DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

· Icon
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Not a D* complaint, as overall the EI package has been terrific - no, amazing - this year.

This illustrates MLB's total incoherence.

I live in Indy.

MLB says Cubs, White Sox, and Reds are locals.

Friday the following will happen:

1) Reds not televising in HD - as usual. So we get SD. Obviously, MLB and D* have nothing to do with this.

2) Cubs on WGN, which is HD spot beamed to Chicago zip codes, but not available to me in Indy, even though MLB calls Cubs a "local". So we get SD.

3) Sox are on WCIU in HD, which is not spot beamed to me at all, even though MLB calls Sox a "local". So we get nothing.

4) Of the other 12 games, I'll get 10 in HD.

Go figure.
 

· Legend
Joined
·
146 Posts
cmasia said:
Not a D* complaint, as overall the EI package has been terrific - no, amazing - this year.

This illustrates MLB's total incoherence.

I live in Indy.

MLB says Cubs, White Sox, and Reds are locals.

Friday the following will happen:

1) Reds not televising in HD - as usual. So we get SD. Obviously, MLB and D* have nothing to do with this.

2) Cubs on WGN, which is HD spot beamed to Chicago zip codes, but not available to me in Indy, even though MLB calls Cubs a "local". So we get SD.

3) Sox are on WCIU in HD, which is not spot beamed to me at all, even though MLB calls Sox a "local". So we get nothing.

4) Of the other 12 games, I'll get 10 in HD.

Go figure.
Not sure how blackouts apply at all here. Sure, D* could work out a deal to carry WGN and WCIU in the EI package in HD, but there's not currently an HD signal from those three games that could reach you.

My main complaint, as an (unfortunate) Giants fan, is that, for whatever reason, when the Giants feed is not being carried on EI, invariably the opponent's feed isn't either. Very few HD games as well, and rarely is the opponent's feed in HD. As bad as the Giants are and will be, I might go without EI next season unless the number of HD games on EI is dramatically increased.
 

· Impossible Dreamer
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
mortimer said:
Not sure how blackouts apply at all here.
He doesn't get to watch the Sox game at all -- because they are a "local" team he will be blacked out of the away team's telecast on EI, even though he can't watch the Chisox game not carried OTA in Indy.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,572 Posts
That's the problem with Major League Baseball broadcasts today. There are still some teams that have OTA (Over The Air) broadcasts that claim huge territory not covered by that same over the air channel. Fans who live in Indianapolis cannot and will never be able to see a Cubs or a White Sox game that is broadcast on WCIU Channel 26, a Chicago area only channel even though Indianapolis is Claimed Territory for the Cubs and White Sox. This is why MLB should implement a 75 mile rule just like the NFL use to have. Teams should not be able to claim territory beyond 75 Miles from the City that they originate out of. That is the only solution I can think of if Baseball still wants to keep blackouts around to protect teams broadcasts local in each city and the surrounding suburbs of that city. The only other possible solution i can think of is to do away with blackouts all together and end this blackout nonsense once and for all and put every game that is available on the MLB Extra Innnings Package blackout free. That's the most reasonable thing they could do. But we're talking about Baseball here and they always seem to drag there feet when it comes to issues like this.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
868 Posts
Actually the Rangers and Astros both have their OTA games on EI. But I have the same problem. I live in Eugene, OR and I am claimed by the Giants and Athletics. That's right...600 miles away, I am claimed by the Bay Area teams, so if they are OTA only or not televising at all, I am SOL. Pretty stupid indeed, and I am under the impression that it will never change.
 

· Impossible Dreamer
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
Eksynyt said:
and I am under the impression that it will never change.
Well, Selig is on record as looking into making the claimed territories more rational. But that was last year, and we haven't seen any progress yet. I do believe something will eventually get done in this regard -- they may be leaving some $$ on the table if people choose not to subscribe to the out-of-market packages (EI or MLB.TV) because they are "in" one of the ridiculously huge multi-team territories.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
bwaldron said:
Well, Selig is on record as looking into making the claimed territories more rational. But that was last year, and we haven't seen any progress yet. I do believe something will eventually get done in this regard -- they may be leaving some $$ on the table if people choose not to subscribe to the out-of-market packages (EI or MLB.TV) because they are "in" one of the ridiculously huge multi-team territories.
You make a great point, but that's where the irony of this situation comes in.

MLB says they are protecting "home" markets, when in many cases, because of satellite, cable, and OTA limitations, "home" fans can't see some "home" games at all.

And for the guy in Eugene, if the A's and Giants are both televising OTA, without EI, he can't see any baseball at all!
 

· Godfather
Joined
·
285 Posts
What i find is stupid is.You subscribe to the EI package and your "home team"not broadcasting the game but the other team is.Not being about to watch the other teams feed it being "blackout".But being able to watch every other game.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
Eksynyt said:
Actually the Rangers and Astros both have their OTA games on EI. But I have the same problem. I live in Eugene, OR and I am claimed by the Giants and Athletics. That's right...600 miles away, I am claimed by the Bay Area teams, so if they are OTA only or not televising at all, I am SOL. Pretty stupid indeed, and I am under the impression that it will never change.
The MLB 'territories', as many have pointed out, were set in quite literally the dawn of the television age. None want to give up any piece of that real estate, since quite literally it means money in the bank.

In the case of Eugene, OR, I happen to know quite exactly when and why southern Oregon ended up in the SF Bay areas territory. Back in the 50's, when the Giants moved to SF, and quite literally the ONLY broadcast tv station outside of Portland was in Eugene, the big network stations in SF piped their signals north via a private microwave system along the coast up through Crescent City, CA. That system was extended in the mid-50's up through (and past) Coos Bay, OR, and included Roseburg, Medford, and Grants Pass, attaching to VERY early cable systems in those towns.

Remember, there was only ONE broadcast channel out of Eugene, I can't quite remember which network it was, but probably CBS/NBC, and was only 'on the air' a handful of hours each day. I still have picture closeted away somewhere of the VHF antenna arrays on the top of mountains that were required to capture the very weak signal.

So, the analog microwave system bringing in the SF stations operated from that point through the 1960's. Remember, this was WAY before satellite, WAY before fiber. And, when the Giants started the 1958 season, the broadcast areas were defined, and set in stone, at least in the northern areas. And, of course, this was literally decades before MLB expanded to Seattle.

What is interesting, is that not only were the boundaries extended northward, but again (due to microwave transmission of the SF broadcast stations) extended southward as well, to at least the San Luis Obispo area.

As the Dodgers moved to LA the same year, the southern 'dividing line' was a contention for many years; many folks along the southern California Coast became, and are still, Giants fans due to the inroads made by the extension by the SF stations, and many still retain broadcast rights to the Giants games despite the movement of the 'line' several years later.

But again, once an area has been defined, the teams are extremely loathe to give anything up. The teams back east, with the closeness of the cities and the mileage much smaller, means that the broadcast territories are much tighter, and the 'overlap' is much greater.

So where as today, satellite transmission has certainly 'muddied the waters', terrestrial microwave and (especially back east) OTA broadcasting did so in earlier decades. MLB's refusal to address those problems back in the 'early days', means that we live today with a system now 2-3 generations behind in making any sense.

Put into the mix the idea that the owners all have, that restrictive distribution of their 'product' makes it's worth higher, and it's a prescription for (from the outlook of the fans), a disaster. One would think. But virtually all the franchises are raking in the bucks big time with the current system, so any change is pretty remote.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Someone still has to explain to me how MLB "rakes in big bucks" by preventing me from seeing the White Sox when they are on WCIU.

Am I supposed to drive the 180 miles from Indy to buy a ticket, while the game is shown on TV to people living on W 35th Street and the Dan Ryan?

Taking this to an even more absurd level, how about not being able to see Sox road games on WCIU?

I understand the complications of getting WCIU's signal to me, but that's not my "big bucks" question.

Would WCIU pay less in rights fees to the Sox if we were able to watch their games on the opposing team's channels?

What percentage of WCIU viewers have EI?

And wouldn't EI be worth another $25 to $30 per year if this madness went away?

Full disclosure: I hate the White Sox and I especially hate Ken Harrelson, but it's the principle that matters. :))
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
bwaldron said:
They don't.
I guess that you've not taken any college courses in accounting, particularly in regards to professional sports.

Since I used to live in St. Petersburg, the Rays are a really good example of the MLB thinking along these lines.

First, the Rays have one of the worst, if not THE worst, television contract of any MLB team in the nation (American OR National League!). They have no real 'local' broadcast station carrying their games regularly; their 'shared' FSN-Florida feed handles at best 1 out of 3 games played (home or away), and they have an 'exclusive' deal with ION cable that Phillies fans will instantly recognize as a 'cable-only' type contract, with no games offered or carried by the leagues 'Extra Innings' package.

And yet, the gate count/receipt, despite the standings which as of today put the Rays at the top of the American League East (a game or two ahead of BOTH the Red Sox and Yankees), if I'm not mistaken, the WORST fan/gate count of any team in all of Major League Baseball.

Obviously, the Rays are following the basic tenets of professional sports, that television coverage ('good' coverage, that is) depresses gate count. Even though to you and me, it's obvious the reverse is true! But the bean counters can and will whip out the figures to prove that 'obvious' thinking incorrect.

And those are the figures the owners listen to. Nowhere in the MLB is that more true than in St. Petersburg! One would think, as they try to gain public support for a new, expensive, ball park, and now that they are playing good ball, they'd ease up on the television coverage.

Not Gonna Happen.
 

· Impossible Dreamer
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
1948GG said:
I guess that you've not taken any college courses in accounting, particularly in regards to professional sports.
Not going to whip out my degrees...but yes, I do understand accounting ;)

But I don't see how the "protecting the live gate" argument is even relevant here. First off, that argument seems to be pretty much passe, given that most MLB teams do in fact televise the majority of their home games.

Second, we're talking about a fan in Indianapolis not being able to see a team in Chicago, when the game is in fact being broadcast. Unfortunately for him, it is on an OTA channel, and his "home" team doesn't have a contract with an OTA channel in his market (nor does DirecTV have a contract to show those games). But, since they are one of his "home" teams, he is unable to view the game via the other team's broadcast via the out-of-market Extra Innings package.

If Indianapolis were not claimed as part of the Chisox home market, this wouldn't be an issue. Nor would it be an issue if the Chisox games were all carried on Comcast Sports Net. To get back to the origial point, I still fail to see a "big bucks" economic benefit to either the White Sox or MLB in not allowing fans in Indy from seeing the game.

The problem in cases like this is MLB's ridiculous territories, where teams (often multiple teams) can claim markets far larger than are sensible by any reasonable justification (the Indy/Chicago case is not close to being the worst). This was a matter of mainly theoretical interest for almost all fans in the days before EI and MLB.TV; now it is a real concern for baseball fans in some pockets of the country. MLB has admitted this and is working to address it, but at their normal glacial pace.

WRT the Rays, they do have a poor TV package -- but even so, their OTA affiliate network pretty much provides that anyone in their home market has the ability to view the all (or at least a majority) of their televised games.
 

· Legend
Joined
·
194 Posts
The Marlins claim the entire state of Florida as their home territory. Living in West Florida, I'm about 800 miles from Miami, and even in a different time zone. Surely, it is not expected that I would be watching their "local" broadcast. If they expect people to develop any fan loyalty, they need to let us watch them play. But, instead we have blackouts. Same with Tampa Bay baseball. It is almost 700 miles to drive there but we have blackouts.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Reply to 1948GG:

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me at all.

BWaldron agreed with my contention MLB does not benefit from the current blackout agreements.

You produced a long response disagreeing, but, while questioning his accounting credentials, and, while clearly stating Florida's issues, you failed to produce any evidence to back up your point about MLB's financial wisdom.

In fact, since you claim the Rays have the worst fan / gate count, you are proving our point.

Again, using my situation, MLB says I belong to Chicago. For whatever reasons - sound financial ones if you ask me - Indy's TV stations chose not to pay for rights to televise the package WCIU carries, games not covered by WGN or Comcast. I know this package was available for markets outside Chicago.

So MLB has lost money on my market - twice.

Once for not having any Indy OTA coverage and twice for not allowing me any "pay to watch" opportunity.

Please tell me what I'm missing here.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
552 Posts
What makes no sense to me is that any station should be able to charge their advertisers more if they can demonstrate that their are more potential viewers.

MLB should then be able to charge the stations more for the right to carry the broadcast.

Does DirecTV provide something like the Neilson ratings to calculate the number of viewers?

The blackout rules do change occasionally. When I first started watching MLB EI over Primestar in the late 80's there were no blackouts at all. I just got the station of whichever team was the home team for each game.

I live in the Yankees home territory. Through 2004 I was able to watch Red Sox - Yankee games over either the Red Sox or Yankee broadcasts. Starting in 2005, I can only watch those games over the Yankee one.

What is even worse, is that most Friday night's YES has sold exclusive broadcast rights to various local stations in my area. I never know which local station is going to carry a given game and many of the local stations that carry the games are SD only so there is no way to get those games in HD.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top