PDA

View Full Version : Time Warner's response in regard to the NFL Network.


John_Wayne
08-14-2006, 10:49 AM
I sent a complaint to my cable provider, Time Warner cable, because they don't carry and don't plan to carry the NFL Network anytime soon. Here's their response:

=======================================

Hello,

We are working to Carry the NFL Network. Currently, Time Warner Cable is carrying 191 NFL games on ESPN, FOX, CBS and NBC during the 2006 NFL season. We want to carry the NFL Network as soon as possible – but in a way that serves all of our customers. We are working hard to accomplish this, and will work as long as we must to get this right for our customers – but so far, the NFL Network has refused our offers.


We’re concerned that the NFL’s rising costs make it unaffordable. They cannot control their costs and they stick fans with the tab. They even want non-fans to pay for NFL Network. In markets that already have the NFL Network, they are asking for a 350 percent increase for adding eight regular season games — games that were available to our customers last year — out of 267. This is a poor value proposition – even for fans. The NFL Network is telling fans that they will miss these games but they are wrong — our customers will not miss ANY of the home team’s games. The NFL already keeps 238 road games from fans because they can charge more through their Sunday Ticket program on satellite TV. There is no end in sight for their iNFLation. But, for the average cost of a single ticket to an NFL game – $58.95 – a Time Warner Cable customer could receive a month of digital television with a DVR allowing access to hundreds of professional sports contest, including every in-market NFL game, plus the ability of instant replay on–demand.


Our customer research tells us that the best way to do this is to place the NFL Network in a sports package. Customers who are sports fans like the convenience, focus, consistency and value offered by our sports package. The NFL Network is already in sports packages in many other cable systems in the United States — we believe that approach is the right one, and we encourage the NFL Network to provide Time Warner customers the same offering.

Our sports package includes other targeted sports networks that carry even more live professional games than the NFL Network. Some of these include NBA-TV, Tennis Channel, CSTV, Fox Sports Atlantic, Fox Sports Central, Fox Sports Pacific, Fox Sports Español, Fox Soccer, Fuel and Outdoor Channel.


If you would like to watch the NFL Network please visit http://www.nflgetreal.com (http://www.nflgetreal.com/)


Time Warner Cable - Kansas City
Customer Care Department
816-358-8833

================================

So, who is the bad guy, Time Warner or the NFL? Probably both to a certain extent. But I think this message they sent to me is pure spin.

penguinz
08-14-2006, 10:51 AM
Time Warner is the problem.

Bearcat
08-14-2006, 11:00 AM
But, for the average cost of a single ticket to an NFL game – $58.95 – a Time Warner Cable customer could receive a month of digital television with a DVR allowing access to hundreds of professional sports contest, including every in-market NFL game, plus the ability of instant replay on–demand.


ROFL

They were doing well until this... TWC, You've got money, we've got pockets.

Sounds a lot like the ESPN/Comcast bitch slapping contest.

Pitt Gorilla
08-14-2006, 11:06 AM
Our little local utility cooperative gives us the NFL network.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 11:17 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to blame the cable company.

They gave you some pretty good FACTS about what the NFL is trying to do.

morphius
08-14-2006, 11:25 AM
TW is also pissed that they don't have access to sell NFL Ticket, but the NFL is trying to force them to carry their channel. If a company were to tell you that you must carry our channel, and we are going to charge you a HUGE premium for it, without the option to make money on our big ticket item, are you really going to be in a rush to add it?

If all the cable companies had access to NFL Ticket their wouldn't be any hesitation here at all. So the NFL is willing to spend 100million attacking these companies doesn't sound like a waste of your money at all, does it?

John_Wayne
08-14-2006, 11:29 AM
Time Warner is the problem. That's what I think too.

Cochise
08-14-2006, 11:29 AM
I didn't mind not having the NFL network until there started to be games that I can't watch.

Yes, if the Chiefs are on there it will still be carried by the local affiliate. But if the Chiefs are not one of the teams, I won't get the game. That irritates me, because as I understand it, that's X fewer games than I had last year.

I emailed TW and told them I would cancel if the channel wasn't added by the time regular season games were coming on there. I would look into it, as long as there wasn't some out-the-wazoo startup cost for Direct TV.

morphius
08-14-2006, 11:35 AM
I didn't mind not having the NFL network until there started to be games that I can't watch.

Yes, if the Chiefs are on there it will still be carried by the local affiliate. But if the Chiefs are not one of the teams, I won't get the game. That irritates me, because as I understand it, that's X fewer games than I had last year.

I emailed TW and told them I would cancel if the channel wasn't added by the time regular season games were coming on there. I would look into it, as long as there wasn't some out-the-wazoo startup cost for Direct TV.
Does it actually effect the numbers of games much? I haven't bothered looking into it much but I took these as basically extra games that I would get to see if I had the NFL channel, but would have been in the mix of the regular Sunday mix otherwise.

Sydd
08-14-2006, 11:35 AM
There is no end in sight for their iNFLation.


I found that funny.

Cochise
08-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Does it actually effect the numbers of games much? I haven't bothered looking into it much but I took these as basically extra games that I would get to see if I had the NFL channel, but would have been in the mix of the regular Sunday mix otherwise.

I don't know about the sheer number of games, but the NFL network games are going to be on Thursday and/or Saturday nights. Those are two nights that I could see an NFL game if I had NFL network, but I can't since I have Time Warner. That sucks.

Guess I can have fun with my 27 home shopping channels instead.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 11:44 AM
I didn't mind not having the NFL network until there started to be games that I can't watch.

That is EXACTLY what the NFL wants.

dtebbe
08-14-2006, 11:44 AM
I didn't mind not having the NFL network until there started to be games that I can't watch.

Yes, if the Chiefs are on there it will still be carried by the local affiliate. But if the Chiefs are not one of the teams, I won't get the game. That irritates me, because as I understand it, that's X fewer games than I had last year.

I emailed TW and told them I would cancel if the channel wasn't added by the time regular season games were coming on there. I would look into it, as long as there wasn't some out-the-wazoo startup cost for Direct TV.


The NFL network will be carring the Thursday night (ESPN Last year) and Saturday (CBS/FOX last year) games that are on once the college season ends. So in a way, if you had locals and ESPN last year, you could see the games. IMHO, it's just one more reason a real NFL fan needs DirecTv.

I can see both points, the NFL is probably offering a lower price per sub if Time Warner puts it in it's base package, but probably has a higher price if it's put on a premium tier. Time Warner probably wants the lower price per sub and the ability to put it on a premium tier, which is pretty much having your cake and eating it too. I will be willing do bet Comcast and Adelphia are paying the higher price, which is why they have the network.

DT

Cochise
08-14-2006, 11:49 AM
That is EXACTLY what the NFL wants.

Yeah, I know.

But I don't really care if whatever Time Warner profits by charging me $80 a month for cable and internet service gets cut down by a few pennies.

This is two private business entities crying about profits. I'm a consumer and I don't care who wins. If Time Warner doesn't see fit to give me what I want, which is the ability to flip on a game on Thursday and Saturday night, then I'll go to someone who will.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Yeah, I know.

But I don't really care if whatever Time Warner profits by charging me $80 a month for cable and internet service gets cut down by a few pennies.

This is two private business entities crying about profits. I'm a consumer and I don't care who wins. If Time Warner doesn't see fit to give me what I want, which is the ability to flip on a game on Thursday and Saturday night, then I'll go to someone who will.

How ironic is it that the cable company is getting screwed by a monopoly.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 12:03 PM
Yeah, I know.

But I don't really care if whatever Time Warner profits by charging me $80 a month for cable and internet service gets cut down by a few pennies.

This is two private business entities crying about profits. I'm a consumer and I don't care who wins. If Time Warner doesn't see fit to give me what I want, which is the ability to flip on a game on Thursday and Saturday night, then I'll go to someone who will.

I know, but where does it stop? Pretty soon, none of us will be able to afford to follow the NFL like we do now.

This is just like people lambasting EA Sports for the deal they signed on Madden. At what point is the NFL at fault?

morphius
08-14-2006, 12:06 PM
How ironic is it that the cable company is getting screwed by a monopoly.
Now that is pretty funny.

BigRedChief
08-14-2006, 12:10 PM
Why does it matter what the NFL wants to charge for the channel? Put it on and if people don't want to buy it then they don't buy it.

I don't think the NFL has ever said make us a part of your basic package or else. Here in KC at TW you can buy a sports package of Fox Sports channels if you want to. You can't get Sunday ticket but the NFL is getting $3 billion a year(so I've heard) to keep that off cable. Just make it its own channel. Charge whatever the NFL wants and see if it sells.

This is asine. Let the market decide if its too expensive or not.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 12:13 PM
Why does it matter what the NFL wants to charge for the channel? Put it on and if people don't want to buy it then they don't buy it.

I don't think the NFL has ever said make us a part of your basic package or else. Here in KC at TW you can buy a sports package of Fox Sports channels if you want to. You can't get Sunday ticket but the NFL is getting $3 billion a year(so I've heard) to keep that off cable. Just make it its own channel. Charge whatever the NFL wants and see if it sells.

This is asine. Let the market decide if its too expensive or not.

The market is deciding. Not enough people want the NFL Network to justify the cost...

morphius
08-14-2006, 12:17 PM
Why does it matter what the NFL wants to charge for the channel? Put it on and if people don't want to buy it then they don't buy it.

I don't think the NFL has ever said make us a part of your basic package or else. Here in KC at TW you can buy a sports package of Fox Sports channels if you want to. You can't get Sunday ticket but the NFL is getting $3 billion a year(so I've heard) to keep that off cable. Just make it its own channel. Charge whatever the NFL wants and see if it sells.

This is asine. Let the market decide if its too expensive or not.
Plus the NFL wants it to be available to everyone, makes it easier for them to sell advertising on their channel.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 12:22 PM
The market is deciding. Not enough people want the NFL Network to justify the cost...

Another way for the market to decide is for people to drop TW and go to another provider. It won't take many of those to happen for TW to change their tune.

I'm confident the NFL is smart enough to keep their product available to the average fan at a reasonable price.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 12:26 PM
Another way for the market to decide is for people to drop TW and go to another provider. It won't take many of those to happen for TW to change their tune.

I'm confident the NFL is smart enough to keep their product available to the average fan at a reasonable price.

You bet they'll keep their product available to the average fan. But it won't be at a reasonable price. It will be at a price that's just below the breaking point.

They'll push and push until people start leaving and only then will it stop.

Simplex3
08-14-2006, 12:31 PM
How ironic is it that the cable company is getting screwed by a monopoly.
ROFL

sedated
08-14-2006, 12:31 PM
Another way for the market to decide is for people to drop TW and go to another provider. It won't take many of those to happen for TW to change their tune.

I'm confident the NFL is smart enough to keep their product available to the average fan at a reasonable price.

not all of us can decide, it's either cable or satellite. and some of us don't even have the satellite option.

the wildcard for me is sports bars. we can all go down to our local pub and see the game for the price of a couple drinks.

penguinz
08-14-2006, 12:33 PM
What is total BS about it is that TW does not hesitate to raise their prices in areas where they are the only option once Everest moves into one of their neighborhoods and they have to lower the prices in that area.

SNR
08-14-2006, 12:35 PM
Putting these games on NFL Network this fast in its initial seasons was brilliant and retarded at the same time. It's going to be years before the NFL Network becomes as common as ESPN. Viewership will go down the tubes for these games. That can't be good for advertisers of the NFL.

At the same time, they're making boatloads of cash from this Network while in the process of gipping the average fan out of a few games per season.

MichaelH
08-14-2006, 12:38 PM
At least you got a response. I wrote to them last Wednesday and haven't heard a word.

This bothers me:

Our sports package includes other targeted sports networks that carry even more live professional games than the NFL Network. Some of these include NBA-TV, Tennis Channel, CSTV, Fox Sports Atlantic, Fox Sports Central, Fox Sports Pacific, Fox Sports Español, Fox Soccer, Fuel and Outdoor Channel.


Do they not realize the point here? We want to see freaking football! Not womens golf, tennis or bowling! While some of those packages are attractive and I even watch one often (Outdoor Channel), they will not allow me to watch the Chiefs/donkeys game on Thanksgiving night.

JBucc
08-14-2006, 12:43 PM
I also sent them a complaint and got no response. Of course mine was very short and went something like "Get NFL network you dumb shits or I'm switching to sattelite".

go bowe
08-14-2006, 12:47 PM
eh, we have comcast...

mlyonsd
08-14-2006, 12:52 PM
Putting these games on NFL Network this fast in its initial seasons was brilliant and retarded at the same time. It's going to be years before the NFL Network becomes as common as ESPN. Viewership will go down the tubes for these games. That can't be good for advertisers of the NFL.



Or, the cable networks will be flooded with complaints until they buy NFL Network, which it sounds like is already happening.

Once the NFL figured out all those knot heads would buy NFL ticket they realized the sky is the limit.

Someday you'll have to pay-per-view the Super Bowl.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 12:53 PM
Here is what the NFL is offering:

At least 4 games per week on free TV, plus all the post season coverage. Plus if you have a local team, you get all the road games plus the home games if your team sells out.

For a basic cable or sattelite package that includes ESPN, you get (at least) another one more game per week. This game is basically free because most people have ESPN in their home now.

If your provider thinks enough of you to provide the most in-demand programing, you get 8 "extra" games for a very low marginal cost. Most of these games were free a up until now.They are still free if the game involves your local team.

For the true fanatic, the NFL has an arrangement (Sunday Ticket) where most fans can see any game of their choice. The price is less than most would spend on their bar bill for one game a week.

The way I see it is that the NFL is very generous in making games available to fans and TW is being very stingy in making programing available to their customers.

tk13
08-14-2006, 12:56 PM
I actually understand Time Warner's thought process here. It does make some sense, but they aren't going to win. The NFL knows this. Well, I'm sure in reality there are more people who could care less if they had the NFL network, and that's maybe what they're banking on. The NFL basically took 8 games out of the whole season, hid them on their channel, and jacked the prices way up. Everybody's looking for the most dollars here, and I doubt either side is looking out for the consumer really.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:01 PM
Here is what the NFL is offering:

At least 4 games per week on free TV, plus all the post season coverage. Plus if you have a local team, you get all the road games plus the home games if your team sells out.

For a basic cable or sattelite package that includes ESPN, you get (at least) another one more game per week. This game is basically free because most people have ESPN in their home now.

If your provider thinks enough of you to provide the most in-demand programing, you get 8 "extra" games for a very low marginal cost. Most of these games were free a up until now.They are still free if the game involves your local team.

For the true fanatic, the NFL has an arrangement (Sunday Ticket) where most fans can see any game of their choice. The price is less than most would spend on their bar bill for one game a week.

The way I see it is that the NFL is very generous in making games available to fans and TW is being very stingy in making programing available to their customers.

You act as if TWC only operates in KC or something.

In reality, making sure that 1M or so customers can see a Thursday night game doesn't have nearly the financial impact on TWC that you might think it does. I know a guy that works at Mediacom and if what he tells me is true, they're going to barely break even at the price the NFL wants to charge them...

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:01 PM
The other benefit could be better programing on NFL network once it is distributed to more households. When ESPN first came out they would show hours and hours of Austrailian rules football. Eventually they got a large enough viewership to spring of better programming. We could easily see that with NFL network, given the thousands of hours of NFL Films they have in their vault.

kc rush
08-14-2006, 01:02 PM
I have satellite and the NFL Network, so I shouldn't complain, but this kind of stuff ticks me off.

If Time Warner is going to do this, they should offer channels a-la-carte so you can subscribe to the NFL network and not spend money on channels you have no interest in. You are paying for programming you don't want for the benefit of all subscribers.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:05 PM
I have satellite and the NFL Network, so I shouldn't complain, but this kind of stuff ticks me off.

If Time Warner is going to do this, they should offer channels a-la-carte so you can subscribe to the NFL network and not spend money on channels you have no interest in. You are paying for programming you don't want for the benefit of all subscribers.

Offering ala-carte channels make zero business sense. The NFL Network is a bit different because they're not in a position to demand that the cable provider carry their sister networks (they don't have any). But by and large, providing a channel ala-carte costs the cable company more than they make off of the channel.

Cochise
08-14-2006, 01:08 PM
a la carte would be awesome. I'd have 10 or 12 channels and be happer than a pig in raiders.

tk13
08-14-2006, 01:11 PM
If your provider thinks enough of you to provide the most in-demand programing, you get 8 "extra" games for a very low marginal cost. Most of these games were free a up until now.They are still free if the game involves your local team.


I don't know, I'm not sure we're about marginal amounts of money here. From what I've read the past few months, the NFL upped their rate card significantly for those 8 games. They're going to make millions and millions of dollars off of this probably... it's not like they're the nice guy sitting over here going "Aw shucks".

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:16 PM
You act as if TWC only operates in KC or something.

In reality, making sure that 1M or so customers can see a Thursday night game doesn't have nearly the financial impact on TWC that you might think it does. I know a guy that works at Mediacom and if what he tells me is true, they're going to barely break even at the price the NFL wants to charge them...

Every statement I wrote applies to any NFL market, so I don't see where you are getting the KC angle. Frankly, I don't care if cable makes a dime on it. Cable has seen double digit increases in ad revenue for the last 25 years. This year they are projecting "only" a 6% increase. When we had cable I was always mad at them. Seemed like they raised their rates a couple times a year.

Sure the NFL and DirecTV have their warts. But they give me the programming I want, which makes all the difference. Even when the sattelite acts up, I don't get mad because just thinking about Sunday Ticket makes me calm, cool, and content. The NFL has built up over 3.5 decades of good will with me by providing a consistently entertaining product.

Lzen
08-14-2006, 01:18 PM
I know a guy that works at Mediacom and if what he tells me is true, they're going to barely break even at the price the NFL wants to charge them...

No offense, but I call BS.

Besides, all any company has to do in this type of situation is to pass the cost onto their customers. I'm sure TW makes huge profits and has been for a long time. It's really hard to fathom that the NFL Network premium would put that much of a financial hardship on them.

MichaelH
08-14-2006, 01:18 PM
I've often joked about the a-la-carte option but realize any cable company would salivate at the chance to really rake in the bucks. I get the Time Warner digital package that has about 200 channels. I only watch about 30 tops.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:21 PM
Every statement I wrote applies to any NFL market, so I don't see where you are getting the KC angle. Frankly, I don't care if cable makes a dime on it. Cable has seen double digit increases in ad revenue for the last 25 years. This year they are projecting "only" a 6% increase. When we had cable I was always mad at them. Seemed like they raised their rates a couple times a year.

Sure the NFL and DirecTV have their warts. But they give me the programming I want, which makes all the difference. Even when the sattelite acts up, I don't get mad because just thinking about Sunday Ticket makes me calm, cool, and content. The NFL has built up over 3.5 decades of good will with me by providing a consistently entertaining product.

No, it doesn't apply to any NFL market. It applies to the 16 markets that are participating in the 8 games being broadcast on the NFL Network.

The reason Monday Night Football works is because it's freely available. You can bet your patoot that a significant portion of that viewer base would rather not tune in than pay for a game that has no local significance.

Look, I'm not trying to defend the cable companies here. But the NFL seems to be getting a free pass and to me, this is 100% fueled by their own greed.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:25 PM
No offense, but I call BS.

Besides, all any company has to do in this type of situation is to pass the cost onto their customers. I'm sure TW makes huge profits and has been for a long time. It's really hard to fathom that the NFL Network premium would put that much of a financial hardship on them.

It sounds simple in theory, doesn't it? But to pass on cost, you have to have somebody that's willing to BUY IT, even at cost.

The way I understand it, the NFL Network (and all media providers) don't charge cables companies/satellite providers based only on the number of users that will actually BUY the channel. It's based on total customer base.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:29 PM
I don't know, I'm not sure we're about marginal amounts of money here. From what I've read the past few months, the NFL upped their rate card significantly for those 8 games. They're going to make millions and millions of dollars off of this probably... it's not like they're the nice guy sitting over here going "Aw shucks".

The numbers I've seen are increases from like $0.35 per per subscriber to $0.85 per subscriber. That would be $0.50 per month increase or $6 for 8 games. The NFL season has 256 games so it is less than the per game cost of Sunday Ticket. But these games are more valuable because they are on during a time different from Sunday afternoon (where you basically are chosing game A over game B). Plus, I doubt the cable companies will be able to pass the full cost on to consumers. So, it's a good deal for fans. Those who are getting screwed are the non-fans and the cable companies.

Yeah, the NFL will make a windfall from this if it goes through. I'd rather them get the $ than the cable companies. The difference is that the NFL puts out a great product first and gets the profits that come with that, while the cable compaines are always figuring how to maximize their profits without regard to the quality of the product.

jollymon
08-14-2006, 01:32 PM
I don't know about the sheer number of games, but the NFL network games are going to be on Thursday and/or Saturday nights. Those are two nights that I could see an NFL game if I had NFL network, but I can't since I have Time Warner. That sucks.

Guess I can have fun with my 27 home shopping channels instead.


I pay 57.83 per month for my DirectTV package, that has 4 receivers and a includes a discount from Bellsouth, but I get the NFL Network. I am not all that impressed with the network though. I am hoping that the quality picks up more once the season starts, but I only looked at satellite when I seen the Turkeyday stunt and the sunday night crap they are now trying to pull. I am a firm believer that ALL NFL football should be put on basic cable. CBS, ABC, NBC, or FOX, its like air, water, and sex, a necessity. This gouging shit, like putting it on ESPN is completly and utterly ridiculous.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:33 PM
Yeah, the NFL will make a windfall from this if it goes through. I'd rather them get the $ than the cable companies. The difference is that the NFL puts out a great product first and gets the profits that come with that, while the cable compaines are always figuring how to maximize their profits without regard to the quality of the product.

That has always been the case IN THE PAST.

However, recent dealings between the NFL and EA Sports indicate to me that the NFL is popular enough now that they don't feel they have to adhere to their old standards anymore...

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:33 PM
No, it doesn't apply to any NFL market. It applies to the 16 markets that are participating in the 8 games being broadcast on the NFL Network.

You are aware that games involving the local teams are availalbe for free in the local market, right? The Thanksgiving evening game will be shown in both KC and Denver on the local network affiliates.

Or am I missing something else?

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:36 PM
You are aware that games involving the local teams are availalbe for free in the local market, right? The Thanksgiving evening game will be shown in both KC and Denver on the local network affiliates.

Or am I missing something else?

Yes. But it's not shown (necessarily) in St. Louis, Springfield, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Omaha, or Des Moines, for example. All of those markets have significant interest in the game. However, those markets represent a very small fraction of TWC customers.

KC vs. Denver has quite limited appeal to Cleveland, Philly, or Atlanta, for example. One could argue, quite capably, that Monday Night Football garnered market share simply because it was football and it was ON.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:38 PM
That has always been the case IN THE PAST.

However, recent dealings between the NFL and EA Sports indicate to me that the NFL is popular enough now that they don't feel they have to adhere to their old standards anymore...

Yes, I'll admit it is a concern with the new breed of owners. Baseball essentially fell from grace becasue they didn't (or couldn't) respond to changing conditions. If the NFL thinks they are immune from keeping in tune with a changing society, to being innovative in their marketing (which is what I see this as doing), and putting quality first, then their reign as "untouchables" will end.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 01:40 PM
Yes, I'll admit it is a concern with the new breed of owners. Baseball essentially fell from grace becasue they didn't (or couldn't) respond to changing conditions. If the NFL thinks they are immune from keeping in tune with a changing society, to being innovative in their marketing (which is what I see this as doing), and putting quality first, then their reign as "untouchables" will end.

I'm definitely worried about innovation, which is why I brought up the Madden game...

EA is notorious for anything BUT innovation. They repackage basically the same game, with the same flaws, every year because they know they can and people will still buy it.

By signing an exclusive deal with EA, the NFL signalled to me that they agree with this philosophy...

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:43 PM
Yes. But it's not shown (necessarily) in St. Louis, Springfield, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Omaha, or Des Moines, for example. All of those markets have significant interest in the game. However, those markets represent a very small fraction of TWC customers.

KC vs. Denver has quite limited appeal to Cleveland, Philly, or Atlanta, for example. One could argue, quite capably, that Monday Night Football garnered market share simply because it was football and it was ON.

Gotcha. I'm assuming that consumer demand will put the NFL Network in a large fraction of cable subscribers homes within a year or two, and games shown on that network will be equivalent to games shown on ESPN, which everyone takes for granted. This, IMO, is the NFL's bid to bootstrap the process of disseminating the NFL network at a decent (well, maybe more than decent) profit margin.

cdcox
08-14-2006, 01:46 PM
I'm definitely worried about innovation, which is why I brought up the Madden game...

EA is notorious for anything BUT innovation. They repackage basically the same game, with the same flaws, every year because they know they can and people will still buy it.

By signing an exclusive deal with EA, the NFL signalled to me that they agree with this philosophy...

Don't play those games so wasn't aware of the problems. Yes, the NFL seems to have a penchant for exclusive rights, DTV and Sunday Ticket being another example. Defintiely something I'll be watching carefully. Thanks.

Pitt Gorilla
08-14-2006, 01:51 PM
I'm definitely worried about innovation, which is why I brought up the Madden game...

EA is notorious for anything BUT innovation. They repackage basically the same game, with the same flaws, every year because they know they can and people will still buy it.

By signing an exclusive deal with EA, the NFL signalled to me that they agree with this philosophy...Sega's NFL 2k5 is still the best game out there. It's a shame what EA and the NFL did.

morphius
08-14-2006, 02:09 PM
Don't play those games so wasn't aware of the problems. Yes, the NFL seems to have a penchant for exclusive rights, DTV and Sunday Ticket being another example. Defintiely something I'll be watching carefully. Thanks.
I understand that DTV knows that exclusive deal keeps them alive, but the NFL, with wanting to start their own network, could have saved them a lot of heartache by letting the cable companies in on Sunday Ticket.

Oh well, I'll try not to be a broken record on this subject anymore...

Adept Havelock
08-14-2006, 03:07 PM
Sega's NFL 2k5 is still the best game out there. It's a shame what EA and the NFL did.

Indeed. Great product, at half Madden's cost. EA said Oh Sh*t and locked up the NFL for themselves. :cuss:

I still have hopes the modders out there will be able to modify the rosters and schedule on the 2K series....

I've been with Time Warner for a couple of decades now. If too many games start getting shifted to NFL Network only, I'll toss them and go with someone who will provide it.

jidar
08-14-2006, 03:11 PM
There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.

I work for a cable company and I've seen the numbers. The money that the NFL wants for their channel is very very high. Much higher than any other cable channel we carry in fact.
This is some strong arm shit, believe me. There is a reason every cable company has been fighting this cost.

BigRedChief
08-14-2006, 03:14 PM
There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.

I work for a cable company and I've seen the numbers. The money that the NFL wants for their channel is very very high. Much higher than any other cable channel we carry in fact.
This is some strong arm shit, believe me. There is a reason every cable company has been fighting this cost.

Yeah well I've never worked for a cable company and I call BS. Why do they care what it costs? Pass it on to the consumer with their profit markup. If it doesn't sell it doesn't sell.

Cable said ESPnN was too expensive, MTV was too expensive etc etc.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 03:19 PM
Yeah well I've never worked for a cable company and I call BS. Why do they care what it costs? Pass it on to the consumer with their profit markup. If it doesn't sell it doesn't sell.

Cable said ESPnN was too expensive, MTV was too expensive etc etc.

Because it doesn't work that way.

YOU the consumer only pay for NFL Network if you subscribe to it.

However, the NFL charges the cable companies based on TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS, meaning that the cable company pays the NFL for YOU, even if you don't subscribe to the NFL Network.

greg63
08-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Yeah well I've never worked for a cable company and I call BS. Why do they care what it costs? Pass it on to the consumer with their profit markup. If it doesn't sell it doesn't sell.

Cable said ESPnN was too expensive, MTV was too expensive etc etc.


...And the RV manufacturers said that gas is too expensive!!!!

Oh wait, wrong thread...never mind.

jidar
08-14-2006, 03:22 PM
Because it doesn't work that way.

YOU the consumer only pay for NFL Network if you subscribe to it.

However, the NFL charges the cable companies based on TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS, meaning that the cable company pays the NFL for YOU, even if you don't subscribe to the NFL Network.


exactly right.

BigRedChief
08-14-2006, 03:22 PM
Because it doesn't work that way.

YOU the consumer only pay for NFL Network if you subscribe to it.

However, the NFL charges the cable companies based on TOTAL SUBSCRIBERS, meaning that the cable company pays the NFL for YOU, even if you don't subscribe to the NFL Network.
Well FUK that. Sounds Commie to me. All the cable outfits get that deal?

jidar
08-14-2006, 03:23 PM
[QUOTE=BigRedChief]Yeah well I've never worked for a cable company /QUOTE]


well, that's obvious

BigRedChief
08-14-2006, 03:25 PM
[QUOTE=BigRedChief]Yeah well I've never worked for a cable company /QUOTE]well, that's obvious

Well I worked for Homeland Security does that qualify?

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 03:32 PM
I don't know how all this works but I do know that Directv has had it from day one. And they put it directly into the basic package and didn't charge anyone a dime. Since then all I've heard is bitching and whining from the cable companies about it.

greg63
08-14-2006, 03:46 PM
I don't know how all this works but I do know that Directv has had it from day one. And they put it directly into the basic package and didn't charge anyone a dime. Since then all I've heard is bitching and whining from the cable companies about it.


The only reason I stay with cable is because that's where I get my internet.

tk13
08-14-2006, 03:46 PM
I don't know how all this works but I do know that Directv has had it from day one. And they put it directly into the basic package and didn't charge anyone a dime. Since then all I've heard is bitching and whining from the cable companies about it.
DirecTV has paid the NFL billions of dollars to have exclusive rights to work with the NFL and have Sunday Ticket. I don't think it's a stretch to say they get preference over every other cable and satellite provider out there.

BigRedChief
08-14-2006, 03:48 PM
DirecTV has paid the NFL billions of dollars to have exclusive rights to work with the NFL and have Sunday Ticket. I don't think it's a stretch to say they get preference over every other cable and satellite provider out there.
Yep paying someone billions of $'s will get you a lot of preference. But isn't DirectTV and Dish owned by the same company? They got theirselfs a good little monopoly also

greg63
08-14-2006, 03:51 PM
Yep paying someone billions of $'s will get you a lot of preference. But isn't DirectTV and Dish owned by the same company? They got theirselfs a good little monopoly also


OOOOO! I want Park Place.

dtebbe
08-14-2006, 03:54 PM
Yep paying someone billions of $'s will get you a lot of preference. But isn't DirectTV and Dish owned by the same company?

No that deal fell apart some years back. They are still competitors.

DT

JBucc
08-14-2006, 03:57 PM
OOOOO! I want Park Place.It's useless without Boardwalk

dtebbe
08-14-2006, 04:00 PM
There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.

I work for a cable company and I've seen the numbers. The money that the NFL wants for their channel is very very high. Much higher than any other cable channel we carry in fact.
This is some strong arm shit, believe me. There is a reason every cable company has been fighting this cost.

I can't wait until the cable companies see just how much it ends up costing them in subs when people start switching to DirecTv to get the NFL channel. The NFL knows exactly how much thier channel is worth.

Next in line will be the networks when the next major TV deal comes up. If the NFL doesn't get thier price, they'll just carry the games on thier own network, especially the Sunday nite and Monday nite games. The networks better get ready to grab thier ankles....

DT

jidar
08-14-2006, 04:01 PM
I don't know how all this works but I do know that Directv has had it from day one. And they put it directly into the basic package and didn't charge anyone a dime. Since then all I've heard is bitching and whining from the cable companies about it.


Yeah the details behind that deal were bullshit too. Suffice it to say there is a reason DirectTV customers pay more though.

jidar
08-14-2006, 04:08 PM
I can't wait until the cable companies see just how much it ends up costing them in subs when people start switching to DirecTv to get the NFL channel. The NFL knows exactly how much thier channel is worth.

Next in line will be the networks when the next major TV deal comes up. If the NFL doesn't get thier price, they'll just carry the games on thier own network, especially the Sunday nite and Monday nite games. The networks better get ready to grab thier ankles....

DT


I don't know why you guys are so gung ho about this. You do know that this cost gets passed on to everybody right? The NFL is basically vastly overcharging and ultimately taking that money out of your pocket?
Any other day of the week people would be bitching about the price increases... the fact is that most customers don't want to see their bill go up several dollars a month and we would lose subs for that. Or we can not carry it and we lose subs for that.
They basically have found a jprice point in there that is almost exactly the maximum they can charge causing us to lose money by lost subs either way, but we lose slightly less if we carry their channel.
That sucks.
Of course the NFL doesn't give a crap if they screw both the consumer and the cable companies, and a bunch of people cancel, because they get their money.

dtebbe
08-14-2006, 04:16 PM
I don't know why you guys are so gung ho about this. You do know that this cost gets passed on to everybody right?

I hate cable companies and just relish it when someone gives them a taste of thier own medicine. I will always love DirecTv because they enabled me to tell my worthless cable company exactly where to stick it back in 1995 and I'm still happy today some 10+ years later.

I like the fact that I'm in total control of my TV viewing. If I have a problem I can fix it on MY schedule, not wait at home all day for some retard that never shows up.

DT

Guru
08-14-2006, 04:18 PM
I know, but where does it stop? Pretty soon, none of us will be able to afford to follow the NFL like we do now.

This is just like people lambasting EA Sports for the deal they signed on Madden. At what point is the NFL at fault?


Now that's the best statement in this entire thread. That is exactly the point.

Cochise
08-14-2006, 04:18 PM
Sounds like the NFL is playing hardball. I still don't care.

Time Warner is boo-hooing about how the mean ol' NFL is bullying them around. Well, in light of your $1 billion Q2, Time Warner, cry me a river.

Customers don't care about the business issues behind it. They want what they want, and when they want it enough, they'll pick up roots to go get it. Pouting isn't going to save you any subscribers. You have to evolve or die.

Expecting people to abstain from the NFL Network on some moral basis is like when recxjake comes around here and says people should be buying an inferior product out of a sense of duty. Nice dream, hold onto it, while your market share diminishes.

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 04:19 PM
Yep paying someone billions of $'s will get you a lot of preference. But isn't DirectTV and Dish owned by the same company? They got theirselfs a good little monopoly also
No, Rupert Murdoch owns Directv and Charlie Ergen owns Dish Notwork. Where did you get that idea?

CHENZ A!
08-14-2006, 04:30 PM
The only reason I stay with cable is because that's where I get my internet.

Same thing, but I am getting really pissed off about this whole deal. It's pretty obvious, that there is alot of demand for this channel, since TW had to go to the trouble of taking out half page ads slandering the NFL.

**** you Time Warner! :cuss:

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 04:32 PM
Yeah the details behind that deal were bullshit too. Suffice it to say there is a reason DirectTV customers pay more though.
Directv customers pay more? I ask everybody I hook up why they are changing. The overwheming reply is that they will pay less than they were paying cable. Also, Directv has raised the price of the basic package once in the 6 years I've been working for them.

Guru
08-14-2006, 04:32 PM
The only reason I stay with cable is because that's where I get my internet.


Yeah, but, your internet sucks!!!! :shake: :)

Guru
08-14-2006, 04:35 PM
Eventually, the NFL will only be a game that the rich can afford anyway. Just be ready for the day that it is out of the average family's salary rage.

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 04:38 PM
The only reason I stay with cable is because that's where I get my internet.
I hook up lots of people that keep their cable internet. Do you have to keep your cable package to get their internet? Maybe different cable companies have different rules.

tk13
08-14-2006, 04:40 PM
Same thing, but I am getting really pissed off about this whole deal. It's pretty obvious, that there is alot of demand for this channel, since TW had to go to the trouble of taking out half page ads slandering the NFL.

**** you Time Warner! :cuss:
See, this is what I'm talking about. It's not a moral decision really, just that the NFL does a good job of kinda brainwashing its fans into thinking it can do no wrong. That sounds harsh but it's true. Evidenced by this post here. The NFL launched a $100 million ad campaign to attack the cable companies, but this post is what you see...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-07-27-nfl-network_x.htm

CHENZ A!
08-14-2006, 04:42 PM
See, this is what I'm talking about. It's not a moral decision really, just that the NFL does a good job of kinda brainwashing its fans into thinking it can do no wrong. That sounds harsh but it's true. Evidenced by this post here. The NFL launched a $100 million ad campaign to attack the cable companies, but this post is what you see...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2006-07-27-nfl-network_x.htm

I don't really care who is right or wrong, they're both greedy. I just want the damn channel, and TW is the one taking up space in my sporstpage with their crap.

Adept Havelock
08-14-2006, 04:43 PM
Sounds like the NFL is playing hardball. I still don't care.

Time Warner is boo-hooing about how the mean ol' NFL is bullying them around. Well, in light of your $1 billion Q2, Time Warner, cry me a river.

Customers don't care about the business issues behind it. They want what they want, and when they want it enough, they'll pick up roots to go get it. Pouting isn't going to save you any subscribers. You have to evolve or die.

Expecting people to abstain from the NFL Network on some moral basis is like when recxjake comes around here and says people should be buying an inferior product out of a sense of duty. Nice dream, hold onto it, while your market share diminishes.


You got it. If TW won't provide me with a product I want (and if too many more games shift, I will want it), I'll drop them and go with someone who will. I couldn't care less about the big bad NFL strong-arming the poor widdle cable companies.

They are in business to make a profit by providing their customers with content they want. If they decide not to, that's fine. I'll take my dollars elsewhere.

dtebbe
08-14-2006, 05:45 PM
No, Rupert Murdoch owns Directv and Charlie Ergen owns Dish Notwork. Where did you get that idea?

It was in the works at one time, and many still believe it will happen eventually:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,105819-page,1/article.html?tk=dn101002X

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2006/08/07/directv-echostar-0807markets03.html

DT

fredflintrock
08-14-2006, 05:50 PM
I live in Dallas where we just got "switched" from Comcast to TW. I e-mailed TW to see how much my cable bill was going to go down since I'm paying this outrageous "fee" for the NFL Network. Somehow Comcast was able to afford it but TW can't. Hmmmm

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:14 PM
I can't wait until the cable companies see just how much it ends up costing them in subs when people start switching to DirecTv to get the NFL channel. The NFL knows exactly how much thier channel is worth.

Next in line will be the networks when the next major TV deal comes up. If the NFL doesn't get thier price, they'll just carry the games on thier own network, especially the Sunday nite and Monday nite games. The networks better get ready to grab thier ankles....

DT

It's not gonna cost the cable companies THAT many subscriptions. Most of the people who are gonna switch to dish because of the NFL already have - it's called Sunday ticket.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:16 PM
I hate cable companies and just relish it when someone gives them a taste of thier own medicine. I will always love DirecTv because they enabled me to tell my worthless cable company exactly where to stick it back in 1995 and I'm still happy today some 10+ years later.

I like the fact that I'm in total control of my TV viewing. If I have a problem I can fix it on MY schedule, not wait at home all day for some retard that never shows up.

DT

Hmmm...my experience with DirecTV was quite different.

If I had a problem, it just didn't get fixed. I had a much better experience with the cable company when it came to service. The problem with cable came down to price and the fact that, even though they were very responsive to problems, the sheer number of problems I've been having have become overwhelming.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:16 PM
Directv customers pay more? I ask everybody I hook up why they are changing. The overwheming reply is that they will pay less than they were paying cable. Also, Directv has raised the price of the basic package once in the 6 years I've been working for them.

Yeah, the idea that cable is cheaper than satellite is a complete farce. It might be in the beginning, but cable rates just keep going up once they get ya hooked...

morphius
08-14-2006, 08:23 PM
Yeah, the idea that cable is cheaper than satellite is a complete farce. It might be in the beginning, but cable rates just keep going up once they get ya hooked...
My cable hasn't went up in years. Of course I don't have digital cable either.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:28 PM
My cable hasn't went up in years. Of course I don't have digital cable either.

Yeah, my cable company likes to mess around with the feature packs...basic cable pretty much stays the same, but if you have digital channels, movie channels, or HD, the price goes up. They also bundle Internet and phone and nail you for penalties if you don't bundle...

morphius
08-14-2006, 08:31 PM
Yeah, my cable company likes to mess around with the feature packs...basic cable pretty much stays the same, but if you have digital channels, movie channels, or HD, the price goes up. They also bundle Internet and phone and nail you for penalties if you don't bundle...
I'm using their Internet access and am using vonage for phone service, I don't want to have anything to do with the Bell's.

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:40 PM
I'm using their Internet access and am using vonage for phone service, I don't want to have anything to do with the Bell's.

I have to be careful what I say now that I work for an RBOC, but in general I have had bad experiences with ILEC's, whether it be an RBOC (like US West) or an independent (like GTE).

I think that has to do with their near-monopoly status. They really haven't had to compete for local service customers because they owned the last mile of copper.

That being said, the emergence of wireless technologies and further deregulation of competitive arenas like cable TV over fiber should help to spur competition between the Bell's and the cable companies, which should help all of us out.

morphius
08-14-2006, 08:48 PM
I have to be careful what I say now that I work for an RBOC, but in general I have had bad experiences with ILEC's, whether it be an RBOC (like US West) or an independent (like GTE).

I think that has to do with their near-monopoly status. They really haven't had to compete for local service customers because they owned the last mile of copper.

That being said, the emergence of wireless technologies and further deregulation of competitive arenas like cable TV over fiber should help to spur competition between the Bell's and the cable companies, which should help all of us out.
Yup, and that is my problem with them as well.

Of course most will be rushing to get the TV to the home now that people will soon be switching to cell phone only or to VoIP. Without TV and businesses I think they would be a nearly dying breed.

Frazod
08-14-2006, 08:51 PM
The only problem I have with the NFL channel games is the fact that the evil retard c#cksuckers at DTV don't offer that channel in HD yet. Nor will they this year.

It is inexcusable how these pricks can lag so far behind the cable providers. :shake:

htismaqe
08-14-2006, 08:54 PM
Yup, and that is my problem with them as well.

Of course most will be rushing to get the TV to the home now that people will soon be switching to cell phone only or to VoIP. Without TV and businesses I think they would be a nearly dying breed.

That's why SBC acquired AT&T and Verizon acquired MCI - access to the Fortune 500 and beyond.

As for cell phones, AT&T owns Cingular and Verizon obviously owns Verizon Wireless. Beyond that, for cell and VoIP the calls have to come back to the PSTN eventually. Who do you suppose owns that? And who owns 80% of the Internet transport to get there?

:D

greg63
08-14-2006, 09:42 PM
I hook up lots of people that keep their cable internet. Do you have to keep your cable package to get their internet? Maybe different cable companies have different rules.


Yeah, unfortunately that is the case.

greg63
08-14-2006, 09:43 PM
Yeah, but, your internet sucks!!!! :shake: :)

Good point; but it is just barely better then dial-up.:banghead:

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 10:02 PM
The only problem I have with the NFL channel games is the fact that the evil retard c#cksuckers at DTV don't offer that channel in HD yet. Nor will they this year.

It is inexcusable how these pricks can lag so far behind the cable providers. :shake:
You are so far out of it you are back in again. Cable does nothing but play catch up to the satellite companies. We have been all digital since day one. 1994. It took the cable dorks five years to provide their answer which they immediately put on another tier and started charging more for. Not to mention the additional charge for the "digital box" they install. Nevermind they don't really have anything digital just compressed analog that they try to pass off as digital. You really ought to shut the f*ck up or at least learn what you are talking about. You are the dumbest motherf*cker I've ever seen about this subject. If cable is so great why don't you go to them. I wish to f*ck you would.

morphius
08-14-2006, 10:07 PM
You are so far out of it you are back in again. Cable does nothing but play catch up to the satellite companies. We have been all digital since day one. 1994. It took the cable dorks five years to provide their answer which they immediately put on another tier and started charging more for. Not to mention the additional charge for the "digital box" they install. Nevermind they don't really have anything digital just compressed analog that they try to pass off as digital. You really ought to shut the f*ck up or at least learn what you are talking about. You are the dumbest motherf*cker I've ever seen about this subject. If cable is so great why don't you go to them. I wish to f*ck you would.
Oh, so DTV doesn't charge you for their digital boxes and they are not trying to play catch up in the HDTV market?

morphius
08-14-2006, 10:11 PM
Of course I guess I shouldn't even talk about on-demand, because nobody would use that anyway...

Frazod
08-14-2006, 10:17 PM
You are so far out of it you are back in again. Cable does nothing but play catch up to the satellite companies. We have been all digital since day one. 1994. It took the cable dorks five years to provide their answer which they immediately put on another tier and started charging more for. Not to mention the additional charge for the "digital box" they install. Nevermind they don't really have anything digital just compressed analog that they try to pass off as digital. You really ought to shut the f*ck up or at least learn what you are talking about. You are the dumbest motherf*cker I've ever seen about this subject. If cable is so great why don't you go to them. I wish to f*ck you would.

Then explain why the local cable has twice as many HD channels available. Hmm.... I'm sure you can't. Of course, you're the same f#cking retard who thinks there's no difference between HD and regular TV. I wouldn't trust you to install an alarm clock.

I don't care what you think, do or anything about your shitty company. You're like that rexcjake moron pimping GM. You and DTV suck. And I'm sure I don't need advice from some pathetic 60 year old dope smoking loser in the first place.

Seriously, f#ck you.

morphius
08-14-2006, 10:19 PM
wow.

thats all I got there.

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 10:29 PM
Oh, so DTV doesn't charge you for their digital boxes and they are not trying to play catch up in the HDTV market?
Directv charges you only for any boxes beyond the first one since you are using additional bandwidth with those. And no, D* doesn't offer a lot of HD channels yet. But they are getting two new satellites ready for launch after which they will completely blow away any and all of their competitors. D* likes to get it right the first time and they have done a great job of it. HDTV is in its infancy and is being treated as such. Dish Notwork jumped the gun and got the locals way before D* did by using the "two dish" system whereby the customer had to have two dishes (plus extra ugly wiring) on their house but they were "FIRST". D* on the other hand, perfected the system and created a dish that would see all three satellites and didn't need the foolish two dish system. Dish has three separate systems, Legacy, Dish Pro and Dish Pro Plus. None of which will work with any of the other two. The cable companies wait until D* launches something new (like all digital) and then tries to catch up. Hell, there still isn't a single cable company that is all digital and D* was from the start in 1994. Only that ignorant Frazod thinks D* is trying to catch up to cable. Cable is primitive by comparison.

Skip Towne
08-14-2006, 10:34 PM
Then explain why the local cable has twice as many HD channels available. Hmm.... I'm sure you can't. Of course, you're the same f#cking retard who thinks there's no difference between HD and regular TV. I wouldn't trust you to install an alarm clock.

I don't care what you think, do or anything about your shitty company. You're like that rexcjake moron pimping GM. You and DTV suck. And I'm sure I don't need advice from some pathetic 60 year old dope smoking loser in the first place.

Seriously, f#ck you.
You are too stupid to even wait for my response. Seriously f*ck you too. You don't have a f*cking clue about what you are talking about. Go back to your secretarial duties you fuc*ing dropout. And you are a fat cocksu*ker to boot. If you can't even control your weight how can you expect anybody to take you seriously.. Eat shit you fat ******.

morphius
08-14-2006, 10:36 PM
But you have to have one for each TV, just like digital cable, either way you are paying for them. So really, not an advantage.

If you are getting ready to launch them, then you are still behind. Plus there is still no real answer for On Demand TV that cable can do that I know of.

While DTV is nice, it is far from perfect, as is cable. But as for getting it right, if they wanted to get it right they would have one box and feed all of the TV's off of that one, that IMO would be "right".

Frazod
08-14-2006, 10:43 PM
You are too stupid to even wait for my response. Seriously f*ck you too. You don't have a f*cking clue about what you are talking about. Go back to your secretarial duties you fuc*ing dropout. And you are a fat cocksu*ker to boot. If you can't even control your weight how can you expect anybody to take you seriously.. Eat shit you fat ******.

A 60 year old stoner forfeits the right to criticize ANYBODY, EVER, regardless of how many dishes you hang at the local trailer park. You're a hateful, pathetic douche. You used to be somewhat amusing. Now you're just pitiful.

Al Bundy
08-15-2006, 06:07 AM
I got Directv installed on Sunday and I am noticing that the picture is 10x's better than the picture I got with time warner on the same TV. The installer was a pretty cool guy and gave me a quick orientation on how to use the DVR and all and so far so good. Time Warner tried everything to keep me but after spending a month last year (september) with either no reception or snow I am glad I finally was able to talk my fiance into letting me get rid of it.

HMc
08-15-2006, 06:47 AM
Directv charges you only for any boxes beyond the first one since you are using additional bandwidth with those. And no, D* doesn't offer a lot of HD channels yet. But they are getting two new satellites ready for launch after which they will completely blow away any and all of their competitors. D* likes to get it right the first time and they have done a great job of it. HDTV is in its infancy and is being treated as such. Dish Notwork jumped the gun and got the locals way before D* did by using the "two dish" system whereby the customer had to have two dishes (plus extra ugly wiring) on their house but they were "FIRST". D* on the other hand, perfected the system and created a dish that would see all three satellites and didn't need the foolish two dish system. Dish has three separate systems, Legacy, Dish Pro and Dish Pro Plus. None of which will work with any of the other two. The cable companies wait until D* launches something new (like all digital) and then tries to catch up. Hell, there still isn't a single cable company that is all digital and D* was from the start in 1994. Only that ignorant Frazod thinks D* is trying to catch up to cable. Cable is primitive by comparison.

Eh ? Addiotional bandwidth? How?

htismaqe
08-15-2006, 06:54 AM
Of course I guess I shouldn't even talk about on-demand, because nobody would use that anyway...

We used OnDemand a TON.

We had HBO and Starz! and we watched almost everything from those channels through VOD.

htismaqe
08-15-2006, 06:55 AM
I got Directv installed on Sunday and I am noticing that the picture is 10x's better than the picture I got with time warner on the same TV. The installer was a pretty cool guy and gave me a quick orientation on how to use the DVR and all and so far so good. Time Warner tried everything to keep me but after spending a month last year (september) with either no reception or snow I am glad I finally was able to talk my fiance into letting me get rid of it.

You won't see any "snow" with DirecTV...it's a digital signal. What you will see on occasion is pixelization.

Lzen
08-15-2006, 08:54 AM
It was in the works at one time, and many still believe it will happen eventually:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,105819-page,1/article.html?tk=dn101002X

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2006/08/07/directv-echostar-0807markets03.html

DT

Skip would go insane.

Cochise
08-15-2006, 09:04 AM
Is it possible to switch to DTV without paying any startup costs at all? Just wondered. Cable is alright, but the picture on many of my channels is not great.

The prospect of a uniformly high picture quality on all channels is appealing. I don't know how the high speed internet situaiton would work but I would need that too.


This thread just got a lot more entertaining BTW :D

Lzen
08-15-2006, 09:13 AM
We have Cox cable in Topeka. When I had cable, there were always a couple channels that would either go in and out or have that ghost image in the background. I asked them about it and they basically blamed it on the fact that I live near the hospitals. I don't even remember what they said the hospitals had to do with it.

GoHuge
08-15-2006, 10:52 AM
I still don't understand why Time Warner won't let those of us that want NFL Network to pay for it just like any other pay channel. Pass the cost on to me if I'm willing to pay for it. For those that don't they won't have to pay it. This seems too simple for huge companies to figure out, and I'm sure there is some technicality that would keep them from offering it to some for a fee. I'm sure it's an all or nothing deal. All i know is I am going to be going slingblade on somebody if the two don't have something figured out by the time NFL Network has their exclusive games on. I don't have the choice of changing cable providers. My condo complex has an exclusive deal with Time Warner so I'm fu&*ed. WORK SOMETHING OUT!!

KCTitus
08-15-2006, 10:57 AM
An interesting thread to read...I understand both sides, but if the customers want it, they should carry it. The NFL is in the enviable position to have a very loyal fan base willing to shell out the dough for the product.

I really wasnt suprised to see the network pull some games over to it because short of those games, that network sucks. NFL Total Access licks bag and is taped once and rebroadcast 12-13 times per day. It's ridiculous.

7-8 years ago, Sunday Ticket averaged $150...but the sat equipment was fairly expensive, as more and more people got the dish, the price went up until after last years renegotiation with the NFL...it went from an average of 180 to over 300--in one year. People still bought it.

The real issue is, does the NFL continue to let Snyder and Jones slowly erode the competitive balance of the league or do they keep them under control and thus keeping the 'demand' for the product high. If the NFL goes the way of MLB--and they're headed in that direction--interest will wane, severly.

stevieray
08-15-2006, 10:58 AM
I was gonna get cable, but then I got high
now I can't watch football, and I know why...
because Skip got high, because Skip got high

ChiefsfaninPA
08-15-2006, 11:01 AM
For all of the people who work for the cable companies that have posted that they know the price and it is high WHAT IS THE PRICE, short of knowing that it sounds like TW is just using that so people feel bad for them. And I could care less as a consumer if TW just breaks even carrying the channel. The make billions a year, so what I am supposed to worry about their profit margin? One more reason I don't have or ever will have cable again.

Cochise
08-15-2006, 11:13 AM
I still don't understand why Time Warner won't let those of us that want NFL Network to pay for it just like any other pay channel.

Time Warner is saying that even if you personally would pay $5 extra a month for it, there are the other 8 out of 10 people who wouldn't, and to pass the cost the NFL is asking on to you, they would have to charge you a very large amount, one that you would not be willing to pay.

chiefqueen
08-15-2006, 11:15 AM
The only problem I have with the NFL channel games is the fact that the evil retard c#cksuckers at DTV don't offer that channel in HD yet. Nor will they this year.

It is inexcusable how these pricks can lag so far behind the cable providers. :shake:

Time Warner hasn't given us ESPN2HD yet and only gave us Universal HD for the Olympics.

Frazod
08-15-2006, 11:23 AM
Time Warner hasn't given us ESPN2HD yet and only gave us Universal HD for the Olympics.

We (fortunately) don't have Time Warner up here; we have Comcast. Apparently they're a bit more on the ball.

tk13
08-15-2006, 11:25 AM
An interesting thread to read...I understand both sides, but if the customers want it, they should carry it. The NFL is in the enviable position to have a very loyal fan base willing to shell out the dough for the product.

I really wasnt suprised to see the network pull some games over to it because short of those games, that network sucks. NFL Total Access licks bag and is taped once and rebroadcast 12-13 times per day. It's ridiculous.

7-8 years ago, Sunday Ticket averaged $150...but the sat equipment was fairly expensive, as more and more people got the dish, the price went up until after last years renegotiation with the NFL...it went from an average of 180 to over 300--in one year. People still bought it.

The real issue is, does the NFL continue to let Snyder and Jones slowly erode the competitive balance of the league or do they keep them under control and thus keeping the 'demand' for the product high. If the NFL goes the way of MLB--and they're headed in that direction--interest will wane, severly.

That's the interesting question I guess. I mean the NFL is the most popular sport, but it's more likely that the actual majority of people could care less whether they got the NFL channel or not. I would want it, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't on this board who'd make the argument "Well I don't care about football, you shouldn't have to pay large prices for that channel." That's what TW is banking on I guess.

I agree that I think they're missing out. They do have a chance to be an ESPN like channel with all their NFL films stuff, but instead it's Total Access 215 times a day.

And all that said, you mock it, and it's not quite financial parity, but baseball the last few years has had more competitive parity than football. It's been a while since there were 20 teams in the NFL wild card race going into week 13-14.

BigRedChief
08-15-2006, 11:31 AM
This sure is a fuked up system. What's the difference between this and say......A kids play place, tunnel town etc having to pay the manufacture of the play equipment for every citizen in the city to use its services not just the ones that play in the tunnels.

What am I missing here? Is this a common occurance? The cable companies pay TNT, CMT, ESPN etc at the rate for all their subscribers on their systems not just the ones who view the channels?

htismaqe
08-15-2006, 12:02 PM
Time Warner is saying that even if you personally would pay $5 extra a month for it, there are the other 8 out of 10 people who wouldn't, and to pass the cost the NFL is asking on to you, they would have to charge you a very large amount, one that you would not be willing to pay.

Bingo.

Let's put this to an example.

CableCom has 1000 customers. The NFL says "For 1000 customers, your charge is $10 per customer or $10,000".

CableCom offers up NFL Network and 10% of their users want it -- 100 users. To "pass on the cost" CableCom would have to ask those 100 users to pay ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS per month to cover the cost of that one channel.

htismaqe
08-15-2006, 12:09 PM
This sure is a fuked up system. What's the difference between this and say......A kids play place, tunnel town etc having to pay the manufacture of the play equipment for every citizen in the city to use its services not just the ones that play in the tunnels.

What am I missing here? Is this a common occurance? The cable companies pay TNT, CMT, ESPN etc at the rate for all their subscribers on their systems not just the ones who view the channels?

ESPN is owned by Disney, which has roughly 20 cable channels. TNT is owned by Turner Broadcasting, which again, has about a dozen cable channels.

It works because certain channels can be packaged and the cost distributed across a much wider user base.

The NFL Network is ONE CHANNEL.

Historia
08-15-2006, 12:13 PM
The NFL makes about 6 billion year. Microsoft makes about 12 billion. NFL has the money. The big broadcasters would love to snatch it.

KCTitus
08-15-2006, 12:20 PM
...And all that said, you mock it, and it's not quite financial parity, but baseball the last few years has had more competitive parity than football. It's been a while since there were 20 teams in the NFL wild card race going into week 13-14.

Im not sure, exactly, what I mocked except MLB--which is mock worthy.

morphius
08-15-2006, 12:23 PM
ESPN is owned by Disney, which has roughly 20 cable channels. TNT is owned by Turner Broadcasting, which again, has about a dozen cable channels.

It works because certain channels can be packaged and the cost distributed across a much wider user base.

The NFL Network is ONE CHANNEL.

And without NFL ticket it just turns into one big expense in which their competetor, DTV, probably gets a ton of advertising on...

sedated
08-15-2006, 12:36 PM
I would love to have NFL network, but don't want to pay another f*cking dime to those crooks for cable.

I pay nearly $100 for digital cable and road runner as it is.

If they have to charge extra to add 1 channel, why not make that up by taking all this other crap off?

they give us 200 channels, of which I probably only watch about 25.

Manila-Chief
08-15-2006, 01:25 PM
The only reason I stay with cable is because that's where I get my internet.

I had TW while I was waiting or DTV's Sunday Ticket deal and Road Runner. I had DTV installed .... cancelled TW cable and kept Road Runner. Simple as that.

go bowe
08-15-2006, 01:52 PM
You are too stupid to even wait for my response. Seriously f*ck you too. You don't have a f*cking clue about what you are talking about. Go back to your secretarial duties you fuc*ing dropout. And you are a fat cocksu*ker to boot. If you can't even control your weight how can you expect anybody to take you seriously.. Eat shit you fat ******.hey, hold on...

i'm a fat cocksu*er too...

and my wife takes me seriously...

seriously...

go bowe
08-15-2006, 01:56 PM
A 60 year old stoner forfeits the right to criticize ANYBODY, EVER, regardless of how many dishes you hang at the local trailer park. You're a hateful, pathetic douche. You used to be somewhat amusing. Now you're just pitiful.hey, hold on...

i'm a old stoner too...

and i criticize my dog all the time...

seriously...

tk13
08-15-2006, 02:04 PM
Im not sure, exactly, what I mocked except MLB--which is mock worthy.
I was saying you don't know what you were talking about. You hope the NFL doesn't devolve into baseball. And I was saying I hope it does... there are 20 baseball teams within striking distance of a playoff spot. If the NFL had that kinda parity it would be exciting. The last couple years it's been the same teams over and over (New England) with a big gap between the good and bad teams.

go bowe
08-15-2006, 02:14 PM
I was gonna get cable, but then I got high
now I can't watch football, and I know why...
because Skip got high, because Skip got highLMFAO!!!!!!!1!! ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
08-15-2006, 02:18 PM
I was saying you don't know what you were talking about. You hope the NFL doesn't devolve into baseball. And I was saying I hope it does... there are 20 baseball teams within striking distance of a playoff spot. If the NFL had that kinda parity it would be exciting. The last couple years it's been the same teams over and over (New England) with a big gap between the good and bad teams.(yankees)

morphius
08-15-2006, 02:33 PM
I was saying you don't know what you were talking about. You hope the NFL doesn't devolve into baseball. And I was saying I hope it does... there are 20 baseball teams within striking distance of a playoff spot. If the NFL had that kinda parity it would be exciting. The last couple years it's been the same teams over and over (New England) with a big gap between the good and bad teams.
Every year there are about 15-16 teams within a game of the playoffs, and in 2002 there were 19 teams within a game of being the WC. So I really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

2003 Season 7 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2002
2004 Season, 5 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2003
2005 Season, 7 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2004

There is some pretty decent churn there.

KCTitus
08-15-2006, 02:38 PM
I was saying you don't know what you were talking about. You hope the NFL doesn't devolve into baseball. And I was saying I hope it does... there are 20 baseball teams within striking distance of a playoff spot. If the NFL had that kinda parity it would be exciting. The last couple years it's been the same teams over and over (New England) with a big gap between the good and bad teams.

You've got to be kidding me...aside from the fact that Baseball plays TEN TIMES the amount of games, I can find no statistical relevance to your comparison.

Every year in the NFL there are several teams at or below 500 that have an outside shot at the playoffs.

Wishing for the NFL to become more like MLB has to be the most idiotic thing Ive read around here in a long time.

tk13
08-15-2006, 03:17 PM
(yankees)
Yankees haven't won a World Series in 6 years. New England's won 3 Super Bowl titles in that span.

tk13
08-15-2006, 03:35 PM
Every year there are about 15-16 teams within a game of the playoffs, and in 2002 there were 19 teams within a game of being the WC. So I really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

2003 Season 7 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2002
2004 Season, 5 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2003
2005 Season, 7 teams that were not in the playoffs in 2004

There is some pretty decent churn there.
I was talking more about the pennant race type atmosphere within a season. Like last year it was just us, Pittsburgh, and San Diego fighting for that last playoff spot at the end and everything else was almost set in stone. Just like how the teams that always get the byes are usually the ones who win, it's pretty predictable, etc. And often times it is the same teams over and over. Denver, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and New England have made up 16 of the last 21 AFC Super Bowl appearances. That's over half of the NFL's lifespan those 4 have dominated... pretty impressive.

sedated
08-15-2006, 03:35 PM
I was saying you don't know what you were talking about. You hope the NFL doesn't devolve into baseball. And I was saying I hope it does... there are 20 baseball teams within striking distance of a playoff spot. If the NFL had that kinda parity it would be exciting. The last couple years it's been the same teams over and over (New England) with a big gap between the good and bad teams.

I could not disagree more.

The only reason baseball has so many teams competing is at the expense of VERY bad teams, like the Royals.

Baseball is so f*cked it doesn't know which way is up.

It's always the same teams in baseball: Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, A's, Cardinals, Astros, Twins, Dodgers, Mets. Just because a couple hold on til the end, doesn't change the fact that those teams will always have an advantage. Even if a cinderella makes it to midnight, they have to be disassembled right away (Marlins).

The NFL's rotating schedule and salary cap are setup to make sure winning teams do not win forever.

you are a Royals fan and want football to be MORE like baseball?

you mention the yankees vs. Patriots - the yankees have been in the playoffs every year, and the Patriots winning 3 could be considered a fluke since it hasn't happened since the 80's. Don't use the exception as the rule.

Calcountry
08-15-2006, 03:37 PM
The NFL network will be carring the Thursday night (ESPN Last year) and Saturday (CBS/FOX last year) games that are on once the college season ends. So in a way, if you had locals and ESPN last year, you could see the games. IMHO, it's just one more reason a real NFL fan needs DirecTv.

I can see both points, the NFL is probably offering a lower price per sub if Time Warner puts it in it's base package, but probably has a higher price if it's put on a premium tier. Time Warner probably wants the lower price per sub and the ability to put it on a premium tier, which is pretty much having your cake and eating it too. I will be willing do bet Comcast and Adelphia are paying the higher price, which is why they have the network.

DTSounds like the NFL and Hughes Satellite might be ready to talk merger at some point in the future.

The NFL could then completely control their content over the airwaves by not having to negotiate contracts with any affiliates.

When is the next TV contract up?

jidar
08-15-2006, 03:42 PM
LOL!

MLB having more parity than the NFL. hahahhahahah
Okay that's got to be drugs talking.

ChiTown
08-15-2006, 03:44 PM
You've got to be kidding me...aside from the fact that Baseball plays TEN TIMES the amount of games, I can find no statistical relevance to your comparison.

Every year in the NFL there are several teams at or below 500 that have an outside shot at the playoffs.

Wishing for the NFL to become more like MLB has to be the most idiotic thing Ive read around here in a long time.

100% AGREED!

MLB, with no Cap, and a slant toward the major market teams, is the most fooked up sport in all of Professional sports. I love Baseball, but the MLB format is fn idiotic.

tk13
08-15-2006, 03:52 PM
I could not disagree more.

The only reason baseball has so many teams competing is at the expense of VERY bad teams, like the Royals.

Baseball is so f*cked it doesn't know which way is up.

It's always the same teams in baseball: Red Sox, Yankees, Angels, A's, Cardinals, Astros, Twins, Dodgers, Mets. Just because a couple hold on til the end, doesn't change the fact that those teams will always have an advantage. Even if a cinderella makes it to midnight, they have to be disassembled right away (Marlins).

The NFL's rotating schedule and salary cap are setup to make sure winning teams do not win forever.

you are a Royals fan and want football to be MORE like baseball?

you mention the yankees vs. Patriots - the yankees have been in the playoffs every year, and the Patriots winning 3 could be considered a fluke since it hasn't happened since the 80's. Don't use the exception as the rule.
There are only two really bad teams in baseball. The Royals and Pirates. And that's their own fault. The Cubs aren't very good but they were decimated by injuries. That's 3 truly bad teams out of 30. Then there's another tier of not so good teams like the Nats and D'Rays that aren't horrible but aren't quite contenders. Then you have 20 teams all up in it with a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Nobody could honestly tell me with a straight face they know for sure who's going to be in and win the World Series. You could say the Mets and Tigers but they both have significant question marks. The age of the Mets starting pitching, the youth of the Tigers starting pitching, etc. The Yankees have a good record but nobody trusts their starting pitching going up against the Tigers/White Sox/Angels and their loaded rotations, etc. I think this baseball season has been maybe the most exciting sports season of any of the pro sports in this decade. The 2002 NFL season is the other one I'd put up there... there weren't many teams eliminated going into the last couple weeks.

The sports are way different, but I don't think it's as different as people like to think. I mean, the NFL has the same things baseball does... you cannot keep a team together. Look at how many players the Colts and Pats have lost. I'd agree the financial system is far worse in baseball, but despite that, you could make a very good case that there's just as much if not more parity despite that. New England and Philly were the teams of the 00's so far. The 90's were the same way though. The Cowboys and Bills in the early part of the decade, the Packers and Broncos in the latter part of the decade.

I've said that for three years on this board. That MLB is using the luxury tax, etc and moving in the right direction while NFL is falling behind the lead of guys like Snyder and Jones and heading in the wrong direction. It's not perfect, but I'd take what MLB has done this year and love to apply it to any major sport. If the NFL had a playoff chase like this the ratings would be nuts. Maybe it won't stick, but there has been some turnover the last 3-4 years and it's been fun to watch. Most of the people who diss it couldn't tell you who was where in the standings or the wild card races. Just blissful ignorance.

sedated
08-15-2006, 03:55 PM
I couldn't tell you whose going to win the world series, but you have a pretty good idea.

in the NFL, you have no clue. any team could win it all, and any supposedly good team could be sh!t.

(remember, the Patriots were suppose to finish last in their division when they won their 1st super bowl.)

jidar
08-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Ok, let's be real here. I like both leagues, but if you paid any attention to sports media the last decade or so (radio, tv, magazines) you would know that you're basically out on an island here. The subject of parity in MLB has been brought up a bazillion times by nearly everybody, and near universal consensus is that MLB has serious problems with their parity, and most of the time when this topic is discussed somebody will often say "I wish they could have parity like we have in the NFL."

What you're saying isn't just dumb, it's laughable to 90% of knowledgable sports fans.


If you actually look at the teams that make it to the playoffs every year in each sport, this is obvious.
The Patriots are an anamoly though.
In fact when the Patriots were going for number #3, the major thing everyone kept saying was how incredibly remarkable it was that they were managing to do it in the NFL where the parity is so good.

Calcountry
08-15-2006, 03:57 PM
You bet they'll keep their product available to the average fan. But it won't be at a reasonable price. It will be at a price that's just below the breaking point.

They'll push and push until people start leaving and only then will it stop.Kind of like gasoline?

sedated
08-15-2006, 03:59 PM
the Packers and Broncos in the latter part of the decade.

the Packers only had 1 championship in 2 appearances, not exactly a dynasty.

and since 1999, except for the Patriots and Rams, no team has been in the super bowl twice.

tk13
08-15-2006, 03:59 PM
Ok, let's be real here. I like both leagues, but if you paid any attention to sports media the last decade or so (radio, tv, magazines) you would know that you're basically out on an island here. The subject of parity in MLB has been brought up a bazillion times by nearly everybody, and near universal consensus is that MLB has serious problems with their parity, and most of the time when this topic is discussed somebody will often say "I wish they could have parity like we have in the NFL."

What you're saying isn't just dumb, it's laughable to 90% of knowledgable sports fans.


If you actually look at the teams that make it to the playoffs every year in each sport, this is obvious.
The Patriots are an anamoly though.
In fact when the Patriots were going for number #3, the major thing everyone kept saying was how incredibly remarkable it was that they were managing to do it in the NFL where the parity is so good.
Really? The Eagles made four straight NFC championship games this decade. They don't count?

That's kinda my point. You guys are just making blanket statements "Well you're an idiot, the media says otherwise." That's silly. Why don't you look at the winners in both leagues and actually put some thought into it.

tk13
08-15-2006, 04:03 PM
the Packers only had 1 championship in 2 appearances, not exactly a dynasty.

and since 1999, except for the Patriots and Rams, no team has been in the super bowl twice.
You're absolutely right. Those two teams make up 5 of the last 14 Super Bowl appearances.

Now, find me any two baseball teams in all of MLB that have more than 5 combined World Series appearances since 1999.

jidar
08-15-2006, 04:05 PM
Really? The Eagles made four straight NFC championship games this decade. They don't count?

That's kinda my point. You guys are just making blanket statements "Well you're an idiot, the media says otherwise." That's silly. Why don't you look at the winners in both leagues and actually put some thought into it.

Are we talking about the 6-10 in 2005 Eagles?

Calcountry
08-15-2006, 04:06 PM
Directv customers pay more? I ask everybody I hook up why they are changing. The overwheming reply is that they will pay less than they were paying cable. Also, Directv has raised the price of the basic package once in the 6 years I've been working for them.DirecTV is the bomb dude, totally awesome. The best value in entertainment out there, totally, Rockon, awesome dude.

Like, my summer home is installed as an add on to my regular home, only 5 bucks per month extra for the receiver, billed under the same account. AWESOME. The NFL ticket is mirrored too.

Oh, and a totally gnarly old dude came and intalled it for free too, that was the best part, watching him hook the thing up that I am totally incompetent at pointing, haaa.

jidar
08-15-2006, 04:08 PM
You're absolutely right. Those two teams make up 5 of the last 14 Super Bowl appearances.

Now, find me any two baseball teams in all of MLB that have more than 5 combined World Series appearances since 1999.


1999 Atlanta Braves New York Yankees
2000 New York Mets New York Yankees
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks New York Yankees
2002 San Francisco Giants Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins New York Yankees
2004 St. Louis Cardinals Boston Red Sox
2005 Houston Astros Chicago White Sox



Looks like the Yankees plus any other team.

tk13
08-15-2006, 04:11 PM
1999 Atlanta Braves New York Yankees
2000 New York Mets New York Yankees
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks New York Yankees
2002 San Francisco Giants Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins New York Yankees
2004 St. Louis Cardinals Boston Red Sox
2005 Houston Astros Chicago White Sox



Looks like the Yankees plus any other team.
I said more than 5.

Al Bundy
08-15-2006, 04:42 PM
You won't see any "snow" with DirecTV...it's a digital signal. What you will see on occasion is pixelization.

I am aware of that, I never said anything about snow being on Directv. Just stating what I had happen with me with TW.

sedated
08-16-2006, 10:07 AM
You guys are just making blanket statements "Well you're an idiot, the media says otherwise." That's silly. Why don't you look at the winners in both leagues and actually put some thought into it.

I hope you're not referring to me, I made no references to the media, and never called you and idiot.

Here's some research:
MLB Playoffs since 1995 (post strike)

AL
2005 - Yankees / Angels / White Sox / Red Sox
2004 - Yankees / Angels / Twins / Red Sox
2003 - Yankees / A's / Twins / Red Sox
2002 - Yankees / A's / Angels / Twins
2001 - Yankees / A's / Mariners / Indians
2000 - Yankees / A's / Mariners / White Sox
1999 - Yankees / Rangers / Red Sox / Indians
1998 - Yankees / Rangers / Red Sox / Indians
1997 - Yankees / Orioles / Mariners / Indians
1996 - Yankees / Orioles / Rangers / Indians
1995 - Yankees / Red Sox / Mariners / Indians

NL
2005 - Braves / Cardinals / Padres / Astros
2004 - Braves / Cardinals / Dodgers / Astros
2003 - Braves / Marlins / Cubs / Giants
2002 - Braves / Cardinals / D-Backs / Giants
2001 - Braves / Cardinals / D-Backs / Astros
2000 - Braves / Cardinals / Mets / Giants
1999 - Braves / D-Backs / Mets / Astros
1998 - Braves / Cubs / Padres / Astros
1997 - Braves / Marlins / Giants / Astros
1996 - Braves / Cardinals / Padres / Dodgers
1995 - Braves / Rockies / Reds / Dodgers

Essencially the same teams over and over again.
Parity at it's best :rolleyes:

morphius
08-16-2006, 10:11 AM
I was talking more about the pennant race type atmosphere within a season. Like last year it was just us, Pittsburgh, and San Diego fighting for that last playoff spot at the end and everything else was almost set in stone. Just like how the teams that always get the byes are usually the ones who win, it's pretty predictable, etc. And often times it is the same teams over and over. Denver, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and New England have made up 16 of the last 21 AFC Super Bowl appearances. That's over half of the NFL's lifespan those 4 have dominated... pretty impressive.
But that is one of the differences in a 16 game league versus a 100+ game league. 4 games back in the NFL you are out of it, 4 games back in baseball and you are right on the edge.