What Happened the Last Time the Chiefs' Game was Blacked Out?

by Chris Thorman on Dec 9, 2009 7:38 AM CST in 2009 Kansas City Chiefs Campaign

Joel mentioned yesterday that the Chiefs needed to sell about 3,500 tickets in order for this weekend's game against the Buffalo Bills to be televised locally. In other words, they need to sell those tickets so the game isn't "blacked out."

The Chiefs have flirted with blackouts in recent years, especially at the end of the season as the losses rose and the temperatures dropped. I know for most of us that a blackout would be a signal that the fan base is truly downtrodden. It would be a story in the franchise's history that we as fans would point to to show others just how bad it was to be a Chiefs fan late in this decade.

For a little perspective, let's take a look at the last time the Chiefs game was blacked out - December 16th, 1990.

And for the record, I think this blackout talk about this weekend is nonsense. I want to take a look at the fan base now and back then to see if the blackout was justified.

It was Week 15 against the Houston Oilers. The attendance was 61,756 - about 6,500 fewer fans than attended the previous Kansas City Chiefs game against the Denver Broncos last week.

You think that a blackout is automatically associated with a bad football. In the case of the Chiefs last blackout, that wasn't the case.

The Chiefs in the 1980s were, let us say, not good. There were only three winning seasons that decade, eroding a fan base that was further beat down with the short but nasty 1987 NFL strike. The 1990 season was Marty Schottenheimer's second. He won eight games in '89, which in retrospect was a huge improvement over former head coaches in the 80s Frank Ganz and John Mackovic. Despite nearly a decade of bad play, the Chiefs were improving.

They were more than improving actually. Heading into that Week 15 against the Oilers, the Chiefs were 9-4!

Leading up to the blackout, the Chiefs had:

Started the season 4-2
Beaten the Raiders twice
Won four in a row
Coming off a big divisional win against the Broncos

Right now, I'd take just one of those. The Chiefs ended the 1990 season going 11-5 and made the playoffs.

For those of you who were old enough to remember being Chiefs fans in 1990, let us know why this game was blacked out. Weather? General lack of interest?

Was the fan base that bad compared to today? Are we just better fans now? It makes me angry to see Chiefs fans taking their team for granted. Let's make sure we never do that, okay?

Poll

Who gets the blame for the Chiefs last blackout in 1990?

Weak fans

97 votes

Weather

57 votes

The bad teams from the 1980s

188 votes

The boring play of the team

113 votes

Other

23 votes

478 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That was one of the first seasons I can actually remember

I would of been 13 at the time. Too young to pay attention to attendance issues though. Steve Deberg, Christian Okoye, Barry Word, Stephon Paige, DT, Neil Smith, Dan Saleamua, Kevin Ross, Albert Lewis, how much would you pay to go see that team now?

On a side note here is what was going on in pop culture then:
Cheers was the number one TV show
Home Alone was the number one movie
Please Hammer Don’t Hurt Em’ by MC Hammer was the number one album
Because I love you (The postman song) by Stevie B was the number one song

Feeling "The Love" and "Drinking the Kool AId"

by KCporkchop on Dec 9, 2009 8:12 AM CST reply actions

On another side note

the nation was at war. I know most of my attention that year was on Iraq, not football. For the people in the military back then, a bombing campaign was just around the corner to be followed by an invasion.

by Ribs59 on Dec 9, 2009 8:40 AM CST up reply actions

a little history lesson for you

the US hasn’t been at war since 1945

UCrawford will eventually calm down and realize that Haley isn't a bad coach.
Will embrace the Fire Haley Bandwagon if we lose to the raiders by more then a TD...
..But we aren't going to lose.
LJ will not land in Pittsburgh
The Chiefs will not be the number one pick in this years draft
The Chiefs first pick of the draft will NOT be a OL
Thinks UCrawford just needs a hug... offer is there when you are ready UC :p

by Leaf on Dec 9, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

Well yes, technically

But just because congress hasn’t DECLARED war since then doesn’t mean this nation hasn’t “been at war”…

by KU2010 on Dec 9, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions

actually it does

i understand that the term is used loosely to describe any military engagement but that doesn’t mean that it’s correct. my post was simply a “gee wiz” bit of information pointing out that just because the nation is involved in a military engagement does not mean it is at war. there is a difference between being in a war and being at war. being in a war means that we are in the fight. being at war is a state of the nation that can only be implemented by congress. we were in the Korean war, we were in the Vietnam war, we were in the Persian Gulf war, we are currently in the Iraq war, but not once during those times has this nation been in a state of war.

by Leaf on Dec 9, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions

First

The President doesnt declare war. Congress does as you said. No President in the last 30 years has declared war without Congress’s consent. However, he still has power over sending the troops, right? Kinda. but not the case as no president in 30 years has done that without congress approval. But there is not an actual law saying he cant. There WAS a law that was most likely going to get shot down saying that the president CANT use military force without authorization, but everyone knew it would get shut down. But since then, no president has ever done it. Not once.

Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 1, Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

Credible sources here http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_President_George_W._Bush_declare_war_on_Iraq

(there are 2 sources in that answer, 1 from cspan about the authorization, 1 from CNN saying Congress has that power to declare war)

Congress authorized military action, which puts us at war. Just because we didnt send something to the country saying that we’re declaring war doesnt mean anything. Why would we tell them we’re attacking? That doesnt make sense. Its not like they didnt know it was coming. Declaring war, being in/at war, the common denominator is, we’re in a state of war.

The original comment was that “the US hasn’t been at war since 1945” – Leaf

And that is a false statement. We’ve been at war several times since 1945, as congress has authorized it, and the president put us in the battles. So even by your definition, “Being IN war is being in the fight (Military Action)” and “Being AT war (a state implemented by congress)”, both have been valid since 2002, AND happened in Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm and whatever I missed. War on Terror (Afghanistan) was “declared” on October 8th 2001, that congress passed and we occupied.

Again, your last comment “we are currently in the Iraq war, but not once during those times has this nation been in a state of war.” is false. Congress passed it, the president sent them, putting us in a state of war.

by Petey14 on Dec 9, 2009 6:55 PM CST up reply actions

wrong mate

just because congress authorizes the president to use military force does not put us at war. it just means we are in a military conflict, nothing more. an example of this in vietnam. we were never at war with vietnam. the war was between north vietnam and south vietnam. we were there to provide support for the south vietnamese but we were never at war with vietnam. part of the reason why this war was so controversial was because we were sending our boys over there to die in someone else’s war. congress authorizing military action does not put our nation at war, it only means we are getting involved in a war.

you asked why would we tell them we are attacking and that it doesn’t make sense too. i say why hide it. by the time war is declared it’s not a surprise to either side. as you said, it’s not like they don’t know it’s coming. but since you asked congress declaring war is not so much telling our enemy we are attacking as it’s them saying “it’s personal now. prepare for an ass whoop’n.” I feel your entire post confuses the line between being in a war and at war. The common denominator is a war, but we can be in a war and still not be at it.

you claim my original statement is false. I obviously disagree. In 1941 we declared war on japan. This war lasted until 1945. Since then the military engagements that we have been in that most people misinterpret as wars are Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq. Korea we had no beef with, we went as part of the UN therefore we weren’t at war with them. Vietnam we had no beef with. We went to provide support to South Vietnam. Therefore we weren’t at war. Persian Gulf as well as the Iraq war were US and it’s allies policing the middle east. we are currently not at war. so my statement of us being in a war (military action) has indead happened since 1945, but being at war (a state implemented by congress) has not. if you believe that the later is false because of your reference, then read the actual source document from c-span. no where in the Iraq War Resolution does it say we are at war with Iraq. the ony place that it does is on the wiki page saying that bush declares war and as you said only congress can do that.

by Leaf on Dec 10, 2009 4:29 PM CST up reply actions

i sure as hell have been to war

3 times along with countless thousands of other Americans and Chiefs fans! anytime an American dies holding a rifle in their hands fighting someone who hates our country its war to me!

by jrcnc on Dec 9, 2009 10:39 AM CST up reply actions

A little english lesson for you

I didn’t mention congress declaring war and I really don’t care how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin. I was answering the survey question, why wasn’t my butt in a seat at arrowhead.

BTW, from dictionary.com War – a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Peace.

by Ribs59 on Dec 9, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions

a little observation lesson for ya

understand that the term is used loosely

use the incorrect term

but if i was using a term incorrectly

BTW, also from dictionary.com Term – a word or group of words designating something.

not once did i say the word war was used incorrectly. i was saying that the term “at war” was. i wasn’t trying to criticize mate. it was only meant to be informative. obviously it didn’t come across that way so for that i apologize. i probably could have wrote that better. it sounded much better in my head.

by Leaf on Dec 9, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions

I didn't notice the distinction of "at war" vs war.

Apology is accepted and mine is offered. And also more importantly…Go Chiefs!

by Ribs59 on Dec 9, 2009 3:24 PM CST up reply actions

I was an intern with the Chiefs during the 2007 season.

Typically, the sponsors or Channel 5 will “pick up the tab” on the remaining tickets. There is too much sponsorship/advertising money (and ratings) to lose if you let the game be blacked out. They talked about this during the season I worked several times before pressers (it just was never really broadcasted/reported to the public). I think we will see the game on Sunday on TV.

Our defense gave up 87 points in two weeks and everyone wants to talk about Matt Cassel. Classic. Only TEAMS, as a COLLECTIVE GROUP, decide our W/L record. I can't believe this needs to be said.

by jk86 on Dec 9, 2009 8:13 AM CST reply actions

Agreed

I think next week against the Browns will be a more serious blackout discussion. I know the KCTV5 or sponsors will pick up the tab, like you say, but at some point it’s not cost-effective to do that. Hopefully that’s not the case next week.

Arrowhead Pride

by Joel Thorman on Dec 9, 2009 8:33 AM CST up reply actions

yeah same thing in san diego, they extended the kc/sd game sales till like saturday afternoon...so...Im sure it will get done if it can here in SD where no one cares about the chargers

by SDChief on Dec 9, 2009 11:56 AM CST up reply actions

the chiefs were improved but the fans

didn’t really start packing the place until the chiefs started going to the playoffs…which, if i’m not mistaken, also happened that year. you have to remember how bad the chiefs were in not only the 80’s but also most of the 70’s. there was 20 years of absolute futility the fans had to “get over”. once they were sure this chiefs team wouldn’t be a flash in the pan, fans started showing up every week.

The only players I hurt with my words are the ones who have an inflated opinion of their ability. I can't worry about that.
Bill Parcells

Knowledge is confidence. And confidence lets you play fast.
Bill Parcells

by kcguy on Dec 9, 2009 8:21 AM CST reply actions

Man I really want to go,

but with Christmas right around the corner, I am sure my kids would rather open gifts than go see the Chiefs/Bills game. Hopefully we will be better financially next year so we can go to one, or two games. I think this game gets “sold out”, it will not be blacked out.

Good move by the Chiefs org, glad to see LJ gone.

by Eric Allen on Dec 9, 2009 8:39 AM CST reply actions

blackout - won't happen, just won't

back then, of course, was just before Chiefs hit it big … the Carl/Marty era just starting, tailgating had not yet evolved into an art form and “Terrorhead Stadium” wouldn’t be “THE” place to be seen at for another year or two

what’s imcredible is how fans have shown up since, including the last few years AND this year (high hopes but an abysmal season thus far)

balckout? won’t happen … not THIS week

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisiton!

by upamtn on Dec 9, 2009 8:49 AM CST reply actions

It's pretty simple realy

Although interest in the team was on the rise, season ticket sales had not yet maxed out. In order to sellout during the 1990 season, the team had to sell around 30k individual seats for each game to compensate for the lack of season ticket holders. CP also had not yet made the larger number of corporate partnerships that we have since taken for granted. Corps often buy large blocks of tickets which really help single game sales.

So, you take a December game against a non-rival that is sure to hurt single game sales then compound it with a lack of corporate involvement and you get a blackout. Folowing 1990, season ticket sales really took off which depleted the single game ticket pool and made games much easier to sellout.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KCSatchmo on Dec 9, 2009 9:22 AM CST reply actions

I could have swore I watched that game on TV, but I guess it just seems that way

Because Warren Moon highlights were going non-stop…

http://chiefsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/1132

"The way this works is you string together some good games, some good practices and you get momentum and you gain confidence," linebacker Mike Vrabel said. "It can be a real positive for your team. It builds on itself."

by cpa913 on Dec 9, 2009 9:28 AM CST reply actions

I guess I didn't know that game was blacked out

because I was there.

Like everybody else within spitting distance of Kansas City, I was a fan during the glory years; I remember Super Bowls I and IV – and, of course, that amazing Christmas Day game in 1971.

But when Garo Yepremian’s FG in the second OT knocked off the Chiefs – and effectively ended those years – I was 14 years old. I had been a real sports fan up to that point, but as my teenage years progressed, I lost interest in the Chiefs – not because they weren’t good any more, but because I wasn’t interested in sports any longer.

So I can’t say that I endured those horrible seasons of the 70s and 80s. I just wasn’t paying attention.

Flash forward to 1990. A pharmaceutical company had given my sister’s husband – a physician – a pair of tickets to the Houston game, and he asked me to go with him. I had seen a few games at Municipal Stadium as a child, but had never been to Arrowhead. I knew that the Chiefs were improving, and I thought it might be fun. Our seats were in the lower level of the south end zone.

Of course… the Chiefs lost that game, as Warren Moon threw for 527 yards. (If I recall correctly, that was also the game where Steve DeBerg dislocated his finger, and a trainer snapped it back into place on the sidelines) But Bob and I absolutely loved the atmosphere. You could tell something special was coming.

The next season, we shared a pair of season tickets – about 20 rows up in the upper level – and were treated to the thrilling Monday night victories over the Bills and Raiders, plus the frigid 10-6 playoff win against the Raiders.

Well… after that, anybody would be hooked.

By the following year, we were appearing at every game in full regalia – complete with painted faces – and were coming home hoarse from screaming.

I’ve missed only a few home games since.

John

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

by RDOGuy on Dec 9, 2009 10:20 AM CST reply actions 3 recs

awesome story

rec’d

by The DBowe Show on Dec 9, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

You're evidently just a few years older than me, RDO

I was 10 when we lost to the Dolphins, but I tell people my childhood ended that day. It took me about thirty years before I quit wishing misfortune on the the Dolphins.

I agree that the fans really fell away in the 80s. It was typically pretty easy to get tickets to any game, with Raiders games being the only ones that I recall having much attendance. It was particularly bad during the late 80s with a lot of speculation that Lamar was letting the team lose because he wanted to move them. Plus fans began criticizing Steadman, the GM, more than the coach (Ganz). A lot of people I knew were so tired of the Chiefs being losers for almost 20 years that it took a while before they began to get excited for the Chiefs.

-"A man may be a fool and not know it, but not if he is married." - H.L. Mencken

by Big Chief on Dec 10, 2009 8:47 AM CST up reply actions