Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Why is it a bad idea? Nothing is more likely to get folks to call their cable companies to demand MLB Network (or at least get it on a lower tiered package) than to prevent them from viewing a game they really, really want to see.
I think it's about 20 dollars a month for me to get that package, which I can't see many people paying for one game. And I don't think the cable companies will move it because of complaints. You're going to lose a lot more eyeballs than you're going to gain subscribers.
You're going to lose a lot more eyeballs than you're going to gain subscribers.
Are the Nationals like the Cleveland Browns, where they inherited the history of an unrelated franchise with the same name? And if so, do they get the heritage of Senators II as well?
I really don't know what the MLB gains from putting a game at 1 PM instead of just having multiple games on at the same time.
MLB tried that in 1995, and they were deluged with protests from viewers who understandably wanted to see all the games played, not just one.
I'm not going to take the time to look this up (call me out if I'm wrong) but I'm quite confident that the NFL Network is available to a greater audience and in general is on lower tiered packages.
What playoff game (in this round!) IS available on local TV? Other than the World Series and whichever LCS Fox gets, the postseason is mostly a cable thing, and has been for a few years.
I don't have cable at all, so unless I get fascinated by the NLCS, I'm going to save my October TV baseball for the World Series on FOX (with the sound down, mind you).
I must be one of a tiny percentage of Americans with broadcast TV but without cable. As TFPetition notes, we're probably disproportionately poor (and hence not worth considering as a demographic to reach).
Well, Washington's last home playoff game wasn't on TV at all, now was it? (You people are so ungrateful...!)
When the cable companies (or whoever runs the show in the future) let me pick and choose what I want to watch instead of sticking me with a hundred time-wasting channels, let me know.
That's because CBS and NBC are spending billions of dollars each year.
I must be one of a tiny percentage of Americans with broadcast TV but without cable
And Fox is spending billions for baseball. So why not show the game on MLB everywhere else but show it on the local Fox affiliate in DC and St. Louis?
The NFL is pulling a game off of Sunday to put it on their network on Thursday. Fox and CBS spend billions of dollars every year to get highly rated content each Sunday. By pulling highly valued teams from Sunday and moving it to Thursday the NFL is greatly devaluing the value of their package in the eyes of Fox and CBS.
i am not going to a *()^*(ing BAR at 12 NOON.
When I got home and checked prices around 4:30pm today the cheapest tickets were listed at something like $32 and now the cheapest tickets are $21.
Go to a bar.
I don't really see how this is understandable. How many people are actually able to catch games at 1PM? I'd wager that it's less than the number of fans that want to see specific teams play and would rather be given the choice between two games at night. I suppose that would require the MLB allowing a local channel to pick up a feed though, which is clearly out of the question for some mindboggling reason.
I feel like local governments should carry a bit bigger hammer with this sort of thing when they put up huge amounts of money to cover stadiums. I'm OK with blowing $600 million on a stadium, but if a city's going to do that, the MLB doesn't get to treat their product as a purely private item; it's now in the domain of public interest.
In this case, the FCC is the villain. Cable companies aren't allowed to let you pick and choose what you want to watch, even if they wanted to.
Your world won't end and your company won't fold
Go to a bar.
At 1 PM on a Wednesday?
I'm self-employed as a defender of earth from aliens. My contract requires 24/7/365.
Someone with a better understanding of the business of cable can probably explain this but I have a sense that if we went to an a la carte model the price wouldn't change much, the options would. I would think the infrastructure of delivering cable requires a certain cost and that, not the channels themselves, is what is driving the pricing. Right now I have several hundred channels of which I watch about 20. If I wanted to select the 20 I watch and only those 20 what would the cost be per channel? I would expect it to spike making my cable package roughly the same cost it is today.
Are people really not willing to go to a bar at noon/1PM on a weekday? Assuming you don't have to be at work what's the big deal?
In BBC's case, and I'm sure others, the fact that she has children in whose care she has been entrusted kind of makes for a dealbreaker. It's one thing to watch the game at home while the lil'uns watch Phineas and Ferb in the next room. It's another to tell them not to touch the passed out man in the corner.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.6193 seconds, 59 querie(s) executed