Skip to content

Report: New CBA would include 16-game Thursday night TV package

Thursday-Night-Football

With the NFL trying to get the players to take less per dollar in the hopes of getting more total dollars and with the players reluctant to grow the pie by growing the regular season, we’ve been mentioning two primary commitments that the players should be requesting:  (1) a certain date for the NFL to return to Los Angeles; and (2) discontinuation of the late-season Thursday night regular-season games on NFL Network, with the games instead being sold to the highest bidder.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that the latter will be part of a new labor deal.

Specifically, Mort reports that a 16-week Thursday night TV package will developed, starting in 2012.  To maximize revenue, the package will be sold on the open market.

We’ve previously heard whispers that the eight-game NFLN package could have generated more than $500 million.  A 16-game Thursday night package could be worth $1 billion.

If the network that gets the Thursday night package already has a TV deal in place with the NFL, don’t be surprised if the acquisition of the new asset includes an extension of the current arrangement.

The development is bad news for NFL Network, which will become far less attractive to cable operators without regular-season NFL football.  That said, the NFL could reserve some late-season Saturday night games for NFLN.

Still, if the goal is to grow the pie, the players should want any and all nationally-televised games to be sold to networks that are willing to pay more for the rights than they ever will realize in advertising revenue and/or subscriber fees.

UPDATE:  We’re already hearing scuttlebutt that perhaps NFLN would keep the late-season portion of the Thursday package, with only the first eight Thursdays being sold.  Though more money can be realized via the sale of all games, the players need to realize that they have an interest in NFL Network becoming more and more viable and relevant.  It’s a great vehicle for marketing the game and the individual players who routinely appear on Total Access.  Actually, the best way to split the package would be on a bi-weekly basis, with NFLN getting a game every other Thursday.  This would cause viewers who have easy access to the outside network to clamor for the in-house network, in order to fully enjoy their new Thursday night habit.

SECOND UPDATE:  ESPN has revised Mort’s report to explain that the Thursday night package would be launched in 2014, the first year of the next TV deals.  This makes sense, because televising Thursday night games before the annual launch of the NFLN package would require games to be taken away from CBS and/or FOX.

Permalink 69 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
69 Responses to “Report: New CBA would include 16-game Thursday night TV package”
  1. b7p19 says: Jun 21, 2011 1:48 PM

    This is great news. Not only will more money make both sides happier, but now fans without NFL network will not be missing games.

  2. whatsafairway says: Jun 21, 2011 1:52 PM

    If they do sell the rights to the NFL Thursday night games it should only be to a network that pledges to never use Bryant Gumbel as their play by play guy.

  3. djstat says: Jun 21, 2011 1:52 PM

    Sweet More football during the week!!!!!!!

  4. brooklynbully says: Jun 21, 2011 1:53 PM

    We want direct tv to not be the only cable company to hold the package

  5. slicknick4ever says: Jun 21, 2011 1:54 PM

    Why the Thursday night games weren’t already going to the highest bidder for all this time we’ll never know….
    Just get the CBA done already! I can’t believe it’s taken this long.
    Sick of watching the lamest top 100 players list and re-runs of games on the NFL network…
    Get it done so teams can get to practicing and the best product will be put on the field.

  6. trbowman says: Jun 21, 2011 1:54 PM

    This sounds awesome.

  7. bunjy96 says: Jun 21, 2011 1:55 PM

    Don’t think the NFL would go against college FB on Saturday nights.

    The only time the NFL has played on Saturday, in recent memory, is when the college program is done.

  8. goodguyjohn says: Jun 21, 2011 1:55 PM

    If the NFL will show games other than AFC East and NFC East teams I’m all for it. Something like 78% of the primtime games feature an AFC or NFC East squad. MAJOR BIAS!

    This might be news to some of you but there is football played in real stadiums with real people with good teams West of the Meadowlands

  9. terpface says: Jun 21, 2011 1:56 PM

    Good. Give me a reason to drop NFL network. Outside of Saturday and Thursday night games, its pretty worthless

  10. ctgiant says: Jun 21, 2011 1:56 PM

    b719: YOU GOT IT! I can’t afford NFLN, because it’s sold in a package by COX cable, so that deal, selling those Thursday Night games to anyone whether CBS;NBC;FOX; ESPN, would bring in more fans, more fans, means more advertising $$$$$, it’s a win win deal!

  11. transam7816 says: Jun 21, 2011 1:56 PM

    I’m hopeful that it will go to the highest bidder. That way I don’t have to choose a provider with NFLN anymore.

  12. pacificamjr says: Jun 21, 2011 1:57 PM

    cool! why not have tuesday night football too????

  13. jacksaysfu says: Jun 21, 2011 1:59 PM

    Finally common sense is kicking in . Give the players a good deal and keep brainstorming ways to maximize your revenue , then everyone wins , and the fans will forgive as long as you dont eff up our football !!!

  14. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jun 21, 2011 2:00 PM

    This may be the best part of the proposal that has leaked so far.

  15. eaglescouch says: Jun 21, 2011 2:01 PM

    Great to get Thursday Night Football off NFLN. One less reason to have to get DirecTV.

  16. berniemadoffsides says: Jun 21, 2011 2:01 PM

    So long as Comcast, for example, keeps NFLN at $9.99/month, that’s totally fine by me. If they decide to bump it up one cent more, then forget it. Most of the shows on there don’t even have 10% of the content PFT has.

  17. bears0492 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:02 PM

    more money for everyone….hopefully now both sides can stop arguing about money and start agreeing on things.

  18. Justin says: Jun 21, 2011 2:03 PM

    As long as it equates to less commentary by Matt Millen I am all for it.

  19. jagmania65 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:03 PM

    If the league doesn’t want to give up televising games on NFLN, they could just give the players their agreed-upon revenue percentage on the fair market value of that broadcast package.

    It would be counter-productive for the players to demand such pie-in-the-sky items in this CBA. If/when NFL returns to Los Angeles has so many factors not under the control of the NFL, the league would be foolish to agree to a date. If LA’s City Council turns down the environmental impact agreement, the NFL has to pay damages to the NFLPA as a result? I don’t think so…

  20. reents says: Jun 21, 2011 2:04 PM

    I am actually against this, I don’t even like the Thursday night games now.

    I wish Thursday games were only played on Thanksgiving and the opener. The reason is players need about close to a week and to heal after a game, and they play on Sunday and then on Thursday, that’s like 3 days instead of 5 or 6 days.

  21. bronco1st says: Jun 21, 2011 2:04 PM

    NFL Network (NFLN) is owned by the 32 NFL team owners. That’s right, they own it lock,stock and barrel. This is one of their outside ventures designed to draw revenue that does not come under CBA definition of revenue stream for splitting with the players. The Thursday night games the NFLN broadcasts is not part of the revenues to be split with the players however those revenues are split evenly among the teams.

  22. sanjosecupcrazy says: Jun 21, 2011 2:04 PM

    Wouldn’t this be 17 games because of the bye week? (Or 18 games if they go to two bye weeks?)

  23. possiblecabbage says: Jun 21, 2011 2:05 PM

    I don’t like it. Three days between a Sunday game and a Thursday game isn’t enough time for players to get their bodies ready and coaches to game plan. The result is generally “injuries” and “shoddy football.”

    The only situations Thursday games should be played are:
    1) The season opener.
    2) Between two teams coming off of their bye weeks.

  24. bradjames33160 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:05 PM

    I know a new CBA will be reached in the next few days or couple of weeks and the first things that happen will be Kenny Britt’s extensive suspension (hey more games to be played entails longer suspensions) and Donovan McNabb’s ouster from Washington. You Redskins fans will like John Beck, he has more talent than people think.

  25. irisht53 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:09 PM

    Here’s an interesting thought, what if the highest bidder were a network such as HBO or Showtime (actually I could see Starz making a significant bid as well)? Not that I think it would be the case, but I would be curious how many people would sign up for one of those premium packages primarily for football? Not only that, think about how the presentation would be, the only commericals you’d see would be between the quarters and the half, and that network could really up the rate of that commercial time (especially since it would be the only game on), if they even decided to sell it (which they’d be foolish not to). Also, the game time would be noticably shorter, as there would be no forced TV timeouts, I’d say looking at games that finish in regulation consistently wrapping up under 2.5 hours, viewers on the east coast could stay up and watch the game and be asleep by 11pm.

    Again, not saying it would happen, but would be curious of the results and product if it did happen.

  26. redwinglion says: Jun 21, 2011 2:09 PM

    Look for Versus/NBC to be a major player in this.

    They’re re-branding the Versus network as ‘NBC Sportschannel’ very soon. They could easily snag this package and make fans start demanding this network to be put on cheaper cable/satellite tiers. It would be a good business move.

    Plus, it would help out the NHL as well which, as a hockey fan, would be nice.

  27. radrhatr says: Jun 21, 2011 2:10 PM

    Now that’s the way to negotiate! The players get more money, while the owners get a LOT more money.

    Not saying I’m for or against it , but the 18 game season might be harder on the players, but it will generate a boatload of money and add more players on to the roster.

    A spring developmental league in the US, like NFLE used to be, will be a money maker too….and it will ensure no players slip through the cracks. Jake Delhomme, Brian Waters and Dante Hall(to name a few) were discovered in Europe. More players. More money for the league means more money for the players.

  28. touchdownroddywhite says: Jun 21, 2011 2:12 PM

    That would be great news. Not a big fan of the NFL network arrangement as is.

  29. Deb says: Jun 21, 2011 2:14 PM

    Yesssssss!!!!!! Eight more regular-season games!!!!! Woo-hoo!!!!!!! Finally, something good for fans comes of all this labor angst!!!

  30. tumsman2 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:16 PM

    I like the NFL Network. I want all 16 games to be shown by them.

  31. moneymike23 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:17 PM

    Damn, this would be sweet.

  32. ebenezergrymm says: Jun 21, 2011 2:18 PM

    While it’s not a horrible idea I’d say “No” on principal if I were the owners. If that’s how the players want to run their business let them start their own league.

  33. rowbear says: Jun 21, 2011 2:23 PM

    Wow! A full season of Thursday night games. I’m so excited. Why not just put games on every night of the week?

    If Thursday is such a great idea, let’s at least make it fair. Everyone plays on Thursday. Think about it, the league wants 18 games (they’re the only ones who do) so why not just drop them in the middle of the season and have every team play two Thursday night games. Better yet, let’s get some of those games played during the day. This is a brilliant idea. Keep up the good work everyone.

    The only time games should be played on a Thursday is Thanksgiving and that’s it. And there should only be two games. Period.

  34. seanx40 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:25 PM

    “actually I could see Starz making a significant bid as well’

    I think Disney owns a piece of Starz. I doubt they would allow any non-ESPN sports.

    That said, isn’t that TOO much NFL? I enjoy the Thursday NCAA football games. I don’t need another day of NFL, at least for the first half of the season.

  35. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jun 21, 2011 2:26 PM

    goodguyjohn says: Jun 21, 2011 1:55 PM

    If the NFL will show games other than AFC East and NFC East teams I’m all for it. Something like 78% of the primtime games feature an AFC or NFC East squad. MAJOR BIAS!

    This might be news to some of you but there is football played in real stadiums with real people with good teams West of the Meadowlands
    —————————————————–

    Johnny, they play games that get the most viewers because it translates into more advertising dollars. I assure you the only thing holding your teams back is the general lack of interest compared to other teams frequently played in prime time.

  36. schmitty2 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:28 PM

    I dont actually care for Thurs nite football. Sun nite and Monday nites are good enough. This might be the only football related thing my wife would agree with me on

  37. djmail says: Jun 21, 2011 2:38 PM

    I know who is getting the Thursday Night Football deal and its not one of the current Networks.

    Think Barkley…! (inside scoop).

  38. 1phd says: Jun 21, 2011 2:44 PM

    The same NFL Network that makes its viewers sick by airing the same promos over and over? I mean really. If you are going to play a promo over and over each break, why not have three or four versions of it? Not just one that repeats until your audience is sick of it. Examples: You Don’t Own Me – Women’s apparel ad. We are sick of it! Get professional, guys.

  39. irisht53 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:48 PM

    re:seanx40

    Didn’t realize Disney had a stake in Starz, if that’s right, then no, there would be no move made by them.

  40. litemater95 says: Jun 21, 2011 2:52 PM

    I have Time Warner. So it it does not matter if NFL Network has 8 , 16 or any games, We do not get that channel on their empire cable network.

  41. cletusvandam says: Jun 21, 2011 2:52 PM

    I work 2nd shift, better save my sick days for thursdays!

  42. snaponrules says: Jun 21, 2011 2:57 PM

    Sounds all well and good for everybody including the fans.

    All the way up until Direct tv buys it and adds it to their already ridiculously expensive nfl package.

  43. staff2cj4td says: Jun 21, 2011 2:59 PM

    THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!

    PLAYERS HATE THURSDAY NIGHT GAMES!!!

    HAVING TO TRAVEL AND PLAY A GAME 4 DAYS AFTER PLAYING ONE, IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!!

    LEAVE FOOTBALL TO SUNDAYS AND MONDAY NIGHTS!!!

  44. sterling7 says: Jun 21, 2011 3:00 PM

    Personally I don’t like Thursday NFL games. College games are great for Thursday but NFL games for Thursday are lousy. The worst idea the NFL ever had was to open the season on a Thursday night. That’s when it first hit me has to how greedy the NFL has become by opening the season with a Thursday night game. I prefer to have all opening games (with the exception of Monday night of course) on Sunday-it’s like Christmas and truly an opening day worthy of making baseball incredibly jealous. Whoever thought of opening the NFL season on Thursday night should be thrown in prison, it’s a lousy idea and money or no money Thursday night NFL games are just as bad.

  45. bearsnoah says: Jun 21, 2011 3:10 PM

    The thursday night games on NFL Network suck cause they block out most of the crowd noise

  46. fonetiklee says: Jun 21, 2011 3:13 PM

    I like having more days to watch football as much as the next guy, but I hate when my team gets stuck playing them. Sunday-to-Thursday doesn’t give enough turnaround time.

  47. dickroy says: Jun 21, 2011 3:27 PM

    I would love to see 16 Thursday night games. I would just love to see another network get those games.

    More chances to watch the Steelers!!!

  48. simplesimon1 says: Jun 21, 2011 3:30 PM

    Personally I think this is great news. It is something that will create money for both sides. Good job on this one.

    Also, I’m not sure the NFL Network would lose any more revenue than they did by making the bonehead move to have Matt Millen and Joe Theissman be commentators on their channel.

  49. peerjp says: Jun 21, 2011 3:34 PM

    In addition to doing this, the NFL should add a 2nd bye-week to create an additional week of television revenue. This would allow for an 18 week/16 game regular season, with a 17 game Thursday night slate (based on the article above). It should be easy to agree to – it gives the players an extra week of rest without having to play an extra game, it gives the owners significant additional revenue, and stretches the season one week longer for the fans. In order not to screw up weekly fantasy line-ups, eight teams would be on bye each bye week, for two four-week bye stretches (say weeks 5-8 and weeks 11-14). I’m actually stunned that I haven’t heard anyone propose this yet – am I missing something??

  50. Deb says: Jun 21, 2011 3:35 PM

    Yes Thursday night games give a short turnaround. But it won’t hurt a team to play one a season. And with this Thurs.-nite package now going to the highest bidder, the games won’t be on the NFL Network.

    Comcast charges $5/mo. for its sports pkg., which includes the NFL Network and RedZone. I finally broke down and subscribed in 2008 because the Steelers were playing that night and Comcast promised to hook up the box before kickoff. We won the Super Bowl in 08 so that Thurs. night game didn’t kill us.

  51. jodave5 says: Jun 21, 2011 3:37 PM

    The NFL Network is borderline unwatchable. Total Access 22 hours a day with Linus is too much. NFL Films has enough footage to wrap the earth 40 million times. Give me JOHN FACENDA damn it!!!!

  52. buzzardpointlookout says: Jun 21, 2011 3:39 PM

    I’m not a big fan of TNF. But here is a thought – give every team an extra bye week. One traditional bye week and one bye week which leads into a TNF game.

    The results would be:

    1) One extra week of Sunday football and the revenue it generates (along with an opportunity to crack open the existing TV deals and truly maximize their value)
    2) Eight more nationally televised primetime games (TNF) and the revenue they bring
    3) Effectively three bye weeks during the season (the week after a Thursady contest is essentially a bye week)

    More $$ for the league. More mid-season rest & recovery time for the players. More football for us.

    Everybody wins.

  53. dirtyharry44 says: Jun 21, 2011 3:50 PM

    I like where djmail is going. Put Barkley in the booth and I’ll watch every week!

  54. BlackAndGoldAllDay says: Jun 21, 2011 3:57 PM

    Not a fan of Thursday night games. It throws a wrench into preparation time and physical recovery from previous game. Kind of sucks from a fantasy football perspective too.

  55. stonevision says: Jun 21, 2011 4:06 PM

    Thursday Night Football all year? Awesome… Another reason to get away from the wife. How about Tuesday and Wednesday Football?

  56. kenny1960 says: Jun 21, 2011 4:20 PM

    Funny, There are 55 comments posted ahead on mine at the time I am writing this and NOT A SINGLE ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL IN L.A !!! No one cares about LA except the overpaid hacks who run this borderline MSNBS like website !! But the hacks are going to beat this so=called groundswell of people wanting the NFL to return to LA storyline to death and beyond. Get it through your heads hacks: No one and I mean NO ONE cares about LA, Let it go for the love of GOD !!

  57. 808raiderinparadise says: Jun 21, 2011 4:35 PM

    The ONLY thing Thursday night football is good for is to get an early jump on your fantasy football matchup, then you can add/drop from there.

  58. Deb says: Jun 21, 2011 4:41 PM

    BlackAndGoldAllDay says:

    Not a fan of Thursday night games. It throws a wrench into preparation time and physical recovery from previous game. Kind of sucks from a fantasy football perspective too.
    ————————————————-

    And it allows more recovery time before the next game. Have been trying and trying to figure out why so many “fans” seem unhappy about getting to see eight more regular season games. Now I know … it “sucks from a fantasy football perspective.” Well, for those of us who just love the game–the real one–and don’t have money riding on it, the idea of seeing more games without lengthening the season is something to celebrate.

  59. tformation says: Jun 21, 2011 4:43 PM

    Let me add my voice to the throng of “no Thursday Night Football.” For not annoying the casual fantasy football player, if nothing else!

    Seriously, 16 Thursday games w/only 1 bye week sounds like a recipe for even more injuries than we normally have…

  60. sportsdrenched says: Jun 21, 2011 4:48 PM

    Wouldn’t this be 17 games because of the bye week? (Or 18 games if they go to two bye weeks?)
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    During Week 17 all games are played Sunday Afternoon. At least it’s been like that for several years.

    Saturday games are only scheduled after the regular college football season is over.

    Other than that. I have mixed feelings about this. Right now I feel the NFL offers just enough programming that it leaves you hanging enough to want more. I think more Thursday games might reach an over saturation point. But, at the same time…more football doesn’t suck.

  61. slugbaitwm7 says: Jun 21, 2011 5:10 PM

    I refuse to pay Comcast more money just for TNF. Heck, I finally got an HDTV last year, and refuse to pay Comcast more money for HD, especially since they won’t let me record on my HTPC (unless I shell out $400 for a CableCARD tuner…um, no). So I built the classic coat-hanger bowtie antenna, and recorded OTA football all season long in [i]better[/i]-quality high-definition than what Comcast offers.

    On Saturday I spent about $12 and built a Gray-Hoverman antenna. It’s significantly better than the coat-hanger bowtie I’ve been using.

    And now I’m about to reduce my cable subscription from Expanded Basic to Basic to save $25 a month (it won’t actually be plugged in, cuz I’ll only save $15 a month if I kill cable TV altogether…it’s a confusing package deal with Internet service). I lose MNF, but it sucked on plasma in standard def anyway…and since BSG ended, I seldom watch channels 14 or higher anymore.

    So I will continue watching advertisements next season from companies who purchase time for the OTA games…advertisers who buy time on MNF or NFLN won’t get my eyeballs at all.

    So here’s hoping that TNF goes to a non-cable network. Regardless, I’d rather have the extra cash than to continue giving another $25 each month to Comcast just for MNF.

  62. forthelove says: Jun 21, 2011 5:36 PM

    I *might* watch the Thursday night game (I will), but I refuse to listen to Berman and Jackson yap about over an over about one game until Sunday morning. Suffering through this once a week after the Monday nighter is enough.

  63. philyeagles5 says: Jun 21, 2011 5:52 PM

    “Better yet, let’s get some of those games played during the day.”

    A thursday day game? arent people at work on thursday during the day?

  64. jutts says: Jun 21, 2011 6:32 PM

    Why can’t the “Ticket” be owned by the League? If they were to take over the ” Ticket” and make it available for a reasonable price. If they did it while including all cable/and sattelite providers they could make a killing. Split the revenues up by the players and , Boom. Everyone could watch ever game at a reduced rate in which you are not limited to one provider.

  65. dannymac17 says: Jun 21, 2011 6:34 PM

    kenny1960 says:
    Jun 21, 2011 4:20 PM
    Funny, There are 55 comments posted ahead on mine at the time I am writing this and NOT A SINGLE ONE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL IN L.A !!! No one cares about LA except the overpaid hacks who run this borderline MSNBS like website !! But the hacks are going to beat this so=called groundswell of people wanting the NFL to return to LA storyline to death and beyond. Get it through your heads hacks: No one and I mean NO ONE cares about LA, Let it go for the love of GOD !!

    ————————–

    LA doesnt care about you either pal.

    go back to cooking your squirrel in your backwoods trailer park.

    You hate LA cause you AINT LA.

    I doubt you can even afford to a game, so why should you care where football is played? Just watch it on your 13 inch TV and keep it quiet junior.

  66. BlackAndGoldAllDay says: Jun 21, 2011 7:38 PM

    Deb says:

    And it allows more recovery time before the next game. Have been trying and trying to figure out why so many “fans” seem unhappy about getting to see eight more regular season games. Now I know … it “sucks from a fantasy football perspective.” Well, for those of us who just love the game–the real one–and don’t have money riding on it, the idea of seeing more games without lengthening the season is something to celebrate.

    ————————–

    More recovery for the next game doesn’t help when you already lost the previous game because your RB’s ankle needed another 2 days.

    So, how does playing fantasy football make someone less of a fan? Fantasy football is not about money, it’s about fun. If I win my league, I make about $300. Big whoop.

    The NFL is in danger of spreading their product too thin. It’s the problem the NBA and MLB have, there are games every night, so none of them seem to matter all that much. Having football compacted into a short timeframe once a week gives it an epic feeling that no other sport has.

  67. sportsinhd says: Jun 21, 2011 7:41 PM

    This is just horrible news, and I’m sure all the games on Thursday Nights will be stinkers as well. The majority of NFL Network games already are, and I don’t see that changing.

    I don’t mind the current eight game Thursday Night package, but I don’t see the need for NFL Football in September or October. Are you going to be glued to your seat for the next Lions/Bengals showdown? Because that’s the kind of meaningless game we’re going to get.

    Football isn’t baseball, every game has meaning and teams generally do miss the playoffs by just one game, but it is hard to get excited about Thursday Night games in week two when the season has barely started.

    Put together a late season thursday night package, and then add more games around The Holidays. Play NFL football the friday before Christmas and New Year’s . . . . you could probably stretch an eight game package out to 12 games with more random late season games.

  68. kenny1960 says: Jun 21, 2011 9:24 PM

    dannymac17,
    Did I hurt your poor little feelings when I said no one gave a tinkers da@m about LA ? You know the real funny thing? Every comment after mine and yours and no one still said anything about football in LA !!!! So you can have your smog, Horrible traffic, High taxes, Lunatic eco weinies running everything brokeazz state while I watch one of my two , YES TWO big screen tv’s. I have a 48′ in my bedroom and a 55′ in my living room plus a 42′ in my daughters room !! All are HDTV , So you know nothing except the misery of living in the granola state, Take out all the flakes and and the fruits and all you have left are the nuts !!

  69. Deb says: Jun 21, 2011 10:14 PM

    @BlackAndGoldAllDay …

    I don’t think playing Fantasy Football makes you less of a fan–my brother’s a big Fantasy player. I just rag him that he can’t be fully focused on the Steelers’ interests when he’s worried about the performances of his Fantasy players ;)

    At least you’ve given me a reasonable explanation for questioning the Thursday night games. These guys who think it magically adds another game to the schedule … I don’t even know what to say to that. But I get your point about the NBA. Since we’ve already had half a season of Thursday night games for years, I don’t believe expanding to a full season will dilute the product any further.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!