NFL puts playoff game on pay network

first they did this shit with the thursday night games on amazon. now it's peacock saturdays.

for this saturday's game there is one bright note: you don't have to see the cameras constantly panning onto taylor swift at every possible chance. no doubt about it that peacock subscriptions will spike up enormously. i'm sick and tired of that bitch already.

I agree. The Big 10 conference and Peacock also have an agreement to carry some basketball games this year. And some of the biggest rivalry games are on Peacock.

Michigan - Michigan State
Indiana - Purdue
Purdue - Illinois

Just to name a few. The big ten network is already only available thru a paid subscription service but then to move 20 big games plus the big ten tournament to another paid platform really sucks.

What’s just a few dollars for us, is an unwanted extra expensive for older folks in fixed incomes

It sucks but you can stream the game for free on stream east (link below).

https://www.thestreameast.to/v2/

This link is normally pretty reliable aside from the ~30 second lag time and occasional buffering. Big boxing matches and ufc pay per views are also normally available on this website.

Professional sports have never been a charity or a public service. Broadcasters have always bidded against each other to buy television rights to the games (that means they DO get paid for their product). Streaming services have all of the same rights to bid to televise those games as CBS or FOX. The enitre point of buying the broadcast rights is to bring more viewers, whether your revenue comes.from ads or subscribers. That's the free market.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the owners. Professional athletes demand increasingly exorbitant salaries, and the owners will have to choose the most generous offers to continue paying those salaries. That is never going to change unless people srop watching televised sporting events. You can always listen to it on the radio.

100% their right to do it, but the net result for me anyway is that I probably won't watch this game. If I do, it'll likely be at a bar of some sort. Sure, I could shell out the $5-10 for peacock, but I don't want to. It's not just having to subscribe to extra shit, I hate it being so hard to change channels during commercials. Overall the experience is just less than what I'm used to.

Dolfan, can you south Florida guys not watch it on broadcast tv? When they put the games on Amazon or Prime, they usually simulcast on broadcast tv for the local markets.

If the Dolphins game is not simulcasted locally, it might be a good excuse to go to Tootsies.

I think they'll broadcast it in Miami but I don't get the Miami NBC affiliate here, I'm too far north. They're still putting all of the games on DirecTV for commercial customers, so all the bars around here will have it. Or as I know better suggested, it could be a good excuse to hit up a strip club down south.

What's kinda fucked up is we are included in the blackout area, but still not considered the local market. There hasn't been a blackout in like 25 years or something, but still kinda fucked up how their rules work.

Kodi……

I don't pay for, nor miss Thursday night football. I won't pay for, nor miss Saturday night football.

We need to remember this when they come around with their hat in their hand looking for money to refurbish or replace the stadium.

Let them know how you feel by withholding your dollars. I love football but will not pay extra for it, unless it was an exceptional circumstance.

You have very little say in whether an NFL team gets a new stadium or not. These deals are made at the top level of state and local governments. You may vote for a different candidate in the primary, but you will vote a straight party line democrat ticket in the general -as you always have- and get what you have always got.

You can bitch and whine all you want, no one is going to listen. Besides, it's only a football game. Find something that matters to do.

How is this any different from various sports broadcasting games on cable networks like ESPN or FoxSports? This is just a modern version of that. The only difference is that Peacock offers non-subscribers a free trial so they can watch it at no cost which is something cable/satellite never offered to non-subscribers.

In the end choosing to sell the rights to a game to a streaming service like Amazon or Peacock is no different than selling the rights to a game to ESPN or Fox Sports. Either way non-subscribers won't be able to watch it (legally) at home without signing up for either the streaming service or cable network that bought the rights. The only people that see the two scenarios differently are ludites that refuse to accept that the entertainment industry is changing much like their parents resisted getting cable/satellite because they didn't think you should have to pay to watch tv or how their grandparents resisted the change from radio broadcasts to tv. Either adapt with the changing entertainment landscape or get left behind, the choice is yours.

If you are willing to adapt to the change you may even be able to do it for free. In addition to the free trial from Peacock there sre other ways to get it for free. I know I signed up for 12 months of free Peacock access through my cable provider (Spectrum) and that other major cable companies like Xfinity and Comcast have similar deals. Some cell phone carriers also offer free Peacock subscriptions. Even certaint Instacart memberships include free access to Peacock.

awwww how cute, someone says THEY ARE CHEAP and yall pile on. fucking watching is not free bitches

^Fucking watching has never been free. You have to buy a TV, you have to pay for cable/streaming or some antennae device, you have to pay for electricity, or you have to pay for drinks/meal to watch it outside your home. The only free is mooching off others and going to someone else's house to watch. Furthermore, no one is piling on. We are either pointing out the fallacy of the OP's argument or offering alternatives.

funny how those guys that are always making threads about their tipping rules, and complaining loudest about the cost of lap dances, are the ones calling me cheap
LOL

Funny how people with no principles ever think someone else's decision has nothing to do with money. I can afford this pay tv shit, I choose not to. The product the nfl put firth this year was the worst I have ever seen. It was fucking awful. I also hate the woke attitude of the year. I can play fantasy (won my big money league from the 10th draft spot and placed in the cash in others) and bet football and football pools without watching. I watch what is free, check up on the other games on my computer and it is satisfying. Amazon is never getting a cent from me for anything. NFL channel? It's part of my cable anyway.

Start a discussion thread.
Lose the debate on your own discussion thread.
Start attacking the commenters to whom you lost.

It's not a good look, but it's the only look some people have.

@whodey

I totally get that the landscape of TV sports is changing and we have to adapt. But like I said, what I resent is the “double dipping”.

I’ve gone thru for a couple of seasons of baseball where Amazon is now broadcasts a game per week. People are already paying - either thru their cable subscription or a streaming service like Hulu - to get Bally’s or another regional sports provider, then along comes Amazon and takes some of the games.

From comments during baseball season on Facebook you can learn a lot. There are older folks who pay for cable TV solely to watch baseball so why should they be forced to sign up for another service even if it is a free trial. Some of the folks are in nursing homes and just can’t switch like that.

One has to have a little compassion for the older fans. They are used to just turning on the TV on there’s the game. They don’t want to try and figure out if todays game is on Bally’s or YouTube or Amazon or peacock or Facebook

^ the only loser here is you everyone else is having a discussion, but with a moron like you, it's not only always personal, but you always contradict your previous statements, and no matter what my post is, you always make yourself out to be a jackass looking for an argument fuck off creep.

^post not aimed at motorhead, specifically about the jerk off above him

"Start attacking the commenters to whom you lost.
It's not a good look, but it's the only look some people have." Damn I'm tired of always being right! Calm down before you have an aneurysm. Its only a game. As I wrote earlier, old folks in nursing homes and and cheap skates in trailer parks can always listen on the radio. Alternatively, I suggest you find something worthwhile to do with your time. At the very least go watch the game at strip club- TUSCL problem solved!

If i may be so bold as to suggest how you should spend the 3-4 hours you will save by not starting at the TV:
Read a book or listen to a podcast on "how to disagree without being disagreeable".

Everyone around you will benefit if you practice even a single behavior of that mindset.

Motor just doesn't get it. It has jack shit to do with figuring out the technology, which is for young people and therefore simplistic. I used to get a great product for free. Now I get a shitty product, played by whiny bitches, with terrible political overtones and it costs money. Being older means I can actually enjoy other things and feel no need to do what I am told by the on-line crowd.

@motorhead - how is figuring out which streaming service a game is on any different than when games started being shown on cable and they had to look through a TV Guide and figure out which channel the game was on when they were used to only having 3 channels before that.

As for compassion for the elderly who don't have multiple streaming services I can only go so far with that. How many NFL, MLB, NBA, ETC games are they able to watch each week today compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago? They are able to watch a lot more games now without a single streaming service than they were ever able to watch back in the 70s, 80s or 90s even if they had a full cable package at the time which was the way to watch as much as possible.

If you want to talk about them making it unfair for the elderly to watch games, let talk about how unfair the major networks are to some elderly fans during the regular season. Each week the Sunday 1pm and 4pm rounds of games are split between just 2 networks (CBS and Fox) meaning multiple games are not available to fans to watch based on their location because the networks have decided to show a different game instead. If the NFL would allow streaming services to show the games each viewer would be able to decide between which of the 4 games that CBS had the rights to that they want to watch by logging into the Paramount app and choosing. Instead CBS chooses for them based on where they live. My elderly father has been a huge Green Bay fan since the 1950s but since he lives in Cincinnati those Packers games are only available on local channels about 3-5 times per year. That is why for several years now I have bought him the Sunday Ticket package which is way more expensive than Amazon Prime and Peacock combines so he can watch his team play.

So how is it more fair to seniors for networks to decide which games are available in an area instead of having all of the games available on a streaming service? How is it better for seniors to have to buy the more expensive Sunday Ticket package to be able to watch the games they want instead of cheaper alternatives such as streaming services?

I know how to use the streaming service just I don’t need or want sympathy from anyone, plus I can afford anything I want or need.

My point is simple the owners have no regard for the fans who actually pay the bills and I have plenty to do for my own personal enjoyment. The stadiums are mainly paid for by taxpayers, the streaming services use internet service that was provided by the taxpayers, funny how these businesses think we should get no benefit for allowing them access to public channels that they use at a tremendous public cost.
My argument isn’t that I want anything for free, my argument is they don’t just get a free ride, they need to profit to provide a service and I’m no socialist, but there’s a limit to what they are entitled to. There needs to be reasonable limits to what they can get away with.

When these sports franchises come to town they promise to provide certain services in return for access to publicly owned channels to share their product, not even getting into how they operate their businesses, asking for local support implies that they’re supporting local sports and entertainment. It goes both ways, they get much more than they deserve that’s my real point.

Gammanu go fuck your egotistical bigoted self you aren’t and never have been as smart as you think you are, we all know your a moron and boring as fuck.

"When these sports franchises come to town they promise to provide certain services in return for access to publicly owned channels to share their product" When exactly did the sports franchises promise to allow people to watch their product on publicly owned channels? ESPN is certainly a privately owned channel as are Fox, CBS and ABC all of whom have profited from showing sports over the years just like the sports leagues and individual teams have profited from having their games shown. For years local fans have had to deal with games being blacked out in their home market due to the games not being a sellout when it comes to tickets.

How is Peacock paying for the right to show one regular season and one playoff game any different than ESPN paying for the right to show last night's College Football Championship game? Neither are publicly owned channels that people can watch without paying for a subscription. If anything ESPN being allowed exclusive broadcast rights is worse because that game was between two public universities that each receive more public funding than any two NFL teams.

The fact is Peacock offered to pay $110 million for the exclusive rights to one regular season and one playoff game this season. So out of 285 total NFL games this season (not counting pressing games) they bought the rights to 0.7% of the NFL games this year. Is there anyone here that wouldn't have gladly sold 0.7% of your work for this year to Peacock for $110 million?

In the end, all that the public gets in exchange for tax payer funding is a professional sports team in their city. That brings along the millions in tourism dollars, millions in taxes on the tickets sold, millions in state income taxes (depending on the state) that the athletes and team employees pay. Home games of a professional sports teams also drive a lot of money to other businesses in the region like hotels, restaurants, bars and transportation. It also brings along a lot of clout when competing against other cities for things like major conventions and other events that also bring a lot of money into the local economy. Those are the reasons that local governments and voters give professional teams tax money to either lure them to or keep them in their city, not because they think it will allow them to watch games for free.

Besides, the local fans whose tax money goes to either the Miami Dolphins or Kansas City Chiefs will be able to watch the game for free on their local NBC affiliates. That means even if the taxpayer contributions entitled tax payers to watch for free like 25 argues, the tax payers that contributed to those teams do get to watch for free. Surely you can't be trying to say that tax payers who contribute to the Arizona Cardinals or Cincinnati Bengals or even tax payers who don't live in a city like Nashville that contributes any tax money to NFL teams somehow have a right to watch the game for free, right?

As for "My point is simple the owners have no regard for the fans who actually pay the bills" how does a private citizen watching the game on tv from their home help the team pay the bills? The only way a team gets money from that is by companies like CBS, ESPN, Amazon or Peacock paying for the rights to broadcast the game. The fact is they always sell those rights to the highest bidder just like they have since they started showing live sports on TV, the only thing that has changed is which companies are bidding on them.

How can someone be 70 years old and not understand the American free market system? And yes, you are very much a leftist. Denying the Socialist label does not mean you are not one. Again, attacking people who you lose to in the debate only makes you a sore loser (and it's a hallmark of leftist behavior).

Apart from the OPs disgusting behavior and appalling entitlement, whodey was spot-on with his analysis.

I’ll answer you simply, the stadiums were built by taxpayer money, original air waves that have been used to broadcast the games after being auctioned off by media outlets are public property, their intention is to use publicly developed and funded internet to stream their products is also taxpayer funded. My contention is very simply not being a Luddite there is a debt owed but unpaid. I don’t know what the next steps in technology will be, rest assured it too will likely be funded with public monies, the creation of streaming services is just another money grab by a greedy bunch of tech savvy hustlers who’s main claim to fame is advanced inside knowledge and an ability to profit from that insidious knowledge and the willful corruption of local governing bodies.

Gamanu go back to the kiddy table the adults are talking about things you have less than no understanding of.

Just because the public paid for something doesn't mean they get unconditional free use of that item. It was public funding that paid for the US Postal Service to build post offices and design postal routes, but people still have to pay to send a package through the mail. Public funding built many public transportation systems but people still need to pay to ride a bus or subway. The public paid to build airports and fund the FAA but people still need to pay to fly on a private airline out of those airports. Public funding built many parks, but those same parks charge a fee to reserve a campsite or a picnic area. Putting a football game on a paid streaming service or a pay cable network or a paid streaming service is no different.

@whodey,
You’ve misconstrued my point it’s not that I object to paying for reasonable services.
My objection is the constant demand to be paid for services that were provided as part of prior agreements, this constant claw back and monetization of services originally agreed to be provided, as well as the constant demand that we subsidize these businesses. Much of what we’ve been calling inflation has been nothing less than an insidious money grab, and it really need to stop. I’ve stopped using some products and services just because I object strongly to the idea that these products and services cost more when they do not.
I’ll give you an example 3 years ago Coca Cola cost $2.79 for a twelve pack of cans, now that same twelve pack is $9.78 in Publix, I can afford it but I refuse to purchase this product.
Nobody needs a football game but sure I enjoy watching them, I have plenty of other options to entertain me, I have a cable company that provides me with hundreds of channels including NFL games, T-Mobile provides me with Netflix free of additional charge, all of a sudden Peacock appears on the scene, I don’t need them, and won’t use them I’m not going to subscribe to another service just to get NFL games, that’s the point, and as much as I enjoy watching, I’ll find something better, just like I don’t keep Coke in my refrigerator my television won’t have any NFL games. We still have other sodas, and we’ll still have sports on Television.
Until people stop allowing themselves to be used in this fashion it’s never going to change.

If you want to find a different way to be entertained that is fine. I did that when I stopped watching basketball about 20 years ago because the players that I enjoyed watching when I was young had all retired and I just didn't enjoy the newer players as much. Same thing with NASCAR and Indy Car.

But I can't understand how you think there was a prior agreement in place to allow people to watch the games without a subscription. Can you point me to any such agreement that was ever formalized? I know I never had cable or satellite tv until about 2010 because I always chose to spend my money on other forms of entertainment and because I wasn't paying for it I didn't have the chance to watch any games that were shown on cable networks and the only games I could watch were the few broadcast on over the air networks each week or the ones I bought tickets to watch in person. Do you believe the NFL or MLB owed me the right to watch those games that they chose to sell to ESPN or Fox Sports? How is selling them to a streaming service any different? Either way people have to choose if they want to see the game enough to get a subscription or not, just like it has been since before I was born.

^^ whodey you are writing in response to someone like they’re an objective rational human being, yet realize it’s just an over emotional, Ozempic swilling, self aggrandizing blowhard trying to stay relevant thinking he should get a reward for pointing out what’s rong with this new world we’re living in. As many others tried pointing out, things evolve and you can choose what to purchase with your time and money. I’m glad to not watch one single nfl game this season, but I still have made several bets each week and read the headlines about the games. Debating whether Peacock should or shouldn’t be doing this is a big nothing burger.

Quit while you're behind, twentyfive. You've dropped your pants and shown everyone what you truly are. How long will your boycott of the NFL last? A whopping 57 minutes, just like when you quit TUSCL.

Just quit ranting and go enjoy the game at a bar like a normal person. Be rational for once in your life.

Go fuck your bigoted self, you keep coming on my thread to start shit cause you can’t accept the fact that I not only own every square centimeter of head space you have, and you keep getting your ass handed to you by a 70 year old man.
You’re unquestionably a 12 year old and an annoying one at that

@Whodey
I’ll point you to the blackout rule that allowed the teams to show certain teams in certain markets, I realize that it’s exclusionary instead of inclusive but over the years lots of different things have occurred that are more egregious but my point is simple, we can agree to disagree and we have, but the sports leagues will do what they to line their pockets with our money

BTW Mate is another bigoted turd, too cheap to pay for a dancer he brags about coming in his pants, sounds like another 12 year old, both of you guy gtfoh this is my thread neither of you have the ability to actually act like adults you should be at home watching cartoons or Mr Roger’s neighborhood with the other little girls after school

Matey is the "man" who yaps and then drops her napkin to his waist to hide the urine stain when someone approaches.

"This is my thread", lol. No, wrong again. This thread is public domain for any and all. Just like your mom.

^ Proof positive that you're a 12 year old,
wah wah wah says the little baby girl
LOL what a snot nose punk

70 years old but you have 80 years of growing up to do. Do you ever realize juat how repugnant and disagreeable you are? Every post on every thread is ranting entitlement or adolescent snide remark.

I feel sorry for you. You are too damned old to have any hope of redeeming yourself or doing anything with your life. You really need to look in the mirror and ask yourself how you want to spend what little time you have left.

^ WAH WAH WAH says the whiny little 12 year old girl

^ WAH WAH WAH says the whiny old 70 year old grouch

^^i don’t know bruh, maybe you’d cry like a Little bitch all the time too if you were estranged from your children.

^I was thinking about that, too. He says he can afford anything he wants, but he cannot even afford a free trial subscription to Peacock? Ha cannot afford to go to a bar and nurse a beer for 3-4 hours?

He claims he is surrounded by friends and family who would do anything for him, but NO ONE will host him to watch a game with them on their Peacock subscription?

That is not the description of someone who is living his best retirement.

^ yawn
Both of you are two little girls what a pathetic pair

Bruh? An allegedly adult male used bruh? Homo.

As usual, twentyfive does not have the facts nor wits to offer any rebuttals against my conclusion that he is broke, friendless, and disowned by his family. Therefore, Occam's Razor would dictate that my conclusion is the actual, sad, situation of his so-called life.

^ How stupid but we don’t expect anything else from the little girl

I do not expect any cogent, rational responses from you. Only emotional outbursts and panty-twisted rants like these. Act like a grown-up. Be a man, for once.

Go home your moms looking for you

^This from a guy who cannot afford a single drink at the local bar to watch a game.

the answer to this thread:

THE SUPERBOX - available at WALMART and AMAZON

get every channel free and it is perfectly legal - all for a one time fee of $249,no more monthly fees and no more subscriptions.

I am calling my mom now.....

If he can't afford a free Peacock trial, where's he going to get $250 for a superbox?

He'll have to take out the dentures and go back to giving out $25 gum jobs.

^ ❌❌❌❌❌❌❌❌

There is a legitimate topic to discuss here, if you’re looking for an argument start your own thread,
Otherwise get the fuck out of here and go home children
@founder this is why your traffic is dropping off, if you don’t fix it you’ll have only morons posting

If he can't afford a free Peacock trial, where's he going to get $250 for a superbox?

wow, just wow. We all have bills for CableTV, Directv and streaming services - all of us have this on a monthly basis. I paid over $180 for DirecTV and another $30 (approx) for steaming services (MONTHLY)

one trip to Walmart, i bought the superbox for $250 and now do not have a monthly bill.

I get any channel and streaming service i want for FREE - no monthly bills. Since I have made my purchase i have saved around $2000 and i get HBO MAX, Disney, Prime, Netflix, Peacock and so on....

how can you not afford to buy the Superbox s4??????

Now i am calling mom, going to her house and suck my thumb like a child.

Seems kind of ignorant to assume that because someone chooses not to buy something, that it means they cannot afford it. I pay $5.00 to park and then walk 10 blocks to court, rather than pay $20 and walk across the street. I also just upgraded my wife's and my flight to Salt Lake City for 1100. Thats worth it to me. Parking isn't worth it to me.

Why so mad? I'm just trying to help you find a solution to your life-and-death problem of missing a playoff game. Maybe be mad at yourself for alienating all of your friends and family so no one will invite you over to watch. I'd invite you, but I don't like you either.

^ little people who hide behind their keyboards like you are a joke, you don’t like me , who really cares, I certainly don’t Let me let you in on a little secret nobody here cares enough about you and your snot nosed, bigoted nonsense, to give a shit about you.
If you were on fire in the middle of the street you wouldn’t get anyone to so much as piss on you.

Wow. Just angry, broke, demented, friendless old bastard who takes shit waaay too seriously. The importance of this 25iq persona you have on here is so very important to you, and proves you have no real life beyond it. I was just trying to help you. It's not my fault your family disowned you, you're broke as shit, and too demented to get a free trial subscription. Start giving out those gum jobs and saving up for that superbox! Time's a-wastin'!

^ Sad, angry children are so pathetic, sounds like you had a vile angry upbringing. instead of wondering about my family I suggest you get some intensive psychotherapy, it's obvious you're on the verge of a major break with reality.

^ nah- you're projecting. Do you realize you just described yourself to s "T"?

Just signed up for peacock so I can watch the game tonight. I don’t think there’s a free preview, or at least I didn’t see one or get a valid coupon with a quick google search. I don’t care too much about the principle of the nfl moving to pay tv for a playoff game for the first time. It’s 6 bucks and I want to watch the game. Seems like pretty easy math. I’ll cancel before it renews unless I find other programming I want to see, exactly what peacock intended. Mutually beneficial transaction.

^ be sure to give us an update on how the game looked from home, I’m going to a local Sports bar down the road a bit with a few other old geezers we’ll probably spend more money on beer and wings than if we signed up for Peacock, but we’ll enjoy watching the game on a super large screen and the atmosphere will make up for not being able to see it at home.

^You see? was that so hard?

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/peac…

We usually have the game on during Saturday night poker. At 8 we switched to basketball and not one mention football. Fuck the nfl and their boring product.

For those that refuse to accept than professional sports will be moving more and more towards streaming services this must come as a complete shock. After regional sports network Diamond Sports went into bankruptcy it looks like Amazon Prime is buying their rights to air all 162 regular season games for 5 teams. That means that fans of the Detroit Tigers, the Kansas City Royals, the Miami Marlins, the Milwaukee Brewers and the Tampa Bay Rays will have to subscribe to Amazon Prime if they want to watch any of their team's games next summer.

https://www.si.com/fannation/mlb/fastbal…

As for the NFL playoff game, based on Roger Goodell's statement about it I would expect to see more games exclusively on streaming services going forward. “We couldn’t be prouder of our partnership with Peacock and are thrilled with the record-breaking numbers from the first-ever exclusively live streamed NFL playoff game,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said in the press release. “For several years now, we have been consistently expanding the digital distribution of our games and as these results show, the NFL is not only serving our fans who consume our content in a multitude of ways but helping to shape the future of the entire sports and entertainment industry.”

^ I accept they are moving to streaming services. I also accept that at some point in every relationship, that change ends the relationship. I used to golf 100 times a year. An injury killed my ability to put, so now I play 10 times socially and don't give a shit about my score. I had a great job in the 1990s. One day the senior partner announced we'd be doing personal injury t.v. commercials and no one could opt out. I asked him how long he wanted me to stay, as I would not do any commercials. He said I could spend the next two days writing summaries and preparing withdrawals on all my cases, and 3 days later I was playing golf in Cocoa Beach and hitting up the inner room. This week, the NFL insisted they would greedily go ahead with inferior streaming, despite the streaming game getting killed in the ratings. I will ski Friday, Saturday and Sunday and read about the games on my phone at breakfast. I divorced golf and a job. I can divorce the nfl. They don't need me, I don't want them Win/win.

The only part of your statement that I would disagree with is that they got killed in the ratings by moving to streaming. Yes the game had the lowest viewers of any of the wildcard games last weekend, but that is always the case with the Saturday night game since so many people have other plans on Saturday night and rately watch tv at home in that timeslot.

In fact not only did it have more viewers than last year's Saturday night wildcard card game, it had higher viewership than any Saturday night wildcard game since the league expanded to a third wildcard game in each conference. I would call that a ratings win rather than getting killed in the ratings.

^ What needs to be pointed out that eventually all things come to an end, the reasons vary, but the one constant is that just as baseball was the dominant pro sport for many years, pro football has a shelf was well, right now soccer is on the upswing and it remains to be seen whether or in what form football will continue. I get your point Whodey, but I believe the cost of attendance eventually be what kills the golden goose. My personal view is if the middle class cannot afford to take their children to see live events, it’s going to take a toll on viewership which in turn will lead revenues to fall.

The cost of attendance only drives home viewership. How many people can afford to attend the Superbowl, the most-watched TV even year-after-year? Proves my point. Right as usual. +6 for GammaNu. 2-point conversion: Soccer is not on the upswing, it plateau'ed a very long time ago as a very distant-fourth to NBA basketball. As a matter of fact, American Pro football is only growing with the addition of the USFL (XFL v UFL).

What point have you proved? jumping up and down, stating your opinion isn’t proof of anything except, that you have an opinion. That all it proves nothing else.

^Cannot tell the difference between opinion and facts

^ The most common form of trolling is the belief that one isn’t trolling as usual reverting to form spouting insults
Get over yourself

Who's troliing who? Im giving you truth and you're in denial.

We still have the same whiny bitches trying to gather attention like a child? Remember whenever someone feels the least bit uncomfortable, they revert back to their toddler stage. Grow up fags.

^ Mates with his mom^ you are the only whiny little bitch here

^^ asshat your head is a vacant fact free zone,

Both of you fools need to get over yourselves neither of you are as smart as a Fifth Grader.

2-bits sits on a throne of lies, and smells like beef and cheese. I’d disown you, too. Fat, drunk, and being a liar is no way to go through life. Since you’re at the end of yours, doesn’t matter, just like your responses.

Twentyfive has openly admitted.he's a whiny little bitch. Just take your medicine and grow up.

^ Hilarious Lonnie from Deliverance and Quasimodo from The hunchback of notre dame teaming up in TUSCL to troll me

I didn't watch it on Peacock, I ended up at Cheetah Pompano. A nice slim Cuban girl was happy to take my mind of the game at halftime. She cut me a deal to boot.

As much as I dislike the move, if the news I read about it is true it went off pretty well for them. They're reporting a bump in subscriptions, the ratings for the game were high. The service held up well. I suspect the Swift effect more than accounted for the few grouchy bastards like me who didn't cave and subscribe for NFL. I expect next year we'll see more of the same if not an expansion of streaming only games.

^ Dolfan is doing it right.

^twentyfive hates that Dolfan is doing it right? weirdo.