be watching the game anyway, and I have NFL network.
I'm sick to fuckin death about the pats and "perfection" :roll:

QFT yet again. I'm about as sick of this story as I am of the Red Sox Nation and their incessant whining.

Might as well lump the Celts in there too. If it wasn't for Kevin McHale single handedly building the Celtics by killing the T-wolves I would be indifferent to them.

[gbgary]

I'd switch right now except I'd be giving up Brewer and Bucks games on FSN Wisconsin. If dish could find some way to get me that channel, I'd say F-U to cable forever.

directv has fsn wisconsin. what kills me is there's NOTHING Packers related on it...just bucks/brewers.

[MJZiggy]

And the Big Ten Network. I find it odd that I can watch Wisconsin games when half of Wisconsin can't...