I am in even more favor of just scrapping the Thursday night games, what’s the point… oh $$$$ I forgot… or even better… move the Thursday and Monday night games to Saturday night… nobody wants to stay up until 1 am on the east coast to watch a game and then have to go into the work in the morning… unless its YOUR team that is playing… why else would the Thursday/Monday night numbers be so poor… Not like there is anything good on TV Saturday night anyway…

How Bornstein still has his job is mind-bending to me. It’s only a matter of time until the team owners decide they’ve had enough of this miserably failed approach. Given current economic conditions, how can they accept another year of the status quo?

On the flip side, I watch the NHL Network MORE than the NFL Network and I am by far a bigger football fan. But the NHL Network’s programming is much better. The “On The Fly” program is fantastic, with extended highlights of each game, etc. Now, I know it’s a different animal because they have more games to show during the week, but the point is, the NFL Network’s content is just terrible. And even the commentating is ridiculously bad.

And, as far as the NFL’s future dreams of charging everyone to see every game, they must have some serious delusions if they think that is going to work. I can tell you right now, if they did that, I personally would have two options. A) Go to a sports bar. B) Leave the NFL behind and move on with my life (the more likely option). Football is great, but not THAT great…

Same thing with NFLN…eight games a year, and the rest of the time overanalysis of lower-tier games, NFL Films programs, repeats of games from earlier in the week and (guh!) fantasy football. I’m glad I don’t get the channel because it adds nothing I can find out from anybody else.

I do think though that MLB went about things the right way with their network in January. They got everybody to sign up, they’re not making too many demands, and their programming schedule sounds appealing. That and their game schedule is broad, but not too broad that it cannibalizes other audiences and actually encourages viewers to ask for the channel. Hopefully NFLN gets the point soon, but I doubt it.

Same thing with NFLN…eight games a year, and the rest of the time overanalysis of lower-tier games, NFL Films programs, repeats of games from earlier in the week and (guh!) fantasy football. I’m glad I don’t get the channel because it adds nothing I can find out from anybody else.

I do think though that MLB went about things the right way with their network in January. They got everybody to sign up, they’re not making too many demands, and their programming schedule sounds appealing. That and their game

But they have to put the horse back in front of the cart first if they ever want to do anything. It’s not greed. It’s stupidity. Because eventually I think the NFL network could be the biggest cable network in the country. Unfortunately, they forgot the first cliche of sports: If you build it, they will come.

Guys, you gotta build it first. There are billion to be made, but you actually have to have a product first, else what are people paying you billions for?

Bob
njfrogman.blogspot.com/2008/11/nfl-duh-award-goes-tonfln.html

Bob
http://njfrogman.blogspot.com/2008/11/nfl-duh-award-goes-tonfln.html

Your $279 million is bogus since so many of even the 31 million make practically nothing (but again, a lot of that number is “free” NFLN which *DOESN’T INCLUDE THE GAMES” — the cable companies are paying little to nothing for that — the NFLN is glad to have the carriage). When you air ~161 airings a week, and the only ones above a million are the pregame, game, and post game, and when ~90% of the airings are under 200K viewers, with the bulk of those being under 100K viewers, and you could have 8-10 games with 15 million viewers if you sold to a network…over a few years, it’s squandering hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, the articles you cite point to a trend — a trend that *isn’t* good. Just like the Thanksgiving day games :-/

How about this figure, 31 million homes, used in the San Antonio article (posted below)? That would still give them subscriber revenue of around $279 million per year.

But I thought the NFL Network was a Nielsen rated channel now. I thought you had to be at 40 million for that to happen. Which just recently happened with the Gospel Channel.

But regardless, remember when people thought FNC was crazy for paying $10 to get on networks. Now they take in anywhere from $850 to $900 or so million each year in fees alone.

The NFL Network should (don’t they still own a portion of the league?) be showing all the arena football games. Give people other things to watch when the season isn’t going on.

—-

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA_062108_WEB_WhattoWatch_en_2333b2f6_html1504.html

NFL Network subscribers have dropped to an estimated 31 millions homes. The channel lost 8 million viewers when Comcast Cable won a court ruling that let the operator move the channel from basic-level service to a less viewed digital-tier service. Satellite provider DISH Network moved the NFL’s channel from their America’s Top 100 package to the America’s Top 200 package that lost the league an additional 4 million subscribers.

The 42 million it cites is spin, it includes what I described above, the NFL Network on the basic cable but **without** access to the games. When you factor in homes that actually have access to the games, it’s much lower.

But so far it looks like the Cardinals v. Eagles game isn’t any good either.

They currently have 42 million subscribers. The monthly fee they get is around .75 per household. That fee X 12 means the NFL network makes around $378 million from “fees” alone.

If they grow that number by 20 million in the next year or so–that will mean another $180M a year in fees…. for a total yearly subscriber fee of $558 MILLION.

Granted, they will never be like ESPN (which generates over $4 billion a year in “fees”) but the money they have coming in now (and the potential they could have) is certainly worth them doing what they are doing.

They just need to add lots more programming that is watchable .. besides the games.

–
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/11/nfl_network_gets_ready_to_rumb.php

The NFL Network’s distribution peaked at 44.1 million last year before Comcast downgraded the network, leaving it in about 40 million homes. NFL Network has been adding subscribers and was back at 42 million homes by the end of the summer, according to the network.
—-

Just like former ESPN “bad cop” Mark Shapiro, Borenstein believes only in leverage and arm twisting. The legacy of Shapiro’s failure at Six Flags and Borenstein’s current NFL Network disaster is the result of doing business without personal relationships and compromise.

No one is going to make the current cable TV systems that are still struggling to pay the ESPN fees that Borenstein originated add to that with an NFL Network fee. A four month season and only a few actual games should have told Borenstein that his approach needed to be different.

The shame is that the production group and the on-air network content is wonderful. Rather than compromise to get network carriage and build the overall NFL franchise in the off-season, this short-sighted approach is going to drain the NFL bank account in what is one of the most economically challenging business environments of the past century.

Perhaps, removing Mr. Borenstein and bringing in a well-respected CEO would be a move that paid immediate dividends.

JD

Um, did you just see the touchdown they gave up. They threw the ball DIRECTLY INTO THE TITANS HANDS like 5 yards from their own goal.