Re: NFL Nixes

[Chuckigo@att.net]

Donna wrote:
>>I can sort of understand the league's stance about the 
WEEI re-broadcast-- WEEI is a network affiliate and 
couldn't originally air the game because it was being 
aired on a competitor-- WBCN.  But banning WBCN from 
airing its own regular call of the game puzzles me... 
don't they own the rights to their own call on their 
own station?<<

most sporting events, even minor league baseball/hockey, 
broadcast carry the disclaimer about the event being 
broadcast with the permission of (league) and being the 
property of (league/station) use of the descriptions or 
events, or rebroadcasts of the game... without the 
permission of the (league/commissioner, etc) as well as 
the station...

so that would seem to cover the nix'ing of the 
rebroadcast of even the WBCN call.  yet i wonder: to 
what end would football say "no?"  i'm puzzled as to the 
motivation or thoughts that might have pushed the NFL to 
say "no, you can't" to two different stations, both of 
whom had working, enforceable league agreements during 
the season (BCN with Pats/NFL, EEI with WW1/NFL).

does this situation present a case where football might 
be cast in an unflattering or demeaning light?  would it 
denegrate the game?  seems to me that if the frenzy 
continued to be fed, more benefit would befall the NFL 
than any harm whatsoever.  for the ten people who've not 
picked up their officially NFL licensed Pats 
Championship gear, hearing the game again (or for the 
first time) might push them to their nearest retailer.  
not to mention getting those "on the fence" about Pats 
season tix packages for the new CMGI field "off the 
fence..."

- -Chuck Igo (reminding you that, upon further review, 
the game stands: Patriots 20  Rams 17.)