PDA

View Full Version : Does this scare any other NFL fans?



Yachtzee
12-08-2006, 02:02 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2690171

While I think the NFL should make Sunday Ticket available on a much broader basis, the thought of giving removing the anti-trust exemption regarding TV rights scares me. I could see Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones deciding to blow up the revenue-sharing system to get more money for themselves. My biggest fear would be that teams like the Cowboys, Redskins, or Giants could negotiate a deal with a major network similar to the deal Notre Dame has with NBC. I really don't want a "Cowboys Only" channel. Either that or they go to a "market area" system like baseball has, so that I will be stuck with getting only Browns games (not that it matters, I have Sunday Ticket anyway, but if I couldn't afford it one year I'm doomed).

Say what you will about how the NFL has been doing things with its TV contracts lately, but they still have done a great job of marketing the sport through television. For all the complaining that NFL is putting games on the NFL network and has an exclusive deal with DirectTV for Sunday Ticket, they've been able to add these products without subtracting much from what they offer on "free" tv.

Heath
12-08-2006, 07:16 AM
I think Arlen Specter has a little problem with the words 'capitalist society'. I think the NFL has had the right idea with TV all long.

See, Yach, the NFL gets PAID by the networks to show NFL games. Before 1961, the NFL teams did their own deals. Most used CBS. A couple used NBC. The Browns had their own deal with a entity called the Sports Network. As a result, some non-league cities were getting 4 games a day.

If ther NFL reverted back, the millions lost in revenue from networks and advertising would probably be very noticable. However, as a Browns fan, I'll be watching all 16 games here in Dayton.

MrCinatit
12-08-2006, 07:34 AM
Dear Arlen: please stay away from sports.
Thank you.

Yachtzee
12-08-2006, 09:15 AM
If ther NFL reverted back, the millions lost in revenue from networks and advertising would probably be very noticable. However, as a Browns fan, I'll be watching all 16 games here in Dayton.

But would you though? The owners still cling to archaic blackout rules. Who's to say that they wouldn't adopt the same "market area" approach used by MLB, then force those "out of market" fans to buy the now available everywhere "Sunday Ticket." In such a situation, its likely that Dayton, in spite of the fact that it has a sizeable number of Browns fans, is made part of the Cincinnati Market.

BuckWoody
12-08-2006, 09:41 AM
But would you though? The owners still cling to archaic blackout rules. Who's to say that they wouldn't adopt the same "market area" approach used by MLB, then force those "out of market" fans to buy the now available everywhere "Sunday Ticket." In such a situation, its likely that Dayton, in spite of the fact that it has a sizeable number of Browns fans, is made part of the Cincinnati Market.
If they would do it anywhere near the same as MLB does it, Dayton would be in the Cincinnati market, Cleveland market, Indianapolis market, Detroit market, Chicago market, Pittsburgh market, and the Tennessee market. Did I miss any?

registerthis
12-08-2006, 09:44 AM
If they would do it anywhere near the same as MLB does it, Dayton would be in the Cincinnati market, Cleveland market, Indianapolis market, Detroit market, Chicago market, Pittsburgh market, and the Tennessee market. Did I miss any?

I'm sure they'd find a way to include Philadelphia and Washington in there, too.

Heath
12-08-2006, 11:23 AM
But would you though? The owners still cling to archaic blackout rules. Who's to say that they wouldn't adopt the same "market area" approach used by MLB, then force those "out of market" fans to buy the now available everywhere "Sunday Ticket." In such a situation, its likely that Dayton, in spite of the fact that it has a sizeable number of Browns fans, is made part of the Cincinnati Market.

Depends if they use the pre-1961 TV Method. That would be the way the MLB used to do. Each team had a TV Network and they sold the rights to other stations.

So, let's say the flagship station for the Bengals TV network was Ch. 5. They could use Ch. 2 in Dayton, Ch. 13 in Indianapolis, Ch. 6 in Columbus, Ch. 27 in Lexington, etc. Cleveland could use Ch.8, then use Ch. 27 in Youngstown, Ch. 10 in Columbus, Ch. 7 in Dayton, Ch. 35 in Lima, Ch. 11 in Toledo. Indianapolis could use Ch. 8 in Indianapolis, Ch. 22 in Dayton, Ch. whatevers in Terre Haute, Ft. Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, etc.

Then as a premium you get the Sunday Ticket, albiet at a reduced price. I would also think that you would still have national coverage on Sunday nights and all playoffs.

I would think the local channels would be all over this. Some channel in Dayton would absolutely go bonkers knowing that 16 Browns games on TV. The same as one channel in Dayton that would go bonkers over Bengals games every week as well as another station that would find value in the Colts games. Local TV ratings would go through the roof. Ch. 7 in Dayton still says the Browns still have equal or better ratings than Bengals games do.


But, the NFL lobbyists are ready for it. It would never happen.

BTW - you can thank the old AFL for the present TV contract. ABC bought the first AFL TV contract for 1960-1964. Art Modell and the NFL saw value (read: Dollar Signs) in an umbrella coverage of football TV.

Yachtzee
12-08-2006, 12:20 PM
That would be nice if the owners were willing to let other team's games air in "their" market. But I suspect that if they couldn't have the umbrella coverage they have today, the owners would carve up exclusive market areas so that people in Dayton, if they wanted to see football, either watch the Bengals on TV or get their behinds down to the stadium. There's no way owners would allow a competing football game to be aired at the same time they have a game, especially if it's a home game. The owners still cling to archaic blackout rules that prevent one network from airing a game if the other network is airing the home team's game. You might see the type of coverage you suggest, but only in cities that can't be claimed by one or the other team (Columbus, for example). I just can't image Mike Brown allowing Browns games to be shown in Dayton when the Bengals have a home game in Cincinnati.

Honestly, I don't think it happens either. I think the NFL will lobby hard on senators having NFL teams in their state to keep the exemption.

Interestingly enough, relating to your comment about the AFL, my dad and uncles were born and raised in Troy. Before the AFL and the Bengals, they didn't have much interest in football. But once the AFL games started airing, they got caught up in the exciting style of play. When the Bengals came in as an AFL expansion team, they jumped on board right away. My dad still waxes poetic about the old AFL.

Heath
12-08-2006, 12:43 PM
But therein lies the issue, Yachtzee. The black-out rule would also be threatened. There wasn't blackout rules until the 1961-1962 seasons for network football. In fact, ABC, then NBC showed AFL doubleheaders EVERY Sunday no matter where.

What scares the league is the major loss of revenue. If the teams were allowed to set up their own individual networks, thats where the baseball similarities start.

Mike Brown probably couldn't stop Browns games from Dayton, but Randy Lerner probably wouldn't stop Bengals games from airing in Mansfield for instance. The Bengals currently have a radio network precesence in NE Ohio in Canton/Massillon. You have to maximize profit and reach.