"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.
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?
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!"
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?
hellapuckboy and grum@work Write your Congressman. Join the crowd of unsatisfied viewers.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Do you honestly think there's a congresscritter out there who wants to get the NFL network and can't?
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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! ;-)
I could have sworn this thread was about the Patriots-Giants game.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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 replying
That 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.
Or italics. For the love of god, ITALICS.
jerseygirl, shouldn't that be: Or italics. For the love of god, ITALICS.
Who's Italian? Cave_man?
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.
That makes me feel much better about the fact that I have to work on Sunday.
Don't worry, at least New Yorkers can enjoy a healthy dose of Detroit Lions football in the afternoon.
I think that every single post that was made centered around the topic. Does that include all the posts about public servants and congress?
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?
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.
LBB - both games are on the Fox Early game map
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.
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.
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.
