Jump to content

NFL on CBS, Fox, ESPN


  • Please log in to reply

16028 replies to this topic

#13051

Irlandesa

Irlandesa

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 23, 2012 @ 10:48 PM

Thanks for specifying about the workouts.

Sports Illustrated has an article on the Sapp situation. They aren't going to fire him but they did talk to him yesterday about the fact that he isn't a reporter and reminded him of the standards they have for news reporting. They also say that they don't know when Sapp's next scheduled appearance is and if he'll be punished but this must have gone up before today's NFL Total Access on which he appeared.

Edited by Irlandesa, Mar 24, 2012 @ 1:37 PM.

  • 0

#13052

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Mar 24, 2012 @ 1:22 PM

Thanks for the link, Irlandesa. So Sapp isn't a reporter for them, he isn't even a full time employee? Wow, that really clarifies his role over there for me. It'll be interesting to see if Shockey does indeed sue.

Edited by bulldawgtownie, Mar 24, 2012 @ 1:23 PM.

  • 0

#13053

PoeticJustice32

PoeticJustice32

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 24, 2012 @ 4:23 PM

So who might very well be having a worse week than Shockey? My vote goes to Mark Sanchez. I don't necessarily disagree with what's being said, but I kind of cringe every time I hear someone say how "soft" and "weak" he is and how he's going to "crumble" under the pressure. These are not the words people usually use to describe starting NFL QBs. I can't imagine how embarrassing it is to hear that the overwhelming perception of you is that you're a sissy.

Mark's already had problems leading the team (funny how some players are only NOW rallying around him, with Tebow coming aboard when earlier in the offseason we had so many of them talking shit about Mark). And now he's got to deal with a much stronger-willed personality literally waiting to snatch his job away (and apparently with management's blessing). I mean, the Jets flew Tebow here in a private jet, and will be holding a press conference for him on Monday to officially welcome him to the team. Not to mention there are already billboards up advertising Tebow's arrival and his jersey is already on sale. And he's supposed to be the BACK-UP qb? Oh I don't think so.
  • 0

#13054

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Mar 26, 2012 @ 10:47 AM

Regardless of all the criticism Sanchez is getting from both fans and the media, he's still guaranteed to make at least another $20 million. And as far as I'm concerned the billboard doesn't count because it isn't from the fans or the team but rather an ad for "Jockey".
  • 0

#13055

Perfect Xero

Perfect Xero

    Fanatic

Posted Mar 27, 2012 @ 9:19 AM

So the Media has gone from asking if the (IMO, relatively light) punishment for the bounties was the "Death Penalty" on the Saints to getting all excited over Bill Parcells possibly stepping in for his buddy Payton.
  • 0

#13056

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 9, 2012 @ 2:33 PM

Nothing is official but some sites are reporting that Warren Sapp's time at the NFL Network is over.
  • 0

#13057

Magog

Magog

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 3:22 PM

The NFL Schedule for the 2012 season will air tonight at 7 on ESPN. Its making me wonder how many Jets games that ESPN is going to have for their Monday Night Football season. It is bad enough that I keep hearing about Tebow on ESPN a lot since the offseason started. I thought that we won't have to hear anything about him (other than the trade) till the 2012 season starts.

I don't mind the NFL having a regular season game in London (though I don't want an NFL team there), but I don't like that they're having the St. Louis Rams playing there for the next 3 seasons. They're playing the New England Patriots (I'm also not happy about that.) in the upcoming season. When are we going to see the Jets, Cowboys, Redskins, Raiders, or the Steelers playing in London? They're very popular NFL teams & you would think that the NFL would want to bring more popularity over there by having their marquee teams play in London instead of the sucky Rams. Can you imaging Tebow being in London? It would make that game a bit more entertaining.

Edited by Magog, Apr 17, 2012 @ 5:38 PM.

  • 0

#13058

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 5:18 PM

Did we need 3 hours for the schedule unveiling? Seriously.
  • 0

#13059

big chicken

big chicken

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 8:10 PM

Did the Rams give up a home game for the next three years to play in London? I know the Bears have said they wouldn't mind playing in London again as long as it's not one of their home games.
  • 0

#13060

NYC Dave

NYC Dave

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 11:39 PM

Did we need 3 hours for the schedule unveiling? Seriously.


Did we NEED it? No. Did ESPN schedule it to satisfy the insatiable appetite people in this country have for all things National Football League? You bet they did. Some might consider it a sad thing that this warranted 3 hours of primetime television, but it just goes to show how big the NFL truly is and that it's become a 12-months-a-year sport like nothing else out there.
  • 0

#13061

Irlandesa

Irlandesa

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 17, 2012 @ 11:41 PM

Did the Rams give up a home game for the next three years to play in London? I know the Bears have said they wouldn't mind playing in London again as long as it's not one of their home games.


The Packers organization has said the same thing. They'd love to play in London but not at the expense of a home game. It's probably the sentiment of a large majority of the teams, especially those who can sell out their stadiums. The Rams were willing to give up a home game per season for three years which is why they'll be there instead of other teams.
  • 0

#13062

xaxat

xaxat

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 8:50 AM

The owner of the Rams, Stan Kroenke, is in a fight with the city or St. Louis over renovations for their stadium. (The Rams are one of the teams rumored to be interested in moving to LA if they can get a stadium built.) In addition, Kroenke owns Arsenal of the Premier League so he might see some cross promotional opportunities there.
  • 0

#13063

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 18, 2012 @ 12:20 PM

In addition, Kroenke owns Arsenal of the Premier League so he might see some cross promotional opportunities there.

IMO that's the reason why the Rams are playing games in London instead of better teams. But I do feel sorry for british fans, it seems they always end up getting some terrible matchup.
  • 0

#13064

HickoryColt

HickoryColt

    Stalker

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 11:20 AM

We will see if Manning improves the Broncos record, but he certainly has affected the TV schedule.

Denver 5 primetime games, Indy one this year.

Part of that is Indy's poor record, but still a pretty dramatic change for a team that for a decade has had a good 4 or 5 games a year in primetime.
  • 0

#13065

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 1:55 PM

Indy has just two wins last year and got rid of a lot of their key players so being on tv just once didn't surprise me.

What did surprise me is that Philadelphia, a team that barely got into the playoffs, has five national tv appearances while the defending SuperBowl champions got just four. I'm surprised ESPN isn't up in arms about that.
  • 0

#13066

MV007

MV007

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 2:51 PM

Indy has just two wins last year and got rid of a lot of their key players so being on tv just once didn't surprise me.


The fact that they are on once is too many. I haven't looked at the schedule so I'm assuming thats a MNF game which means its not really a big deal. It seems the NFL has used MNF as an opportunity to promote the worst teams in their league because I'd guess something like 70% of MNF games involve teams I have no interest in watching. For example, the Colts sans Peyton Manning.
  • 0

#13067

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 3:37 PM

What did surprise me is that Philadelphia, a team that barely got into the playoffs, has five national tv appearances

They didn't even make the playoffs, actually. I am also surprised they got that many primetime games. I only saw they'd gotten two (maybe 3) MNF games. What Sunday night games did they get? They really shouldn't be in primetime much after the middle of the season, because their record is going to be horrendous. Or maybe ESPN knows that and controversy sells, I don't know.
  • 0

#13068

aml77

aml77

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 19, 2012 @ 4:29 PM

The fact that they are on once is too many. I haven't looked at the schedule so I'm assuming thats a MNF game which means its not really a big deal.

It's not. It's a Thursday night game on November 8 on NFLN. With the expansion of Thursday night games, every team is nationally televised at least once this season.

They didn't even make the playoffs, actually. I am also surprised they got that many primetime games. I only saw they'd gotten two (maybe 3) MNF games. What Sunday night games did they get?

Two Monday Nighters and two Sunday Nighters. The only one they can possibly get flexed out of is Week 13.

Edited by aml77, Apr 19, 2012 @ 4:32 PM.

  • 0

#13069

Perfect Xero

Perfect Xero

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 12:43 AM

It's the Vick factor.
  • 0

#13070

MITerp

MITerp

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 12:57 PM

Sortakinda surprised that the Redskins only got one prime-timer. Wretched as they've been, they're still one of the top brand names in the NFL, and now they've got Griffin on board. Thought there'd be a chance their W11 Eagles (RG v. Vick) game would be flexed to SNF, but that's Ravens-Steelers, so no go there.

Edited by MITerp, Apr 20, 2012 @ 12:57 PM.

  • 0

#13071

kathyk2

kathyk2

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 1:20 PM

The Eagles could have gotten so many prime time games based on their opponents. If they are playing the NFC East I understand why those games will get good ratings. I'm not surprised that the Colts only have one prime time game NBC flexed out a Pats-Colts game late last year. I think having so many Thursday games will hurt the NCAA because Espn usually puts good games on Thursday nights.
  • 0

#13072

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 2:29 PM

Most of the Thursday games are for the NFL network which goes to far fewer homes than ESPN so I don't think the college ratings will be affected much.
  • 0

#13073

kathyk2

kathyk2

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 20, 2012 @ 2:52 PM

If your pro team is playing on the NFL Netork one local channel will broadcast the game. Fans in Miami might have to choose between seeing the Dolphins or the Hurricanes that's what I had in mind. I think CBS is ticked off that the NFL network has the Jets-Pats on Thankgiving since that's one of their highest rated games.
  • 0

#13074

HickoryColt

HickoryColt

    Stalker

Posted Apr 21, 2012 @ 2:31 PM

It doesn't surprise me the COlts only had one prime time game. They suck and are going to suck for a few years, even with Luck, though I do think they will be substantially better than last year just based on a better QB and better coaching. ANd I don't really are too much about the primetime games. I actually prefer the Sunday 1 PM games. Last year or the year before, they only had like 5 games all year Sunday 1 PM. I set my Sunday's around that schedule, so the night games mess me up.

What surprises me is Denver has 5, mostly due to Manning. You could argue they are a playoff team and had some momentum from last year, but most of their attention last year was TEbow related. ANd they got rid of him.

Manning's influence on a team's popularity is immense. We will see if he can still play (I think he can) and if he can make Denver a better team, but they've already jumped up on the national radar in terms of popularity alone.

Edited by HickoryColt, Apr 21, 2012 @ 2:34 PM.

  • 0

#13075

Irlandesa

Irlandesa

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 21, 2012 @ 3:16 PM

What surprises me is Denver has 5, mostly due to Manning. You could argue they are a playoff team and had some momentum from last year, but most of their attention last year was TEbow related. ANd they got rid of him.


I'm not surprised Denver has 5. As they say, it's a QB league. Manning is considered one of the best to ever play and he hasn't played for over a year. There's a huge curiosity factor about how we'll he'll play and whether or not he's recovered. And had Tebow still been in Denver, they would've gotten five because his "comebacks" generated ratings. Now a Denver with Brady Quinn as head QB, that would've surprised me.

What did surprise me is that Philadelphia, a team that barely got into the playoffs, has five national tv appearances while the defending SuperBowl champions got just four. I'm surprised ESPN isn't up in arms about that.


The Giants have 5 prime time games.
  • 0

#13076

nowandlater

nowandlater

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 11:20 PM

What did surprise me is that Philadelphia, a team that barely got into the playoffs, has five national tv appearances while the defending SuperBowl champions got just four. I'm surprised ESPN isn't up in arms about that.


The defending Super Bowl champion Packers had 4 primetime games last year.
  • 0

#13077

xaxat

xaxat

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 23, 2012 @ 11:50 PM

I'm really surprised that the Saints, through their spokesman, are backing Loomis in this latest scandal. In light of recent activities, it's not like the guy is a paragon of ethical behavior.
  • 0

#13078

ganesh

ganesh

    Stalker

Posted Apr 24, 2012 @ 12:44 PM

Kyle Turley was on TSN radio and said he never knew about the spying when he was with NO, but who knows. The NFL is going to just tell the Saints to stay home this season, I swear.
  • 0

#13079

nowandlater

nowandlater

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 24, 2012 @ 9:57 PM

I don't follow the NFL Draft as closely as I used to, but I do follow many NFL people on Twitter and I'm so psyched for Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Yet I haven't watched a single minute of ESPN or NFL Network in the past few weeks.

I have, however, read numerous articles in USA Today and Sports Illustrated about how the 2 networks plan to cover the event.

I keep hearing how awesome Bill Polian is, but I don't bother to watch.

Am I the only one?
  • 0

#13080

Doom

Doom

    Stalker

Posted Apr 24, 2012 @ 10:11 PM

Polian is doing a good job. I didn't know if it was a temporary thing or what, but I've liked his insight and his ability to speak. He's the anti-Parcells. Polian just fits right in, speaks with confidence and seems like a great, guy-next-door owner. If he's a jackass (as I assume most ultra-wealthy NFL owners likely are), he sure is hiding it well. I like the guy.

That said, the NFL picked a horrible time (Okay, picked isn't the right word) to have the draft because there are too many things taping and I can't watch the draft live. I mean I could, but you really don't miss that much by following along online if you have to. Or at least you don't miss much of the actual draft - you do miss the rampant speculation and "next best available" graphics that have you looking at people like bagels leftover in a case at the coffee shop.
  • 0