T1B

poptart wrote:My takes have nothing to do with the Raiders, and it's not surprising to see two goobers going to the lowest common denominator in objection to my take rather than bringing any substantial points in support of flex-schedule.

Watch it, pops.

I agree with you and Bri, though.

BSmack wrote:What remains to be seen is how season ticket sales will hold up after ticket holders get "flexed" on two weeks notice and what kind of impact this will have on long distance fan support.

I highly doubt there will be any adverse affects on the hard core fan base. Most season ticket holders I know like the later games better because it means more time spent tailgaiting. The people who make travel arrangements to see these games that'll get fucked are few and far between and are replaceable from a business standpoint. Furthermore, people who get flexed may have this happen to them once/year... assuming different host teams get flexed every week. Do you really think that's a reason to give up the other 7 games + the playoff tickets (if applicable)? And even if they do... who's to say those tickets aren't bought up anyways? More than likely... they are. And lastly, it's not as if you were unaware there's a possibility of being flexed when you bought the damned ticket in the first place. Your take is akin to MLB trying to factor in the people who get fucked when the game they were supposed to see got rained out and moved to a later date. Shit happens. Ticket sales will not go down because some irate people got "flexed."

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I highly doubt there will be any adverse affects on the hard core fan base. Most season ticket holders I know like the later games better because it means more time spent tailgaiting.

The ones I know around here HATE prime time games because they don't get home until after 1:00 AM the next day. 4:00 games are only slightly better as they still have to leave for the game early Sunday morning and don't get back until 9:00 PM. For a guy with a family and a job, that's a big deal.

The people who make travel arrangements to see these games that'll get fucked are few and far between and are replaceable from a business standpoint. Furthermore, people who get flexed may have this happen to them once/year... assuming different host teams get flexed every week. Do you really think that's a reason to give up the other 7 games + the playoff tickets (if applicable)? And even if they do... who's to say those tickets aren't bought up anyways? More than likely... they are.

Not if the Steelers-Saints game that was flexed to 4:00 a few weeks ago is any indication. For the first time in recent memory, I saw empty seats at Hines Field for a game that was "sold out" before training camp. That tells me that a whole lot of tickets went unused. Even the 2003 Steelers didn't have those kind of no-shows, even after they were eliminated from contention.

And lastly, it's not as if you were unaware there's a possibility of being flexed when you bought the damned ticket in the first place. Your take is akin to MLB trying to factor in the people who get fucked when the game they were supposed to see got rained out and moved to a later date. Shit happens. Ticket sales will not go down because some irate people got "flexed."

A rainout is an act of God. Unless you're trying to say that Roger Goodell is God, there can be no comparison between a rainout and a flex scheduled game.

BSmack wrote:Not if the Steelers-Saints game that was flexed to 4:00 a few weeks ago is any indication. For the first time in recent memory, I saw empty seats at Hines Field for a game that was "sold out" before training camp.

A shit team led by a shittier QB is going in the tank and you saw empty seats? Da horrah!

Look chooch... we're talking sales, not no-shows to see a shit team. You suggested there could be a decrease in season ticket sales, right? You also suggested a decrease in single game ticket sales. I say, there's always someone ready to step in and buy the ticket. The people who get pissed off and won't buy will be replaced by those eager beavers who can't get their hands on a damned ticket. We're not talking about baseball here. Limited supply. Huge demand. It's a matter of simple economics. Adam Smith out front should have told you.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

BSmack wrote:Not if the Steelers-Saints game that was flexed to 4:00 a few weeks ago is any indication. For the first time in recent memory, I saw empty seats at Hines Field for a game that was "sold out" before training camp.

A shit team led by a shittier QB is going in the tank and you saw empty seats? Da horrah!

Go back and re-read my post. You obviously missed where I pointed out that the 2003 team, which was even worse, did not have those kind of no-shows. To go one step further, you said that those tickets would "more than likely" be bought up. Well not this time they weren't, and we're talking about a team that has consistently packed their stadium since the early 70s no matter how mediocre the product.

BSmack wrote:To go one step further, you said that those tickets would "more than likely" be bought up.

This is a debate about ticket sales as it relates to the Steelers "box office", not the amount of people who are no-shows. Apples and oranges....

BSmack wrote:Well not this time they weren't, and we're talking about a team that has consistently packed their stadium since the early 70s no matter how mediocre the product.

Were these no-shows who turned their back on an inferior product... or unsold tix?

In case you missed it:::

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Look chooch... we're talking sales, not no-shows to see a shit team.

poptart wrote:

Even games between teams out of the playoff hunt would have interest to joe fan if the league hadn't set off on a path to neuter it's product by it's socialist parity agenda a long time ago..

I doubt seriously that anyone gives a fuck outside of their fan base about the Texans - Raiders matchup this weekend. Short of porn commercial breaks even hard core NFL fans would have trouble watching that game. Don't you look at who's playing prime time game before deciding whether to spend 3 hours of your life watching it? If a team wants to get on tv and be relevant, then draft better, coach better, and play better. Primetime tv should be a reward, not a NFL granted right. Sorry.

Mississippi Neck wrote:If a team wants to get on tv and be relevant, then draft better, coach better, and play better. Primetime tv should be a reward, not a NFL granted right. Sorry.

I'm pretty sure that's what Poptart was saying. Flex scheduling used to be unnecessary because you didn't have these wild gyrations in the standings every single year. If a team built itself well through solid coaching and strong drafts, you could count on them being in the upper echelon of the league for a long period of time. Not so anymore. Just look at how many recent Super Bowl champs have failed to make the playoffs the year following their win.

DallasFanatic wrote:I am almost guaranteeing you, that if the Raiders were a successful NFL franchise in this modern day of the NFL, you wouldn't be posting all this BS.

That's not true, Dfan.
I've been posting this take since I started posting on the boards in the late 90's, which was at the beginning of a real good run of football by the Raiders.

The league hit it's peak in during the 70's and early 80's.
Over the past 20-something years the product has declined.

That's my take, and again, it has zero to do with Oakland playing good or bad.


Neck, an Oakland v. Houston type match-up won't have the national fan interest a game featuring two 8-3 teams has -- nobody will dispute that.
BUT, that match-up would still have some reasonable interest if the teams had some distinct personality or flavor to them.

It's all too packaged, it's all too neat and tidy, it's all too mundane.

Bri' is right also, in that in times past a team could more-or-less 'stay together' for a longer period of time.
Teams developed much more character & personality than they do today -- making them more viewable.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:you could count on them being in the upper echelon of the league for a long period of time.

Which is fucking boring beyond belief.

I suppose it is to a fan of a team managed by football impaired bean counters. Parity was custom designed for money grubbing fucksticks like Spanos and Bidwell.