Owners Meetings Start Tomorrow

[sonnyboy]

I'd watch MASH over the Cardinals.

It is time to realize that fans want more football.

That's what makes no sense. So much of what they've done recently tells me they know this.
Why both networks can't/don't have a double header each Sunday makes no sense to me.

 

[casmith07]

That's what makes no sense. So much of what they've done recently tells me they know this.
Why both networks can't/don't have a double header each Sunday makes no sense to me.

Well, for starters it'd be nice if the NFL wasn't charging cable companies such an exorbitant fee in order to broadcast the game portion of their network to cable subscribers. Part of the reason I think we won't see Thursday games for a while is because Fox, CBS, or ESPN will want them but the NFL wants to keep it all in-house.

More football would actually mean less football for a lot of cable subscribers if they went to Thursday games every week.

 

[sonnyboy]

Well, for starters it'd be nice if the NFL wasn't charging cable companies such an exorbitant fee in order to broadcast the game portion of their network to cable subscribers. Part of the reason I think we won't see Thursday games for a while is because Fox, CBS, or ESPN will want them but the NFL wants to keep it all in-house.

More football would actually mean less football for a lot of cable subscribers if they went to Thursday games every week.

But what does that have to do with both networks having a double header for Sunday each week?

I never could understand it. If both networks are showing a 1:00 and 4:15 game, it will draw more total viewers each week.

I've skipped many not so appealing Sunday 4:15 games. If I had a 2nd option, I'm sure I'd be watching football more often at 4:15 on Sunday.

This is just basic common sense and I've never heard a valid argument against it.

 

[daschoo]

I'd watch MASH over the Cardinals.

It is time to realize that fans want more football.

over here the coverage has gone backwards. 2008 season those who had sky sports (a pay channel) could press the red button and choose whichever game they wanted to watch. this season past though sky only broadcast the early and late game that was the main game shown in america with channel 5 (council tele) showing the sunday night game. monday night football was not broadcast in this country, whereas in 2008 that was the game shown on channel 5 with sky showing all sunday games. there are rumours that channel 5 won't be showing anything this season so it could get worse

 

[Arch Stanton]

over here the coverage has gone backwards. 2008 season those who had sky sports (a pay channel) could press the red button and choose whichever game they wanted to watch. this season past though sky only broadcast the early and late game that was the main game shown in america with channel 5 (council tele) showing the sunday night game. monday night football was not broadcast in this country, whereas in 2008 that was the game shown on channel 5 with sky showing all sunday games. there are rumours that channel 5 won't be showing anything this season so it could get worse

.....and I've lost NASCAR.

 

[casmith07]

But what does that have to do with both networks having a double header for Sunday each week?

I never could understand it. If both networks are showing a 1:00 and 4:15 game, it will draw more total viewers each week.

I've skipped many not so appealing Sunday 4:15 games. If I had a 2nd option, I'm sure I'd be watching football more often at 4:15 on Sunday.

This is just basic common sense and I've never heard a valid argument against it.

I agree. I was only talking specifically on the "every Thursday" option.