NFL season opener and playoff game won't be shown live on national TV

[LennG]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/nfl-season-opener-and-playoff-game-won-t-be-shown-live-on-national-tv/ar-BB1kzPmH?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=725646750b6940959cc3be56ae128415&ei=11

It has already been determined that the Eagles will open the season on Sept 6, against a team not yet named, and that game will be in Brazil. The caveat is that it will not be shown on any national TV station but it will be streamed on Peacock.

[Bill Brown]

The NFL has always had a policy that the two teams local stations are allowed to broadcast the games. So if you are in Philadelphia or in the other team's city, the game will be broadcast on those 2 local NBC stations.

Bill

[uconnjack8]

So this will be the first season in recent memory that the Super Bowl champs are not playing the 1st game.

[kingm56]

I have no issues with the NFL's strategy.  The reality is, Network TV viewership has been declining each year; as a byproduct, cable companies are bleeding millions of subscribers each year.  Gen Z's virtual rejection of Network TV is the impetus of cable TVs decline; in fact, I suspect live sporting events is the primary reason they continue to provide television services, which is why Network TV pays a premium for NFL broadcasting rights.  The NFL appears to be at the initial stages of moving from traditional network TV to streaming services, which is the preferred entertainment aperture for younger generations.   

[zephirus]

I have no issues with the NFL's strategy.  The reality is, Network TV viewership has been declining each year; as a byproduct, cable companies are bleeding millions of subscribers each year.  Gen Z's virtual rejection of Network TV is the impetus of cable TVs decline; in fact, I suspect live sporting events is the primary reason they continue to provide television services, which is why Network TV pays a premium for NFL broadcasting rights.  The NFL appears to be at the initial stages of moving from traditional network TV to streaming services, which is the preferred entertainment aperture for younger generations.   

I don't think anyone has a problem with the strategy or streaming in general - the issue is the cost.  Whereas in years past you only needed basic cable + ESPN to see literally every NFL game, in order to see every game now you would need basic cable, ESPN, Prime Video and Peacock.  What's more insulting is that NBC is on basic cable but they intentionally won't broadcast there and will only move to Peacock. I can only imagine a future sometime soon where despite having ESPN, you'll need ESPN+ to see some of those games as well.  And then Disney+ and Paramount+ on and on it goes.  Streaming was supposed to make entertainment cheaper and easier to access.  It has not.

[kingm56]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the strategy or streaming in general - the issue is the cost.  Whereas in years past you only needed basic cable + ESPN to see literally every NFL game, in order to see every game now you would need basic cable, ESPN, Prime Video and Peacock.  What's more insulting is that NBC is on basic cable but they intentionally won't broadcast there and will only move to Peacock. I can only imagine a future sometime soon where despite having ESPN, you'll need ESPN+ to see some of those games as well.  And then Disney+ and Paramount+ on and on it goes.  Streaming was supposed to make entertainment cheaper and easier to access.  It has not.

Fantastic points; however, I have to disagree.  Your notion is only true for those fortunate enough to live within the market.  For those of us outside the market, paying for YouTube, Prime and Peacock represents half the price of a DirectTV subscriptions.  Even if you're in the market, I also believe paying for all the streaming services is still cheaper than paying for cable, which currently has an average cost of $149.99/mo (with ESPN).

I use Superbox; so, my cost is null....

[uconnjack8]

Fantastic points; however, I have to disagree.  Your notion is only true for those fortunate enough to live within the market.  For those of us outside the market, paying for YouTube, Prime and Peacock represents half the price of a DirectTV subscriptions.  Even if you're in the market, I also believe paying for all the streaming services is still cheaper than paying for cable, which currently has an average cost of $149.99/mo (with ESPN).

I use Superbox; so, my cost is null....

I think you are correct that if you go all streaming its cheaper, but it is a little complicated.  For example, I get Disney and ESPN+ at half price because I have a phone with TMobil.

I bought a year of peacock for some kids shows when it was on a promotion for $20 for the year.  I don't consider my Amazon account to be a tv expense (yet, because I am sure it will become a premium service soon enough) because I had it originally to buy things.  There is definitely cheap streaming packages for local channels. 

I think its a case of "who moved my cheese" because its a change from how many of us have taken in tv for our entire lives.  Bottom line for is that we pay around 80-100 less/month for tv depending on if we add a service here and there because we want to binge a season of a show.

[Bill Brown]

I use Superbox; so, my cost is null....

And thanks to you, I too use Superbox.

Bill

[files58]

Fantastic points; however, I have to disagree.  Your notion is only true for those fortunate enough to live within the market.  For those of us outside the market, paying for YouTube, Prime and Peacock represents half the price of a DirectTV subscriptions.  Even if you're in the market, I also believe paying for all the streaming services is still cheaper than paying for cable, which currently has an average cost of $149.99/mo (with ESPN).

I use Superbox; so, my cost is null....

What is Superbox?

[MightyGiants]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the strategy or streaming in general - the issue is the cost.  Whereas in years past you only needed basic cable + ESPN to see literally every NFL game, in order to see every game now you would need basic cable, ESPN, Prime Video and Peacock.  What's more insulting is that NBC is on basic cable but they intentionally won't broadcast there and will only move to Peacock. I can only imagine a future sometime soon where despite having ESPN, you'll need ESPN+ to see some of those games as well.  And then Disney+ and Paramount+ on and on it goes.  Streaming was supposed to make entertainment cheaper and easier to access.  It has not.

Lee,

I think you make an excellent point.  I think the real killer is the exclusive use of a minor streaming platform like Peacock to stream games.  When the NFL starts scattering the games and increasing the cost to follow, they likely won't drive too many fans away, but it's also about growing the fan base.  It's certainly not going to grow the fan base when they have an exciting open game in Brazil, but casual or first-time fans will be unable to see it.   I have seen entertainment companies do this sort of thing before, they kill the golden goose by trying to squeeze too many eggs out of her in the short run.

[Bill Brown]

What is Superbox?

The superbox4 is a box that connects to an hdmi port on my TV and gives me around 1200 live TV stations and a video on demand feature for movies and TV shows. I bought it on Amazon for around 300 bucks but now you can get a superbox4 for 222 on Amazon. The drop in price is because now there is a superbox5 but the 4 does all I need.

This is a one time purchase. No monthly fees or any other fees.

I bought it because Kingm26 (Matt) told me about it when people were asking how to get Giants game if they aren't broadcasting in my area. I thought I would pay 300 if I could get the Giants. This box allows me to do that. You can watch any NFL game live you want to see. Even the games that are broadcast on Amazon or peacock are available on the box.

You can also get several HBOs SHOWTIME Cinemax Starz etc.

I use the video on demand feature most of the time. I can get most of the current movies and TV series and almost any movies or series I want to watch I can find. Any show you get on Netflix or Apple I can get on the box.

This is not the perfect solution but is as close as possible. Once in awhile a station my be down for maintenance but if you ask me if I would recommend this box I would say ABSOLUTELY 100%  I LOVE IT.

I still have Hulu and Netflix but only because Louise want to keep them because she is comfortable using them so we keep those services for her but if I was alone the superbox4 would be all I would use.

Bill

[Fletch]

Fantastic points; however, I have to disagree.  Your notion is only true for those fortunate enough to live within the market.  For those of us outside the market, paying for YouTube, Prime and Peacock represents half the price of a DirectTV subscriptions.  Even if you're in the market, I also believe paying for all the streaming services is still cheaper than paying for cable, which currently has an average cost of $149.99/mo (with ESPN).

I use Superbox; so, my cost is null....

I'd like to see you post some numbers to back up this claim. I bet it is not true. I got rid of HULU live since it was the same cost as a verizon fios basic cable package -- which I need for the wifi anyway--and which 1 of 5 of my elective channels was TNT. So I actually get to watch NBA basketball or whatever else.

Also even if you are in network --- it is nearly impossible to watch an NFL game with an over the air antenna without signal problems. I have tried it now in 2 different apt. in 2 different boroughs and while mostly it goes well it always seems like the signal is just horrible a lot of the time. Many games I have driven to my parents house  during half time, to continue watching,  in frustration of constantly having to adjust the TV.

[kingm56]

Antennas?  What are you talking about?   If you live in California or Colorado, and you have a cable subscription, or FIOS, the Giants will not be broadcasted on Fox or NBC, as the NFL agreement limits broadcast to the NY Market.  Thus, the only way you could watch our Giants  was via DTV subscription, which cost $299 for the package and mandatory 2-yr/$115 month subscription.  For a 2-year period, it cost $3,360; today, YouTube NFL package cost $299, plus $75 month for 6 months.  YouTube allows you to suspend your subscription at any time.  So, the latter cost $2,400 for the same timeframe. Steaming apertures have reduced the cost for users outside the NY market.

If the NFL eliminated their deals with legacy networks  (e.g. Fox, CBS, and NBC), and went to a 100% streaming construct with Amazon, Disney, Peacock and Hulu, your total monthly cost is $45/mo, which is less than half the price of your FIOS TV package.  You only have the latter as an aperture to watch Fox, NBC and CBS, which represents the real expense.  Unfortunately, we're stuck with the legacy Networks as they completely understand live sports are preventing their utter collapse; hence, why they're spending billions for NFL, Olympics, etc rights.  However, eventually, as Gen Zs start to make up a larger portion of the premium disposable income bracket, legacy networks will start to fade as the younger generation no longer consumes their entertainment like most of us here.   


https://www.wsj.com/buyside/arts-entertainment/best-streaming-services-3039a858
https://www.verizon.com/home/fios-tv/

[Fletch]

Antennas?  What are you talking about? 

I was talking about this ....

Even if you're in the market, I also believe paying for all the streaming services is still cheaper than paying for cable, which currently has an average cost of $149.99/mo (with ESPN).

I don't pay anywhere close to that. Most of us are not watching the Giants from Colorado ok? And even if they were I bet most Giants fans were watching back from like the 80's when they were the game of the week Sundays ; and on prime time tv a lot of the time anyway.

Your other numbers sound a little weird to me. You can get Direct TV for 69.99/mo. NFL ticket runs you 299 either way.