Blackout!
February 11, 2012 12:05 PM Subscribe
"If we can get the playoff games, believe me, it would be the greatest achievement we've ever done." -- Richard Nixon. The 37th President loved him his football (and I mean, he really loved him his football), and a previously unreported tape recording revealed that Nixon attempted (and failed) to broker a change in the NFL blackout policy, which at the time specified that NFL games would not be broadcasted in their hometowns, regardless of a sellout, and this included playoff games. Why does it matter? Well, Nixon's deal would have screwed fans just so he could get a Redskins playoff game on TV. There are antitrust implications that are still being argued today. And the president still travels with a football.
Nixon's deal would have screwed fans just so he could get a Redskins playoff game on TV.
What did he have against Redskins fans??
Yeah, I know, this is back when they were a completely different team.
posted by inigo2 at 12:24 PM on February 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
What did he have against Redskins fans??
Yeah, I know, this is back when they were a completely different team.
posted by inigo2 at 12:24 PM on February 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
Huh. I had no idea that the blackout rule still existed. I thought that went away years ago.
posted by octothorpe at 12:26 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by octothorpe at 12:26 PM on February 11, 2012
It's astounding to me how little respect the NFL has for its fans.
posted by no regrets, coyote at 12:29 PM on February 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by no regrets, coyote at 12:29 PM on February 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
It's astounding to me how little respect the NFL has for its fans.
Why? It's not like the fans show any sign of tiring of the product no matter how badly they are treated. It would be silly of the owners to change their behavior now.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:35 PM on February 11, 2012 [8 favorites]
Why? It's not like the fans show any sign of tiring of the product no matter how badly they are treated. It would be silly of the owners to change their behavior now.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:35 PM on February 11, 2012 [8 favorites]
I live in a broadcast area that includes Bengals games (blocked in 2011) and I used to live in the area that includes Browns games (blocked in 1995). Oh, my heavens, the drama. You would think the NFL was staging ritual human sacrifice, not blocking TV distribution.
It amuses me that people stress so much about these things happening. Seriously: I'm 31 and move around a lot and it's only happened three times in the 15 different broadcast areas I've lived in, in my entire life, even if you count the ones I've lived in, in years where I didn't live there.) Startled, I get. Angry, I get. "The NFL is the source of all that is unfair and evil in all the land and they hate us and so I hate them" is a bit of an excessive reaction.
And mine is a town with no pro football team; people stress out about the Bengals, who play significantly closer to the Kentucky capital than to us, getting blacked out once, ever - and the Bengals aren't exactly top tier, and most Central Ohio people seem as likely to root for the Cowboys or the Dolphins or whoever.
Meanwhile, until the day the Big Ten Network almost wasn't added to local cable here in Columbus, no one I tried explaining the "if you drop your cable for Netflix and you're too far from the broadcast towers you can't watch college football at all" thing to, ever really understood why that would be frustrating. It's like the NFL has a special "please hate us" aura. What I wouldn't give for a tenth of that anger and petitioning-of-Congress being directed at the NCAA, which is at least a quasi-governmental agency (or as Wikipedia puts it, "semi-voluntary.")
(Note: I still think the NFL's policy is stupid, counterproductive, and rather insulting. I also simultaneously wonder how on earth this was the special business of either Congress or the President, and can't help but ask myself if there wasn't anything more important to fix in 1972. Also: how exactly did Mr. Nixon think he was going to be able to indefinitely keep Congress off the NFL's back? Watergate or no, he was going to be very, very powerless after January of 1977. If I were NFL commissioner, I would have said "no," too.)
posted by SMPA at 1:02 PM on February 11, 2012
It amuses me that people stress so much about these things happening. Seriously: I'm 31 and move around a lot and it's only happened three times in the 15 different broadcast areas I've lived in, in my entire life, even if you count the ones I've lived in, in years where I didn't live there.) Startled, I get. Angry, I get. "The NFL is the source of all that is unfair and evil in all the land and they hate us and so I hate them" is a bit of an excessive reaction.
And mine is a town with no pro football team; people stress out about the Bengals, who play significantly closer to the Kentucky capital than to us, getting blacked out once, ever - and the Bengals aren't exactly top tier, and most Central Ohio people seem as likely to root for the Cowboys or the Dolphins or whoever.
Meanwhile, until the day the Big Ten Network almost wasn't added to local cable here in Columbus, no one I tried explaining the "if you drop your cable for Netflix and you're too far from the broadcast towers you can't watch college football at all" thing to, ever really understood why that would be frustrating. It's like the NFL has a special "please hate us" aura. What I wouldn't give for a tenth of that anger and petitioning-of-Congress being directed at the NCAA, which is at least a quasi-governmental agency (or as Wikipedia puts it, "semi-voluntary.")
(Note: I still think the NFL's policy is stupid, counterproductive, and rather insulting. I also simultaneously wonder how on earth this was the special business of either Congress or the President, and can't help but ask myself if there wasn't anything more important to fix in 1972. Also: how exactly did Mr. Nixon think he was going to be able to indefinitely keep Congress off the NFL's back? Watergate or no, he was going to be very, very powerless after January of 1977. If I were NFL commissioner, I would have said "no," too.)
posted by SMPA at 1:02 PM on February 11, 2012
That reminds me of the story in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 when Hunter S Thompson had an extended private discussion about football with Richard Nixon because he was the only reporter around that followed the game. I really couldn't tell whether the event was real or imagined but, oh yes, it was very real.
It was a very weird trip; probably one of the weirdest things I’ve ever done, and especially weird because both Nixon and I enjoyed it. We had a good talk, and when we got to the airport, I stood around the Lear Jet with Dick and the others, chatting in a very relaxed way about how successful his swing through New Hampshire had been…and as he climbed into the plane it seemed only natural to thank him for the ride and shake hands….posted by euphorb at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2012 [16 favorites]
But suddenly I was seized from behind and jerked away from the plane. Good God, I thought as I reeled backwards, Here We Go … “Watch out!” somebody was shouting. “Get the cigarette!” A hand lashed out of the darkness to snatch the cigarette out of my mouth, then other hands kept me from falling and I recognized the voice of Nick Ruwe, Nixon’s chief advance man for New Hampshire, saying, “God damnit, Hunter, you almost blew up the plane!”
I shrugged. He was right. I’d been leaning over the fuel tank with a burning butt in my mouth.
Just here to point out that although he can be a bit of a tool, Ward Churchill's screed about the name of the Potomac-area NFL team (and similarly-named teams) is still spot on.
posted by docgonzo at 1:04 PM on February 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by docgonzo at 1:04 PM on February 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
It's always amusing to see how in the land of free market uber alles, capitalism can still be so ...inefficient... as to allow a relic like this blackout rule to survive.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:15 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by MartinWisse at 1:15 PM on February 11, 2012
docgonzo: "Just here to point out that although he can be a bit of a tool, Ward Churchill's screed about the name of the Potomac-area NFL team (and similarly-named teams) is still spot on."
That reminded me of how the two junior high schools' sports teams in one place I lived as a kid were the "Cowboys" and the "Indians." Their student bodies were..not economically diverse. I'll let the reader guess whether the wealthy were the Cowboys or the Indians.
posted by wierdo at 1:30 PM on February 11, 2012
That reminded me of how the two junior high schools' sports teams in one place I lived as a kid were the "Cowboys" and the "Indians." Their student bodies were..not economically diverse. I'll let the reader guess whether the wealthy were the Cowboys or the Indians.
posted by wierdo at 1:30 PM on February 11, 2012
Huh. I had no idea that the blackout rule still existed. I thought that went away years ago.
There's a small cottage industry in getting local companies to buy up unused tickets at the last minute to allow games to be aired locally. The companies get advertising, and they and the team look like good guys.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:34 PM on February 11, 2012
There's a small cottage industry in getting local companies to buy up unused tickets at the last minute to allow games to be aired locally. The companies get advertising, and they and the team look like good guys.
posted by ZeusHumms at 1:34 PM on February 11, 2012
I love that Hunter S Thompson story. There's a weird intimacy-between-enemies that I don't think happens these days.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2012 [3 favorites]
It's always amusing to see how in the land of free market uber alles, capitalism can still be so ...inefficient... as to allow a relic like this blackout rule to survive.
Well, it is a relic, I can at least see the pure economic reasoning behind it.
Let's say you're an owner that wants to make as much money as possible.
Since you're not going to magically invent more people to watch TV, the way the NFL shares TV money (one giant pool, equal distribution) means that you're getting, more or less, a fixed, fractional amount of all the dollars made from year to year. The owner that personally does something to raise TV revenue by one dollar a) had to affect the nationwide ratings, not the local ratings and then b) only actually keeps 1/32 of that dollar. In other words, for that money to go up for you, it has to go up for everyone, so that's not really something an individual owner can directly control (other than to just put a good product out there and market it well).
That said, it's still an enormous amount of money. But it is what it is. You can't easily make it go up and down all by yourself.
However, you do control your gate, parking and concessions money; those are whole dollars coming into your pocket, rather than fractional dollars you get from advertising and licensing revenue. You also likely got your stadium from the taxpayers, and the city council likes to see things like hotel and restaurant taxes.
Now, those gate dollars are also limited -- you can't add seats to the stadium. That limits you. On the other hand, if you keep selling out, you can raise prices.
At some point, you make a calculation that says, every person coming to the game is worth X dollars and Y political leverage and adds Z percent to the potential that I can raise prices next year. Is that worth more or less than the fractional of the dollars I can get from my own efforts to raise nationwide TV revenue by broadcasting locally?
You can see where it may not compute, just in terms of raw accounting.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:51 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Well, it is a relic, I can at least see the pure economic reasoning behind it.
Let's say you're an owner that wants to make as much money as possible.
Since you're not going to magically invent more people to watch TV, the way the NFL shares TV money (one giant pool, equal distribution) means that you're getting, more or less, a fixed, fractional amount of all the dollars made from year to year. The owner that personally does something to raise TV revenue by one dollar a) had to affect the nationwide ratings, not the local ratings and then b) only actually keeps 1/32 of that dollar. In other words, for that money to go up for you, it has to go up for everyone, so that's not really something an individual owner can directly control (other than to just put a good product out there and market it well).
That said, it's still an enormous amount of money. But it is what it is. You can't easily make it go up and down all by yourself.
However, you do control your gate, parking and concessions money; those are whole dollars coming into your pocket, rather than fractional dollars you get from advertising and licensing revenue. You also likely got your stadium from the taxpayers, and the city council likes to see things like hotel and restaurant taxes.
Now, those gate dollars are also limited -- you can't add seats to the stadium. That limits you. On the other hand, if you keep selling out, you can raise prices.
At some point, you make a calculation that says, every person coming to the game is worth X dollars and Y political leverage and adds Z percent to the potential that I can raise prices next year. Is that worth more or less than the fractional of the dollars I can get from my own efforts to raise nationwide TV revenue by broadcasting locally?
You can see where it may not compute, just in terms of raw accounting.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:51 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Huh. I had no idea that the blackout rule still existed. I thought that went away years ago.
Clearly not a pre-2011 Lions fan.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:04 PM on February 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
Clearly not a pre-2011 Lions fan.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:04 PM on February 11, 2012 [4 favorites]
I still claim that any President that gets the blackout rules abolished will win reelection. And probably get the term limits extended.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:26 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 2:26 PM on February 11, 2012
Clearly not a pre-2011 Lions fan.
Or current Bills fan.
posted by inigo2 at 2:31 PM on February 11, 2012
Or current Bills fan.
posted by inigo2 at 2:31 PM on February 11, 2012
If we can't sell the place out eight times a year, how could we justify making the taxpayers build it in the first place?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:34 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by furiousxgeorge at 3:34 PM on February 11, 2012
Digging around in Wikipedia tells me that I didn't know about the blackout policy because my local team has sold out each game for the last forty years. I probably should have known that.
posted by octothorpe at 4:17 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 4:17 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
I had no idea either, but I have not lived in a town with a local team since the Rams moved to Anaheim (then I moved out of LA). I am very happy to not live in an NFL town.
posted by Danf at 4:23 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by Danf at 4:23 PM on February 11, 2012
Wait--the official Richard Nixon Foundation is reprinting bits from HST? Fucking hell, I wonder which one of them is spinning in his grave* faster!
*Yes, I know the deal with HST--ashes, cannon, Johnny Depp, etc. Imagine a little dust devil on a still day. You could even put a cigarette holder and a pair of aviator shades on it.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:12 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
*Yes, I know the deal with HST--ashes, cannon, Johnny Depp, etc. Imagine a little dust devil on a still day. You could even put a cigarette holder and a pair of aviator shades on it.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:12 PM on February 11, 2012 [1 favorite]
Nixon's attempted deal for the playoff game is interesting, but framing this as "Nixon's deal would have screwed fans" seems to me to be a stretch. It would certainly be better than the blackout, no? and the playoffs are more significant. Nixon wouldn't be gaining anything that other fans wouldn't also have, and he'd also be giving up the same. It may not have been the best strategy, but framing it as "screwing the fans" is at best an uncharitable reading.
posted by milestogo at 5:42 PM on February 11, 2012
posted by milestogo at 5:42 PM on February 11, 2012
I still claim that any President that gets the blackout rules abolished will win reelection.
Yes, but only because it'll provide such a big boost in Ohio.
posted by aaronetc at 6:10 PM on February 11, 2012
Yes, but only because it'll provide such a big boost in Ohio.
posted by aaronetc at 6:10 PM on February 11, 2012
Regional coverage restrictions are why I walked away from being an NBA fan 10 years ago. I loved the game. I just couldn't watch it. Now they will never get me back.
posted by srboisvert at 11:47 AM on February 13, 2012
posted by srboisvert at 11:47 AM on February 13, 2012
« Older why is Guante so angry? it's a rhetorical question | New type of Battery takes salt out of Seawater Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gjc at 12:23 PM on February 11, 2012 [3 favorites]