The NFL should rethink how it decides the matchups for Thanksgiving

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, squire12 said:

so you are against fairness?

Fairness in what aspect?

In general I think forcing teams to play on Thursdays is unfair to them and doubly so for forcing them to play on a holiday. If anything I suppose it's unfair to the players on the Lions and Cowboys; but its pretty much a known thing that comes with signing with those clubs.

The Dolphins rarely play on Thanksgiving but I'm not up in arms over it... the one time I recall them being on the TV I appreciated it but I don't think its a big deal either way. The way you respond to me, it seems you're making a mountain out of an anthill, frankly...

[squire12]

1 minute ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Fairness in what aspect?

In general I think forcing teams to play on Thursdays is unfair to them and doubly so for forcing them to play on a holiday. If anything I suppose it's unfair to the players on the Lions and Cowboys; but its pretty much a known thing that comes with signing with those clubs.

The Dolphins rarely play on Thanksgiving but I'm not up in arms over it... the one time I recall them being on the TV I appreciated it but I don't think its a big deal either way. The way you respond to me, it seems you're making a mountain out of an anthill, frankly...

It was a sarcastic response based on the other comments by the originator of the thread.  

[TheKillerNacho]

Just now, squire12 said:

It was a sarcastic response based on the other comments by the originator of the thread.  

ah ok i didnt bother to read much past page 1

[squire12]

1 minute ago, TheKillerNacho said:

ah ok i didnt bother to read much past page 1

The scheduling for the vast majority of games is first and foremost driven by money.  

Prime time games on Sunday night, Monday night, and the late Sunday game.  Thanksgiving day and any late season Saturday games.  All teams get a Thursday Night game I believe, so that has some other "rules" that apply.   

An individual fans perspective of the fairness of scheduling is a very distant aspect in terms of scheduling priority.  

Sucks for the fan, but it is the nature of the beast 

[TheKillerNacho]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

The scheduling for the vast majority of games is first and foremost driven by money.  

Prime time games on Sunday night, Monday night, and the late Sunday game.  Thanksgiving day and any late season Saturday games.  All teams get a Thursday Night game I believe, so that has some other "rules" that apply.   

An individual fans perspective of the fairness of scheduling is a very distant aspect in terms of scheduling priority.  

Sucks for the fan, but it is the nature of the beast 

I'd agree but it never really bothered me since I always few playing on prime time as a disadvantage fo rthe most part lol

[lancerman]

22 minutes ago, squire12 said:

so you are against fairness?

It is fair.... those teams took a risk for Thanksgiving and proved it viable. Their reward is they get to take a spot up on Thanksgiving.

[pf9]

Speaking of fairness and Thursday night games, right now some of the Thursday night package has to remain exclusive to NFL Network (except in the home markets of the participating teams) because it is required by the network's carriage contracts.

Usually, games that are simulcast on all of the Fox network feature teams that did well the previous season, but teams that did not do so good the last year are often relegated to the NFLN-exclusive games, which I see as punishing these teams for poor performance, because fans of these teams outside the primary markets do not always have access to NFL Network.

I want new carriage contracts negotiated that would allow all NFL Network games to be simulcast on a broadcast network, provided there's some discernable difference between the NFL Network airing and the broadcast network airing (like different announcers and halftime shows). This should happen starting in 2023, when I want the entire TNF package split between Fox and ABC (while still simulcast on NFL Network).

Edited October 4, 2020 by pf9

[pf9]

In the case of the Cleveland Browns, because they were so bad for so long, they did not appear in a TNF game simulcast on a broadcast network until 2019. They regressed that year, and were relegated back to NFL Network-only status for TNF.

[squire12]

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It is fair.... those teams took a risk for Thanksgiving and proved it viable. Their reward is they get to take a spot up on Thanksgiving.

I agree.   the process of DET and DAL playing on thanksgiving was established in a time when the $$ was not largely in their favor to do so.  

[squire12]

9 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Speaking of fairness and Thursday night games, right now some of the Thursday night package has to remain exclusive to NFL Network (except in the home markets of the participating teams) because it is required by the network's carriage contracts.

Usually, games that are simulcast on all of the Fox network feature teams that did well the previous season, but teams that did not do so good the last year are often relegated to the NFLN-exclusive games, which I see as punishing these teams for poor performance, because fans of these teams outside the primary markets do not always have access to NFL Network.

The reward for being a good team is more prime time games...which drives overall league revenue.  Revenue sharing also largely benefits teams that are historically bad.  

9 minutes ago, pf9 said:

I want new carriage contracts negotiated that would allow all NFL Network games to be simulcast on a broadcast network, provided there's some discernable difference between the NFL Network airing and the broadcast network airing (like different announcers and halftime shows). This should happen starting in 2023, when I want the entire TNF package split between Fox and ABC (while still simulcast on NFL Network).

Great that you want that.  Since there will be BILLIONS of dollars in these next TV contracts, I am sure the schedule process will again center around creating a schedule for prime time games that will have the potential to maximize the return on those BILLIONS of dollars.  

[TheKillerNacho]

26 minutes ago, pf9 said:

Speaking of fairness and Thursday night games, right now some of the Thursday night package has to remain exclusive to NFL Network (except in the home markets of the participating teams) because it is required by the network's carriage contracts.

Usually, games that are simulcast on all of the Fox network feature teams that did well the previous season, but teams that did not do so good the last year are often relegated to the NFLN-exclusive games, which I see as punishing these teams for poor performance, because fans of these teams outside the primary markets do not always have access to NFL Network.

I want new carriage contracts negotiated that would allow all NFL Network games to be simulcast on a broadcast network, provided there's some discernable difference between the NFL Network airing and the broadcast network airing (like different announcers and halftime shows). This should happen starting in 2023, when I want the entire TNF package split between Fox and ABC (while still simulcast on NFL Network).

This seems 100% completely baseless to me.

I looked over previous years and it seems pretty baseless but just take a lkook at this year

Bengals/Browns (lol)

Dolphins Jaguars (lol)

Broncos Jetss (lol)

Bucs Bears (eh, less lol but still not top tier teams

its not until Chiefs/Bills that things get interesting but only cause the Bills suddenly seem good

...

then the next weeks we get Giants/Eagls and Falcons/Panthers ... lol

 

Meanwhile... Packers/49ers, Patriots/Rams, Cowoys/Ravens, Cardinals/Seahawks, Colts/Titans, Chargers/Raiders all are scheduled to be NFLN-exclusives this year.......

[TXsteeler]

What the NFL SHOULD do is partner with amazon or someone else to create a streaming service for all of their games and cut ties with Television companies for good. I'm tired of having to pirate games just because fox is stuck in the gd 50s and can't support a system that allows me to pick the game I want to watch instead of assuming I wanna watch the Texans.

[cp0k2]

1 hour ago, pf9 said:

I mean, Detroit is not a big name team and they still play on Thanksgiving every year.

The Detroit Lions began the modern tradition of playing on Thanksgiving in 1934. They invented the concept for the NFL. The NFL, you, and the handful of other people that make this thread every year (usually closer to Thanksgiving but you jumped the gun this year), and anyone else that thinks they're taking the game away from the Lions can kick rocks, it's not yours to take.

[pf9]

I didn't want to take the game from the Lions. I just wanted the teams not the Lions or Cowboys to be rotated more or less.

[pf9]

15 hours ago, squire12 said:

Why should money be less of a priority for a business that your view of fairness?   Should they be able to tell you something that they would deem fair that affects you in a negative way for a % of your revenue?

Why is Thanksgiving superior in national television than the other Thursday night game slates?  As it is, each team gets a Thursday night national TV game appearance.

The 3 former teams have been in the playoff mix for those years.  Cleveland...not so much.   Again, comes back to what is going to draw the largest audience as anticipated at the time of making the schedule.  

GB has a very large national TV draw.   That helps drive the frequency of their Thanksgiving appearances.  I really do not think the NFL schedule makers are trying to spoil or screw particular fan bases.   The schedule comes down to some level of input from the TV networks and looking at what matchups can potentially draw the largest audiences.....and make the most $$$.

It is a MONEY driven league.  

Another example of me sticking up for the little guy is when I objected to a bowl game taking a 6-6 ACC team, Pittsburgh, in 2014 over a 7-5 Texas State team for an at-large. Texas State's conference, the Sun Belt, had three bowl bids that year and three teams with 7 wins or more that were bowl-eligible. But one of the bids went to a 6-6 South Alabama team instead, even though Texas State was playing football well before the University of South Alabama was even founded in 1963. The bowl's location in Alabama may have had something to do with it.

Nevertheless, Texas State went uninvited. This could not have happened in 2009, when the NCAA rules made it a priority to put 7-win teams in any bowl slot, including at-large, over 6-win teams, who usually only got in after all 7+-win teams were selected. This meant a team from a non-Power conference could be selected for a bowl game over a 6-6 power team if it had 7 or more wins.

The NCAA changed the rule in 2010, and several 7+win teams from outside the big conferences went uninvited to bowls between 2010 and 2014, but it hasn't happened since due to the expansion of the bowl line-up. Nevertheless, Texas State has not recovered from this snub, as 2014 remains their last winning season, and have changed coaches several times in the last 5 years. It's similar to how missing the playoffs at 10-6 in 2007 set the Cleveland Browns back for over a decade.