Cubs possibly looking at regional sports network

[jlabsher]

MacPhail checks his swings

By Paul Sullivan
Tribune staff reporter

March 3, 2003, 9:35 PM CST


MESA, Ariz. -- Andy MacPhail is usually a man of many words, but Monday was one of those days when biting his tongue was the preferred method of communication.

The Cubs president addressed several controversial topics Monday at HoHoKam Park, including the landmark status of Wrigley Field, installing wind screens, Sammy Sosa's contract and the possible creation of an in-house network to televise Cubs games.

<snip>

Speaking of escape clauses, the Cubs are in the fifth year of a 20-year deal with Fox Sports Net to televise a portion of their games, but can opt out of the contract after this season. The Cubs may create their own network, as the New York Yankees did last year with their "YES Network" in conjunction with the New Jersey Nets. MacPhail acknowledged the TV landscape is changing, but declined to go into specifics on the Cubs' plans.

[Dgenx321]

This is getting out of hand. All these channels will be are clutter most of the time..

[Zane26]

Getting out of hand is an understatement. If this keeps up then hardly any teams will be on Fox Sports Net anymore. And the MLB Extra Innings package will turn into a total joke.

I seem to remember that the Cubs were on CLTV (Chicagoland TV) a while back and that plan bombed since not all cable systems carried that channel.

[Geronimo]

NESN is not a Fox net and its games are in MLB EI. I have no idea about YES or any other channels of thsi type.

[Mike]

NESN in on satellite and a RSN. That fits the current plans of DirecTV and the pathetic EI games. If the new station comes up for Chicago much like the Astros one in Houston or the Royals Television Network this year, it may not be on satellite like the Phillies Comcast or the Padres Channel 4 games. Royals feeds may not be on EI this year.

[FTA Michael]

Let me get this straight: The Tribune-owned Cubs want to yank their games off Tribune-owned WGN in hopes of getting big bucks from a Tribune-owned RSN?

If that's right, don't they realize that lots of cable/DBS subs care about WGN primarily for its sports, particularly its Cubs games? Several years ago, my local cable service, which was analog-only back then, was flailing for channel space because new must-carry shopping channels had popped up. It said it was going to dump WGN to make room, but subscriber response was so great that it kept WGN and made a couple of other channels share a slot.

WGN without baseball would be a channel with few devoted viewers. Would Tribune really benefit?