PDA

View Full Version : How many primetime games will the Vikings have in 2008?



vikingivan
02-20-2008, 03:44 PM
With a bonafide star like Purple Jesus any less than 3 would be a disappointment.
He is the perfect player for the NFL to market.

SharperImage
02-20-2008, 03:47 PM
My guess is The game vs the colts will be on MNF... so im saying 2 MNF games 2SNF games and 2NFLN games

vikingivan
02-20-2008, 03:52 PM
"SharperImage" wrote:


My guess is The game vs the colts will be on MNF... so im saying 2 MNF games 2SNF games and 2NFLN games


6 would be nice.
I don't expect that many.
I think the Colts at the Vikings will be a Sunday night game.

BadlandsVikings
02-20-2008, 03:53 PM
0-2

i_bleed_purple
02-20-2008, 04:04 PM
3
one sunday
one monday
one thursday or saturday

tgorsegner
02-20-2008, 04:09 PM
I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.

marstc09
02-20-2008, 04:13 PM
With Peterson winning rookie of the year and pro bowl MVP I think we will have 4.

NodakPaul
02-20-2008, 04:21 PM
"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Anyway, with AD I expect a few nationally televised games.
Looking ahead to the schedule, I wouldn't be surprised to see Indianapolis, Green Bay, or New York Giants as nationally televised games.
The only away game that might be of national interest is Green Bay, the rest are all relatively small market teams.
With that being said, I will vote for 2 nationally televised games.
One home, one away.

i_bleed_purple
02-20-2008, 04:27 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Anyway, with AD I expect a few nationally televised games.
Looking ahead to the schedule, I wouldn't be surprised to see Indianapolis, Green Bay, or New York Giants as nationally televised games.
The only away game that might be of national interest is Green Bay, the rest are all relatively small market teams.
With that being said, I will vote for 2 nationally televised games.
One home, one away.


I thought I heard somewhere that the NFL forced one cable company to provide NFLN free of charge, i could be wrong though

www.iwantnflnetwork.com

NodakPaul
02-20-2008, 04:29 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Anyway, with AD I expect a few nationally televised games.
Looking ahead to the schedule, I wouldn't be surprised to see Indianapolis, Green Bay, or New York Giants as nationally televised games.
The only away game that might be of national interest is Green Bay, the rest are all relatively small market teams.
With that being said, I will vote for 2 nationally televised games.
One home, one away.


I thought I heard somewhere that the NFL forced one cable company to provide NFLN free of charge, i could be wrong though

www.iwantnflnetwork.com


They won a federal suit against Comcast to force them to provide it on their basic programming package.
DirectTV and DishNetwork already did.
Time Warner is still balking to the best of my knowledge.

tgorsegner
02-20-2008, 04:32 PM
"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Anyway, with AD I expect a few nationally televised games.
Looking ahead to the schedule, I wouldn't be surprised to see Indianapolis, Green Bay, or New York Giants as nationally televised games.
The only away game that might be of national interest is Green Bay, the rest are all relatively small market teams.
With that being said, I will vote for 2 nationally televised games.
One home, one away.


I thought I heard somewhere that the NFL forced one cable company to provide NFLN free of charge, i could be wrong though

www.iwantnflnetwork.com



I thought NFL was attempting to charge the cable companies quite a bit to carry the channel though. Otherwise it would make no sense for the companies not to have something that would attract viewers.

And Mediacom doesn't have it yet.

Also, apologize for the thread-jacking, so back to task

My guess is that we get 3ish but atleast one is Sunday night.

NodakPaul
02-20-2008, 04:38 PM
"tgorsegner" wrote:


"i_bleed_purple" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Anyway, with AD I expect a few nationally televised games.
Looking ahead to the schedule, I wouldn't be surprised to see Indianapolis, Green Bay, or New York Giants as nationally televised games.
The only away game that might be of national interest is Green Bay, the rest are all relatively small market teams.
With that being said, I will vote for 2 nationally televised games.
One home, one away.


I thought I heard somewhere that the NFL forced one cable company to provide NFLN free of charge, i could be wrong though

www.iwantnflnetwork.com



I thought NFL was attempting to charge the cable companies quite a bit to carry the channel though. Otherwise it would make no sense for the companies not to have something that would attract viewers.

And Mediacom doesn't have it yet.

Also, apologize for the thread-jacking, so back to task

My guess is that we get 3ish but atleast one is Sunday night.


NFLN wants to charge 40 cents per subscriber.
ESPN charges nearly $5 per subscriber.
It is more of an issue with cable companies knowing they could make more money if it was offered solely on the sports tier.

Anyway, I would love to get three, but that would me Indy, GB, and NYG.
I just can't see any other team on the roster that would warrant a nationally televised game.

Zeus
02-20-2008, 04:59 PM
"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage.

Write your Congressperson and Senators.
Seriously.


=Z=

ItalianStallion
02-20-2008, 05:02 PM
I know it isn't necessarily great for the team (due to a shorter week of preparation), but I wouldn't mind seeing the Vikes on thanksgiving.
If I recall, the last time they played the Lions on Thanksgiving was 2000.

tgorsegner
02-20-2008, 05:03 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage.

Write your Congressperson and Senators.
Seriously.


=Z=


Might. kind of goes against my beliefs.

Zeus
02-20-2008, 05:05 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Not to hijack your hijack, but it's the cable companies who are standing up for the MILLIONS of basic cable subscribers who don't want to pay the ridiculous fee that the NFL is demanding for the niche programming of NFLN.
These people do not want nor care to have NFLN in their homes, but that is exactly the stance of the NFL - it will be yours!
Rather than allowing it to be an option on a sports tier, the NFL wants for it ONLY to go to EVERYONE.
Basically, the NFL wants to force all consumers of the cable product to pay for an option that only some want.

As to the # of primetime games - I say 3.

=Z=

AngloVike
02-21-2008, 01:48 AM
I'd love to be over for a Monday or Sunday Night game - make a change from every game I've seen at the Dome being a noon start
;D

Schutz
02-21-2008, 02:16 AM
Atleast 2 in the early parts of the season just to show off AP.
If we are actually in contention that number could go up twords the end of the season.

jkjuggalo
02-21-2008, 03:15 AM
I'm guessing about 3 will be shown on primetime...mostly to show off AD like you said. My guess?
It will be the Packers, Colts, and Lions (on Thanksgiving).

NodakPaul
02-21-2008, 08:17 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Not to hijack your hijack, but it's the cable companies who are standing up for the MILLIONS of basic cable subscribers who don't want to pay the ridiculous fee that the NFL is demanding for the niche programming of NFLN.
These people do not want nor care to have NFLN in their homes, but that is exactly the stance of the NFL - it will be yours!
Rather than allowing it to be an option on a sports tier, the NFL wants for it ONLY to go to EVERYONE.
Basically, the NFL wants to force all consumers of the cable product to pay for an option that only some want.

As to the # of primetime games - I say 3.

=Z=


Nice argument, but the % of viewers who want ESPN is probably fairly close to the % of viewers who want NFLN (The number of sports fans who don't watch football is relatively small).
Yet ESPN charges more than ten times the price for their package.
FYI, the price of ESPN has gone up steadily for the past decade.

Anyway... I would rather have a Sunday night or Monday night game than a Thursday game.

Zeus
02-21-2008, 08:24 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"tgorsegner" wrote:


I hope MN gets ZERO NFL Network Games. Quite a few people, including myself unless I am at home, have no opportunity to watch these game. Does that make us less of fans? IMHO the league cheats the fan base by putting games on a network that a relatively small portion of fans have and that has quite frankly inferior coverage. ESPN games are bad enough, If I had my way I would like to see all the games be on Fox. CBS and ABC are ok, but I think Fox covers the games best. The broadcast networks are the best for access, even though out-of-market fans have to shell out big $$ to Directv to see their teams anyway.


Not to hijack the thread, but the NFL wants NFLN available to everybody who has basic cable.
It is the cable companies who are balking, and therefore the ones who are cheating the fan base.

Not to hijack your hijack, but it's the cable companies who are standing up for the MILLIONS of basic cable subscribers who don't want to pay the ridiculous fee that the NFL is demanding for the niche programming of NFLN.
These people do not want nor care to have NFLN in their homes, but that is exactly the stance of the NFL - it will be yours!
Rather than allowing it to be an option on a sports tier, the NFL wants for it ONLY to go to EVERYONE.
Basically, the NFL wants to force all consumers of the cable product to pay for an option that only some want.

As to the # of primetime games - I say 3.


Nice argument, but the % of viewers who want ESPN is probably fairly close to the % of viewers who want NFLN (The number of sports fans who don't watch football is relatively small).
Yet ESPN charges more than ten times the price for their package.
FYI, the price of ESPN has gone up steadily for the past decade.

Anyway... I would rather have a Sunday night or Monday night game than a Thursday game.



I will continue to poke holes in your blind support of the NFL and their draconian NFLN policies.

I don't know where you get the $.40 deal, but I've never heard anything on the per subscriber charger (which is what NFLN charges the cable companies - add on some more to figure what it will cost the consumer) at less than $.70.

And NFLN is NICHE programming.
7 months of the year, they have no new content.

ESPN shows baseball, the NBA, college sports galore, auto racing, bowling, curling, horse racing, gymnastics, figure skating, etc. etc.


I'm going to write down on a piece of paper here next to me what your next counter-argument will now be.

Thread note:
I don't particularly like going to prime-time home games - especially in December.
COLD!

=Z=

Marrdro
02-21-2008, 08:27 AM
Really depends on how they can hype the games.
I see the following games as nationally broadcast events:

Chicago Bears
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers - At least one of these.
Probably the home game for the Packers.
In fact, as much as I hate to admit it, they will try to get as many Favrrrrrreeee games on nationally as they can.
Could (we can only hope) be his last year.
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
New York Giants - Hyped as a rehash of the only game the Giants didn't avenge last year.
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts - Tony returns kindof thing.

New Orleans Saints
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Arizona Cardinals
Jacksonville Jaguars - Kindof a reach on this one but I think the NFL will want to get as much visability for Jax after thier run last year.
AD vs Gerrard kindof spin.
Tennessee Titans

Please no Thurs Night games........Hate the short week unless it sets us up for a long week of prep for someone like the Giants or Colts.
:'(

Zeus
02-21-2008, 08:36 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


NFLN wants to charge 40 cents per subscriber.
ESPN charges nearly $5 per subscriber.
It is more of an issue with cable companies knowing they could make more money if it was offered solely on the sports tier.


Find me documentation that ESPN charges $5/subscriber.
I've never read anything more than $3 - and I think that was too high.
Also - is that just for ESPN, or for ESPN2, ESPNClassic, ESPNU and The Ocho?

=Z=

NodakPaul
02-21-2008, 09:03 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


I'm going to write down on a piece of paper here next to me what your next counter-argument will now be.

Thread note:
I don't particularly like going to prime-time home games - especially in December.
COLD!

=Z=




I hope you wrote this down then: :)

You obviously don't have NFLN if you think that they only have new content for 5 months out of the year.
You are assuming that they only report on stuff during the regular season.
There is the combine, Free agency, the draft (this is a HUGE part in the offseason), rookie signings, OTAs, training camps, preseason, the regular season, the playoffs, the super bowl... and then we start over again.
The only slow time is in late May/Early June - after the draft analysis grows old and before the OTAs start.
It is more specialized programming than ESPN, but to say that it only has new content for 5 months out of the year is simply wrong.

As to the price the NFLN charges, you are correct.
It is $.70 cents, not 40 (I actually knew that too, my brain must ahve short circuited this morning).
ESPN packages vary according to what channels are taken.
The $3 you reference is usually a minimum of 3 (ESPN, ESPN2, Classic) with the others being add ons (for additional charges of course).
ESPN, BTW is owned by Disney, and they often require subscriptions to additional channel packages for the right to subscribe to ESPN.
When we were in IL, we took part in negotiations with several cable channel providers to update packages for the university's cable service.
ESPN and its channels were by far the most expensive (nearly $5 per subscriber).
CNN's package, which provided more channels was $.50 per subscriber.
NFLN did not exist at the time.

Don't make the cable companies out to be some kind of victim here.
Instead of negotiating prices with NFLN, they got into a pissing contest and decided that the network couldn't exist with out them (not the first time it would have happened).
What they didn't anticipate is both satellite companies picking NFLN up on their basic package, nor the fact that a good percentage of the population would complain loudly if they could not get the channel.

jmcdon00
02-21-2008, 09:24 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Zeus" wrote:


I'm going to write down on a piece of paper here next to me what your next counter-argument will now be.

Thread note:
I don't particularly like going to prime-time home games - especially in December.
COLD!

=Z=




I hope you wrote this down then: :)

You obviously don't have NFLN if you think that they only have new content for 5 months out of the year.
You are assuming that they only report on stuff during the regular season.
There is the combine, Free agency, the draft (this is a HUGE part in the offseason), rookie signings, OTAs, training camps, preseason, the regular season, the playoffs, the super bowl... and then we start over again.
The only slow time is in late May/Early June - after the draft analysis grows old and before the OTAs start.
It is more specialized programming than ESPN, but to say that it only has new content for 5 months out of the year is simply wrong.

As to the price the NFLN charges, you are correct.
It is $.70 cents, not 40 (I actually knew that too, my brain must ahve short circuited this morning).
ESPN packages vary according to what channels are taken.
The $3 you reference is usually a minimum of 3 (ESPN, ESPN2, Classic) with the others being add ons (for additional charges of course).
ESPN, BTW is owned by Disney, and they often require subscriptions to additional channel packages for the right to subscribe to ESPN.
When we were in IL, we took part in negotiations with several cable channel providers to update packages for the university's cable service.
ESPN and its channels were by far the most expensive (nearly $5 per subscriber).
CNN's package, which provided more channels was $.50 per subscriber.
NFLN did not exist at the time.

Don't make the cable companies out to be some kind of victim here.
Instead of negotiating prices with NFLN, they got into a pissing contest and decided that the network couldn't exist with out them (not the first time it would have happened).
What they didn't anticipate is both satellite companies picking NFLN up on their basic package, nor the fact that a good percentage of the population would complain loudly if they could not get the channel.

I don't think you can blame either the cable companines or NFL network. They are both businesses that are trying to maximize profits. The nfl wants as many viewers as possible while the cable companies want to keep their base prices low so that they appear more appealing to subscribers who have many choices like satelite.

As far as which is better espn or nfl network. I love nfl network, I watch it all the time. But espn has so much more. It is not just one sport it is hundreds. They shell out money to get NFL games, NBA games, MLB games and the X games. I would imagine(although I have no proof) that NFL network is making a much larger profit since it does not pay for much of their programming, since they own everything NFL.

New theory, what if the state mandates that every subscriber who recieves NFL network is charged a stadium tax of say $1 a month. I imagine a couple of million homes in the state have NFL network so that money could add up quick and in 5-10years we could have a new stadium. In a sense it would be forcing the most successful sports league in the world to help pay for a new stadium. ;D