happy we don't have RU problems

[WoolyBully]

I personally think the NFL network idea is stupid.  Do we really need another sports channel, especially one dedicated to a sport that plays so few games as the NFL?

I agree...

On the other hand, what if this is just the slippery slope towards NFL going the way of

boxing? PPV. If there's a path to seperate you from your money...the fine folks in

television and advertising will find it.

It's odd that the 'exclusive' broadcast rights were allocated to The NFL Network.

Could it be that there's more money in restricting the audience?  

[Joe]

If the Steelers and Browns fans who emailed in masse to the NFL couldn't get anything done how the heck do you expect Rutgers and their fans to get the NFL network to ease up for a bowl game that will get 1/8th the viewership the Thursday night games would have had?

I don't think this is the NFL trying to get a monoply on the broadcasts, in fact I don't think they'll ever go away from networks. They make more money from NBC, Fox, and CBS than 30,000,000 people buying PPV at 30 bucks a pop.

Unfortunately this was another bad bowl deal the BE got involved with.

[BullyPulpit]

I personally think the NFL network idea is stupid.  Do we really need another sports channel, especially one dedicated to a sport that plays so few games as the NFL?

I agree...

On the other hand, what if this is just the slippery slope towards NFL going the way of

boxing? PPV. If there's a path to seperate you from your money...the fine folks in

television and advertising will find it.

It's odd that the 'exclusive' broadcast rights were allocated to The NFL Network.

Could it be that there's more money in restricting the audience?  

I believe, but I could be wrong, that the NFL Network's backing was integral in the Texas Bowl becoming a reality. I believe that they are the big financial force behind that game. The Insight  Bowl (Minnesota v. Texas Tech) is also being exclusively broadcast on the NFL Network. This is clearly just a ploy by the NFL to target large metropolitan cities in their never-ending pursuit to gouge the cable companies and their subscribers. I think that is one of the main reasons they sought out the BE in their bowl deal, as we have very large TV markets for all of our teams.  

[WoolyBully]

This is clearly just a ploy by the NFL to target large metropolitan cities in their never-ending pursuit to gouge the cable companies and their subscribers.

I am shocked, shocked...to see such a thing posted on here. Are we not all football fans?

Are we not all so enthralled by the product that we're willing to pay anything - ANYTHING -

to see just one more game?  

And if it is as you say, that NFLNETWORK was the force behind the Tejas Bowl, then

that would certainly explain how the decision came to be.

of course....once the football season is over...how many football shows do you think

you could stomach, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Just askin.... :

[BucnBull]

Money, money, money...the NFL already priced their product to prevent most families from attending live games.  Now they're making it exorbitantly expensive to watch it on TV.  I don't need it that bad.

[twillybull]

The real problem is that Bright House (formerly Time Warner here in Tampa) as well as a few other cable networks have been allowed to form monopolies through local governments.  Companies like TW could get away with unfair buisness tactics like offering programming (produced by the NFL or other entities) at exorbanent extra prices.  I applaud the NFL network for wanting to keep the money that rightfully belongs to them.  It's either they take advantage of the profits generated by their product, or the cable company does.  If they can negotiate better deals with entities like Dish and DirecTV to expand their market, then more power to `em.  

It was less than 10 years ago that you were SOL if you wanted any cable programming and didn't want Time Warner.

[HOTMello2005]

What is the USF Bowl game being televised on?

ESPN-2

[HOTMello2005]

On a side note, the weekend we beat WVU, the USF vs. WVU game was on local cable (ESPN) and the Syracuse vs. Rutgers game was not on local cable...AND IT WAS A HOME GAME TOO!!!

I was enjoying everyone coming into the sports bar and asking if they had the Rutgers game and if they could turn it on the three TV's I already asked the USF game to be on....hehehe ;D  The bartender said, "Sorry, someone already beat you to these TV's."

I loved all three hours of it too!

[Joe]

Twilly, I think this has to do with the NFL network charging Millions to add their network to the cable lineup.

Most cable networks deem this a "niche" channel and won't add the NFL network unless it's included on the sports tier that most offer (which includes CSTV, NBA tv, etc). If they were to add it to the basic lineup the cost of cable would probably go up $1 or so a month, in order to just save face on the losses they would take. Adding it to the sports tier would let them use the 5-6 bucks they charge for that help pay these costs.

The NFL Network refuses to allow this. They want their network on the basic package and knew that the only way they would get that is to create demand. Thus the setup for the "IWANTNFLNETWORK.COM" and the late season slate of games (which was originally a contract with TNT, but that's another story all together).

In reality, the NFL is the bad guy in all of this and they will probably get their way eventually.

Just to note this isn't the 1st time this has happened ESPN 2 got onto many cable lineups when Duke/UNC was shown exclusivly on the network in 1994.

[twillybull]

Joe,

The NFL network is not the bad guy for wanting to get what the programming they produce is worth.   It's called free market / enterprise.  The real limitation is that the local cable companies used to have a monopoly on the markets.  For a long time they have had the upper hand in what they pick and choose in their offerings.   Thankfully now there is a choice in cable providers, and if people want the NFL network, it may influence which cable / satellite provider they choose.    

The demand for the games is there, or the NFL would not be producing the programming.  If the NFL network (which owns the rights to the Texas bowl game) wants to use the the game as a further bargaining tool, then so be it, it's their right to.  The cable company has every right to refuse the terms, but they will probably hear it from their customers.