$1.1 Billion for This? Another crappy MNF matchup.

Anyone have any insight on why this year's Monday Night Football schedule is so bad. Five total appearances by Indy, New England, Chicago and Dallas and they load up on playoff also-rans. Shouldn't they get at least the fourth best game every week?
I know the schedules are made back in the Spring, (pre-Vick) but when you look at the games they received, its heavy with teams nobody thought would be very good this year. What gives?
And they don't even get a Super Bowl every four years. Why pay so much for such a crappy schedule of games?

 

When ABC had it, it was set up to be the second-best matchup of the week... Now, Sunday night is set up for that, and MNF is really little more than just another game...

There's no question that MNF doesn't mean shit anymore...

 

It would be nice, however, if there were a way to be flexible enough with the schedule to really set up those premier prime-time matchups on the fly.

 

ABC had been asking for that for a long time, but it would have created too many problems to flex a team from Sunday to Monday... Imagine if you were covering that game... It would be a logistical nightmare...

 

It's always mystified me why anyone would care how much a network is paying for something. If you don't like the matchup, don't watch it, no one is forcing anyone to watch MNF.

And Mizzou is right, the ratings in the last 10-15 years of ABC MNF had fallen off so bad it became just another show. It draws good ratings for cable on ESPN, but the NFL doesn't treat it as a marquee game anymore, that's reserved for Sunday's, which is why Sunday gets the flex game (in addition to logisitics being easier to flex the day of the game instead of a day later).

If anything, the NFL saves the kind of promotion MNF once had for the NFL Network's Thursday games. Hell, NFL Network starts promoting its late-season Thursday games during the preseason. This year they got lucky and got the Packers-Cowboys game.

 

It's impossible. It works fine for Sunday night, but you can't tell fans (many who come from out-of-city and out-of-state) to change their logistics weeks before a game.

 

Oh, I know it's impossible. But it would be nice to find a way...especially since it's in the league's best interest to have their premier game in prime time.

If only they could do something about their regional broadcast rule:

When the Pats and Colts were playing, no one could see that game at home because we were stuck watching the Texans play another crappy opponent.

 

The NFL wants to increase the value of the Sunday night package, hence, it's getting the better matchups. MNF is clearly a secondary package now, and I doubt that ESPN will re-up for that much money next time.

What's more, the SNF games, while better than Mondays, have not been exactly overwhelming. The flex games are not working as well as they did last season. CBS and Fox get too many games to protect, so they pretty much get to block NBC from two matchups a week from Weeks 11-16.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-11-06-nbc-nfl-picks_N.htm

 

But why would ESPN pay so much for a bad deal? It's not like ESPN isn't going to cover the NFL if they don't have a deal. And the WWL does look stupid for blowing out their coverage of a couple of mediocre teams. And I think the argument against flexing MNF is bogus. If they can put together the World Series or the NBA finals within a week, two or three weeks leeway is plenty.

 

Who says it's a bad deal? What are your parameters for a bad deal?

 

It's a bad deal if Mike Greenberg ever takes over for Tirico.

 

All the other content ESPN gets access to ... that's why they paid an arm and a leg for an NFL package.