04/19/24
December 27, 2007
Patriots/Giants Game to be simulcast on NBC, CBS and NFL Network.: Adweek adds (no pun intended) to the story through the lens of their industry.
How much would we have to pay to get someone from the NFL to come run the NHL? I'll chip in $10.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:15 AM on December 27, 2007
Funny how Congress can get the ball rolling (so to speak) when subtle pressure is applied- anti-trust exemption. I didn't see it in the article, however the St. Louis Post quoted commissioner Goodell "We have taken this extraodinary step because it is in the best interest of the fans". Ya, and I would take this opportunity to sell the Jefferson Barracks Bridge to the higest bidder. Give me a break!
posted by Nakeman at 11:20 AM on December 27, 2007
Tough business decision for the NFL; allowing the entire country to watch one of the biggest games of the season, from the biggest market in the country. Hope they don't suffer too badly from this choice!
posted by dyams at 12:30 PM on December 27, 2007
Um, my question is this, why are congressman involved in this? Which effing part of the constitution is this violating!? Unbelievable that people think it's okay for them to do this. That's why our country is so damn out-of-control, because everyone thinks that it's just fine to force others to do their bidding, as long as it works out in their favor. To be honest, I've had enough of this crap. It'd be nice to live in a truly free country, but as long as the congressional mafia can strong-arm people to their will, and the boorish masses think it to be just great, it will never be. What's the difference between the government and the mafia? The government flies flags outside their buildings.
posted by hellapuckboy at 12:50 PM on December 27, 2007
hellapuckboy: I offer you an invitation to become educated on the topic of anti-trust exemptions in professional sport. Perhaps what you learn will inspire you in the future to do your own research on topics of interest and come to informed conclusions, rather than foaming at the mouth over something you clearly have little understanding of and making yourself look foolish.
posted by Adept at 12:58 PM on December 27, 2007
It'd be nice to live in a truly free country, but as long as the congressional mafia can strong-arm people to their will, and the boorish masses think it to be just great, it will never be. What's the difference between the government and the mafia? The government flies flags outside their buildings. I guess the Congress made them an "offer they couldn't refuse". This is about greed of the owners, which is not necessary at bad thing (fad in to Micheal Douglas in Wall Street), after all, this country is based on greed. Please answer this for me would you? What about people who can't afford Dish/Direct TV or the NFL Network? Should they left out in the cold, or you may have the opinion if these poor slobs can't afford to watch this game, to bad, however in the holiday season I suspect many persons would consider your opinion uncharitable.
posted by Nakeman at 01:08 PM on December 27, 2007
Hey Adept, the congressman threatened the NFL with reviewing their anti-trust exemption, so maybe you need to study. Also, I find it very funny that you link me to the USAToday, because a newspaper reporter knows everything. I was expecting a link to a copy of the constitution, only to find you get all of your pertinent info from the USAToday. I'll be rofl until New Year's Day over that.
posted by hellapuckboy at 01:34 PM on December 27, 2007
I'm missing what this has to do with the Constitution. Did I miss somebody invoking the Constitution in reference to the NFL's wanting to air this only on the NFL network?
posted by jmd82 at 01:42 PM on December 27, 2007
the congressman threatened the NFL with reviewing their anti-trust exemption, so maybe you need to study Did I miss the part where the NFL got an anti-trust exemption?
posted by yerfatma at 01:53 PM on December 27, 2007
Did I miss the part where the NFL got an anti-trust exemption Congress threatened to examine anti-trust exemptions for negotiating contracts with networks for TV rights.
posted by Nakeman at 02:01 PM on December 27, 2007
Imagine how steamed the folks at WWOR must be. They had the exclusive over-the-air rights to the telecast before Goodell's knees weakened.
posted by jjzucal at 02:13 PM on December 27, 2007
I do believe that anti-trust provisions come foremost from the Sherman Act. If you need it to be tied to the Constitution, Congress' role is established to be that of legislation, and Section 8 of the Constitution allows them "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the powers enumerated in Section 8 (most relevant to this case, the power to regulate commerce). This means that items legislated do not need to be explicitly defined in the Constitution. Considering the fact that the Sherman Act has not been ruled unconstitutional by the Judiciary (see System of Checks and Balances), despite it pissing a lot of people off and having been enacted in 1890, it is fair to assume that anti-trust legislation is within the realm of Congress without having to break out law texts. Their threat to remove the NFL's exemption status is also within the scope of duty of congresspeople, as their constituents likely clamored and rose attention to the issue. I'm not going to perpetuate the notion that America is an unfettered democracy, but if you want your Congress representatives to be focusing on other issues, start calling them and getting people behind you. Regardless, Congress is well within their rights to meddle here. Hopefully that will settle the question of the constitutionality of Congress' action. And hellapuckboy, regarding the USA Today comment, there were three other sources that were linked to as well. And no, reporters don't know everything, but those in well-regarded publications tend to know a thing or two and aren't a poor source from which to begin research.
posted by PublicUrinal at 02:14 PM on December 27, 2007
Ah, I see: other sports just have anti-trust exemptions regarding broadcast laws.
posted by yerfatma at 02:20 PM on December 27, 2007
"I was expecting a link to a copy of the constitution, only to find you get all of your pertinent info from the USAToday. I'll be rofl until New Year's Day over that. posted by hellapuckboy at 1:34 PM CST on December 27" Cave_man replies: A clause in the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to regulate all commerce. Professional football is a commercial venture.
posted by Cave_Man at 02:34 PM on December 27, 2007
PU, I'm sure the congressmen had their constituents in mind when they left the stallion's head on the pillow next to Mr. Goodell. I'm sure that they would never do anything that may be a little self-serving. I focused on the USAToday, because, in Adept's response, that one specifically mentioned anti-trust. Again, I am sick of congress making people bend to their will. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption, and they were threatened with a review of it. Well, why haven't they threatened the cable companies with action over it? They are not exempt and they are the a-holes who aren't offering the network people want to watch. Hmmm, I guess the congressmen wouldn't get quite the star power with that though, would they? One more thing, if this is a problem, then what about the fact that I can't get NFL or MLB packages from anyone but DirecTV? When are we going to threaten them over this? Why stop there? I can't get any soccer except on GolTv, better go after them too! And the only channel showing the early rounds of the majors in tennis is the USA Network, and I only have local channels. I WANT THEIR HEADS! Where does it end?
posted by hellapuckboy at 02:34 PM on December 27, 2007
Please answer this for me would you? What about people who can't afford Dish/Direct TV or the NFL Network? Should they left out in the cold, or you may have the opinion if these poor slobs can't afford to watch this game, to bad, however in the holiday season I suspect many persons would consider your opinion uncharitable. Yes. They should be left out in the cold. This isn't food, water or shelter. It's entertainment. This logic should then be applied to really popular movies. Maybe Congress should apply some legislative strong-arm tactics to the Hollywood studios (and cinema owners) to make sure the fourth Indiana Jones movie ticket prices be slashed to $1/person. That way "poor slobs" can afford to watch this movie. Comcast (not Dish) cable systems and NFL Network made a financial agreement to broadcast specific games that wouldn't be available to those without Comcast/NFL network access? Why? So they could sell the package to people at a premium and make a profit. I'm not sure why Congress (regardless of anti-trust exemptions) should suddenly decide that this arrangement isn't any good, when I'm absolutely positive they knew about it when it was first signed. This isn't about "anti-trust". This is about members of Congress trying to score some brownie points with their constituents on what is a very silly issue. Next in line for the complainers: "Why can't I watch ESPN Classic for free? Why should I have to pay money to watch that channel? Somebody should do something about this!"
posted by grum@work at 02:42 PM on December 27, 2007
Lol grum, I think you and I are very much in agreement, as you can see in my previous post. It actually wasn't posted 8 minutes before yours, but more like 2, because I got called away for a minute. You get 2 thumbs up from me! Does that scare you?
posted by hellapuckboy at 02:49 PM on December 27, 2007
hellapuckboy and grum@work Write your Congressman. Join the crowd of unsatisfied viewers.
posted by Nakeman at 02:51 PM on December 27, 2007
Again, this is not an unfettered democracy. Congress has been pressuring both cable companies and the NFL to get an agreement done. The reason the NFL was given the exemption status is because Congress decided (right or wrong) that the NFL could operate more effectively without having Congress look over their shoulders. The arrangement has worked alright, but when constituents start to complain, then Congress needs to re-assess whether that exemption continues to serve its purpose. Beyond ideological discussions, I would instead argue that Congress has more leverage against the NFL than cable companies, given the present leanings of the FCC. In the present political climate, I would offer that constituents are generally easy to appease, and giving them this one game was probably deemed to be enough. Of course, there are plenty of other factors to consider (Comcast and Time Warner have been among the top-3 Broadcast Media contributors for the present and past two federal election cycles), so there are plenty of self-serving interests floating about, but I would characterize this as a motion to swiftly appease constituents above a self-serving move to punish the NFL (the fight between cable companies and the NFL Network continues; it is this one game that the NFL Network has been forced to sacrifice). Without getting overly political, how often have you really seen Congress bend big commerce of late -- really? Lastly, I maintain that linking to USA Today to help one digest complex legislation is hardly encroaching on poor resource management.
posted by PublicUrinal at 02:57 PM on December 27, 2007
I think you missed the point, Nake. I would hope my congressmen would have more to worry about than what I am able to watch on TV. But really, this discussion has digressed. This is supposed to be about sports, isn't it?
posted by hellapuckboy at 02:58 PM on December 27, 2007
I would hope my congressmen would have more to worry about than what I am able to watch on TV. This I can agree with wholeheartedly. However, it is the Congressperson's job to listen to their constituents, and their action was within the scope of their duty -- and that is my point.
posted by PublicUrinal at 03:03 PM on December 27, 2007
Ok PU, I will concede that, but it's unfortunate that people care more about an effing football game and will pressure their congressmen into action over it, when there are far more important things to deal with in this country. Where is the pressure from the constituents over these things? For instance, the education systems of this country are atrocious. The constituents can get immediate action over a football game, and nothing has been done about education? This is why I think this move is self-serving. Most of congress send their children to private school and therefore do not care about public schools, but everyone of them have a tv (maybe without the NFL Network?). Also, this gets lots of publicity. One more though before I stop: congress is made up of public servants, and I would like to know if you can name me one other servant who makes a six-figure salary?
posted by hellapuckboy at 03:12 PM on December 27, 2007
I don't have NFL Network myself (I"ll be at work). Was going to listen on radio. It can be quite enjoyable with proper announcer, that paints a picture with his voice, but not many of the old guys still around anymore. Getting back to the topic at hand. See your point, sure, however don't agree with NFL Network tactics why football package is not on cable. Like I said before, it all about greed, and when it comes to the almighty dollars some people get left off the economic gravy train or viewing train , if you will. Does Congress need to stick their noses in something that a few of the contributors on this sport blog think is none of their business. Probably, but Congress is funny about what they think is or is not their business. Complaining about Congress blackmailing the NFL Network seems a bit harsh, but there are alternatives to stating your negative opinions about Congress at this site. I'll reiterate and write to your Congressman about their strong armed tactics used on NFL Network or about not getting to view the Pats, Giants game. The escalators goes both ways.
posted by Nakeman at 03:28 PM on December 27, 2007
Do you honestly think there's a congresscritter out there who wants to get the NFL network and can't?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:28 PM on December 27, 2007
Sorry, but neither Leahy or Specter are my servants. As far as I have found, none of my servants strong-armed the NFL. By the way, do you think either Leahy or Specter is good with a bat? And l_b_b, it depends on what company they use, doesn't it?
posted by hellapuckboy at 03:35 PM on December 27, 2007
"Fixing" a nation's education system is a far bigger endeavor (not merely infrastructural, but also in having different congressmen fight to bring as much "bacon" home as possible and quipping over ideological differences) than telling a sports league that already receives plenty of perks that they have to broadcast one game nationwide. Again, not arguing priorities are right here, nor that their actions are not self-serving, but simply that it is a much easier endeavor to accomplish in a short span of time that will please a fair number of constituents. As for public servants making six-figure salaries, there are actually plenty of them. But since you only require one example, the Supreme Court Chief Justice made roughly $208,000 in 2004. High-ranking military officers, district judges, and members of the President's cabinet are all among public servants making six figures.
posted by PublicUrinal at 03:39 PM on December 27, 2007
PU, I didn't mean another public servant. We all know public servants are well paid. I meant any other kind of servant (excluding public). Sorry for the confusion, but the point I was trying to make is that these people are not servants at all. Unless you would like to refer to them as self-servants. I guess that might work. :-) As for education, I wasn't asking for a quick-fix, but the education system has been in a decline for years. The last time I checked, "years" wouldn't be considered immediate action. I know that sounded a little smart-alecky, but I'm so tired right now, I couldn't come up with anything more tactful. Sorry. Btw PU, did I mention that I truly love the name?
posted by hellapuckboy at 03:48 PM on December 27, 2007
I'm not sure about the servant tag on members of Congress. Servants are paid a salary after they are hired. However, representatives are paid a salary after they are elected. So, if these, "servants ", are not living up to your expectations- don't vote for them, or do something to convey your displeasure. This is Democracy- maybe not perfect, but I can't think of one other place I would rather be born or reside. Don't take my word for it, see the immigrations rolls for foreigner trying to enter this country. If you don't want to take advantage of the rights. I don't see what your complaining about. My advise is to call, write, fax or carrier pigeon your displeasure to Congress and if enough of your compatriots do lightwise, believe something will be done about your complaints.
posted by Nakeman at 03:54 PM on December 27, 2007
Nake, you don't know me, so why do you automatically assume that I voted for any of these fools? And they are elected to serve the public, hence they are public servants. And for the record, I served in the armed forces because I realize that we have it good, but congress is out of control. It's why I support people like Ron Paul. Now, may we PLEASE go back to talking sports?
posted by hellapuckboy at 04:04 PM on December 27, 2007
And l_b_b, it depends on what company they use, doesn't it? I think that only goes for those with cable. Satellite is always an option (and for some of us, it's the only option, which is why I have NFLN. A lot of boring, unsexy, worthwhile stuff goes through Congress. Your newspaper just doesn't report on it. Spofi doesn't tend to either. Something to think about before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:07 PM on December 27, 2007
I'm glad that they decided to put in on regular T.V.Patriots fans here in the Boston area and elsewhere who don't have the NFL Network,myself included, wouldn't be able to watch the game.Within the next five years,you'll probably have to have the NFL Network,or maybe even pay per view,to watch the Super Bowl.Just another way for the NFL to make money.As far as Congress and the political side of this,I don't even want to touch.Just glad that they got involved and did the right thing so we get to watch what is,besides the Super Bowl,the biggest game of the year,at least from a Pats fan point of view.I'm sure there's people out there who don't give a f--k either way.
posted by Ghastly1 at 04:18 PM on December 27, 2007
A lot of boring, unsexy, worthwhile stuff goes through Congress. Congress does something worthwhile? Nobody told me! ;-) I realize that everything congress does isn't reported upon, but just know that congress does a lot of petty, useless things as well. Such as, strong-arming the NFL into showing a game that is, in the grand scheme of things, unimportant. Also, for every good thing in a bill, there's usually several bad. Our congress should all have high cholestrol, 'cause they sure like their pork. And dammit, I did it again! Please...Sports...now?
posted by hellapuckboy at 04:21 PM on December 27, 2007
hellapuckboy-ok, I agree with you, Congress has no business interfering with sport programing. You brought it up, that Congress, should be on other priorites besides telling the NFL Network what to do... all I did, was give you a alternative to bring your complaints to their attention. Also, bringing up the horse head after my quote "offer they can't refuse", tells me you are a true American, sport fan, Godfather buff and pissed as hell at Congress.
posted by Nakeman at 04:43 PM on December 27, 2007
Nake, glad we are in agreement. Now, I guess we can go grab a beer, and watch some football tonight. Courtesy of a couple of over-reaching congressman. God bless 'em! ;-)
posted by hellapuckboy at 04:49 PM on December 27, 2007
I could have sworn this thread was about the Patriots-Giants game.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:53 PM on December 27, 2007
Sorry, it was the tired thing, I meant a couple of beers tonight, and while watching football Saturday. It's a lack of sleep thing.
posted by hellapuckboy at 05:08 PM on December 27, 2007
"Within the next five years,you'll probably have to have the NFL Network,or maybe even pay per view,to watch the Super Bowl.Just another way for the NFL to make money.As far as Congress and the political side of this,I don't even want to touch.Just glad that they got involved and did the right thing so we get to watch what is,besides the Super Bowl,the biggest game of the year,at least from a Pats fan point of view.I'm sure there's people out there who don't give a f--k either way. posted by Ghastly1 at 4:18 PM CST on December 27" If the NFL closely study Major League Basebal's results with having divisional game on a pay per view cable system, it would avoid putting big games on pay per view cable (or SAT). Divisional viewing numbers were low, ratings for LCS games and the WS were infinitely better. If the NFL want to "addict" more people to their game it will keep big games accessible to the public.
posted by Cave_Man at 06:58 PM on December 27, 2007
"I could have sworn this thread was about the Patriots-Giants game. posted by irunfromclones at 4:53 PM CST on December 27" Cave_man replies: Read the title of the thread again. It is about how the game will be sumulcasted and how that came about. Unlike some on this thread, I think that every single post that was made centered around the topic.
posted by Cave_Man at 07:03 PM on December 27, 2007
Cave_man replies: We know it's you replying -- your name's on the bottom of the comment. Really, there's no need to type it as well.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:06 PM on December 27, 2007
llb, I think cave_man is just trying to be clear about what he's quoting. cave_man: something I like to do is use the <blockquote> tag along with bolding for the name to denote a quote. For example:
lil_brown_bat: We know it's you replyingThat way, since <blockquote></blockquote> indents the text, you can graphically see who and what you're quoting, so it's clear what is your own thought and what is simply referring to a previous post.
posted by hincandenza at 04:12 AM on December 28, 2007
Or italics. For the love of god, ITALICS.
posted by jerseygirl at 09:24 AM on December 28, 2007
jerseygirl, shouldn't that be: Or italics. For the love of god, ITALICS.
posted by tommybiden at 09:38 AM on December 28, 2007
Who's Italian? Cave_man?
posted by NoMich at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2007
This didn't seem worthy of a new thread, but it's interesting that Sunday afternoon in one of the largest TV markets in the country, the only football option will be 2 lousy teams that are far away from the playoffs (KC/Jets). Meanwhile, one of the few games that has playoff implications has been kindly blacked-out under NFL broadcast rules. Sunday afternoon on CBS Sunday afternoon on FOX Someone really needs to rethink their broadcast policies.
posted by kokaku at 11:09 AM on December 28, 2007
That makes me feel much better about the fact that I have to work on Sunday.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2007
Don't worry, at least New Yorkers can enjoy a healthy dose of Detroit Lions football in the afternoon.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:33 PM on December 28, 2007
I think that every single post that was made centered around the topic. Does that include all the posts about public servants and congress?
posted by irunfromclones at 12:45 PM on December 28, 2007
How bizarre - I was about to reply to YYM's comment so I checked the maps. It's been updated - the Dal/Was game is now being shown on Fox. Never let it be said that posting on Sportsfilter is like screaming into a hurricane?
posted by kokaku at 03:04 PM on December 28, 2007
The maps show Minnesota @ Denver also being shown on Fox and (as of now) the other two afternoon games with playoff possibilities (NO-CHI, SF-CLE) not being shown anywhere. Doesn't make sense to me.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:34 PM on December 28, 2007
LBB - both games are on the Fox Early game map
posted by kokaku at 04:11 PM on December 28, 2007
This isn't about "anti-trust". This is about members of Congress trying to score some brownie points with their constituents on what is a very silly issue. I don't agree. The only reason the NFL is allowed to sell these ridiculously profitable television packages is because Congress passed a law giving them a specific exemption to do so. Otherwise, every team would have to individually develop broadcast deals on their own (with no collusion). Congress presumably did this with the understanding that the games would be broadcast in places that folks could actually see them. There was a hearing on this in November 2006, so this isn't that new of an issue. If the antitrust exemption isn't furthering competition and access, then Congress should consider taking this benefit away. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
posted by bperk at 04:22 PM on December 28, 2007
If that was the case, bperk, why didn't they complain about all the other games that were only available on Comcast/NFL Network? Or before the broadcasting began? The problem I have with actually believing it really is an "anti-trust" issue is that it only mattered when the most people (constituents in the right area) complained.
posted by grum@work at 05:40 PM on December 28, 2007
Interesting note if you missed it at the end of the AdWeek link... In the Boston market, there's an agreement to have the NFL network broadcasts simulcasted on our local ABC affiliate... so the Patriots game will on all three of the major networks (WBZ/CBS 4, WCVB/ABC 5 and WHDH/NBC 7) during primetime as well as the NFL network if you have it.
posted by jerseygirl at 08:46 PM on December 28, 2007
From the Adweek link: ... All of the telecasts will air the same commercials being televised on the NFL Network. Prior to this agreement, the NFL Network had been selling its remaining commercial inventory in the game for north of $200,000 per 30-second spot, more than double its regular rate, because of the added broadcast station exposure in the Boston and New York markets. Advertisers that bought in at that rate, or at the network's regular lower rate, will now get a windfall of over-delivery of viewers. ...