die wreck TV

by lboros on Mar 9, 2007 7:36 AM EST in News Comment 61 comments

if you're not familiar with the details of mlb's new deal with DirecTV, maury brown's Biz of Baseball is all over the story; head there for the whole ugly truth. the short version is that this deal screws the baseball fans who chose Dish network or InDemand cable as their primary tv carrier for one reason: so they could watch out-of-market ballgames. those games will now almost certainly be available only on DirecTV. under duress from angry fans, the sport belatedly gave Dish and InDemand the right of first refusal, but it's not likely either will match the DirectTV offer.

only the boobs who run this sport could mismanage the pr this badly.

the deal is of a piece with the cardinals' move from kmox to ktrs, which engendered the same sense of anger and alienation among devoted fans. step by step, baseball is making access to its product more difficult to get; if that seems bass-ackwards and stupid, read my piece for WSJ.com last year about the drift toward all-subscription radio. baseball's moving inexorably to bring their broadcast rights in-house: rather than sell the rights to a third-party broadcaster, the sport is going to cut out the middleman and broadcast the games itself --- and sell the rights to each game directly to us, the consumers. eventually we'll be buying tickets to see an individual game on tv or hear it on radio, much as we now buy tickets to see games in person. this line from the first paragraph of mlb's press release announcing the deal tells all:

Included within the agreement, DIRECTV will be a minority partner in the MLB Channel, and will work with MLB to develop the network, which will launch in 2009.

DirecTV is merely a means to an end --- a way to ease mlb's transition into its ultimate role as the broadcaster of its own product. it's a macro version of the st louis radio deal, the main purpose of which was to get the cardinals --- half-owners of ktrs --- into the broadcasting business. the fact that the change of flagships cut hundreds of thousands of fans out of signal range was beside the point.

i already buy broadcasts directly from mlb, via the mlb.tv package; that's my primary carrier of cardinal games, so i'm not impacted by the switch to DirecTV. but if you're among those who are impacted, i feel for you. you love the sport, but the industry could give a shit about you.

the bastards.

Update [2007-3-9 9:37:47 by lboros]: just to be clear: my beef is not with the longer-term trend, ie cutting out the middleman. there are certain advantages for the consumer in that model; it's a tradeoff, and there are certain things the consumer loses, but that model per se isn't what i'm reacting against. i'm reacting against the shrugging disregard for how the change inconveniences fans. they should be bending over backwards to make this transition as painless as possible for their customers. instead they take the opposite view.

the fact that mlb didn't anticipate any fan backlash speaks volumes about how much they thought about their consumers when they cut this deal. they didn't think about us at all --- and that makes me angry.

0 recs | Comment 61 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I dont get it.

If MLB is offering the other providers the same deal as Direct TV, how can In Demand (provider for cable) not afford to pay the same as Direct TV for the package? The only difference in the deals that I can see would be a small piece of the MLB channel. In Demand has so many more potential customers. Unless its a per subsciber fee but it doesnt seem to be that way.

by Lucky Chew on Mar 9, 2007 8:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

for whatever reason -- the metaphor isn't great --

but this entry reminded me of this exchange:

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn her?
CROWD: Burn her! Burn!
BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.

. . .

BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!

That scene never gets old.

In a vain attempt to be germane, that deal with DirecTV is pretty crappy. I'm not sure if I'm impacted but if I am, well

Burn the witches!

by azruavatar on Mar 9, 2007 8:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The Presiden to of InDemand

already stated that 'it is impossible to meet those demands'.

Walk your dog, not Pujols.

by Hardcore Legend on Mar 9, 2007 8:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly millions...

In your link to Maury Brown's stuff, it mentions that only there were only 230,000 subscribers to MLB Extra Innings through cable or Dish Network. So, the "millions of fans" isn't really that much.

Anyone that can get Dish can probably also get DirecTV, and if you have $180 to spend on Extra Innings, you can probably afford high speed internet + MLB.tv

MLB wanted Dish or cable to carry their upcoming Baseball channel, which was part of the deal. DirecTV were the only ones who could promise it.

by Up and Atom on Mar 9, 2007 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

re millions of fans

duly noted; i've edited out "millions"

i stand by the point. 250,000 consumers is a lot of consumers. mlb is swatting them aside with what i would describe as contempt. the attitude is: we'll run our business the way it suits us; your choices are to go along or go to hell.

if this is the best deal for baseball, then fine --- make the deal. but don't inconvenience 250,000 of your customers in the process. make an accommodation for those people, even if it costs you some money on the front end.

by lboros on Mar 9, 2007 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a switching cost to fans?

I've never paid for cable - I used to get it free in certain apartment buildings, but now that I don't I would rather spend the money on internet and beer - so I don't know all the costs to consumers here. If I was one of the 250k who had chosen InDemand, have I signed some sort of term agreement, or could I cancel it and call up DirecTV and switch service today at no additional cost to myself?

I feel for people who have no choice in their service, due to geographic constraints, but if consumers have the ability to freely switch between offerors, than this isn't quite so heinous.

by taiko on Mar 9, 2007 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

never mind, question answered

... in a later comment, yes fans do have to pay termination fees to switch. I agree, this stinks.

by taiko on Mar 9, 2007 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the switching cost

occurs if you're a cable subscriber and have spent the last three years watching cardinal baseball through the extra-innings package, and now have to cancel your cable and instead invest in dish/direct tv.

there are costs associated with that service switch - i can't tell you exactly what they are since i'm generally happy with my cable and don't want to investigate dish tv. i can tell you that my neighbors attempted to get dish tv but were unable to position the dish in a place that allowed them to get a consistent signal. they ultimately went back to cable.

it's just not as simple as switching delivery systems. dish/direct require contracts that are generally more expensive than cable. i could switch service. it won't be today and there will be additional costs - economic and otherwise.

given that mlb has been making money hand over fist, i resent their greed in this situation. had they been smart, they could have worked out a deal that would allow the greatest access to their product (offering it on cable, dish and direct) without the exclusivity. this last minute offer to cable to match is bogus and unfeasible. note here that i am no great defender of cable, simply that it's the most pragmatic decision for my situation. i resent mlb's extortion.

i, for one, will simply return to watching games occasionally when available on wgn, tbs, espn, fox (which i won't get thanks to the genius of 'regional' coverage) or go out to a bar on occasion to watch. i'll watch most games on gameday or other live boxscore services. i will not renew mlb.tv and am tempted to consider not paying to go to a live game. i may have little recourse as a fan, but i'll take what little action i can.

by sdesserman on Mar 9, 2007 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

number of inconvenienced fans

Don't assume all of those 230,00 customers all live by themselves or watch the games in isolation. A lot more people than that will be affected by baseball's callous and pound-foolish attitude. I will now have to consider whether it's worth it to switch one of the televisions in my house to DirecTV. I have no intention of scrapping Comcast In Demand entirely for a service that in many ways other than baseball falls short.
As for mlb.tv, not only is the picture quality vastly inferior but it often freezes or fails entirely. In addition, the small screen affords a poor perspective for watching the games with my wife, as I have often done in the past.

by MikeG on Mar 9, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

great point

you make a great point, I can't think of how many sporting events in genral that i have watched with other ppl, but I am sure it is more than I have watched alone. I think you easily take that 230,000 number and multiply by 2 or 3 if not even 4.

by elirock83 on Mar 9, 2007 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i dont remember

anyone making a big fuss about the deal the NFL made with directv
they have had exclusive NFL sunday ticket rights for several years
i dont understand the double standard

im just hoping directv buys out dish network
who i have and i am completely happy with

RESIGN JIMMY BALLGAME....HE SHOULD RETIRE A REDBIRD!

by benstl on Mar 9, 2007 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

2 wrongs don't make a right

MLB is definitely trying to copy the NFL here. That doesn't make it acceptable. It's a slightly different situation though with baseball.

The main difference being that w/ the NFL, we're talking about 1 day a week. People (or businesses) that really want Sunday ticket will get Direct TV. People that don't will watch their favorite out of market team from a local sports bar each sunday.

With baseball, there's 10 times as many games - it's not practical to watch all those games in a bar. There's also the matter of the cat being out of the bag. People have been getting Extra Innings it for years on cable and Dish, now MLB is strong-arming their fans into getting DirecTV. Those fans have a right to be pissed.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Practical.

It's not practical to watch as many games as I do on my COMPUTER when I have a perfectly good 42 inch HDTV in my living room with 5.1 surround sound ready for baseball. Fuck MLB for this bullshit.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Mar 9, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The MLB suits are very clever

They know there are people in your situation. While cheap bastards like me will be content with crappy Internet video outputed to my non-HD television, there are plenty of people like yourself who have really bad-ass HDTV setups.

MLB is betting that the people like you will bite the bullet and switch to DirecTV.

Doesn't it just make you feel all warm inside to see big businesses conspire to pad their bottom lines by eliminating competition and sticking it to their customers?

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Understand.

I used to have DirecTV. I had it for three years and had EI for all of them. However, I live in a condo right now and I cannot have a dish on my balcony. It's impossible for me to have satellite TV here so I MUST have EI through my cable system. I absolutely refuse to watch baseball on my computer. As long as I can get out of market Cardinals games through EI I'll be happy. I certainly don't want to go an entire summer without Cardinals baseball on my plasma HDTV. Somehow, that seems unAmerican.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Mar 10, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Major, major difference

The NFL never offered its programming to the cable companies or DishNetwork. If you wanted to watch their programming you had one choice, DirecTV.

I'm a DishNetwork subscriber who recently signed an 18-month agreement for a second HD receiver and have had the rug pulled out from under me.

I would have a very hard time justifying to my wife why I would pay the penalty to switch to DirecTV and I would hear her grumble every time she had to look up the channel number for her favorite networks.

Thanks, Bud.

by DizzyDean17 on Mar 9, 2007 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're dead on here, LB

I've been all over this for a while as a Dish Network subscriber who loves to watch my Cardinals games and can't w/o the EI package. I'm going to have to buy my way out of my Dish contract (about $80) + go through the madness of converting to Direct TV. You're right in saying that MLB doesn't care. Joe Sheehan, however, did a pretty good piece a few weeks back for BP saying it essentially only impacts the diehards. Fringe baseball fans are unaffected as they didn't pay the $180 to begin with.

I'm not so concerned about baseball's relationship w/ me or even Cards' fans. Hell, I'm a diehard and my team won the series last year and will make a run at its 7th division championship in 8 years. But I'll be that fans of mediocre teams, who enjoy watching their team but it's going to be a huge pain to switch over to watch their team win 78-82 games, those are the people hurt most. And, of course, those teams. Mariners' fans, Rangers' fans, Rockies' fans and their teams are hurt by this b/c it will take away from their fan base. They'll still be fans, but maybe not as much b/c they won't be watching as many games, etc. Bud couldn't care less. It's one more thing that he has completely cluster-fucked during his tenure (see Game, All-Star or investigation, Mitchell). He's done some good stuff, but it's clearly a mixed bag.

by chuckb on Mar 9, 2007 10:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I live in an apartment complex

that doesn't allow dishes, so I'm screwed. And before anyone brings up the FCC rule about dishes and apartments, the rule is not all-encompassing and does give landlords the right of refusal.
Anyway, I've already gone ahead and bought the mlbtv/gameday audio pkg, so it looks like I'll be spending my nights in front of my computer. I really need to get new glasses...

by cardsrul on Mar 9, 2007 10:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Apartments are for lowlifes and hippies

Move to the sticks, buy an ugly house, stick a dish on the side of it, and stop your bitching.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then Again...

I could buy a million dollar condo in a building in Manhattan and not be able to watch Cardinals games on TV if this deal goes through. Where's the value to the consumer for that?

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Mar 9, 2007 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Try living somewhere urban and not sprawled out

before you make that judgment call.

Not to mention that choosing your living situtaions based on bud selig's whim is insane.

by Valatan on Mar 9, 2007 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough...

but my comment was intended to be sarcastic.

This lowlife/hippie lives in an apartment in U-City - just a short bike ride away from my job, the Loop, Metrolink, and Forest Park.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn lowlife hippie apartment dwellers

If it makes you feel any better, I caught the sarcasm and rather enjoyed it.

Now go eat your granola, do some recycling, and buy some artsy trinkets from those crappy Loop shops, why dontcha?

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Mar 9, 2007 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And why don't

you go play on I-64 during rush hour. See if you can tell if that's sarcasm or not...

by cardsrul on Mar 9, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stupid internet

sorry about that--I just have everyone in my life pressuring me to put down for a mortgage right now.

by Valatan on Mar 9, 2007 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As a Mortgage Broker....

my advice would be to WAIT on that Mortgage ...prices are dropping like crazy and rates should follow believe it or not.. In 6-8 months you could find yourself a steal on a home and rates that are pretty damn good.

by Timbo02 on Mar 10, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why is MLB the bad guy?

They have an offer from Direct TV for the EI package. They have offered the same deal to the other providers. If they cant make it work doesnt some of the blame have to be on them? Essentially the Direct TV deal set the market and other providers are not willing to match the market rate. The IN Demand president came out and said a vague comment about how its impossible to meet MLB's demand. Why? I need a better explanation than that to blame MLB for this.

-By the way i have cable and am screwed as well. Comcast told me last night that they dont have pricing on the package but will definitly be providing it. I dont believe them, but we will see.

by Lucky Chew on Mar 9, 2007 10:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

mlb is the bad guy

because the relationship that matters here is the one between mlb and its fans ---- not between mlb and the media providers, nor the one between the media providers and their consumers. the latter two relationships are purely transactional, fee for service. but the relationship between mlb and its fans is supposed to be about more than that.

the fans get that. mlb doesn't.

by lboros on Mar 9, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The MLB network

The real issue here is that MLB wants to use EI as leverage to get the cable providers to add the new MLB network to the basic package.

While I admit, the MLB network has more potential than the NFL network (since there are games every day), the channel belongs in the sports tier, not in basic cable.

not that my opinion counts for shit since I've been off cable for 2 years.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This sucks....

Living in Indiana, I used to be able to get Cards games on KMOX most nights. That is now gone as the Cards made the stupid decision to move to a "local" StL radio station and not a "national" station like KMOX was.

I will now not be able to watch, most likely, Cards games on tv either. I have Dish, and won't be switching over this for a number of reasons.

Sure games on the PC are great...if you want to watch a small picture on your computer. I'm not spending 3 hours in front of a PC, nor am I dragging a laptop with me around the house.

The last few years, I had the ability to watch on multiple TVs in various locations within the house. I could utilize my DVR to pause as needed (and w/a wife and 2 little kids that was a nice thing) and catch up later.

The short sighted MLB is missing the point that my 7 yr old son will have almost no access to watch / listen to Cardinal games as he grows up (nor will many other kids who follow out of martket teams). He can't watch games with me on TV except for the few times WGN / FSN show the Cubs / Reds or they are on national TV. Falling asleep to KMOX listening to Jack and Mike as I did for most of my youth is also not an option any longer. What will happen to MLB in 25 years when he is my age, and has no interest in going to Stl / Cin / Chicago for a long weekend to catch a few games since he didn't follow them as a child?

Baseball isn't the national pastime anymore. That "honor" has gone to the NFL. In their desire to market their product like the NFL, they've shot themselves in the foot for future fan growth down the line.

by icf on Mar 9, 2007 11:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

even here in Austin, TX, I could pick up cards games one out of four nights or so. It was amazing. Ah well.

by Valatan on Mar 9, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I look at it as pure business

They're not losing that many fans who were buying the package already and they're making a ton of money off DirecTV. The cost to MLB is less than the gain of exclusive access. It reminds me of the quote from Fight Club:

Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Mar 9, 2007 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

For a contrary view...

This is surely a transition; it will surely impact some fans negatively. But if MLB knows it is going to make this transition at some point, why not now? The game is financially strong, for the most part. Fan interest, reflected in attendance, has never been higher. This might be an opportune time to make this move--you can afford a little hit, for long-term gain.

Of course, that might be giving Bud and the Gang more credit than they're due.

by blove121 on Mar 9, 2007 11:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

To that I say...

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If DirecTV offerd me $700 million

for my kids, I think I would at least have to hear them out...

by blove121 on Mar 9, 2007 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't realize you had a stake in MLB

I was speaking in terms of the fans (not MLB and its corporate partners) tolerating it.

This deal disproportionately hurts fans and helps MLB and DirecTV. That's great if you're one of the lucky ones who gets rich off this, but it's not so great for the rest of us.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wierd

Evident The Wash.

by brock on Mar 9, 2007 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing like a monopoly

I'm absolutely livid about this deal. For one thing, in my area Direct TV service is far worse than local cable in terms of High Definition programming. I've had both, and Direct TV only carries 2 out of the 9 local HD channels, and only 5 out of the 8 national HD channels I get through cable. Couple that with cost, and there is no way I'm going to switch from Cable to Dish. When it's all said and done, the only thing MLB has done here is lose a customer that was willing to pay them 170 bucks for a non-physical product--something that is essentially pure profit for them.

I really hope very few people switch over to Direct TV and MLB gets burned big time by this short sighted move. It's not just a trend in sports, it's pretty much the way of all major corporations these days. Merge merge merge until there is only 1 phone company, 1 television provider, 1 software company, etc. The funniest thing about these moves is how they are always spun as "Good for the consumer", when it's a fact that limiting choice is always 100% bad for the consumer.

I'm not sure what the facts and figures are, but I'd assume that cable companies combined have a much larger share of the market than Direct TV does, and that this move will mean MLB only sells it's product to 1/2 of it's previously installed customer base.

And for Selig's "MLB.tv" option, has he ever used it? I had it back in '05 and it was completely awful. The streams would constantly freeze up, it was very low bit-rate and low-rez, and towards the end it started to not work reliably on anything other than windows. So your choice is crap or crap "...have a nice day...and hey, how about buying an Authentic Bush II urinal on your way out, seeing as how we just took a metaphorical wiz on you?"

by cloistermaximus on Mar 9, 2007 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

mlb.tv strams

the video quality seems to be getting better every year but I won't know until the season starts and I hook it up to my TV..

by lookit55 on Mar 9, 2007 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just don't expect to watch every game live

If FOX or ESPN are showing it (even if they're not showing it in your neck of the woods), you're probably blacked out.

See, MLB wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to offer online video, but they don't want anything to conflict with the rich TV contracts. The end result is an absurd blackout policy that - as Val mentioned in the linked post below - blacks out games that aren't even being broadcast in your area.

http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/comments/2007/3/4/16446/23174/27#27

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would say that

DirecTV will be the big loser in all of this. I see no way that they will recoup the money that they paid for the right to broadcast those games. Then when the contract runs out, the money won't be there and/or another company will want the exclusive rights. The whole thing is a cluster and everybody will get jobbed, but I think DirecTV screwed up big time.

Watching baseball on TV is an addiction, just like cigarettes. They raise the price, we will pay it because we can't live without it. They force us to switch services or deal with inconsistent images on the computer, we will do it. The only other alternative is to give up and there's no way that is happening.

Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time.

by Solanus on Mar 9, 2007 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DirecTV's business plan

Obviously, they are hoping lots of people switch over to their service because of this. The long term goal is obviously to drive the competition out of business, then jack up the price.

This very well may backfire like you said, but there is some evil brilliance behind the move.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

XM, here I come

I'm as ticked about this as everyone else. I've used Extra Innings to watch the Cardinals for the past two years, since I moved to Tennessee. We have a great package deal for our cable, broadband and local phone service, so I'm not about to switch to DirecTV.

I'll probably end up going with XM satellite radio and just listening to the games instead of watching them. I'm still not convinced about the quality of MLB.TV, and even if I were happy with the quality, I'd still probably not buy the service in my feeble attempt to stick it to MLB as much as possible.

If they want to screw me, I simply won't give them my money.

by timellsworth on Mar 9, 2007 12:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

FYI,

MLB.tv includes live gameaudio of every game. There's even an audio only package that runs $15 for the year. There's many reasons why you might still want to just get XM, but this is a much cheaper alternative for baseball audio.

Also, XM is clearly in bed w/ MLB - I'm not hating on XM at all, just seems a little silly to think you're sticking it to MLB by getting XM.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: FYI

It's not silly at all, Musial6. MLB is obviously not getting as much of my money if I go the XM route as if I purchase the MLB.TV package.

by timellsworth on Mar 13, 2007 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whatever happened to customer service?

It doesn't seem that long ago that the Cardinals were a small town, down home, personable, accessible organization. What's happened?

Also, doesn't MLB understand the importance of customer service? A monkey would have a better understanding of how to cater to consumers! Ridiculous.

by airhad on Mar 9, 2007 1:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This never gets mentioned in the media

I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point MLB started consolidating power and over the last decade or so the individual clubs lost autonomy. For example up until 2001, teams had their own websites that weren't carbon copies of each other.

I'm sure MLB promised the owners they'd make more money this way (and they were probably right). The downside is what's best for MLB isn't necessarily what's best for the Cardinals or us fans.

A prime example is that Tickets.com (which was bought by MLB a few years back) is now the official online ticket seller for every team. That wouldn't be so bad, if their system wasn't a piece of shit. Now that MLB owns them, there's no incentive to improve it. They just let the fans sit in the bullshit 'virtual waiting room' for hours on end rather than upgrade to a system that keeps your spot in line or god forbid, can handle the heavy traffic that comes with general onsales. This only affects me when I try and purchase Cubs tickets, but it pisses me off everytime I think about it.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've said it before

and I'll say it again: I've been a Cards fan 1st, Yankees fan 2nd for years.

If this deal goes through, that switches. Reason? I can watch every single Yankees game.

by SirVLCIV on Mar 9, 2007 1:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

sorry dude

the YES network that carries all Yankee's games is only available in New York. so every with the new deal, fans of the Yankee's wont be able to see any of their games unless they are playing boston, b-more,tampa or any other AL team.

along with the Yankee's, toronto, sad diego, b-more, tampa bay, washington, texas, san fran, oakland, colorado, arizona, even the Cards have local tv deals that on not on extra innings. almost half of those teams seasons on not on extra innings. the only reason we got exta innings was for the Cards anyway. no, i dont know what to do.

The 2006 St.Louis Cardinals. WORLD CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD. And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Mar 9, 2007 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Another thing to bitch about

The DirecTV deal doesn't bother me as much as the blackout restrictions. Jeff Passan at Yahoo! Sports has written extensively on this problem. There are many markets where fans are essentially shut out of seeing their favorite teams even though the games are not carried locally. Worse (because it affects me) are the blackouts on Saturdays. I will never understand why a Cards game that does not occur simultaneously with the inevitable Yankees or O's game that on in DC must be blacked out.

by stlmapman on Mar 9, 2007 1:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Passan has been awesome on that issue

It seemed like he single handedly got MLB to at least acknowledge there was a problem.

Still hasn't been fixed, afaik.

I believe people in Iowa have it the worst because they are blacked for both Chicago teams, Milwaukee, St. Louis, KC, and Minnesota. That's up to 6 games a day (out of a possible 15) that they can't watch because of regional blackouts.

by musial6 on Mar 9, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The end result of all of this...

Is that we'll all have to pay to watch something we used to get more or less for free, or for relatively cheap. They're doing away with televised Sunday games, and in the end, I'll bet we'll be down to the Game of the Week. Which of course, for those of you like me far out of market, means that without the dish or whatnot, you get to watch the Cards less than ten times a year.

What a way to screw fans. I paid for the radio service, which I stream on my computer and run through larger speakers so I can feel like I did when I lived in Illinois-always having the game on while I do something else. Even that kind of sucks, because the warmth of AM radio gives way to cold, sterile streaming audio. That was enough. This is far worse, and far more aggrivating.

by matt reeder on Mar 9, 2007 2:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Why can cable/dish not....

make the upcomming MLB channel on basic cable? If they want to save the revenue of 250,000 subscriptions to EI, why wouldn't they support this channel? I don't understand what the negative ramifications of introducing a new channel on the basic package would be... Looks like the same thing happened with the NFL channel too???

I haven't heard why the other 2 companies will not consider the deal because of this channel.

Can anyone answer?

by und3rtovv on Mar 9, 2007 3:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

from what i've read

the ratings for the mlb channel are expected to be so low at the outset that it'll cost the other companies $$$ if they add it to their basic package. the ratings for nfl channel have been bad, and the ratings for mlb channel are expected to be much lower.

i don't know the economics enough to understand where the $$$ loss would occur --- maybe they'll have to bump some other, more popular channel to make room for the mlb channel in their basic package, or maybe the only way they can make any $$$ at all off the EI subscripts is to put them in a premium package.

by lboros on Mar 9, 2007 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could one perhaps

liken it to handing a 3-year contract to a pitcher coming off reconstructive surgery? Not that MLB is injured, but the risk (to the one offering the contract) is similar.

On the one hand, it doesn't seem to make sense for MLB to accept less commitment from someone else. On the other, by not accepting a hometown discount, it hurts their image as 'the sport that's always been there for us'. Maybe that's something they have trouble placing a value on when faced with long term business decisions. To those affected, it looks like they must have set that value to zero in this particular equation, but I doubt it.

If MLB Channel does well, everyone will be carrying it soon enough.

And all blackouts must die. Horribly.

by rmerrill on Mar 9, 2007 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's all about the benjamin's baby

why does MLB hate it's fans? simple. money. this deal reaks of a under the table deal. Mlb was never in good faith dealing with Dish(who we have had since 97 and will not switch)or In Demand. they instead are doing their best to be just like the nfl. which cares nothing about its fans or its players. only because Mlb crapped its bed so many times in the past is the NoFunLeague so popular.

anyway, Mlb all along only offered DirecTv ownership of the Mlb channel. they never offered it to Dish, Time Warner, ComCast, or any other cable provider. dont kid yourselves, Mlb wants only one cable ot satellite provider to offer it's product. why? because it means more people will pay to watch games on Mlb.com. where Mlb pockets every penny of your $80 dollars. whereas they only got like $40-$50 dollars from all the cable and satellite providers.

so with the $700million from DirecTv, plus more people getting games on MLb.com. Mlb is going to be rolling in it even more than before. it's a joke that Mlb&DirecTv "offereed" Dish and all the cable guys the "option" to pick up the deal at the same "cost" as DirecTv is. but it's not. the others dont have ownership in the Mlb channel to offset the cost of providing the Mlb channel on it's basic packages. thats the problem. Mlb and DirecTv know no other provider can agree to those terms. and so does the FCC. but they probably won't have the guts to do anything about this wreched deal. unless Mlb offered all providers minor ownership in the Mlb channel, there is now way it makes sence for them to do this "deal".

so it all boils down to money. Mlb gets a big check from DirecTv, plus a guarantee its crappy channel will be avaible to 12 million people. and they get to pocket all the money from games viewed online. and that's what this deal is all about. they dont care that my dad, a life long Cardinals fan. who is laying in his death bed will no longer be able to watch most of the Cardials games anymore. they could care less about him getting some amout of joy out of whats left of his life while he slowly dies. they dont care that we live in ohio and cant see or hear the Cardinals on local tv or radio. Mlb could care less he can't move or breathe on his own. that he cant talk or even take a bite of food or a drink of coffee. they dont care that my dad can't hug or kiss his grandkids. they have no idea that one of his last joys in life was watching his beloved Cardinals every night during the season. that watching them win is truly one of the last things he can enjoy. no, they dont care at all about him, or any other fan.

Mlb only cares about the owners and themselves getting richer. well, i hope they enjoy their money while they can. because when they are all burning in hell for all of eternity, no amount of money will be able to save their sorry souls.

The 2006 St.Louis Cardinals. WORLD CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD. And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Mar 9, 2007 8:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Buy a slingbox

stick it in a buddies' basement in St. Louis, and watch the Cards 'til your eyes bleed.

by plh903 on Mar 9, 2007 8:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good call.

I've known about this product for years, but I've never had the motivation to get one.

But with the vast majority of Cardinals games on FSN, and the vast majority of NBA playoffs (the most underrated tournament in sports) on cable - and knowing there's an unused cable hookup in my old room at my parents house - this seems like a no brainer all of a sudden.

by musial6 on Mar 10, 2007 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm waiting for the DirecTV serviceman right now.

I live in Los Angeles, and get to see the Cardinals Live for THREE games a year here against the Dodgers. I called and ordered the switch to Direct on the day it was announced this past Thurs. and the guy will be here today, Sat. to install my two receivers and DVR. It is costing me NOTHING...I repeat..NOTHING to switch over to Direct from Time/Warner Cable. I'm getting a REFUND of part of my bill from Time/ Warner and their rep will be here also this morning to pick up my DVR and cable boxes as he makes sure that my internet service, Still with Time/Warner is switched over and working properly.
My new package with Direct has ALL the movie channels, the NFL network, (which Time/Warner does not) and is going to cost me LESS than what I was paying before. I will be able to sign up for the MLB package starting on the 15th I believe and I will get a discount on that also. I believe 159.99 for the entire season. It took me about 40 min all together on the phone to get this all done. I'm really sorry for those who can not switch over because of costs and regulations....but in my case? It's been a piece of cake and I'm excited as hell about the switch.
Just thought that someone should post one positive comment on this subject.

by Timbo02 on Mar 10, 2007 10:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fun.

Congrats. Welcome to the 21st century.

Bench Juan Encarnacion!

by STLCardinalsFan on Mar 10, 2007 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dan Wetzel takes Selig and Co to task

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=dw-mlbtv030907&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"DuPuy is just trying a weak public relations campaign. He must consider his customers morons if he thinks they are falling for his attempt to shift the blame for this debacle off MLB and onto cable providers who almost certainly will fail to make a deal that was designed to fail in the first place."

"This is what happens when you listen to the suits and not the fans because a spreadsheet can't measure passion. This is what happens when your commissioner likes to play the part of dopey every man, but is actually just dopey and out of touch like the rest of the rich guys."

by musial6 on Mar 10, 2007 9:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs