Morning Coffee

by PB @ BON on Feb 2, 2007 8:54 AM CST in Quick Hits

The first order of business is a round of thank yous. First, to Joel at Rocky Top Talk. All those fun awards never see the light of day without Joel's tireless efforts. Especially you folks who were nominated and awarded, be sure to show Joel some love.

Second, to each of you readers here at BON who offered your congratulations and appreciation to AW, AR, and I yesterday. Lots of nice things were said, and did not go unnoticed. Thank you all.

If you're ready to start talking NCAA tourney seeds, this is your site. (HT: Card Chron). Texas' consensus seed is a #7 as of right now, though most of the projected brackets are from a week ago, prior to Texas' road win in Lubbock. ESPN bracketologist (how weird is it that I don't have to explain to you what this term is?) has Texas as a #5.

This story leaves me speechless. I'm literally not sure what to think. Huh?

It's really nice when others do your work for you. First, we had LD arguing against CFR's inane pro-Cal Rose Bowl post. Now Kyle jumps in with an official Can We All Agree decree. Here, here!

Big Red Network has a state of the offseason piece on Texas. I'd say it's more or less an accurrate assessment, though I think he overestimates the level of anxiety among Texas fans. As little fun as it was to watch OU go to the Big 12 title game, Texas beat the Sooners for the second year in a row, and only dropped their final two games because the quarterback suffered an injury. Most of us can live with that.

Reed Arena is going to be absolutely bonkers on Monday evening, and A&M officials aren't handling the unprecedented enthusiasm particularly well right now. Brad's covering this as it unfolds, and must be dizzy from all the switching at A&M these days:

There's a ticket pull. There's not a ticket pull! Texas A&M is going to sue a Texas retailer. Now they change their mind. Here's to hoping the Aggies are as indecisive on the court Monday night as their administration is off it.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

nfl

The NFL has always done this and has never made exceptions. Plus, they aren't preventing anyone from watching the game - it's provided to everyone free, paid for by advertisers who base their price on quantifiable measures of the potential viewer base. Far different than what Major League Baseball is doing.

Should an exception be made here just because it's a church? Why?

by Jason Mayer on Feb 2, 2007 9:31 AM CST 0 recs

Just seems odd

I'm fine with the NFL protecting its rules, and enforcing them indiscriminately.

I guess what confused me was the rule itself.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 2, 2007 9:43 AM CST up 0 recs

because it's asinine?

As you point out, the Super Bowl is available at no direct cost to viewers (time wasted on non-football content is another question). The NFL apparently thinks that the brand "NFL" and "Super Bowl"is what makes people interested, which is fine. And on those grounds, it is copyrighted?

But if that's the case, why aren't they charging the entities that are making money by using the content -- in other words, sports bars? That's a more common approach to copyrighted materials and third parties making money off them.

On the other hand, churches are generally considered not-for-profit (no matter how that strains credulity in some cases) so presumably a free Church showing to the flock could be considered fair use.

As you point out, there's adequate work done to predict the likely audience on a statistical basis; odds are that church-goers would be watching anyway and be part of that analysis. So why would the NFL care about how they aggregate themselves if they aren't doing the NFL's "image" any harm?

Presumably because churches don't buy several months' worth of beer commercials.

It's not that I'm in favor of churches and against the NFL, but this is just dumb on the part of the NFL. If you rely on indirect revenue based on how many people might be watching, as opposed to directly charging end users, then the smart thing to do is to rely on network effects to get as many eyeballs as possible.

But the NFL is like the RIAA and MPAA and is treating approaching content protection from a standpoint of trying to control a revenue model. It's just not that smart, but it's what they know how to do.

by DC Trojan on Feb 2, 2007 1:49 PM CST up 0 recs

but....

Bars show sporting events on television as a part of their regular course of business so the NFL makes an exception for them. I imagine that if a bar set up a gigantic projection screen outside that could accommodate way more people than the bar would normally, the NFL would have a problem.

The extreme example is this (it's mentioned in the article): what if major cities were to open their arenas and show the game on the big screens there? You might still say that's stupid and they're going about protecting their rights in the wrong way. And I might agree. But the NFL obviously thinks that's a problem and they don't want to set the precedent that would allow that to happen. It of course seems stupid to bust up a church party, but it's got to be seen within the bigger picture context from the NFL's eyes.

by billyzane on Feb 2, 2007 2:10 PM CST up 0 recs

where's the direct cost to the NFL?

In other words, if the NFL are willing to tolerate bars showing NFL content for free without compensation -- because the bars make it back on beer and food -- why would it be bad to let whoever owns the Dome in Indianapolis do the same thing?

There's no difference between the two, except for precedent and practice -- but I bet if you sued on behalf of the churches, the NFL would lose.

Once you set your content free, so to speak, and tolerate one sector profiting by it, you've weakened the arguments for incremental enforcement.

If the NFL were restricting access to satellite only, and that's how they raised revenue, then I could completely understand shutting down public venues that showed the game for free.

For instance, there's been a fight over that in the UK over pubs either showing soccer on Sky for free or using "free" foreign satellite feeds... but that's a different kind of legal fight and one for which a content holder would be well within their rights.

by DC Trojan on Feb 2, 2007 2:22 PM CST up 0 recs

The cost to the NFL

Is in the ratings. If the ratings are down, the ad space that they profit share with the network will go down. More money for the network = more money for the NFL. Whether through revenue sharing, or through TV deals. The TV deal the networks pay for the rights to air the Superbowl is ridiculous. Is it safe to assume that if the ratings go down due to large parties like this that the revenue generated would also go down?

If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable.

by GoHorns on Feb 2, 2007 2:26 PM CST up 0 recs

that's a fair point...

but that's a measurement problem. Nielsen ratings are based on a statistical extrapolation of home viewers; I'd be willing to guess that it wouldn't take more than a couple of cycles to ascertain the likely audience for mass viewings. And the NFL could be creative in having some kind of mass viewing packages -- freebies etc. -- to encourage registration etc., to help overcome the fears of the network execs about advertising dollars.

My point here is not so much to come up with incremental alternative approaches, as to suggest that the NFL went from a reasonable-ish position (thou shalt not charge for the product freely shown by our broadcast partner) to just being idiots, and it's not remotely consumer friendly. Their revenue rests on people being willing to watch the games and spend money on that or ancillary services to that; the NFL's good fortune is that people's enthusiasm for the sport allows the NFL and their partners to dump on them and still get paid $$$. No wonder the SuperBowl is mostly corporate freebies; they need to get together once a year for a good laugh at we the rubes...

/rant. Ahem.

by DC Trojan on Feb 2, 2007 4:11 PM CST up 0 recs

I'm not saying it's right

But it's seems like a logical conclusion on the NFL's part. I don't really have a problem with a party that is large. The Nielson ratings have a viewer per tv ratio that takes into account multiple people watching a particular program. I don't know if the number is a standard number or if it fluxuates based on content (i.e. sporting events, Survivor watching parties, etc.), but they could attempt to come up with a different ratio for the SB because they know parties are very common.

I don't have a problem with the NFL's stance on not allowing them the use of the name, but to insist that they disband the entire party is a little overboard.

If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable.

by GoHorns on Feb 2, 2007 6:42 PM CST up 0 recs

all good points

my guess on why the NFL makes an excveption for the bars is because a) it would be impossible to shut them all down, and b) because most of them subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket during the year (hence, the "part of the regular business" rationale). So there is something different other than precedent and practice.

I agree that once you broadcast something over the airwaves live, you lose the right to regulate who can show that broadcast live. However, if you notice in the article, first the NFL's problem with the party was the church charging for admission, when that admission would be based on their use of the NFL's trademark terms. When the church said, "Fine, we won't do that," the NFL told them that some law prohibits public exhibitions to one screen not more than 52 inches. I don't know what this law is, but it's likely an Indiana state law (or perhaps an FCC regulation, though I doubt that). So while the NFL can't regulate the showing of it's own live broadcast, states sure can.

The NFL is going to do what it can to protect its product. First, they tried to break up the party by using trademark law. When that didn't work, they informed the church that what they were doing was against state law.

Again, I think it's probably a stupid war to be waging, but I don't begrudge the NFL for coming to its own conclusion that it IS worth waging.

by billyzane on Feb 2, 2007 2:44 PM CST up 0 recs

exactly

Everyone hates the slippery slope argument, but it's true. And I still maintain that there's nothing wrong with the NFL's argument here.

We've talked about the importance of protecting trademarks here before in light of the lawsuit against the College Station store, and the same principle applies here.

No matter how innocuous or incongruous this specific example may be, there's simply no room for flexibility.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 2, 2007 2:32 PM CST up 0 recs

not strictly equivalent

I'd argue that there's a difference between trademark infringement where the trademark is what makes the product desirable and therefore saleable, versus trying to restrict content when your revenue model rests on maximizing the audience. One of these is logically consistent.

I freely admit to getting riled up by this, because I think it's part of reprise of efforts to roll back free use of content that's been paid for in one way or another; part of the continuum of behavior that has the RIAA trying to say that fair use doesn't extend to my ripping a legally purchased CD to an iPod. I have very limited patience for conglomerates trying to lock down content use to be solely advantageous to their revenue model.

Okay, I lied about the ranting coming to an end.

by DC Trojan on Feb 2, 2007 4:17 PM CST up 0 recs

different

In no way is the NFL restricting content here, just preventing one manner of obtaining it. Plus, fair or not, the revenue model depends on the number of homes tuned in rather than the number of viewers.

Think about this, how captive is a large audience for commercials? I would argue that in those settings, nobody even glances at the screen. An increased number of large venues means more viewers, but not more potential consumers of the products that drive the price.

by Jason Mayer on Feb 2, 2007 4:42 PM CST up 0 recs

Point taken...

...although that could easily be used against bars as well. I'm guessing that like me, if you go to see a game in a bar, you're not watching the commercials at all.

In any case, what I probably should have said, at the beginning of this, is something not too far from GoHorn's conclusion above -- regardless of any underlying philosophical disagreement, a big old Bronx cheer to the NFL for being such a bunch of killjoys.

Mind you, having grown up with Scottish parents, I'm not buying the pastor's argument that alcohol-fueled parties are inherently child-unfriendly...

by DC Trojan on Feb 2, 2007 10:23 PM CST up 0 recs

Whatever...

What are they going to do? Come down to the church and arrest all these people? Have the damn party.

by Blitzburgh on Feb 2, 2007 9:45 AM CST 0 recs

do they have protection for the picture?

is the picture of the A&M mascot trademarked/copyrighted??? seems awfully hard to sue someone for THAT picture

by deysmak on Feb 2, 2007 10:08 AM CST 0 recs

They have a trademark

on a Collie with the A&M sweater thing that he wears. Since that picture is just a generic collie and not the A&M trademark collie, the lawsuit was dropped.

by Wells on Feb 2, 2007 10:12 AM CST up 0 recs

Its and image

Its a sillouhette, and no they can not sue over that, at least the conventional, non moronic person can tell you that.

"Anything you can do, I can do better, or at least try"

You can't spell cocksucker without OU.

by maverick76904 on Feb 2, 2007 10:12 AM CST 0 recs

Germany got one right

When I was in Germany for the World Cup last summer I noticed that all the churches had signs inviting fans in to watch the games. Apparently, that was one of the first things FIFA did was give the chruches permission thus giving many people a safe aternative for viewing the games. Smart.

I understand the Nielson TV rating argument and while I'm sure the NFL really doesn't care if that chruch has a party, they probably can't make an exception as that would open up the flood gates.

Sucks. Any word on whether or not the church was allowed to show the Miss America Pageant?

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 2, 2007 11:17 AM CST 0 recs

Damnit

I spit out my Dr. Pepper on my desk after the pageant line.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 2, 2007 11:28 AM CST up 0 recs

Gentleman, place your bets

How long can I keep this pageant madness up? (The Off Season is a long time).

And if you want to parlay it, you can also bet the date when get banned for excessive pageant talk and eliciting corporate sponsored liquid outbursts?

Sure, BON won Best Community this year, but I think we need to challenge ourselves to come in dead last next year. First to worst, say it with me.

Why am I subjecting to this torture? Because I'm ironically protesting DV's banning by being even more irratating. Oh, and I'm a repugnant bastard. Explains things pretty well I think.

Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.

by 54b on Feb 2, 2007 2:10 PM CST up 0 recs

Why doesn't the church

Just move the projector up far enough so that the projection equals the required 55 in. I know it's not quite the same. As long as they do that, don't charge admission, and don't call it a "Super Bowl" party, there's nothing those thugs that run the NFL can do about it.

by orangeblood1 on Feb 2, 2007 11:23 AM CST 0 recs

That Aggie ticket draw cracks me up

Students were selected randomly to receive tckets. They could only claim one ticket. Going to games is a lot more fun when you get to sit with your friends. Looks like that is not an option.

They love me running behind them, so I just go out there and they open those holes and I tell them, "Thank you." --Jamaal Charles 8/07/2006

by BurntMike on Feb 2, 2007 12:07 PM CST 0 recs

They're aggies.

They are all each other's friends.

by Hornbud on Feb 2, 2007 2:45 PM CST up 0 recs

YAY!!!

I dont know where else to put this but VY was just named the NFL ROY

by deysmak on Feb 2, 2007 1:06 PM CST 0 recs

Is this the Pespi rookie of the year?

Or is this the actual NFL one?

Places to put it include:

Here (what ever it is the morning coffee)
Your own diary, but then you may have to deal with McCovy.
The comments section of the diary about VY where someone asked if VY won the NFL ROY.

by Wells on Feb 2, 2007 1:13 PM CST up 0 recs

false alarm

sorry, it was only the Diet Pepsi NFL ROY... not the big one... but I am hoping that winning this one would make VY's chances for winning the NFL ROY a near certainty

by deysmak on Feb 2, 2007 1:39 PM CST up 0 recs

Is there a difference?

After I posted my last comment, I went to nfl.com, and saw this:
http://www.nfl.com/rookies/index

Is the NFL franchising the name of awards now?

by Wells on Feb 2, 2007 2:21 PM CST up 0 recs

I believe NFL is franchising the name of awards

Read the last sentence of this article
http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=40&url_article_id=2763&am p;url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

If NFL is indeed franchising the name of the awards then PB this deserves to be in a new diary.

by deysmak on Feb 2, 2007 7:16 PM CST up 0 recs

NFL out of control

I had also heard the reason the officiating crew's uniforms had been redesigned this year is so the NFL could trademark them and then they could not be used elsewhere, such as your local PeeWee football game, without compensation to the league - can anyone else confirm or deny?

I think the church issue is absolutely stupid! If nobody is making money off of it what is the big deal? These people will now sit at home, or possibly a friend's house, and watch the game - or it is quite possible many of them will not watch at all. Chances are equally better that they will not consume adult beverages, they will not place friendly wagers and they will probably skip any commercials referring to alcohol or that contain scantily-clad beauties. I think the NFL risks alienating a fairly large fan base with this action - IMHO only.

by Screw O.U. on Feb 3, 2007 1:27 PM CST up 0 recs

Aggies dont do well with ticket draws

see: Listeater.

by the other Andrew on Feb 2, 2007 2:49 PM CST 0 recs

the topic that really caught my eye

was the big red ntework piece on the horns. I wholeheartedly agree that they overstate the level of anxiety (if htere is any at all) among horns football fans. However, I also feel that PB's assessment that we only lost the final two games because the qb got hurt is a bit simplistic. We lost to A&M because we were dominated on both sides of the line of scrimmage;we lsot to kstate bacause the defense hit rock bottom in a progression of serially poor performances(save fo rthe ok st game). I know, I know, football season is long over and this is basically beating a dead horse. But I think the topic of how we finished the season is kind of a window to how we as fans perceive our head coach. We seem to be polarized into 2 distinct groups with not a lot of peoople in the middle:

Those who think everything's rosy and Mack walks on water
those who think mack is a bum and should be fired

Count me as among those few in the middle. I still dont know what to make of mack after 9 years. On the one hand, there were the wood-shedding's at hte hands of the sooners; the loss to colorado in 01;the loss this past year to a&m. On the other hand there was the insredible comeback vs usc; 2 straight wins over OK, including a gutsy, tough,punishing win this past year, all kinds of last-second wins inclluding vs ark, at kansas, at lincoln, the huge comebacks against ok st. The confounding factor in the '04 and '05 seasons was the presence of a singular combination of a once-in-a-generation talent and great leader. Mack's teams in his first 6 years were rightly labeled soft. Did vince come along and make mack look better than he really is or has mack turned it around. Trying to look at it objectively,I still have no idea.

by mento on Feb 2, 2007 10:49 PM CST 0 recs

Well

It was a morning coffee note, rather than a expose on the nuances of the situation. We didn't "just" lose because of McCoy's injury, but I assure you that (though the problems we did see were very real), I do believe Texas wins both games with a 100% McCoy.

That is all.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 2, 2007 10:51 PM CST up 0 recs

The thing I keep asking myself is...

... would Texas have beaten Nebraska a second time in Kansas City? And would Texas have beaten Boise State?

I'm perfectly happy with the way the season ended. Of course I would have preferred two wins. But I think the end of our season prepares us in many ways for the upcoming season, when we will once again be a challenger for the MNC. I think most of us assumed going into 2006 that we were a year or two away from contending, anyway. Colt's early success got us all reaching for higher objectives.

Officially a Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Feb 4, 2007 5:33 AM CST up 0 recs

you dont have to get defensive

about it. you did in fact say that that is the only reason we lost. expose or not, I merely disagreed with that statement. that is all.

by mento on Feb 2, 2007 11:03 PM CST 0 recs

Wasn't reacting negatively

To your comment. Nor being defensive. I agree with your sentiments, and find myself falling in the middle, too.

My only point was that the nature of the last two losses prevented rational Texas fans from adopting a "sky is falling" attitude.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Feb 2, 2007 11:13 PM CST up 0 recs

big red network

Just read his "piece" (does he have a word limit or does he just dislike research and opt for short, meaningless soundbites) on Texas. Peter, you were being too nice in your orignal assessment. He's way off the mark.

The emergence of Colt McCoy has provided for plenty of optimism and the defensive hire of Mac Duff has left me confident that the defense can get a nice facelift.

He should get off the message boards and look at what is really going on. And how exactly does OU have the upperhand on Texas after two straight losses?

by Jason Mayer on Feb 3, 2007 12:22 AM CST 0 recs

Big Red Network

I completely agree. I wouldn't trade places with Oklahoma right now, and I mean that in addition to the obvious reasons such as... not wanting to date my sister, having a full set of teeth, living in Oklahoma, etc... Seriously though, from returning players to coaching staff I wouldn't trade anything.

by Horange on Feb 3, 2007 2:39 AM CST up 0 recs