Blackout watch 2011

[BBTV]

There's no problem with the blackout rule as long as teams adjust their prices and supply accordingly--and this part here is key--over the offseason. You can't deep-discount your inventory after people have paid in full for season tickets lest you alienate them and lose a part of your base. Well, I mean, you can, but it can't be a wise move. Starting each ticket campaign with adjusted prices is fine, though, and I dare say necessary. With the televised NFL experience getting better and better, and nobody having much disposable income anymore, it's harder and harder to justify paying top dollar for an inferior experience. Considering all the money teams make on television deals and luxury boxes, with some teams profiting off their TV revenue sharing alone, they're better off selling upper deck seats for cheap than not selling them at all. Look at how Jacksonville pulled themselves out of the grave (for now). You think people are paying big bucks to see the Jaguars? I highly doubt it. They're making the right adjustments.

They should also step up their game-day experiences. The Eagles have invested heavily in this regard over the past 9 years, and it has really paid off. Granted I get to see all the games because I work there, but even if I didn't, I'd make every effort possible just to be in there for the overall experience. It's borderline WWE, but it's just plain fun. Of course the fact that they're always good helps too.

[neo_prankster]

There's no problem with the blackout rule as long as teams adjust their prices and supply accordingly--and this part here is key--over the offseason. You can't deep-discount your inventory after people have paid in full for season tickets lest you alienate them and lose a part of your base. Well, I mean, you can, but it can't be a wise move. Starting each ticket campaign with adjusted prices is fine, though, and I dare say necessary. With the televised NFL experience getting better and better, and nobody having much disposable income anymore, it's harder and harder to justify paying top dollar for an inferior experience. Considering all the money teams make on television deals and luxury boxes, with some teams profiting off their TV revenue sharing alone, they're better off selling upper deck seats for cheap than not selling them at all. Look at how Jacksonville pulled themselves out of the grave (for now). You think people are paying big bucks to see the Jaguars? I highly doubt it. They're making the right adjustments.

They should also step up their game-day experiences. The Eagles have invested heavily in this regard over the past 9 years, and it has really paid off. Granted I get to see all the games because I work there, but even if I didn't, I'd make every effort possible just to be in there for the overall experience. It's borderline WWE, but it's just plain fun. Of course the fact that they're always good helps too.

Are you calling the NFL fake?

[Gothamite]

What kind of "experience" are you talking about, Vet?

[njmeadowlanders]

If anything the fan "experience" is over the top cheesy. Today marks my 21st season of Jets football (insert joke here) and I can tell you it's gotten dumber and dumber every year. I don't need to be accosted when I enter the stadium with a chance to win a snoopy stuffed animal (Snoopy...MetLife...there's your connection) or have my personal fan video made with me yelling in front of a green screen, or play Jets tic-tac-toe, or all that other crap.

How about you build a stadium without AWFUL ingress/egress to the upper deck and an upper deck that's lower than the peak of Kilimanjaro? How about you build a stadium with an upper deck concourse that doesn't flood with water after it drizzles? How about having more than 2 people working a concession stand with lines up and down the place? That's how you can help my gameday experience. I'm there for football, not to get my face painted.

[TBGKon]

The other problem with the rule is that generally speaking the teams that aren't selling out games are losing teams. Losing leads to apathy with in a fan base. That in turn leads to fans not spending money on tickets. But most of those fans will still watch the games on TV, remain interested in the team. But when those games aren't available on TV, a lot of fans "shut it down" if you will. Blacking out losing teams doesn't make fans want to buy tickets, it makes fans go away.

Bingo.....we have a winner. The blackout rule made sense in the past when it was created, but in thisday and age it is antiquated and makes no sense.

[BBTV]

There's no problem with the blackout rule as long as teams adjust their prices and supply accordingly--and this part here is key--over the offseason. You can't deep-discount your inventory after people have paid in full for season tickets lest you alienate them and lose a part of your base. Well, I mean, you can, but it can't be a wise move. Starting each ticket campaign with adjusted prices is fine, though, and I dare say necessary. With the televised NFL experience getting better and better, and nobody having much disposable income anymore, it's harder and harder to justify paying top dollar for an inferior experience. Considering all the money teams make on television deals and luxury boxes, with some teams profiting off their TV revenue sharing alone, they're better off selling upper deck seats for cheap than not selling them at all. Look at how Jacksonville pulled themselves out of the grave (for now). You think people are paying big bucks to see the Jaguars? I highly doubt it. They're making the right adjustments.

They should also step up their game-day experiences. The Eagles have invested heavily in this regard over the past 9 years, and it has really paid off. Granted I get to see all the games because I work there, but even if I didn't, I'd make every effort possible just to be in there for the overall experience. It's borderline WWE, but it's just plain fun. Of course the fact that they're always good helps too.

Are you calling the NFL fake?

No, not at all.

What kind of "experience" are you talking about, Vet?

The overall production, like the video, sounds, intros, pyro, promos, etc. I've been to NFL games in different cities and the overall experience varies dramatically. At these prices, it can't simply be a matter of coming in through the turnstyles and watching a game - there needs to be more stimulation.

[Gothamite]

Agree to disagree - the fame is all the stimulation I want. Museums and the like are good for before or after, but between the whistles all I want is a game.

[The_Admiral]

Admirable, but this puts you in an extreme minority. With plenty of bells and whistles on the telecasts, you need other kinds of bells and whistles live for most people.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Agree to disagree - the fame is all the stimulation I want. Museums and the like are good for before or after, but between the whistles all I want is a game.

Just curious, do you go to a lot of NFL games?

I don't, but I've been to a few. Between TV timeouts, bad seats in new stadiums (I'm looking at you, FedEx), $10 beers, bad teams, bad weather and bad fans, It's kind of nice for the additional diversion.

Admiral said it above and it's true -- it's kinda more fun to watch on HDTV than it is to go to a game in person.

[Gothamite]

I try to go to a game or two a season, but it's tough with three little kids.

I too prefer to watch them at home, but that has little to do with diversions or stimulation - it's about camera angles. Double-edged sword for a sport practically made for television.

I don't consider replays on the Jumbotron to be a "diversion." I'm not opposed to anything geared towards the game itself, which is why I was asking Vet to what precisely he was referring.

[pmoehrin]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

[neo_prankster]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

The Skins should be rebuilding their roster, not their stadium.

[pmoehrin]

I try to go to a game or two a season, but it's tough with three little kids.

I too prefer to watch them at home, but that has little to do with diversions or stimulation - it's about camera angles. Double-edged sword for a sport practically made for television.

I don't consider replays on the Jumbotron to be a "diversion." I'm not opposed to anything geared towards the game itself, which is why I was asking Vet to what precisely he was referring.

I love to watch games in person. Its all the other crap that comes with going to an NFL game that I hate.

The insane parkings fees that are charged now. (you have to carpool now, if you don't your out of your mind) What tailgating has become now. It used to be something you did before the game to hang out. Eat some, grab a few beers, chill with your buds. Now its all about getting as f'd up as humanly possible. I know somebody with Jets season tickets that goes to every game, but has about a 50% rate of actually getting into the game. Some people really need to calm down with the drinking. You should not need to pound half a case before a game in order to have a good time. It also creates for a very uncomfortable atmosphere. I competely abide by the rule of do not wear a jersey if you do not want to be harassed and that goes for home and away now. If fact don't wear anything that would even a hint of what team you like if you don't want to be harassed.

The TV timeouts. The $8 it costs for a Bud Light. (although that might be a good thing, because anytime when a team has ever brought down their beer prices, the results usually haven't been that good, see ten cent beer night for more info) The 10 minute ordeal it is to go to the bathroom or getting something to eat.

Also if your going to a game, unless you live 5 minutes from the stadium, that's probably the only game your seeing that day. You have a 1 o'clock game on the east coast, you might get back in time to see the end of the 4:30 games, depending on how bad it is getting out of the stadium and how far away you are. Basically if your going to that game, you have to be okay with the fact that its the only game your seeing that day.

9 out of 10 times I rather stay at home then go to the game itself. There's just not that many games I have a great deal of interest in to go through all of that just to see it in person. If I'm at home, I kick back with my friends, I don't have to deal with the drunk idiots, it hardly takes anytime to go to the bathroom or get something to eat, I don't have to pay $8 for crappy beer, I don't have to deal with the parking fees or leaving the stadium, and best of all if I do't like the game, I can change the channel.

Is it the same as watching it in person? No, but it costs a fraction of the amount and the time commitment.

[Gothamite]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

Reports I read were pretty clear on that score.

[BigMac12]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

Maybe I'm reading into this the wrong way, but it could be signs that the team wants to move from Maryland to DC.

[DCDuck]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

Maybe I'm reading into this the wrong way, but it could be signs that the team wants to move from Maryland to DC.

No signs needsd. Dan Snyder has come out and said pretty clearly that he wants to move the Skins back into DC.

The problem is that he doesn't have the cash to up and build a new stadium, and District-ites are a bit wary of their tax dollars going towards yet another new stadium (Nats Park opened in 2007 after financing and building battles that got dragged through the mud for the longest while). RFK is old and crusty and though it has nostalgea, Snyder wouldn't be able to chill with his entourage at the games because of the lack of luxury boxes.

Skins fans are pretty much fed up with Snyder at this point. Between the sign ban and the suing of a local free newspaper for "libel", his already low approval rating has hit rock bottom, just about.

[The_Admiral]

If Snyder wants to move to DC, he can pay for the demolition of RFK Stadium and construction of a new stadium himself. Otherwise, he'll have to be happy with his giant home in the 'burbs, I suppose.

[pmoehrin]

I don't know if anyone noticed but FedEx Field lost some seats in the upper deck.

The Redskins are claiming they only took out 6,000 seats and it was done to make way for a party deck, but most estimates I've seen put it at close to 10,000 and a party deck quite frankly is something that could have been built in the offseason.

The rumor going around is that the Redskins took out those seats because they wanted to avoid blackouts and the whole party deck thing is a bunch of BS. Thoughts?

Maybe I'm reading into this the wrong way, but it could be signs that the team wants to move from Maryland to DC.

No signs needsd. Dan Snyder has come out and said pretty clearly that he wants to move the Skins back into DC.

The problem is that he doesn't have the cash to up and build a new stadium, and District-ites are a bit wary of their tax dollars going towards yet another new stadium (Nats Park opened in 2007 after financing and building battles that got dragged through the mud for the longest while). RFK is old and crusty and though it has nostalgea, Snyder wouldn't be able to chill with his entourage at the games because of the lack of luxury boxes.

Skins fans are pretty much fed up with Snyder at this point. Between the sign ban and the suing of a local free newspaper for "libel", his already low approval rating has hit rock bottom, just about.

To be fair FedEx Field wasn't Dan Snyder's idea. It was built before he owned the team.

The other thing is as much of a mistake as its been the Redskins really can't afford to abandon a stadium that's just a little over 10 years even in this day and age.

The Redskins own that stadium entirely as well, and I'd imagine if they leave they are going to take a huge hit financially on that if they decide to sell. The land is worthless.

They would have to get a really sweetheart deal from D.C. in order for them to leave, which as dumb as it may be for D.C. to that, it hasn't seemed to stop cities in the past from caving in. I don't see why this would be any different either.

I think the only thing really holding it up is the D.C. United honestly. They've been trying to get a new stadium for nearly a decade. As long as they are there though, RFK is in business. Once they leave then you might see some talks pick up about maybe moving the Redskins back to the RFK site. As least with the United there the stadium is guaranteed some business, once they leave though it becomes a white elephant.

[DCDuck]

DC United has a surprisingly strong following in some parts of the DMV. I don't think they'd be too keen on having their home stadium bulldozed and having to share with the Skins.

DC is in no position to give the Skins a deal now. The only reason they gave a deal to the Nats was because there was a real possibility Selig & Co. would decide to take the franchise somewhere else, like Carolina or Las Vegas. And Snyder knows he won't get better fan turnout anywhere than DC. The city practically bleeds burgundy and gold, even with the run of mediocrity the past decade plus.

[pmoehrin]

DC United has a surprisingly strong following in some parts of the DMV. I don't think they'd be too keen on having their home stadium bulldozed and having to share with the Skins.

DC is in no position to give the Skins a deal now. The only reason they gave a deal to the Nats was because there was a real possibility Selig & Co. would decide to take the franchise somewhere else, like Carolina or Las Vegas. And Snyder knows he won't get better fan turnout anywhere than DC. The city practically bleeds burgundy and gold, even with the run of mediocrity the past decade plus.

I'm saying the United gets a brand new stadium built for them either elsewhere in D.C. or Maryland. They don't want to stay in RFK.

I'm talking about them getting a stadium first and leaving. Then the Redskins moving back to the RFK site either to a heavily renovated RFK stadium or a brand new one. Probably a brand new one.

As for the position D.C. is in, your right they are in no position to give the Skins any deal, nor should they. Yet that hasn't seemed to stop cities in the past though.