One could write about 14,000 words trying to describe the dispute between the NFL Network and cable operators that may leave fans scrambling for a way to watch some pretty compelling upcoming games. I tried to boil the whole issue down in less than 1,000 words, which you can read here.

At the core of the debate is the cable companies' decision to put the NFL Network on a special sports tier, rather than the expanded basic or digital tier that most fans subscribe to. The NFL sees the move as an attempt to marginalize the network, but the cable companies argue that they're simply looking for a way to offer the channel without passing on additional expenses to cable providers.

I spoke to some fans to try and get a sense of whether anyone would upgrade to a sports tier just to get the NFL Network, and found few who said they would. The fans reasoned that the network's eight games, while compelling, did not justify paying $5 a month or more. They also argued that the network's other programming was not all that different than NFL-related shows on ESPN and other networks.

"Any way you look at it, I'm not going to shell out extra money to Comcast or the NFL for one game (or even eight games), despite the potential implications," said Kenneth Levin, a Patriots fan and medical researcher living in Baltimore.

What's interesting is that while some fans said they would not upgrade to a sports tier on the grounds that the cable companies were in the wrong, most fans I spoke to said the NFL Network itself was simply not worth the money. Which, one could argue, validates the cable companies' argument that the NFL is asking to much in a license fee.

"I don't care for much of the day to day programming and their coverage of the games last season had poor production value," said Greg Zook, a Patriots fan living in Oregon, who watches the NFL Network on a basic tier offered by satellite provider DirecTV. "If I had to pay extra for the NFL games, I wouldn't do it. Maybe in a few years when they improve their product, I'd consider it."

Levin said that despite a less-than-favorable view of the cable industry, the NFL is on the wrong side of this dispute.

"I'd blame the NFL," he said. "The cable companies - as much as I don't like them because of how much they charge - I don't see how the NFL can charge them so much for what's essentially ESPNews with about 24 hours worth of games [per year.]"