Pats-Giants on Network TV [Text View]

Gregor

12-26-2007, 05:34 PM

NEW YORK - The New England Patriots’ shot at history Saturday night will be available to every television viewer in the country after months of wrangling.

Their game against the New York Giants, in which the Patriots could become the first NFL team to go 16-0 in the regular season, was originally scheduled to be shown only on the NFL Network. Fewer than 40 percent of the nation’s homes with TVs receive the channel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22400789/

nirisahn

12-26-2007, 05:39 PM

Woo Hoo!!!! :up::up::up::D

I was soooo ticked off that the game wasn't going to be televised nationally. Finally, they NFL put the fans first for a change. Now, if only they'd let the NFL network be carried as part of at a digital package instead of part of a special paid tier...

getbak

12-26-2007, 05:43 PM

It doesn't really explain how this is going to happen though. It sounds like NBC and CBS are just going to carry the NFL Network's coverage of the game, so why do both networks need to do it?

Will NBC carry it in some markets and CBS in others?

trainman

12-26-2007, 05:43 PM

Just to highlight this...

This will be the first three-network simulcast in NFL history and the first simulcast of any kind of an NFL game since the first Super Bowl in 1967, when CBS and NBC both televised the first meeting of the champions of the newly merged National Football League and American Football League.

For that Super Bowl, NBC had Curt Gowdy as their lead announcer, and CBS had Ray Scott. Unfortunately, I assume this time around, Bryant Gumbel will be heard on all three networks.

jsmeeker

12-26-2007, 05:53 PM

aindik

12-26-2007, 06:11 PM

I'd like to know that, too..

I'd bet it has to do with rights.

If the game were on Sunday afternoon, it would have been on CBS (the road team is an AFC team). However, NBC might have had a right under flex-scheduling to claim the game and move it to their network. So, instead of choosing one and angering the other, the NFL gave the game to both. Fox and ESPN wouldn't have had a right to the game in any event, so they don't get it.

This will be a good opportunity to test the HD pictures of your local affiliates. It's rare that they air the same thing at the same time in HD.

bicker

12-26-2007, 06:19 PM

Will NBC carry it in some markets and CBS in others?Of course, it'll be on ABC in Boston. Could it actually be on all three here? :)

jsmeeker

12-26-2007, 06:23 PM

I'd bet it has to do with rights.

If the game were on Sunday afternoon, it would have been on CBS (the road team is an AFC team). However, NBC might have had a right under flex-scheduling to claim the game and move it to their network. So, instead of choosing one and angering the other, the NFL gave the game to both. Fox and ESPN wouldn't have had a right to the game in any event, so they don't get it.

This will be a good opportunity to test the HD pictures of your local affiliates. It's rare that they air the same thing at the same time in HD.

This doesn't seem to answer my question.

Will it really be on both NBC and CBS EVERYWEHERE? Like watching a Presidential address, or something like that?

Turtleboy

12-26-2007, 07:25 PM

This doesn't seem to answer my question.

Will it really be on both NBC and CBS EVERYWEHERE? Like watching a Presidential address, or something like that?

I bet it will.

Blame the writers strike for the Networks not having anything else to air.

bigpuma

12-26-2007, 07:33 PM

I bet it will.

Blame the writers strike for the Networks not having anything else to air.

What would they be airing on December 29th without the writers strike? I agree that they will both be airing the game but normally at this time of year there is no original programming anyway.

aindik

12-26-2007, 07:46 PM

This doesn't seem to answer my question.

Will it really be on both NBC and CBS EVERYWEHERE? Like watching a Presidential address, or something like that?

I agree with TB. I think it will.

The article says it's on CBS and NBC. Not on affiliates of either.

Odd - this was a large banner announcement on nfl.com before and now I can't find the announcement at all.

jsmeeker

12-26-2007, 07:48 PM

I'll be watching. Potential sports history in the making.

heySkippy

12-26-2007, 08:06 PM

Could this game compete with the Superbowl, ratings wise?

DevdogAZ

12-26-2007, 08:06 PM

What would they be airing on December 29th without the writers strike? I agree that they will both be airing the game but normally at this time of year there is no original programming anyway.

Not to mention that it's on a Saturday night, when they wouldn't have anything new no matter what time of year it is.

And yes, it will be on both networks at the same time. Just like POTUS.

DevdogAZ

12-26-2007, 08:08 PM

Could this game compete with the Superbowl, ratings wise?
Not likely, for a number of reasons. First of all, it's on Saturday night. Second, it's just a regular season game. Third, you have to be a sports fan to care about the significance of the game, whereas the Super Bowl is watched by millions of people who couldn't care less about the game just because it's a big event, or because of the commercials, or to know what people are talking about the next day, etc.

Inundated

12-26-2007, 08:30 PM

Yes, it will be on the entire NBC and CBS networks.

Aindik is probably right about why it was NBC/CBS and not FOX/ESPN.

As for it airing on the three local stations that were already set to carry it in the teams' home markets, here's ABC affiliate WCVB/Boston on that part:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/sports/14926972/detail.html

Channel 5 already had a contract to air the game in high definition and will still carry the game.

WCVB-TV President and General Manager Bill Fine issued a statement after the NFL's announcement:

"Today's action by the NFL was designed to let all of America see this potentially historic game. WCVB-TV's contract with the NFL Network for the Boston market exclusive broadcast rights to the Dec. 29 game against the New York Giants was completed last summer, and thus, the Boston market was always going to be able to see the game via Channel 5. We are now awaiting word as to whether or not the NFL will abide by their contract with WCVB," Fine said.

WCVB's sister ABC affiiate in Manchester, NH, WMUR/9, and New York's WWOR/9 "My 9" (MyNetworkTV), are the other two local stations involved.

Inundated

12-26-2007, 08:34 PM

Later version of the AP story...WWOR is not thrilled.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/12/26/ap4475379.html

"The NFL is in clear violation of their agreement with WWOR/My9," the station said in a statement. "We fully expect the league to honor their commitment to My9 as the exclusive free over-the-air broadcaster for Saturday's telecast of the New England Patriots at New York Giants game."

terpfan1980

12-26-2007, 09:25 PM

Sadly this just means that even more of the country can get to experience the craptastic broadcast that includes Bryant Bumble, uh, I mean Gumble. What a waste of oxygen. He'll blow the team and player names about a billion times in the first quarter alone. :mad: :(

Turtleboy

12-26-2007, 09:35 PM

Later version of the AP story...WWOR is not thrilled.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/12/26/ap4475379.html

Maybe the local affiliate will black out in the NY area.

ElJay

12-26-2007, 10:24 PM

Time Warner up here set up a website (http://www.aroundmaine.com/07/news/football/resourcecenter.asp) devoted to tracking what is going to happen. Seems kind of silly to me but then again I don't understand pro sports in general.

Bierboy

12-26-2007, 11:22 PM

Could this game compete with the Superbowl, ratings wise?

Not a chance.

VegasVic

12-26-2007, 11:23 PM

I have NFL Network but wasn't planning to watch the Cheetahs anyway.

Inundated

12-26-2007, 11:57 PM

Maybe the local affiliate will black out in the NY area.

Sounds like WCVB/WMUR is spitting mad, too. These stations spend some bucks to buy the over-air rights to the games on cable/satellite.

And instead of having an exclusive, and a huge audience, they'll have to split it with two of the other stations in town!

madscientist

12-27-2007, 01:12 AM

Yay! I'm going to be visiting my sister over the holiday weekend and I was bummed that I wouldn't be here to get the local ABC broadcast.

SnakeEyes

12-27-2007, 02:40 AM

Inundated

12-27-2007, 06:23 AM

I'm pretty upset about this. I pay for NFL Network and they hose me like this, giving it to everyone for free? I should get that taken off my bill. Once again, the NFL has screwed me over. Bleh. Maybe I should drop NFL Network over this.

Curious - how can you pay for the NFL Network by itself? How does one drop the NFL Network by itself?

bicker

12-27-2007, 06:59 AM

I'm pretty upset about this. I pay for NFL Network and they hose me like this, giving it to everyone for free? I should get that taken off my bill. Once again, the NFL has screwed me over. Bleh. Maybe I should drop NFL Network over this.Since we disagree so much, I thought I would make a point of highlighting a case where we agree completely. NFL Network did screw you over. And you should drop whatever tier NFL Network is on in protest, making it clear to your service provider why.

Inundated

12-27-2007, 07:06 AM

Since we disagree so much, I thought I would make a point of highlighting a case where we agree completely. NFL Network did screw you over. And you should drop whatever tier NFL Network is on in protest, making it clear to your service provider why.

That's the point I was kinda making above - no one actually pays "directly" for the NFL Network, and no one can call their cable provider and tell them "drop the NFL Network".

I'm not sure I follow being upset that the game is being made available widely, and is no longer exclusive. Our poster here still gets to watch the game, and the "content he paid for" that's available now for free is one game.

At whatever price that one program is vs. even the cost that the NFL Network makes up of the "sports tier" is basically pocket change.

But on principal? It's a good idea to send a message, if you won't miss whatever else is in the sports tier.

bicker

12-27-2007, 07:19 AM

I'm not sure I follow being upset that the game is being made available widely, and is no longer exclusive. Our poster here still gets to watch the game, and the "content he paid for" that's available now for free is one game.What he paid for was exclusive access to the broadcast. Why would anyone ever pay for something which they could get for free?

At whatever price that one program is vs. even the cost that the NFL Network makes up of the "sports tier" is basically pocket change.From one perspective, this one game is 1/8 of the reason why some people subscribe to NFL Network for the entire year. However, that's not even what's important.

But on principal? That's really the problem with today's consumers: They don't stand on principle. Consumers voluntarily give up their power by refusing to do without, when something doesn't meet their expectations.

Luke M

12-27-2007, 07:32 AM

I don't get the "screwed over" logic. Unless you think the point of pay TV is to give you some kind of elite status (yeah, right), you are getting 100% of what you paid for.

Some people just don't want to be happy.

bicker

12-27-2007, 07:38 AM

Luke M

12-27-2007, 07:55 AM

The "screwed over" bit is where you pay for exclusivity and don't get it. I don't understand how anyone cannot see why SnakeEyes would not be upset about paying for something and not getting it. :confused:

But why do you care about exclusivity? If anything, you should be happier if more people see it, because it makes it more of an "event" - something you can discuss with other people.

I understand that if the NFLN is giving away (a small part of) its product for free, your willingness to pay may be less. But that's not, I hope, because other people not seeing it gives you pleasure. It's just because there's no reason to pay for what is available free.

trojanrabbit

12-27-2007, 08:10 AM

Of course, it'll be on ABC in Boston. Could it actually be on all three here? :)

And since they're the ones who actually put up some $ to carry it, I'll watch the game on WCVB.

HoldenBanky

12-27-2007, 08:21 AM

I hope that the NFLN is not blacked out for me in NYC as MY9 is carrying the game. NFLN HD is a reference quality channel in my book, pcture wise and D* doesn't even provide MY9 in HD yet.

bicker

12-27-2007, 09:21 AM

But why do you care about exclusivity? If anything, you should be happier if more people see it, because it makes it more of an "event" - something you can discuss with other people.Well, we're not talking about me. I don't have NFL Network.

However, I can imagine why people who buy exclusive access to something would be upset about having paid for something others are getting for free. Can't you?

I understand that if the NFLN is giving away (a small part of) its product for free, your willingness to pay may be less. But that's not, I hope, because other people not seeing it gives you pleasure. It's just because there's no reason to pay for what is available free.Benefit of the doubt requires that we assume that SnakeEyes is indeed upset about paying for what others are getting for free rather than upset about them being able to see the game.

DevdogAZ

12-27-2007, 09:55 AM

I hope that the NFLN is not blacked out for me in NYC as MY9 is carrying the game. NFLN HD is a reference quality channel in my book, pcture wise and D* doesn't even provide MY9 in HD yet.

There's no chance that NFLN will be blacked out. The agreement with My9 and the other local affiliates was for exclusive free TV access, not completely exclusive access.

And for those of you pissed about this, since it's the last week of the season anyway, just call and cancel whatever tier has the NFLN now. You won't need it again until next November (unless you're a draft junkie, in which case you can add it for April and then cancel it again).

bicker

12-27-2007, 10:00 AM

That's a really good idea. This is the perfect time to cancel, with cause. That will get the message across very strongly.

ClutchBrake

12-27-2007, 10:08 AM

I'm glad the game will be on free TV and will definitely TiVo it. But UFC 79 is what I'm really looking forward to Saturday night.

Hughes vs. St. Pierre
Liddell vs. Silva
Soku vs. Machida

And many of the undercard bouts are solid as well.

Luke M

12-27-2007, 10:08 AM

However, I can imagine why people who buy exclusive access to something would be upset about having paid for something others are getting for free. Can't you?

No, because I don't see how this makes the NFLN subscriber worse off. If you (generic you, not you personally) are no worse off, and maybe even a little better off, then how can you say you've been "screwed over"? The harsh rhetoric is completely at odds with the reality of the situation.

If the complaint is that somebody else is benefiting (with no harm to you), that is in my view a churlish attitude.

bicker

12-27-2007, 10:16 AM

No, because I don't see how this makes the NFLN subscriber worse off. If you (generic you, not you personally) are no worse off, and maybe even a little better off, then how can you say you've been "screwed over"? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. I think what we're talking about here is not only normal but common.

If the complaint is that somebody else is benefiting (with no harm to you), that is in my view a churlish attitude.I think you're accidentally (or deliberately?) failing to read my entire message. Let's try this again: I can imagine why people who buy exclusive access to something would be upset about having paid for something others are getting for free. So the upset isn't about someone else benefiting, but rather about having to pay, when others didn't have to. Make more sense now?

aindik

12-27-2007, 10:24 AM

No, because I don't see how this makes the NFLN subscriber worse off. If you (generic you, not you personally) are no worse off, and maybe even a little better off, then how can you say you've been "screwed over"? The harsh rhetoric is completely at odds with the reality of the situation.

If the complaint is that somebody else is benefiting (with no harm to you), that is in my view a churlish attitude.

It makes the NFLN subscriber worse off by making him look like a sucker for paying all season for something the NFL decided, at the last minute, would be free after all.

I do think the NFL should require CBS and NBC to black out the game in Boston and New York. I don't see CBS or NBS being too happy about doing that.

Luke M

12-27-2007, 10:43 AM

I think what we're talking about here is not only normal but common.

I don't dispute that some people feel that way. I just don't understand why.

I think you're accidentally (or deliberately?) failing to read my entire message. Let's try this again: I can imagine why people who buy exclusive access to something would be upset about having paid for something others are getting for free. So the upset isn't about someone else benefiting, but rather about having to pay, when others didn't have to. Make more sense now?

I'm trying to boil it down to essentials. The NFLN subscriber pays regardless of whether other people receive the channel for free. So why should he care? It only matters if he hates to see other people receiving a benefit (which he doesn't share in, but which doesn't hurt him in any way).

This is similar to people complaining that a product they bought (e.g. iPhone) dropped in price after they bought it. I don't understand that either. The fact that other people will benefit from a lower price shouldn't anger anyone.

bicker

12-27-2007, 10:45 AM

I'm trying to boil it down to essentials.Then boil it down to the essential that gives SnakeEyes the most benefit of doubt, i.e., that what he's upset about is paying for something that others are getting free, rather than boiling it down to the essential that deliberately casts his perspective in a poor light.

This is similar to people complaining that a product they bought (e.g. iPhone) dropped in price after they bought it.No it isn't because the early adopters actually HAD the product SOONER than those who bought it later.

Fahtrim

12-27-2007, 10:46 AM

aindik

12-27-2007, 11:07 AM

No it isn't because the early adopters actually HAD the product SOONER than those who bought it later.

That depends on what you mean by the product. The early adopters got the NFL Network's other games this season.

bicker

12-27-2007, 11:17 AM

However, unlike a product, where you pay once, NFL Network subscribers are still paying.

Inundated

12-27-2007, 11:22 AM

However, unlike a product, where you pay once, NFL Network subscribers are still paying.

I'll just have to agree to disagree as well.

I do believe the guy should be able to get some sort of credit from his cable company - perhaps a month of the sports tier free. What cable company would refuse that? It'd be like $2 or so. They give service credits for much more costly things (like if your cable's out a week or so).

But I don't understand why he's THAT upset. HBO subscribers dutifully pony up $9.95 a month or whatever it is every month, and you don't see them demanding a refund or an apology when HBO does "free preview weekends". And they do those at least 3 or 4 times a year.

I consider this the equivalent of a "free preview weekend" for those who don't have the NFL Network, and if he's upset, he should take the action I described above...or cancel the sports tier altogether, and let both the NFL Network and cable company know why.

I'd personally only be upset in his situation if I paid for the network, and could NOT see the game...but that's just me.

HomieG

12-27-2007, 11:25 AM

That's really the problem with today's consumers: They don't stand on principle. Consumers voluntarily give up their power by refusing to do without, when something doesn't meet their expectations.

Very well said.

bicker

12-27-2007, 11:37 AM

I do believe the guy should be able to get some sort of credit from his cable company - perhaps a month of the sports tier free.However, I think the cable company should also get some sort of credit from the NFL Network, to the extent NFL Network provided unreliable information about their service to the cable company to use in marketing their service.

But I don't understand why he's THAT upset.Do we really know how upset he is? So far, he's indicated a very small amount of upset, as far as I've seen. I guess I don't see where you're getting that he's "THAT" upset.

HBO subscribers dutifully pony up $9.95 a month or whatever it is every month, and you don't see them demanding a refund or an apology when HBO does "free preview weekends".Actually, I do. To be fair, they, at least, should know better, since "free preview weekends" have been going on for a long time. This is the first time, as far as I know, that NFL Network has agreed to allow free television to broadcast one of the eight "exclusive" games.

Dmon4u

12-27-2007, 11:39 AM

bicker

12-27-2007, 12:02 PM

Funny how people are mad at the NFL Network when they have made every effort from the start to have the channel on Basic Analog and/or Standard Digital for all to see.Different people are mad about different things.

It is the Cable companies that put the channel where you need to pay extra for it. Before that, it was the NFL that withheld those games from the broadcast networks.

Dmon4u

12-27-2007, 12:07 PM

Before that, it was the NFL that withheld those games from the broadcast networks.

I don't recall any of the Broadcast Networks putting up any protests in this regard. They signed the contracts that allowed this. Plus, none of this is new - I think games were also shown on TNT for a year or two.

bicker

12-27-2007, 12:12 PM

Funny how people are mad at the NFL Network...I don't recall any of the Broadcast Networks putting up any protests in this regard.I don't recall any of the broadcast networks being "mad at the NFL Network". We're not talking about the broadcast networks being mad, but rather NFL fans being mad.

Plus, none of this is new - I think games were also shown on TNT for a year or two.Time just dulls the memory of the fact that (1) the games used to be on free television, and (2) many fans would prefer not to have to pay (even just for basic cable) if they don't have to, to get access to the games.

drjlb

12-27-2007, 12:22 PM

If the NFL Network is truly smart, they'd have massive Ads saying, " Dump your Cable company for DBS or Telco and get the channel year around ! No extra cost ! "

Which would probably work if the viewers weren't also seeing what crappy production value NFLN has.

Dmon4u

12-27-2007, 12:37 PM

Which would probably work if the viewers weren't also seeing what crappy production value NFLN has.

- Not a universal opinion.

Ken H who has been a credible voice on AVS Forum for a long while now has another opinion:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12597684#post12597684

" As I've said before, I like their graphics, and for that matter, the general production values they use. "

bicker

12-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Time just dulls the memory of the fact that (1) the games used to be on free television, and (2) many fans would prefer not to have to pay (even just for basic cable) if they don't have to, to get access to the games.This is backed-up by another message posted on AVS today:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12599414#post12599414

Note the emotion in the message, "The fact is that the very existence of the NFL Network's theft of 8 regular season games is one of the most decidedly un-fan friendly moves the league has ever made."

Inundated

12-27-2007, 02:25 PM

However, I think the cable company should also get some sort of credit from the NFL Network, to the extent NFL Network provided unreliable information about their service to the cable company to use in marketing their service.

Agreed to that extent, yes. I think no matter where it comes from, the cable company should give him a break.

Do we really know how upset he is? So far, he's indicated a very small amount of upset, as far as I've seen. I guess I don't see where you're getting that he's "THAT" upset.

Maybe "upset" is not the exact word, but he's the only person I've seen in this discussion who's actively considering "dropping" the network because of this fiasco. And yes, it is a fiasco, and yes, you can't just drop the NFL Network.

Actually, I do. To be fair, they, at least, should know better, since "free preview weekends" have been going on for a long time. This is the first time, as far as I know, that NFL Network has agreed to allow free television to broadcast one of the eight "exclusive" games.

Point taken. But the net effect is the same when it's said and done, and besides, the OP already got the seven previous "exclusive" games.

If one of those games was involving the team in his home NFL market, where the network sells the over-air rights to local stations, would he have a case for going to the cable company because the game isn't exclusive? Does he care? Only he can answer that.

Anyway, I'm talking circles around this, but we basically agree on the main point: as a subscriber who does pay for the sports tier, a certain part of which is the NFL Network, our poster here has every right to expect the cable company to at least work with him on a resolution (rebate, refund, cancellation of sports tier) that's amenable to him.

joeinma

12-27-2007, 03:53 PM

I hope that the NFLN is not blacked out for me in NYC as MY9 is carrying the game. NFLN HD is a reference quality channel in my book, pcture wise and D* doesn't even provide MY9 in HD yet.

I doubt the NFLN will be blacked out in NY, just as it will not here in Boston. MY9 and WCVB here are just picking up the NFLN feed (as are CBS and NBC now) so the picture on MY9 should be the same as on NFLN. It is no different then when a Patriots Sunday night game is on ESPN and a local over the air Boston station (usually WCVB) picks up the feed for those 3 people who still don't have cable.

I know here in Boston, before the recent addition of CBS and NBC, WCVB (ABC affiliate) was picking up the NFLN HD feed, which was a big plus since I have NFLN but not in HD.

johnperkins21

12-27-2007, 03:54 PM

All I want to know is, will NBC and CBS have their own broadcast booth. Please tell me we won't have to suffer through another Bryant Gumble broadcast.

bicker

12-27-2007, 03:55 PM

My understanding is that all feeds will have the same commentators.

aindik

12-27-2007, 04:00 PM

All I want to know is, will NBC and CBS have their own broadcast booth.

Definitely not. The quote from Roger Goodell says
We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game.

Inundated

12-27-2007, 04:09 PM

Yep, it's Bryant inflicted upon the world. Maybe this will end his career as a PBP guy... he could be under the radar when his network reached 40 million. :D

JLucPicard

12-27-2007, 04:58 PM

Some people don't get sarcasm.
Ding, ding, ding, ding.

I'm picturing SnakeEyes sitting back having a good laugh over everybody arguing about what his intent/feelings are. When I read his post I read it with total sarcasm and laughed about it.

My feeling on this (I know, who cares)? The local markets that were to carry the OTA broadcast of this should still have that exclusive right in their market. If it was not a CBS or NBC affiliate, then the CBS and NBC affiliate in those markets should not be able to carry it.

And I don't think anybody owes anybody anything to those that may have to pay to receive NFL Network. They were paying to be able to watch this game, the other seven games, the rest of the 24/7 broadcasting the the NFL Network puts out. As noted earlier, NFL Network does allow broadcasting of the game in the local market anyway. So this one game is national instead of local. There is no harm suffered on their behalf. Things in life happen that way sometimes. We all survive just fine.

Inundated

12-27-2007, 05:35 PM

My feeling on this (I know, who cares)? The local markets that were to carry the OTA broadcast of this should still have that exclusive right in their market. If it was not a CBS or NBC affiliate, then the CBS and NBC affiliate in those markets should not be able to carry it.

Makes sense, but:

1) The NFL would not be able to promote it nationally as "on the NFL Network, CBS and NBC [except in Boston and NYC, where it's on another channel]". They are getting promo mileage out of this "historic" three network simulcast.

2) Not all of the stations have the same reach, and there's this oddity like up in New Hampshire, where WMUR/9's signal isn't available on cable systems in like four counties. To the other end, WWOR/9 probably reaches farther than WNBC or WCBS (it's an historic old-line "superstation" - we used to get it here in Ohio!).

3) The network affiliates involved for NBC and CBS in NYC and Boston would probably still have the right to a fully national broadcast. For one, NBC in particular runs all of its games (SNF) to every market.

It's a bit complicated, but IMHO the stations which bought local rights should have that preemptability. They just don't, basically.

Fassade

12-27-2007, 07:39 PM

And I don't think anybody owes anybody anything to those that may have to pay to receive NFL Network. They were paying to be able to watch this game, the other seven games, the rest of the 24/7 broadcasting the the NFL Network puts out. As noted earlier, NFL Network does allow broadcasting of the game in the local market anyway. So this one game is national instead of local. There is no harm suffered on their behalf. Things in life happen that way sometimes. We all survive just fine.
I chuckled at the initial post too, but there is a nugget of harm here to the paying fan. Take an extreme case of a die-hard Patriots fan living in Oregon. He subscribes to the NFL network, not to hear the year-round insightful banter of the hosts, or even for the other 7 games, but solely because the schedule says it is the only way to see your Patriots close out the regular season.

Now that the game is on free TV, our Pats fan still gets to watch the game, true, but had the scheduling been up-front, for the same money he could have watched with a couple of pizzas and cold drinks, too. The harm may be a small, even tiny, thing ($10? $20?), but it is there. He might also suffer from Bryant Gumbel overexposure, but that is harder to measure. :) This might not be enough for most anybody to cancel, but too often we forget that the most effective way we have to communicate with any company is through our dollars.

verdugan

12-28-2007, 02:05 PM

The "screwed over" bit is where you pay for exclusivity and don't get it. I don't understand how anyone cannot see why SnakeEyes would not be upset about paying for something and not getting it. :confused:

I wonder if the OP gets mad when the movie channels host free preview weekends. Talk about giving away his premium content for free.

Relax. Look at it this way, maybe access to this game will entice more people to get the NFL network and it will be cheaper (or at least a better channel) in the long run.

There are too many other things in the world to worry than this. Don't sweat the small stuff.

aindik

12-28-2007, 02:11 PM

Makes sense, but:

1) The NFL would not be able to promote it nationally as "on the NFL Network, CBS and NBC [except in Boston and NYC, where it's on another channel]". They are getting promo mileage out of this "historic" three network simulcast.

2) Not all of the stations have the same reach, and there's this oddity like up in New Hampshire, where WMUR/9's signal isn't available on cable systems in like four counties. To the other end, WWOR/9 probably reaches farther than WNBC or WCBS (it's an historic old-line "superstation" - we used to get it here in Ohio!).

3) The network affiliates involved for NBC and CBS in NYC and Boston would probably still have the right to a fully national broadcast. For one, NBC in particular runs all of its games (SNF) to every market.

It's a bit complicated, but IMHO the stations which bought local rights should have that preemptability. They just don't, basically.

The way WWOR describes it, the NFL signed a contract with WWOR that gave WWOR the exclusive right to the game in the New York DMA, other than on the NFL Network. If the NFL puts the game on WNBC or WCBS-TV, it is in breach of that agreement.

I don't think WWOR has superstation reach anymore. I don't think any superstations even exist anymore, with the de-coupling of TBS with channel 17 in Atlanta, and the partial separation of programming between cable's WGN and the WGN over the air in Chicago. I haven't seen WWOR on any cable system outside the New York area since around the advent of UPN.

WNBC and WCBS-TV had no right to air the game until the NFL granted it to them, which the NFL should not have the power to do if it already granted the exclusive rights to someone else.

trainman

12-28-2007, 03:47 PM

I don't think WWOR has superstation reach anymore. I don't think any superstations even exist anymore, with the de-coupling of TBS with channel 17 in Atlanta, and the partial separation of programming between cable's WGN and the WGN over the air in Chicago. I haven't seen WWOR on any cable system outside the New York area since around the advent of UPN.

WWOR stopped being a superstation as of the end of 1996 -- toward the end, their "superstation" programming was almost completely different from the local programming, the way it still is with WGN. (They didn't carry UPN programming on the WWOR superstation.)

Its satellite transponder space was taken over by Animal Planet, which meant they got some very good channel placement on lazy cable systems.

marksman

12-29-2007, 01:56 PM

- Not a universal opinion.

Ken H who has been a credible voice on AVS Forum for a long while now has another opinion:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12597684#post12597684

" As I've said before, I like their graphics, and for that matter, the general production values they use. "

Great so they have nice graphics but they have the worst Play-By-Play guy in ALL of professional and probably collegiate sports, and their production value outside of their graphics suck because they regularly miss plays, have bad camera angles, fail to show appropriate replays and much much more.

This entire production short of Chris Collinsworth and the Graphics Designer is 3rd rate.

Just because some guy on AVS forum likes them does not change the reality that the whole of the production is horrific.

bicker

12-29-2007, 03:10 PM

The same could be said about some guy on TCF saying that the whole production is "horrific". :D

Philosofy

12-29-2007, 03:44 PM

I don't dispute that some people feel that way. I just don't understand why.

I'm trying to boil it down to essentials. The NFLN subscriber pays regardless of whether other people receive the channel for free. So why should he care? It only matters if he hates to see other people receiving a benefit (which he doesn't share in, but which doesn't hurt him in any way).

This is similar to people complaining that a product they bought (e.g. iPhone) dropped in price after they bought it. I don't understand that either. The fact that other people will benefit from a lower price shouldn't anger anyone.

Let's say you're a Patriots fan living in Denver, CO. You're told that the ONLY way for you to see the Patriots play is to get NFL network. So you pay. Then the NFL decides that every Patriots game will be on the national network feed. You've paid for something that you didn't have to. You got duped into paying for what others got for free. Does this make more sense?

astrohip

12-29-2007, 03:56 PM

Funny how people are mad at the NFL Network when they have made every effort from the start to have the channel on Basic Analog and/or Standard Digital for all to see. It is the Cable companies that put the channel where you need to pay extra for it.
The NFL Network is charging one of the highest fees ever for a non-premium channel. So the reason cable companies won't put it on their Basic/Standard lineup is because they would have to pay that fee for every subscriber. That means they either pass it on (another cable rate increase to complain about) or swallow it. Why would they swallow a large fee?

So they put it on a Sports Premium tier. At least that's what Comcast Houston has done. And Comcast only has to pay NFL for the people who actually subscribe to it. $8 a month for NFL Network, ESPNCU, FOX-Soccer and a couple others. I have it now, but will be cancelling it shortly. Never watch it, and costs a hundred bucks a year. So I have a choice. But I wouldn't if it was Basic.

UnionBuster

12-29-2007, 07:10 PM

Woo, we're going to be spared Greg Gumbel, Bryant Gumbel is calling tonight in his place.

marksman

12-29-2007, 07:15 PM

The same could be said about some guy on TCF saying that the whole production is "horrific". :D

Yeah only problem is the general consensus from people who have watched games on the network this year and last year are with me.

So unless the world is flat, then I will feel pretty comfortable in my opinion. That other people agree with me does not impact my opinion. It just makes it much more likely it is a more accurate characterization of the product they are presenting to the public.

Of course maybe I am wrong and it is okay for the Play-By-Play guy to call Frank Gore, Al Gore 3 or more times in one game.

Even when Pat Summerall was clearly losing it at the end of his career and was having a hard time, he was still a 500x more capable and knowledgable about what is going on with the players and who they were.

Of course maybe I am wrong and it is okay to miss the first play of the Cowboys/Carolina game for no apparent reason. I am sure any amount of different graphics make the AVS guy right and me wrong.

In fact I might just go over to the AVS forum and kick the guy in the teeth, because without even reading what he has said I know he is wrong. Their broadcasts are indefensible.

sketcher

12-29-2007, 08:47 PM

nflnetwork had a funny commercial during the game:

"I don't want 4 women channels. I was in Korea."
"They can have the shopping channels back."
"How is cage fighting more popular than the NFL?"

MitchO

12-29-2007, 09:37 PM

"I don't want 4 women channels. I was in Korea."

And this quote was by none other than Earl from Joe Shmoe! :D

Goes to show you how little the affect actually was on you though ... the commercial was for the cable companies AGAINST NFL network!

scottykempf

12-29-2007, 09:51 PM

And this quote was by none other than Earl from Joe Shmoe! :D

Goes to show you how little the affect actually was on you though ... the commercial was for the cable companies AGAINST NFL network!
Wrong, it was FOR the NFL network.

MitchO

12-29-2007, 10:13 PM

OK so evidently it had no effect on me though. I was just so happy to see Earl.~

ElJay

12-30-2007, 02:22 AM

I thought the NFL network commercials were pretty lame. Nice catch with "Earl," though. He looked familiar to me, but I couldn't place him. I'd like to start my own site, idontwantthenflnetwork.com but I figure I'd be sued for using "NFL" in the URL. (Not to mention that the domain has already been registered, but its currently in a lapsed state.)

aindik

12-30-2007, 03:40 AM

I TiVoed the game on the local CBS HD channel. It had the game in HD but not in 5.1. Did NBC have the game in 5.1? Did the NFL Network?

bicker

12-30-2007, 07:11 AM

'round here, the best seemed to be the ABC affiliate, WCVB. Best PQ and best sound.

phox_mulder

12-30-2007, 07:24 AM

I TiVoed the game on the local CBS HD channel. It had the game in HD but not in 5.1. Did NBC have the game in 5.1? Did the NFL Network?

NFL Network was DD2.0, as was the CBS network feed.

NBC station here was faking DD5.1, and it sounded bad.
Others have reported DD2.0 from their NBC affiliates though.

Some local CBS affiliates faked the DD5.1 as well, most passed what CBS gave them and it sounded pretty good for only stereo.

phox

Amnesia

12-30-2007, 09:37 AM

Apparently, the ratings last night were incredible.
If you add up the numbers from the CBS and NBC feeds, they had a higher share than any Superbowl...

astrohip

12-30-2007, 10:56 AM

Apparently, the ratings last night were incredible.
If you add up the numbers from the CBS and NBC feeds, they had a higher share than any Superbowl...
Link? I did a quick Google and couldn't find anything to confirm this. Would be incredulous if this were even half true. I'm thinking you are kidding, but don't see a smily. :-)

jsmeeker

12-30-2007, 11:37 AM

I could possibly see that the SHARE was very high. I mean, in every household, it was on TWO networks, and in some households, it was on THREE channels.

But I would bet the rating didn't beat past Superbowls.

aindik

12-30-2007, 12:18 PM

Amnesia

12-30-2007, 12:56 PM

Link? I did a quick Google and couldn't find anything to confirm this. Would be incredulous if this were even half true. I'm thinking you are kidding, but don't see a smily. :-)I read about it at AVSForum.com.

Here's the link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12626479#post12626479) to the post.
I could possibly see that the SHARE was very high. I mean, in every household, it was on TWO networks, and in some households, it was on THREE channels.

But I would bet the rating didn't beat past Superbowls.
Combined rating was 51 (51% of households in US watched it), combined share was 79 (79% of households watching TV watched it).

Last year's Super Bowl got a 42.6/64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_bowl_xli). The previous year was 41.6/62 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL).

DevdogAZ

12-30-2007, 12:58 PM

In some households in New York and New England, it was on four different channels.
Does that mean that the locals who already had deals for exclusivity got screwed out of those deals? I don't think we ever got a definitive answer in this thread as to whether CBS/NBC in those markets would be prevented from simulcasting the game.

Count me as another who can't believe the game was anywhere close to SB ratings.

Amnesia

12-30-2007, 01:01 PM

CBS/NBC were definitely not blacked out in Boston or NY.

Amnesia

12-30-2007, 01:08 PM

Dmon4u

12-30-2007, 01:45 PM

Perhaps it's time for

" NFL Network 2 "
.
.
.

* Wait for it, below, because here it comes.
.
.

TIVO_GUY_HERE

12-30-2007, 11:39 PM

Here's a story (http://sameritech.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/patriots-giants-game-most-watched-television-broadcast-in-us-history/) saying that the game was the most watched TV program ever! It beat even the MASH series finale...

I'm sure we'll see a slew of these stories come Monday...

I've seen more than 1 report that shows it only got 34 million Still biggest rating for non playoff game.

astrohip

12-30-2007, 11:44 PM

Here's a story (http://sameritech.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/patriots-giants-game-most-watched-television-broadcast-in-us-history/) saying that the game was the most watched TV program ever! It beat even the MASH series finale...

I've seen more than 1 report that shows it only got 34 million Still biggest rating for non playoff game.
I guess we need to wait for the actual Nielsens. My own experience (and it doesn't get more anecdotal than this :rolleyes: ) was nowhere near a Super Bowl. Whereas there are always multiple people having parties for a SB, I didn't know a single "event" planned for this. Doesn't mean a lot of eyeballs weren't tuned, but still . . .

jsmeeker

12-31-2007, 12:04 AM

I read about it at AVSForum.com.

Here's the link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12626479#post12626479) to the post.

Combined rating was 51 (51% of households in US watched it), combined share was 79 (79% of households watching TV watched it).

Last year's Super Bowl got a 42.6/64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_bowl_xli). The previous year was 41.6/62 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL).

If that holds up, that is really amazing.

DevdogAZ

12-31-2007, 12:55 AM

I wonder where those earlier numbers of over 100 million viewers came from. Looks like 34.5 million is what is beling reported (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/12/30/34-5-million-viewers-for-patriots-giants/). That makes it the most watched TV program of the current season, topping three other Pats games and the season premiere of CSI.

zordude

12-31-2007, 01:48 AM

VegasVic

12-31-2007, 09:53 AM

Yeah turns out it wasn't even close to a SB.

johnperkins21

12-31-2007, 11:23 AM

I guess we need to wait for the actual Nielsens. My own experience (and it doesn't get more anecdotal than this :rolleyes: ) was nowhere near a Super Bowl. Whereas there are always multiple people having parties for a SB, I didn't know a single "event" planned for this. Doesn't mean a lot of eyeballs weren't tuned, but still . . .

This is one reason why I might believe how high the ratings were. Instead of 10-50 people watching at one house, they're all watching the game at their own houses. While the total number of viewers is probably less, the total number of TVs tuned to the game could be more. Does that make sense?

smak

12-31-2007, 04:01 PM

Why would it matter if it's on 2 networks? Or 3 networks? Wouldn't the same amount of people watch it no matter what?

Being on 2 networks would change somebody's mind on watching the game?

It doesn't make sense in this 500 channel world.

And there wouldn't have been anything on the other network anyway at 8 pm on a Saturday.

-smak-

DevdogAZ

01-02-2008, 02:35 PM

And there wouldn't have been anything on the other network anyway at 8 pm on a Saturday.

-smak-
That's the main reason I could have seen this getting really high ratings. There just wasn't anything else on any of the networks to compete with it.

Fassade

01-03-2008, 07:54 PM

A New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/sports/31sandomir.html?em&ex=1199422800&en=7f7b1320835eb615&ei=5087%0A) said the 34.5 million viewers broke down like this:

CBS 15.68 million
NBC 13.2 million
NFL Network 4.5 million
Channel 9, WCVB and WMUR 1.2 million

By contrast, the Packers/Cowboys game a few weeks ago had 10.1 million viewers on NFL Network. (Most of the article is a scathing criticism of Bryant Gumbel, but the numbers are at the end.)

JLucPicard

01-03-2008, 08:30 PM

Just out of curiosity, for those who CAN get the NFL Network (excluding those that were in the local markets), did you watch on NFL Network, or CBS/NBC? Which one and why?

I happen to get NFL Network in HD and chose to watch on that, even though my local CBS & NBC stations carried in HD as well. No official polls or anything, just curious.

By the way, I don't think I disagree with anything the writer said about Gumbel.

Amnesia

01-03-2008, 08:54 PM

I watched on NFL Network in HD. I first had it on...CBS?...but noticed a slight audio delay...

madscientist

01-03-2008, 08:55 PM

I watched it on our local ABC affiliate (WCVB Boston). Seemed like the right thing to do!

Inundated

01-03-2008, 09:08 PM

I watched it on our local ABC affiliate (WCVB Boston). Seemed like the right thing to do!

They did, after all, pay for it. :D

(Along with WCVB's Hearst sister station in New Hampshire, and WWOR in NYC...)

trainman

01-04-2008, 06:17 PM

Just out of curiosity, for those who CAN get the NFL Network (excluding those that were in the local markets), did you watch on NFL Network, or CBS/NBC? Which one and why?

I watched the first half on NFL Network and the second half on CBS.

I'd already had the TiVo in the living room set to record it on NFL Network before the simulcasts were added. I started watching late, so I was fast-forwarding through the commercial breaks.

When I caught up to "live" at halftime, I moved to my bedroom, where I get digital OTA reception on my computer. I chose to watch on CBS because the audio sounded a bit better than NBC (at least on the Los Angeles affiliates), and because the CBS logo bug was actually in a corner of the HD screen -- NBC's was in a corner of the SD screen, which meant it was way over in the middle of things on the HD picture.