What would happen here?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

IMO blacking out games is dinosaur thinking. People want accessibility and there are so many forms of accessible entertainment, if the Avs are not accessible, people will just watch Netflix or play a video game instead

It's funny to see a dinosaur crank up the steam engine to squeeze more out of their loving customers - but no one making these decisions seems to take a serious look at the "alternative methods" very easily available to fans

and...

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I would stream the game illegally. If they can't make it easier for me to watch legally and pay them to do it, then they forced my hand.

...exactly. Paying for Center Ice, I run into far more issues - policy and technical related - than people using other methods.


I'll happily pay a reasonable rate, but they're constantly out-performed by a bunch of basement hackers re-broadcasting their steam. Which... is a clear demonstration of how garbage their product and pricing is.

[nik-]

It's already too expensive to follow the NHL. They need a $10 or less a month plan in as an option so they stop aging out their product.

I can get NFL, MLB and EPL for less than $20 a month with DAZN but any NHL option is like $25 a month? GTF outta here.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Yeah, maybe that was urban myth. The Wolves did thrive at the Hawk's nadir though.

I heard that myth too and believed it, so I looked up the numbers and can verify that it is just a myth. But it is true to the Wolves did (and continue to) do well for a minor league team, especially considering they are competing for butts with an NHL team in the same market.

The Wolves attendance peaked at just under 11,000 in 1995-96 (not including an NHL lockout year). The low mark for the Hawks was just under 13,000 in 2006-07. In 1995-96, the Hawks averaged more than 20,000.

I do recall some Hawks games looked pretty bare back then, so I imagine actual butts in seats was less than the reported attendance figures many time, but I also assume the same could be true for the Wolves reported numbers.

It's a shame for Avs fans. They have a very entertaining team and they should be marketing the heck out of it right now.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by timbit

Would need evidence of that. Highly doubtful!

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Yeah, maybe that was urban myth. The Wolves did thrive at the Hawk's nadir though.

Maybe not on season average, but Reggie isn't misremembering that it was a talking point that the Wolves were averaging something like 10k a game and the Blackhawks had many games in the 8-10k range.

I'm sure over the course of the season they Hawks had enough games with 'tickets distributed' over 10k to beat the Wolves on season average, but yeah them outdrawing the Hawks from time to time was definitely a thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This thread is....wow.

I'd say look at Blackhawks, or heck, even Flames a few years ago with 10-20% home games as PPV.

Shatty, but alas, we're talking an entertainment product and if the distributing party wants to be dink heads about it (PPV or blackouts) that is their prerogative, just vote with your wallet.

Actually, neither of these examples are relevant to OP. Nor is the Stampeders one.

For the Stamps, it was league policy that any game that was not at at least 90% capacity by tickets sold had to be blacked out in the local market. Neither the team nor the broadcasters were given a choice.

The Blackhawks argument was similar to the CFL one. The thinking was that more people would attend a game if they couldn't watch on TV. It was dumb, and counterproductive.

For the Flames, the reason Flames PPV existed was the fact that the contracts with Sportsnet/TSN/CBC did not ensure every game was televised. So the remaining 8-12 each year was offered up by the team as a PPV option. This was, in fact, an effort to increase viewership options.


What OP is talking about is a conflict between a TV network and cable operators over carriage fees. See also: the fact that we here in Canada were able to watch more LA Dodgers game on TV than most Los Angeleans could for many years.

And yes, it *could* happen here. In fact, it has. Most famously when Rogers launched Sportsnet One in 2010. A large number of Blue Jays games were blacked out country wide - except on Rogers Cable, as Shaw and Telus refused to cave into their demands. The parties reached a settlement in time for the start of the NHL season though. And just last spring, Quebecor pulled TVA Sports off Bell Cable right as the playoffs started in a carriage fee dispute, meaning Quebec could not get French language coverage.

[Insufficient Funds]

Isn't Kronke the same turd that moved the NFL Rams from St.Louis to LA? They had great fan support, sold out games all the time even with a garbage team on the field, but Kronke wanted the City to pay for a brand new stadium. When they told him to pound sand he used it as THE excuse to move the team. D bag level expert achieved.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Does WGN in Chicago still own some broadcast rights? I think that there are some local stations in Philly/Pittsburgh/Boston with rights. Maybe even New Jersey?

Think MSG is one for the New York area. (Rangers, Islanders, Devils, and Sabers)

[Split98]

Which political platform includes bans on blackouts?

I've been surprised from day 1 that blackouts were allowed