Blackout watch 2011

[DCDuck]

RFK's issue goes beyond renovations. RFK has no luxury suites or boxes, and doesn't have the "historic" appeal of, say, Lambeau to offset that lack of premium seating. If they rebuild RFK, it wouldn't have anywhere near the same feel as classic RFK, where the rafters would shake and you could barely hear yourself think when the place was packed to capacity.

I could see DC United moving to a stadium in PG County, perhaps Bowie or Suitland.

[pmoehrin]

RFK's issue goes beyond renovations. RFK has no luxury suites or boxes, and doesn't have the "historic" appeal of, say, Lambeau to offset that lack of premium seating. If they rebuild RFK, it wouldn't have anywhere near the same feel as classic RFK, where the rafters would shake and you could barely hear yourself think when the place was packed to capacity.

I could see DC United moving to a stadium in PG County, perhaps Bowie or Suitland.

If you were to renovate RFK it would probably cost about as much as building a brand new stadium, which I think they will do. What it will look like I have no idea.

As for D.C. United, no clue when they are getting a new stadium. Know they've been trying to get one going back as far as '06. Doesen't seem to be going anywhere and no reason to expect any progress will be made anytime soon either.

[BBTV]

Has it ever happened that a team left a stadium for a new stadium, and then returned to the old stadium?

I've never been to Hidden Arrow Field, but all accounts that I've received from friends who have been there is that it's like the New Comiskey of the NFL. Just hurry up and get it up, without any of the frills or considerations of the "new generation" of parks. Too many seats, too narrow, bad sightlines, poor concourses and in-stadium logistics, etc. Sounds like Chicago has done a nice job of fixing up New Comiskey as well as they could, but it's just not really possible with an NFL stadium.

As for my earlier comments re: "experience", if I can phrase it a different way, there are some places where you feel like nothing but an observer, or a "customer" (which at the end of the day is what you are.) There are others where you almost feel like a part of what is happening. If you've read my posts over the years you know how little I get in to the whole "fan" thing, and at Eagles games (well, home games at least) I'm an employee and not getting all in to that other stuff, but I still have to say that you absolutely get your money's worth there, even if the on-field product isn't great (at least in Sept Oct and Nov - not even a great game-day experience can make up for a crappy product when it's freezing cold, windy, and snowing / raining.)

[TheOldRoman]

Has it ever happened that a team left a stadium for a new stadium, and then returned to the old stadium?

I've never been to Hidden Arrow Field, but all accounts that I've received from friends who have been there is that it's like the New Comiskey of the NFL. Just hurry up and get it up, without any of the frills or considerations of the "new generation" of parks. Too many seats, too narrow, bad sightlines, poor concourses and in-stadium logistics, etc. Sounds like Chicago has done a nice job of fixing up New Comiskey as well as they could, but it's just not really possible with an NFL stadium.

As for my earlier comments re: "experience", if I can phrase it a different way, there are some places where you feel like nothing but an observer, or a "customer" (which at the end of the day is what you are.) There are others where you almost feel like a part of what is happening. If you've read my posts over the years you know how little I get in to the whole "fan" thing, and at Eagles games (well, home games at least) I'm an employee and not getting all in to that other stuff, but I still have to say that you absolutely get your money's worth there, even if the on-field product isn't great (at least in Sept Oct and Nov - not even a great game-day experience can make up for a crappy product when it's freezing cold, windy, and snowing / raining.)

Is the stadium as big of a deal for football? I don't think so. I mean, even if FedEx Field sucks and the fans hate it, they still pack 82,000 in for every game. Unless they get to the point where the fans stop coming or skyboxes are inadequate, I don't see a reason for them to leave, though I have heard that Snyder wants to. The park is a much bigger deal for baseball, because the games aren't only on Sunday (for the most part), there are many more games, tailgating isn't as big so you need bars around, etc. It is a lot harder to get a season ticket base of 25,000 to drive out to the suburbs 81 times a year than to get 50,000 to do so 8 times a year. It seems like baseball parks have to offer more. I mean, I have never heard any football fans waxing nostalgic about going to games at Lambeau or Cleveland Stadium the way people do about Wrigley and Yankee Stadium. And really, every one of the original 16 baseball teams who played in a clasical stadium for many years seems to have a stronger connection from its fanbase to that stadium than any football team does.

[BBTV]

Has it ever happened that a team left a stadium for a new stadium, and then returned to the old stadium?

I've never been to Hidden Arrow Field, but all accounts that I've received from friends who have been there is that it's like the New Comiskey of the NFL. Just hurry up and get it up, without any of the frills or considerations of the "new generation" of parks. Too many seats, too narrow, bad sightlines, poor concourses and in-stadium logistics, etc. Sounds like Chicago has done a nice job of fixing up New Comiskey as well as they could, but it's just not really possible with an NFL stadium.

As for my earlier comments re: "experience", if I can phrase it a different way, there are some places where you feel like nothing but an observer, or a "customer" (which at the end of the day is what you are.) There are others where you almost feel like a part of what is happening. If you've read my posts over the years you know how little I get in to the whole "fan" thing, and at Eagles games (well, home games at least) I'm an employee and not getting all in to that other stuff, but I still have to say that you absolutely get your money's worth there, even if the on-field product isn't great (at least in Sept Oct and Nov - not even a great game-day experience can make up for a crappy product when it's freezing cold, windy, and snowing / raining.)

Is the stadium as big of a deal for football? I don't think so. I mean, even if FedEx Field sucks and the fans hate it, they still pack 82,000 in for every game. Unless they get to the point where the fans stop coming or skyboxes are inadequate, I don't see a reason for them to leave, though I have heard that Snyder wants to. The park is a much bigger deal for baseball, because the games aren't only on Sunday (for the most part), there are many more games, tailgating isn't as big so you need bars around, etc. It is a lot harder to get a season ticket base of 25,000 to drive out to the suburbs 81 times a year than to get 50,000 to do so 8 times a year. It seems like baseball parks have to offer more. I mean, I have never heard any football fans waxing nostalgic about going to games at Lambeau or Cleveland Stadium the way people do about Wrigley and Yankee Stadium. And really, every one of the original 16 baseball teams who played in a clasical stadium for many years seems to have a stronger connection from its fanbase to that stadium than any football team does.

That's certainly a valid point of view. I would totally agree that it's a bigger deal for baseball, where there's more games, more downtime, and more of a need to give people reasons to come out during the summer when in many areas there are a ton of other competing events. In the past, I've stated many times that the stadium in football just doesn't matter, and to an extent I still believe that, but I've changed my opinion some in the past 6 or 7 years. I still don't think that location is that big of a deal for a football stadium. For example, I hate that the Phillies park is in a giant parking lot in the middle of nowhere, but I think it's fine (actually preferable) for the Eagles. I also don't think that suburban football stadiums are a big deal, just due to the once-per-week nature of it (provided there is some kind of public transit out to said suburb.)

However, the way that prices have skyrocketed (in most places - I still can't believe that someone was complaining about a $35 ticket) for game tickets, parking (I don't park, but I think parking at most stadiums ranges from $25 at the low end to $100 at the high end), etc., you simply have to give the fans more. I think Washington is one of the places with super-long ticket waiting lists, and that tradition is probably what's keeping them going right now (people must just not want to give up their seats), but eventually, it'll catch up. I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

[pmoehrin]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

[BBTV]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

That's not entirely true. When the Eagles moved from the Vet to the Linc, troublemakers did lose their seats. Of course it's easier to do that when you have a long wait list for tickets, but they really did clean it up a lot there. When the district judge left in the middle of the '04 (I think) season, they didn't even have to replace him (which doesn't mean that there still isn't trouble, but it's not nearly as bad as the Vet or the '03 season at the Linc.) Also, if you're a season ticket holder and someone (not even you) causes trouble with a ticket to your seats, you get a letter and/or call warning you about who you're selling your tickets to, and you can actually lose them. Hell - it's been 5 years since I've seen someone get pee'd on.

I'm not sure if that was NFL pressure, or just the Eagles doing it on their own, but teams do crack down.

[DCDuck]

It's not just about the Skins' lousy play on the field or the high prices. It's about Dan Snyder. It's hard to express just how reviled he is here in DMV-land. Al Davis is loathed, Bud Adams is begrudgingly tolerated, and Jerry Jones is mocked, but people here truly hate and despise Dan Snyder. Not just for the systematic decline of the Skins as a team, but the repeated shows of immaturity and tactlessness by him personally.

Since I'm too lazy to list them all, I'll just link to someone who did.

It's such a shame. A franchise that was once held in as high esteem as the Packers, Bears and Steelers is now a punch line. Talking heads use the phrase "They're trying to be the Redskins" when talking about teams paying top dollar for free agents. As a Skins fan it makes me cringe.

[pmoehrin]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

That's not entirely true. When the Eagles moved from the Vet to the Linc, troublemakers did lose their seats. Of course it's easier to do that when you have a long wait list for tickets, but they really did clean it up a lot there. When the district judge left in the middle of the '04 (I think) season, they didn't even have to replace him (which doesn't mean that there still isn't trouble, but it's not nearly as bad as the Vet or the '03 season at the Linc.) Also, if you're a season ticket holder and someone (not even you) causes trouble with a ticket to your seats, you get a letter and/or call warning you about who you're selling your tickets to, and you can actually lose them. Hell - it's been 5 years since I've seen someone get pee'd on.

I'm not sure if that was NFL pressure, or just the Eagles doing it on their own, but teams do crack down.

I'm glad to hear the Eagles have been doing it. I didn't know that.

At least one team is doing something. I do agree with the idea that if you give your tickets to somebody and they cause problems its on you as much as them.

[BBTV]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

That's not entirely true. When the Eagles moved from the Vet to the Linc, troublemakers did lose their seats. Of course it's easier to do that when you have a long wait list for tickets, but they really did clean it up a lot there. When the district judge left in the middle of the '04 (I think) season, they didn't even have to replace him (which doesn't mean that there still isn't trouble, but it's not nearly as bad as the Vet or the '03 season at the Linc.) Also, if you're a season ticket holder and someone (not even you) causes trouble with a ticket to your seats, you get a letter and/or call warning you about who you're selling your tickets to, and you can actually lose them. Hell - it's been 5 years since I've seen someone get pee'd on.

I'm not sure if that was NFL pressure, or just the Eagles doing it on their own, but teams do crack down.

I'm glad to hear the Eagles have been doing it. I didn't know that.

At least one team is doing something. I do agree with the idea that if you give your tickets to somebody and they cause problems its on you as much as them.

It's tough though, because it also applies to selling them on eBay or StubHub or something, where you may not know who buys them. Not sure what they do if you use their "official" on-line ticket broker, but it'd suck if they brokered the sale and the schmuck that bought them cost you your seats. It'd also suck if you owned a PSL - not sure what they do in that case.

[Eye]

Has it ever happened that a team left a stadium for a new stadium, and then returned to the old stadium?

Raiders.

[njmeadowlanders]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

That's not entirely true. When the Eagles moved from the Vet to the Linc, troublemakers did lose their seats. Of course it's easier to do that when you have a long wait list for tickets, but they really did clean it up a lot there. When the district judge left in the middle of the '04 (I think) season, they didn't even have to replace him (which doesn't mean that there still isn't trouble, but it's not nearly as bad as the Vet or the '03 season at the Linc.) Also, if you're a season ticket holder and someone (not even you) causes trouble with a ticket to your seats, you get a letter and/or call warning you about who you're selling your tickets to, and you can actually lose them. Hell - it's been 5 years since I've seen someone get pee'd on.

I'm not sure if that was NFL pressure, or just the Eagles doing it on their own, but teams do crack down.

I'm glad to hear the Eagles have been doing it. I didn't know that.

At least one team is doing something. I do agree with the idea that if you give your tickets to somebody and they cause problems its on you as much as them.

It's tough though, because it also applies to selling them on eBay or StubHub or something, where you may not know who buys them. Not sure what they do if you use their "official" on-line ticket broker, but it'd suck if they brokered the sale and the schmuck that bought them cost you your seats. It'd also suck if you owned a PSL - not sure what they do in that case.

If I sell my Jets tickets on say, StubHub I could still be held responsible for what some idiot does with my ticket. If I sell through the NFL Ticket Exchange any liability I have for some schmuck is avoided though.

[pmoehrin]

I think it'll eventually get to a point where people say that it's just not worth it.

Think alot of people are already at that point.

I'm at that point. The costs are insane and the experience is not all that great to be honest. Too many aholes who feel that paying for a ticket gives them the right to do whatever they want at the stadium.

Hard to argue with their point of view. You can start all the fights you want and you can still get a ticket to next week's game provided you aren't in jail. The NFL could crack down on this too if they wanted to. They won't do it because it would mean lost revenue. They're not about to kick out 1-2% of the people in the stands and tell them they can never come back again.

That's not entirely true. When the Eagles moved from the Vet to the Linc, troublemakers did lose their seats. Of course it's easier to do that when you have a long wait list for tickets, but they really did clean it up a lot there. When the district judge left in the middle of the '04 (I think) season, they didn't even have to replace him (which doesn't mean that there still isn't trouble, but it's not nearly as bad as the Vet or the '03 season at the Linc.) Also, if you're a season ticket holder and someone (not even you) causes trouble with a ticket to your seats, you get a letter and/or call warning you about who you're selling your tickets to, and you can actually lose them. Hell - it's been 5 years since I've seen someone get pee'd on.

I'm not sure if that was NFL pressure, or just the Eagles doing it on their own, but teams do crack down.

I'm glad to hear the Eagles have been doing it. I didn't know that.

At least one team is doing something. I do agree with the idea that if you give your tickets to somebody and they cause problems its on you as much as them.

It's tough though, because it also applies to selling them on eBay or StubHub or something, where you may not know who buys them. Not sure what they do if you use their "official" on-line ticket broker, but it'd suck if they brokered the sale and the schmuck that bought them cost you your seats. It'd also suck if you owned a PSL - not sure what they do in that case.

If I sell my Jets tickets on say, StubHub I could still be held responsible for what some idiot does with my ticket. If I sell through the NFL Ticket Exchange any liability I have for some schmuck is avoided though.

If they can do it for ticketmaster they could do it for stubhub as well. The only problem I got with both stubhub and ticketmaster is that its basically legalized scalping.

Its against the law for a team to price discriminate, meaning you can't just sell a ticket to the highest bidder. You have to charge the same amount to everyone who may buy that seat. Why are these companies allowed to get away with it though? Unless your selling your ticket for the same amount you paid for it, it should be illegal.

[DeFrank]

When I was 4, we walked to a Skins game at RFK. For the last twelve years, 8 times a year, we mkake the drive to FedEx, which is a horribly bland stadium that seems to let all noise dissapate. The talk of building a new site at RFK is amazing. A big, Super Bowl quality stadium, with lots of land development around, would be a huge deal for the Skins. And I could walk to the games again!

[Gothamite]

Unless your selling your ticket for the same amount you paid for it, it should be illegal.

Should be, but isn't always. It isn't legal in my state, might be in yours.

I know that eBay has an anti-scalping policy, where bidders are held to the laws in their state. Stubhub asks people to follow the laws of their locality, but doesn't make them.

[pmoehrin]

Unless your selling your ticket for the same amount you paid for it, it should be illegal.

Should be, but isn't always. It isn't legal in my state, might be in yours.

I know that eBay has an anti-scalping policy, where bidders are held to the laws in their state. Stubhub asks people to follow the laws of their locality, but doesn't make them.

StubHub is owned by eBay. If they didn't I'm not so sure that anti scalping policy would exist.

How a company like StubHub can even be allowed to exist bother me alot. A team cannot price discriminate and StubHub's entire existence is based on the ability to price dscriminate. How can the provider of the good being consumed have restrictions set on the prices they can charge but a third party doesen't? And they aren't even providing the good. To me either the team should be allowed to price discriminate or nobody should. I don't anyone should, but at least if you allow the team to do it, they can capture the full value of their product. Instead you have third party industries making money off a product that isn't theirs.

[Gothamite]

You'll have to tell me more about exactly what you mean by "price discriminate." Is there a legal definition?

[BlueSky]

Unless your selling your ticket for the same amount you paid for it, it should be illegal.

Should be, but isn't always. It isn't legal in my state, might be in yours.

I know that eBay has an anti-scalping policy, where bidders are held to the laws in their state. Stubhub asks people to follow the laws of their locality, but doesn't make them.

StubHub is owned by eBay. If they didn't I'm not so sure that anti scalping policy would exist.

How a company like StubHub can even be allowed to exist bother me alot. A team cannot price discriminate and StubHub's entire existence is based on the ability to price dscriminate. How can the provider of the good being consumed have restrictions set on the prices they can charge but a third party doesen't? And they aren't even providing the good. To me either the team should be allowed to price discriminate or nobody should. I don't anyone should, but at least if you allow the team to do it, they can capture the full value of their product. Instead you have third party industries making money off a product that isn't theirs.

That sounds a lot like what we call a "free market." How do you see teams as being restricted in what they can charge? Are you saying the owner of a '57 Chevy is wrong because he makes a profit selling a product he didn't produce? I'm not really getting your point.

[pmoehrin]

You'll have to tell me more about exactly what you mean by "price discriminate." Is there a legal definition?

Price discrimination is the when sales of identical goods or services occur at different prices from the same provider.

If every company were allowed to sell their goods auction style, I would view it as a form of classism. You can't vary your price from person to person based on their ability to pay and say that everyone is being treated fairly here, and I'm not talking a car company looking at somebody's credit score to set up a payment plan. I'm talking going into a supermarket and being charged $5 for an apple while the person behind him you being charged $1.50. You have to charge the same price to everyone. Businesses have no right to ask how much a person makes and frequently they use it before they buy a pack of cigarettes.

As for in the case of an auction style of sale if person wants to auction off an item generally speaking he or she is only selling that good one time and its something that not being offered regularly by anyone else, or if it is being sold by somebody else it will probably go for at or slightly below the market value. A person generally doesen't have the ability to sell large quantities of items they don't produce and make a profit off it. Except when it comes to goods that have an excess demand that what is being offered. That's when you get situations of people buying up 30 or 40 tickle me Elmo's.

If the company themselves were to raise the price to allow for that, they could be sued under anti-trust law. It would be seen as a monopolistic practice to start charing $100 for something like a tickle me Elmo when everything else that has the same amount of labor and supplies going into it is selling for $15. The only reason your allowed to charge that much is because your the only provider of that particular good. If you take advantage of that then your engaging in monopolistic practices. To put it more simply they would be price gauging.

The NFL I would consider a monopoly. They are the only providers in the world of football of that high quality. If they were to charge the true amount of what they could get they could (ie. doing what Stubhub does) they could be sued under anti-trust law for engaging in monpolistic practices.

The actual law itself in the NFL's case would be the Robinson-Patman Act. No team can have a TBD price for a game. You have list it once tickets go on sale and you cannot increase it. You can only decrease it, and if you do then you would have to offer the same discount to everyone who bought that seat prior to the discount for that season.

[TheFloridianLogoMan]

According to the506's NFL maps page, the Bucs will once again be blacked out in the Tampa Bay/surrounding area.....that's 10 straight regular season home games blacked out for a suprisingly good team. No word yet on whether the Raiders home opener has had it's blackout lifted or not.