• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Cardinals-Panthers Game Not On Network TV

I'm happy with the outcome, but why were those Cardinals throwing the ball to each other with one second left? What purpose could that possibly have served?
It's a play that has worked exactly a handful of times in college and rarely ever in pro.
The Cards were doing that because of pride and ego and to make it not seem they just up and quit.

Had they scored they still would have lost the game.
 
The lateral used to be a core play of college teams back in the days when the forward pass was prohibited or new. It is another hold over from rugby but not used much any longer due to the speed of the defenses and their ability to interrupt the pass. It is worth noting that California, the last team to successfully use multiple laterals to score, has a robust rugby team and some of those players also played on their football team.
 
Well... what was the over/under? Iykwim?

ixnay
Is this the actual score or something about the point spread?

I do realize the Panthers had to keep their guard up even in those last seconds. A safety was scored and then it would have only taken one more touchdown, successfully going for two, and then a field goal, to tie the game. Not likely, but not impossible.
 
I do realize the Panthers had to keep their guard up even in those last seconds. A safety was scored and then it would have only taken one more touchdown, successfully going for two, and then a field goal, to tie the game. Not likely, but not impossible.

With the inept offense of the CAHDnulls lately it was impossible. The Panthers could have walked off the field and it would have taken the Birds three plays to score.
 


With the inept offense of the CAHDnulls lately it was impossible. The Panthers could have walked off the field and it would have taken the Birds three plays to score.
Right. Not impossible for a good team.

It's ironic that the cardinal is our state bird. But the name was taken.
 
It's ironic that the cardinal is our state bird. But the name was taken.

Mine is the Cactus Wren but that doesn't sound very threatening for a football team.

Everybody thinks it is the Roadrunner. Might have been a better choice.
 
The team originated (or at least was) in St. Louis, where the name might have meant something since the baseball team uses it.

It originated in Chicago, the franchise's first home. When the football team moved to St. Louis, the baseball Cardinals were already there, so they went ahead and kept the name. Obviously, no team owner could get away with that today. Trademarks are much too valuable.
 
People who grew up in STL tell me that when anyone used the name "Cardinals" it was automatically assumed they were talking about the baseball team.
 
People who grew up in STL tell me that when anyone used the name "Cardinals" it was automatically assumed they were talking about the baseball team.

For good reason. The baseball team is the most successful National League team in terms of World Series championships. The football team, IIRC, made the playoffs only once in its time there, and was borderline bad to just plain awful most seasons. They had some decent individuals -- Larry Wilson was a Hall of Fame safety and Jim Hart was a top-5 quarterback in his best years -- but never put together anything close to a championship contending team.

By the way, there are still plenty of older folks up this way who STILL refer to "the New York football Giants." For all of the NFL team's success and well-known players, to those fans, "the Giants" will always be the baseball team that played in the Polo Grounds.
 
Last edited:
You're really gonna flip next week when CBS only gets 1 Divisonal game. NBC gets 1 and Fox gets 2

DIVISIONAL ROUND
Sat 1/10, 4:30 PM @ New England NBC Al Michaels, Cris Collinsworth
Sat 1/10, 8:00 PM @ Seattle FOX TBD
Sun 1/11, 1:00 PM @ Green Bay FOX TBD
Sun 1/11, 4:30 PM @ Denver CBS Jim Nantz, Phil Simms

CBS had a college basketball game in the early part of the afternoon today, but WREG CBS 3 in Memphis filled the non-CBS sports time later today with guess what - infomercials. :mad:
 
per the new TV contracts ESPN gets one wild card game which is the game you referenced. In Phoenix and Charlotte it is on local stations (TV6 in Phoenix, Fox in Charlotte)

You're really gonna flip next week when CBS only gets 1 Divisonal game. NBC gets 1 and Fox gets 2

DIVISIONAL ROUND
Sat 1/10, 4:30 PM @ New England NBC Al Michaels, Cris Collinsworth
Sat 1/10, 8:00 PM @ Seattle FOX TBD
Sun 1/11, 1:00 PM @ Green Bay FOX TBD
Sun 1/11, 4:30 PM @ Denver CBS Jim Nantz, Phil Simms

I always thought NBC (and before 2006 season, ABC) always had the Saturday divisional playoff games.
 
It originated in Chicago, the franchise's first home. When the football team moved to St. Louis, the baseball Cardinals were already there, so they went ahead and kept the name. Obviously, no team owner could get away with that today. Trademarks are much too valuable.
I knew it! But I get distracted if I look things up on Wikipedia, which is where I always go at home.

It's a pretty bird (the males, at least, though the females would look pretty if not compared to the males) and mean-looking.
 
It originated in Chicago, the franchise's first home. When the football team moved to St. Louis, the baseball Cardinals were already there, so they went ahead and kept the name. Obviously, no team owner could get away with that today. Trademarks are much too valuable.

The Chicago Cardinals were named after the color or their uniforms, not the bird.
 
Quote Originally Posted by avtosalon View Post

ESPN (or any other cable/pay TV network) are NOT 'just as much "networks" as OTA networks'! Not even close.

OTA networks are available for FREE in high definition nationwide via hundreds of affiliates. But cable/pay TV networks require a special connection to the service, and are CHARGED. Of course the programming is not the same, but how could say that cable/pay networks are equal with OTA networks?

Another thing, how could you say that "many" NFL games are on ESPN/NFL Network? The fact is that the vast majority of NFL games are broadcast on free, OTA television. The NFL, compared to the other 'Big 4' leagues (MLB, NBA, and NHL) still has most of it's games broadcast OTA. For viewers who only care to watch just their local team, they would not need cable/pay TV at all.
The fact that some networks are broadcast free and others require a subscription doesn't negate the fact that networks carried on cable are still networks. And, for the record, I spent most of my adult life in a city with such terribly hilly terrain that most "free" TV was impossible to watch without cable. Or aren't you aware that for the first few decades of existence of cable television, all it offered was good reception for local OTA channels? Cable-only networks didn't come along until the cable television industry was several decades old.

You're also assuming that people only care about seeing their local team's games on "free" television. This thread appears to be launched by an NFL fan who didn't live in the home city of either team. My favorite team is the one I followed before relocating to another city. The fact that I moved didn't change my loyalty to my team. And it is not shown on "free" TV every week in the city where I live.


I never said that your favorite team (located in another city) is shown in the city where you live. I said that the home team is shown in the home market on free OTA, which is usually the case unless a home game isn't sold out. I happen to live in a market where my home team has not had a blacked out telecast since the 70's. It is likely that you may not see every game of your favorite team on cable either unless you pay extra for 'NFL Sunday Ticket' which is available thru Direct TV only.

You said that some areas have trouble receiving an OTA signal because of "terribly hilly terrain". That's true, but if you want bring up an exception, I can tell you that some areas do not have any cable service available at all either, like the original poster does not cable on the floor where he lives. My parents' neighborhood did not cable available until 1990, therefore we missed the heyday of MTV. Even today, we own a cabin on a lake in Minnesota, and there is no cable service at all, but all of the free OTA major networks can be received using rabbit ears.

I never said that 'cable networks' are not networks. My disagreement was when you said that they are "just as much 'networks' as OTA networks". They are not. Cable networks are charged, and they have FEWER viewers than OTA networks because around 20% of the population chooses not to pay for it. Consider the Super Bowl, one of the highest rated shows on television. The Super Bowl rotates between CBS, NBC, and Fox. This year the Super Bowl airing today will be shown on NBC--not NBC SN. The reason is that NBC can charge more for advertising because OTA gets better ratings, and has more viewers than cable only networks.
 
The Chicago Cardinals were named after the color or their uniforms, not the bird.

Cardinal red, y'know. Feel free to correct me, but IIRC the football Cards began using the bird (on their helmets anyway) in 1961 (their second year in St. Louis). Before that they used solid white helmets.

ixnay
 
Cardinal red, y'know. Feel free to correct me, but IIRC the football Cards began using the bird (on their helmets anyway) in 1961 (their second year in St. Louis). Before that they used solid white helmets.

ixnay

Not that it matters, but many NFL teams didn't start putting any logos or other decorations on their helmets until the early 1960's. One team experimented with a logo on only one side of the helmet back in 1963, and still only has a logo on one side. That team is also located in a city with terrain so hilly that most parts of it have terrible reception on at least one OTA network's signal, often even more! I cannot believe that people are still kvetching over the fact that if you want to watch TV, you sometimes have to pay for it. It's 2015. Nothing is really free anymore!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom