I have the Nuffle Network(it's part of our digital basic plus), but rarely watch it. Anybody want mine?

They did the NFL.com/NFL Network thing last week during Colts/Falcons. I liked it a lot, especially the live look-ins. Obviously, I wish they were longer, but it would defeat the purpose of NFL Network airing the games on their own channel.

If you need a basis of comparison to this coverage, I'd look to the TBS Hot Corner during TBS' coverage of the MLB playoffs, as far as what to expect from NFL.com Live.

Although, the one thing I didn't like that they did last week was profile the upcoming NFL Network games...like mid-December games during Thanksgiving.

i have the nfl network (thankyou penn state cable, but no amc? fuck you) and aside from this game its only purpose is on sundays during the games they run huge stat pages of each game, useful for fantasy purposes

that and the epic combine coverage

I watched it last week and it was awful. It's basically an infomercial for the NFL. The live look-ins were few and far apart. The studio team put me to sleep.

Hmm, good feedback. I'll check it out tonight during the live-blog.

AA are you live-blog'ing off the Channel or off the Live feed or both?

I completely agree with what most of you are saying. And it illustrates why the NFL is in the wrong here.

They're expecting cable companies to pay through the nose for a network that the average NFL fan will only watch 6 times during a 5-week span.

Notice that I said NFL FAN, not average person, there are literally tens of millions of people who (gasp) don't even give a shit about tonight's game.

And I'm sorry, but if you are watching the NFL Network from mid-February to July, you really need to get laid or get a life.

I'll try to mix in a little bit of both konck. I get the channel but I hardly ever watch it during the week. I'm with Anon...the only time I watch it during that period listed is the Combine.

For some reason I'm intrigued by dudes running and bench pressing. Disturbing I know.

And don't give me that bullshit, "You wouldn't have been able to see it either if it was on Fox" excuse.

If it was on Fox, the game would have definitely been the 4:15 game on the Fox doubleheader (instead of the Giants/Bears game, which would have been moved back to 1:00). At that point, the only people in America who wouldn't get it would be fans in New Orleans and Tampa Bay, and a couple of other cities because of the idiotic NFL blackout rules.

NFL should get off their high horse and let the big cable companies air them in the digital tier packages

What, you don't watch the NFL Network during the week?

You mean you're not interested in seeing a replay of the Cardinals/49ers game from Sunday, and the 1973 Houston Oilers highlight film?

whats really bugging me about this game is espn keeps refering to it as the likely nfc championship matchup. just like the colts/pats was the likely afc championship matchup. what the hell is that? is there no point in the playoffs? i know they would prefer if these four teams were the only ones in the playoffs but jesus

I'll one-up you mike georger. If the Chiefs were playing the Browns, and both teams were 10-1, I seriously doubt that ESPN would call this the "Game of the Year III."

This is just another sorry excuse for ESPN to make all their football coverage about Brett Favre and Tony Romo (or the Cowboys in general)

Apparently, small cable companies can air the NFL Network on digital cable. There's a cable company that serves just one town and only that town in the area in which I live and they do. My town, on the other hand, has Charter. They claim "we don't want people to pay for what they don't what." By that logic, take away the Golf Channel, shopping channels, MTV and such as that.

That should be "want", not what.

Even though I'm the guy who trashes the NFL Network and says it's their fault, the "we don't want people to pay for what they don't want" argument is stupid (generally I hate cable, but not in the NFL Network beef).

Virtually all cable channels are niche channels. Just for some, the niche is smaller. For example, I don't think cable should get rid of BET or the Cartoon Network just because I don't watch it. All channels have audiences, even though you're not part of it.

The problem comes in with the charges channels make cable pay to carry them. The NFL Network literally tripled and quadrupled their carry charges, strictly because of the NFL games package. The problem is that for the other 11 months, the charges will not even remotely reflect the NFL Network's actual viewing audiences.

Cable companies feel like they are being used by the artificial inflation of charges, and they are right (only in this case).

I cheecked out the NFL.com thing last week, and I thought it was petty good. Granted, I woudl have raher watched the game,but this is nto a bad option at all.

Tune in the Westwood One/CBS radio broadcast. We already know what Favre, Romo, and T.O. look like, anyway.

If the Packers were 6-5, no one would care that this game was on pay television. Can't have it both ways people. Where was the outrage when the fantastic offensive juggernaut Falcons were playing the Colts on Thanksgiving?