I think he feels he has to force it though, because other writers and public figures won't step up and say the same things. It's a topic I can't relate to, but his passion and conviction are commendable.
Printable View
It's a pretty interesting read. Spike Lee has touched on the subject, and never went that deep.
I'm curious to see the reactions.
Cablevision doesn't get the NFL network. Other than being forced to watch tonight's game in a bar, which is perfectly fine by me, it's just one more reason to hate to the Dolan family.
Why is tonight's game on NFL Network anyway?
NFL is trying to get people to get the NFL Network, as well as getting every cable company to attach it. This is one of their best attractions.
However, they are horrible at directing the game, using horrible camera angles, cutting at the wrong times, and having horrible commentary as well. They have a lot of work to do.
Comcast has the biggest role to play in all this. Too detailed for me to get into here, but look it up if you're interested in the history.
Well, in fairness, from what I've read the NFL Network is charging more than nearly any other basic cable channel, ESPN included, and their programming is only relevant for half the year. But yes, the stubbornness is on both sides. I'd still lay more of the blame on the NFL for charging such an unreasonable price.
People should have the right to choose if they want to pay that amount or not. But out of pettiness because the NFL has the Sunday ticket on DirecTV, Comcast is not carrying the network at all. Personally, I don't need "Versus" or "The Golf Channel" or any number of channels that come with my basic package. If I could eliminate all of those and then add the NFL Network and come out even (or perhaps worse) on my bill, I'd jump.
Philly is in a unique situation because you have to have Comcast if you want to watch the vast majority of the Flyers, Sixers, and Phillies games. Comcast will not allow these games to be broadcast on any dish network unless you are about 50 miles outside of the city limits. I live in Center City, so no Pack/Cowboys for me this evening.
No, I meant the cost to the cable company, not the consumer. Obviously the cable company can hike up the price, but since nothing works a la carte, they'd have to raise the price of an entire tier, forcing some people to perhaps choose not to have other channels because the NFL is unreasonable about the price of their channel.
I do understand the NFL/DirecTV squabble, but again, I side with cable companies. If the NFL wants to screw the cable companies over by having the Sunday Ticket exclusively on DirecTV, why should those cable companies bend over backwards for the NFL and pay a price higher than that of far superior channels, such as ESPN?
*scratches head*
I've got Comcast, and I get the NFL Network, in standard and HD.
The channels are as follows:
180 NFL
181 NFLHD
Yeah the whole situation is pretty FUBAR at the moment. I guess I'll just have to suck it up and go to a sports bar after work to watch the remainder of the game. Maybe its a good thing that millions of Americans won't be able to watch one of my favorite teams (the Packers) get their asses handed to them by the Cowboys. I've discussed this with a Cowboys fan who's a friend of mine, and even did some research. Most of the variables favor Dallas. The other mini Super Bowl won't be as good as the Pats-Colts Bowl.
Uh, I get the NFL network through Comcast as well on channel 180, and I live on the east coast, not in Minnesota.
As a Packers fan, I am now very concerned. Not because they lost, but because Brett Favre got hurt.
On one hand I'm worried too because Brett Farve has been running the offense beautifully. On the other hand last night Aaron Rodgers showed he could play. If you had told me that Farve would go down in the 2nd quarter and the Packers would lost by only 10 points (the game was close in the second half up until the last 5 minutes) I would have said you were crazy. The Cowboys are clearly the class of the NFC but the Packers are a close second.
In fact right now my rankings for the best teams in the league are thus:
1. Pats
2. Cowboys
3. Packers
4. Steelers
5. Jaguars
I think the next five would fill out something like this:
6. Colts
7. Bucs
8. Browns
9. Seahawks
10. Giants (although I was tempted to put the Titans instead)
However if the Colts win on Sunday I'll bump them up for sure. Injuries have hurt them overall this season, which isn't surprising considering that many Super Bowl winners and runner ups suffer injuries and let downs the season after.
Just out of curiosity, why do you give the Steelers so much credit, let alone rank them above the Colts? The best team they've played this year has been Cleveland and in their last two games have either lost to or played close to the two worst teams in the league.
I honestly think they'd only be a borderline playoff capable team if not for their cupcake schedule.
That's true. However I do believe the Steelers are one of the best teams in the league despite their schedule. They have equal balance on offense and defense, and besides this isn't college football where strength of schedule matters. Right now do you really think the Colts could beat the Steelers? No because they're not at full strength. Indy has played a tougher schedule yes but that's only because the AFC South is actually good this year. Its not Pitt's fault that the only competition they have in the AFC North is Cleveland.
PS: Knowing my luck because I posted this Pitt will lose to Cincy this weekend. It could happen...