Vikings/Eagles game may be postponed

[Maris09]

Unreal. Just talked to a friend in Philly, and he said the weather isn't even bad at all right now.
Stupid NFL flexed a lopsided game into the night game, which then makes it "a hazard" for people to be out driving at night.
If they were playing right now like they should be, it would be no problem.

[CBMGreatOne]

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications. If you want to argue that a different matchup would have produced better ratings, that's fine, but if you expect them to schedule flex games for any other purpose than generating revenue, that's not going to happen.

[biju]

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications. If you want to argue that a different matchup would have produced better ratings, that's fine, but if you expect them to schedule flex games for any other purpose than generating revenue, that's not going to happen.

I think you officially had this question answered when they flexed the week 17 "clash of the titans" game between the Rams and Seahawks. That is ALL about the playoffs and cannot possibly be construed as revenue generating. Nobody is happy about this one, including me who will be bummed when my Seahawks make national fools of themselves if they become the first sub-500 team to host a playoff game.

If that happens, hopefully they will redeem themselves by being the first sub-500 team to *win* a postseason game.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications. If you want to argue that a different matchup would have produced better ratings, that's fine, but if you expect them to schedule flex games for any other purpose than generating revenue, that's not going to happen.

I think you officially had this question answered when they flexed the week 17 "clash of the titans" game between the Rams and Seahawks. That is ALL about the playoffs and cannot possibly be construed as revenue generating. Nobody is happy about this one, including me who will be bummed when my Seahawks make national fools of themselves if they become the first sub-500 team to host a playoff game.

If that happens, hopefully they will redeem themselves by being the first sub-500 team to *win* a postseason game.

Actually, I'd say even that is all about money. Since it's the last game of the year, the only way fans are going to watch is if the game's playoff-relevant. There were 3 options (basically) for NBC to take. They could show either the Colts or Jaguars game, but then they'd have to worry about either the Jags losing (if they showed Colts) or Colts losing (if they showed Jags), making the other game irrelevant and therefore nobody watching. They could show one of the NFC teams fighting for wild-cards, but they could realistically face the same problem. With the NFC West game, they KNOW that they have what is essentially a playoff game. Since it's a playoff game basically, people will watch, even if it's Rams-Seahawks.

What Maris is complaining about here is that for actual football fans (not casual fans), they would want to see a more exciting game that is likely to be close. I agree.

[Maris09]

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications. If you want to argue that a different matchup would have produced better ratings, that's fine, but if you expect them to schedule flex games for any other purpose than generating revenue, that's not going to happen.

What I'm suggesting is, the whole Flex schedule deal was put in place to fix games that looked to be competitive matchups when the schedule was first created, but that were now super lopsided slaughters due to the circumstances of the season.

So Flexing a game that had the highest point spread of the week into the Sunday night game was not what the Flex system was created for. But good old Goodell has his own ideas, and what he says goes. I just think it's BS, like a lot of the other stuff he does.

[moochman]

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications. If you want to argue that a different matchup would have produced better ratings, that's fine, but if you expect them to schedule flex games for any other purpose than generating revenue, that's not going to happen.

What I'm suggesting is, the whole Flex schedule deal was put in place to fix games that looked to be competitive matchups when the schedule was first created, but that were now super lopsided slaughters due to the circumstances of the season.

So Flexing a game that had the highest point spread of the week into the Sunday night game was not what the Flex system was created for. But good old Goodell has his own ideas, and what he says goes. I just think it's BS, like a lot of the other stuff he does.

So you are suggesting that the league is flexing games that will be watched more rather than games that would be more competitive? Well, the NFL is nothing if its not an all about the money enterprise. One could argue that moving the game to Tuesday was not for the safety of the fans but rather to insure more fans can attend, increased consessions. Or that moving til Tuesday would help the chances the Favre may play (he won't) thus increasing viewership.
I can't entirely rule out the fact that fear for fans' well being as the primary motivator for moving the game. I would not have done it, weather is a part of football, even bad weather. The league should find a way to paint positive pictures of bad weather conditions, especially since they have Super Bowls played in Northern climes. Would they dare postpone one?

[m16a]

I don't really want to get into the argument, since I am not strongly opinionated on it other than I think they shoulda played Sunday night, but here is PA governor Ed Rendell's take on the whole situation, which I found quite amusing.

We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game?

Full story here

[Maris09]

So you are suggesting that the league is flexing games that will be watched more rather than games that would be more competitive? Well, the NFL is nothing if its not an all about the money enterprise.

I said as much in my first post on page one. It's just gotten sickening to me. Goodell has made it 10x worse than it's ever been, and it's never been more evident and obvious than this year.


The purpose though of the Flex schedule, as I remember, was to get competitive games into the Sunday primetime slot.
Not one team with a superstar vs a team riddled with injuries and a QB/WR

[joejlitz]

This is the NFL at it's "finest."

First, they Flex this lopsided 14 pt spread game to Sunday night (when really the intent of the flex schedule was to stop lopsided games from being shown on Sunday night). This was obviously a money related move to get Vick on primetime television.

Then instead of moving the game to Monday night (like they did a few weeks back with the Giants/Viks game), they move it to Tuesday night, so they can still broadcast the game and make those dollars.

It's been pretty transparent throughout this year that Goodell is all about the money, and while I understand that what makes the world go round, it's pretty disgusting. We've already seen how all this "player safety" BS is directly related to pushing the season to 18 games. This is just one more obvious example though.

Agree with most of this.
The Eagles have been on prime time TV more than I care for this year. I think we had two 1 PM EST games all year - seriously. I would have to go back and verify, but I'm fairly certain that is accurate. And while I think it's great for my team to get national exposure, playing 5 or 6 night games on Thursday, Sunday, or Monday just sucks as a fan. Plus, it's cold as hell sitting in the stands at night in DEC. They just moved our PHL-DAL game next week from 1 PM to 4 PM.

As for the Tuesday night showcase - yes, it certainly seems likely that they could not telecast the game on Monday night due to competing TV contacts. That is probably why this will be the first game since 1946 to be played on a Tuesday night. And that sucks, too.

Are you suggesting that the NFL (or any other major sports league) would flex a game to prime time for any reason other than money? It isn't as if the game doesn't have playoff implications.

This game has no serious playoff implications. The Eagles are in and at worst would likely have been a wild card had the NYG won this past week. I think we have a shot at home field advantage, but ATL would have to lose next week. We would have to win tonight and on Sunday.

So you are suggesting that the league is flexing games that will be watched more rather than games that would be more competitive? Well, the NFL is nothing if its not an all about the money enterprise. One could argue that moving the game to Tuesday was not for the safety of the fans but rather to insure more fans can attend, increased consessions. Or that moving til Tuesday would help the chances the Favre may play (he won't) thus increasing viewership.
I can't entirely rule out the fact that fear for fans' well being as the primary motivator for moving the game. I would not have done it, weather is a part of football, even bad weather. The league should find a way to paint positive pictures of bad weather conditions, especially since they have Super Bowls played in Northern climes. Would they dare postpone one?

While it is true, we have mass transit in place, there are fans coming from Jersey, Delaware, and some Philly suburbs that can't hop on the SEPTA train. Since the city of Philadelphia was involved in requesting the game be postponed, I give the NFL a pass on moving the game from Sunday night. But moving it to Tuesday, was a money/contract decision that is simply the reality of the NFL in 2010. It still sucks, though.

As for the question of the whether they would postpone a SB or not - that's an excellent point. And given it all goes back to money, the answer is, in (my less than fully developed) opinion likely no. There are a lot more in TV contracts/commercials than in concessions and parking. The SB needs to be played on a Sunday.

I don't really want to get into the argument, since I am not strongly opinionated on it other than I think they shoulda played Sunday night, but here is PA governor Ed Rendell's take on the whole situation, which I found quite amusing.

We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game?

Full story here

Rendell is great as an Eagles fan and as a Philly guy. But he can say some idiotic stuff.

[Flyn high again]

If I ran NFL scheduling I would have said damn the fact Bears/Packers have already been prime time and would have made that my national night game. Big playoff implications and should be a battle.