Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Thursday Night Football? Is it just me...


TrueBlackandBlue

Recommended Posts

Or does anyone else think that Thursday Night Football is garbage? Even though its a primetime game for Carolina which are always exciting and it gives us some media attention, I've just always liked that the NFL was limited to Sunday with one special treat on Monday night. And regardless, the matchups seem to be consistently bland and unimportant. excepting this thursday of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prime-time is prime-time... I'll take what we can get. I just hope we shine. The MNF game was pathetic.

As far as having the attention of the media, we don't have the fan base of the Cowboys which pretty much gives you the ability to suck all year and still end up with 10 nationally television games. Not as bad as baseball with the Yankees & Red Sox, but it's slowly creeping there with 90% of the media's attention going to four (maybe five) NFL teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it for the simple fact that I don't think there's enough football to keep me satisfied throughout the week. Having it be a Panthers game is just a plus.

Indeed.

Think about it...

Thursday Night: Panthers

Friday Night: High School Football (Well, my old HS made it to the playoffs.)

Saturday: College

Sunday: NFL

Monday: NFL

Muahah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm only gonna get one panthers game a week no matter how you slice it, i'd rather it be on sunday... I can't remember there ever being an interesting enough matchup on thursday that i actually found a tv with nfl network to watch the game. and theres always college football on thurs for everyone who needs some grid iron to make it to the weekend

and in football, players need time to get healthy, for that week and their careers. it is working in our favor this week b/c of Ronnie Brown who probably would be able to play if it was sunday. Being on monday night football gives team a short but managable 6 day week, but a 4 day week i ridiculous. teams also need time to prepare which is becoming an essential part of being a good team. taking it out is like taking out special teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason the thursday games are a "less attractive" game is because when it all first started, there was a game with the cowboys and i think the giants or patriots that had huge significance and many people made a big deal, including that crybaby troy aikman, that the game wouldn't be seen by the majority of fans due to being on the nfl network.

the nfl network then pussed out and allowed abc, or espn to simulcast the game so everyone can see it. since then, the've wussed out on the top matchups of the week being played on thursday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...