Dwight vs Ben, on televised preseason games
by EngineerScotty on Oct 8, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
157 comments
While not naming any names, this morning's Dwight Jaynes column takes to task certain elements of Blazer fandom who have been complaining about the preseason games not being on TV. Dwight goes into Yorkshireman mode (you all remember the Yorkshireman skit on Monty Python, where a bunch of old Yorkies try to do outdo each other with "in my day..." stories), reminiscing about the bad old days when there was nothing to watch but Yankees and Notre Dame on the boob tube, and you were lucky to get twenty Blazer games a year. Us kids, apparently, don't know how good we have it (although this kid remembers the days of Tommy Heinsohn covering the Celtics for CBS, and drooling over everything anyone in green ever did...)
Point taken. And of course, putting on a game costs MONEY--not only do you gotta pay the talent, but you gotta pay the TV production crew--a lot of folks for a slick production like a Blazer game. Even though Blazers preseason is more popular than the regular-season games in say, Atlanta, chances are that a televisied preseason game won't draw anybody but hardcore fans. That would be us, of course--but for the Blazers to make $$$ of the games, they need people to watch who AREN'T hardcore fans; and the casual fans ain't gonna waste their time with games that don't count.
Which brings me to my humble suggestions for the future. (Next preseason, perhaps--it may be too late to do this this year).
1) Put on a "low budget" production. No Mikes, no HD, no slick graphics or stats, just a camera or two pointed at the court.
Or...
2) Permit video streaming from the game. I'm sure it happens already, with people doing it from their cellphones, but provide the infracture (a higher-BW connection) and permit proper videocameras into the building, so we've got something better to look at then cell phone video. You won't make money, but you won't lose money.
#2 probably won't happen, even if the Blazers were game--I'm sure the NBA league office would put a stop to it. But it wouldn't hurt to try...
4 recs |
157 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Blazersedge Ben says:
October 8, 2009 at 10:00 am
Dwight,
Beg to disagree with you here.
It’s not entitlement, it’s a reasonable expectation in 2009. I understand it was different in years past (even recent years) but that’s comparing apples to oranges and not really relevant.
Other NBA teams televise their preseason games, all Vegas Summer League games are televised and streamed online, every regular season game is televised, every post season game is televised. On top of that, other teams televise portions of their Training Camp on NBATV.
So the expectation here is set very high. Couple that with an all-Blazer, all-the-time television channel and you can’t expect people to be happy when they are forced to watch behind the scene tape from their Blazers Dancers tryouts instead of, you know, actual basketball competition.
Blaming the fans here is simply the wrong approach to take.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 49 recs
REC
you tell ’em
I wish I spent more time playing catch with you and less time training my body and mind to kill you...
by 1badbadger on Oct 8, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
green
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 8, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
green times 7
Can we turn it iridescent with 50?
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just got the 50th rec
No such luck.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Oct 9, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben, you need another survey option
Cause here, in Seattle, I don’t got Wheeels on the radio. Not even via Audio League Pass for the preseason. I can live without preseason on TV, thought I’d watch if it were available. But for me, there ain’t no option except being lucky enough to find a justin.tv stream from a kind fellow Bedger.
by greyhound9 on Oct 8, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly the same all over - no radio over the internet m eans being blacked out since NBA did not carry it
If the NBA wants to monopolize the Internet radio broadcasts then at least have the decency to actually stream them! I could not vote either.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I would like to watch the preseason games,
I can imagine why the Blazers might not want to broadcast their home preseason games.
There were about 3,000 empty seats for the first preseason game. If the games are televised there would be even more empty seats. Hence, the cost of broadcasting the home preseason games includes the unsold seats and the cost of the broadcast production. Since the regular season games sell out, they do not include an “unsold seat cost” when broadcast.
Although the cost of televising the away games would not directly include unsold seats, those broadcasts would satisfy many fans desire to see preseason games and make it less likely for fans to purchase the preseason home game’s seats. Plus the production costs of televising away games are much higher.
Obviously, if the revenue from TV advertising covered all costs and produced a profit the games could be broadcast. But I think it’s a reasonable assumption that the TV sponsors are willing to pay less for advertising during a preseason game, when the number of TV viewers will be smaller, than they do for regular season games.
I also doubt Comcast is willing to pay the Blazers their regular season game equivalent to broadcast those preseason games since they can’t pass that cost to their subscribers or affiliate broadcasters. Comcast is reportedly paying $12M per year for approximately 60 regular season games, so that’s about $200K per game.
You can talk about added revenue from merchandise sales or goodwill or whatever from televising preseason games, but at the end of the day someone has to balance the books and show that increased revenue covered the increased costs.
As for televising summer league games, I suspect the costs are much lower, and can be covered by advertising/broadcast rights and the marketing campaign to sell the next year’s season tickets. Much of the production expense is probably shared by the various teams at the event and of course there is no charge for “unsold seats” at the RG.
As for broadcasting FanFest, I think anyone could see (and hear) that was a low budget, non-standard production. There was also no “unsold ticket charge” since that “game” was free to attend. Despite the nature of that “game” there were still plenty of complaints here about the quality of the production and the announcing, so it’s no surprise that the Blazers wouldn’t want to broadcast preseason games in a similar low-cost manner.
Anyway, this is just my take on some reasons it might not be profitable for the Blazers to televise preseason games.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
low budget is better than no budget. do what it takes to get it on the air somehow, someway. communicating with your fanbase about less coverage is better than blindsiding them.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they did a Fanfest style broadcast there would be no end of complaints about the poor quality.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct.
And so the fans are screwing the fans.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd settle for random crowd noise
like the streams from the Beijing Olympics
Announcers rarely tell me something that I haven’t already seen, from watching the game. (Injury status, number of fouls on a certain player, etc) Other than that, they get the mute button—just like the commercials
just grab the arena camera’s feed and stream it, without fanfare. It’s all about the game, anyway
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 8, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree.
But try to get that through a TV producer’s head.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBC did an EXCELLENT job from Beijing. Just mic the crowd and let the hardcore fans get their fix.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Oct 8, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
if they are up front about their financial situation in this day and age people will give them a benefit of the doubt.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were upfront. They told you it didn't work financially, and you didn't give them the benefit of the doubt. Case Closed.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not until after the fact. had i not written anything they would not have said anything.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and i think i have given them the benefit of the doubt. without access to their books i am taking their word for the financial outlook. i have taken them to task for not communicating this better and am encouraging them to do a better job communicating in the future and to help get the message that there is sufficient demand for their preseason product to them.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's to communicate? They choose not to do something because it
financially makes no sense for them. Do you expect them to send you an advanced list of everything they don’t do that doesn’t make sense financially?
When you asked why they couldn’t broadcast they games they told you. But you refuse to accept it or this conversation wouldn’t be going on. You didn’t take their word that it doesn’t work financially.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They cut an assumed service and did not announce it. That is a poor business practice.
I think that much is clear.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly.
they did not communicate the fact that finances were part of the problem until after they were called on it. they have actively promoted their organization as a company that wants to be a “global brand” that is willing to do anything for its loyal fans. this decision flew in the face of that and blindsided a lot of people.
the conversation is going on because people want to watch the games and can’t. not because of me or anything i wrote.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what NBA team is broadcasting preseason games?
I smell an NBA mandate (which the Blazers could not admit). Do you think so?
I realize they still should have told us. The monopoly of Internet radio by the NBA and then not streaming the games is anti-trust material.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was not an assumed service.
Last year they broadcast ONE preseason game because it was Oden’s first game ever.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing that you have no point.
Just that when you say “case-closed” you are overstating your case.
Sure I may be making it out to be a bigger deal than it is.
But it is not like there isn’t a precedent set specifically in past practice, and generally in team statements of mission.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben said he would give them the benefit of the doubt
if they said it financially doesn’t work. That is exactly what they said, but he obviously isn’t giving them that benefit of the doubt. That is the case that is closed.
Now he complains they should have explained before the fact that it didn’t make financial sense to televise the preseason games. That’s absurd. No company puts out press releases explaining why they aren’t going to do things they didn’t do before.
This is like a spoiled kid crying in a toy store because his parents told him they can’t afford the toy he wants. He can’t possibly understand his parent’s financial situation, but he wants his toy anyway since one of his ten friends has one, even though in a month it will mean nothing to him.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
“Now he complains they should have explained before the fact that it didn’t make financial sense to televise the preseason games. That’s absurd. No company puts out press releases explaining why they aren’t going to do things they didn’t do before.”
Many companies do this. In some cases it is illegal not to do so (not suggesting what the Blazers did was illegal).
Once again, I’m not saying you are wrong, just that you are overstating your case.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you honestly think the Blazers should issue
press releases explaining why they aren’t going to do things they did not do before?
Should they issue a press release explaining why a couple of training camp scrimmages aren’t going to be streamed live over the internet. (lots of fans were disappointed there wasn’t more video from training camp this year) Do I need to make up a dozen more things they didn’t do before and won’t do this year?
The Blazers said they weren’t going to broadcast preseason games this year. When asked they said it didn’t make financial sense (did you expect it was some other reason?). They don’t owe anyone a more detailed explanation of their finances and they certainly won’t provide one. They aren’t a public owned company that has to disclose it’s finances, etc. per laws or regulations (I guess that is what you alluded to above).
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got to agree with Ben.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting worked up about.
We would like to watch the Blazer’s Pre-season games on TV.
We expected that they would be when they even aired the Fan-Fest.
They didn’t and most people (everyone not directly working for the Blazers or Comcast) were very surprised.
We are just showing that there is a lot of demand for them to put this on TV. That’s all we can do.
The games are already being recorded, it probably will cost more, but we are showing that there are enough viewers that advertisements will still be watched. Portland is an atypical market.
Unless you’re really upset that the pre-season game would have cut over some of comcast’s other fine (I use this term loosely) programming, I’m not sure what you are upset with.
You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players
by TheOdenator on Oct 8, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why were you surprised? They haven't done it in 40 years.
So why were you surprised this year?
I don’t think people should be beating up the Blazers – accusing them of blindsiding the fans, not being upfront with the fans, etc.
If they could make money broadcasting these games then why wouldn’t they do it? These aren’t dumb people.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok BlazerFanSince1970
I think you need to cool your jets a bit. While presenting your case it seems to me your crossing the line from making a point to attacking Ben’s point, and the validity of how he feels about this issue. This is not the Blazersedge way.
by DephlatorMouse on Oct 8, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I objected to Ben accusing the Blazers
of blindsiding their fans and not being upfront with their fans. Is it the BE way to accuse the Blazers of those behaviors? If I can’t defend the Blazers on BE (when I think they acting honorably), then what’s the BE way?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These smart people
have some disgruntled fans. Must be the fan’s fault because these people are too smart to anger the fans themselves. Or something.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a minute
we are showing that there are enough viewers that advertisements will still be watched
If you add all the comments in this thread and Ben’s thread, that probably does not add up to enough viewers to make it economically plausible. The total won’t even reach 1,000.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'We speak for those who have no voices'
or internet connections :P
PETBA:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Blazer Addicts
You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players
by TheOdenator on Oct 8, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Whether or not they should release a press release is dependent on only one thing. Whether their prime consumers reasonably expected the product would be available.
The Blazers specifically told Ben (us) to come up with a workable business plan. In all fairness, they DO owe it to us to open the books so we can work that out for them.
You are wrong here on both counts.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You had no reason to expect the games to be broadcast.
They haven’t been for 40 years.
The Blazers telling Ben to come up with a workable business plan was obviously facetious. Fault them for that if you want, but they obviously aren’t going to make public all of their costs and finances for you to create a plan. Be serious.
So it’s you that is wrong on both counts.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't being facetious.
I’ll go now before this gets out of hand.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't say you were being facetious.
I said the Blazer’s offer for us to work out business plan was a facetious offer by them.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 8, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to get too 'in the mix'
But they HAVE often showed preseason games in the past, even in down years.
It has been expected to see 1 or 2 games in previous seasons on KGW or whatever.
M—
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't owe us anything
If the the Blazers were a 21 win team, no one would care about any of this.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PETBA would
Of course I agree with the logic. What I don’t agree with is the certainty that the Blazers had the only say in it.
The advertising is Comcast’s revenue. The costs are the Blazers so it is indeed their issue – does the good will from showing the games offset the costs. Since they are showing every regular season game they are certainly on the plus side of the ledger.
I am puzzled that no NBA preseason games are on DISH this year except through NBA TV. And the blackout of Internet radio is even more puzzling. But I am not mad at the Blazers.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don’t have to, they just could make a better impression either explaining themselves or putting on one or two games like other teams do. Like, say, the Kings, who have been confirmed to be losing money and have troubles financing a new arena and have repeatedly come up in relocation rumors (that the owners have tried to squash now).
And if they still have financial troubles, that is interesting to know, too, so Ben has a reason to investigate it even if he has no chance to get to know exact or even ballpark numbers if nobody wants to provide them.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 8, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they have plenty of ways distributing information other than a press release. many blazers sources will give me information off the record in advance of something happening. happens all the time. same thing with any other bad news, the oregonian or someone else will hear a company argument off the record prior to an announcement so that the story can be cast with or include their perspective. this didn’t happen here. they had plenty of time and plenty of options and chose the completely buttoned-up approach and are rightfully dealing with ticked off people now.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thing is - are we creating any bad blood by continuing the issue?
The amazing access they have provided BE through you is high on my list of pluses here. I would hate to see that change.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is continuing it?
Ben put it on the front page once. That’s it. He was criticized for doing so, and he’s responded to the criticism by saying that if they had communicated differently, he would have handled it differently.
I don’t see Ben continuing the issue except to respond to criticism.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 9, 2009 2:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1,000s of fans were unaware this was going to happen. they are upset. they are channeling those feelings in many ways. i am trying to present those feelings in a forum that will be useful and provide some context to the feelings. it’s hard to be so passionate about your team and look around the league and know other fans are watching preseason games and you’re not.
i understand the financial realities for the blazers in a small market. in the end, as i have stated, i want a television model that satisfies all parties, the blazers included (OBVIOUSLY). if that is absolutely not possible then the problem is much larger than this small issue. if we need to be prepared for further cutbacks, then discourse now is a good thing.
for the third time i am taking them at their word and open to ANY alternative productions that would reduce costs and still allow the product to be shown to the customers.
if there are NO alternative productions possible, then simply communicating the desire for many fans to watch these games on a platform like ours is instructive for future years.
if i don’t write that people want to watch the games, who will?
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect other people will
but you have a bigger platform to be heard than most.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 8, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess what i meant is that you likely won’t see it in the papers.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They still exist?
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll play with your toys
Lets say there’s a department store that has extended hours during the holidays (playoffs), but normally is closed on the weekends. Lets go on to say that they have the store staffed during the weekends (NBA cameras present and filming taking place), but they don’t have the doors open (a live feed or tv presence). Now if that store has a delivery of a toy in high demand on a Friday night in early October, and a line around the block on Saturday morning for said toy, wouldn’t you say they were failing to meet a demand? Kids don’t pay for toys they are given.. Viewer pay by taking in commercials. Now if Comcast can’t sell advertising time in the preseason that’s they failing. Lets watch next year (without forgetting after a month about this) and see what happens. I’ll wager that many many more exhibition games are aired.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying that if people are lined up to get in your store, that you are obligated to open early for them?
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said obligated and I never said they owed it to their fans. that’s lame. I just think they’re leaving money on the table. Theres a demand and they have a supply but they aren’t delivering it. Seems like a waste and a poor business practice. The whole letting their fans down arguement is kind of silly. But man, there’s air time to be sold and and audience to be had that greatly outreaches what the Blazers Dancer s reality show might pull in. End of story.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've worked in several awful jobs in teh service industry.
I have learned that when you have people lined up outside of your normal business hours you open the store to serve them. If the BE echo chamber exaggerates the demand, which it very likely does, that’s fine, but don’t blame the customers for showing up in droves when the store is closed.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure that since the Blazers play in public that they are a public company
So they are obligated to show us their financial statements.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Public companies are those whose stock is sold and traded to the public
Vulcan is reportedly wholly owned by Paul Allen and the Blazers are wholly owned by Vulcan so no obligation exists. They are a private company not a public company. No obligation exists to disclose to the public.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When it’s Tom, it’s tongue in cheek.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 9, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t talk about your privates. This is a family site.
I get the paper, so I don't care!
by Name's Ash on Oct 9, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fanfest broadcast would have been better with less announcers and less pre-game show
Or just use Wheels for both radio and TV as a known quantity.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 8, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed. That would work VERY well for me.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i don't thinks so on my end.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Fan Fest "production" was just fine
In fact, it was OVER-produced. All we wanted to do was watch the players play. All the gabbing and cut-aways to inane interviews & crowd activities were what was annoying—not the production values.
Low-budget (ala Summer League) broadcasts of 2 or 3 of the home preseason games would cost the Blazers very little, if anything (after advertising revenues were factored in). And it would help build demand for regular season tickets. OK, it might translate into a few less ticket sales at the televised preseason games. But considering the ticket prices of those games, again that has to be a pretty negligible factor.
Bottom line: making fans wait another 3 weeks to see the team play is just stingy & shortsighted.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 8, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It was absolutely NOT "fine"..... It was the 17th level of hell. Ian Furness and Laura Green should be kept far, far, far away from ever again being in a similar situation...
Okay, here’s the problem.
COMCAST pays a fixed chunk of money for a set number of games.
THE BLAZERS pay for the production cost.
COMCAST would love to have more programming.
THE BLAZERS would hate to pay more money for providing that programming.
COMCAST should negotiate a price for future preseason games that THE BLAZERS can live with. Now that the team no longer sucks, it is a commercially viable proposition.
Too late for this year…
QED.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Oct 8, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reason and logic and facts - not bad Timbo
I am not sure if it satisfies the emotions bubbling up in here.
And to add to that the Blazers desire to maintain the professional standards of their broadcasts and I commend them for that. It does not seem feasible to simply throw a live feed into cable TV and not look really bad.
by lee3022 on Oct 8, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er, read what I wrote regarding the production a little more closely
I said that the production VALUES were fine (meaning picture quality, number of camera angles, graphics, etc.). The BROADCAST was another story; “17th level of Hell” may be an understatement. Even muting the sound (as I did when replaying the game on my DVR) wasn’t sufficient to make the thing watchable, because the idiotic producer kept cutting away from the action to show fans, in-stand interviews, etc. (The split-screen “solution” he employed at times was only slightly less maddening.)
Bottom line: a watchable broadcast could have been produced for considerably less money, ala the summer league broadcasts. Sure, the camera angles, replays, etc. are limited there. But at least they keep the on-court action on-screen for the most part. And OCCASIONALLY the announcers shut up for a moment.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 9, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Games are already being recorded
Referees use TV replays, and the team is required to tape the games. These recordings are shown on big-screen replays when the home crew wants to get the crowd excited. The recordings are also the basis of NBA recaps. It would appear that a lot of the production costs are being expended regardless of whether the show is “aired”. What then are the additional costs of streaming pre-season games and surely a $5-$10 charge per game would be a healthy revenue stream to appease the appetites of numerous fans in remote areas. [You could even sell by IP/location — ie local blackout] if there is a concern of empty seats.
Speaking of which
There were about 3,000 empty seats for the first preseason game.Empty seats are not the same as unsold seats. Season ticket holders are required to buy pre-season tickets but are not required to attend. Many tickets are bought by companies — there often aren’t many takers for free pre-season tickets amongst the executive cadre that have typical privy to these company seats.
by FromAfar on Oct 8, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as the $5-$10 streaming fee
I simply see no way that that wouldn’t have caused an almost similar reaction. People seemed to be seriously up in arms about the whole variable pricing model being a way to extract every last dollar out of fans. I don’t see how charging $10 to stream a preseason game wouldn’t have been met with similar “squeezing out the average fan” complaints.
Maybe it wouldn’t be as bad as not televising/streaming them at all, but it seems like most of the ire is due to the Blazers facetious, childish response to Ben instead of the initial decision to not air the games at all.
by Royster on Oct 8, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, it's something to implement next time
If possible.
Because, you’re right, people woulda’ been upset by it unless they were confronted with the alternative of NO games. Once the wrinkles get ironed out with the Blazers providing feeds from their own website, perhaps it’ll be easy to do next year… a bare bones, jumbotron feed for the pre-season games. At least the home ones.
I think right now people understand that everyone is struggling financially and if you blame it on that, people won’t be as angry. They’ll appreciate everything else (most people, anyways). If you just don’t mention WHY you’re not showing any games when people expect it, then they get upset and think you’re pinching pennies.
It really won’t be a big deal in a few weeks, but I know I was bummed not to be able to see our exciting team in action.
Mortimer
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if the alternative was no games
I think there still would have been the fair share of complaints along the lines of squeezing fans since we’re so used to getting content for free via television or everyone’s favorite sketchy live feed source, especially considering it’s only a preseason game.
Adding the pay stream would also require some web dev, integrating the online payment, etc. A lot of these are fixed costs, but doing anything in business takes more cash than people would estimate. It seems like the prevailing opinion would be streaming the jumbotron feed or something similar is free, and while it’s no doubt cheap, I’m sure it’s a not insignificant cost for the rights, plus paying the personnel costs of people who have to set everything up. At $10 a pop, even if you got 500 paying viewers, $5k is pretty bare bones
Now, if you factor in that people who are paying $10 will probably be pretty disgruntled if the video or production quality isn’t at least decent, you have to make sure you’re giving more than just the bare minimum in terms of the delivery.
The economics are definitely more complex than just “hook up the stream and we’ll pay”, but I couldn’t agree more that this is about the stupid PR move by the Blazers office in responding to Ben than it is about actually not televising the games.
I’d love to see them and I hope it gets worked out in the future, but if I’m being honest with myself, I’m probably not going drop $10 to stream a preseason game against the Kings, so I think the assumption that there’s this vast untapped fan market ready to throw cash at preseason games might not be correct.
But then again, maybe I’m just a bad fan.
by Royster on Oct 8, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would pay $5 or $10 for a preseason package streamed.
Not for a single game though.
by zaruga on Oct 9, 2009 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'd probably pay $10
for the whole preseason as well, but then you’re talking about needing a lot more subscribers to hit the break even point.
by Royster on Oct 9, 2009 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Blazers already live stream/live chatted media day from Casey Holdahl's laptop
The cost was minimal. The quality was watchable. Our expectations just need to be set appropriately “hey fans, we are giving you a free/small fee low quality stream, but the chance to see actual game footage”. Most fans that would have the ability/desire to seek that type of coverage out would also have the ability to understand it will be less than perfect quality.
I get the paper, so I don't care!
by Name's Ash on Oct 9, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're out of town
After waiting all summer, my interest level is at its highest, in anticipation of the new season. I’d pay to catch an internet feed. Locals can at least get audio, by tuning in with an actual radio. We cant even get the audio cast because its blacked out.
Once the actual season starts, we get the feed as being part of NBA League Pass. However, its hit or miss as to whether we’re getting the Blazer feed or the opponents feed. I’d pay to consistently get Blazers stream, and to have consistent stream (instead of being constantly kicked off NBA audio stream when sign-ins get too high).
The NBA was charging similar amounts to watch summer league. I paid.
by FromAfar on Oct 8, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
boom, roasted.
Kobe is my profile pic because of this beatdown I received.
Blake > Andre
by prezofdeath on Oct 8, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Ben
Who is “Bilbo Baggins” and why is he such a d-bag? Did you steal his girlfriend? Beat him up and take his lunch money? Execute a corporate raid on his LLC and sell it off bit-by-bit to the highest bidder? He’s taking this whole discussion reeeeeeal personally.
"I just sort of know that around the water cooler they talk of reality tv stars, and I strictly drink coffee." -- EvilKaramazov
by BlazersOrBust on Oct 9, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First, Ben's point is accurate
Times have changed. It’s one thing to appreciate that we get more access than we used to. It is another thing to use that appreciation to ignore the reality of how different the NBA (and world) is now.
Second, I have a hard time listening to this criticism coming from a guy who is employed by the station that isn’t delivering the goods. Now, I don’t know how much it is a Blazers issue versus a CSN issue, but I have to assume both parties are partly responsible. I just can’t see Dwight as being completely objective here.
Still on the Rex bandwagon.
by dan_the_man on Oct 8, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For Years I have had to listen to Blazer games on radio, then years of being away with nothing at all while I lived
in Hawaii. Now I am back here again, and quite frankly I love Comcast’s broadcasts, but this going back to radio would not be so bad, if one could get the radio broad cast. So I am here babysitting my grandchildren, radio out in the car but I can’t listen to it, because well. So you would think that in todays modern age one could listen to the radio on your computer, Right? But no, some a—hole has made it so one can not listen to a radio over the net, what a crock!
So all one is left with is a bad attempt at typed scores. I even bought a stero DVD player for radio reception but it did not come with an attenna. ANY ONE HAVE AWAY TO LISTEN TOTHE REST OF PRESEASON OVER THE NET?
by prof.mike on Oct 8, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have a similar problem
Never been able to pick up 95.5 down here in eugene, and the local broadcaster of Blazers games almost NEVER picks up the preseason games (too much ducks news to discuss!) So I can’t listen either.
by MattyDread on Oct 8, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
gonna have to chime in on this
constant reader, rare poster.
I love up in Seattle. I refuse to bring all the cultural detritus that comes with cable teevee into my house just to follow the blazers. Unless I’m willing to pay to have ESPN, VS, NBA TV, and League Pass, there’s no way for to follow the games. Even Audio League Pass isn’t available for these preseason games.
I will gladly fork over some cash to follow the blazers. But I refuse to pay until I can get all the games in one place. League Pass broadband? Sounds great, if I want to follow the Bobcats. But all I get are constant blackouts.
The distribution model is broken beyond all repair. I think this is because the NBA locked up channels intentionally so there would only be one option for each broadcast — they don’t ESPN competing with League Pass for viewers. That made sense ten years ago, maybe even 5.
I really hope these rumors of the team live streaming game video are true. If they aren’t, I don’t even have a local radio station on which to hear the games. I have NO CHOICE but pay for tons of crappy cable channels I don’t want, or to pirate web streams. I don’t want to be that guy.
One center court, please do this right. I can live without the preseason coverage, but please please please get a radio affiliate in Seattle (you have on in the TRI CITIES fer chrissakes) and give me a live stream of the games. I’ll gladly pay for it.
by greyhound9 on Oct 8, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I am that guy
I’m a guy VERY willing to pay, but who doesn’t for the reasons you described above. So I watched for free and the NBA lost my money because they couldn’t/wouldn’t supply the product I wanted in the format I wanted (online).
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
I cannot get comcast where I live and I will not buy league pass it Blazer games will be blacked out. Therefore, I generally turn to the pirated online streams. I would gladly pay for a legitimate feed.
I wish I spent more time playing catch with you and less time training my body and mind to kill you...
by 1badbadger on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't the radio be listened to over the internet?
I hear the same commercials.
by prof.mike on Oct 8, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
no kidding
it’s not even a moneymaking venture for the NBA and EVERY time I went to listen… the stream didn’t work anyway.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blazersedge Ben says:
October 8, 2009 at 11:14 am
i understand this is a team and organization that has made cuts. i understand the financial realities we’re talking about. but this isn’t an organization that has publicly addressed those realities with its customers and that is a big part of the problem here.
paying customers to comcast rightfully assumed they would be able to watch the games because they were able to watch last year and because of the other independent efforts that you’ve described comcast making to provide additional coverage. when you deliver a good product consistently and try to slide by without delivering that product again and addressing the reasons why, it’s reasonable to expect people to feel blindsided.
you know i don’t want anyone laid off, dwight. i want a television plan that works for everyone, including the organization. if that’s not possible (as they are now saying after the fact), then the least the organization and its television partners can do is be up front about the reasons why. that ship has sailed but its time they offer up a little more straight talk so it’s not left to 3rd parties to excuse their silence.
the blazers and comcast should see their upset fans clamoring for their product as a good sign. wouldn’t it be a whole lot worse if nobody was upset? shouldn’t there be an effort to communicate publicly from those fans that are upset to an organization that has to make daily decisions on what stays and what goes? i’m just unclear why discourse is a bad thing. you wrote publicly yourself above that you want to watch the game. that’s all people are saying here.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Again
if they cant’ capitalize on a rabid fan base, they may want someone more creative running their marketing department.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
This is the real deal to me to.
As insulting as it is, I think they need to get someone a bit more talented at making money from people who want product.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sir,
I said GOOD DAY.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You are a bounder and a cad.
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
by EngineerScotty on Oct 8, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And a dandy fop.
Indubitably.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree with Ben because it's just the preseason, and I don't agree with Dwight because I never agree with him
To me it’s like it’s just practice with crap lineups that will just lead to rampant silly speculation. “Scrubby McGee scored 17 points and grabbed 10 rebounds against the scrubs of the 3rd crappiest team in the NBA, he should be moved to the starting lineup.” It’s bad enough folks proclaim players starters after reading about preseason games.
Some folks are acting like it is our right to watch the preseason. If the Blazers charged $5 for all the preseason games, fans would complain that “It’s the preseason and not a real game, why do I have to pay?”
If fans are serious about watching the preseason games, they should do something besides complain about it. Come up with a real and viable solution. If the team says they would lose money, figure out a real way where they can at least break even.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 12:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
without access to the blazers’ books (costs per production, direct knowledge of advertising possibilities, etc.) it’s impossible to put together a plan or viable solution for an outsider. that’s just not an option.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The TV/web-streaming could be done at a low cost, since we know they are filming it for highlights on the jumbotron and on NBA.com. What is unknown and hard to calculate is how many more fans would stay away and not impulse-buy tickets at the last minute above and beyond what they already sold to season ticket holders as a required part of their package.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 8, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Large global market, even with local blackout
Baseball/Yankees have strong international following, European soccer has rabid following in the US, even though its not a top tier sport here. Cricket is almost religious.
The Internet is an OPPORTUNITY to shed the “small market” stamp.
- The Blazers are one of the most exciting young teams with strong internet following — evidence internet polls decided in our favor.
- We also have a strong international flavor to our team make-up: currently on the team (Rudy, Nic, Patty Mills?); currently stashed away (Freeland, Petteri); and past players (Sabas, Petrovic, Ha).
Why not capitalize on these assets? Why not leverage the upswing of a team entering its championship window? Why not market the sleeping giant about to awaken, the dynasty about to form? Take the Uprise, rise with us message worldwide. Appeal to emotional support of the underdog. This is an opportunity of a lifetime that most marketing people would die for.
And if your really concerned about butts in seats, then local blackout the feed. There are still many of us who follow FromAfar
by FromAfar on Oct 8, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You could write the outline
If da kine from the Blazers was serious, all he has to do is give you the cost of broadcasting a preseason game and you have to figure out how to cover that cost.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the blazers do a number of things that do not pay off in immediate returns. re-surfacing every single basketball court in the PIL. hosting ceremonies for duck’s dock, etc. retiring jerseys, etc. this is just one part of their budget that they’ve chosen not to prioritize. it’s doubtful they would release the cost to me but without knowing advertising rates, all their past viewership numbers, how many tickets they’ve sold, and tons of other information that they will rightfully choose to keep private you can’t undertake this task seriously.
and he wasn’t serious.
by Ben. on Oct 8, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you ask if he was serious?
Axing him what you need to axe to make a post about reaching a solution seems plausible to me.
Regarding the the re-surfacing, Duck’s dock, and retiring jerseys, which do you think is worth giving up so fans can watch pre-season games?
(I’m really not this extreme, I’m just kicking it up a notch for devils advocate sake.)
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we can un-retire some jerseys and get that money back somehow
That’d be nice.
—M
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's call up Porter
his was the last one up. Besides, we already had a 30 in the rafters.
by Royster on Oct 8, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have an inside source
They can only afford to un-retire even numbered jerseys under 32. Odd numbers and anything over 33 is too expensive.
You think you're a polymath and you're not even a polymath 101.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh
You think you're a polymath and you're not even a polymath 101.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Solution
First off, lets separate the sunk costs from the additional costs.
1) Sunk Cost – Cost of cameraman and video. As evidenced by the NBA.com highlights, video is being recorded for these games. That means whether the game is being recorded or not, the team is paying for the rudimentary broadcast.
2) Additional Cost – Providing the feed to a consumer base on the internet. If they connected the feed to a UStream, that cost would be minimal. But let’s estimate that the internet costs would be $2k per game.
3) Additional Cost – Announcers. Optional. Instead Portland could just keep an open mike for the crowd reaction. Cost – $0.
4) Additional Revenue – Charge $5 per person for preseason access. If 3,000 people sign up for the entire preseason than they just brought enough revenue in to cover the cost of the broadcast.
by da34shadow on Oct 8, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yup
I dunno the bandwidth issues for streaming a game through their website, but that technology is NOT expensive and something similar-but-better than the summer league games (I mean, the HD cameras they are using for the jumbotron are already better than summer league, and they clearly already got people in the booth switching between the cameras for the jumbotron).
Stream the jumbotron feed, charge sumthin’ for it, that’s cash in their pocket. The FOLDING kind!
M—
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now that we are faced with no preseason coverage, that sounds great. But I doubt it would cause much less of an uproar among fans. If they announced a month ago that fans had to pay to watch a streaming video of what is on the jumbo tron, I could see a lot people feeling ripped of.
It sounds like a good plan now though, I will take what I can get….
by Rudiculous on Oct 8, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is true
BEFORE we knew we couldn’t see anything, I’m sure many would go WHAT I GOTTA PAY NOW OOOOH SO ANGRY. But after we know we can’t see anything, our wallets open easier.
M.
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least they are looking for solutions instead of making excuses or placing blame.
There are all these smart people who visit this blog who are underutilized, because it is easier to complain than it is to think.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I complain therefore I am.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How hard is it to chide?
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Additional Cost – Announcers. Optional. Instead Portland could just keep an open mike for the crowd reaction. Cost – $0.
Or, route the feed through the radio truck and have the sound engineer mix Wheel’s audio into the stream?
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 8, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be nice.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we did
some suggestions were very good and I’d be shocked to hear they weren’t actually viable. Just stream the games, low quality is fine, use the radio announcers as they’re already there. Toss in some radio commericals, that’s cool or just keep the cameras focused on the court.
Advertise gear on teh site… a link to the blazer store, a link to the blazer ticket site, and so on.
It’s so seriously easy to make money on this or do it in a way that fits the rabid fan desire. Do it only for home games, that’s cool too. Give us something to watch the blazers with before the season starts so we can see how they match-up ourselves.
"Fernandez, to my eyes, is the Blazer who walks that walk most comfortably. A lot of Portland's fans (egged on, dare I say, by their local broadcasters) lament things like how Ron Artest or Yao Ming get to hit Brandon Roy's arms.
But I suspect Fernandez sees all that and thinks: We get to hit arms! Cool!"
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-135/On-Playoff-Experience.html
"I told Pau the Lakers never win here in Portland; I think it's great." -- Rudy Fernandez
by ratbastird on Oct 8, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I vote for anything that's not much more work than they've already got in place
They got the camera men and director in the booth, recording the game live and switching between shots for the “broadcast” on the jumbotron. Just stream that somehow.
Don’t need to hire announcers, no bells or whistles, no graphics, just the jumbotron feed.
No muss no fuss.
—M
by Mortimer on Oct 8, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Misery loves company, huh, Tom?
You’re happy because Oregon residents (with Comcast subscriptions) are in the same boat with you on this one.
Go watch a swaying coconut tree.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 8, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
I would watch every preseason game I could, and at the same instance I don’t give a rat’s butt, because it’s just the preseason. In a year or two, folks here will be blowing off the regular season, and only care about the playoffs by November.
by tominhawaii on Oct 8, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be lovely.
My team went to the playoffs in my first year.
by pxilpooshr on Oct 8, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The regular season is just for those losers who aren't championship bound.
Like the Lakers.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Oct 8, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In normal years, sure: preseason isn't of huge interest
But the addicted fans among us (i.e, the majority of BE denizens) have been waiting very impatiently for many months to get a look at the first legit championship-contending Blazer team for over a decade. We’ve been reading about (even watching jerky internet feeds of) Rudy & Nic’s Euro exploits. We’ve been hearing about GO’s workouts with Bayno & Grant. We’ve been wondering about Martell’s health. We’ve been hankering to see how Andre Miller jells with the guys. We’ve even heard outlandish suggestions about Trout being in shape.
We’ve made it thru the summer dog days in one piece, but we’re like starving, parched men & women slogging thru the desert in search of water. For miles we’ve had our eyes fixed on preseason as the end of our Blazer-less trek, then it turns out to be a mirage. How cruel is that?
Of COURSE a month from now these extra three weeks of Blazerlessness will seem like a meaningless deprivation. We’ll be watching REAL games, and plenty of ‘em. But that’s like saying that, soon after drinking from a desert watering hole, one would turn up their nose at the stinky, muddy brew. Sure, but at the TIME it was a life-saver, and it tasted better than champagne.
Like I said, Tom: go watch a swaying coconut tree. Better yet, eat some poi.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 9, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Poi tastes like paste
I am indifferent on the issue, I just think the fan outrage is outrageous, and the sense of entitlement rubs me the wrong way.
With mob mentality, it is easier to stoke the fire than to put it out.
by tominhawaii on Oct 9, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you, and don't really wish a poi meal on you (or over-ripe spam musubi)
But I haven’t sensed that much outrage or mob mentality. I mighta missed it (I skim some of these lengthy threads), but I think most fans are just frustrated. We realize that the lack of preseason t.v. telecasts isn’t a major grievance. We just feel the Blazers’ brass are being penny-wise pound-foolish here.
The organization would gain a lot of goodwill for a very small expenditure by putting on a couple of preseason home games. No production would be too chinzy. I’d settle for something as horrid as Ben’s leaning-against-the-practice-facility-wall training camp footage. Er, well, maybe that’s an overstatement…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 9, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but I have fun stoking it
Aren’t you having fun? Because you are stoking it, too.
There’s more than one way to stake a stoke. At least, my pothead friends used to say something sort of like that.
I can tell you how to make an Excel spreadsheet that proves Portland wins 62 games this year.
by jscot on Oct 10, 2009 4:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec for you Tom.
Would be nice to have the option of listening on the radio though.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Oct 9, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose people are worried about any signs of the organization reverting back to the "old days", i.e. about as little as 5 years ago
- Raef not getting traded. Team still loses some money. Oh oh, Paul Allen might go into cost saving mode again?
- Oh oh, why aren’t they giving Roy the max? Phew, they did. Oh oh, why is LaMarcus not yet extended?
- Flexible pricing. Oh oh, they want to raise prices again. Can’t they remember the crappy product in an empty arena?
- Andre Miller telling reporters to mind their own business. Oh oh, Jailblazers.
- Team doesn’t televise pre-season games, wants fans to buy more tickets. Oh oh, here we go again…
Likely all unfounded worries, but the organization needs to keep in mind that a number of fans are still having some difficulty to buy into the new guiding vision.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 8, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this really strikes me as "penny-wise and pound-foolish"
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 8, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They do need to realize
that although most fans realize a page has been turned on that rather tasteless period of Blazer history, it is recent enough for people to make all those inferences. Whether or not they are accurate is irrelevant. The fact that people are making them is something of which the team must be aware.
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Oct 8, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're not?
This all could slip back into the crapper pretty easily.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Oct 9, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could they provide a video feed
and rather than bringing in the Mikes to do play-by-play—just mix Wheels with the picture, since he’s calling the game for the radio anyway?
(Back in the days of the Schonz, many fans used to do that all the time: Watch the TV, turn down the volume of Kermit the Frog, I mean Pat Lafferty, and turn up the radio).
Or would that cause hurt feelings?
I am Spartacus and I approved this message
by EngineerScotty on Oct 8, 2009 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Gotta go with Ben on this one.
This here’s the 21st century. It doesn’t matter how things were done in the 20th century. Technology isn’t the issue. Fan interest isn’t the issue. Money is the issue.
If it costs too much to broadcast these pre-season games, then simplify, like Ben suggested, and just have a few cameras, no play-by-play. This rabid fan would be satisfied with just film, no scores, nothing. Anything beats wasting the whole game trying to find a way to get ANY information about the game.
But forget all that, seriously, 16,000 fans show up for a team scrimmage, and there isn’t thought to be enough profitablity in a real game, with real opponents? Who knows how many Rose Gardens full of people were watching it (and advertisers’ commercials!) live on TV, not to mention those who watched the replays (and advertisers’ commercials!), again and again. I don’t get it.
The cyberworld is overwhelming NBA teams and making them change their ways. And fans do seemingly want everything, all the time. But, it isn’t unreasonable to think that a team that broadcasts a team scrimmage would go ahead and, you know, broadcast the more meaningful games that follow.
by Igot D. Jones on Oct 8, 2009 2:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Fans are in Dire Straights.
They want money for nothing and their chicks for free.
“I want my Blazer TV”
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Oct 8, 2009 2:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How much does it cost to stream or upload the game video already available?
If it is not for free, that is how much I want my Blazer TV for.
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have added...
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Oct 8, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh no, I got it, I just was attacking you for your position! ;)
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Oct 8, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on, Darkstar
if you’re going to reference a song with a classic video like that, at least link to that instead.
by Royster on Oct 8, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually never grew up with MTV.
I didn’t know there were videos for songs until I was thirty. Still forget often enough.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Oct 8, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol does anyone really watch the Blazers dancers crap on comcast. Like who cares?
We don’t pay to see them. I’ll get a stack of one dollar bills if I want to watch woman dance around. I care about watching basketball, not timeout entertainment.
by BRoyInThe4th on Oct 8, 2009 3:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If I wanted that I would go to a strip club
Beause that’s what the Blazer Dancers are: strippers
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Oct 9, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
does any of this make financial sense?
broadcast the arena feed. use the radio broadcast for the audio. all you probably need, then, is one guy in “the truck” to make sure everything is plugged in. use the commercial time to broadcast only Blazers commercials. commercials for tickets, jerseys, bobblehead nights, Franz bread cards, whatever. turn the whole thing into a big old Blazers informercial.
an even more dramatic approach? tape delay the thing. buy up the cheapest airtime that Comcast will sell you. the only types of fans who are really upset about missing preseason games are probably going to be the same sort that would be willing to tape/DVR the games.
that being said, I don’t think it’s a big deal. a little surprising, yes, but no one is taking away something that longtime Blazers fans should have expected to happen all along. broadcasting preseason games still seems to be a rather weird idea to me, as I have to sometimes remind myself that it wasn’t all that long ago that only half the games (or less) were on TV. but, clearly, the demand is there.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Cardinals' middle relief corps. | Cards on Cards
by madding on Oct 8, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ive watched fanfest 2x and was impressed enough each time
they are being cheap
by riccc_l on Oct 8, 2009 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I've got to admit,
I am kind of enjoying everybody’s pain over this. This is exactly how thousands of devoted fans from all over Oregon (and maybe Washington) feel for about 55 games during the season. We can’t get Comcast, and Comcast, in it’s greed, has blacked out League Pass from the Southern Oregon border to Seattle. The Blazers seem unconcerned about this situation. This inability to watch the preseason games has generated more discussion and angst than the inability for thousands of fans to watch the season games. I am glad that people can maybe relate more to our anger and frustration now that you have experienced a tiny bit of what we are experiencing. I understand that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect Comcast customers to respond as passionately to our situation as you have to your loss of preseason games (because our situation is not happening to you), but this should foster a bit of understanding. I have no power to change things by myself, but maybe with a concerted effort by our BE brotherhood, with some help from Dwight, Mike Barrett, Quick, or even Canzano, we could at least apply pressure.
by crakarjack on Oct 8, 2009 6:33 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I was just getting ready to post something like this crakarjack.
But now I only need to give you a rec, a +1 and a hearty “totally agree”.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Oct 9, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On second thought,
I think Dave and Ben, and their cohorts on their radio broadcasts, could do more to publicize this neglect . They could also lead the charge on BE, and make it a main page subject, not just once, but regularly. I am obviously distressed as I face another season of not being able to watch this team that I put so much of my time, energy, and hopes into.
by crakarjack on Oct 8, 2009 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very nice poll. Well done.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Oct 8, 2009 6:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dwight loves to whine, why should this be any different?
btw could Dwight have looked any worse on TV during FanFest? My God man, stick to radio.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Oct 9, 2009 6:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
p.s. all those Blazer T-Shirts I wasn't going to buy this season anyway?
and all those games I wasn’t going to go to because I have Comcast..?
Well now I’m really not going to buy those shirts or go to those games.
But to be honest next time my kid is nagging me to buy some Blazers junk, I’ll remember Mr. McMid-Level Executive’s snarky reply to BlazersEdge.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Oct 9, 2009 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dwight's point is silly
That’s like me saying, “Back in my day, millions of people contracted diseases for which we didn’t have vaccines and got really sick. It was a terrible time for preventing infectious disease. But now we’re much better at preventing diseases generally speaking, so who cares if we could prevent this specific disease and we aren’t doing it? It’s much better than it used to be.”
Who cares if it’s much better than it used to be, Dwight? There’s been a ridiculous proliferation of sources that one can draw on to get their sports fix — nobody’s disputing that. The question now is “Has the organization done enough to make its product available and consistent with the demand for it?” My answer, and that of lots of people on AND off this board, is no…and I don’t like being called an ingrate because of that.
"I just sort of know that around the water cooler they talk of reality tv stars, and I strictly drink coffee." -- EvilKaramazov
by BlazersOrBust on Oct 9, 2009 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
surprisingly good analogy
rec
You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players
by TheOdenator on Oct 9, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well put
Simple streaming would work for me, with no announcers (I could turn on wheels in the background). It would be low cost and probably raise the radio program “listener-ship”. Heck, how many of us have watched a game on justin.tv ? A lot, and think how many would watch an advertised good quality stream.
Brandon Roy, 'nuff said.
by johnv59 on Oct 9, 2009 5:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, good point: at least for those in the local area, the audio could be accessed via our radios
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Oct 9, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
