8 replies to this topic

[warthog]

Instead of posting different articles on all of the blackouts NFL teams are facing nowadays, I am just going to make one thread to put all of this in. This is a peeve of mine.

As I've said before, and I've been on this soap box a lot, I don't like the way the current blackout situation is set up. The blackout rule is archaic and needs to be redone. Back in the day, when there was not much options for entertainment on television, this worked. Now if the fans are not interested enough to go to the stadium, they will not care if it is on TV. This will only hurt the local TV affiliate that carries the home team, not the fan. Also, it is very unfair to make teams sell out their stadium to avoid blackouts. This really hurts the teams that have the bigger capacity stadiums. If you have the same sell out rule for St. Louis that you do for Dallas, it hurts the bigger stadium such as Dallas or Arrowhead.

The only way around this is to take the lowest capacity stadium, and that is Chicago's Soldier Field at 61,500 and make that the number to reach for all NFL teams. Why is it fair that Chicago can avoid a blackout by selling 61,500 tickets and the Chiefs are penalized if they only sell 61,500 because their stadium seats 78,000? It isn't. The Chiefs, the Jags, the Vikings, everyone should have 61,500 as the set number. I don't see how the NFL bigwigs can't see that.

Like I said, with entertainment choices that fans now have with all of the other games,the Red Zone, the NFL ticket, and just all of the different entertainment choices people have, this whole blackout rule should be tossed out the window.

[warthog]

Top-five team faces possible blackouts
Posted by Mike Florio on November 4, 2009 11:54 AM ET

Most of the actual and threatened blackouts this year have occurred in connection with teams however at or below .500.

But there's now a team residing among the league's elite that faces a large chunk of unsold tickets.

The Vikings have the coming weekend off. Thereafter, they host the Lions and the Seahawks. According to John Holler of VikingUpdate.com, 4,000 tickets remain for November 15 against Detroit, and 3,500 are unsold for the following Sunday against Seattle.

So even with the Favre factor and a 7-1 start to the season, the Vikings will have to hustle in order to lift the local blackout for games that should result in the home team moving to 9-1 on the year, which would be their best start since 1998.

http://profootballta...ible-blackouts/

[warthog]

I found this article from September, but I think it is still pertinent and he has a lot of the same thoughts I have on this:

NFL: Are blackouts in the Chiefs future!
Submitted by Martin Manley on September 2, 2009

I’m sure you heard the rumblings yesterday. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell reaffirmed the league’s blackout policy. As a result, the Chiefs could easily have a game or two blacked out later in the fall. Let’s say they are 2-10 when they host Buffalo on December 13th or 2-11 when they host Cleveland on December 20th. Let’s say it’s 80 bazillion degrees below zero and the wind chill is a couple bazillion lower than that. Who’s going to be going to Arrowhead? Not me!!! The NFL rule is that you have to have a sell-out (I think that technically means at least 95%) by noon on Thursday for a Sunday game in order to keep it from being zapped off the tube. An extra day may be allowed, but after that… you’re screwed.

I’m as strong a believer as there is in watching a sporting event on TV. I have been to a few games that I’m glad I went – game 6 of the 1985 World Series for one. But, the fact is that 99% of the time I would have been far better off watching it on T.V.

Save a ton on tickets. Save a ton on parking. Save a ton on gas (from where I live anyway). Save a ton on concessions. No lines for the bathroom. You don’t miss a single play. No drunken fans. Instant replay from every angle. Recliner. Perfect temperatures. Flip the channel during commercials. Flip it off if the game sucks. And, I could go on. The point is that I’ll be especially bummed if they blackout the games because it’s the only way I would be watching them anyway.

Of course, fans will say it is unfair and there will be all kinds of consternation about it when/if (and, it’s looking more and more like “when”) it happens. There will be rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. “What about all the tax money we put into that stadium?” Although I won’t like it, it certainly is not “unfair”. It’s a free market, free enterprise. The NFL is a private company and they can do whatever they want. They only have to answer to whether you and I will buy their product. If the bean-counters have determined, that without the viable threat of a blackout, they won’t get enough fans to pay ticket prices, then that’s the way it is.

Kansas City is unlikely to have more than a couple games falling in the forest, but some franchises – like Jacksonville may have several, if not all. San Diego, Detroit, Cleveland and others are all likely to have one or more this season. Fans in those cities will blame the clubs, the NFL, Gordon Gekko, or global warming. But, they won’t blame their neighbor. And, really when it comes down to it, if you can’t blame yourself, you at least have to blame the guy next door.

It’s like anything else. If not enough people watch your favorite TV show, it’s off the air and you don’t have anything to say about it. If not enough people buy building lots on your block, you have weeds everywhere. If not enough people shop at Dillons Grocery stores in JOCO, they close them all and I have to drive to Topeka to get my Miller’s BBQ Beans! We’re all at the mercy of each other’s spending habits. If you don’t want to be someone else's puppet, you have to go live on an island somewhere. Of course, come to think of it, that doesn’t sound too bad!

You might think it is a good idea for the NFL to allow teams to dictate their own blackout policy, but I’m pretty sure I know why that is not the case and why it will likely never be the case. Can you imagine if the Chiefs initiated the blackout themselves? There would be all kinds of movements to boycott them in the future. No, they love not being the “bad guy”. They can always say they had no choice in the matter – that they are a victim, just like you and I.

The biggest negative is the cost to the local television station carrying the game. That’s a lot of lost advertising revenue and it’s air time that is easily sold before Christmas. Worse, when an advertiser finds out that his promotion will not be seen by tens of thousands of targeted customers for the holidays, he’s not likely to come back to you the next week either.

I would really dislike a blackout and I wonder whether the NFL should relax the 95% rule to 90% because of the state of the economy. But, if no decision is the decision they make, they are the ones that have to live with the consequences. And, consequences there may be.

People will not pay an arm and a leg to go see a substandard product – at least not forever. If you further alienate them by not showing it on the tube, you severely reduce the energy level surrounding the team in the community. Take that away and you are only a couple steps from losing interest among tens of thousands of fans. Those fans buy Chiefs memorabilia. They boost ratings for television stations. And, when times are better, they actually buy tickets.

Blackouts are oftentimes referred to as self-fulfilling prophecies (worsening the very problem they are intending to mitigate) and their sister, the law of unintended consequences - causing a struggling team to fail altogether. Of course, this death spiral can be a good thing for the club if their intention is to justify leaving for a better market. The problem is, there may not be a better market. They could be just be shooting themselves in the thigh.

It’s obvious the NFL hasn’t felt (or at least recognized) the economic slowdown. By refusing to augment the rule, they have effectively snubbed their nose at the fan. They don’t believe they have anything to fix. It is a great product, but when times are tough (and I suspect they will get a lot tougher), any product can be done without. If enough of us do without our Sunday Arrowhead fix, all of us will do without. Of course, a few less hours watching horrible football wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Think of all you could do… like shoveling the sidewalk or shopping with the wife…





…Yikes!

http://uponfurtherre...om/?q=node/1425

[greatnessinc]

I feel bad for Channel 5, they usually buy out the rest of the tickets to keep the game on the air. That's gotta be a pretty hefty cost.

[greatnessinc]

As bad as we are, it could be worse. Our games could be blacked out like Jacksonville's games are.

[warthog]

Vikings avoid blackouts
Posted by Michael David Smith on November 10, 2009 7:30 PM ET

Last week there was concern in Minnesota that the Vikings, despite being one of the best teams in the NFL this season, could be at risk of failing to sell out their home games and being blacked out on local television.

But now the Vikings say the next three home games will all be broadcast on local TV.

The Vikings play the next three Sundays at the Metrodome, against the Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks and Chicago Bears. Vikings chief marketing officer Steve LaCroix says the Lions and Seahawks games are "virtual sellouts," and that the Bears game has "very limited" availability.

In other words, the games aren't actually sold out. But they're close enough to being sold out that they'll probably be sold out within 72 hours before kickoff. And if they're not, then the team, the local Fox affiliate and/or local sponsors will work together to make sure any unsold tickets are bought.

The Vikings' last local blackout was in 1997.

http://profootballta...void-blackouts/

[warthog]

Browns avoid blackout
Posted by Mike Florio on November 12, 2009 6:21 PM ET

The Cleveland Browns have announced that Monday night's game against the Ravens has been sold out, and thus will be televised locally.

Area residents are trying to figure out whether that's good news or bad news.

In a release, the Browns attributed the sellout to the combined efforts of the team, ESPN, Bud Light, and FOX affiliate WJW-TV.

In other words, those entities purchased the unsold tickets.

The unusual move here is that the sellout was announced without a 24-hour extension, and a full 24 hours before the Friday night deadline. Teams typically embrace an extension in the hopes that folks who are on the fence will decide to go ahead and buy tickets that otherwise will be bought by sponsors, the team, and/or broadcast partners.

http://profootballta...avoid-blackout/

Totally unnecessary to put these people through all these hoops.

[warthog]

By Mike Florio  Jan 13, 2012, 9:05 PM CST
FCC considers ending the blackout rule


Last month, Senator Sherrod Brown (D.-Ohio) called for the NFL to end its “failed” blackout policy, after said policy successfully had prevented six of seven Bengals home games from being televised in the Cincinnati area.

On Thursday, the FCC decided to seek public comment on the elimination of rules that prevent blacked out games from being televised via cable and satellite operators.  If those rules are eliminated by the FCC, blackouts essentially would end.

Per Richard Sandomir of the New York Times, the NFL’s position is that the blackout policy helps keep all games on free television.  Opponents contend that the league now makes the bulk of its money from the sale of TV rights, and that blacking out games due to the presence of unsold non-premium tickets unfairly prevents consumers from watching the games on television.

The move comes at a time when the NFL is struggling in multiple markets with a chronic inability to sell out stadiums.  In places like Jacksonville, St. Louis, Miami, and San Diego, teams at times are buying, either directly or through sponsors, the unsold tickets at 34 cents on the dollar, which is permitted by league rule.

Ultimately, the issue becomes whether the teams are setting prices accurately.  Every team wants its home games to be televised locally, since the broadcast of a game represents a three-hour infomercial in support of the franchise.  But if teams simply can’t sell out on a consistent basis, the teams need to reduce the prices of the tickets until demand and supply properly intersect, or the teams need to win more games and hope nature will take its course.

Regardless, with each passing cycle of multi-billion-dollar TV contracts, it’s hard not to think that the box office receipts have gone from being the primary source of revenue to a secondary stream of cash, at best.  Games played in stadiums that, for most teams, received direct or indirect public funding should be available for the public to enjoy, regardless of whether the team that plays in the stadium knows how to properly ensure that all tickets to the game have been sold.

Since the NFL supports its desire to expand the regular season to 18 games by saying the fans want it, here’s a chance for the fans to make their wishes known on the blackout rule.

[warthog]

To summarize.

The blackout rule is antiquated and should be abolished. I can see it's usefulness years ago, but not now. All you are hurting with the blackout is the teams local fans and the local network affiliate. For one thing, how is it fair to those teams that have taken the initiative and built bigger seating capacity stadiums? It's not. When Kansas City has to sell 78,000 tickets to avoid a blackout and Chicago has to sell 61,000, how can that be fair? What happens is that the local TV network ends up buying them. If anything, at least make the blackout number uniform to all teams. Set it at 50,000 for everyone, so that it is equal and a fair goal to reach.