Unless you’re a fan of the regularly scheduled programming – “The War at Home” and “‘til Death,” which sound more like Wes Craven films than sitcoms – you probably appreciated the favor the NFL did us last week.
Instead of making Seattle fans pony up their hard-earned dough for a better cable package, the NFL allowed Q13 – for a price, mind you – to carry the telecast of tonight’s game between the Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers.
How much more generous does it get?
Actually, it’s a joke that most of the country doesn’t get to see tonight’s game. And it’s a joke that the league is trying to force-feed Thursday night football down our throats.
Thursday night football isn’t just a nuisance to the players and coaches; it’s also a nuisance to football fans. We’ve got enough on our plates trying to keep track of weekly Sunday buffet of games, not to mention the can’t-miss Monday night matchup. Now they’re trying to cram a Thursday game in? And, beginning this weekend, Saturday games too?
Tonight’s game – the Seahawks will host the San Francisco 49ers in the fourth consecutive Thursday night edition during this, the first year of the NFL’s experiment – is coming to you for one reason, and one reason alone.
It’s all about the Benjamins, and we’re not talking former 49er Guy Benjamin and his siblings.
As Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren pointed out this week: “You know what drives the car.”
Holmgren is among those coaches who are less than enthusiastic about Thursday games because they disrupt the typical routine – not just in preparations but also in the players’ healing time. He said that the competition committee has discussed its concerns with the league but that, in Holmgren’s words, the conversation went something like this:
Coaches: “This is going to be tough on the players, now.”
League: “Thank you.”
“It’s like fighting City Hall,” Holmgren told reporters earlier this week. “You can have an opinion, and they might listen to it briefly, but you’re the only one. The league’s not going to listen to you, (and) the owners aren’t.”
San Francisco’s Mike Nolan was more careful in his words, but his concerns were similar.
“If the game was built for a four-day week, we would play a lot of four-day games,” he said. “But as we all know, (because of) the punishment that guys take on Sunday, you need those seven days to get your body back.”
The fans might not feel the physical pain of Thursday night football, but they’re paying a price nonetheless. Outside of Seattle and San Francisco, the game can only be found on The NFL Network, which is not available with the basic cable package and therefore must be purchased in addition to your ESPNs, CNNs and MTVs.
By adding Thursday and Saturday games, the NFL undoubtedly believed that fans would either: A) buy the package; or B) strong-arm the cable companies into caving into the league’s preposterous demand of $137 million, which is more than some of the established, most popular cable networks already get. (That number, according to several reports that cited Time Warner’s cable company, would jack up the current cable rates by 250 percent.)
But the public outcry hasn’t been as harsh as expected. According to several reports, the early ratings for Thursday night football were among the lowest in league history for nationally televised games. Nobody’s watching, and nobody cares.
Football is following in the footsteps of boxing. Remember boxing? It was a popular sport not that long ago, before pay-per-view came along. Now that sport is about as significant as a Kevin Federline Christmas album.
True, most of the country won’t see tonight’s game. But you know what? Most of the country doesn’t really care. We’ve got better stuff to do on a Thursday night.
Remember when Thursday was must-see TV? Thursday football is not only can’t-see TV but also tree-falling-in-the-forest TV.
If nobody’s watching, does it even count in the standings?
If this keeps up, maybe we won’t even care about the standings anymore.
Scott M. Johnson is The Herald’s pro football writer.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
