Curse you, NFL Network.
The New York Jets defeated the New England Patriots 34-31 in overtime, but hardly anyone got to see the game, the ending or whether Belichick graciously shook hands with the man genius after the game.
I exaggerate. Millions likely saw the game, and not just those who've ponied up for the NFL Network or went out to a sports bar. The game aired locally (and freely) on a local broadcast station in both the New York and New England regions, so its cumulative viewing totals could still be pretty decent. It will also likely cause some havoc with the overnight numbers for tomorrow morning depending what stations the game aired on in the local markets.
One great game isn't likely to get me to spring for the NFL Network, and I consider myself a pretty big sports fan. Unfortunately, after perusing the Thursday and Saturday games that will air on the NFL Network, most just don't look that interesting; though the last game on Saturday December 20 could be interesting -- Baltimore vs. Dallas. But, if it winds up a situation where Dallas winning that game keeps the Redskins out of the playoffs...sports bar.
I understand why the NFL wants its own network, and that it dreams of making us buy any and all games someday. For now it sure seems that the NFL would make much more money simply by licensing the Thursday game to one of the broadcast or cable networks and making it available to many more people than what it makes via the NFL Network.
Still, having that great of a game kick off the Thursday schedule is great news for the NFL Network. Update: D'oh! Obviously the Browns/Broncos game kicked off the NFL Network schedule last week. But that was a good game, too (dramatic three touchdown comeback in fourth quarter) unless you are a Browns fan.
Jets-Pats did not kick off Thursday NFL schedule.
Browns-Broncos played last Thursday on NFL Network.
Love the website!
I sure didn’t see it. But not because I don’t have the NFL Network. All I saw last night on the NFL Network was 4 hours of a high school footbal documentary. Still can’t find any explanation of why.
Update to the above. Turns out my local cable company, while it does carry the NFL Network in its premium package, does NOT pay the extra fee that the NFL Network requires to air games. So while I can watch all the useless minutae the NFL Network serves up, I can’t watch the actual sport itself. Go figure.
Apparently you can watch the games on justin.tv. I’m not exactly sure how it works, but I’ve seen discussion on this.
We’ll see how NFL Network fares under good old fashioned capitalism, IMHO. If the NFL isn’t seeing enough profit from NFLN, we will likely see no more of it.
With all the NFL Net vs. Cable Company Talk over the last few years, people forget what the NFL accomplished when it introduced the new TV package three years ago. It actually took AWAY games that would have aired on FOX or CBS and didn’t get penalized a penny in the form of lower TV contracts. In fact, these networks anted up even MORE money for fewer NFL games.
If the significance of this is lost, think of it this way. If the NFL Net didn’t exist, last night’s game would have aired on CBS and almost certainly would have occupied the 4pm “National” window. Jets-Pats ’08 would not have generated the $500K ad buys of Colts-Pats in Nov ’07, but it’s a good bet that CBS would have made considerably more than the $0 it made from the NFL last night.
Not sure if anyone recalls, but before the season began, there was talk swirling about some sort of merger between NFLN and ESPN Classic (which I think should be renamed ESPN Ali because they seem to show nothing but Muhammad Ali fights and Cheap Seats).
That story, along with the comments here, prompted me to wonder: how much stroke do advertisers and their representative agencies have to get the NFL to the barganing table with the cable operators? Maybe this is speaking like the second-year, ‘still wet behind the ears’ player in the ad industry I am, but all that money going into the league and it still wages war against the MSOs, knowing how much of a PR and potentially financial disaster this venture has become. Thoughts?
Jason —
Those NFL/ESPN Classic talks broke down a few months ago (www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/sports/football/03sandomir.html).
And advertisers don’t have any incentive to weigh in on the NFL/Cable dispute. The agencies have a lot to worry about these days (ie. recession), but the availability of the NFL Network is not one of these concerns.
The endlessly predicted “NFL Net as PR Disaster” talk has been way overblown, even if subscriber growth has been anemic. It would be a different story if the NFL didn’t simulcast Thursday games locally, but since they do (voluntarily) there’s not much for the public to be angry over. Sure, out of market fans will be upset — but not any more upset than they’ve always been when their team isn’t shown locally on Sunday afternoons.
Alex, despite my whining above, I agree with you completely. I’m more annoyed by the DirecTV exclusive for NFL Sunday Ticket, but that is the NFL’s right too. But when I hear the NFL whine about unfair treatment from the Cable companies, that’s just laughable (I feel no sorrow for the cable companies either, mind you).
Good news with New England being on NFL Network, they won’t be on the doubleheader games Sunday, nor on Sunday night, nor Monday, so I won’t have to see that over pompous windbag Billicheat and his cronies. They belong on the NFL NETWORK which most people don’t have.
In response to the Cable Companies and NFL NETWORK. Charter (which I have) actually carried NFL NET, but NFL wanted $1.00 per subscriber and the channel carried on a basic tier level. SO Charter dumped them. NFL NETWORK did not want $1.00 per subscriber that actually paid for the NFL NET but 1 per person who had Charter cable. That would have cost charter upwards of 5-7 Million a month and they said they weren’t going to pass on the cost to everyone, so a few could enjoy the crappy channel which is what the NFL NETWORK is anyway.
Charter has stated that if NFL allows them to carry it on the Sports TIER and only those that subscribe to it have to pay, then they’ll sign. NFL said “NO.”
Ah, yes, I do recall reading the Sandomir article now. Thanks, Alex. I’d have to say though that if this was Green Bay and Dallas, the league’s most popular teams around the country, then there may be a little more fevror as there was last year when those teams battled in Irving last year. With this game, despite the Patriots’ success this decade and the lovefest for Mr. Favre, these are two fairly localized teams compared to the Packers and Cowboys.
i’m glad to see the NFLN tank, hate that crap they’re trying to pull.
The NFL keeps saying the cable companies are discriminating them. But all the cable companies do make a good point about the NFL saying they want the NFL Network available to everyone but restricts their sports package to DirecTV only. Quite funny, I bet they would get NFL Network on the tier they want if they only make their sports package available to the cable providers.