Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your feelings on NFL Networks game coverage?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
    I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


    I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
    Congress has no business being involved in it.

    And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

    Comment


    • #17
      Gumbel sucks azz but I'm not complaining cause it's football.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by yourfavestoner
        Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
        I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


        I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
        Congress has no business being involved in it.

        And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

        Congress is getting involved to thwart the monopolistic tendencies that the NFL Network is giving the NFL. If NFL Network was a regular cable channel this is not an issue, but the NFL has is as a premium channel. Not to mention that the NFL airing its games takes away games from channels with TV contracts thus another conflict. I, myself, have NFL Network with my digital cable but I would be in rage if I could get coverage of these moronic Thursday and Saturday night games. The NFL is pushing the envelope too far on the supply and demand concept and need to work out some sort of fair deal with all these various cable companies. And fire Gumbel and Collinsworth, Marshal and Deion were far superior and those other 2 buffoons make it hard to watch the game in peace.

        Magical sig by OSUGiants

        SSAEL....... its a new revolution!


        Originally posted by Job
        On another note, Nicklas Backstrom is amazingly good.
        Meanwhile, in hockey the other night, the Washington Capitals' Eric Belanger gets hit with a stick, loses EIGHT teeth, has an instant root canal in the locker room, comes back out and PLAYS and never says boo.

        So new rule, NBA: Unless you have a root canal at halftime, SHUT UP AND PLAY!

        Comment


        • #19
          Production and stuff, awesome. Commentating, yucky.

          I'll give them a B. They do a very good job with the production (graphics, stats, camera work, etc) but Gumble is soooooo bad. He makes Joe Buck sound like Keith Jackson. :shock:


          Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

          Originally posted by JBCX
          Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

          Comment


          • #20
            yep

            Whoever said that Deion and Marshall did an excellent job when Vermeil went out is absolutely right. I am by no means an expert on football strategy but very rarely do I ever learn something new from the announcers. During that game Deion and Marshall made some excellent comments on subtle aspects of plays that I've never noticed before. They would be great as announcers. Someone give them a contract.

            Sig by fenikz! Cheers!
            Originally posted by Scott Wright
            Mr. Dukes comes from the Michael Irvin "talk loud and maybe people will think I know what I am talking about" school of football analysis.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: yep

              Originally posted by Komp
              Whoever said that Deion and Marshall did an excellent job when Vermeil went out is absolutely right. I am by no means an expert on football strategy but very rarely do I ever learn something new from the announcers. During that game Deion and Marshall made some excellent comments on subtle aspects of plays that I've never noticed before. They would be great as announcers. Someone give them a contract.
              I said that and I think that they should be the announcers for the NFL Network in a couple years and that is only because Faulk isn't even retired yet. Once he retires, if they are both still working for the NFL Network they should get them signed up to be in the booth along with someone who is a solid play-by-play guy who doesn't talk much about players just what is happening during the play and once it is over turns it over to Deion and Marshall. Just get Gumbel out of there and eventually Collinsworth who isn't as bad as Gumbel by comparison but still pretty bad. Deion and Marshall for president!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BigDawg819
                Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
                I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


                I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
                Congress has no business being involved in it.

                And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

                Congress is getting involved to thwart the monopolistic tendencies that the NFL Network is giving the NFL. If NFL Network was a regular cable channel this is not an issue, but the NFL has is as a premium channel. Not to mention that the NFL airing its games takes away games from channels with TV contracts thus another conflict. I, myself, have NFL Network with my digital cable but I would be in rage if I could get coverage of these moronic Thursday and Saturday night games. The NFL is pushing the envelope too far on the supply and demand concept and need to work out some sort of fair deal with all these various cable companies. And fire Gumbel and Collinsworth, Marshal and Deion were far superior and those other 2 buffoons make it hard to watch the game in peace.
                The NFL is a business, and it’s a business that’s been giving away its product for a lot of years, and that wasn’t by choice, it was by an act of Congress. How many other American businesses have been forced to give away their product?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                  Originally posted by BigDawg819
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                  Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
                  I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


                  I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
                  Congress has no business being involved in it.

                  And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

                  Congress is getting involved to thwart the monopolistic tendencies that the NFL Network is giving the NFL. If NFL Network was a regular cable channel this is not an issue, but the NFL has is as a premium channel. Not to mention that the NFL airing its games takes away games from channels with TV contracts thus another conflict. I, myself, have NFL Network with my digital cable but I would be in rage if I could get coverage of these moronic Thursday and Saturday night games. The NFL is pushing the envelope too far on the supply and demand concept and need to work out some sort of fair deal with all these various cable companies. And fire Gumbel and Collinsworth, Marshal and Deion were far superior and those other 2 buffoons make it hard to watch the game in peace.
                  The NFL is a business, and it’s a business that’s been giving away its product for a lot of years, and that wasn’t by choice, it was by an act of Congress. How many other American businesses have been forced to give away their product?



                  How exactly are they giving away there product? They have television contracts and get paid quite handsomely by them. The NFL is not losing money on television rights, they wanted their own network to drive up the prices of the current tv contracts and aren't fooling anyone.

                  Magical sig by OSUGiants

                  SSAEL....... its a new revolution!


                  Originally posted by Job
                  On another note, Nicklas Backstrom is amazingly good.
                  Meanwhile, in hockey the other night, the Washington Capitals' Eric Belanger gets hit with a stick, loses EIGHT teeth, has an instant root canal in the locker room, comes back out and PLAYS and never says boo.

                  So new rule, NBA: Unless you have a root canal at halftime, SHUT UP AND PLAY!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                    The NFL is a business, and it’s a business that’s been giving away its product for a lot of years, and that wasn’t by choice, it was by an act of Congress. How many other American businesses have been forced to give away their product?
                    This is one of the most baffling statements I've ever read on this board.
                    The Brian Sabean sig is no more. I disagreed with you on so many levels. And then you went out and built a dynasty. I am lame.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Bryan Gumbel sucks, other than that, I like it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BigDawg819
                        Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                        Originally posted by BigDawg819
                        Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                        Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
                        I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


                        I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
                        Congress has no business being involved in it.

                        And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

                        Congress is getting involved to thwart the monopolistic tendencies that the NFL Network is giving the NFL. If NFL Network was a regular cable channel this is not an issue, but the NFL has is as a premium channel. Not to mention that the NFL airing its games takes away games from channels with TV contracts thus another conflict. I, myself, have NFL Network with my digital cable but I would be in rage if I could get coverage of these moronic Thursday and Saturday night games. The NFL is pushing the envelope too far on the supply and demand concept and need to work out some sort of fair deal with all these various cable companies. And fire Gumbel and Collinsworth, Marshal and Deion were far superior and those other 2 buffoons make it hard to watch the game in peace.
                        The NFL is a business, and it’s a business that’s been giving away its product for a lot of years, and that wasn’t by choice, it was by an act of Congress. How many other American businesses have been forced to give away their product?



                        How exactly are they giving away there product? They have television contracts and get paid quite handsomely by them. The NFL is not losing money on television rights, they wanted their own network to drive up the prices of the current tv contracts and aren't fooling anyone.
                        Because there was absolutely no reason for the government to interfere, other than a lot of congressmen wanted to see their favorite teams’ home games on TV. Look at it this way: The government has seen no reason to interfere as gas prices skyrocket and oil companies bathe in profits, so how can we justify forcing the NFL to televise its games?

                        Here's the best excerpt I've been able to find on it so far:

                        One of the things I’ve come to understand is how little fans know about the genesis of the TV blackout rule. When I explain it to them, they get a look on their face as though I’m talking a foreign language. The first thing they always ask me is, “What do you mean all home games were blacked out?” That’s how spoiled we’ve become. There are several events in pro football history worthy of research. For those fans who really want to know the history of the game, I recommend “The League,” by David Harris. If there’s one event in NFL history, however, for which I would like fans to develop a fuller understanding and appreciation, it’s the impact of the playoff weekend of Dec. 23-24, 1972. That’s the weekend professional football became the number one sport in the land. The one o’clock playoff game on Dec. 23 was the “Immaculate Reception” and the four o’clock game was Dallas’ fourth-quarter rally behind Roger Staubach to beat San Francisco. That evening, America was pro football crazy. Anywhere you went, it’s all people wanted to talk about. In those days, TV was a desert of entertainment on Christmas weekend. You’d get the Andy Williams holiday show, followed by the Perry Como Christmas show, followed by Lawrence Welk’s Christmas for Senior Citizens show, etc. The pro football playoff games that weekend were a treat the country devoured. Those games were also blacked out in their hometowns because all home games were blacked out back then. We’re talking about a broadcast rule that was sacrosanct to NFL owners. On Dec. 24, Washington hosted a playoff game, which was blacked out, of course, and that sent Congressmen who were angry that they didn’t get to see the Redskins game on TV on a crusade to end TV blackouts of home games that were sold out. The following summer, just before the regular season began, the 1973 Act of Congress was passed, ordering any game that is sold out 72 hours in advance of kickoff be televised to the home market. NFL owners were outraged. They complained bitterly that they were being forced to give away their product. Harris covers the significance of the ’73 Act of Congress thoroughly. That act expired a few years later but the NFL continues to abide by the 72-hour rule. I would like for fans to understand all of this because I’d like them to have an appreciation for the luxury free TV football is. And I would like everyone to understand what the weekend of Dec. 23-24, 1972, meant to the game we love today. That weekend, in my opinion, was the pivot point of the modern era of professional football. More specifically, Dec. 23, 1972 is the day pro football became our national obsession.

                        http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=5207

                        This has nothing to do with the NFL being a monopoly. If Congress really cared about that, they never would have let the AFL and NFL merge. They would have intervened to make sure the USFL didn't completely die out. They would have done something to break the NFL up. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, because without them, the quality of the product would go way down.

                        What this is about is fans getting pissy because they can't watch their favorite team for free.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                          Originally posted by BigDawg819
                          Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                          Originally posted by BigDawg819
                          Originally posted by yourfavestoner
                          Originally posted by Mr. Stiller
                          I'm against the NFL Network because I can't afford the additional channels to get it.


                          I saw a commercial to call your congressman about it earlier.
                          Congress has no business being involved in it.

                          And I think the presentation of the games is really good. Just get some decent announcers in there, and it's a far better product than what CBS/Fox/ESPN put out.

                          Congress is getting involved to thwart the monopolistic tendencies that the NFL Network is giving the NFL. If NFL Network was a regular cable channel this is not an issue, but the NFL has is as a premium channel. Not to mention that the NFL airing its games takes away games from channels with TV contracts thus another conflict. I, myself, have NFL Network with my digital cable but I would be in rage if I could get coverage of these moronic Thursday and Saturday night games. The NFL is pushing the envelope too far on the supply and demand concept and need to work out some sort of fair deal with all these various cable companies. And fire Gumbel and Collinsworth, Marshal and Deion were far superior and those other 2 buffoons make it hard to watch the game in peace.
                          The NFL is a business, and it’s a business that’s been giving away its product for a lot of years, and that wasn’t by choice, it was by an act of Congress. How many other American businesses have been forced to give away their product?



                          How exactly are they giving away there product? They have television contracts and get paid quite handsomely by them. The NFL is not losing money on television rights, they wanted their own network to drive up the prices of the current tv contracts and aren't fooling anyone.
                          Because there was absolutely no reason for the government to interfere, other than a lot of congressmen wanted to see their favorite teams’ home games on TV. Look at it this way: The government has seen no reason to interfere as gas prices skyrocket and oil companies bathe in profits, so how can we justify forcing the NFL to televise its games?

                          Here's the best excerpt I've been able to find on it so far:

                          One of the things I’ve come to understand is how little fans know about the genesis of the TV blackout rule. When I explain it to them, they get a look on their face as though I’m talking a foreign language. The first thing they always ask me is, “What do you mean all home games were blacked out?” That’s how spoiled we’ve become. There are several events in pro football history worthy of research. For those fans who really want to know the history of the game, I recommend “The League,” by David Harris. If there’s one event in NFL history, however, for which I would like fans to develop a fuller understanding and appreciation, it’s the impact of the playoff weekend of Dec. 23-24, 1972. That’s the weekend professional football became the number one sport in the land. The one o’clock playoff game on Dec. 23 was the “Immaculate Reception” and the four o’clock game was Dallas’ fourth-quarter rally behind Roger Staubach to beat San Francisco. That evening, America was pro football crazy. Anywhere you went, it’s all people wanted to talk about. In those days, TV was a desert of entertainment on Christmas weekend. You’d get the Andy Williams holiday show, followed by the Perry Como Christmas show, followed by Lawrence Welk’s Christmas for Senior Citizens show, etc. The pro football playoff games that weekend were a treat the country devoured. Those games were also blacked out in their hometowns because all home games were blacked out back then. We’re talking about a broadcast rule that was sacrosanct to NFL owners. On Dec. 24, Washington hosted a playoff game, which was blacked out, of course, and that sent Congressmen who were angry that they didn’t get to see the Redskins game on TV on a crusade to end TV blackouts of home games that were sold out. The following summer, just before the regular season began, the 1973 Act of Congress was passed, ordering any game that is sold out 72 hours in advance of kickoff be televised to the home market. NFL owners were outraged. They complained bitterly that they were being forced to give away their product. Harris covers the significance of the ’73 Act of Congress thoroughly. That act expired a few years later but the NFL continues to abide by the 72-hour rule. I would like for fans to understand all of this because I’d like them to have an appreciation for the luxury free TV football is. And I would like everyone to understand what the weekend of Dec. 23-24, 1972, meant to the game we love today. That weekend, in my opinion, was the pivot point of the modern era of professional football. More specifically, Dec. 23, 1972 is the day pro football became our national obsession.

                          http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=5207

                          This has nothing to do with the NFL being a monopoly. If Congress really cared about that, they never would have let the AFL and NFL merge. They would have intervened to make sure the USFL didn't completely die out. They would have done something to break the NFL up. Sometimes monopolies are necessary, because without them, the quality of the product would go way done.

                          What this is about is fans getting pissy because they can't watch their favorite team for free.
                          For Free? You still have to pay for Cable and the NFL gets royalties and advertising monies.

                          Yeah, I play WoW too.[/CENTER]

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            CBS and Fox are free.

                            That is correct comahan
                            I ******* LOVE YOU DG
                            <3 dg

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X

                            Debug Information