Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The National Football League and one of its broadcast partners are fond of asking if we, the TV sports-addicted public, are ready for some football. The answer is, almost always, a resounding yes.

The NFL, however, would be wise to ask a follow-up question this time around: Are we willing to pay more, each and every month, to our cable operators for that privilege. The answer should be no.

Enough is enough.

The NFL tomorrow night begins broadcasting live games on its television channel, the NFL Network. The Denver Broncos (7-3) and Kansas City Chiefs (6-4) kick things off in a matchup that, on a scale of 1-10, rates a 7.

As things stand, it's the only matchup in the NFL Network's eight-game broadcast schedule that will involve two teams with winning records. Perhaps the more appropriate query is: Are you ready for some mediocre football?

``Unfortunately, the NFL Network does not have a strong schedule,'' says Barry Frank, a senior vice president with International Management Group, a Cleveland-based sports, entertainment and media agency. ``There's no game that people are going to tear the cable operators housing down if they don't see it.''

In other words, the NFL Network doesn't qualify as must-see TV, a catchphrase once used by NBC to describe a Thursday night lineup that included ``Seinfeld'' and ``Friends.''

The NFL is banking on football fans needing more than just all of Sunday and Monday night to satisfy their football craving.

Surprise

I think the most successful U.S. sports league is in for a surprise.

This, of course, is about money. The NFL Network is available in about 41 million homes via cable and satellite agreements. Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN, by comparison, reaches more than 90 million.

Here's the lowdown:

The NFL wants cable operators such as Time Warner, Cablevision and Comcast to carry the network as a basic channel, requiring all customers -- even those who have never heard of Bill Parcells -- to pay for it.

The cable companies want the network placed on what's called a digital tier, meaning only those who want more football would have to fork over more money. It's sort of like HBO. You want it, pay for it.

The NFL could have sold its Thursday/Saturday night package of games for somewhere in the neighborhood of $400 million. They aimed higher, though.

Rate Increases

According to published reports, the NFL wants to boost the amount it charges cable operators each month to about 70 cents per subscriber, up from about 20 cents.

That would mean the NFL would reap about $9.5 million a month just from Time Warner, which has 13.5 million subscribers.

The NFL Network's asking price would put it among the top five most-expensive basic channels, says Time Warner spokesman Mark Harrad.

``Yet their ratings are not even in the top 35,'' Harrad says. ``The pricing is way out of whack with the value proposition we think it delivers our customers.''

ESPN, the most expensive basic cable channel, charges operators about $3 per subscriber a month. And it's worth every penny.

Seth Palansky, a spokesman for the NFL Network, wouldn't disclose the league's asking price except to say that it's ``the price of a Midwest movie ticket.''

Value Question

It's a question of value.

The National Basketball Association has its own network, too. NBA TV is on a digital sports tier, where hoops die-hards can pay for it.

Kevin Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has said a la carte style programming choices would allow consumers to save money and avoid programming they find objectionable.

He declines to mention that it would trim their channel options in the process.

I don't watch C-SPAN, but I subsidize those who do. And that's fine. Without a shared approach, the channel probably couldn't stay afloat.

That isn't true of the NFL Network.

Ho-Hum

Ultimately, customers will decide.

If enough football fans can't live without another eight ho- hum games, then the operators will surrender.

You'll pay. I'll pay. My mother, who likes to say that she enjoys watching Peyton Manning throw home runs, will pay, too.

Marc Ganis, president of SportsCorp Ltd., a Chicago-based consulting firm, sees it playing out that way. After all, as he points out, 90 of the top 100-rated cable programs have been NFL games.

``Football fans won't understand why they aren't getting these games,'' Ganis says. ``They're going to be passionate about it. You must give the people what they want.''

True, but people want sensible cable bills, too.

Maybe all this posturing from the NFL and cable operators is just that. Maybe they will find middle ground.

Or maybe, just maybe, even the fanatics will wake up to the gouging and say they aren't ready for more football.

(Scott Soshnick is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Scott Soshnick in New York at ssoshnick@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 22, 2006 00:09 EST