Debate: NFL Blackouts

[The_Admiral]

But if they played outside, it would be too rainy, or too potentially rainy. That's why we need a state-of-the-art retractable-roof stadium! Yeah, well, I want to get blown on a rollercoaster, but sometimes our unreasonable demands have to go unheard.

[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.

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 ^

1. By and large, those who are unemployed weren't in the "buy tickets" demographic in the first place. Pointing out the unemployment rate is a false argument. As for prices, well...they weren't too high in the past.

2. If you refuse to go to watch championship-caliber sporting performances because they are being played in a place that does not have the latest beer gardens, toiletries, designer restaurants, or team fan store, you are not a sports fan.

[Lights Out]

Surely just renovating the Trop would be fine to make it less of a dump. Well, that, and making the concession stands start following health department standards.

Look, I'm not defending the people that don't go to games because the stadium's a dump. I'm just noting that the hideousness of the stadium does keep people away.

[BBTV]

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 ^

1. By and large, those who are unemployed weren't in the "buy tickets" demographic in the first place. Pointing out the unemployment rate is a false argument. As for prices, well...they weren't too high in the past.

2. If you refuse to go to watch championship-caliber sporting performances because they are being played in a place that does not have the latest beer gardens, toiletries, designer restaurants, or team fan store, you are not a sports fan.

I was going to post something similar. Look - it's not like everyone is unemployed. Plenty of people are doing just fine. In markets with millions of people, there are certainly 100,000+ football fans that are either unaffected by the recession or still doing plenty well enough to attend football games. I'm not defending the blackout policy, but to suggest that they just give their product away because they feel bad because some people (many of whom probably shouldn't have been attending games in the first place) can't afford to go is pretty silly. Would it be a nice gesture? Sure. Are they obligated to give it away for free? Nope. If you want to argue the whole "civic responsibility" point, then that's a different story altogether.

[Sodboy13]

But if they played outside, it would be too rainy, or too potentially rainy. That's why we need a state-of-the-art retractable-roof stadium! Yeah, well, I want to get blown on a rollercoaster, but sometimes our unreasonable demands have to go unheard.

I would think your proximity to Great America would help in this matter. You should probably start on The Whizzer and work your way up.

[DustDevil61]

I hear that the Jaguars had until 20 Aug. (yesterday) to sell something like 3,000 tickets to avoid blackouts for the year; have they hit the mark or not? I'm feeling not.

[BlueSky]

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 ^

1. By and large, those who are unemployed weren't in the "buy tickets" demographic in the first place. Pointing out the unemployment rate is a false argument. As for prices, well...they weren't too high in the past.

2. If you refuse to go to watch championship-caliber sporting performances because they are being played in a place that does not have the latest beer gardens, toiletries, designer restaurants, or team fan store, you are not a sports fan.

I was going to post something similar. Look - it's not like everyone is unemployed. Plenty of people are doing just fine. In markets with millions of people, there are certainly 100,000+ football fans that are either unaffected by the recession or still doing plenty well enough to attend football games. I'm not defending the blackout policy, but to suggest that they just give their product away because they feel bad because some people (many of whom probably shouldn't have been attending games in the first place) can't afford to go is pretty silly. Would it be a nice gesture? Sure. Are they obligated to give it away for free? Nope. If you want to argue the whole "civic responsibility" point, then that's a different story altogether.

1. The part that isn't true. In June 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Tampa's unemployment rate as 12%. Still horrible, but nowhere near 20%.

2. Exactly what I was thinking. Real fans aren't concerned about ambiance for crying out loud.

I agree ticket prices and blackouts suck, especially for preseason games. But it's called free enterprise and apparently someone is paying those prices, otherwise they'd be lower. It's my (and your) choice to pay it or not pay it. Sure, if everything was free life would be wonderful. At least until it came grinding to quick and complete halt.

This is like airline overbooking. People whine long and loud about how airlines shouldn't be allowed to sell more tickets than the plane holds. But no-shows are a fact of life and who's going to cover the lost revenue?

One year during Christmas in my airline days, we had a 251-seat airplane going NY-MIA and booked to 450. Some of us were scared s***less, praying the damn forecasting software hadn't gone wonky. They would have needed the National Guard had everyone shown up. The flight departed with 176 passengers.

If you really want to go to a game, you'll find a way.

[dfwabel]

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.

Part of the logistics also dealt with local advertising as the local station does have spots which they sell. The transfer of monies 30 years ago was much different than how it could be done by advertising staffs today.

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

Unclear? A blackout was in place since it would hurt ticket sales in the cities with teams.

Since you are a writer of a YA series based on sports, you're imaginative, so you should love games on radio since it is, "the theater of the mind".

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.

NFL owners only have ten home games to get the revenue while NBA/NFL have four times the home games and MLB has eight times the revenue opportunities. The visiting team still receives 40% of the ticket gate. Even in the 90's that was more important. JAX told the NFL owners that their stadium (with 10,000 club seats) would give a higher visiting gate guarantee than all other candidates.

Also, in 2001, the NFL changed their Constitution which states, ?beginning with the 2002

NFL season, all regular season and preseason game visiting team shares shall be pooled and shared equally among the 32 Member Clubs.?

VTS (Visiting Team Shares) are now pooled since the advent of PSLs. PSL fees are not subject to revenue sharing under the current CBA as defined gross revenue. A percentage of suite/club seat money does not count as defined gross revenue.

[dfwabel]

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 ^

1. By and large, those who are unemployed weren't in the "buy tickets" demographic in the first place. Pointing out the unemployment rate is a false argument. As for prices, well...they weren't too high in the past.

2. If you refuse to go to watch championship-caliber sporting performances because they are being played in a place that does not have the latest beer gardens, toiletries, designer restaurants, or team fan store, you are not a sports fan.

I was going to post something similar. Look - it's not like everyone is unemployed. Plenty of people are doing just fine. In markets with millions of people, there are certainly 100,000+ football fans that are either unaffected by the recession or still doing plenty well enough to attend football games. I'm not defending the blackout policy, but to suggest that they just give their product away because they feel bad because some people (many of whom probably shouldn't have been attending games in the first place) can't afford to go is pretty silly. Would it be a nice gesture? Sure. Are they obligated to give it away for free? Nope. If you want to argue the whole "civic responsibility" point, then that's a different story altogether.

1. The part that isn't true. In June 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Tampa's unemployment rate as 12%. Still horrible, but nowhere near 20%.

2. Exactly what I was thinking. Real fans aren't concerned about ambiance for crying out loud.

I agree ticket prices and blackouts suck, especially for preseason games. But it's called free enterprise and apparently someone is paying those prices, otherwise they'd be lower. It's my (and your) choice to pay it or not pay it. Sure, if everything was free life would be wonderful. At least until it came grinding to quick and complete halt.

This is like airline overbooking. People whine long and loud about how airlines shouldn't be allowed to sell more tickets than the plane holds. But no-shows are a fact of life and who's going to cover the lost revenue?

One year during Christmas in my airline days, we had a 251-seat airplane going NY-MIA and booked to 450. Some of us were scared s***less, praying the damn forecasting software hadn't gone wonky. They would have needed the National Guard had everyone shown up. The flight departed with 176 passengers.

If you really want to go to a game, you'll find a way.

+1. If you want the cheapest season tickets, then budget better.

Tampa was never a wealthy city since the largest employer is the Hillsborough County School system. Suncoast people, and the surrounding area, not only paid the "Community Investment Tax" to get the stadium and roads built, but that the Bucs also had a mini PSL which would be refunded after 10 years of consecutive season ticket buying.