NFL.com offers shut-out Dallas, Green Bay fans limited free views of game

Leave it to the NFL to find an inadequate solution to the problem created by putting big games on its poorly distributed NFL Network.

If you're a football fan, you're no doubt very well aware that tonight, the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers face off in one of the biggest games of the year. Yet, unless you happen to be a subscriber of one of the few cable or satellite services that carry the NFL Network--where the game is being broadcast--you won't be able to watch the game.

The Dallas Cowboys versus Green Bay Packers game Thursday night will be available only on the NFL Network, which reaches a limited national audience. To compensate, NFL.com is offering free access to live 'look-ins' on the game.

(Credit: NFL)

Ah, but if you happened to pick up Thursday's New York Times, you might have come across a full-page ad with a big welcome message: "NFL fans, The National Football League wants you to see tonight's big game between Green Bay and Dallas.

"Despite our best efforts to reach agreements with all cable companies, we were unsuccessful."

The ad goes on to trumpet the new NFL.com Live service which, the ad seems to indicate, will allow fans to watch the game live on the Web or on their Sprint Mobile-enabled phones.

"For fans who don't have NFL Network--introducing NFL.com Live--an exclusive live broadcast covers tonight's game from all angles on NFL.com," the ad continued. "NFL.com Live Thursday Night Football will be anchored by a live, originally produced video program with live game look-ins, complimented by highlights, studio analysis, and exciting interactive applications."

Yes, it's true, the NFL misused the word "complimented."

But that's neither here nor there.

It turns out that what the NFL is offering via its free NFL.com Live service is a very limited set of short "look-ins" on the game. Mostly what fans will see while the Packers and Cowboys bang away on the gridiron will be talking heads in a studio analyzing the game that most fans can't see.

And that's too bad, and emblematic of the shift in attitude by the various professional sports leagues to make it hard for their fans to actually see the games they want to see. And if, by some chance, the NFL had decided to make the entire Dallas versus Green Bay game available online, it would have likely been one of the biggest Web events of all time.

But they would never do that, because giving their fans what they want is somehow not a desirable thing for the league.

[aSiriusTHoTH]

If in Dallas/Green Bay would be pissed

I'd be pissed if I was living in Dallas/Green Bay and I was a Cowboys and/or Packers fan. The NFL Network is a joke, that barely no one has. The NFL is only kicking themselves in the butt, while loyal fans can't watch the games.

If the NFL is trying to isolate their fans.. good job.. well done...

[milrtime]

Dallas/GB

The people that will be pissed are the rest of texas/wisconsin/country that are fans and won't be able to see it. Dallas, Green Bay, and Milwaukee all are allowed to have a local network affiliate broadcast the game (ABC will carry the game here in Milwaukee)

[bschmidt25]

Dallas / Green Bay

Dallas and Green Bay are going to get the game through a local channel (Milwaukee too). But there are still plenty of people that this is going to affect. For example, Madison WI is only 75 miles from Milwaukee, but they won't get the game. Also, Wausau / Stevens Point in north central WI is one county outside of the Green Bay viewing area. Even though they have Green Bay channels on their cable system, they are going to be blacked out for the game. Basically, in WI if you leave in the the eastern half of the state, you're OK, but if you live in central or western WI you're screwed. I'm sure this is the case in Texas as well for cities like Austin and Amarillo.

This is ridiculous and it's pretty easy to blame the NFL here, but the fact is that they were somehow able to negotiate successfully with DirecTV, Dish, and AT&T UVerse, but not with the cable companies. As far as I know, NFL network is on the basic tier for these providers as well, which is the main point of contention with the cable companies. I think cable just wants another excuse to extract more money out of their customers by making them buy an extra sports tier for ~$7-10/month. At least in WI, customers would still snap it up if the alternative was not getting games.

[DustoMan]

Just Dallas/Green Bay?

Oh no, Dallas and Green Bay... The whole states of Texas and Wisconsin are probably pissed. I know a few people at my workplace that are upset that they can't watch the game. I then get to tell them that *I* have NFL Network in HD and I won't be watching it. -_-

[guy_dudeman]

Inaccurate.

This article is obviously written by someone who didn't watch the online coverage of last week's game. The majority of what was shown was game footage, and if they were in a "talking heads" segment and a great play happened, the "talking heads" cut directly to the game as it happened and showed replays of it.

How about doing a little research on something before being so negative about it?

[David Richard]

Can anybody else chime in on this?

I'd love to stay home and watch the game on the web. But I have serious doubts about it, so I'll be hitting the local sports bar.

[tonyjk3]

Cable Companies Are To Blame, Not The NFL

What you fail to cover in this article is how the cable companies are trying to use the NFL Network to squeeze more money out of the consumer. If you had bothered to study the proposal by the NFL, it was a pretty good deal for the likes of Comcast and Time Warner. The NFL wanted the network to be available as part of basic cable, but the cable companies balked at losing a chance a more revenue. Comcast and Time Warner said it would raise the price of basic cable if they didn't charge people for it. We won't be able to see this game because of the continued greed of Time Warner and especially Comcast.

[jayhawk73]

It goes both ways

The NFL network is demanding $0.70 per cable user for the rights to show NFL Network. The cable companies want to pay the going rate for networks which is about $0.13 - $0.17 per cable user. The FCC has asked for arbitration which should help but probably not during this season. The arbitrator may come in and say that $0.30 per user is fair or side with one company or the other.

Either way if you don't have NFL Network this year, you probably won't get it anytime soon.

By the way, if you watched the Indy game last week on NFLN -- it was horrible (in my opinion). To me it's a combination of Sunday and Monday night football, and that's not a compliment.

[samkass]

Cable Companies Are To Blame AND The NFL

It takes two to screw up a deal. The NFL could easily have sold the right to CBS, NBC, FOX, ESPN, or one of the others. The reason you can't watch the game is because the NFL wants a bigger cut of the football advertising revenue. Everyone's greedy here-- that's the American way.

In the end, the NFL is shooting themselves in the foot, of course, by taking away more and more of the excitement of their product.

[gefitz]

You've got it, Tony...

If you need this one game a week enough, you can (most of the time) switch to satellite (as long as you aren't in a north-facing valley or something that can't see the souther horizon).

Cable companies don't make the effort because they already have a customer base. The satellite providers are busting it hard to get those customers, even if it takes a bit out of their current bottom line...Get a clue and switch already...

[tux_warrior]

Isn't it always about money?

Especially when it comes to Cable TV companies. It still blows my mind in this day and age why consumers don't have a choice in their cable TV providers. I have an endless choice of electricity providers but one cable provider.

If you're in the content providing business (Time Warner) and there's content that, despite thousands of subscribers asking for it, you still decide to not provide it....then who's to blame for this cluster___K?
I don't see where the NFL Network has done anything that all the other cable channels have done.

[c152driver]

More blame lies with the NFL

More accurately, I think it's the NFL using the NFL Network to squeeze the consumer--not the cable companies. The NFL wants more of the revenue for themselves, so they create a network which earns them revenue year round even though the football season is only a few months. So, us consumers end up paying for another network without really receiving anything more in return. For a change, I actually side with the cable companies on this one. Kudos to them for taking a stand.

[bschmidt25]

Agree

Also, what the cable companies fail to mention is that they would be able to sell advertising on these channels and make money that way. It's easy to blame the NFL, but the cable companies are hanging their customers out to dry on this one.

[chiefmoneymaka]

not quite

The cable companies don't want to charge customers for it. They don't have much of a choice because of the price the NFL is demanding for the network. The NFL is unwilling to allow the cable companies to put the network on an upper tier, and the cable companies are unwilling to pay several times the rate they pay for all of the other cable channels.

[ski3211]

Get a dish

DirecTV offers NFL Network as part of its base package.

[bschmidt25]

I would if I could

Believe me, I would have had it years ago if I could. Unfortunately, there are some poor saps like myself that only have a north facing view. Combine that with living in a multi unit condo development with a homeowners association that won't budge on allowing a shared satellite dish and AT&T UVerse who are in a p-ing match with them over who is responsible for the internal cabling and I have only one option - Time Warner Cable.

[jayhawk73]

AT&T U-Verse

They have it in their Sports Package and it's cheaper than cable and dish....I'll be watching it in HD tonight :)

[mspris19]

Green Bay-Dallas game

It is a darn shame that everyone in the sports leagues are so greedy. I can't believe that the NFL is now limiting the viewing of the games! They can blame it on the cable networks, but the real thing is, why should anyone have to pay to watch a game? Don't they already make far more money on advertising, etc., that they shouldn't have to make people pay for the priviledge of watching? I think they have gone really over the edge, and it looks like this is what we have to look forward to. I am angry and disappointed in this turn of events. As much as I was born and raised in Green Bay, I am also disappointed in the Green Bay Packers as a part of the NFL for allowing this to happen.

[David Richard]

Link to press release

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-28-2007/0004713141&EDATE=

[snip]

Fans will get a live look at NFL Network game action at :15 and :45 past each hour and during select action in the "red zone" (inside 20-yard line).

[David Richard]

Hey, www.nfl.com/live turned out to be pretty good

If what they played on the web was the same as what the played on Sprint TV (to the cellphone), then the service was actually pretty good. It was mostly live game play.

My Dad and I watched the first half at a sports bar, and then went home to see what it would be like on the web. Turned out my router went belly up, so I had to resort to my Sprint phone. Gave it to my Dad to watch and he was happy as pie.

So 2 points for www.nfl.com/live (and sprint).