Debate: NFL Blackouts

[The_Admiral]

There's one thing I've never understood about the blackout rule: Why is the cutoff at 72 hours before kickoff? Why not, say, 24 hours? Better yet, why not just go all the way up to the scheduled kickoff time? Does the league, the home team, the network and/or its local affiliate really need a full three days' advance notice about whether they get to air the game locally or not?

Yes, I'm sure there are some logistical concerns to a programming change that stops the cutoff from being 11:59.

[OnWis97]

There's one thing I've never understood about the blackout rule: Why is the cutoff at 72 hours before kickoff? Why not, say, 24 hours? Better yet, why not just go all the way up to the scheduled kickoff time? Does the league, the home team, the network and/or its local affiliate really need a full three days' advance notice about whether they get to air the game locally or not?

Yes, I'm sure there are some logistical concerns to a programming change that stops the cutoff from being 11:59.

There must be, but I don't understand it. In the regular season every game is aired. If a Lions at Vikings game is not sold out, it's still shown in Detroit and therefore, they should be able to remove the blackout in Minnesota right at 11:59. They do it all the time when the feature game ends and they put on the closet game. Look at how the NCAA tourney games bounce around to the most interesting game. I'd think it would be very feasible and 72 hours seems excessive. I'd like to know why.

[B-Rich]

There's one thing I've never understood about the blackout rule: Why is the cutoff at 72 hours before kickoff? Why not, say, 24 hours? Better yet, why not just go all the way up to the scheduled kickoff time? Does the league, the home team, the network and/or its local affiliate really need a full three days' advance notice about whether they get to air the game locally or not?

Yes, I'm sure there are some logistical concerns to a programming change that stops the cutoff from being 11:59.

There must be, but I don't understand it. In the regular season every game is aired. If a Lions at Vikings game is not sold out, it's still shown in Detroit and therefore, they should be able to remove the blackout in Minnesota right at 11:59. They do it all the time when the feature game ends and they put on the closet game. Look at how the NCAA tourney games bounce around to the most interesting game. I'd think it would be very feasible and 72 hours seems excessive. I'd like to know why.

I presume it is for the local stations themselves. First, they have to figure out what they will broadcast in place of the blacked-out NFL game-- three hours of infomercials, old movies, etc. Then, if it's blacked out, they also have to fill their advertising slots during the three hours with purely local ads-- not network-generated beer and Viagra ads. Even if the blackout is lifted, they have some time that is allocated to local, not national advertising in the NFL game slot that they have to arrange. You need time to do so.

Just as a reference, there was a similar thread on this back in February: TV Blackouts in the NFL - Perspectives on "team support". In it, I noted that 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.

[Saintsfan]

Serious question, is there any evidence that blackouts are succesful?

That's really a two part question, what is the purpose of a blackout, and does it ever achieve those results? I've never really got the point of the blackout. It seems to me that TV coverage of the local team can surely be a good advert for that local team if it's struggling to sell tickets?

[Punch]

Serious question, is there any evidence that blackouts are succesful?

That's really a two part question, what is the purpose of a blackout, and does it ever achieve those results? I've never really got the point of the blackout. It seems to me that TV coverage of the local team can surely be a good advert for that local team if it's struggling to sell tickets?

The exact purpose of a blackout is unclear, but there are many reasons why blackouts are used. In my opinion, blackouts are there to promote fans to go buy tickets to the game. The NFL wants people to go out and buy tickets, which brings in more profit than if those people were to watch the game on television. If they were to take away the blackout concept, then I believe more and more people would stay home and watch the game, instead of purchasing a ticket. As a result, the NFL loses profits on ticket sales in certain markets.

Blacked-out games are usually reserved for bad teams. Will blacking a game out motivate people to come watch their team suck it up live? Probably not. I think the NFL should change the rule to only black-out home games for teams that are above .500. If they do that, fans of the above .500 teams will be more motivated to see their team play because playoff implications may be on the line. Fans of teams under .500 probably don't need to watch their team lose. Sure, it's a stretch, but it may happen.

My opinion, sticking to it.

Punch9

[TheOldRoman]

Serious question, is there any evidence that blackouts are succesful?

That's really a two part question, what is the purpose of a blackout, and does it ever achieve those results? I've never really got the point of the blackout. It seems to me that TV coverage of the local team can surely be a good advert for that local team if it's struggling to sell tickets?

I don't think they do, and although it's a different sport, look to the Chicago Blackhawks as an example of what blackouts can do. I can somewhat understand blacking games out if the team is good and they can't sell games out, but the huge majority of NFL blackouts are with horrible teams. Fans don't want to pay $80 a ticket plus parking and consessions to watch the Rams get pounded by the Vikings? No . Plenty of fans would watch on TV, but I don't think anybody is so eager to see that bloodbath that they would run to the stadium instead of not seeing it at all.

[The_Admiral]

If they were to take away the blackout concept, then I believe more and more people would stay home and watch the game, instead of purchasing a ticket. As a result, the NFL loses profits on ticket sales in certain markets.

The NFL is a TV show. If nobody had to go, nobody would!

[BBTV]

There's one thing I've never understood about the blackout rule: Why is the cutoff at 72 hours before kickoff? Why not, say, 24 hours? Better yet, why not just go all the way up to the scheduled kickoff time? Does the league, the home team, the network and/or its local affiliate really need a full three days' advance notice about whether they get to air the game locally or not?

Yes, I'm sure there are some logistical concerns to a programming change that stops the cutoff from being 11:59.

There must be, but I don't understand it. In the regular season every game is aired. If a Lions at Vikings game is not sold out, it's still shown in Detroit and therefore, they should be able to remove the blackout in Minnesota right at 11:59. They do it all the time when the feature game ends and they put on the closet game. Look at how the NCAA tourney games bounce around to the most interesting game. I'd think it would be very feasible and 72 hours seems excessive. I'd like to know why.

Probably 72 hours so that you have three full days to know that your team won't be on TV so you have to buy a ticket. If "11:59", people may just sit at home figuring that it'll get sold out and they'll be able to watch it. The blackout rule wouldn't really have it's intended effect if not for the 72 hr rule. Maybe 48 or 24 would work though.

Eventually, all games will probably be PPV anyway, so the blackout rule would be rendered obsolete.

[The_Admiral]

I think you can knock it down to 48 if you get on your knees and say "please, pappy, do it for your old sonny boy!", but you actually have to say that verbatim. I have a source in the Bengals organization.

[BlueSky]

If they were to take away the blackout concept, then I believe more and more people would stay home and watch the game, instead of purchasing a ticket. As a result, the NFL loses profits on ticket sales in certain markets.

The NFL is now a TV show. If nobody had to go, nobody would!

We should remember there was a time when games were never on TV because TV did not exist. Maybe someday it'll all be in an arena with no seats, i.e. only on TV. I hope not.

Something that always bothered me about blackouts is that we're talking say a 70,000 seat facility in cities with metro populations of millions. They couldn't all go even if they wanted to. An irrelevant point perhaps but interesting to think about.

The bottom line answer to blackouts is for franchises to put a quality product on the field at reasonable prices. Problem solved.

[Gothamite]

The bottom line answer to blackouts is for franchises to put a quality product on the field at reasonable prices. Problem solved.

Unless you're talking about a football team in Jacksonville or a baseball team in St. Petersburg, who have done that for years before swaths of empty seats.

[The_Admiral]

To be fair, this is only the third year of the Rays putting forth competitive baseball. The Jaguars, well....

[BlueSky]

The bottom line answer to blackouts is for franchises to put a quality product on the field at reasonable prices. Problem solved.

Unless you're talking about a football team in Jacksonville or a baseball team in St. Petersburg, who have done that for years before swaths of empty seats.

Not so much. Jags since 2000:

2000 7-9

2001 6-10

2002 6-10

2003 5-11

2004 9-7

2005 12-4

2006 8-8

2007 11-5

2008 5-11

2009 7-9

Can't blame people for staying away from that.

[The_Admiral]

76-84 over ten years in the wonky Everyone's-a-Winner-and-a-Loser NFL doesn't justify bomb-threat attendance numbers.

[Mac the Knife]

There's one thing I've never understood about the blackout rule: Why is the cutoff at 72 hours before kickoff? Why not, say, 24 hours? Better yet, why not just go all the way up to the scheduled kickoff time? Does the league, the home team, the network and/or its local affiliate really need a full three days' advance notice about whether they get to air the game locally or not?

Yeah, actually, they do - television programming schedules for network affiliates take time to modify, to find replacement programming and so forth.

[Saintsfan]

If they were to take away the blackout concept, then I believe more and more people would stay home and watch the game, instead of purchasing a ticket. As a result, the NFL loses profits on ticket sales in certain markets.

The NFL is a TV show. If nobody had to go, nobody would!

I don't believe that to be true. Yes most people watch the game on TV, but plenty of fans go and watch games. If you have a competetive franchise, selling out a venue is no issue. I reckon most NFL teams could sell out with the right pricing structure and marketing. In my opinion part of that marketing is being able to see the local team on TV.

[1990hornet]

I'm confused. How can most of you be supporting the blackout policy in this economic recession when more people are out of jobs than ever, and those that do have jobs aren't making as much as they used to thus don't have the money for a $60 ticket to an NFL game, especially of that that of a rebuilding team?

It baffles me.This policy seems like it would alienate more fans than it would get to buy tickets.

Oh and the shots at Tampa Bay "not being a sports town" aren't cool, I think we've proven time and time again we are.

[rams80]

I'm confused. How can most of you be supporting the blackout policy in this economic recession when more people are out of jobs than ever, and those that do have jobs aren't making as much as they used to thus don't have the money for a $60 ticket to an NFL game, especially of that that of a rebuilding team?

It baffles me.This policy seems like it would alienate more fans than it would get to buy tickets.

Oh and the shots at Tampa Bay "not being a sports town" aren't cool, I think we've proven time and time again we are.

1. We do because when you have theoretical fanbases of a few million a pop, there really are no excuses for failing to sell out 8 regular season home games. And complaining about Preseason TV is kind of sad and pointless.

2. Which is why the not-Thunderdome seems so empty in the middle of a pennant chase.

[Lights Out]

If the stadium wasn't a total dump, the Rays would be playing in front of far-bigger crowds for the pennant race. That doesn't mean that Tampa Bay isn't a sports town, it means that people just don't want to see a baseball game at the lovechild of the Metrodome and a Sams' Club.

[1990hornet]

I'm confused. How can most of you be supporting the blackout policy in this economic recession when more people are out of jobs than ever, and those that do have jobs aren't making as much as they used to thus don't have the money for a $60 ticket to an NFL game, especially of that that of a rebuilding team?

It baffles me.This policy seems like it would alienate more fans than it would get to buy tickets.

Oh and the shots at Tampa Bay "not being a sports town" aren't cool, I think we've proven time and time again we are.

1. We do because when you have theoretical fanbases of a few million a pop, there really are no excuses for failing to sell out 8 regular season home games. And complaining about Preseason TV is kind of sad and pointless.

2. Which is why the not-Thunderdome seems so empty in the middle of a pennant chase.

1. What part of 20% Unemployment rate and high ticket prices don't you get?

2. Funny how I said Tampa, not St. Pete. Mayor Bill Foster would be all over your ass for that comment.

If the stadium wasn't a total dump, the Rays would be playing in front of far-bigger crowds for the pennant race. That doesn't mean that Tampa Bay isn't a sports town, it means that people just don't want to see a baseball game at the lovechild of the Metrodome and a Sams' Club.

basically this ^