Offside Number 76

1st and goal; if there's any justice in the world, Singletary's team gets the TD. But it takes 19 seconds to spike a ball?

Now Gore is knocked out; something about using fuzzy math or making movies about global warming.

This is some of the worst officiating I ever have seen, in any sport. Combined with what I saw yesterday, I'm actually HOPING it's because the league is controlled by gamblers. Because if so, there at least would be an economic justification for what is going on. This is just crap. I can't justify investing my time in watching any more games that don't involve the Bills.

that's twice now with the 12 men

Amen. Down by 21 with 3 minutes left? Ok, THAT's over. Down by 13 with more than a quarter to go? No.

Do we still think it's over?

Fine is turning into a bright spot. And how is this game "over"? There's a quarter left!

Pretty much same here. The only reason I'm still with TW is because I don't want DSL for internet access. But very glad to learn that I can watch the game at home on Sunday. I'm very curious as to the terms.

The outrage is deafening. And I still don't know which one.

They totally underranked Vick, and I don't know how McNair got pipped or whatever.

The headline (link below) says it all: "Saints Pip San Diego at Wembley." "Pip." Look, my fine British cousins, American football teams do a lot of things to each other. They "beat," or "smother," or "decimate," or "overwhelm" each other. But one thing that they absolutely do NOT do, is "pip" each other. Or anyone else. "Pip" can be (1) a character that your writer Mr. Dickens came up with, or (2) a spot on a die, or (3) someone who controls prostitutes but who cannot afford an "m." But it CANNOT have anything to do with football. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_spor...all/7688785.stm

Just out of curiousity, is that the sh------- political commentator or the sh------- Canadian band? (trying to add some levity here)

Right on. There's nothing implicit in the "we were unprepared" comment(s) that lays blame on the coaches. There are microphones in the players' faces instantly after a loss, they used a catchphrase for "we lost the game," and that's it. I heard nothing that imparted blame on the coaching staff. (That said, there were some things the coaches could have done differently. I'm just saying that I didn't hear the players laying blame elsewhere.)

Well, Lin has every right to ask for it. It only has a "right" to get what it can get. Sad as it may be, this is about cash, not principles.

Again, you may be right. At the very least, TW is using some strong-arm tactics. But will Lin suffer more by capitulating now or by putting up a fight? Does it have 45 or so other stations with retran agreements which are about to expire? That's not a rhetorical question--I really don't know the answer. But if the answer is yes, it makes sense to lose some money now. If not, well, I can't understand the business justification (has nothing to do w/ what is morally right) for their continued sustained losses. EDIT: Ok. I've done some basic googling. Looks like Lin owns about 30 stations, 15 of which are tied up in this mess. Lin has to decide whether the money it's losing now will be offset in the future by both (1) any money it eventually receives from TW in a deal that resolves this dispute and (2) the future retran agreements for the OTHER 15 stations, which naturally will be affected by whatever happens here. So far, it looks like Lin thinks it will make more money long-term by fighting now. I definitely don't have the figures necessary to say whether the strategy is smart. But my gut tells me that TW will squash Lin if this continues. TW is far bigger and can more easily absorb the loss of WNY and Green Bay customers who switch to dish or FIOS. Right or wrong aside, that's how I see the economics of it right now. (Anyone have any idea when FIOS is coming to the City of Buffalo by the way? Seems I've been waiting forever.)

Actually, Lin can force TW to carry WIVB. Lin just can't force TW to pay for it. Here's the quote from the article: The Federal Communications Commission rules laid out in 1992 give stations a choice every three years. They can opt for a "must-carry" deal, in which the local cabler doesn't pay the station but has to carry it in its basic package; or they can negotiate a "retransmission consent" contract on which there is no guarantee the sides will come to terms.

You may be right, but that's not really the point of my post. I'm wondering why Lin is fighting so hard--does it have other contracts that are up for renewal in the future, so that the precedential value of this dispute is high enough to outweigh the short-term losses associated with decline in market share and ad revenue? The regulatory scheme governing cable/local stations recognizes that cable extends a viewer base (because of higher quality picture and because cable reaches farther than do conventional antennas). For this reason, the regulations allow the station to demand that the cable company carry the station for free, if the station wants to. Lin is choosing not to do that, which is fine, but I'm wondering if it's a smart business decision, not if it's "right."

Maybe it's not hurting TW in the short term as much as making a deal will hurt TW in the long term. Whatever resolution eventually comes out of this is going to set precedent for a LOT of markets. From the Variety article you posted: "But in the next 12 months, biz veterans say the retrans wrangling will be intense because so many broadcasters are firmly focused on increasing the fees they command from local cablers. A slew of retrans deals for stations in medium- and small-sized markets will expire at year's end, setting the stage for more standoffs and possible blackouts a la Lin-Time Warner." So it's definitely in TW's interest to put up a fight. Does LIN own so many stations (beyond the 15 stations in 11 markets at issue in the current dispute) that it's worth it for LIN to be fighting just as hard? I'm not taking sides, by the way; just interested in the business issues.

I don't see him as a player for the Bills. Maybe a member of the staph, in the future.

Amen.

Without the murder part, that was pretty much my point. Edwards might have had a better shot at the starting job (it seems to be point of contention on here that JP may not have had a fair shot), but it really doesn't matter. Edwards just is better. There really shouldn't be any more discussion, but I'll bet there's another thread comparing the two by next Sunday night.

It's a big problem at HSBC, too. There are going to be some ads, we all know that, but the constant blaring of ads and crappy music really takes away from my ability to discuss the games with the friends I go with.

They're going to have the same record on Tuesday.

It's Florida. They count people like they count votes.

I am in complete disbelief that this is still going on. It doesn't freaking matter anymore. JP is probably a great guy who probably didn't get a fair shot at a starting job. And he's never going to get a fair shot at a starting job HERE, because the guy who did get a fair shot at a starting job is kicking ass and taking names. What the hell more needs to be said?