Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted November 16, 2004 I was reading the NFL news today, and in Peter King's latest MMQB, he had this to say which I thought was pretty interesting: 1. I think these are my thoughts on the NFL's TV situation in the wake of the $8 billion extension signed by CBS and FOX: a. The new deal allows for flexible scheduling. During the last seven weeks of the regular season (11 through 17), the NFL will have the right to switch the Monday Night Football game a total of five times. These decisions will not be in the hands of the network that wins the MNF package, but rather a partnership between the NFL and the network, with the league having final say. Here's the interesting part: The network with the Sunday doubleheader game each week will be allowed to keep one game per week from being switched to Monday, in all likelihood the late Sunday doubleheader game seen by most of the nation. And FOX and CBS will, in addition, be allowed to reject one request per year by the NFL, in any of the seven weeks, to a switch. An NFL guy told me the switches would be made about two weeks out, but the timing of the changes hasn't been determined with certainty yet. Let me give you an example of how it would work, say, on this past weekend. It's a FOX doubleheader weekend. The Monday night game Philly at Dallas. It's unlikely that would be moved anyway because of the Cowboys fans across the country. But let's say the NFL wanted to make a switch. The league goes to FOX and says, "We want Minnesota at Green Bay for Monday night.'' FOX exercises its "doubleheader" veto and says it wants that game for its broadcast. Then the NFL says, "We want Seattle at St. Louis." FOX chooses not to exercise its one wild-card veto, and so the NFL gives FOX Philadelphia-Dallas and puts Seattle-St. Louis on Monday night. I'm not saying this would happen in real life, but that's how the mechanics of the thing would work. b. The Sunday night/Monday night package probably won't be negotiated until next October. None of the deals needed to be negotiated until then, but FOX and CBS came up with bids that satisfied the NFL, and the league wasn't willing to wait to see if the economy downturned and forced the bids lower next year. c. ABC's no lock to keep MNF. The Monday night package is up in the air. I'm no Bob Iger, but the league thinks Disney's going to have trouble ponying up the money for one contract in the ESPN/ABC deal [Disney owns both], never mind two. NBC and FOX are in play for Monday night as well, and there's a 95 percent likelihood that the Monday night winner will be an over-the-air network, not cable. I don't see NBC making a business deal that doesn't make business sense, though. d. A Thursday night package is likely, but coaches will hate it. The NFL, at least the money-grubbing part of the NFL, wants to take eight late-season games and put them on in prime time, mostly on Thursday nights, likely with a cable entity. "We're not kidding ourselves," one NFL source told me. "We know the coaches and even some owners will hate it, because it will disrupt everyone's schedule late in the year. Some owners don't think with their wallets." Picture the 8-4 Patriots winning a big game with the Jets at home on Sunday, then having a game at Oakland the following Thursday night. But I have a feeling mo' money will steamroll this concern. The coaches didn't like the idea of Monday Night Football 34 years ago, either. This is different, though. This isn't a one-day change on the calendar. It's a major inconvenience, and could be a factor in the pennant race. e. Rupert Murdoch tried to buy rights for every NFL game beginning in 2006 but was rejected. They never talked money because the league felt even if the offer was a little better with one conglomerate, "We'd have lost too much promotional value by being on only one network," the source said. What do you folks think? I'm still a little iffy on how I feel about the NFL being able to switch games midseason to Monday Night instead of Sunday, since that creates a major hassle for many coaches and players who'll lose or gain a day depending on if their schedule gets moved. Yeah, having crappy games on MNF sucks, but I think it's going to be much more controversial this way. And the Thursday night package is downright asinine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Smues Report post Posted November 16, 2004 Moving games like that is bullshit for the fans who make plans to go to the games, especially people who have to schedule plane flights and hotels. It's bullshit when ESPN moves baseball games for their sunday night, it'll be bullshit when the NFL does it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lawlerm Report post Posted November 16, 2004 You should try living in the UK. Theres never a week that goes by without soccer matches being moved. They kick off at anytime from 11:30am to 8pm. Imagine trying to get to the opposite end of the country for a game kicking off at half past 11 in the morning. Sadly the response is always the same - if you want the big bucks TV gives the game then you play the games when they tell you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sass 0 Report post Posted November 16, 2004 FOX getting the *entire* NFL package? Damn, they've got some bank then. That'd be kinda weird seeing FOX with full control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 17, 2004 This is easily preventable. Make better decisions when picking the games. Just look at this season for instance. Dallas is on MNF four times. Who in their right mind thought those would be good or interesting games? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Well #1 Bill Parcells. #2 they were a playoff team last season. Now I personally knew they would suck hard this season, but playoff team+Parcells=RATINGS! in the Netowork minds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 This is obviously one of the downsides of parity in the NFL Before, when a team made it to the playoffs, you could count on them to be a playoff contender for the next couple of years and thus could risk scheduling them for high profile games. Now, we have teams that can go to a SB one year and then win one game in ten weeks the next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted November 17, 2004 They could also push back the scheduling till June/July so they can actually see what teams are doing signings wise. I totally understand the Parcells game but anyone that knows even a tiny bit about the Cowboys knew they were going to be a horrible team to watch this year. I don't think it's hard to say "maybe having them on 4 times is a bad idea." Sure Gibbs vs. Parcells is an interesting story but everyone knew it was going to be a horrible horrible game. Why not have one of the Seattle/St.Louis games? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ronixis Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Damn... The NFL made one good move here, and that was to tell Murdock to dont be so cocky. Viacom has more cash than you. But for the late Sunday/Monday Night Games... Ok. So now you want to start a proxy war between the networks? Good God Tagabule, you have a printing press over at New York. CUT these guys some slack and wait until Late August if you have to, to get a better MNF lineup. No need to have bloody spastic colon at the networks offices and having lawyers lined up day after day just to get a game on the air by Sunday. And the fact that MNF, the icon of Sports TV is up in the air, is that fact that Disney has mismangaged ABC and ESPN. You had one good hit in 4 years and now you are starting to shape up, now you cant hold on. Thats just great Eisner. If hes the man that loses Football on ABC, HEADS WILL ROLL. CBS NEVER was the same when it lost the NFL rights the first time, and partly the reason why Viacom bought them, was to make sure that CBS NEVER LOSES it again. NBC is now in deep trouble, because even though they had great shows, with out that NFL hook- there soon going to suffer badly. And cant these guys over at NFL NY stop thinking about a Smackdown Thursday for the NFL rights? PLEASE. NO. The teams (good as they can be in this Salary Cap lineup) can NOT do Thursday nights. WHY would you want do it on the night where everybody is watching CSI? NO. Please good god NO. Learn the lesson from the NHL...OVERSATURATION IS NOT A GOOD THING. And now the players union wants from the new contract... 65% of everything. WTF? COME ON. PLEASE! You have more than enough. The owners are not going to sit well with this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Moving games like that is bullshit for the fans who make plans to go to the games, especially people who have to schedule plane flights and hotels. I agree, and I don't like the move. However, I'm sure many fans won't care if their game gets moved to Monday Night for several reasons. 1) It probably means their team is doing good. 2) Who doesn't want to attend a Nationally televised game? There's a different feel to it if you're at a Monday Night Football game than a 1 p.m. Sunday one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 There's a different feel to it if you're at a Monday Night Football game than a 1 p.m. Sunday one... Especially if it's Green Bay in December. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted November 17, 2004 You rarely ever see the Packers get very many home games in December. Chalk that up to the rest of the NFL being whiny bitches about it (I'm looking at you, Minnesota). In fact, I only remember two games played in the snow of the Frozen Tundra in the past couple of seasons, I remember the Pack playing Tennessee in 2001 (or it might have been 2000) and Green Bay playing St.Louis in 1998 and handing both those teams losses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Don't forget the Week 17 matchup in '95 against the Steelers where Yancy Thigpen dropped a last second touchdown pass. Well, perhaps you did, seeing this was nearly 10 years ago... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Chalk that up to the rest of the NFL being whiny bitches about it (I'm looking at you, Minnesota). This Vikings fan would like to see the return of the outdoor stadium in Minneapolis The Metrodome was not the home of Tark and the PPE... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted November 17, 2004 Chalk that up to the rest of the NFL being whiny bitches about it (I'm looking at you, Minnesota). This Vikings fan would like to see the return of the outdoor stadium in Minneapolis The Metrodome was not the home of Tark and the PPE... Something we agree with. Football was not meant to be played in domes. They breed teams like the Rams or the Lions (up until this year) that can't win whenever they go outdoors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 FOX getting the *entire* NFL package? Damn, they've got some bank then. That'd be kinda weird seeing FOX with full control. Especially when Directv, owned by Rupert Murdoch who just happens to own FOX, just signed an exlusive deal with the NFL until 2010 for Sunday Ticket.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted November 18, 2004 The Thursday games are ridiculous. As for the Monday flex game, I say it would suck if you are a team like Cincinnati and you have a MNF game for the 1st time in 15 years and then lose it because their may be a better matchup. And really isn't the NFL popular enough people don't really give a shit about the matchup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
