DBSTalk Forum banner
81 - 93 of 93 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #81 ·
The people are not okay with paying for packages whether it be via MLB.TV, MLB Extra Innings etc etc and getting blackouts from multiple teams some places 6 as stated earlier. How about worrying about the consumers like you & I who are paying for a service and having something go our way instead of the rich sports leagues who are guaranteed their money. Without people buying these packages and supporting the leagues there wouldn’t be no sports. How about that for once? After all we are paying for the content that should be delivered to us. We all pay for it through our subscriptions. We’re paying monthly fees for RSN’s. Then some on top of that buy MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, etc etc. It’s just a common sense issue man. Come on!
Any package you buy does not specify you get every game. They are very clear about what you are getting. And they all specify that each package is subject to blackouts. That is what you agree to when you purchase it. This no blackout utopia you envision is never going to happen. At best they might change the territorial boundaries but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Any package you buy does not specify you get every game. They are very clear about what you are getting. And they all specify that each package is subject to blackouts. That is what you agree to when you purchase it. This no blackout utopia you envision is never going to happen. At best they might change the territorial boundaries but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
Baseball Blackouts will end. It’s only a matter of when. It may be sooner than you think too since Rob Manfred has said it’s a “top priority” to end them.

 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #83 ·

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,190 Posts
There is no chance that "blackouts" will end as long as the current contracts with the teams are in place.

The benefit of Sinclair and the other RSNs going bankrupt is the teams will be forced to negotiate elsewhere for carriage. Once the existing contracts are gone MLB has the opportunity to buy in market rights to live games. Until then, the rights belong to the teams and the teams are bound to the contracts already in place.
 

· Godfather
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
My $0.02 on blackouts is that with streaming, they no longer do what they were originally intended to do. Protecting an in-market broadcast by blacking out both the in-market and out-of-market broadcast is flat-out stupid and results in people finding ways around them. And it is very, very easy to beat them with a VPN.

What I could support and would even be willing to pay more for would be a package that simply blacks out the out-of-market broadcast while allowing the in-market broadcast to be shown. An example of that for me would be Mets/Phillies in South Jersey. MLB CI or MLB.tv should be allowed to show the NBCSN Philadephia broadcast while blacking out the SNY/PIX 11 broadcast.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #87 ·
Well whatever the case, he’s on the record saying it’s a top priority to end blackouts and it will be sooner than 10 years. It may be this year, it may be 9 years but they will end sometime within the next 9 years and hopefully WAY before 9.
How do you know if Rob Manfred is lying? He opens his mouth.

Why Rob Manfred told his short-sighted lie about MLB teams being bad investments





 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
RM simply does not like baseball. He is some white shoe NYC lawyer whose firm happened to get the contract to represent MLB in its (always failing) attempts to get a deal with its so-called union that is fair and balanced, like all other sports leagues have. Had the firm assigned him to represent United Airlines in its dealings with the stewardess' union, he would today be an assistant vice-president at UA for flight attendant labor relations, and not have attended, nor watched, a baseball game since he was 12.

Not only does he not care about "blackouts", my guess is that he really could not explain what the issue is.

The Commissioner should be a retired politician, general/admiral, judge, or such like.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
There is a way to add local broadcasts to MLB.tv for cordcutters.
And it protects, somewhat, the RSN.

If O-O-M MLB.tv is $139, make "zero blackout" MLB.tv $199, with all of the $60 difference going to the local RSN.
More than one RSN in the area? Let the user pick one, and if they want more, add an upcharge.
This would be "game only" with pre and post game shows, not 24 hours.
MLB already has access to every game, every day.

Here in Vegas,we have 6 in-market teams, none anywhere local. Those 6 RSN's cost me $14 per month. $168 per year. You could do the same $60 upcharge for NHL and NBA. $60 per league X 3 is $180.

Edit: I am not talking about including the ESPN, TBS, FOX, Apple, Peacock, Amazon, et al games in this package.

Second Edit: If I switch to YTTV, an offer of MLB.TV + a local team for $200 might be worth it with the money saved by quitting DirecTV.
And the technology exists for all local ads to be shown.
I watched the NFL on Paramount+ and the Fox Sports app and they were filled with local spots.
How does that help MLB? Would $60 per sub be enough? I don't know the answers, but if it was that simple, I think they would have done it already.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #90 ·

· Icon
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
How does that help MLB? Would $60 per sub be enough? I don't know the answers, but if it was that simple, I think they would have done it already.
The idea would not really help MLB. But it would help the RSN's who are losing customers in droves.
MLB needs to help them stay afloat until at least the end of their current contracts.

$60 was a guess based on my $14 per month RSN charge.
That's $168 dollars per year.
All markets have "in-market" MLB, NBA, and NHL teams.
$60 per year for each sport would cost me $180.

Very rough numbers, but it would at least give customers the choice of a cable/sat package with local RSN's, or MLB.tv with no blackouts.
And the RSN would benefit either way.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
The idea would not really help MLB. But it would help the RSN's who are losing customers in droves.
MLB needs to help them stay afloat until at least the end of their current contracts.

$60 was a guess based on my $14 per month RSN charge.
That's $168 dollars per year.
All markets have "in-market" MLB, NBA, and NHL teams.
$60 per year for each sport would cost me $180.

Very rough numbers, but it would at least give customers the choice of a cable/sat package with local RSN's, or MLB.tv with no blackouts.
And the RSN would benefit either way.
I'm not sure that's enough to keep them afloat (if they are indeed going to shut down...I really don't buy the "we are going bankrupt BS" Remember, the RSNs don't just show baseball. There's a LOT of other sports they show as well...basketball, hockey, college sports, features around all sports, and lots and lots of gambling shows now. So just because they get $60 per sub on MLB.TV might not make any difference. Or it could just be a shakedown by the RSNs to either extract more money from the cable/sat companies or a whole host of things.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
There are a lot of issues here.

First, the RSN model is broken. That has been discussed. But the local team, particularly in baseball, remains the highest rated single thing on television every night in most places. Yes, that is "only" X-number. Find me something that does better and we can talk.

- Sinclair, which is a horrible company, 100% anti-consumer, bought out (indirectly) Fox's soon-to-be toxic asset at exactly its peak. What geniuses are running Fox. They get out of the RSN business at exactly the right time; they sell off a vault full of reruns to Disney to fuel its money-bleeding streaming dead end, and they sit back and watch the cash roll in. IF (largest word in the language) someone ever figures out how to make money at streaming, Fox can easily launch its own service, or sell its highly desired material (Fox News, Fox Sports) to someone else, without the years (decades?) of losses.

- MLB made a huge mistake with mlb.tv. Very shortsighted. It simply cannot be easier and cheaper to watch other place's teams at the exclusion of your own. FIRST paying your fair share for local baseball must be a predicate to gaining access to other teams.

- All of the "gambling is going to save us" crowd did not know a thing about it. There are too many gambling shows, no one of them is really significant. And the results are not copyrightable.

- For all the "I don't like my local team, I just watch the _ on mlb.tv" crowd, well, guess what. The costs of production and all of that is fully covered by the local market. They are just selling you the games as gravy. It is a, fairly insignificant, amount of money. Extra. Without the local RSN doing the game in the first place, they won't be any game produced for them to sell to you.

- Local RSN money is upwards of 40% of team revenue. It is THE reason one place is a "small market" or a "large market". Live gate has nothing to do with it. Not really. It is the RSN money. That puts the big teams and the small teams at odds with one another on what to do. It will not be pretty.
 
81 - 93 of 93 Posts
Top