Yow. Beats Questek all hollow for stupid.

Though the bit with the sprinter the other day getting ejected on a TV-inspired false-start rule comes close. TV needs a good bitchslapping for messing with sports it doesn't understand.

What sort of suit could be filed? I understand the NFL has an exception under federal antitrust law (hence salary caps and all sorts of other policies in restraint of trade). Is there a Texas antitrust law that they don't have an exception from?

Phil, I don't have any idea. I just know that when I hear the words "gentlemen's agreement" in this context, it sets off bells. Besides, I never underestimate a pissed-off sports fan. :-)

As far as radio broadcasts are concerned, it makes sense that the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't be available in Houston and the Texans in Dallas. Those fans wanting to hear out of town broadcasts can pay $34.95 for the season to hear any game over the Internet.

A good comparison would be with Philadelphia and New York. Although they are seperated by less than 100 miles (less than 60 from my house), you can't get Eagles broadcasts in the New York market. This also applies to television, unless it's a national game or the Eagles are playing either the Giants or Jets.

As for the taunting rule, if you think it's bad in the NFL, try any college sport for a real zero-tolerance policy. I've seen calls made in football (15 yards), basketball (technical foul) and hockey (2 minutes - unsportsmanlike conduct) for taunting. The policy for NFL referees has become the same as NHL referees, baseball umpires, and soccer referees: Once they are on the field, they are in control of what happens, even if it is before the start of play.

These days, "Yo Mama!" should be a 15 yard penalty for a lame taunt. I tend to think that today's players use more colorful language than that. ;)

I seem to recall that baseball is the only major sport with an antitrust exemption, which is why they guard it so jealously. Wasn't that why the USFL was able to come into being?

"I seem to recall that baseball is the only major sport with an antitrust exemption, which is why they guard it so jealously. Wasn't that why the USFL was able to come into being?"

You are correct about baseball being the only sport with an anti-trust exemption. The USFL won its' lawsuit (and $3) against the NFL on that basis.

Gentlemen's agreements usually have very few gentlemen involved. This is especially true anytime Clear Channel is involved.

The comment about the Raiders is priceless. I'm curious - if a player gets ejected before play begins, did he actually play in the game?

Mr. Hughes: With all due respect, a good comparison would not be with Philadelphia and New York. This is Texas. The Dallas Cowboys are popular across all of Texas, and yes, even in Houston. The Oilers never had that kind of appeal across the state, and the Texans don't right now. The Cowboys are bigger than a local/regional draw, and have been on the radio a LONG time in Houston, and all across the state. And would be on the radio this year if not for this little agreement.

As for the (streaming) NFL Field Pass, you're mistaken. They don't broadcast every NFL game, and in fact many Dallas games are missing from their broadcast schedule. The Cowboys Radio Network does not even participate in it, which means those weeks the Cowboys are covered (maybe half the season from a cursory glance), I would be stuck listening to the radio network of Cowboys opponents instead of Brad Sham or a national crew. I think I'll keep the $34.95, thank you.

The Cowboys Radio people say they'll be back in Houston next year. Meanwhile, I'll steal Beaumont's signal and be thankful the Cowboys have appeal outside their metro area.

It absolutely amazes me that the NFL would charge $35 to listen to NFL games. Not watch a video feed, but just listen to the game. There is no reason why this shouldn't be free other than pure greed. Here is the link of an online petition, if anyone is interested.

http://www.petitiononline.com/NFLaudio/petition.html

Thanks,

Greg