Sorry NFL, but getting games to fans is your responsibility

Fred Goodwin, CMA · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Sorry NFL, but getting games to fans is your responsibility

http://tinyurl.com/3y7p6r

November 20, 2007
By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY

Leagues and networks constantly come up with stuff viewers didn't know
they needed.

Like the quickly defunct XFL. Or, as ESPN announced Tuesday, live New
Year's Eve coverage of motorcyclist Robbie Maddison trying to jump the
length of a football field and driver Rhys Millen attempting "the
first-ever 360-degree back flip of an off-road truck traveling some 50
feet high."

But take away things viewers have already, and you're a true villain.
Like NBC, when it figured viewers don't have to see entire games and
ended up with the infamous 1968 Heidi Bowl. Or Major League Baseball,
which figured viewers didn't need access anymore to the League
Championship Series in both leagues and played those series
simultaneously to try to pump up ratings on its (inevitably short-lived)
Baseball Network. And while NFL fans have always lived without access to
out-of-market TV games on cable TV, MLB faced waves of wrath that
rippled all the way to the U.S. Senate when it tried to take its
out-of-market games off cable and put them on satellite TV - and wound
up putting them on both.

Now the NFL Network, kicking off its second season of airing eight games
with Indianapolis Colts-Atlanta Falcons on Thanksgiving night, is trying
not to be cast as taking anything back - though many fans won't see its
game because it's not available to them.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, on a conference call Tuesday, relentlessly
reiterated the league understands many fans might feel infuriated at
missing, say, the NFL Network's marquee Green Bay Packers-Dallas Cowboys
game next week and the New England Patriots' finale - when the team
might be playing for an undefeated season.

But don't, he stressed, blame the NFL; blame cable operators who won't
carry the network without putting it on pay tiers who are not being fair
to the fans. "Our goal is simply to bring more football to fans," he
said. In talking points mirroring "Truth About Cable Monopolies" offered
on nfl.com, Goodell implied the responsibility of letting viewers see
the NFL's biggest games apparently rests not with the league but with
various corporate cable operators.

NBC's John Madden on Tuesday suggested that's a new approach for the
league: "To have a game of any magnitude and people not be able to see
it, that's not what the NFL is all about. . That has to be fixed."

Goodell noted the league is trying to build a network that offers
football - or at least football yak - year-round. And it offers at least
a semi-national NFL Network platform for games that might have wound up
available to even less of the USA if they were on Fox or CBS' Sunday
afternoon regionalized coverage.

In fact, Goodell added, "We're doing this in the best interest of fans,
at the end of the day. . We believe we're standing up for our fans."

That should be comforting to viewers in Texas and Wisconsin, who've had
constant access to Packers and Cowboys game but don't have a cable
operator who'll carry next week's showdown.

It's pointless for the NFL to try to shame cable operators, as they have
no interest in any programming - let alone NFL games - except how to
make money off it.

And for all the tit-for-tat between the NFL and cable operators -
including the request for government intervention from a league that
already enjoys a big fat antitrust exemption - only one side is truly
responsible for how TV viewers consume the NFL: the NFL.

David Cohen, an executive at Comcast, which is the USA's biggest cable
operator and an NFL Network antagonist, noted something indisputable:
"While the NFL claims that it wants its games to be seen by the widest
possible audiences, it's actually their rules that limit which games
fans can watch. . It's the NFL that decided to take these eight games
off of free broadcast television and to try to enrich themselves at the
expense of their fans by creating a multibillion dollar asset called the
NFL Network."

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

observer wrote:
> Unfortunately, the NFL is confining the
> audience for what would be -2- of the
> highest rated games of the season, were
> they on Fox -or- NBC -or- CBS, to a
> mere 35 million fans. Those games,
> Green Bay-Dallas and New England-
> New York, the NFL is sewing the seeds
> of their own destruction, punishing fans
> based on owner greed -and- capricious
> neglect of their long-lived obligations to
> large fan bases who won't be able to view
> those games.

What bothers me more than the NFL Network games is the NFL's continued
exclusive contract with DirecTV, which locks out cable users (who are
far more in number) from watching any game they wish.

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote ...
>
> Sorry NFL, but getting games to fans is your responsibility
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3y7p6r
>
> November 20, 2007
> By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY
>
> Leagues and networks constantly come up with stuff viewers didn't know
> they needed.
>
> Like the quickly defunct XFL. Or, as ESPN announced Tuesday, live New
> Year's Eve coverage of motorcyclist Robbie Maddison trying to jump the
> length of a football field and driver Rhys Millen attempting "the
> first-ever 360-degree back flip of an off-road truck traveling some 50
> feet high."
>
> But take away things viewers have already, and you're a true villain.
> Like NBC, when it figured viewers don't have to see entire games and
> ended up with the infamous 1968 Heidi Bowl. Or Major League Baseball,
> which figured viewers didn't need access anymore to the League
> Championship Series in both leagues and played those series
> simultaneously to try to pump up ratings on its (inevitably short-lived)
> Baseball Network. And while NFL fans have always lived without access
> to out-of-market TV games on cable TV, MLB faced waves of wrath that
> rippled all the way to the U.S. Senate when it tried to take its
> out-of-market games off cable and put them on satellite TV - and wound
> up putting them on both.
>
> Now the NFL Network, kicking off its second season of airing eight games
> with Indianapolis Colts-Atlanta Falcons on Thanksgiving night, is trying
> not to be cast as taking anything back - though many fans won't see its
> game because it's not available to them.
>
> Commissioner Roger Goodell, on a conference call Tuesday, relentlessly
> reiterated the league understands many fans might feel infuriated at
> missing, say, the NFL Network's marquee Green Bay Packers-Dallas
> Cowboys game next week and the New England Patriots' finale - when
> the team might be playing for an undefeated season.
>
> But don't, he stressed, blame the NFL; blame cable operators who won't
> carry the network without putting it on pay tiers who are not being fair
> to the fans. "Our goal is simply to bring more football to fans," he
> said. In talking points mirroring "Truth About Cable Monopolies" offered
> on nfl.com, Goodell implied the responsibility of letting viewers see
> the NFL's biggest games apparently rests not with the league but with
> various corporate cable operators.
>
> NBC's John Madden on Tuesday suggested that's a new approach for the
> league: "To have a game of any magnitude and people not be able to see
> it, that's not what the NFL is all about. . That has to be fixed."
>
> Goodell noted the league is trying to build a network that offers
> football - or at least football yak - year-round. And it offers at least
> a semi-national NFL Network platform for games that might have wound
> up available to even less of the USA if they were on Fox or CBS' Sunday
> afternoon regionalized coverage.
>
> In fact, Goodell added, "We're doing this in the best interest of fans,
> at the end of the day. . We believe we're standing up for our fans."
>
> That should be comforting to viewers in Texas and Wisconsin, who've
> had constant access to Packers and Cowboys game but don't have a cable
> operator who'll carry next week's showdown.
>
> It's pointless for the NFL to try to shame cable operators, as they have
> no interest in any programming - let alone NFL games - except how to
> make money off it.
>
> And for all the tit-for-tat between the NFL and cable operators -
> including the request for government intervention from a league that
> already enjoys a big fat antitrust exemption - only one side is truly
> responsible for how TV viewers consume the NFL: the NFL.
>
> David Cohen, an executive at Comcast, which is the USA's biggest cable
> operator and an NFL Network antagonist, noted something indisputable:
> "While the NFL claims that it wants its games to be seen by the widest
> possible audiences, it's actually their rules that limit which games
> fans can watch. It's the NFL that decided to take these eight games
> off of free broadcast television and to try to enrich themselves at the
> expense of their fans by creating a multibillion dollar asset called the
> NFL Network."

Unfortunately, the NFL is confining the
audience for what would be -2- of the
highest rated games of the season, were
they on Fox -or- NBC -or- CBS, to a
mere 35 million fans. Those games,
Green Bay-Dallas and New England-
New York, the NFL is sewing the seeds
of their own destruction, punishing fans
based on owner greed -and- capricious
neglect of their long-lived obligations to
large fan bases who won't be able to view
those games.

---

bushlyed · Joined: 15 Nov 2007 Posts: 13

On Nov 21, 1:43 am, "observer" wrote:
> "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry NFL, but getting games to fans is your responsibility
>
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/3y7p6r
>
> > November 20, 2007
> > By Michael Hiestand, USA TODAY
>
> > Leagues and networks constantly come up with stuff viewers didn't know
> > they needed.
>
> > Like the quickly defunct XFL. Or, as ESPN announced Tuesday, live New
> > Year's Eve coverage of motorcyclist Robbie Maddison trying to jump the
> > length of a football field and driver Rhys Millen attempting "the
> > first-ever 360-degree back flip of an off-road truck traveling some 50
> > feet high."
>
> > But take away things viewers have already, and you're a true villain.
> > Like NBC, when it figured viewers don't have to see entire games and
> > ended up with the infamous 1968 Heidi Bowl. Or Major League Baseball,
> > which figured viewers didn't need access anymore to the League
> > Championship Series in both leagues and played those series
> > simultaneously to try to pump up ratings on its (inevitably short-lived)
> > Baseball Network. And while NFL fans have always lived without access
> > to out-of-market TV games on cable TV, MLB faced waves of wrath that
> > rippled all the way to the U.S. Senate when it tried to take its
> > out-of-market games off cable and put them on satellite TV - and wound
> > up putting them on both.
>
> > Now the NFL Network, kicking off its second season of airing eight games
> > with Indianapolis Colts-Atlanta Falcons on Thanksgiving night, is trying
> > not to be cast as taking anything back - though many fans won't see its
> > game because it's not available to them.
>
> > Commissioner Roger Goodell, on a conference call Tuesday, relentlessly
> > reiterated the league understands many fans might feel infuriated at
> > missing, say, the NFL Network's marquee Green Bay Packers-Dallas
> > Cowboys game next week and the New England Patriots' finale - when
> > the team might be playing for an undefeated season.
>
> > But don't, he stressed, blame the NFL; blame cable operators who won't
> > carry the network without putting it on pay tiers who are not being fair
> > to the fans. "Our goal is simply to bring more football to fans," he
> > said. In talking points mirroring "Truth About Cable Monopolies" offered
> > on nfl.com, Goodell implied the responsibility of letting viewers see
> > the NFL's biggest games apparently rests not with the league but with
> > various corporate cable operators.
>
> > NBC's John Madden on Tuesday suggested that's a new approach for the
> > league: "To have a game of any magnitude and people not be able to see
> > it, that's not what the NFL is all about. . That has to be fixed."
>
> > Goodell noted the league is trying to build a network that offers
> > football - or at least football yak - year-round. And it offers at least
> > a semi-national NFL Network platform for games that might have wound
> > up available to even less of the USA if they were on Fox or CBS' Sunday
> > afternoon regionalized coverage.
>
> > In fact, Goodell added, "We're doing this in the best interest of fans,
> > at the end of the day. . We believe we're standing up for our fans."
>
> > That should be comforting to viewers in Texas and Wisconsin, who've
> > had constant access to Packers and Cowboys game but don't have a cable
> > operator who'll carry next week's showdown.
>
> > It's pointless for the NFL to try to shame cable operators, as they have
> > no interest in any programming - let alone NFL games - except how to
> > make money off it.
>
> > And for all the tit-for-tat between the NFL and cable operators -
> > including the request for government intervention from a league that
> > already enjoys a big fat antitrust exemption - only one side is truly
> > responsible for how TV viewers consume the NFL: the NFL.
>
> > David Cohen, an executive at Comcast, which is the USA's biggest cable
> > operator and an NFL Network antagonist, noted something indisputable:
> > "While the NFL claims that it wants its games to be seen by the widest
> > possible audiences, it's actually their rules that limit which games
> > fans can watch. It's the NFL that decided to take these eight games
> > off of free broadcast television and to try to enrich themselves at the
> > expense of their fans by creating a multibillion dollar asset called the
> > NFL Network."
>
> Unfortunately, the NFL is confining the
> audience for what would be -2- of the
> highest rated games of the season, were
> they on Fox -or- NBC -or- CBS, to a
> mere 35 million fans. Those games,
> Green Bay-Dallas and New England-
> New York, the NFL is sewing the seeds
> of their own destruction, punishing fans
> based on owner greed -and- capricious
> neglect of their long-lived obligations to
> large fan bases who won't be able to view
> those games.
>

Plus limiting advertising revenue

If I am McDonalds, I am going to pay a lot more for an ad on free
television which can be seen by more people

Fans of all teams, here's what we do: boycott

Boycott

BOYCOTT

Boycott the very first advertiser shown on the Dallas-Green Bay game.

This way we don't single out any advertiser in advance and there is no
accusation of targeting for any other reason.

The ball is kicked off. The game is played until there is a time out
for advertising (after a score or change of possession). Whatever
commercial is run first, we start of a boycott of that company.

Fans of every NFL club can get together and support this.

Hey NFL, we know what kind of jerks the cable companies can be; that's
a given. You just don't have to compete for the honor.
> ---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

bushlyed · Joined: 15 Nov 2007 Posts: 13

On Nov 21, 2:09 am, Tarkus wrote:
> observer wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the NFL is confining the
> > audience for what would be -2- of the
> > highest rated games of the season, were
> > they on Fox -or- NBC -or- CBS, to a
> > mere 35 million fans. Those games,
> > Green Bay-Dallas and New England-
> > New York, the NFL is sewing the seeds
> > of their own destruction, punishing fans
> > based on owner greed -and- capricious
> > neglect of their long-lived obligations to
> > large fan bases who won't be able to view
> > those games.
>
> What bothers me more than the NFL Network games is the NFL's continued
> exclusive contract with DirecTV, which locks out cable users (who are
> far more in number) from watching any game they wish.

That bothers me too. I can't get satallite at my new place so I am
relegated to a sports bar to watch the game. I like the comaraderie
great and have met some awesome Cowboy fans but I would rather watch
the game at home.

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

NFN Smith wrote:
> This is a common issue between various network operators and cable
> providers. A couple of years ago, several cable operators were fighting
> with ESPN over fees, and whether the operators would be carrying ESPN in
> basic packages, given the fees they wanted from the cable operators.
> IIRC, several cable operators briefly dropped ESPN.

Yes, I remember that. Unfortunately for the cable carriers, and just as
unfortunate for the NFL, ESPN has a LOT more leverage in negotiations.
They are a daily part of many peoples lives; the NFL Network is not.

NFN Smith · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

> But don't, he stressed, blame the NFL; blame cable operators who won't
> carry the network without putting it on pay tiers who are not being fair
> to the fans. "Our goal is simply to bring more football to fans," he
> said.

Nice in setting up the cable operators for blame -- they're not exactly
a sympathetic victim.

However, it takes two to tango, and the NFL is part of the problem. The
major thing is a matter of pricing -- the NFL insisting that cable
operators carry NFL Network as a part of their basic cable package, but
the money they want from the cable operators is the same kind of premium
money that operations like HBO charge.

This is a common issue between various network operators and cable
providers. A couple of years ago, several cable operators were fighting
with ESPN over fees, and whether the operators would be carrying ESPN in
basic packages, given the fees they wanted from the cable operators.
IIRC, several cable operators briefly dropped ESPN.

Smith

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"NFN Smith" wrote in message
$L15.5007@newsfe08.phx...
>
> Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote ...
>
> > But don't, he stressed, blame the NFL; blame cable operators who won't
> > carry the network without putting it on pay tiers who are not being fair
> > to the fans. "Our goal is simply to bring more football to fans," he
> > said.
>
> Nice in setting up the cable operators for blame -- they're not exactly
> a sympathetic victim.
>
> However, it takes two to tango, and the NFL is part of the problem. The
> major thing is a matter of pricing -- the NFL insisting that cable
> operators carry NFL Network as a part of their basic cable package, but
> the money they want from the cable operators is the same kind of premium
> money that operations like HBO charge.
>
>
> This is a common issue between various network operators and cable
> providers. A couple of years ago, several cable operators were fighting
> with ESPN over fees, and whether the operators would be carrying ESPN in
> basic packages, given the fees they wanted from the cable operators.
> IIRC, several cable operators briefly dropped ESPN.

Excessive charges + requirement that cable
operators not charge extra for the service =
NFL fans getting screwed as a result. Cable
operators charging extra for the service =
NFL fans getting screwed as a result.

Let's face it, NFL fans getting screwed, by
the NFL and by cable operators, all promul-
gated by the NFL. One cable operator has
sent a cease-and-decease letter to the NFL
Network (now represented by Jerry Jones)
for recent statements he and NFL Network
representatives have made urging cable
users to abandon cable service.

Also of note, the 'battle' between NFL own-
ers and cable operators is simply a rich brats
spat, with NFL fans who are unable or un-
willing to get satellite service or to pay extra
for the service on cable or who choose to pay
extra for the service on cable, all playing the
role of victims of NFL owner greed and capri-
cious neglect of their (formerly?) loyal fan
base.

---
November 21, 2007
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7472714
---

Complete article:

Comcast has sent a cease-and-desist letter
to the NFL Network. The cable television
company is demanding the channel's repre-
sentatives stop encouraging fans to drop
Comcast service.

The dispute began with a disagreement over
how Comcast would provide the network to
its subscribers. The NFL Network sued after
Comcast decided to move the channel from
its basic digital tier to a premium sports tier.
Customers must pay extra to get the premium
tier.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has urged
customers of cable providers who don't carry
the network on a basic tier to switch to satel-
lite or other cable services that do. There's a
similar message on a Web site run by the chan-
nel.

Comcast says urging its customers to leave vio-
lates its contract with the NFL.

--- end of article ---

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

"Tarkus" wrote ...
>
> NFN Smith wrote ...
> >
> > This is a common issue between various network operators and cable
> > providers. A couple of years ago, several cable operators were fighting
> > with ESPN over fees, and whether the operators would be carrying ESPN
> > in basic packages, given the fees they wanted from the cable operators.
> > IIRC, several cable operators briefly dropped ESPN.
>
> Yes, I remember that. Unfortunately for the cable carriers, and just as
> unfortunate for the NFL, ESPN has a LOT more leverage in negotiations.
> They are a daily part of many peoples lives; the NFL Network is not.

On a somewhat hopeful note, although this
is not likely to help fans see next week's
Packers-Cowboys game:

---
NFL giving ground in cable battle

by Jeff Richgels - 11/21/2007 11:46 am
http://www.madison.com/tct/business/258178
---

Complete article:

It's probably too late for next Thursday's piv-
otal game between Green Bay and Dallas, but
a new offering from NFL commissioner Roger
Goodell provides hope for deals that would put
the NFL Network on the major cable companies,
including Charter Communications.

The NFL wants its channel, which for the sec-
ond straight season will carry eight games, to
be on a basic cable tier like Charter's Expanded
Basic, while the cable companies want to put it
on a digital sports tier so only those customers
who want it have to pay for it. The NFL is ask-
ing 70 cents per subscriber for the network.

But in a conference call Tuesday in advance of
the NFL Network's first 2007 game telecast
Thursday night, Goodell said the league would
be willing to consider surrendering an equity
stake in the network to secure carriage with key
cable operators.

That follows the potential settlement scenario
predicted by UW-Madison professor of telecom-
munications Barry Orton, who said today that
"the NFL couldn't let this go a whole second
season."

"This is the deal that the NFL finally realized
they had to give to the folks who own the pipe-
line," Orton said. "Both Comcast and Time
Warner were not going to let another ESPN
happen."

ESPN is a must-have for cable lineups, Orton
said, leaving the cable giants at the mercy of
ESPN, which they have no equity in, when it
comes to negotiating things like price and chan-
nel placement.

"They were absolutely captive to the program-
ming source," he said. "But when you have a
piece of the action you're no longer captive,
you're a partner."

With the right bargaining chips finally on the
table, Orton said the NFL might be able to
make deals quickly with Comcast and Time
Warner.

"I can picture a lot of ways to make this hap-
pen pretty quick if the deal is good enough for
Time Warner and Comcast," he said.

That doesn't mean Charter customers should
expect to see the Packers and Cowboys on
cable next Thursday night, though, Orton
warned.

"I think it's a very, very slim chance," he said.
"Comcast and Time Warner are the only two
(cable companies) big enough to get a piece
(of the NFL Network). Charter would follow
but they probably wouldn't get equity. They
don't have enough power."

....

The NFL Network is looking forward to next
Tuesday, when the FCC could include binding
arbitration on its agenda, Multichannel.com
reported. FCC commissioner Kevin Martin is
endorsing rules that would permit the NFL Net-
work to invoke compulsory arbitration under
which an arbitrator would decide between the
final offers tendered by the service and cable
companies.

"There's a possibility that could happen," Good-
ell said, in response to a query about whether a
ruling could be made that day. "We would wel-
come (binding arbitration), but we're not relying
only on that."

Barring deals, the major cable companies will
not be airing what could one of the most historic
games in NFL history: the Dec. 29 contest be-
tween the New England Patriots and New York
Giants in which New England could complete
an undefeated regular season.

"The game will remain on NFL Network," Good-
ell said.

--- end excerpts ---

Broncofan · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 17

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:12:18 -0800 (PST), bushlyed
wrote:

>On Nov 21, 2:09 am, Tarkus wrote:
>> observer wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, the NFL is confining the
>> > audience for what would be -2- of the
>> > highest rated games of the season, were
>> > they on Fox -or- NBC -or- CBS, to a
>> > mere 35 million fans. Those games,
>> > Green Bay-Dallas and New England-
>> > New York, the NFL is sewing the seeds
>> > of their own destruction, punishing fans
>> > based on owner greed -and- capricious
>> > neglect of their long-lived obligations to
>> > large fan bases who won't be able to view
>> > those games.
>>
>> What bothers me more than the NFL Network games is the NFL's continued
>> exclusive contract with DirecTV, which locks out cable users (who are
>> far more in number) from watching any game they wish.
>
>That bothers me too. I can't get satallite at my new place so I am
>relegated to a sports bar to watch the game. I like the comaraderie
>great and have met some awesome Cowboy fans but I would rather watch
>the game at home.

"awesome Cowboy fans" is an oxymoron