Yes, another Steelers fan made the watering-down argument to me, and I can see where you guys are coming from on that one. For me, it’s just the pure selfish pleasure of having another night of football without increasing the game burden on players. (I haven’t heard them complain about the Thursday games–they seem to enjoy opportunities to play on the national stage.) I wouldn’t want it to go beyond Thursday.

Of all the issues facing the NFL, this absurd notion that we can expand the core league outside the United States is the one that rankles me most. If we’re on the same side in that, I can overlook a lot of other minor disagreements

As for the euro-games (and those in Canada/Mexico/Japan), I have been an opponent of those since their inception and I have yet to hear a viable argument in support of it as a long-term option. A few european fans get limited exposure and it is somewhat easier for troops stationed close to get to a game for a taste of home, but I don’t see the point, especially when it places a disadvantage for the teams involved and pulls a home game out of the mix for 1 of the teams. If they must play a game like that in the hopes of generating more fans (read: revenue) then I say do it with the pro-bowl.

Teams have been playing 8 Thursday night games for years, which means some teams already play three games in two weeks, unless their byes are scheduled around those games. And four teams have been playing Thanksgiving games for generations, so you have no problems with four teams playing three games in two weeks. You just have a problem with all the teams being subjected to the same schedule.

Like I said before, I had Comcast’s NFL Network package hooked up because the Steelers had a Thursday night game in 2008. We won the Super Bowl that year. Didn’t seem to hurt us. If you want to complain, instead of complaining about Americans getting more games to watch, complain about teams being forced to fly across the Atlantic and playing with jetlag just to promote a European expansion that has been a repeated EPIC FAIL. Now that’s something to complain about.

Yes, they generate money but there is a downside as well. Vanilla offenses/defenses due to less prep time, extending/aggravating injuries with less time to heal, advantages/disadvantages between division rivals, etc.

Thursday games mean that teams have to play 3 games in 2 weeks and if there is a full 16 week schedule, there isn’t even the opportunity to mitigate the impact with a bye week.

While the number of games played is the same, the number of TV prime-time games is increased. Much like the 18 vs. 16 game issue, more does not necessarily mean better.

I find it comical that many fans who complain about the way TV has dictated changes to the game itself and to its quality (TV timeouts from an attendance standpoint) seem content with this potential change. It may help the week seem to go by faster but it will lessen the quality of the game and the league. Once upon a time. that last part mattered.

There has been some discussion about what type of games we will get on Thursday. It’s not like we don’t have a precedent. Here is 2011′s Slate:

NO @ GB Opening Night
OAK @ SD
NYJ @ DEN
SF @ BAL
PHI @ SEA
CLE @ PIT
JAC @ ATL
HOU @ INDY

With the exception of Opening Night, none of this is CAN’T miss TV. I will probably make an effort to watch the intra division games. But other than that I’m not making any schedule arrangements for Thursday Night Football this season or any future season. Unless the Chiefs are playing.

The NFL will offer the Thursday night package to the highest bidder, so it probably won’t air on the NFL Network but on some network available to the cable masses. More weekly games!! Get it done by 2012, fellas!!

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying, but let’s talk about 2 things.

1. How big a difference in revenue do you predict vs. what the ad sales are on NFLN and what the package may command from the highest bidder?

2. Can an argument not be made that growing the NFLN through exclusive games would strengthen their position long term? IE this would get them into more homes and thereby increase the ad revenue/shrink the gap between what they sell the games for and what they could sell the ads themselves for?

Also…to argue that a network would overpay to strengthen their other programming seems to mean that a network currently without the NFL would need to buy the package. Not to mention the fact that I’m not so sure we can predict the same gross over bidding in today’s economy.

Yes, you are.

The networks routinely pay more for the NFL than they ever can earn via ad sales, because it helps promote the networks’ other offerings.

Also, NFLN isn’t in enough homes to command the kind of ad rates that other networks can generate.

It’s widely accepted that the NFL is leaving money on the table by not selling that package to the highest bidder.

But if the NFLN keeps them, then would they not be receiving ALL the ad revenue form these games themselves? It a very valuable commodity. Unless another network would be willing to grossly over pay, then I’d have to believe that the revenue difference in keeping or selling the games is negligible. Not to mention the long term strengthening of the NFLN by having the exclusive programming.

Am I missing something?

At least half these are going to be sold to the highest bidder, so it doesn’t have all that much to do about where the network is. If anything it would make the network worth less (if all the games were sold off) and thus less likely to be carried elsewhere.

Don’t kid yourself- 18 games a season will happen. But to get something done now, the owners needed something they could give away, while simultaneously giving the players some time to get used to the idea.

That said, you’d think more fans would get behind this as it gives a lot of teams most people could otherwise care less about, like Jacksonville, Carolina and Tennessee, a chance for more prime time exposure and a shot to gain a bigger fanbase.

Plus, more football > less football.

Anyway, I hope if/when this Thursday nite game package comes around the schedule makers allow teams to be shown that aren’t normally, like the Bucs, Rams, Browns (how many got to see Peyton Hillis live last year?), Raiders (hey they were entertaining to watch), and the Lions among others. Hell, even the Bills competed against the Ravens and Steelers.

Because as a firewall to anti-trust suits, the NFL leaves Friday for high school & Saturday for college.

Besides there are only a maximum of 16 games a week. You start taking away Sunday afternoon tilts and the value of that package shrinks.

As for Thursday night games, more football > less football, so bring it on!

Yea, why don’t they make a package for Friday and Saturday?
————————
high school and college football ?

If you want good games on thursday they have to come from somewhere, and there are only so many marquee matchups.

I could see the other networks wanting a discount on their packages if Thursday takes away too many good games.

Otherwise look for more stinkers on Thursday.

I wouldnt know, I cant get the network – So its out of sight out of mind….