Regional NFL TV coverage this weekend

[bhayes1016]

> Does the sell-out rule still apply to NFL games? I can't
> imagine that the Texans game in Houston is sold out, but I
> could be wrong.
>

One of conditions of Houston being awarded a franchise was "guaranteed sellouts"...the team has to absorb any unsold tickets so that all home games can be locally televised.

So there will be a sellout crowd of 70,000 at Reliant on Sunday, about 30,000 of which will come dressed as an empty seat.

 

[schmave]

> I think the CBS affiliate in Columbus, OH (city split among
> Browns and Bengals fans) also has an article on its website
> explaining things somewhat, but it's a bit more vague than
> this. Many more stations should put up something like WTSP
> did, I'm sure it would save them a lot of e-mails.

Yes, Channel 10 (WBNS) does a good job of this (I live in the C'bus suburbs). They've been a lot better about showing the Bengals this year, as they have little choice to do otherwise! Next week they're showing Steelers at Browns instead of Bills at Bengals, but that's totally understandable.
I'm not surprised Channel 11 is showing the Browns, EnbyCee. They'd draw the wrath of all northwest Ohio if they showed the Lions, whereas those in southeast Michigan can see the Lions on Channel 62 if they so desire.

 

[schmave]

> Radioguy 555 asks:
>
> > Does the sell-out rule still apply to NFL games? I can't
> > imagine that the Texans game in Houston is sold out, but I
>
> > could be wrong.
>
> The NFL's blackout policy has not changed. This Sunday's
> (December 18th) game between Cleveland and Oakland in
> Oakland will not be broadcast on KPIX-5 San
> Francisco/Oakland because it didn't sell-out in time (72
> hours before kick-off; the deadline was 1:15 P.M. PST
> Thursday, December 15th) for the blackout to be lifted. It's
> the third Oakland home game to be blacked-out this year and
> probably the last; they host the red-hot New York Giants in
> their final home game, which should sell-out.
>
> Additionally, none of the Arizona Cardinals' home games so
> far this year sold-out by the blackout deadline, so they
> were not televised in Phoenix and Tucson. The Cardinals have
> one home game left, December 24th against Philadelphia (2:05
> P.M. local time start).
>
> Given that Arizona is hosting the defending NFC champs
> (although Philly has been eliminated from playoff
> contention) in what will be their final game at their
> current home stadium in Tempe (they are scheduled to move
> into a new stadium for the 2006 season), it's possible the
> game may sell-out before the deadline (if it hasn't already)
> and could become the only time Phoenix fans gets to see a
> Cardinals' home game on TV this year.

Can we just get the NFL out of Phoenix, please?! Not only do those fans not deserve a franchise, but the franchise itself is totally irrelevant to the workings of the NFL.

 

[jojo_collins]

> In Boston, WFXT-25's early game will be San Francisco at
> Jacksonville. It is also being carried in Providence and
> Portland/Lewiston.
>
> Why??
>
> It appears likely that the New England Patriots will meet
> Jacksonville in the first round of the AFC playoffs.
>
> Given that Fox has the Jacksonville game this week, and that
> the Jaguars could face New England in the first round of the
> playoffs, the network or WFXT figured that this game would
> be of interest to Patriots' fans. A chance to scout a
> potential playoff opponent, if you will.
>
> Except for KTVU-2 San Francisco/Oakland (where the Raiders
> are at home, but blacked-out), the entire Fox network will
> carry the Dallas/Washington game at 4:15 P.M. EST.
>
> I also noted that over the last couple of weeks on the
> Gribble Nation maps, many NFL telecasts are being restricted
> to the home regions of the two participating teams, with
> most of the country getting games that could be critical to
> playoff races.
>
The Dallas-Washington game is also blacked out in Detroit, too, due to the Cincy-Lions game at 4 on CBS.

 

[KeithE]

> Additionally, none of the Arizona Cardinals' home games so
> far this year sold-out by the blackout deadline, so they
> were not televised in Phoenix and Tucson. The Cardinals have
> one home game left, December 24th against Philadelphia (2:05
> P.M. local time start).

They haven't sold out a game in 2 or 3 years.

> Given that Arizona is hosting the defending NFC champs
> (although Philly has been eliminated from playoff
> contention) in what will be their final game at their
> current home stadium in Tempe (they are scheduled to move
> into a new stadium for the 2006 season), it's possible the
> game may sell-out before the deadline (if it hasn't already)
> and could become the only time Phoenix fans gets to see a
> Cardinals' home game on TV this year.

Don't bet on it, even with the curiosity factor of it being the last game at SDS. Not enough Eagle fans in Phoenix to get a sellout. If it was the Vikings or Bears, maybe. There are only about 20,000 Cardinal season-ticket holders, and maybe 5000 of those are real Cards fans.

 

[KeithE]

Bad NFL football

> Can we just get the NFL out of Phoenix, please?! Not only do
> those fans not deserve a franchise, but the franchise itself
> is totally irrelevant to the workings of the NFL.

You could say that about several teams. The Detroit Lions, New Orleans Aints, and Houston Texans come to mind immediately.

But I'm willing to offer a compromise. We'll keep the Cards in Phoenix. As bad as they are, bad football is better than no football. And LA wants a team, right? Send the Bidwills there to ruin **er, I mean** run a new team.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: Bad NFL football

A few years ago (I think it was around 1998), I heard a TV news report about a proposal (scrapped when the new stadium was authorized) which would have seen the Arizona Cardinals move to Los Angeles and then for that team and the St. Louis Rams to exchange team names, team colors, logos and uniform designs so that the name "Rams" would return to Los Angeles and the name "Cardinals" would return to (the NFL in) St. Louis.

Besides, even with a pathetic record, had this team been in Los Angeles instead of Phoenix, I think they'd sell-out most or all their home games.

Odd. Phoenix is supposed to be a fast-growing market, and it seems to very successfully support professional baseball, hockey, and basketball teams.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: Bad NFL football

The title of this portion of the thread ("Bad NFL Football") reminds me of a skit done from time-to-time on the original "Saturday Night Live" in which a character whose name I believe was Lance Fickelbee (sp?) and played by Dan Aykroyd, hosted things like "Bad Cinema", "Bad Music", etc.

In this skit, he'd introduce sub-par entertainment, followed by a tape or film clip (or sometimes, something live in the studio) of something obviously lousy. After the clip, the host would return live and say "That Wasn't So Good Now, Was It??".

For "Bad NFL Football", he could have shown low-lights of recent Arizona Cardinals or San Francisco 49ers' games. To be honest, the 49ers are a team that has had much success in the past, and two to three years hence, they could again be among the NFL's elite. Arizona is another story....

 

[KeithE]

Re: Bad NFL football

> The title of this portion of the thread ("Bad NFL Football")
> reminds me of a skit done from time-to-time on the original
> "Saturday Night Live" in which a character whose name I
> believe was Lance Fickelbee (sp?) and played by Dan Aykroyd,
> hosted things like "Bad Cinema", "Bad Music", etc.

The name Aykroyd used in these skits was Leonard Pinth-Garnell, an Alistair Cooke takeoff (but not an impersonation).

<a target="_blank" href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches#Leonard_Pinth-Garnell> Link: Wikipedia (this one is reasonably accurate)</a>

 

[KeithE]

Re: Bad NFL football

> A few years ago (I think it was around 1998), I heard a TV
> news report about a proposal (scrapped when the new stadium
> was authorized) which would have seen the Arizona Cardinals
> move to Los Angeles and then for that team and the St. Louis
> Rams to exchange team names, team colors, logos and uniform
> designs so that the name "Rams" would return to Los Angeles
> and the name "Cardinals" would return to (the NFL in) St.
> Louis.
>
> Besides, even with a pathetic record, had this team been in
> Los Angeles instead of Phoenix, I think they'd sell-out most
> or all their home games.
>
> Odd. Phoenix is supposed to be a fast-growing market, and it
> seems to very successfully support professional baseball,
> hockey, and basketball teams.

There was a proposal in 1996 to move the Cardinals to LA. The problem wasn't the Cards, but LA didn't want any part of Bill Bidwill. Go figure.

Phoenix has the same problem as other sun-belt cities: We're from other parts of the country and support our home-town teams. What the Suns, Diamondbacks, and Coyotes have done that the Cards haven't is cultivate the kids. The Cards have done very little to create a fan base.

Bill Bidwill just assumed that everyone would embrase the Cards when they arrived in 1988 because they're the NFL. Newsflash! Bidwill is probably the most disliked team owner in the history of professional sports. NOBODY is gonna support a Bidwill-owned team. He's hated even more by fans than the likes of Dollar Bill Wirtz (Chicago Black Hawks), William Clay Ford (Detroit Lions), or Donald Sterling (LA Clippers).

It's not that Bidwill's a bad guy (in fact, he's a very good guy but he's the Jimmy Carter of sports), but he's a bad team owner - he redefines the term "freeloader" since he doesn't have to lift a finger to make money. The NFL TV contract takes care of most of his expenses.