FCC to kill sports blackout rule

[Avid Listener]

The FCC should require networks to keep their schedule - no matter what. If they won't put games on cable where they belong, then force the leagues to end games at the designated time. These greedy team owners have gotten their way far too often. Most of them belong in jail any way.

Hogwash! The FCC should limit itself to making sure that the stations that they license (which doesn't include networks at all, aside from O&O stations) conform to all applicable technical specifications and standards. On that they should be very strict. Things like signal strength, accuracy of frequency, etc., are important. That's what the FCC should concern itself with.

They shouldn't have any say whatsoever about any content. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

In case a broadcast station airs a commercial that includes lies or misinformation, there is the Federal Trade Commission to handle that.

 

[FredLeonard]

Hogwash! The FCC should limit itself to making sure that the stations that they license (which doesn't include networks at all, aside from O&O stations) conform to all applicable technical specifications and standards. On that they should be very strict. Things like signal strength, accuracy of frequency, etc., are important. That's what the FCC should concern itself with.

They shouldn't have any say whatsoever about any content. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

In case a broadcast station airs a commercial that includes lies or misinformation, there is the Federal Trade Commission to handle that.

I'm sure the rich people are grateful for your support. This is not about content. This is about accurate representation. They can put whatever they want on their schedule. But they must stick to their published schedule - just as a package goods manufacturer must have contents consistent with labeling or a food manufacturer must offer a product which matches the nutritional labels. I see Whole Foods was lying on the label about how much sugar they put in their house brand yogurt but I guess you support their freedom to put as much as they want in the product and then lie about it.

 

[FredLeonard]

Jeez.....sour attitude much? These are live events and subject to various ending times. Obviously you don't appreciate football (or any live sports?) but there is no reason that live events must live on cable - other than your distaste of course.

Of course the networks could pad the game with an hour to be used just in case (it used to be called 'TBD' on the schedules) in which case you would sit on your couch watching a rehash of the local news, an infomercial or Aunt Tilly's interview with the mayor. Your choice.

So, since you are a fan, why do NFL games run so much longer than they did 40 years ago? Why so much downtime - yes, far more than is needed for commercials or bathroom breaks for viewers? There is no reason these games have to run long - consistently. The NFL can cut out all these delays. They benefit no one.

And the networks, CBS in particular, does not even try to produce an accurate schedule on Sundays. Most Sundays, CBS says the game will end at 7pm - and it never, ever does. They could schedule the end of the game for 7:30 and come close, most of the time. Fox does. Not CBS.

And they never did do infomercials or interviews with mayors after games - they did post game shows. C'mon, guy.

And I am not alone in my "distaste." And it's not just football. CBS lets golf run over, too. And basketball. It's just sloppy scheduling and allowing sports leagues to dictate to networks and throw their weight around. For some reason, leagues are averse to speeding up games. Apparently it's a nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do attitude. So much of everybody's life is taken up with pitchers scratching their crotches?

 

[Morgan Wick]

They don't care about DVR users? Well, now they do. Nielsen counts three day and seven day viewing. Networks charge for them. Spend less time watching sports and keep up with your reading.

They only care about DVR users and charge for them insofar as they watch the commercials (which they don't), which is, after all, what's paying for the programming. The currency of the TV industry at the moment is "C+3", or minutes of commercials watched in the first three days after airing. Viewing of the actual program does not matter one iota, only to the extent it gets people to watch the commercials. Chalk it up to "corporate avarice" if you want, but at least understand how the business works and what their thought process is.

And in this era of hundreds of channels, channels should have formats - like radio has for the past 60 years. Sports belong on sports channels. Just don't make me pay $5 a month for it.

As landtuna pointed out, you're only saying this because you don't like sports. If you were one of the over ten million people who watch NFL games every Sunday, Monday and Thursday, you'd be bitter about having to pay what would doubtless be upwards of $10 in an a la carte universe for ESPN. And pay channels like ESPN are only able to get the big-time sports events I mentioned earlier because they can muscle their way into nearly every household. Take that away, and sports would doubtless come crawling back to the more widely-available platform, because it's the casual fans that would never even consider paying $5 or $10 for a sports channel that make the biggest sports events water-cooler events.

Again, in this era of the Internet, we don't need hundreds of channels. Your beef with CBS is for not putting 60 Minutes and the rest of their primetime lineup on the Internet for you to watch whenever you want. Once the day comes when that becomes feasible, if it isn't already, every program that doesn't have to be watched at the arbitrary time the networks schedule them for will exist on the schedule only because there isn't any sort of live event to kick them out.

Most Sundays when CBS has a late afternoon game, they still schedule 60 Minutes to start at 7pm - and it almost never happens. Much of the time, the game is not even over by 7:30pm.

A year or two ago, the NFL started scheduling late doubleheader games to start at 4:25. Since then, CBS has scheduled 60 Minutes to start at 7:30 on doubleheader weeks, with concomitant effects on the rest of the schedule. If your East Coast affiliate or cable provider still lists 60 Minutes as starting at 7 even on doubleheader weeks, take it up with them.

The FCC should require networks to keep their schedule - no matter what. If they won't put games on cable where they belong, then force the leagues to end games at the designated time.

And if you were one of the over ten million NFL fans, you would be even more upset than you are now if a doubtlessly-thrilling game was cut off before its conclusion so the network could "keep their schedule - no matter what." Soccer is the only sport that can really be "forced" to end at the designated time, and when extra time, penalty kicks, and just plain inclement weather get in the way (as the latter did for the Georgia-South Carolina game you're complaining about), it can't even do that.

And this so you can program your DVR simply and accurately? Your real beef with CBS' "corporate avarice" is for not encoding their signal so DVRs know the actual time the programs they've been programmed to record start and end no matter what, as I have read (possibly on these very forums) European networks do. Again, you're thinking too small; you shouldn't be a slave to a schedule at all, and your use of a DVR shows you're at least trying to escape it.

And I am not alone in my "distaste." And it's not just football. CBS lets golf run over, too. And basketball. It's just sloppy scheduling and allowing sports leagues to dictate to networks and throw their weight around. For some reason, leagues are averse to speeding up games. Apparently it's a nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do attitude. So much of everybody's life is taken up with pitchers scratching their crotches?

Would your disdain for sports fans change if the sport in question was not the "overly brutal corruption of rugby" known as American football, but golf, basketball, or baseball? Do you want to force basketball or baseball fans to move to pay TV too?

Look, I'm a liberal, I hate "corporate avarice" as much as the next guy, but I also actually bother to understand how capitalism works and is supposed to work and how we got into this situation, and why communism became just another form of dictatorship before failing completely, and I don't just have a knee-jerk reaction to the depredations of the one-percenters.

 

[landtuna]

So, since you are a fan, why do NFL games run so much longer than they did 40 years ago? Why so much downtime - yes, far more than is needed for commercials or bathroom breaks for viewers? There is no reason these games have to run long - consistently. The NFL can cut out all these delays. They benefit no one.

I am not an NFL fan and do not watch the NFL. It sounds like you have a beef with the NFL instead of the networks.

And the networks, CBS in particular, does not even try to produce an accurate schedule on Sundays. Most Sundays, CBS says the game will end at 7pm - and it never, ever does. They could schedule the end of the game for 7:30 and come close, most of the time. Fox does. Not CBS.

Fox has nothing of value to air on Sunday eves but that is beside the point. If the variable ending times bother you so much then time to get a Tivo.

And they never did do infomercials or interviews with mayors after games - they did post game shows. C'mon, guy.

I have seen post game shows, local news and locally produced shows (with yes, interviews with local politicians).

And I am not alone in my "distaste." And it's not just football. CBS lets golf run over, too. And basketball. It's just sloppy scheduling and allowing sports leagues to dictate to networks and throw their weight around. For some reason, leagues are averse to speeding up games. Apparently it's a nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do attitude. So much of everybody's life is taken up with pitchers scratching their crotches?

I am sure that people who don't watch sports probably do have a distaste for those shows running over time but it isn't the network's issue. The networks learned a long time ago that it can be suicide to cut short a game (re: Heidi Bowl) so most times they stay with the game until it ends.

 

[FredLeonard]

I'm the only one in this thread who objects to CBS' practice (among others) - not the only one in the world. And what I object to is not the football game but the screwing up of the prime time schedule.

Actually, I don't think these games should go on ESPN or Fox Sports1. The leagues could make far more money putting games "on demand."

CBS does schedule the late game to end at 7:30 sometimes - not always. I can't see a pattern as to when they schedule 60 Minutes for 7pm or 7:30pm. Tonight it's 7:30pm. CBS usually allows three and a half-hours for the early game; what makes them think the late game will go more quickly?

Apparently some here (and maybe in the industry) are under the illusion that people before DVRs or without DVRs who watch live sit through the commercials. Wait for the day after the Super Bowl or some other highly-rated, must see event. A day or two later Nielsen will issue a press release (which newspapers will pick up) about how the water pressure in major cities dropped at half-time or during commercial breaks. These stories pop up from time to time all the way back Uncle Miltie and Lucy. People don't sit and watch commercials - they go to the john or the kitchen or look at the paper or talk to somebody... DVR users are actually paying more attention. You have to watch to fast forward and stop when the commercial break ends. Ad agencies have gotten very good at creating spots to convey a message and grab attention at fast-forward speed. When something grabs people's attention, they watch. DVR users are early adopters and prime target consumers. And several shows low-rated among live viewers have been saved by solid levels of DVR viewing.

Lots of shows I don't like. I hate reality shows but at least they don't screw up the schedule.

In Europe, one of things they get that we don't is DVRs which can adapt to schedule changes. Broadcasters encode program information and DVRs know when a program actually begins and ends. But CBS doesn't care enough to provide realistic schedules based on how long games actually run - let alone encode data for DVRs.

A lot of people wanted to watch Heidi. It was an anticipated and highly promoted Sunday night "family viewing" event - sort of like "The Sound of Music" was. That's why NBC pulled out of what seemed like a dead, one-sided game. Of course, there were complaints from some football fans but not from everybody. Football fans were the only ones complaining. People who wanted to see Heidi were happy. But the media glommed onto this because they love stories which supposedly show how important media are - just as the media have been lying about Orson Welles starting a panic for almost 80 years. Most people could care less - even some football fans, after all it was only an AFL game.

 

[Avid Listener]

I'm sure the rich people are grateful for your support. This is not about content. This is about accurate representation. They can put whatever they want on their schedule. But they must stick to their published schedule - just as a package goods manufacturer must have contents consistent with labeling or a food manufacturer must offer a product which matches the nutritional labels. I see Whole Foods was lying on the label about how much sugar they put in their house brand yogurt but I guess you support their freedom to put as much as they want in the product and then lie about it.

That is complete and utter hogwash. Food labeling is important because people EAT food. What entertainments are shown on television is hardly a matter of public health. If someone with an allergy to a particular ingredient eats something that contains that ingredient because the food wasn't labeled correctly, someone could die. That's important.

But what a TV station broadcasts is not a matter of life and death. The only accurate representation a television station should be required to make is that their broadcasts will be on the frequency assigned to them, at the power level assigned to them. Beyond that, there is no earthly reason why a station should just post "To Be Announced" for their entire schedule. If you want to know what show is on, tune in and find out.

I'm the only one in this thread who objects to CBS' practice (among others) - not the only one in the world. And what I object to is not the football game but the screwing up of the prime time schedule.

Actually, you probably are one of maybe a dozen people who actually give a damn about this issue. And the other eleven are also delusional. In fact, your obsession with this makes mvcg66b3r's obsession with lists of "cursed" tv stations, cable networks, and other such mundane trivia seem reasonable. And that's not an easy thing to do.

 

[landtuna]

In Europe, one of things they get that we don't is DVRs which can adapt to schedule changes. Broadcasters encode program information and DVRs know when a program actually begins and ends. But CBS doesn't care enough to provide realistic schedules based on how long games actually run - let alone encode data for DVRs.

One of Tivo's big marketing points has been that they do adapt to real-time start-stop programming. I don't know, I don't have a Tivo, but since televising live events began (and that includes things like award shows that never seem to end on time either) schedules have been impacted by last minute changes. Seems like you either have to get used to it or suffer ongoing acid indigestion.

A lot of people wanted to watch Heidi. It was an anticipated and highly promoted Sunday night "family viewing" event - sort of like "The Sound of Music" was. That's why NBC pulled out of what seemed like a dead, one-sided game. Of course, there were complaints from some football fans but not from everybody. Football fans were the only ones complaining. People who wanted to see Heidi were happy. But the media glommed onto this because they love stories which supposedly show how important media are - just as the media have been lying about Orson Welles starting a panic for almost 80 years. Most people could care less - even some football fans, after all it was only an AFL game.

The AFL wasn't nearly as popular back then as the NFL is now but even so the network's switchboard lit up with thousands of calls because they broke away from the game. Making it even worse was that the Raiders, the losing team when they switched, scored two last minute touchdowns to win the game. This rightly incensed the West Coast football fans and most likely established the precedent that live sports events, even one-sided ones, stay until the final play. It took the network years to live this mistake down.

BTW, the AFL teams of the 60's and 70's were a lot more entertaining to watch than the Big-10-like NFL teams of the day and the Raiders in particular were among the most entertaining. This particular game featured the Raiders vs the Jets so you had both large TV markets involved. In 1997, the Heidi Game was voted the most memorable regular season game in U.S. professional football history.

AFAIK the breakaway was a decision which was unplanned and that magnified the issues within the network management. It would have hurt no one had the network finished the game then started Heidi a few minutes late (there were only 2 or so minutes left in the game) as it would have affected only the East Coast. I'm assuming no one in network management or operations wants to put their job on the line by cutting a game short again.

I have lived most of my life in the Mountain Time Zone which has been at a definite disadvantage in network program scheduling since I began watching TV in the 50's. We have to adjust our schedules two times per year (since AZ does not recognize DST) and virtually all our programming takes place on CST or PST schedules. You might be able to tell that I have no sympathy for people who complain of occasionally having to adjust their personal schedules to watch a particular program.

 

[FredLeonard]

I do have a Tivo, actually two of them. My third and fourth. When you set Tivo to record a live show (like a ballgame), the box asks you if you want to add extra time (default is an hour). There are no prompts or adjustments, however, for shows that follow the live broadcasts. So, I have learned (as have a lot of other people) to make allowances for shows after games or other live events. Of course, that doesn't help with something unexpected - like when a golf tournament ends in a tie and they do an extra round Monday afternoon.

And, of course, y'all in the Mountain, Pacific, Alaskan and Hawaiian time zones don't have to worry about games screwing up prime time since they end way before prime time begins (and they always announce at the end of games that the West will have the regular schedule). Of course, you have no sympathy since it doesn't affect you directly. And it's not just occasionally and it's not that predictable. And the problem could be avoided if the NFL and CBS didn't have a "public be damned" attitude - and right-wingers didn't condone it.

At the time of Heidi, standard practice was to join shows "in progress" - not bump the whole schedule.

I am not suggesting pulling out of a game in progress. Please read my posts more carefully. I am suggesting that (1) they speed up the game, (2) they make better estimates of when games will actually end in making up their schedules and (3) that they even change the rules of football - as they have done many times - and have games end at a specific time (not after the fictional 60 minutes). One thing CBS could do is cut 60 Minutes when games run long. They have three stories each week; run one or two and get back on schedule. The stories that get bumped can be carried over to future shows.

 

[landtuna]

And the problem could be avoided if the NFL and CBS didn't have a "public be damned" attitude - and right-wingers didn't condone it.

Hoo boy! Now politics has entered into the fray? And CBS, the #1 rated TV network for how many years now has a "public be damned" attitude? Sure doesn't seem to bother most viewers apparently.

I am not suggesting pulling out of a game in progress. Please read my posts more carefully. I am suggesting that (1) they speed up the game, (2) they make better estimates of when games will actually end in making up their schedules and (3) that they even change the rules of football - as they have done many times - and have games end at a specific time (not after the fictional 60 minutes). One thing CBS could do is cut 60 Minutes when games run long. They have three stories each week; run one or two and get back on schedule. The stories that get bumped can be carried over to future shows.

1. Not sure how you would speed up the game? Eliminate the forward pass (since long gains or incomplete passes stop the clock). Good luck with that. And what about games like golf? Require the players to run between holes? It might be entertaining to watch a golfer actually sweat.

2. Better estimates? This might work but it isn't infallible.

3. Change the rules? Uh, not one chance in hell. Since the number of NFL viewers usually dwarfs individual non-sports programs there is no chance that running time would be eliminated in favor of a shorter game - and that is only for televised games. AFAIK the only "rule" ever implemented for television is the "commercial time out" but even that is taken at normal clock stoppages.

4. Bump the stories? Sure. THAT wouldn't cause much upheaval, would it? Then we'd have many more Fred's complaining about the content being shifted, not airing on schedule etc.

If CBS and the NFL bother you that much you must go positively apoplectic about Fox and NASCAR. Rain delays are a frequent reason races are delayed or moved to successive days entirely yet those don't seem to bother the race fans/viewers too much. In addition, race duration is almost always determined in large part by the track being raced so average times would be an issue.

In short, it is what it is and isn't likely to change significantly. Putting sports on cable would not solve the issue, just take if off your rant list.

 

[CTListener]

The two major factors in today's bloated football games are the predominance of passing, which stops the clock on incompletions and receivers going out of bounds, and the challenge/video review system. Neither is going to be legislated out of the game. It would be like baseball declaring that the batter only gets one strike because too many time-consuming strikeouts are making the games too long. Also bloating baseball games are catchers going to the mound to talk to pitchers, batters stepping out of the box after every pitch, and hitters strolling to the plate so their WWE-style "entrance music" (usually cretinous rap) can finish. Major League Baseball CAN legislate those delays out of the game, and most probably will in the near future. Football has no similar options.

 

[FredLeonard]

60 Minutes started at 7:50 - only 20 minutes late.

During the first commercial break, they ran a spot for Ken Burns' documentary series "The Roosevelts" on public television stations - just six minutes before it starts.

Tuna, you seem really attached to the status quo and the infallibility of those behind it. The leagues change the rules constantly. Even I know that. How about NOT stopping the clock for incomplete passes and runners going out of bounds. Stop for turn-overs and a limited number of called time-outs only. That would speed things up.

Don't tell me your a fan of NASCAR, the sport of blue collar trash living in trailer parks? But advertisers love the dummy demo - people dumb enough to believe - and buy - anything.

 

[Morgan Wick]

And several shows low-rated among live viewers have been saved by solid levels of DVR viewing.

[citation needed]. I follow TVbytheNumbers, and they are so confident in their ability to predict the fate of scripted shows based solely on live+same day 18-49 viewership (and Nielsen's definition of "live" is so restrictive that more of the "same day" bump is likely to be what you would consider "live" than anything else) that they dismiss the notion that ANY show has EVER been renewed in recent memory for ANY other reason besides network/studio politics or syndication economics as delusional fan excuse-making or network PR spin.

Hoo boy! Now politics has entered into the fray?

It really doesn't take much reading between the lines at all to see that Fred had brought politics into this well before this.

Say, wasn't this thread supposed to be about blackouts of sports events, not the worthiness of the NFL vis-a-vis Fred's favorite CBS shows?

 

[landtuna]

Tuna, you seem really attached to the status quo and the infallibility of those behind it. The leagues change the rules constantly. Even I know that. How about NOT stopping the clock for incomplete passes and runners going out of bounds. Stop for turn-overs and a limited number of called time-outs only. That would speed things up.

What I am saying is you don't go changing the basic rules of a game just to suit the transport medium. While it is true the NFL does implement new rules annually they are overwhelmingly purposed for safety reasons and not for the convenience of the TV networks. I can remember only one in the entire history of televised football. While they could keep a running clock on incomplete passes and out of bounds you would probably hear a gigantic protest from purists because you are actually removing playing time from a game. Limited time-outs has been a rule for many decades now - the only exception is injuries.

Don't tell me your a fan of NASCAR, the sport of blue collar trash living in trailer parks? But advertisers love the dummy demo - people dumb enough to believe - and buy - anything.

How does me mentioning NASCAR as an example make me a fan? My example was only to illustrate another case of live sports telecasting. If the networks received enough negative feedback on the existing process they would change the way they cover live events (of all kinds, not just sports). Since they haven't, and don't, they won't. You are a minority and will suffer in silence until other viewers of your ilk are numerous enough to sway the network suits. For now the blue collar trailer trash are winning.

 

[FredLeonard]

[citation needed]Say, wasn't this thread supposed to be about blackouts of sports events, not the worthiness of the NFL vis-a-vis Fred's favorite CBS shows?

Since broadcasting is a regulated and licensed industry, any related discussion inherently has political implications. But please don't distort what I'm saying just to make it easier to argue against. It's not about the "worthiness" of CBS shows ("Big Brother" sucks). It's about games constantly running over the scheduled times. Running over occasionally is one thing. Running over constantly is another and says there is an issue with CBS not doing proper scheduling (i.e., allowing enough time). A second, partly related issue, is all the time wasted in what's supposed to 60 minutes of playing time taking - routinely - more than three and a half hours, with the duration of games increasing steadily over the past five decades.

Tuna: Of course, NFL and other sports leagues change the rules to make games more attractive to viewers. What do you think basketball's 24 second rule is for? And unlimited substitution in football, which distorted the game beyond recognition: Two platoons plus specialty squads. Quarterbacks no longer call plays. The NFL adopted AFL rules on passing because viewers liked lots of passing - and that, as much as anything, made games last longer. Of course, that keeps viewers hooked longer and allows more avails. Greed rules.

 

[Avid Listener]

Since broadcasting is a regulated and licensed industry, any related discussion inherently has political implications.

And, in our Republic, how those regulations are promulgated, and what are the terms and limits of the licensing, are as much grist for debate as your personal antipathy towards professional spectator sports and your envy and hatred towards people who have managed to earn more money than you have.

I realize that communists and other such fools like to accuse anyone of providing superior goods and services that consumers want in order to better compete for their business, and thereby make honest profits as being nothing but naked greed. But that is how this Republic operates. Despite the best efforts of those who would drag America down into the pit of socialism, this is still a capitalist country.

If you don't like professional spectator sports, don't watch them. If you don't like capitalism, there are many alternative locations where one can find the sort of greed-free socialist paradise you appear to prefer. One such workers' paradise is a mere 90 miles south of Florida.

 

[landtuna]

Since broadcasting is a regulated and licensed industry, any related discussion inherently has political implications.

Except that the broadcasting and licensing part does not cover the length of content and if it did I am quite sure the FCC would choose not to interfere with the specific game rules as that would clearly be outside their jurisdiction. Your "right wing" comment notwithstanding.

It's about games constantly running over the scheduled times.

It's not only "games" which overrun but all live events. And I would ask for fact-checking your argument of "constantly".

Tuna: Of course, NFL and other sports leagues change the rules to make games more attractive to viewers. What do you think basketball's 24 second rule is for?

We were talking football, at least I was, and I am not a basketball fan either. Once they dumped 'traveling' penalties and the 'slam dunk' (a ten-foot basket and a 6'8" player) I relegated that game to the circus. Dumb rule changes made an easy game pitifully simple and it is now pretty much worthless. And, there are still a ton too many stoppages in an average basketball game.

And unlimited substitution in football, which distorted the game beyond recognition: Two platoons plus specialty squads.

I played high school football in the late 50's and we had specialty squads back then. Offensive and defensive specialists and special teams have been around in the professional game since at least the 60's and do not add to the length of a game. The 40-second clock is still in effect whether substituting or not.

Quarterbacks no longer call plays.

Football used to substitute players bringing in the next play. Now they use radios. No difference and no impact on game time. If anything it sped up the game.

The NFL adopted AFL rules on passing because viewers liked lots of passing - and that, as much as anything, made games last longer.

The passing rules for the NFL and AFL were identical but the teams were different. The AFL was much more of a passing league (not believing in the old "3 yards and a cloud of dust" of the old Black and Blue Division of the NFL. And thank god because that was one hell of a dull, boring game. Witness the current Big-10 if you want a replay of that era. While the passing game does take longer than constant running (because of clock stoppages after incompletes) the play clock was introduced to minimize passing effect. If you time the plays in a current passing contest you will see what I am saying. It doesn't make as much difference as it once did.

Of course, that keeps viewers hooked longer and allows more avails. Greed rules.

Now you are talking about something completely outside the actual game rules. Consider NBC Friday night "48 Hours" where they go to commercial every 5-6 minutes then upon return spend a minute or two rehashing the previous segment. They stretch what could be a 90-minute program into two full hours unnecessarily. And that isn't a live production.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Tuna: Of course, NFL and other sports leagues change the rules to make games more attractive to viewers. What do you think basketball's 24 second rule is for?

The 24-second clock dates to the 50s. The NBA wasn't televised at all until the 60s and wasn't televised in any volume or with any respect until the 80s. It may have made the game "more attractive to viewers [in arenas]", but it certainly didn't have anything to do with television.

 

[FredLeonard]

NBA games were seen on local television before a league contract.

Rules were changed to allow unlimited substitution in the NFL in 1950 (although it took a few years for two-platoon football to be fully adopted) and by by the NCAA in 1964. NFL games were also televised by agreements between individual teams and stations, and in a game of the week on the Dumont Network in the 50s.

AL: Any time the word "republic" appears, it proceeds a right-wing rant. Tea people should spend more time reading and less time parroting Rush. "Capitalism" get its name because it is only concerned about those who provide capital. It's goal is to make rich people richer, to hell with everybody else. The great mystery is how tea people have been so brainwashed as to argue against their own self-interest. Funny how little tea types actually know about "socialism" in practice. Or ignore how much better, by objective measures, life is for people under social democratic governments.

 

[Avid Listener]

Funny how little tea types actually know about "socialism" in practice. Or ignore how much better, by objective measures, life is for people under social democratic governments.

Then go live in Cuba for a few years. That will enlighten you about just how wrong you are.