[LasVegasPlayer]

There is no more blackout rule for non-sellouts (for now anyway) but if the Raiders play at home on the single header network the doubleheader network must blackout the late game. The home NFL team gets TV exclusivity in that time slot.

That scenario will come up about 4-5 times a year plus all the good games replaced by the 14 or 15 non-primetime Raiders games.

Of the 52 Sunday morning/afternoon games available on CBS/Fox, the Raiders would become 14 or 15 of them and there would be 4 or 5 late doubleheader game blackouts due to the home exclusivity rule. That is about 40% of the schedule.

If the Raiders play a road game on the doubleheader network, the single header network won't run their game against it even if the game in the non-conflict time slot is a dud. That is several more national games lost each year that are replaced with a dud.

If you are or will become a Raiders fan if they move here, none of that matters. If you already have a team or just like watching good games, this scenario sucks. Not everybody wants to go to a smoky bar or crowded sportsbook, nor do they want to be forced to get DTV to be able to watch games not involving a team that hasn't had a winning season since 2002.

[Jukesgrrl]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

Most teams don't travel well. About the only ones that do include Cowboys, Packers, Steelers and maybe these days out west, the Broncos. The Raiders tarped 10,000 seats and still have trouble selling 53,000 in Oakland, a city they have deep roots ...

Correct, most teams don't travel well. If I lived in Boston or New York or DC my idea of a good time wouldn't be to go to Houston, Kansas City, or Indianapolis.

But do you forget where you live??

Don't you think a Browns or Colts or Ravens fan might not put a weekend in Vegas to see their favorite team at the top a to-do list? I come from a long line of Steelers fans and one of the few things you can count on them wanting to do (other than watch sports) is GO TO VEGAS. If they could combine two of their favorite things in the world, you have a safe bet they'd do it. You don't think Bills fans, Jets fans, Vikings fans, or Patriots fans who are freezing their butts off in the middle of winter wouldn't look kindly on a weekend in Vegas to see their team in a city with some of the best values on plane travel and hotels? Even IF these teams don't traditionally "travel well."

Of course fans don't travel to see their team in Kansas City or Minneapolis or Houston. Who wants to go there? But if you were to give fans a choice between Phoenix, Miami, New Orleans, and Las Vegas in the middle of winter, I'd put my last dollar on a bet that they'd pick Vegas.

Originally Posted by newopty

Darren Rovell is ESPN's sports business reporter. He has been following the Raiders potential move to Vegas. He just tweeted this:

Darren Rovell
@darrenrovell
Raiders to Vegas is starting to feel more real every day. Many NFL insiders now feel it's more likely to happen than not.

10:44am · 13 May 2016 · Twitter for iPhone

This topic has moved far beyond being a thing of interest to Vegas locals. It's being talked about on every national sports show. Doug Gottlieb covered it just this morning on CBS and he called it a more than 50/50 chance the Raiders would move to LV.

Originally Posted by Trash Can

"Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank understands the allure of having an NFL franchise in Las Vegas, but Blank said he wants to make sure the city is fully committed to supporting a team before he can advocate such a move."

Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank wants to make sure Las Vegas is committed to NFL franchise before he advocates move

Arthur Blank. This is the guy who lost a draft pick this year as part of his fine for piping crowd noise into his stadium to make it appear that people were attending Falcons games. He's forfeited his right to talk about "fan commitment."

Originally Posted by newopty

To me the more important point is that owners like Arthur Blank and Jerry Jones are taking Las Vegas seriously. Until very recently that wasn't the case.

Jerry Jones (even though I don't like him) is a different story altogether. The Rams moved to LA after he got on board with the idea. Like him or hate him, his is a very key voice in the NFL owners' meetings.

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

There is no more blackout rule for non-sellouts (for now anyway) but if the Raiders play at home on the single header network the doubleheader network must blackout the late game. The home NFL team gets TV exclusivity in that time slot.

That scenario will come up about 4-5 times a year plus all the good games replaced by the 14 or 15 non-primetime Raiders games ...

I just don't see this TV issue as being a key to this situation in any way. Taxpaying local citizens aren't going to be the ones making this decision. You have no more rabid fan base than in Pittsburgh and when they got a vote whether or not to tear down Three Rivers Stadium and build Heinz Field, they voted a resounding NO. And you know where the Steelers play now. If the governor wants it, the mayor wants it, and a bunch of billionaires want it, it's going to happen. Like it or not, that's how things go in the US of A. If that's not OK with you, I trust you're joining Bernie Sanders' revolution.

Lack of attendance in Oakland is far more compelling and likely to get worse. Who wants to pay for a football ticket and see it in a stadium where the bathrooms might be overflowing with poopy water? The Raiders are never going to get a new stadium in Oakland now that the Forty-niners have their new one completed in the Bay Area and the Rams will be in LA. The Raiders are going somewhere ... no matter how storied their franchise is or how loyal their fan base is. I'm sad for them, as I was when Cleveland's team was moved to Baltimore in the middle of the night. But that's how it goes when the 1% runs the country.

[newopty]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Actually, it'll be one game EVERY week. The raiders won't sell out after the first season excitement wears off. Then, you'll have 8 of 17 weeks of the season "blacked out" (punny how that works out!) and then 8 of 17 weeks when the losers are on the road, the only game that will be available, including the 16th string "announcers" to call it, will be the one with the team so bad it's not worth watching the games.

I guess for the football widow/widowers, having the team of shame, and worship of thugs all over locally would be a "good" thing, but for those who really appreciate watching the "best" of competition available, having them as a local team is pretty much a guarantee that there won't be many relaxing sunday afternoons spent watching the game. At least until they are finally not owned by any members of the Davis clown parade. Heck, ol' Al couldn't even teach his son how to get a haircut, how can he run a successful professional ball team?

Actually, the NFL suspended the blackout rule last season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...olicy-for-2015

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by newopty

Actually, the NFL suspended the blackout rule last season.

NFL suspends local blackout policy for 2015 - NFL.com

Yes, but that was last year, and a key part of the article you linked:

The NFL will re-evaluate the rule after going through the season.

While it's a good guess that since the current FCC seems to oppose this policy, they might permanently eliminate it, as of now, it's just a policy for last year.

And even if a blackout isn't a worry, you still have the fact that the raiders have a longer history of playing really bad football than great football. While the thought is appealing, we can't just stay in the 70's. And they were a long time ago..

[newopty]

Originally Posted by beachhead

Yes, but that was last year, and a key part of the article you linked:



While it's a good guess that since the current FCC seems to oppose this policy, they might permanently eliminate it, as of now, it's just a policy for last year.

And even if a blackout isn't a worry, you still have the fact that the raiders have a longer history of playing really bad football than great football. While the thought is appealing, we can't just stay in the 70's. And they were a long time ago..

If you understand anything about how this works the blackout is never coming back. Congress was looking into it and the NFL knew they had to drop it. The NFL worded it in such a way to seem like they still have control over it which they don't. It is similar to them giving the impression that they can stop a team from moving. Al Davis proved the NFL can't stop a team from moving and the NFL owners know it.

[icrackaces]

Originally Posted by OmegaSupreme

Just fold preflop dude, you're in way over your head

lol decided to fold after the flop

well played nice hand

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by newopty

If you understand anything about how this works the blackout is never coming back. Congress was looking into it and the NFL knew they had to drop it. The NFL worded it in such a way to seem like they still have control over it which they don't. It is similar to them giving the impression that they can stop a team from moving. Al Davis proved the NFL can't stop a team from moving and the NFL owners know it.

I've got a fair understanding of what's going on, but until they say "we've decided to abandon that concept", there is a chance they might try to bring it back, especially once the current administration changes hands, and definitely if a more business friendly executive branch ever returns. And even if they say they've trashed it, they can still change their rules again. There is no precedent that would positively rule out them implementing it in the future.

And even if the blackout issue wasn't a dark cloud hanging over this, there's always the fact that the raiders are are probably a mediocre junior college level team, and will remain that way until there is new ownership (with deep pockets). They are a perfect fit for oakland, and definitely now how I view Las Vegas.

I know my vote, should public indebtedness be put on the ballot, has, and always will be a resounding "no". And this is even more of a worthless endeavor than school bonds, since the real beneficiaries are multi-millionaires who are the last people in the world that need a handout. But i'm sure if there is a real chance, they'll ram it down our throats, cause hey, it's the NFL.

[LasVegasPlayer]

I think this issue almost certainly ends up on the ballot one way or another through petition. If Las Vegas Sands gets its way, opponents seem to have enough support to get the signatures to put it to the ballot to try and overturn it. If the legislature does not approve the stadium, Sands can probably get it on the ballot.

That is part of why I think the time table is delusional. It wouldn't go to ballot until November 2018.

[newopty]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I think this issue almost certainly ends up on the ballot one way or another through petition. If Las Vegas Sands gets its way, opponents seem to have enough support to get the signatures to put it to the ballot to try and overturn it. If the legislature does not approve the stadium, Sands can probably get it on the ballot.

That is part of why I think the time table is delusional. It wouldn't go to ballot until November 2018.

According to Forbes Sheldon Adelson's net worth is about 29 billion dollars. There is a hypocrisy of conservatives (especially conservative billionaires) that they don't believe in welfare or government involvement but have no problem asking the government for money. However, I doubt Adelson will let the Raiders move to Las Vegas fail because of lack of funding for a stadium.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by newopty

According to Forbes Sheldon Adelson's net worth is about 29 billion dollars. There is a hypocrisy of conservatives (especially conservative billionaires) that they don't believe in welfare or government involvement but have no problem asking the government for money. However, I doubt Adelson will let the Raiders move to Las Vegas fail because of lack of funding for a stadium.

Maybe he funds most of it in the end but don't you think the stadium group will try everything they can to get the public to pay the entire $1.4b first? As it stands now, it would be the largest public cash grab for a stadium project ever. Why not try and fool the public into voting for it before digging?