Sold Out Sunday: Game Televised Locally....

[NewColtsFan]

Those who live nearby got your wish....

The game will be televised on WISH-Ch.8.

Enjoy!!

http://www.colts.com/news/article-1/JAGUARS-VS-COLTS--SOLD-OUT--TELEVISED-LOCALLY/05aae87a-ea20-4d95-8d6e-9854033ee0a4

[GoDeep]

Hip hip hooray!

[Nadine]

And that's what I have to say about that!

[shakedownstreet]

good deal. jacksonville is one of the harder sellouts. cleveland looks sketchy, but i figure their fans probably travel well

[Superman]

This is the only game I was worried about. Good news.

[Mouthfire]

Awesome. Go Colts!

[JustAColtsFan]

This is just what I figured. There will be no blackouts. The news this morning stated that there were 500 tickets left to be sold by 1:00PM today to avoid a blackout. They also said that the Colts had the option to purchase them at 35 cents on the dollar and then do with them what they wanted. Ersay will not risk angering fans, any tickets left will be delt with accordingly on a game by game basis. You know they didn't suddenly sell 500 tickets by 1:00pm;)

[IndyBarb]

Yahoo....

[BrentMc11]

YES! Thanks for the post.....glad we get it down in Southern Indiana!!!! :thmup:

[swflacoltsfans]

I read they relaxed the number of tickets that had to be sold. I think it may be something like 90% (guessing).

So soldout may not really mean sold out but sold out enough to put it on tv.

[Superman]

I read they relaxed the number of tickets that had to be sold. I think it may be something like 90% (guessing).

So soldout may not really mean sold out but sold out enough to put it on tv.

They gave teams the option to reduce the percentage all the way to 85% to avoid blackouts. The Colts didn't take that option. I think the "virtual sell-out" number is 99%.

[Esquire59]

biggest non-story ever. As is the entire season. CBS (and Fox for 2 games) make millions upon millions off ad revenue. There are a cumulative of appx 600-800 tickets per game remaining. I doubt any other games won't sellout outright, but if anything else remains, CBS buys them for appx $3,500, gives them away for tax deductible write-off, and everyone's happy. Happens with Dolphins almost every week.

[ruksak]

They gave teams the option to reduce the percentage all the way to 85% to avoid blackouts. The Colts didn't take that option. I think the "virtual sell-out" number is 99%.

Coming off a 2-14 season and having just released our beloved QB.....now a rebuilding project, you would think they wouldn't be so arrogant as to have one of the highest requirements (if not the highest) for a sell-out in the league. Seems like a serious disconnect with the fans.

[Esquire59]

Coming off a 2-14 season and having just released our beloved QB.....now a rebuilding project, you would think they wouldn't be so arrogant as to have one of the highest requirements (if not the highest) for a sell-out in the league. Seems like a serious disconnect with the fans.

Again, biggest non-story and no disconnect. The Colts can be bold because the remaining ticket # is so low, everyone knows CBS will buy the several hundred tickets, donate them, write 'em off, and the Indiana/KY, etc market televises our Colts.

[Superman]

Coming off a 2-14 season and having just released our beloved QB.....now a rebuilding project, you would think they wouldn't be so arrogant as to have one of the highest requirements (if not the highest) for a sell-out in the league. Seems like a serious disconnect with the fans.

I disagree, for a few reasons. First of all, it's rather unlikely that any games don't wind up sold out.

Secondly, the requirement has always been full sell outs, and the Colts have always met it. I think the reason the team decided not to reduce the requirement is because they expect to have a fully sold out season again.

And I think the supplementary reason has to do with money. If a team adopts the lower threshold, they have the split the remaining gate receipts 50/50 with the visiting team, whether they fall short of the lower threshold, meet the lower threshold or exceed it. So if they lowered the threshold to 90%, everything above that line gets split 50/50 with the visiting team. In a case like this week, when the Jaguars didn't even do their share and you still meet the higher requirement (they're returning several hundred tickets, I think), why should you have to split your gate receipts with them? Yes, money is a factor. You're running a business; it should be. This is why you pay salespeople.

I don't have a problem with the policy. I think it's sound, given the NFL's blackout rules. I wouldn't want to share more of my gate receipts with a team that doesn't increase my gate receipts.

The Colts media relations department hasn't been out in front of this story like they should have been. Phil B. Wilson wrote an article a couple months ago that did a good job of explaining why the Colts aren't lowering the threshold, but he also hit the front office for not handling this right from a PR perspective.

What this week's experience proves is that there was no need to lower the threshold for the Colts. The games will be sold out. But the team hasn't done a very good job PR-wise of explaining why they feel that way. And that, I think, is the real cause for the disconnect with the fans. If anything is arrogant, it's the failure to communicate properly with your fan base. The blackout policy puts teams at odds with the home fans anyways, whether it's 99% or 85%. But you should be proactive, not reactive.

JMO. I'm not local, so I can understand you having a different perspective, as this affects you more directly than it does me.

[ruksak]

Again, biggest non-story and no disconnect. The Colts can be bold because the remaining ticket # is so low, everyone knows CBS will buy the several hundred tickets, donate them, write 'em off, and the Indiana/KY, etc market televises our Colts.

It's more about the perceived intent than the politics involved. People, fans, don't like to feel as though they're being mugged if they wish to watch their Colts play.

It sends the sentiment that it's not good enough to just be a fan, to buy their hats and jerseys. It sends the message that real local fans go to the game or they miss out. When we, as fans, can clearly see that many other teams do not have such requirements, it matters not all these semantics and political commercial dealings that occur behind the scenes.

Wait....my taxes pay for the very stadium that I cannot afford to attend because ticket prices are too high, and if they do not sell-out I can't watch the game....but I can pay for their stadium? Too bad I can't choose not to pay for their stadium, otherwise, I'd black them out of my wallet.

Whatever, make excuses for the greed.

Unlike some others in this thread, you WILL NOT catch me celebrating the fact that I'm allowed to watch my team play. That's pathetic.

[schwamm]

It's more about the perceived intent than the politics involved. People, fans, don't like to feel as though they're being mugged if they wish to watch their Colts play.

It sends the sentiment that it's not good enough to just be a fan, to buy their hats and jerseys. It sends the message that real local fans go to the game or they miss out. When we, as fans, can clearly see that many other teams do not have such requirements, it matters not all these semantics and political commercial dealings that occur behind the scenes.

Wait....my taxes pay for the very stadium that I cannot afford to attend because ticket prices are too high, and if they do not sell-out I can't watch the game....but I can pay for their stadium? Too bad I can't choose not to pay for their stadium, otherwise, I'd black them out of my wallet.

Whatever, make excuses for the greed.

Unlike some others in this thread, you WILL NOT catch me celebrating the fact that I'm allowed to watch my team play. That's pathetic.

Ruksak, I get your frustration. Unfortunately, it wasn't Irsay who mandated you pay taxes to cover the stadium costs. He negotiated with the City and State, both of which REALLY want to make sure the team stays. It was the City/State side of the negotiation that determined that they'd cover their costs with your dollars.

If you and I split on some purchase, it isn't my problem to know how you come up with the cash, is it?

[Superman]

It's more about the perceived intent than the politics involved. People, fans, don't like to feel as though they're being mugged if they wish to watch their Colts play.

It sends the sentiment that it's not good enough to just be a fan, to buy their hats and jerseys. It sends the message that real local fans go to the game or they miss out. When we, as fans, can clearly see that many other teams do not have such requirements, it matters not all these semantics and political commercial dealings that occur behind the scenes.

Wait....my taxes pay for the very stadium that I cannot afford to attend because ticket prices are too high, and if they do not sell-out I can't watch the game....but I can pay for their stadium? Too bad I can't choose not to pay for their stadium, otherwise, I'd black them out of my wallet.

Whatever, make excuses for the greed.

Unlike some others in this thread, you WILL NOT catch me celebrating the fact that I'm allowed to watch my team play. That's pathetic.

To the bolded, as far as I know, only three teams have adopted the lower restrictions to any extent: the Dolphins, Bucs and Raiders, three teams that struggle every year to sell out. Even teams like the Chargers, Jaguars and Bills that also struggle didn't adopt a new, lower threshold. (The Chargers are blacked out this weekend, by the way.) So it's not true that "many other teams" don't have to worry about this.

And, end of the day, the Colts haven't failed to sell out a game in over five years.

[ruksak]

Ruksak, I get your frustration. Unfortunately, it wasn't Irsay who mandated you pay taxes to cover the stadium costs. He negotiated with the City and State, both of which REALLY want to make sure the team stays. It was the City/State side of the negotiation that determined that they'd cover their costs with your dollars.

If you and I split on some purchase, it isn't my problem to know how you come up with the cash, is it?

Yep yep....straight frustration and I understand that many may not feel comfortable with my comments.

.....It matters not to me who's decision it was to do 'X' or "Z".

All that matters to me is that it is, in fact, that way. How it got there is inconsequential.

The reality is that I cannot afford to attend the very stadium that I helped pay for and I'd better hope that enough people can afford their outrageous prices or else I'm cut out entirely.

Hey....how about a discount for taxpayers whom helped provide such a nice venue? Oh no....that would hurt the profit margin.

It's just greed, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my point is....I think it's sad, lame and altogether pathetic for people (Indianapolis taxpayers) to express such happiness that they'll be allowed to watch a Colts game because greed was sated.

[jemack]

Yep yep....straight frustration and I understand that many may not feel comfortable with my comments.

.....It matters not to me who's decision it was to do 'X' or "Z".

All that matters to me is that it is, in fact, that way. How it got there is inconsequential.

The reality is that I cannot afford to attend the very stadium that I helped pay for and I'd better hope that enough people can afford their outrageous prices or else I'm cut out entirely.

Hey....how about a discount for taxpayers whom helped provide such a nice venue? Oh no....that would hurt the profit margin.

It's just greed, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my point is....I think it's sad, lame and altogether pathetic for people (Indianapolis taxpayers) to express such happiness that they'll be allowed to watch a Colts game because greed was sated.

Have you considered Powerball?... I owe you this!

[funktacious2]

This pleases me. :cool:

[schwamm]

Yep yep....straight frustration and I understand that many may not feel comfortable with my comments.

.....It matters not to me who's decision it was to do 'X' or "Z".

All that matters to me is that it is, in fact, that way. How it got there is inconsequential.

The reality is that I cannot afford to attend the very stadium that I helped pay for and I'd better hope that enough people can afford their outrageous prices or else I'm cut out entirely.

Hey....how about a discount for taxpayers whom helped provide such a nice venue? Oh no....that would hurt the profit margin.

It's just greed, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my point is....I think it's sad, lame and altogether pathetic for people (Indianapolis taxpayers) to express such happiness that they'll be allowed to watch a Colts game because greed was sated.

I guess from my perspective you're peein' in the wind. What you're describing suggests you're essentially frustrated with capitalism and democracy, and your best recourse is to show your displeasure by boycotting the product and by voting.

[ruksak]

I guess from my perspective you're peein' in the wind. What you're describing suggests you're essentially frustrated with capitalism and democracy, and your best recourse is to show your displeasure by boycotting the product and by voting.

I don't want to get political but no, I don't really have issue with capitalism. It just gets me down sometimes to witness the pervasiveness of money into everything. Nothing is sacred. Boo hoo etc. ...

[JoKeR]

It's more about the perceived intent than the politics involved. People, fans, don't like to feel as though they're being mugged if they wish to watch their Colts play.

It sends the sentiment that it's not good enough to just be a fan, to buy their hats and jerseys. It sends the message that real local fans go to the game or they miss out. When we, as fans, can clearly see that many other teams do not have such requirements, it matters not all these semantics and political commercial dealings that occur behind the scenes.

Wait....my taxes pay for the very stadium that I cannot afford to attend because ticket prices are too high, and if they do not sell-out I can't watch the game....but I can pay for their stadium? Too bad I can't choose not to pay for their stadium, otherwise, I'd black them out of my wallet.

Whatever, make excuses for the greed.

Unlike some others in this thread, you WILL NOT catch me celebrating the fact that I'm allowed to watch my team play. That's pathetic.

I do not see how there can't be a program where local citizens, who's taxes have helped build stadiums, can get a appropriate discounts on seats. Even just a 7% discount would probably be appropriate. Realistically locals have paid very little individually towards the stadium. Have to also remember the the Colts bring a lot to the table for Indy's citizens.

And you do have a choice but I doubt it bugs you that bad. You just wish you could afford tickets, I understand that. It has gotten ridiculous. There was a time when most people could afford to go games. Salaries have gone sky high, owners profit margins have shot threw the roof and most local fans can not keep up with it. Wages nor inflation can keep up. The pool of ticket buyers gets smaller and smaller. There might come a time when only upper middle class people can *afford to attend.

[Superman]

I don't want to get political but no, I don't really have issue with capitalism. It just gets me down sometimes to witness the pervasiveness of money into everything. Nothing is sacred. Boo hoo etc. ...

But you say that as you peel off more money to support the product. So it's kind of just something to shrug at. And I don't mean this as a dig at you, but you're saying that it's pathetic that people are glad the game sold out and they'll be able to watch it, but I'm assuming you're going to watch it, too. Maybe you're not cheering at the news, but it benefits you.

My point of view is that this blackout issue is a lot bigger than whether the Colts adopted the lower threshold or not. I agree that the blackout rule sucks for local fans. I just don't think the Colts should have lowered the threshold, mostly because I don't think they needed to.

[shakedownstreet]

Yep yep....straight frustration and I understand that many may not feel comfortable with my comments.

.....It matters not to me who's decision it was to do 'X' or "Z".

All that matters to me is that it is, in fact, that way. How it got there is inconsequential.

The reality is that I cannot afford to attend the very stadium that I helped pay for and I'd better hope that enough people can afford their outrageous prices or else I'm cut out entirely.

Hey....how about a discount for taxpayers whom helped provide such a nice venue? Oh no....that would hurt the profit margin.

It's just greed, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess my point is....I think it's sad, lame and altogether pathetic for people (Indianapolis taxpayers) to express such happiness that they'll be allowed to watch a Colts game because greed was sated.

these are the rantings of a young man. by the time we get to be around forty, we become at peace with all the terrible injustices the world presents

[ruksak]

these are the rantings of a young man. by the time we get to be around forty, we become at peace with all the terrible injustices the world presents

Ahhh....the path of least resistance. Don't fight, don't speak out, just ease back into your chair and allow middle-age to rust your bones, my friend. I am exactly forty years of age and I will never get in line just for the sake of compliance.

You should never turn a blind eye to injustice and/or wrongs you witness. The world needs jerks like me to raise their voices and force change. Truth be told, if we as consumers decided to put an end to it, it would end. Too many rats nibbling the cheese to force change. Too many are fine with being jerked around by a league that wouldn't exist without our tax money.

It's funny how something can truly bother someone so much yet they don't do anything to stop it. Take the volume on commercials while watching TV as an example. Most channels blast the volume up during breaks and then bring it back down once the show starts up again. Most people are aware of this and they complain about it by the water cooler. Well, finally some people (that aren't lazy and unmotivated) did something about it and as of December 13th of 2012, no longer will they be allowed to do this.

Known as the CALM act, this is an example of consumers forcing change from those whom pander to us as a means of profit.

To that end, if we, as consumers, actually forced the change in regard to black-out rules, it would indeed change. The NFL wouldn't exist without our stadiums, our parking, our streets, our support. We ALLOW them to be here, yet this pervasive ideal is cast that we should feel utterly lucky for having them and thusly we should follow their rules if we wish to watch what our tax dollars have facilitated the existence of.

[ruksak]

But you say that as you peel off more money to support the product.

They get very little of my money. A rough estimate for my spending toward the NFL over the last ten years would be in the area of $100.

And I don't mean this as a dig at you, but you're saying that it's pathetic that people are glad the game sold out and they'll be able to watch it, but I'm assuming you're going to watch it, too. Maybe you're not cheering at the news, but it benefits you.

First of all, I don't take anything you and others are saying as a "dig at me" or otherwise insulting. This is jst a conversation, an exchange of opinion.

Does it benefit me that the game is going to be televised? Yes. I will watch it, of course. Do I feel excited about that opportunity? No.

Because I should be allowed to watch the team I have helped pay for. When my traffic gets backed up from their games, when my taxes go up (even one red cent) because they need a state-of-the-art venue, I should NEVER have to consider whether or not I will be punished because they didn't sell every seat.

[ruksak]

Have to also remember the the Colts bring a lot to the table for Indy's citizens.

^^This is by far the best argument against my hippie rantings. There is an inherent synergy in the relationship of citizens/NFL franchise. Some would say that the existence of an NFL franchise in a localized area actually causes the prices of just about everything to go up. So the individual doesn't actually benefit directly in any way, in most cases (consider the creation of jobs etc).

The benefits for most tax paying citizens comes via trickle down economics. Which equates to certain entities at the top eating most of the pie and what's left for the average Joe is an opportunity to lick the pan clean and thank a man in a $5,000 suit for the chance.

[Superman]

They get very little of my money. A rough estimate for my spending toward the NFL over the last ten years would be in the area of $100.

First of all, I don't take anything you and others are saying as a "dig at me" or otherwise insulting. This is jst a conversation, an exchange of opinion.

Does it benefit me that the game is going to be televised? Yes. I will watch it, of course. Do I feel excited about that opportunity? No.

Because I should be allowed to watch the team I have helped pay for. When my traffic gets backed up from their games, when my taxes go up (even one red cent) because they need a state-of-the-art venue, I should NEVER have to consider whether or not I will be punished because they didn't sell every seat.

I might agree with what you're saying there. Doesn't really matter. I'm just saying that I don't think it's "arrogant" of the Colts to not drop the blackout restriction to 85%, because they should still be able to sell out. And they are, so far. The issue is with the blackout restriction, not the lowered threshold. And the blackout restriction is an NFL rule, not a Colts rule.

I get your frustration. I just think your categorization of the Colts decision as "arrogant" and your labeling the fans who are happy they can watch the game on TV as "pathetic" as a little off base. I disagree with it. JMO. Like I said, I know this affects me differently than it does you.

[ruksak]

I might agree with what you're saying there. Doesn't really matter. I'm just saying that I don't think it's "arrogant" of the Colts to not drop the blackout restriction to 85%, because they should still be able to sell out. And they are, so far. The issue is with the blackout restriction, not the lowered threshold. And the blackout restriction is an NFL rule, not a Colts rule.

I get your frustration. I just think your categorization of the Colts decision as "arrogant" and your labeling the fans who are happy they can watch the game on TV as "pathetic" as a little off base. I disagree with it. JMO. Like I said, I know this affects me differently than it does you.

I suppose I would say the philosophy is whack. We SHOULD take for granted that the game will be on, even if only 7 people show up, the game should be on.

I am curious though. How do they handle advertisers in regard to blackout? The way I understand it is; Advertisers pay in advance for a spot. The price of the spot is dictated by the ratings said programming is forecast to receive (based on averages). i.e the Super Bowl spots being outrageously expensive.

So....when an advertiser pays for a spot to air during a Live broadcast of a game and the game is blacked out....do they get their money back? Whatever the network shows instead of the game, they still needs commercial spots...so maybe they give some percentage discount?

[ruksak]

I just want to make myself clear in that I'm not calling other members in this thread "pathetic". I feel their actions are pathetic by default of just going along with socially accepted norms. i.e. it is generally thought that we should be happy to have the game aired without questioning whether or not this should EVER be a concern.

I for one would not claim to be excited, happy, that someone isn't going to slap me across the face for no reason. They shouldn't be slapping me in the first place.

NOW.....if I were to deserve it, had I done something wrong and indeed I had it coming to me, then I would be happy that I didn't get slapped.

Transfer that line to the subject at hand; We shouldn't be happy that the game isn't blacked out because we do not deserve punishment.....we didn't do anything wrong.

[Superman]

I suppose I would say the philosophy is whack. We SHOULD take for granted that the game will be on, even if only 7 people show up, the game should be on.

I am curious though. How do they handle advertisers in regard to blackout? The way I understand it is; Advertisers pay in advance for a spot. The price of the spot is dictated by the ratings said programming is forecast to receive (based on averages). i.e the Super Bowl spots being outrageously expensive.

So....when an advertiser pays for a spot to air during a Live broadcast of a game and the game is blacked out....do they get their money back? Whatever the network shows instead of the game, they still needs commercial spots...so maybe they give some percentage discount?

That only affects local advertisers. The majority of them are regional and national, I think. But that's why another poster suggests that the network pays for the unsold tickets in order to keep the game on TV.

As for the game being on, no matter what, it's a noble idea. But the reason the NFL sells a great percentage of available tickets than any other pro league is the blackout rule. It's not exactly popular, but the goal is to fill the stadium. And if you want a stadium, the local community is going to contribute. And we know how the rest goes. It's the nature of the beast at this point.

[Superman]

I just want to make myself clear in that I'm not calling other members in this thread "pathetic". I feel their actions are pathetic by default of just going along with socially accepted norms. i.e. it is generally thought that we should be happy to have the game aired without questioning whether or not this should EVER be a concern.

I for one would not claim to be excited, happy, that someone isn't going to slap me across the face for no reason. They shouldn't be slapping me in the first place.

NOW.....if I were to deserve it, had I done something wrong and indeed I had it coming to me, then I would be happy that I didn't get slapped.

Transfer that line to the subject at hand; We shouldn't be happy that the game isn't blacked out because we do not deserve punishment.....we didn't do anything wrong.

Okay. That's a different debate than what you originally said, which was that with the team going through a rebuild (read: having cut Manning) they shouldn't be so arrogant to not lower the blackout threshold. I disagree with that stance. I mostly agree with the idea that the blackout rules penalize the local fans, and it sucks. But the situation is what it is: if you don't meet the blackout threshold, the game isn't aired locally.

What's good is that this isn't a situation the Indy area has had to worry about, having sold out virtually every game for several years now. And that's with the standard threshold, not a lowered threshold.

[schwamm]

Okay. That's a different debate than what you originally said, which was that with the team going through a rebuild (read: having cut Manning) they shouldn't be so arrogant to not lower the blackout threshold. I disagree with that stance. I mostly agree with the idea that the blackout rules penalize the local fans, and it sucks. But the situation is what it is: if you don't meet the blackout threshold, the game isn't aired locally.

What's good is that this isn't a situation the Indy area has had to worry about, having sold out virtually every game for several years now. And that's with the standard threshold, not a lowered threshold.

Hey...I just had a brainstorm! Instead of tax payers getting a discount on tickets, how about season ticket holders getting a tax credit!

[JoKeR]

^^This is by far the best argument against my hippie rantings. There is an inherent synergy in the relationship of citizens/NFL franchise. Some would say that the existence of an NFL franchise in a localized area actually causes the prices of just about everything to go up. So the individual doesn't actually benefit directly in any way, in most cases (consider the creation of jobs etc).

The benefits for most tax paying citizens comes via trickle down economics. Which equates to certain entities at the top eating most of the pie and what's left for the average Joe is an opportunity to lick the pan clean and thank a man in a $5,000 suit for the chance.

Well that and the fact we have a local football team to watch. And about prices across the board being more expensive, could it be from living near downtown or is it the stadium? It's not definitive but aren't prices always higher in the downtown of any major city?

[Superman]

Hey...I just had a brainstorm! Instead of tax payers getting a discount on tickets, how about season ticket holders getting a tax credit!

I'm not 100% certain, but weren't the taxes that were to pay for the city's portion of the stadium in the form of tourist taxes? Hotel tax, cab tax, etc.?

[shakedownstreet]

I'm not 100% certain, but weren't the taxes that were to pay for the city's portion of the stadium in the form of tourist taxes? Hotel tax, cab tax, etc.?

the biggest one is a 1% increase in the restaurant tax. the donut counties were all lured into it as well by letting them keep half the revenue. it was a similar deal with the rca dome, and it's a tax we still pay

look at indy today, and look at indy in 1984. i don't think there's a chance in [EDIT] this city is half of what it is without what the colts brought

[Superman]

the biggest one is a 1% increase in the restaurant tax. the donut counties were all lured into it as well by letting them keep half the revenue. it was a similar deal with the rca dome, and it's a tax we still pay

look at indy today, and look at indy in 1984. i don't think there's a chance in [EDIT] this city is half of what it is without what the colts brought

So how much of a tax credit to season ticket holders would make sense for the state and counties? Wouldn't it vary from person to person, depending on how much of their spending is subject to the usage taxes that were raised? I think it would be negligible, and (of course) people would complain that it's still not enough. Neither of those are a reason not to do it, though. It's kind of a good idea.

[Fatboyslim11]

The issue of potential blackouts for Colts fans in the Indy market must be frustrating. Hopefully the home games will continue to sell out and hometown fans can see the games. The situation is even tougher for Colts fans living in other parts of the country. Now that we are retooling or rebuilding, the Colts games are shown in a far smaller part of the country. I am glad I have The NFL Sunday Ticket, otherwise I would miss out on most of their games - I live in New Jersey and the local teams are the Giants, Jets and Eagles and the networks always show their games in this local market.