It just reeks of desperation to try and give some credibility to make a Thursday night package work that, in any of its guises, hasn't really been a massive success over the past decade.

Would depend on the situation, the clause in the deal is that the network uses its No 1 broadcast team, so if by putting Tirico and Flutie on SNF they were saying that they were the lead team then the deal would mean having to use them on TNF

According to an e-mail NFLUK have sent out overnight Redzone on Sky Sports Mix is only a four week deal

Sorry to ask, as I'm sure this had been answered already, but the search function doesn't work and I don't fancy reading through 55 pages to find the answer...

Which UK PSB (if any) is showing SNF this year?

None. SNF is exclusive to Sky, although they showed late season SNF games on Sky 1 last season and some 6pm games on Pick TV as well as Sky Sports.

The freeview coverage for 2016 is live London games, weekly highlights and the Super Bowl live, all on BBC.

Wow, No-one is taking the 1am Sunday night / Monday morning game any more? That's a shame. It's been quite a few years since that has happened.

Sky has them. Same as last season.

SNF was on Channel 4 in 2014, but no one was interested last year so a late deal was reached with Sky which included having the final weeks of the season on Sky 1.

That was just a two-year deal, as opposed to the five-year one for everything else on Sky, presumably to give Sky some stability but give them the chance to look for a new FTA partner.

But 1:30am games are not particularly appealing to most broadcasters. And less so with the BBC having the International Series and Super Bowl. And other than Channel 4 or ITV (for ITV4) you are only left with the newer Freeview channels with much smaller budgets as potential buyers.

Any news on who will be presenting on Sky this season?

I was wondering if Kev would be back after his many non appearances last season and only occasional playoff presenting duties and no Super bowl for him, it seemed very disjointed at the back end of last season. I heard he had been chastised for peddling his autobiography on the thanksgiving programme, i didn't see it as i was away, so i wasn't sure if that were true or not.

I would be surprised if Dara got the gig as she didn't seem the best fit when filling in for him.

I would like to see Neil hosting with a guest summariser every week, obviously Jeff is unavailable until his Canadian duties are finished with in late November, i think Neil is best suited to a presenters role rather than an analyst and with three guys in there, there sometimes isn't the time to talk in between breaks, i think that Neil brings less to the table analysing than an ex player such as Gayle or coach as in Reinbold, however that is just a personal preference.

Neil is perfectly suited to his NFL UK cheerleading role as a presenter and i think the suits at the NFL UK love him for that, maybe though it is time to cut out the fake tweets we saw last season and the banging of the drum for a UK franchise, which i cannot see happening, although i have been proven wrong on many occasions!

I think the Sky NFL programming could do with a refresh or rebrand as their studio coverage goes, so with maybe here is the opportunity if the presenting duties change.

A brand new more relaxed studio, say sofas, would be a good start.

They must not ever any more over-talk coverage as they go back from breaks. They must show pre-game interviews and coverage from the field. Don't go to the game as the kicker kicks the ball.

In addition, show Redzone in HD every week. Have a highlights show of the weekends games on a Monday night. Then add in some news coverage during the week.

Sounds good but alas i don't expect miracles like that!

A new set is easy to do, but that seems too much like hard work to those at Sky.

Pre game coverage from the field cuts into valuable time promoting London games, less time showing Neil interviewing London bound players, coaches etc during his training camp visits, so that is a certain no no.

A highlights show seems a given and easy to edit with their NFL network coverage, so why hasn't it happened yet? The same reason it probably won't happen in the future, they treat the NFL as filler and a niche sport and so probably think they give it extensive enough coverage as it is.

News coverage during the week is unlikely, unless it is promoting the London games with clips of NFL players at Spurs training ground throwing a ball to Harry Kane etc, eats into their valuable time on Sky Sports News of analysing a Wayne Rooney hair transplant or Mourinho and Wenger calling each other names in press conferences, i.e. it ain't happening, and i am a huge soccer fan anyway.

Your suggestions are more than reasonable, but don't expect radical changes like that, a new presenter is radical enough for Sky!

I'm fortunate in that i watch most of my sports online, with native broadcasts on the relevant networks, so i aren't that bothered by the fact that Sky treat the NFL as cheap programme filler and for me stand still if not go backwards with their coverage.

Apart from live game coverage, Sky don't seem to show much interest in the NFL and seem to lack any initiative to innovate their coverage over here, which is the total opposite of what NBC have done in the States with their coverage of the EPL.

I'd love BT to come in and pick up some Sunday evening rights in addition or to replace Sky, but sadly i don't see it happening, it would shake things up if it did.

The last thing we need is someone like BT coming in and taking some of the coverage and force people to pay for two subscriptions for sports channels. How anyone can think that is a good idea is beyond me.

Yeah true, never thought of two subscription charges for those who have to pay. Another broadcaster might make Sky up their game, that is all I really meant.

Although I am sure that there are some who already pay for multiple packages with BT and premier sports in addition to Sky.
If you're an NHL, NBA, MLB or college sports fan, you are a bit out of luck if just rely on Sky.

Way of the world now I'm afraid.

It would be a disaster. All BT have done with soccer is make people get 2 subscriptions which now cost more than they should because they've ramped the price up so much.

Surely if you follow College football then that is the case anyway. Would be better if it was all on BT.

Don't blame BT (or ESPN, Setanta before them), blame the greedy Premier League that caused this by continuing to tender rights so no one broadcaster can have them all. The directive that originally forced them to do this has long since expired but they realised that splitting rights created a bidding war and more money for them.

Actually best solution for all would be someone like Eurosport or Premier Sports to take the all the NFL rights where their costs are not inflated by over valued football rights.

No it wouldn't.

Except then you need a third subscription (or have to pay more to Sky for a wider than basic package).

Would be good for me as BT have great US sports coverage - far greater in depth than Sky do with NFL. They have highlight shows, daily news programming, US half time intervals etc...

My point is that if it was all on Eurosport or Premier then you not have to have the overpriced Sky Sports.

Anyway it's less of an issue now as the playoffs are now included on Game pass making it worth subscribing too.

That's only true if the NFL/all you want to see is on the one platform.

You want NFL, CF, NASCAR, NHL, MLB? You already need at least three subscriptions. Having NFL move to Eurosport doesn't help things.

But isn't that the way it is always going to be moving forward nowadays?

I'd love all sports to be under one umbrella of a network, with numerous sports channels for overspill and only have to pay a minimal subscription, but haven't them days long gone with Richard Scudamore getting networks to bid against each other and pay the now vastly inflated prices for Premier League football, what is it this season £11 million per game i believe, for games such as WBA versus Middlesbrough, no disrespect to those clubs.

Sky pay a fortune for Premier League rights and everything else plays second fiddle and of course BT got in the act with their mammoth Champions League rights deal, so the costs to us aren't going anywhere other than up, hence why Sky offer lucrative deals to stop people cancelling.

The cost will always be passed onto the consumer whether we like it or not. Cable and satellite prices in the US and Canada for extra packages rather than the basic TV are even more expensive than here if you want to be covered for everything.

Now there is so much more we can watch compared to say 15 to 20 years ago, sadly it is also a lot more expensive to do so!

Why should it be?

Why should broadcasters be permitted to have exclusive ownership of matches, going forward? Surely real competition would involve different networks showing the same match and you choosing between them. As with soccer rights, increasing the number of games available on broadcast TV doesn't improve the level of competitive choice for the consumer, it just ratchets up the price.

I agree, but who can challenge it?

Maybe the only answer ultimately is for customers to stop subscribing, therefore forcing the hand of the broadcasters, but are the majority going to do that?

I don't have the answers, but as long as these companies play within the rules or get them bent to suit them, i don't see how it can be stopped.

Football rights in this country is the main/only cash cow for them.

There is a simple solution, give Mr Murdoch, BT etc.. the two fingers and don't subscribe and pay these inflated prices.

I blame them and the people subscribed to SKY in the 1990s and fuelled the beast that we have today. I've said it before if they could buy the rights to air we breath and sell it back to us they would.