TV Blackouts in the NFL

[B-Rich]

Well, this board has been somewhat slow news-wise, and with the culmination of the NFL season upon us, I wanted to start a thread discussion on something I?ve been thinking about a lot lately, that ties into discussions of ?franchise support? and possible franchise relocations-- TV blackouts.

As most of us are aware, a locally-held game is blacked out if it has not sold out 72 hours before kick-off. Occasionally, the team can request a time extension, and local businesses or even the local broadcaster will purchase remaining tickets to ?lift the blackout?.

However, the blackout rules now in place were not always so. Prior to 1973, ALL local games were blacked out, regardless of whether the game was sold out or not. This extended even to games of national importance, such as the Super Bowl. I?ve heard from older co-workers here in metro New Orleans who did not get to watch Super Bowls IV and VI, which were held in Tulane Stadium here in New Orleans. It seems hard to fathom nowadays, but it?s true.

What seems interesting to me, though, is how in the past few years in particular, having games blacked out has been pointed to as an indicator of a team?s lack of support and a justification for possibly moving the franchise. Most recently, we have heard this discussion in regards to the St. Louis Rams and Jacksonville Jaguars. About 10-15 years past, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the New Orleans Saints were referenced, and I can still remember the incredible fact that several years ago the Dolphins did not sell out a home playoff game and in fact had that game blacked out in the Miami area.

It seems to me that this focus on sell-outs and black-outs is going a little far. It seems, almost, like a shift in focus on responsibility from the NFL and teams (put a winning/entertaining product on the field, and the sell-out/blackout problem goes away) to putting the onus on the fans: (What, you had a whole season of blackouts and never sold out your stadium? What kind of fan are you? Don?t you support your team?)

Here?s my perspective, based on personal history. Growing up in the seventies, in New Orleans with the Saints, it was very unusual for local games NOT to be blacked out. The Saints were never above .500 and rarely competitive. When they were competitive, it was a pretty big deal when they sold out and their home games were on TV. When they went 1-15 in 1980, they weren?t on TV and no one felt bad for not selling out the stadium?. Beginning with the Mora years, when they became respectable, each week it was usually a case of nervous anticipation?would they sell out? Would those of us who couldn?t go or who couldn?t afford to go get to watch the game on TV? Almost always, someone or some company would usually buy the last 1,000 or so tickets to prevent a blackout.

Now, since the team?s return post-Katrina, the team has reached the point where all tickets have been sold on a season ticket basis, there is a waiting list for season tickets, and blackouts are unheard of. When I was growing up, the only teams I knew that were like that were Denver and Washington. Now, apparently (according to Wikipedia) those ranks have swelled to include Cleveland, Baltimore, Dallas, Cincinnati, Chicago, Green Bay, New England, the New York Giants, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Seattle. That?s a good portion of the league.

Anyway, what do our board members think? How do the older members remember blackout situations in their hometowns? Are blackouts a fair judge of a whether or not an area deserves to keep a team?

Your thoughts, please.

[OnWis97]

I'm OK with the rule. You want to entice people to go to games. Though I don't like the 72 hours thing. Since all games are telecast anyway, they should be able to put it on locally if it sells out 5 minutes before kickoff.

It's no surprise that worse teams tend to see more blackouts. But it's a tough line to draw between "lacking support" and "team not worthy of support." So I think the rule is fine, though number of blackouts should not necessarily reflect "fan loyalty" etc. for some of the reasons you point out.

[BlueSky]

I'm OK with the rule. You want to entice people to go to games. Though I don't like the 72 hours thing. Since all games are telecast anyway, they should be able to put it on locally if it sells out 5 minutes before kickoff.

It's no surprise that worse teams tend to see more blackouts. But it's a tough line to draw between "lacking support" and "team not worthy of support." So I think the rule is fine, though number of blackouts should not necessarily reflect "fan loyalty" etc. for some of the reasons you point out.

Exactly. A team that is consistently .500 or above not selling out is a whole different animal from a doormat not selling out. Support is a two-way street; the team owes the fans a quality product just as much as the fans owe the team their support.

[Viper]

I'm OK with the rule. You want to entice people to go to games. Though I don't like the 72 hours thing. Since all games are telecast anyway, they should be able to put it on locally if it sells out 5 minutes before kickoff.

I've never understood it either. Why 72 hours and not, say, 24? Actually letting them go right up to kickoff time might make for an interesting pregame-show gimmick, getting local fans to sit through the pregame just to find out if their game gets to be televised or not.

[infrared41]

I get the idea behind the blackout rule but seriously, has anyone here ever not attended a game simply because it was going to be on TV? Maybe it's just me but I can't imagine that whether or not a game is televised really plays that big a role in a fan deciding to go or not.

[The_Admiral]

I never go to games because I can watch them on TV, which is vastly superior to the live experience. The NFL is basically a television program. What's gonna happen to Peyton in the season finale?

[infrared41]

I never go to games because I can watch them on TV, which is vastly superior to the live experience. The NFL is basically a television program. What's gonna happen to Peyton in the season finale?

Same here.

What I should have asked is does a game being on TV really affect attendance enough to make a difference? It doesn't seem to affect baseball or basketball all that much.

[Saintsfan]

I've never really got the whole attitude of the NFL towards TV. Sometimes they seem to bend over backwards for TV, sometimes they seem I dunno worried about it. I'd echo Infrared's comment and go further, how many people initially got into sports by watching it on TV, and then get to games. Seeing some empty seats at a game might make people think 'oh we can get into an NFL game' and try and find out how to buy tickets for the local team? I do agree that very few people who might be inclined to go to a game are going to think 'oh its on TV, I won't bother.'

[NoHoJoe]

Regardless of whether the game sells out or not, the 72 hour blackout rule needs to be done away with.

[Gothamite]

B-Rich, I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The market dynamics of the NFL ten years ago isn't the same as that of today.

It speaks poorly of a market when the team cannot sell out its stadium. Fans should go when the team is good and when the team is terrible (I suffered through many bad Green Bay games in the 1970s and 1980s. If fan support slips because the team is terrible, then local businesses have to step up and carry the burden until fan support recovers.

Now, in particularly bad economic times, we have to cut both companies and fans some slack. But with both of your examples - Jacksonville and St. Louis - the blackouts extend back past the start of the Great Recession and into relatively good economic climates, so that excuse doesn't really wash for those two cities.

Jacksonville brings up another point - if the team is regularly competitive, blackouts are even worse. That's why it's clear the team just can't remain there - it's not a good market.

And how can you not include the Packers on your list of historical sellouts? They've only sold out Lambeau Field since 1960.

[The_Admiral]

There are only eight games a year. You have to make fans go to them. Blackout rule is fine.

[MadmanLA]

I don't like the blackout rule, but I understand it. Let's not forget here...if a home team doesn't sell out, not the only immediate market doesn't the game, but neither does the surrounding markets whose TV signals comes in within 75 miles of that stadium. On Sunday afternoons, the consolation prize for those secondary markets is that usually the network replaces the blacked-out game with other one within that same time slot. For Sunday Ticket subscribers, the home game will be blacked-out regardless of sellout, especially when the game is already locally televised on CBS or Fox.

If anything, the rule should be refined in a way...it should be a 24-hour deadline, like Viper suggested, but one step further. I would put in that if the stadium is no less than 85-percent sold-out by 24 hours prior to the game, then let the game be televised locally.

[GFB]

I hate it.

For example, this past year, Detroit was hit extremely hard economically. People just didn't have the money to go out and buy tickets to see an inferior product like the Lions. When the Lions went to the NFL and asked for some leniency as a special exception, the NFL gave the city of Detroit a big F.U. Some people still ended up going to the games, but that money could have been spent on more necessary things... I think out of the eight home games the Lions had, five were blacked out. And in case you were wondering, we are football die-hards up here... Sundays without watching the Lions (get killed) aren't right.

[quantum]

I have no problem with the blackout rule. After all, it is a business and if that is what motivates people to buy tickets, so be it. Of course, blackout is a foreign term here in Packer country.

[The_Admiral]

Nobody is obligated to buy Lions tickets nor are they entitled to watch Lions telecasts. The whole country's hurting. If Detroit gets special dispensation to air games without a full house, then what about Buffalo? Sure, they always sell out their games, but if Detroit gets to cry poor and get free football, shouldn't they? Oakland's a pit. Cut them a break! Jacksonville's gonna lose their team if they can't watch their games! Foxboro's too fah from fackin' Reveah! You can't expect people to drive all the way out to the boondocks with gas prices like these. Strong cases all; exemptions for everyone.

[Gothamite]

Exactly. When the city's hurting, that's when the business community has to step up.

[Waleslax]

I know it's a little different because it's hockey, but when I moved to Chicago, the fight about the Blackhawks was always that they didn't have fans because they weren't on TV. No one saw them and "out of sight, out of mind." Then Dollar Bill Wirtz dies and his son PAYS to put the team on TV. The next thing you know, fans start showing up. This was before they got good too, so don't give me that argument - the team missed the playoffs that year. The lesson here is that having the team on TV encouraged fans to go to the game.

The next argument I would bring up would be George Steinbrenner paying to have the Yankees on channel 11. He felt that if people watched games, they'd want to go to games, they'd be fans, they'd buy merchandise. Growith up, the Yankees were an awful team (1980's and early 90's), so the fact that their attendance rose would seem to be some proof that people seeing the team on TV led to them wanting to go to games.

Blacking out games seems like a downward cycle:

Owner punishes fans for not showing up - fans may not have another choice but now can't even watch on tv - fans lose interest in team - owner complains about lack of fan support - fans complain about greedy ownership - owner can't get a new arena - fans don't want to pay for a millionaire's arena - owner wants to move citing lack of fan support - fans say "why am I supporting a team that's leaving" ... or something like that.

[The_Admiral]

The Blackhawks weren't bad in 2007-08, just balls-deep in injuries. Then as now, injuring Jonathan Toews pretty much shut everything down. I think at one point they were missing Toews, Havlat, Jason Williams, Wisniewski, Sopel, and like three other guys. Nevertheless, they were gunning for the 8 spot till the last weekend or so. But no sense in splitting hairs over that.

[Gothamite]

The next argument I would bring up would be George Steinbrenner paying to have the Yankees on channel 11. He felt that if people watched games, they'd want to go to games, they'd be fans, they'd buy merchandise. Growith up, the Yankees were an awful team (1980's and early 90's), so the fact that their attendance rose would seem to be some proof that people seeing the team on TV led to them wanting to go to games.

Exactly. If Detroit (to pull an example out of a hat) is having tough economic times, if the fans can't afford tickets, and if the business community isn't willing or able to step up in the name of civic pride, then the Lions need to stop looking at short-term ticket sales and think creatively about building their fanbase for the future.

What's stopping the Lions from, at the last minute, taking all the remaining tickets for a particular game off sale and donating them to kids' groups? It's my understanding that tickets must be allocated, not necessarily used, to avoid the blackout. Or sell discounted tickets in ever-smaller packs, or do group discounts for select games where a dozen guys can pool their money and buy a row of nosebleed seats for half-price? There has to be a way to do this without completely disincentivizing the season ticket holders, they just have to be creative.

We all of us pick on Steinbrenner for his boorish qualities, but the jerk is one hell of a businessman. He knew you had to spend money to make money, and he was willing to do whatever it took to win, even if it meant a temporary hit to his pocketbook. I don't see NFL owners in these struggling markets being willing to do what they sometimes need to do.

So yes, there's plenty of blame to go around when blackouts roll. The fans, local businesses and the team all have to share in it.

[Shmee]

I'll give you an example of why this is such a tough thing to do. Last year, TNA Wrestling held a PPV event at a secondary arena in Charlotte, NC. Tickets were listed as low as $20, awesome incentive for college students to make the trip. Three of my friends and I decided it would be fun to drive up there for the show, and I was put in charge of buying the tickets. Knowing a thing or two about TNA's business model, I was aware that 1) tickets for their normal shows in Orlando are free, and 2) they were playing in a much bigger venue than they usually do. So I waited. Word came out that they were having trouble filling the venue, they issued a promo code, and my friends and I got four tickets for $8 in Ticketmaster fees. We were willing to pay the $20 price if we had to, but we called TNA's bluff and got free tickets for it. If you're willing to admit that your product has no value, then it doesn't.

Conversely, WWE filmed an episode of Raw in the same city a couple months later. Knowing that demand would be high and tickets would go, the same group of guys who went to the TNA show each paid more than $30 to secure our seats.

The NFL and its teams have to maintain the value of the product. If they allow you to watch games for free just because people can't afford tickets, that's essentially the same as TNA saying "if you don't want to pay for our tickets, you can have them for free." There has to be an incentive to pay. If the public isn't interested in paying, there's no reason the league should feel the need to give the product away.