Miscellaneous thoughts and observations.
Stats show that Mike Aviles defense was just fine for the Red Sox. It was his offense that was the problem. His batting average was just .250 and his OBP was an anemic .282. You could get better defense from Jose Iglesias if you are willing to live with the 76 OPS+ that Aviles put up... If ESPN still did that "You got jacked up" segment then Vince Wilfork's hit against Buffalo would be shown 17 times straight. As Tom Curran pointed out - I think that's the last time you see any team try a middle screen against the Patriots this season.. If there was a Church of Bacon I'd be a parishioner - maybe even a priest... I think it would be funny to see a re-make of the musical Paint Your Wagon made with just on-air personalities from the NFL Network. Rich Eisen can play the Lee Marvin role... I have to think this is the end of the road for Jason Giambi. Not a Hall of Famer but considering he's made over $131 million in salary in baseball - I don't think we'll see him panhandling any time soon... I have to agree with this cartoon...
Chris Lynch's slanted view on sports, politics and entertainment. Please send thoughts or comments to chris.lynch@gmail.com
Showing posts with label NFL Network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NFL Network. Show all posts
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Arlen Specter is a Creep
Arlen Specter's recent actions toward the NFL are nothing more than an attempt to smear the NFL and a disgusting example of abuse of power.
To drag out an old cliche - I question the timing. Specter raises the issue of a Congressional investigation into the so-called Spygate issue on the Friday before Super Bowl Sunday so now all the talk is about some potential cover-up in the NFL instead of about the biggest game of the year. Are you telling me that Specter couldn't have waited until Monday to raise this question if it was a legitimate issue?
What motive would Arlen Specter have to smear the NFL this way? Well if you consider that his second largest campaign contributor was Comcast - the same Comcast who has been in a very public dispute with the NFL over the carrying and cost of the NFL Network - then I think you would have the potential motive. Arlen Specter is giving the appearance of being nothing more than an attack dog for a corporation who gives him big monetary rewards. "Poke the NFL with a stick Arlen. That's a good boy. Here's a wad of crisp twenties as a Scooby snack."
Then you have to ask - the Judiciary Committee? Really? What in the world does the NFL have to do with the Judiciary Committee? Is Roger Goodell up for a spot on the Federal bench? Specter tosses out the NFL's anti-trust exemption as if it is some sort of justification for his smear but wouldn't something like that fall to the Commerce Committee's purview? Isn't this just a clear example of someone using his elected position to carry out some sort of personal vendetta? A clear abuse of power?
Even if the Judicial Committee did hold hearings - wouldn't Specter have to recuse himself because of his relationship with Comcast? If someone was up for a judgeship before Specter and his committee and had this big a conflict of interest wouldn't the committee berate that person for their questionable ethics if the judge did not recuse himself when the conflict of interest was at these levels?
Arlen Specter raises the question of potential improprieties by the NFL. To quote the Senator, "The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game." Well I believe that the integrity of the US Senate has more bearing and effect on the American people and therefore I would like to see a hearing into the actions of Arlen Specter and how they relate to who gives him cash.
Arlen Specter's recent actions toward the NFL are nothing more than an attempt to smear the NFL and a disgusting example of abuse of power.
To drag out an old cliche - I question the timing. Specter raises the issue of a Congressional investigation into the so-called Spygate issue on the Friday before Super Bowl Sunday so now all the talk is about some potential cover-up in the NFL instead of about the biggest game of the year. Are you telling me that Specter couldn't have waited until Monday to raise this question if it was a legitimate issue?
What motive would Arlen Specter have to smear the NFL this way? Well if you consider that his second largest campaign contributor was Comcast - the same Comcast who has been in a very public dispute with the NFL over the carrying and cost of the NFL Network - then I think you would have the potential motive. Arlen Specter is giving the appearance of being nothing more than an attack dog for a corporation who gives him big monetary rewards. "Poke the NFL with a stick Arlen. That's a good boy. Here's a wad of crisp twenties as a Scooby snack."
Then you have to ask - the Judiciary Committee? Really? What in the world does the NFL have to do with the Judiciary Committee? Is Roger Goodell up for a spot on the Federal bench? Specter tosses out the NFL's anti-trust exemption as if it is some sort of justification for his smear but wouldn't something like that fall to the Commerce Committee's purview? Isn't this just a clear example of someone using his elected position to carry out some sort of personal vendetta? A clear abuse of power?
Even if the Judicial Committee did hold hearings - wouldn't Specter have to recuse himself because of his relationship with Comcast? If someone was up for a judgeship before Specter and his committee and had this big a conflict of interest wouldn't the committee berate that person for their questionable ethics if the judge did not recuse himself when the conflict of interest was at these levels?
Arlen Specter raises the question of potential improprieties by the NFL. To quote the Senator, "The American people are entitled to be sure about the integrity of the game." Well I believe that the integrity of the US Senate has more bearing and effect on the American people and therefore I would like to see a hearing into the actions of Arlen Specter and how they relate to who gives him cash.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The NFL Network Scores Big
One of the big debates today seems to be about the decision of the NFL Network to simulcast Saturday's Patriots / Giants game not just on the NFL Network but also on CBS and NBC. Some people think that the NFL caved on this issue or that this is some sort of admission that the NFL is losing the battle with the cable companies.
I say - make no mistake - this is a huge win for the NFL Network.
They say that drug dealers have a saying that "the first taste is for free" and I can't help but remember when I was a kid how Showtime and HBO would offer "free" weekends where non-subscribers of the pay channels could see the content for free with the hope that enough would like what they saw to become subscribers themselves. The idea behind both is basically - try it you'll like it. You also know that commercials either asking you to sign up for the NFL Network or asking you to write your cable company will bombard viewers Saturday.
At the very least - the NFL Network is getting a ton of free publicity out of this move. But that's not all the NFL Network is getting though - they will be getting a big revenue boost to go along with the Good Samaritan image. Thanks to the writers strike - everything on CBS and NBC Saturday was either crap or a rerun. Now the two networks get free programming and the NFL Network will be able to charge much more for their ad spots because of the added reach of the broadcast. The ratings will be huge. The revenue windfall for the NFL will be in the millions of dollars.
In addition to getting all this free advertising and PR plus the added revenue - the NFL gets to take the moral high ground as a bonus. Out of the goodness of their hearts the NFL is making this potentially historic game available to everyone with a TV. Now the ball is in the big cable companies court. If they stonewall next year then the NFL can say, "Hey we can't keep giving the product away Mr. Senator man. I'm sure you understand. Now let's talk about why the voters in your state get 5 home shopping channels forced on them but they can't choose a channel they want like the NFL Network. Maybe now is the time to push that ala carte cable bill through Congress. It is an election year you know and that bill would be very popular with your electorate."
This is a tremendous move by the NFL.
One of the big debates today seems to be about the decision of the NFL Network to simulcast Saturday's Patriots / Giants game not just on the NFL Network but also on CBS and NBC. Some people think that the NFL caved on this issue or that this is some sort of admission that the NFL is losing the battle with the cable companies.
I say - make no mistake - this is a huge win for the NFL Network.
They say that drug dealers have a saying that "the first taste is for free" and I can't help but remember when I was a kid how Showtime and HBO would offer "free" weekends where non-subscribers of the pay channels could see the content for free with the hope that enough would like what they saw to become subscribers themselves. The idea behind both is basically - try it you'll like it. You also know that commercials either asking you to sign up for the NFL Network or asking you to write your cable company will bombard viewers Saturday.
At the very least - the NFL Network is getting a ton of free publicity out of this move. But that's not all the NFL Network is getting though - they will be getting a big revenue boost to go along with the Good Samaritan image. Thanks to the writers strike - everything on CBS and NBC Saturday was either crap or a rerun. Now the two networks get free programming and the NFL Network will be able to charge much more for their ad spots because of the added reach of the broadcast. The ratings will be huge. The revenue windfall for the NFL will be in the millions of dollars.
In addition to getting all this free advertising and PR plus the added revenue - the NFL gets to take the moral high ground as a bonus. Out of the goodness of their hearts the NFL is making this potentially historic game available to everyone with a TV. Now the ball is in the big cable companies court. If they stonewall next year then the NFL can say, "Hey we can't keep giving the product away Mr. Senator man. I'm sure you understand. Now let's talk about why the voters in your state get 5 home shopping channels forced on them but they can't choose a channel they want like the NFL Network. Maybe now is the time to push that ala carte cable bill through Congress. It is an election year you know and that bill would be very popular with your electorate."
This is a tremendous move by the NFL.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Packers vs Cowboys and One of the Biggest Political Issues of the 2008 Election
Tonight the Packers will play the Cowboys in one of the biggest games of the year in the NFL but it won't have close to the TV audience you would expect for a game of this magnitude. That is because the game will be on the NFL Network and not many cable operating companies offer the NFL Network to their customer bases. The dispute between the cable companies and the NFL basically comes down to the NFL wanting their network to be part of the basic cable package while the cable companies insisting that the NFL Network be a "pay" channel or part of a premium sports package.
I want to watch this game tonight but I cannot because my cable company does not offer the NFL Network. I am not alone. I want to watch this game and would love to have the NFL Network as a choice among my cable channels. I am not alone. I have four shopping channels, three Spanish language channels, and dozens of other channels that I do not want but am forced to subsidize as part of my basic cable TV package. I am not alone. I am not happy about this situation and once again I am not alone.
In fact I bet if you asked anyone whether they would prefer to pay only for the cable TV channels they want to watch and not be forced to subsidize packages of channels that could not survive on their own - better than 90% of people would opt for the "ala carte" version of picking individual channels. That better than 90% would be across political party lines - both Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is an issue that everyone could agree on but politicians are not jumping on because (I guess) they do not want to alienate the cable TV special interest groups (and the money they donate to campaigns).
If you can order a movie on demand and have VCR-type controls (pause, rewind, fast forward) while watching that movie - then your cable company has the technology already in place to offer ala carte cable choice. To me this is such a no-brainer political issue that I am amazed that no major candidate has taken up the banner to lead the charge for cable choice. It would be an immensely popular position.
Tonight the Packers will play the Cowboys in one of the biggest games of the year in the NFL but it won't have close to the TV audience you would expect for a game of this magnitude. That is because the game will be on the NFL Network and not many cable operating companies offer the NFL Network to their customer bases. The dispute between the cable companies and the NFL basically comes down to the NFL wanting their network to be part of the basic cable package while the cable companies insisting that the NFL Network be a "pay" channel or part of a premium sports package.
I want to watch this game tonight but I cannot because my cable company does not offer the NFL Network. I am not alone. I want to watch this game and would love to have the NFL Network as a choice among my cable channels. I am not alone. I have four shopping channels, three Spanish language channels, and dozens of other channels that I do not want but am forced to subsidize as part of my basic cable TV package. I am not alone. I am not happy about this situation and once again I am not alone.
In fact I bet if you asked anyone whether they would prefer to pay only for the cable TV channels they want to watch and not be forced to subsidize packages of channels that could not survive on their own - better than 90% of people would opt for the "ala carte" version of picking individual channels. That better than 90% would be across political party lines - both Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is an issue that everyone could agree on but politicians are not jumping on because (I guess) they do not want to alienate the cable TV special interest groups (and the money they donate to campaigns).
If you can order a movie on demand and have VCR-type controls (pause, rewind, fast forward) while watching that movie - then your cable company has the technology already in place to offer ala carte cable choice. To me this is such a no-brainer political issue that I am amazed that no major candidate has taken up the banner to lead the charge for cable choice. It would be an immensely popular position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)