Where does the IOC go from here?

[Barcelona_'92]

1 hour ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

I'm not wading into this discussion beyond making this point - Melbourne is not going to happen under a John Coates led AOC.  He has repeatedly stated the next Australian bid will be Brisbane - so all us Victorians can hope for is he will step down/voted out between now and 2023/2024.

The summer Games window is pretty much set in stone - and while most athletes prefer to compete in cooler temperatures the IOC wants sunny warm weather.

I'm hoping we see Chile or Argentina put in a bid for 2026/2030 (NZ won't - not even worth asking) as I'm interested to see if Agenda 2020 will in fact allow a "massaging" of Games dates.  If the IOC is open to a May/June or August/September Winter Games then there is hope for September/October in Melbourne.  The AFL/NRL were flexible in 2000 and can be again.

NBC has been very clear that they will not accept a Summer Games outside of the July-August timeframe.  I don't believe NBC would accept a September/October Games without a major fight.  It wouldn't surprise me if NBC's contract with the IOC guarantees that the Summer Games will be held in July or August.

[FYI]

I guess the world revolves around NBC then, *shrugs*. But here's an interesting article about Melbourne & the Olympics from a couple of months ago.

And one of the last comments suggest that the Olympics have just become too expensive to stage in Australia again, let alone Queensland. And calls out Coates on it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-considered-too-cold-and-busy-for-olympic-bid/news-story/bf5998984fd073b1fa9b09c3ad16c234

[baron-pierreIV]

Out source them to East Timor!!  That way, it's in Catholic, not muslim hands!!   

[thatsnotmypuppy]

6 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

NBC has been very clear that they will not accept a Summer Games outside of the July-August timeframe.  I don't believe NBC would accept a September/October Games without a major fight.  It wouldn't surprise me if NBC's contract with the IOC guarantees that the Summer Games will be held in July or August.

True - NBC has the rights through to 2032 - which could scupper any potential Aussie Olympic plans.  By saying that though an Olympics in Australia will have very little 'live' broadcasting either way so NBC can package them in whatever they see fit (as they do with many Olympics). Furthermore with multi-platform and online the needs of "free to air" broadcasting are becoming more and more irrelevant.

I'd say NBC would be flexible if push came to shove - the question is will it come to that?  Would the IOC give a Games to Istanbul or Baku over Melbourne to satisfy a time window?  Does NBC want to get caught up with that kind of mess?

[baron-pierreIV]

12 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

NBC has been very clear that they will not accept a Summer Games outside of the July-August timeframe.  I don't believe NBC would accept a September/October Games without a major fight.  It wouldn't surprise me if NBC's contract with the IOC guarantees that the Summer Games will be held in July or August.

I don't think so.  While NBC will undoubtedly give its input on preferred time-slots, they made their pre-emptive package bid NOT knowing where the future Games would be staged -- or what sports might still constitute future Games.  Hey, what if there were a Games in Boha or Daku-kukuu where swimming and gymnstics were removed, would the terms of NBC's purchase still hold?  I am sure that bid had as many in's and out's for NBC as well as for the IOC.  While the July-August timeframe is NBC's "A" window of choice, I am sure they could adjust accordingly.  What if LA gets hit by a major quake in late June 2028; and the powers that be  decide they need at least 60 days to bring everything back up to snuff -- which would push the normal July-August window to  late Sept-October (probably pushing it up against the World Series too), what would NBC (and all the broadcasters of the world, for that matter) do then??  For that matter, the Chelsea Clinton v. Ivanka T. Kushmer pro-wrestling debate would also have to be postponed!!   

[Quaker2001]

15 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

I'm not wading into this discussion beyond making this point - Melbourne is not going to happen under a John Coates led AOC.  He has repeatedly stated the next Australian bid will be Brisbane - so all us Victorians can hope for is he will step down/voted out between now and 2023/2024.

The summer Games window is pretty much set in stone - and while most athletes prefer to compete in cooler temperatures the IOC wants sunny warm weather.

I'm hoping we see Chile or Argentina put in a bid for 2026/2030 (NZ won't - not even worth asking) as I'm interested to see if Agenda 2020 will in fact allow a "massaging" of Games dates.  If the IOC is open to a May/June or August/September Winter Games then there is hope for September/October in Melbourne.  The AFL/NRL were flexible in 2000 and can be again.

I can't see the IOC being open to a Winter Olympics in the Northern hemisphere summer.  First off, if it's May/June, then you're clashing with the World Cup, so that's likely a non-starter right there.  To sell August/September, then you'd need all the sport federations on board to change their calendars and work with that, let alone the implications for TV networks and the like to adjust.  And then you're still perilously close to the World Cup.  It's a big ask for a Southern Hemisphere country to try and pull that off.  Don't see it happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Quaker2001]

14 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

NBC has been very clear that they will not accept a Summer Games outside of the July-August timeframe.  I don't believe NBC would accept a September/October Games without a major fight.  It wouldn't surprise me if NBC's contract with the IOC guarantees that the Summer Games will be held in July or August.

13 hours ago, FYI said:

I guess the world revolves around NBC then, *shrugs*. But here's an interesting article about Melbourne & the Olympics from a couple of months ago.

And one of the last comments suggest that the Olympics have just become too expensive to stage in Australia again, let alone Queensland. And calls out Coates on it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-considered-too-cold-and-busy-for-olympic-bid/news-story/bf5998984fd073b1fa9b09c3ad16c234

I doubt they have anything like that in their contract, but money talks and NBC just pledged close to $8 billion of it, perhaps in part hoping that 1 of those Olympics would be held in the United States, and they're now going to get that.

7 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

I'd say NBC would be flexible if push came to shove - the question is will it come to that?  Would the IOC give a Games to Istanbul or Baku over Melbourne to satisfy a time window?  Does NBC want to get caught up with that kind of mess?

Here's what needs to happen.  All parties involved need to be very clear about the parameters of what's on the line.  FIFA learned that the hard way and got burned by it (and remember that they compensated Fox by essentially handing them rights to the 2026 World Cup - which are about to become a lot more valuable in North America - when they screwed them for 2022).  Not quite as serious with NBC and a September/October Olympics, but they're still clashing with the NFL and that's not something NBC wants to deal with because there will be more losers than winners in that battle.

I don't know what the solution is here, whether Melbourne can offer an Olympics outside the preferred time window or they have to relent and hope for the best.  Again though, this would need to be hashed out BEFORE the bid process and not after.  And I can assure you that if Melbourne is offering a September/October Olympics, NBC might not have the power to stop that, but they'll exert their influence to push for another bid to be chosen, even if that bid is sub-standard.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I don't think so.  While NBC will undoubtedly give its input on preferred time-slots, they made their pre-emptive package bid NOT knowing where the future Games would be staged -- or what sports might still constitute future Games.  Hey, what if there were a Games in Boha or Daku-kukuu where swimming and gymnstics were removed, would the terms of NBC's purchase still hold?  I am sure that bid had as many in's and out's for NBC as well as for the IOC.  While the July-August timeframe is NBC's "A" window of choice, I am sure they could adjust accordingly.  What if LA gets hit by a major quake in late June 2028; and the powers that be  decide they need at least 60 days to bring everything back up to snuff -- which would push the normal July-August window to  late Sept-October (probably pushing it up against the World Series too), what would NBC (and all the broadcasters of the world, for that matter) do then??  For that matter, the Chelsea Clinton v. Ivanka T. Kushmer pro-wrestling debate would also have to be postponed!!   

NBC understands what they signed up for and that certain things aren't guaranteed.  But there are certain preferences that they have and they're probably not alone in that regard.  Other broadcasters and maybe some of the sport federations feel the same way.  After all, they have more than just the Olympics to think about, and don't forget the para's as well.  If push comes to shove and concessions have to be made, you can be sure that all those organizations will have a say.  And if it's a matter of choice, they'll push towards the choice that best suits them, as it always happens.

A natural disaster is a different story.  If there's an earthquake within a month of the games, then I don't know what would happen.  When they spend 7 years planning for an event (11 in LA's case), it would be next to impossible if not completely impossible to hit the reset button and say "no, we can still do this, just give us 60 days."  TV is the least of everyone's concerns at that point.  Similar to how the question was posed about PC 2018 and what happens if there's political strife in the region, there is probably little recourse or alternative at this point.  It's either the original plan/schedule or bust.

[FYI]

3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

in Boha or Daku-kukuu

[FYI]

Frankly, I think that some are making too big a deal about the time-.window. If it's in the IOC's best interest, they will make an exception, as we saw this year with the double 2024/2028 allocation, even after many were citing all of the "cons" if the IOC did that. I don't hear people making a big fuss when the Winter Olympics are held in February. I know it's the Winter Olympics, but what's the difference in viewership watching the Olympics in February VS watching them in September or October, besides not really much.

Besides, technically, it's still "summer" for 2/3rds of September, so what's another extra couple of weeks to accommadate a very feasible, non-despot bid. And with the way the internet & media streaming services are evolving leaps & bounds over the years, is NBC (or any of the other traditional networks, for that matter) even going to be that significant by the time 2032 rolls around anyway. Perhaps by then, it's one of those streaming services that will bank roll the IOC's viewing sponsorship revenues.

[Quaker2001]

35 minutes ago, FYI said:

Frankly, I think that some are making too big a deal about the time-.window. If it's in the IOC's best interest, they will make an exception, as we saw this year with the double 2024/2028 allocation, even after many were citing all of the "cons" if the IOC did that. I don't hear people making a big fuss when the Winter Olympics are held in February. I know it's the Winter Olympics, but what's the difference in viewership watching the Olympics in February VS watching them in September or October, besides not really much.

Besides, technically, it's still "summer" for 2/3rds of September, so what's another extra couple of weeks to accommadate a very feasible, non-despot bid. And with the way the internet & media streaming services are evolving leaps & bounds over the years, is NBC (or any of the other traditional networks, for that matter) even going to be that significant by the time 2032 rolls around anyway. Perhaps by then, it's one of those streaming services that will bank roll the IOC's viewing sponsorship revenues.

Yea, the time window is not a big deal.  It's not as if anyone like a TV network would make a big fuss or threaten a lawsuit about shifting a time window.  Oh wait, no..  that's EXACTLY what it's like.. FIFA admits it gave 2026 World Cup to Fox to avoid a lawsuit, knew it would lose money on deal

More on that in a sec.  I get that something unprecedented happened with the double award.  Can we not use that as an excuse to try and bend the rules elsewhere?  Because that's starting to sound a little like "this city is comparable to Atlanta" for which some other poster I believe said in this very thread "Why do some people continue to think that's actually some sort of acceptable gauge to go by."  If you can think of a scenario where it's in the IOC's best interests to make an exception, put that out there.  But be prepared to have that thought challenge.  Which leads me back to the original point..

You really think there's no difference between February and September/October?  That's extremely ignorant.  NBC is already hyping up the Winter Olympics, but they're going to make the big push for that in the fall and in January.  When it's cold in most of the Northern hemisphere and these athletes are competing.  Good luck hyping Winter athletes in July and August (are they even going to be competing then) and then trying to sell the Olympics in September and October when there's this thing called football going on.  That's what's a killer for Fox where a June/July World Cup means the network and their schedules are wide open to show games.  During football season, not so much.  Guess who is going to win that battle.. hint: it wouldn't be the World Cup.  Same deal if NBC had to choose between football and the Olympics.  They'll fight tooth and nail to avoid that happening and maybe they don't have the power to prevent something like that, but that's where the "best interests of the IOC" will come into play since that involves NBC.

As for the "will NBC be significant 15 years from now," we've heard claims for years about the impending death of traditional television.  It's not happening anytime soon.  The NBC's and ESPN's of the world have billions upon billions of dollars invested in sports rights.  Even if NBC as an over-the-air television network is not as significant then as they are now and internet/media streaming services start to replace them, guess who still owns the rights to those Olympics?  That would be NBC.  And they've built it into their deals that their contract gives them rights to the Olympics in any format, both existing and not yet existent.  The IOC already sold that to NBC, so it's not like they can take that back at this point.  Is it possible rights from another country could increase percentage-wise relative to what NBC is offering?  Sure, but considering the considerable piece of the pie NBC has one that one now, I don't think a major shift to that extent is on the horizon.

[Barcelona_'92]

As arrogant as the IOC is about their product, when push comes to shove, I would bet that they do not want to go up against the NFL, college football, baseball playoffs, and everything else that competes for time in September and October in the U.S. and elsewhere.  The IOC wants the Summer Games to take place when they'll be primary focus of the sporting world, and that's July and August.

Let's not forget that the October timeframe was the primary reason Doha did not make the short list for 2016, even though its bid technically outranked several of the cities that did make the short list.

[Quaker2001]

15 minutes ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

As arrogant as the IOC is about their product, when push comes to shove, I would bet that they do not want to go up against the NFL, college football, baseball playoffs, and everything else that competes for time in September and October in the U.S. and elsewhere.  The IOC wants the Summer Games to take place when they'll be primary focus of the sporting world, and that's July and August.

Let's not forget that the October timeframe was the primary reason Doha did not make the short list for 2016, even though its bid technically outranked several of the cities that did make the short list.

Yes.  I don't know what the sporting calendars look like in other countries, less this is all about the United States and NBC and their wants and desires.  We've seen events move out of the way of the Olympics (i.e. the Academy Awards), but the IOC needs to be careful about clashing with other events and their calendar if they were to move.

To FYI's point, if it was in the best interests for the IOC to do that, they wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger.  But part of that equation is what it means for visibility in a country like the United States, which is obviously their most lucrative market.  The Winter Olympics fall in a nice little gap between the end of football season and the NCAA Tournament.  The Summer Olympics (like the World Cup, save for 2022) stand alone and are in a time period where otherwise it would be difficult for TV networks and other media outlets to have an audience.  That's why Summer Olympics rights are worth more than the Winter Olympics.  It is not inconceivable that a bid outside the normal timeframe could win.  But if Qatar's original pitch for 2022 hadn't included the promise of air-conditioned stadiums and had said from the start their World Cup wouldn't be during the usual timeframe, not only do I think they wouldn't have won, but that bid may or may not have been given serious consideration in the first place.

[FYI]

And then four years later, the IOC said it was "okay" for Doha to bid for 2020 with those same October dates. But then still didn't short-list them again. 

Boha was eliminated (both times) from further contention bcuz it had more to do that they're Doha-hah & less to do with the "dates". The 'preferred time-window' was just a conveinient excuse to tell them "thanks, but no thanks".  

[FYI]

37 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I get that something unprecedented happened with the double award.  Can we not use that as an excuse to try and bend the rules elsewhere?  Because that's starting to sound a little like "this city is comparable to Atlanta" for which some other poster I believe said in this very thread "Why do some people continue to think that's actually some sort of acceptable gauge to go by."  If you can think of a scenario where it's in the IOC's best interests to make an exception, put that out there.  But be prepared to have that thought challenge. 

Bcuz simply comparing Brisbane to "Atlanta" is *not* in the IOC's best interest. Whereas choosing a very well qualified Melbourne bid over the likes of Daku-koo, or Putin-ville or China yet again (for example), *is* in the IOC's best interest. Which I thought was already "put out there".

45 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Good luck hyping Winter athletes in July and August (are they even going to be competing then) and then trying to sell the Olympics in September and October when there's this thing called football going on.  

I knew that football was going to be brought up, but September & October is still early in the NFL season to watch every single game, unless one is a true die-hard fan (but that's not everyone). But what I think is more detrimental to NBC from an Aussie Games is the big time difference. But that still hasn't stopped the IOC from giving the Games to Beijing 2008, PyeongChang 2018, Tokyo 2020 & Beijing 2022 (albeit, this one wasn't really by "choice", too much). 

[Quaker2001]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

I knew that football was going to be brought up, but September & October is still early in the NFL season to watch every single game, unless one is a true die-hard fan (but that's not everyone). But what I think is more detrimental to NBC from an Aussie Games is the big time difference. But that still hasn't stopped the IOC from giving the Games to Beijing 2008, PyeongChang 2018, Tokyo 2020 & Beijing 2022 (albeit, this one wasn't really by "choice", too much). 

Once again, that first sentence is really ignorant.  The NFL is a behemoth in this country.  If the Olympics go up against that, they're going to lose a massive amount of viewers.  Doesn't matter that it's early in the season.  There are still tens of millions of people watching those games.  Many of whom might otherwise watch the Olympics if they're on when there's no other competition.  Not so much if there is.  That's a losing proposition for the Olympics and one they'll try to avoid if they can.

As to the 2nd part.. every other Asia/Pacific Olympics except for Sydney has featured live coverage in primetime.  NBC even convinced Korea to go to Daylight Savings Time in 1988 to accommodate them.  Granted, NBC pulled higher ratings from London than they did from Beijing, so maybe that says something about live in primetime.

[Quaker2001]

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

Bcuz simply comparing Brisbane to "Atlanta" is *not* in the IOC's best interest. Whereas choosing a very well qualified Melbourne bid over the likes of Daku-koo, or Putin-ville or China yet again (for example), *is* in the IOC's best interest. Which I thought was already "put out there".

I knew that football was going to be brought up, but September & October is still early in the NFL season to watch every single game, unless one is a true die-hard fan (but that's not everyone). But what I think is more detrimental to NBC from an Aussie Games is the big time difference. But that still hasn't stopped the IOC from giving the Games to Beijing 2008, PyeongChang 2018, Tokyo 2020 & Beijing 2022 (albeit, this one wasn't really by "choice", too much). 

What's with all the quotes?  Why do "Atlanta" and "put out there" need quotes?  This is my image of you right now 

[FYI]

15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Once again, that first sentence is really ignorant.  The NFL is a behemoth in this country.  If the Olympics go up against that, they're going to lose a massive amount of viewers.  Doesn't matter that it's early in the season.  There are still tens of millions of people watching those games.  Many of whom might otherwise watch the Olympics if they're on when there's no other competition.  Not so much if there is.  That's a losing proposition for the Olympics and one they'll try to avoid if they can.

You asked what scenario could make the IOC make an exception. So that's what I did (which also was already "put out there"). But if you want to continue on your NBC/NFL jabber, then be my guest. 

Yeah, the NFL is "yuuggeee"  in this country, but I'd venture to say that the caliber of sport viewers that watch the Olympics are not quite the same as the ones who watch football anyway.

[FYI]

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What's with all the quotes?  Why do "Atlanta" and "put out there" need quotes?  This is my image of you right now 

Actually, "is & not" weren't in quotations, but rather *asteriks*. So I suggest that you get your prescription lenses readjusted! 

And BTW, "this is my image of you right now". 

 

 

[Quaker2001]

7 hours ago, FYI said:

You asked what scenario could make the IOC make an exception. So that's what I did (which also was already "put out there"). But if you want to continue on your NBC/NFL jabber, then be my guest. 

And I'm poking some holes in that "scenario".  Better yet, I'm putting an asterisk next to it.  You call it jabber, but tell that to Fox who used that as a basis of a lawsuit, and it obviously wasn't an idle threat since FIFA caved and handed them the 2026 rights, which looks like an incredibly bad decision at this point.  So yea, I'm not disagreeing with your "best interests" claim.  There's a cost/benefit analysis at play here where you can't ignore the NFL aspect of all this.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Yeah, the NFL is "yuuggeee"  in this country, but I'd venture to say that the caliber of sport viewers that watch the Olympics are not quite the same as the ones who watch football anyway.

What else that even mean?  The "caliber" of sport viewers?  There's more crossover between those 2 groups than you probably think.  If we're talking about 2 or 3 nights where the Olympics and NFL might clash, that's a pretty big percentage of a 17 day event that's affected.  Either way, there are only so many eyeballs and ad dollars out there.  That's a lose-lose for both sides if there's an Olympics during football season, so that best interests link of thinking needs to account for that and you can be sure it would come up before the bid, not after.

[Barcelona_'92]

With Monday, Thursday, and Sunday Night Football, the Olympics and the NFL would clash on 7 of 17 nights of the Games, 3 of which would be a conflict on NBC itself.  The Olympics would also clash with college football on 3 Saturdays, and that draws a lot of viewers as well.

Football is a bigger behemoth now than it was in 2000, and NBC wasn't an NFL rights holder in 2000.  The Olympics will come out on the losing end if it clashes with the NFL, and there is no way NBC wants a scheduling conflict between its two biggest properties.

 

[baron-pierreIV]

The thing though w/ Olympics telecasts insofar as the US market is concerned are that it really hits the big numbers only if the US team/star athlete are in the finals of:

Summer sports: swimming, gymnastics, basketball, diving, T&F, maybe beach volleyball.  But anything else -- and if it's other nations, I don't think the viewing numbers hit the peak.  And how many nights are there for those top 6 sports? 

Same thing for the Winters: Figure skating, ice hockey, some alpine skiing?.  But I guess for the WOGs, since most people are stuck inside during the cold days, they are apt to watch whatever's on during the WOGs.  (People watch Curling to see the Norwegian men's team choice of trousers!)  

Plus, NBC-Comcast-Universal has 4 regular cable platforms now: NBC-HD, NBCSports, MSNBC and the Olympic Channel.  I can barely keep up with those 4 --and of course, I don't watch football (except a few times watching the USM Soccer team) nor baseball, nor golf,  

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

With Monday, Thursday, and Sunday Night Football, the Olympics and the NFL would clash on 7 of 17 nights of the Games, 3 of which would be a conflict on NBC itself.  The Olympics would also clash with college football on 3 Saturdays, and that draws a lot of viewers as well.

Football is a bigger behemoth now than it was in 2000, and NBC wasn't an NFL rights holder in 2000.  The Olympics will come out on the losing end if it clashes with the NFL, and there is no way NBC wants a scheduling conflict between its two biggest properties.

It's not so much that it's a bigger behemoth so much as there's more of it on TV now than there was in 2000.  Back then, you had Sunday afternoons and Monday nights.  Sunday nights were something of an afterthought.  Now like you said, there's 3 nights a week.  There's NFL Network.  RedZone on Sunday.  Not to mention an absurd amount of college football all day and all night on multiple networks on Saturdays.

Again, it's not just the Olympics that lose out.  Everyone loses, including the NFL and their constituents.  I'm sure a certain other poster will continue to dismiss this as nonsense.  The IOC will not be able to ignore it though.

[Quaker2001]

22 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

The thing though w/ Olympics telecasts insofar as the US market is concerned are that it really hits the big numbers only if the US team/star athlete are in the finals of:

Summer sports: swimming, gymnastics, basketball, diving, T&F, maybe beach volleyball.  But anything else -- and if it's other nations, I don't think the viewing numbers hit the peak.  And how many nights are there for those top 6 sports? 

Same thing for the Winters: Figure skating, ice hockey, some alpine skiing?.  But I guess for the WOGs, since most people are stuck inside during the cold days, they are apt to watch whatever's on during the WOGs.  (People watch Curling to see the Norwegian men's team choice of trousers!)  

Plus, NBC-Comcast-Universal has 4 regular cable platforms now: NBC-HD, NBCSports, MSNBC and the Olympic Channel.  I can barely keep up with those 4 --and of course, I don't watch football (except a few times watching the USM Soccer team) nor baseball, nor golf,  

Don't forget about CNBC and USA!  Not to mention both Bravo and the Golf Channel which have extensive Olympic coverage.

You're right that viewership tends to go up with big name Americans (or Usain Bolt) are featured.  Well, from Rio, how many nights didn't feature 1 of those?  Not many.  Swimming and gymnastics covered the first week.  Bolt and beach volleyball had a good chunk of the 2nd week.  It's tough to keep everyone's attention for 17 straight nights with 4 hours of primetime every night, not to mention all the cable coverage.  And that swimming and gymnastics are the marquee events of the Summer Olympics in the U.S. (diving has lost its luster and let's see what happens with track & field when Bolt is gone), viewers tend to get burned out by the end so viewership will drop off.

That all said, the Olympics are not going to schedule around the NFL and I don't think the NFL will try to schedule around the Olympics.  Up until a few years ago, they didn't have a Sunday night game on the weekend it would clash with the World Series.  Now they do and they aren't afraid to go straight up against it.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Of course we must also consider the fact that come 2032 NBC may not hold any NFL rights... As we saw with the last negotiations - Fox, CBS and ESPN all paid considerably more for their portion of the rights - and come the next negotiation round (2022 I believe?) NBC may not even be in the running.

Also lets throw in the fact that NFL ratings were down 8% last season (with only the blockbuster matches/finals netting more than 25 million viewers out of a population of 300 million+) and we'll see if NBC and the NFL are even an issue in the future.  It may be that NBC are more than happy to try to steal the thunder from the other networks.

source - http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/nfl-tv-ratings-viewership-nbc-cbs-fox-espn-nfln-regular-season-playoffs/