Fezmid Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 The basic story is, "Public funds help pay for stadiums, so owners shouldn't be able to blackout local fans." http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/sports-fans-coalition-intends-to-lobby-against-nfl-blackouts/
jr1 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Fans shouldn't be expected to sellout games in bad Midwest and Northeast weather and when their team sucks
truth on hold Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Kinda wish theyd blacked out the away game in Dallas
PromoTheRobot Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) And pizza is a vegetable. We all know how the game is played. PTR Edited November 20, 2011 by PromoTheRobot
KOKBILLS Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Kinda wish theyd blacked out the away game in Dallas
timstep Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Blackouts are inherently unfair because not all stadiums are the same size, nor do they draw from the same population base. I've been saying for years it would be a percentage combining the two stats and creating a league-wide average.
KD in CA Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Why don't they do something useful and instead petition against the use of taxpayer money to build stadiums.
boyst Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Now, everyone, do you realize that this would hurt more then help? Many of us are in other teams markets. I am in NC and would have to watch Panthers games and miss out on much better games. Maybe if you live in Houston you'll have to watch them play Indy at home when you could have got Buffalo @ NY.
CBD Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Blackouts are inherently unfair because not all stadiums are the same size, nor do they draw from the same population base. I've been saying for years it would be a percentage combining the two stats and creating a league-wide average. Wouldn't ticket price be the thing that evens things up?
Big Turk Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 This is a very fair argument, and one the NFL is likely dreading going to court over...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 I've heard this argument a few times before. It's usually made by some politician trying to make himself sound like he's all for the fans when he knows it something that will never come about anyway. The problem I have with it I don't see any way you can legally enforce this after the fact. I could see it going to court and assume the group wins, you certainly could change the rules that from now on if you take money you can't black out the game. But with prior money a team could argue that wasn't the rules in effect when I took the money. Had that been the case I wouldn't have taken the money, I just would have moved the team instead. There are plenty of cities who signed these deals where they agreed to buy up all the left over tickets, thus guaranteeing every games a sell out. That's a simple way to fix it if those are the new rules, you take the money, the city promises to the remaining tickets, now all games are sold out so the black out rule never comes into effect and team still gets money for the stadium. Again though likely only the larger cities can afford to do this.
Mr. WEO Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 Blackouts are inherently unfair because not all stadiums are the same size, nor do they draw from the same population base. I've been saying for years it would be a percentage combining the two stats and creating a league-wide average. Does the population base matter? Do they struggle to sell out in GB, Minny, KC.....?
Recommended Posts