New Thursday night NFL demands - the nets need to say "no"

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by phrelin, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    In this Wall Street Journal report NFL Throws Weight Around in Talks Over Thursday Night Football we find out that apparently the brain-damaged network executives are about to give in to the NFL again:

    Apparently the NFL can't make enough money from football fans from their own network so the broadcast networks enthusiastically will extort money out of me to give them while disrupting the TV schedule.

    May 1, 2017 is my cord cutting date. By then I will have no desire to view the broadcast channels. There will be more and more of us as the broadcast networks focus on the short term profits while criticizing the streaming "channels" such as Netfix which are focusing on the long term.
     
  2. sabrewulf

    sabrewulf Cool Member

    121
    9
    Sep 4, 2011
    Networks shouldn't pay anything. The NFL should. Without the networks they can't get their product out. Not many get NFL Network.
     
  3. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,977
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The broadcast networks are making money off of the programming. If they were not they would not be airing the content.
     
  4. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    The only content that pays to be broadcast are the infomercials. Networks paid for all the rest of the content they air. (Content they create, they pay for directly.)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  5. carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    860
    59
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    The NFL is the most popular sport in the USA. People will watch, no matter who is playing and the ratings this past season prove that. When you have that kind of popularity, and advertisers who WANT their commercials in front of those watching the games, the networks will pony up for that.
     
  6. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,062
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Actually now that they finally signed Cablevision a few years ago, it's now available on all major providers. Plus the ESPN and NFL Network games are always available over the air in the home market of the teams playing.
     
  7. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Yes, they will. They are like buggy whip manufacturers in 1912.

    In 1980-81 the highest ranked show "Dallas" on CBS had an average "same day" audience representing 12.2% of the population. The 30th ranked show "The Waltons" had 6.6%. Last year the highest ranked show was "Sunday Night Football" with 6.5% of the population. The 30th ranked show "How to Get Away with Murder" pulled 3.6%. At some point what's on the broadcast nets will have become irrelevant. By 2020 too many frustrated viewers will have figured out they don't need the networks. The NFL will just abandon the networks and extract money from folks via streaming.
     
  8. camo

    camo Godfather

    1,175
    98
    Apr 15, 2010
    One thing driving NFL viewership is called Fantasy Football. 75 million are playing per NYPost and most could care less who wins or loses as long as their team players perform. Believe me I've watched some miserable Thursday night games because I had players going not because I was a fan of either team.
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    This is a "Back to the Future" move in some ways... Many might not remember this is how Sunday Night Football started. Originally it was sold as two packages with ESPN having half a season and TNT having the other half. Eventually ESPN got the bid for both halves, and it has only been sold as an entire season package since that time. Of course NBC has that package now.

    The NBA and NHL and MLB having their own channel and broadcasting some of their games makes sense. The season is so long and they have so many games, and many of them are not big sellers, so they can keep those in-house and broadcast them when they might not have otherwise been able to sell them for much to the other networks.

    But the NFL Network never really made sense to me. They only have 1 game a week per team, and only 16 games in a season... so trying to keep those games themselves seemed silly from the start. But, selling them as Thursday night games has always been dicey to me. Teams that play on that short week are at a disadvantage, and the games have typically suffered in quality. I would rather see them do away with the Thursday games (outside of Thanksgiving) frankly. IF they wanted to sell another game package, why not sell to a third network on Sunday afternoons?
     
  10. Billzebub

    Billzebub Godfather

    832
    58
    Jan 1, 2007
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I think these numbers may be a bit misleading. They would seem to have much more to do with the fracturing of viewers due to numerous cable choices rather than cord cutters. Streaming may very well end up being the next generation way of delivering content, but anyone who thinks it will save consumers money in the long run is misreading the market and history.
     
  11. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    562
    33
    Aug 11, 2008
    More people listen to more music today than 15 years ago, at about 50% less cost. More people read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post today than ten years ago, at a much lower price point.

    So it will be with video entertainment. The NFL may do OK. But look for MLB to suffer. The Cubs, for example, will probably end up earning less in five years for TV money than they are today (60M per year, compared to 220M for the Dodgers, guaranteed for another 20 years). The NBA and NHL will also suffer, and salaries will decline.
     
  12. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,064
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    You can not compare music with video. Nor newspapers. They are all very different markets and have shifted for very different reasons. The reasons those two cost less will never affect video.
     
  13. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    562
    33
    Aug 11, 2008
    Video is already being impacted. ESPN has lost 7M subs over the last three years, forcing it to suppress salaries and lay off talent. Next step will be to reduce the dollars offered for the TV rights to the NBA, NHL and MLB. And other sports leagues.
     
  14. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I think I buried the point I was trying to make and used the wrong word - the word should have been "inconsequential". These pictures are images of what I mean:

    [​IMG]

    For about 30 years, the broadcast networks were an essential part of the daily life of the average American and what was on those networks frequently created consequential results in American society.

    Network shows like "Gunsmoke", "The $64,000 Question", and "All in the Family" had a broad impact and created a common subject for discussion. And thus everyone knew that Walter Cronkite closed his nightly news broadcast with "And that's the way it is." Most of us in 1963 saw his initial coverage of the Kennedy Assassination. As one of the top American reporters in World War II, covering battles in North Africa and Europe, when he on February 27, 1968, Cronkite closed "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" with that editorial report, general support for the Vietnam War would disappear.

    In a very real sense, broadcast networks are just a shadow of what they were. When they turned their news divisions into profit centers, they unknowingly took the first step towards becoming inconsequential in American life. In my mind, when CBS sold out to the NFL on Thursdays joining NBC's Sunday solely because the profits will be higher in the short term they acknowledged that they and their local broadcast stations had become inconsequential much in the sense that Syfy is inconsequential.

    IMHO by becoming inconsequential, the broadcast nets will in a decade become no more profitable than their cable channel counterparts. Perhaps this always was an unavoidable result of the internet. But that has consequences.

    Perhaps because we lack that national set of voices, we also lack an understanding of the flow of history which can be problematic. In the early 2000's no one thoughtfully said that the difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that the former was an attack by a nation state, the latter an attack by a criminal gang. There is a difference. Today hundreds of talking heads regularly lead us to millions of repetitive, disagreeing, combative internet blogs, posts, tweets, etc.

    Some argue that this is good. But it does raise the voice of Abraham Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

    I don't blame the NFL. It is and always has been a creator of entertainment content. But the broadcast networks were a partial creation of the government for purposes of effective national communications. As I have argued elsewhere in this forum, there is some responsibility here that has been given away for profits.
     
  15. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    Phrelin I'm wondering if broadcast will be this century's buggy whip manufacturers or this century's movie theatres. In 1912 everyone got some news via newsreels at the movies. Radio, then TV took on that communication role as they were more immediate and effective.

    Yet movie theatres are still hot places for entertainment. Their role has changed, they adjusted to match.

    Broadcast TV is still an entertainment medium. And entertainment will always continue. Buggy whips were a specific accessory tied to an industry that continued--transportation. They were the wax cylinders rather than the music.

    So where is TV in these analogies? Wax cylinder or music? Buggy whip or Movie theatre? :) Time will tell.

    I do think communication is a key element as you've indicated. Something will continue to supply.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  16. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I hope you are correct in saying "Something will continue to supply." You're analogy to the movie theater is a good one. I suppose newsreels were effectively replaced by the late 1950's. But it took awhile for theaters to find a way to continue. And newspapers are still struggling.

    While I do hope that "free" OTA entertainment continues through those broadcast TV stations, I would hope somewhere along the way my grandchildren and their peers will find a communal means to receive "news" that provides context, both historical and institutional, without any distorting eye towards entertaining or making a profit. It's hard enough to reduce the personal bias in the presentation of events and issues, without having to entertain or sell something. They will need that communal news.

    What I also know is that my grandchildren do not watch broadcast or "cable" TV. They are "cord nevers" living in families that definitely resemble the bottom picture in my post above. They will never be reliable viewers of content through ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC broadcast stations. I am still a reliable viewer because I am a member of the "TV set" generation.

    But I won't be after May 1, 2017, when I cut the cord. At that time what content is not available to me through internet streaming without ads I just won't watch. Once the older generation is mostly made up of people who understand the option, who are comfortable with this tech, and who routinely own "devices", there won't be a "TV set" generation watching TV.

    The problem that led me to start this thread - NFL Thursdays - is one source of my frustration. For the TV set generation there was "prime time" programming - programming scheduled for a day of the week at a time you could rely upon. CBS NFL Thursdays, for instance, means that I've had to chase "Big Bang Theory" around the weekly calendar. I was already stuck with NFL games screwing with my CBS Sunday shows. The "Where's Waldo" approach to TV programming was not the model the TV set generation grew up with.

    At Netflix and Amazon all the episodes for a series season are there when the season starts. HBO and Showtime offer episodes for a series season using a reliable weekly schedule.That is the reliability I need. That is available through internet streaming. If I must adjust to change ...well... that is the competition and it will win.
     
  17. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,977
    2,292
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Movie theaters replaced theatres. Traveling shows and reviews were replaced by films of people putting on shows many miles away. Sound and color were innovations that would kill live theatre, except for where theatre survives.

    The first movies I saw were in a theater with a stage. The movie screen was at the front of the stage behind the main curtain. The screen could be removed (and was) for stage presentations.

    Newsreels and cartoons became an important part of the movie theater experience. In today's world people go for the named movie and for the most part suffer through the "pre-show" videos, slide shows and (starting at the advertised time for the film) forced previews of coming movies. Sometimes a trailer is good but for the most part it is just more advertising.

    Newsreels and short features have moved to television. There are still some short features but they are usually connected to the advertised feature (either extra work done with the characters in the feature or other work done by the studio that they wish to show). But the shift of newsreels and cartoons has not killed movie theaters any more than the shift to Technocolor and Dolbey films have killed live theatre.

    Long after we are dead people will still be predicting the death of forms of entertainment that predate our lives.

    I believe there is a better chance of football shutting down than broadcast television. Although I can see a path for both forms of entertainment to end as we know them.

    Society eventually turned on the gladiators and other blood sports and became more civilized. Perhaps society will outgrow the violence of football? Or that part of society that seeks the violence will move on to more violent sports?

    In the future broadcast television may no longer be transmitted via 6 mHz OTA channels per licensed station, but I believe broadcast television will survive in some form. Linear stations via cable and satellite or live linear channels via IP. As long as there is an immediacy to receiving entertainment ("appointment television") some infrastructure for providing live linear feeds will be needed and will survive.
     
  18. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz New Texan

    11,131
    201
    Mar 23, 2002
    Richardson,...
    It was also a different time and environment. Up until the early 1980s, most households had only one television, and there were only three networks and maybe an independent station. You had to watch programming on the broadcasters schedule, and maybe catch that movie on it's once-a-year airing.

    Also, of all the sports, the NFL is most television friendly, and is the only sport to remain on free TV. With games airing "usually" once per week, it's easy to follow your team. Compare that to basketball, baseball, and hockey, which air multiple times per week. Nowadays, it's extremely rare for a game to be aired on free TV with most games being on dedicated sports channels. Compare that with the past where only selected games were on free TV, and you had to follow your team on the radio.
     
  19. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    You are correct. All of these things had an impact on life as we knew it. In the mid-50's, my wife was taking shorthand in high school. Her dad, a rabid NY Dodgers fan, had her take down the radio announcer play-by-play broadcasts when she came home from school while he was still at work. He'd have her read it back to him after he got home. In doing so, he made sure she learned shorthand well. :grin:
     
  20. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,235
    111
    Jul 21, 2008
    some times NBA and NHL and MLB networks just mirrors RSN games or even a local teams OTA broadcast.

    Now with the NFL there rule is that in the local teams area the game is on local OTA TV. NBCSN said no to that and they did not get the rights.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements