BuffaloWings Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 So much for watching the game. I'm at my mother's house for the holliday and she has the NFL network (via a cable provider, not dish). However, when the game was getting ready to start a screen came up saying, "if you are watching the NFL network in the US your cable provider has chosen to show any NFL primetime games to its subscribers. You will not be able to see any of the 8 primetime games..." I wasn't aware that there were people who had the NFL network that wouldn't be able to see the games. Does anybody else have this issue? Thankfully this is the only week I'll have to deal with this (well, other than Christmas) but it's annoying none-the-less. 846650[/snapback] Are you saying that the game isn't being shown through the cable providers that actually carry the network?!?!??!? So....in order to watch the game, one MUST have a dish? I hope I'm interpreting that incorrectly.
ExWNYer Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Marshall Faulk is terrible on the sidelines... 846649[/snapback] Nobody...well, very few...are worse than Bryant Gumbel and Chris Collinsworth. What the hell were they thinking when they selected these two pompous windbags??! It's hard to believe that a professional like Greg Gumbel is related to a jagov like Bryant. And Collinsworth? It just amazes me that he continues to be employed on several fronts. Ugh! Future games might have to be with the TV sound down and the Sirius satellite broadcast on in the background. Are you saying that the game isn't being shown through the cable providers that actually carry the network?!?!??!? So....in order to watch the game, one MUST have a dish?I hope I'm interpreting that incorrectly. 846796[/snapback] You are interpreting it incorrectly. The telecast was only available in about 1/3 of possible homes. DirecTV and Dish Network offer the channel as part of their package. Some cable providers, such as Charter and Time Warner, do not at the moment. They're resisting putting it on anything other than a digital sports tier. Operators don't want to pay a per-subscriber fee that keeps escalating because of the inclusion of these games. The cable companies say if they pay that rate, it will more or less mean price hikes for everyone, including those subscribers who don't care about football. Here in Richmond, NFL Network is available thru our cable system, Comcast, if you purchase the "digital tier" level of programming. If you subscribe at a lesser level you're SOL.
R. Rich Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 While I do like Bryant Gumbel as a journalist, he didn't seem a really good fit for the booth. He was almost the anti Kevin Harlan or Mike Patrick, seeming a bit bored w/ the whole deal. Of course, the game itself wasn't all that, either.
BuffaloWings Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 You are interpreting it incorrectly. The telecast was only available in about 1/3 of possible homes. DirecTV and Dish Network offer the channel as part of their package. Some cable providers, such as Charter and Time Warner, do not at the moment. They're resisting putting it on anything other than a digital sports tier. Operators don't want to pay a per-subscriber fee that keeps escalating because of the inclusion of these games. The cable companies say if they pay that rate, it will more or less mean price hikes for everyone, including those subscribers who don't care about football. Here in Richmond, NFL Network is available thru our cable system, Comcast, if you purchase the "digital tier" level of programming. If you subscribe at a lesser level you're SOL. 846815[/snapback] I understand the debate/controversy, but I was confused by the statement MDH made earlier regarding the message on the screen immediately before last night's game started: "if you are watching the NFL network in the US your cable provider has chosen to show any NFL primetime games to its subscribers. You will not be able to see any of the 8 primetime games..." This says to me that *ALL* of the US cable subscribers have decided NOT to show the game on NFL Network - which I know isn't true. But it sounded as if the cable providers decided not to broadcast their games....I'd like some clarification on what that statement means. Nevertheless, I'm with the cable companies on this one - I don't see why NFLN should "force" a provider to put their network on a basic cable package. If the NFL is worried about getting the games to the entire country, they wouldn't have put these games on their own (relatively inaccessible) network.
JimBob2232 Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 I understand the debate/controversy, but I was confused by the statement MDH made earlier regarding the message on the screen immediately before last night's game started: "if you are watching the NFL network in the US your cable provider has chosen to show any NFL primetime games to its subscribers. You will not be able to see any of the 8 primetime games..." This says to me that *ALL* of the US cable subscribers have decided NOT to show the game on NFL Network - which I know isn't true. But it sounded as if the cable providers decided not to broadcast their games....I'd like some clarification on what that statement means. Nevertheless, I'm with the cable companies on this one - I don't see why NFLN should "force" a provider to put their network on a basic cable package. If the NFL is worried about getting the games to the entire country, they wouldn't have put these games on their own (relatively inaccessible) network. 846863[/snapback] I have heard of others haveing this issue as well. Some of those with this problem were able to view the game on TSN, presumably if they were living in canadia.
SoulMan Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 I understand the debate/controversy, but I was confused by the statement MDH made earlier regarding the message on the screen immediately before last night's game started: "if you are watching the NFL network in the US your cable provider has chosen to show any NFL primetime games to its subscribers. You will not be able to see any of the 8 primetime games..." This says to me that *ALL* of the US cable subscribers have decided NOT to show the game on NFL Network - which I know isn't true. But it sounded as if the cable providers decided not to broadcast their games....I'd like some clarification on what that statement means. Nevertheless, I'm with the cable companies on this one - I don't see why NFLN should "force" a provider to put their network on a basic cable package. If the NFL is worried about getting the games to the entire country, they wouldn't have put these games on their own (relatively inaccessible) network. 846863[/snapback] Good comments all. What is especially noticable throughtout is a trend that the NFL is pushing hard. Many more games (frequently the best ones) are on subscriber media. Seems it is a core strategy of the NFL "suck every last dollar out" strategy. If the trend continues, we have to wonder what will be left on "free" tv - though it's hard to imagine cable companies coming up with the billions from networks. NFL ticket is already over priced with fewer games and an extra hit for HD. The only conclusion is that we'll continue to pay more for less.
Marv Levy Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Oh, I almost forgot the big one...Where the heck is the yellow first down line?! 846639[/snapback] Real fans don't need yellow first down markers! Overall, this game was pretty boring. I'm surprised DEN played like garbage. They are a better team then that pitiful display. I fell asleep during the 3rd. Musta been all the turkey eats!
MDH Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 I understand the debate/controversy, but I was confused by the statement MDH made earlier regarding the message on the screen immediately before last night's game started: "if you are watching the NFL network in the US your cable provider has chosen to show any NFL primetime games to its subscribers. You will not be able to see any of the 8 primetime games..." This says to me that *ALL* of the US cable subscribers have decided NOT to show the game on NFL Network - which I know isn't true. But it sounded as if the cable providers decided not to broadcast their games....I'd like some clarification on what that statement means. Nevertheless, I'm with the cable companies on this one - I don't see why NFLN should "force" a provider to put their network on a basic cable package. If the NFL is worried about getting the games to the entire country, they wouldn't have put these games on their own (relatively inaccessible) network. 846863[/snapback] We called her cable provider and spoke to someone there. Apparently the game was supposed to be on but for some reason they were having trouble with the feed from NFL network. She said their engineers were "working on it" but we didn't get to see a single down of the game. I ended up watching the BC/Miami game insead.
daquixers_is_back Posted December 8, 2006 Author Posted December 8, 2006 I didnt want to bring this thread back but ... it seems like this game got even worse than the last two. The announcing is just bad ... sounds like im playing Madden.
DPR4444 Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 gumbel sounds... confused? tons of empty seats too = is there a blizzard warning in the area? i mean, these are the reigning Super Bowl Champs, right?
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 HATE THE NFL NETWORK. Not only are the games bad and hardly anyone get it, but the announcers are not that great.
Dan Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 I gotta say I like these guys announcing. They're not flashy; they're just talking about the game and the players in it. That's all I want. It seems like there's a trend to make the announcer's bigger than the game and have them constantly ramble on about any useless crap they can spill out, complete with stupid jokes and celebrity appearances. I actually appreciate 2 guys just talking about the game that's being played. They aren't the center of the broadcast and shouldn't be.
DPR4444 Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 I actually appreciate 2 guys just talking about the game that's being played. They aren't the center of the broadcast and shouldn't be. 860070[/snapback] i agree, but Gumbel seems off his game tonight
zow2 Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 When Gumbel started relaying a "cute" story as told to him by the Browns QB, i started laughing. Dude, you cannot refer to any story as told by an NFL player on an NFL telecast as "CUTE". This isn't The Today Show. You could almost hear Collinsworth snickering in the background.
The Poojer Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 I like Gumbel and Collinsworth, it was funny last nite Gumbel mistakenly calling Santonio Holmes "San Antonio" When Gumbel started relaying a "cute" story as told to him by the Browns QB, i started laughing. Dude, you cannot refer to any story as told by an NFL player on an NFL telecast as "CUTE". This isn't The Today Show. You could almost hear Collinsworth snickering in the background. 860324[/snapback]
ganesh Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 gumbel sounds... confused? tons of empty seats too = is there a blizzard warning in the area? i mean, these are the reigning Super Bowl Champs, right? 860056[/snapback] I was at that game yesterday.....the weather was horrible.....and it got worse as the night went.... They are the superbowl champs but won't be making the playoffs....
stuckincincy Posted December 8, 2006 Posted December 8, 2006 I was at that game yesterday.....the weather was horrible.....and it got worse as the night went.... They are the superbowl champs but won't be making the playoffs.... 860451[/snapback] It must have been brutal. When I lived in PGH and would travel back to Buffalo, that stretch of Cleveland - Erie - Northeast, etc. was terrible what with the lake effect snow, cold, and white-out conditions. Ugh.
Recommended Posts