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!

     

TNT is unwatchable


Recommended Posts

From 2003

From the production and broadcast side, the NBC-TNT team has been receiving a lot of compliments. However, that has been overshadowed by the rash of complaints about the number of commercials during each of the first four telecasts.

Even the race teams are voicing their displeasure in this area. One team said they timed a recent broadcast, and according to their figures, there were 30 minutes of commercials for every hour of racing.

I didn't time the length of the commercials versus the amount of actual racing that was shown during the July 27 race at Pocono, but I did track the number of laps of racing versus the number of laps we missed while commercials were being shown. The result was not good news to the millions of fans who want to see a lot more racing than commercial breaks.

In the first 50 laps at Pocono, before the first caution flag, the audience was treated to 29 laps of green-flag racing. That means they missed 21 laps while various commercials and promotions for upcoming TNT shows were being shown.

In the next 105 laps, the ratio was 58 laps of racing versus 47 laps for commercials or a promo for another TNT show that we just didn't want to miss.

I guess i will dvr it next week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite part is when Wally Dalenbach was daydreaming.

Alexander: Do you feel that more in 2nd than 23rd, Wally?

Wally: Huh? Feel wha?

Alexander: The wall

Wally: Oh, yea. You do.

I have to give ESPN one thing, they don't do the cheesy crap anymore. At least not to the level of FOX or TNT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...