True, but that is due to circular logic.
They're the top draw because fans are so familiar with them, and so heavily marketed & advertised.
Fans are familiar with them because they are on so often.
Rinse, lather repeat.
It's similar to when a mediocre-at-best song gets played over and over again, then people become familiar with it, so it becomes 'popular' and best-selling, and then back to step one, being played over and over again.
I'm not complaining about lack of prime time games for the Patriots; I much prefer an afternoon game.
Besides being a Pats fan, I am also an NFL fan.
Because I am an NFL fan, I want to see the best football games each and every week.
That means zero Cowboys-Giants games, or some similar slop - especially when it is the one and only game available in that time slot.
7-9-1 teams that haven't done squat in 30 years deserve to be on as seldom as possible.
Rehashing a worn out inferior product works when masked by other forces (the NFL's overall popularity), but providing a superior quality product (best possible games) is a better long term strategy.
Fans/consumers will adapt, as they do with any other product. Think back to the early post-merger Steelers; previously nearly 40 years with only one playoff appearance (a shutout loss), then immense nationwide popularity - because they were winning, and had great teams.
At one time New England football fans were force fed an inferior product (the New York Giants) on television. People watched - because for the most part it was the Giants or no NFL at all, and again, familiarity. The ratings were good due to a near-monopoly on the airwaves, not the quality of the play.
When the Patriots are not on, I want good matchups, with good teams. If the NFL and networks invest a bit by showcasing these other, better teams, it will pay off in the long run, in their never-ending quest for increased revenue.