D* Going for MLB Extra Innings Exclusivity - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 05:37 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
We have disagreed before, HDTVF! (And always, I must admit, respectfully.)

You could be right -- about the NFL. But, for the moment at least, no other sports entity can come close to matching its clout.

(And just one slight quibble: NBC actually paid far less for its Sunday night package of NFL games than Disney paid for its MNF -- and it got an entire evening of programming which took a lot of pressure off, at least for the first half of the TV season.)

And for ESPN, the equation (about a $1 billion a year! -- far more than Fox, CBS, NBC or DirecTV paid) only works as long as it is getting 90 million subs to pay close to $3 a month for it service.

I suspect that somewhere in the not-too-distant future the NFL will run NFLST itself, placing all games, except home contests, the playoffs and the Super Bowl on its own network.

And the NFL Network, when that happens, will immediately become worth Billions.

If I had to, I'd bet that MLB's talks with DirecTV could well just be a ploy to get other providers to step up the the plate (and agree to carriage) as it tries to establish its own MLB network -- which it has talked about for years.
fredfa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 07:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post


(And just one slight quibble: NBC actually paid far less for its Sunday night package of NFL games than Disney paid for its MNF -- and it got an entire evening of programming which took a lot of pressure off, at least for the first half of the TV season.)

But more than TNT paid for the games on Sunday Night iirc.

Remember, ABC could have had an entire night of programming and played around with the start times on Monday as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post


And for ESPN, the equation (about a $1 billion a year! -- far more than Fox, CBS, NBC or DirecTV paid) only works as long as it is getting 90 million subs to pay close to $3 a month for it service.

And clearly that is the reason they are doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

I suspect that somewhere in the not-too-distant future the NFL will run NFLST itself, placing all games, except home contests, the playoffs and the Super Bowl on its own network.

As you know I don't disagree with that - however, I think they will make every game a PPV - at Special Event Pricing - a la WWE or Boxing.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #33 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 10:25 PM
Senior Member
 
dennis1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Quinta, CA
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com...rticleId=53375
The article said MLB and cable execs have been frustrated with Extra Innings' slow growth peaking at roughly 750,000 subs last season and teams were picking up individual payouts of about $2 million each. By comparison, SBJ said, the NFL's Sunday Ticket had nearly 2 million subs with DIRECTV paying the league close to $700 million per year through 2010.
http://www.skyreport.com/#Story2

Maybe there'd be more subscribers if they didn't continue to jack up the price of the service. I think I paid $150 just two years ago; last year, I believe it was $170 for early-bird subscribers. Lord knows what they'll charge this year.

Personally, I would not be at all happy with this action. I might just have to make do with MLB.TV, which isn't too bad, since using MLB.TV Mosaic allows me to get essentially full-screen pictures on my HDTV. The only drawback there would be not getting the MLB EI HD games.
dennis1 is offline  
post #34 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 10:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rkunces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennis1 View Post

Maybe there'd be more subscribers if they didn't continue to jack up the price of the service. I think I paid $150 just two years ago; last year, I believe it was $170 for early-bird subscribers. Lord knows what they'll charge this year.

Personally, I would not be at all happy with this action. I might just have to make do with MLB.TV, which isn't too bad, since using MLB.TV Mosaic allows me to get essentially full-screen pictures on my HDTV. The only drawback there would be not getting the MLB EI HD games.

Actually MLB.TV offered HD feeds of games (not in HD) but atleast it was widescreen. MLB.TV though hasn't has any of the graphics on games the past year and missed pitches of games due to their implementation of MLB.com ads.

I agree though the price is rediculous for a package that is lacking.
rkunces is offline  
post #35 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 10:35 PM
Senior Member
 
dennis1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Quinta, CA
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokar View Post

If MLB is so disappointed with the growth of MLB Extra Innings, why don't they stop shooting it in the foot all the time with their idiot blackout rules. I live in Boise, Idaho, several hundred miles from Seattle (about a 10 hour drive and I drive fast ) yet if I had MLB Extra Innings, I could not watch any Mariners game shown OTA in Seattle, even if the opposing teams network was showing it on satellite. I understand the rationale for blackouts but it seems only places in the reception area of Seattle OTA should be blacked out in these instances, Seattle TV stations don't come in so good here Things like this are why I do not subscribe to this package. BTW, does anyone have the subscriber numbers for the NHL Center Ice package (the only sports package I do subscribe to and have for 10 years now).

Yes, the blackout rules are ridiculous. Theoretically, you should be able to watch your "local" (which is often a very squirrelly definition) teams on your local regional sports network (like FSN). However, you may or may not have access to that network (As, for example, I don't have access to the Padres baseball channel even though my area is claimed by them as their territory--and their games are still blacked out). Many people have similar complaints (take Las Vegas, for example, which is claimed by six baseball teams).

Another annoying part of the blackout rules is the Saturday afternoon blackouts of games when Fox is broadcasting its Saturday afternoon baseball (in glorious widescreen SD, of course).
dennis1 is offline  
post #36 of 859 Old 01-03-2007, 10:57 PM
Senior Member
 
dennis1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Quinta, CA
Posts: 368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkunces View Post

Actually MLB.TV offered HD feeds of games (not in HD) but atleast it was widescreen. MLB.TV though hasn't has any of the graphics on games the past year and missed pitches of games due to their implementation of MLB.com ads.

Actually, I saw some of those widescreen games, since most, if not all, the Padres home games are in HD. Unfortunately, those widescreen games were, at first, squeezed into the MLB.TV standard 4:3 picture (not good), then, later in the season, shown in the 4:3 frame with black bars above and below (better, but still not optimal). Since I'm in Padre blackout territory, the only way I got to see those games at all on MLB.TV was (I think) because I use a proxy server. I say "I think" because at times the blackout restrictions seemed to be somewhat hit-or-miss.

I also noticed some games without graphics, although I think the majority did have graphics (especially later in the season).

Quote:


I agree though the price is rediculous for a package that is lacking.

I'm a good capitalist, but I think their pricing of the MLB EI package is way too high.
dennis1 is offline  
post #37 of 859 Old 01-04-2007, 11:33 AM
Member
 
jklarfeld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Man, this would depress me. As an apartment dweller in a city (DC) away from where I grew up (NYC), having another sports package unavailable to me would just be depressing. It kills me that there isn't an exemption for people who physically can't get satellite (though I realize it would be impossible to police/verify and therefore would never happen). And don't be so sure everyone that mlb.com would continue to show the games - - if DirecTV pays enough $, there's no reason why the exclusivity wouldn't apply to internet usage. Ugh.
jklarfeld is offline  
post #38 of 859 Old 01-04-2007, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Red Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 449
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bud-inski and the rest of the MLB owners would be stupid enough to do this.
Red Dog is offline  
post #39 of 859 Old 01-04-2007, 03:09 PM
Member
 
rohenk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am surprised that baseball teams only get about $2 million per team (or about $60 million total) each season for the MLB EI package. The NFL teams get over $20 million per team from DirecTV for the exclusivity. It is hard to imagine that for about $150 million ($5 million per team), baseball would not grant exclusivity to DirecTV.

Does anyone know how many of the 750,000 MLB EI subscribers are already with DirecTV? It would seem that with 2 million Sunday Ticket subscribers there would be significant overlap since the demographics would be similar.
rohenk is offline  
post #40 of 859 Old 01-04-2007, 07:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Very true, Jeff. But the networks don't make money, they lose it, the 100s of millions a year on virtually all their sports contracts (including the NFL, by the way).

The only sports contract I am aware of which actually makes money for its network seems to be the Olympics, and that barely breaks even.

Now there are accounting ways for a network to "justify" massive sports payouts (added local spots for CBS, NBC and Fox O&Os during NFL games, ability to wine and dine advertisers at Super Bowls, World Series, NCAA tournament games, etc. and promotional value for networks, for example) but the fact is the contracts lose money for the networks.

If there were a way for them to climb out from the escalating costs, they would love it.

I am just suggesting a process that makes sense on many different levels to the networks and the providers. It would probably make the sports leagues a lot less happy, because I am sure the rights fees would not continue their wild escalation if the networks were eliminated from the bidding.


By the way Fredfa, on our discussion of this earlier up the page, where I disagree with the networks wanting out of Sports - I would point to Daybreak as a Harvard MBA Case Study

ABC has big hits with Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy and Ugly Betty. Of course, these are clearly female leaning shows.

Their real hit with men was Lost. The other show they could use to promote/launch new male oriented shows was MNF which is now gone as we have discussed.

Enter Daybreak. Not Female Oriented. Needed Male viewers. Launched at end of Lost Half Season - so not enough time for cross promotion.

End result - its Sunset for Daybreak and you never find out what really happened, lol.

This is a great example of where ABC needed MNF to launch another show - and did not have the gun power to pull it off.

Of course, it seems obvious in retrospect, but then again, we've seen the bonehead moves ABC/Disney has made in the past 10 years, so nothing is surprising.

But again - this is where Networks need the ability to have a guaranteed 15 million or so eyes to promote new product to.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #41 of 859 Old 01-05-2007, 05:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bonscott87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wilds of West Michigan
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohenk View Post

I am surprised that baseball teams only get about $2 million per team (or about $60 million total) each season for the MLB EI package. The NFL teams get over $20 million per team from DirecTV for the exclusivity.

That would be because the NFL is the #1 sport by far and is a cash cow.
Baseball struggles and isn't all that popular nationaly, especially compared to NFL. Only 750K subs considering it's on cable and Dish as well as DirecTV isn't all that much. I'd say being on DirecTV only will drop that sub rate but still it would probably be around 500K.

Scott
bonscott87 is offline  
post #42 of 859 Old 01-05-2007, 08:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
While baseball obviously gets far less than the NFL, there are the local TV/radio rights for baseball, which are much higher than the NFL gets.
fredfa is offline  
post #43 of 859 Old 01-05-2007, 10:58 AM
Member
 
CCMOO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
HDTVfanatic is absolutely right on the value of sports programming. It's why CBS so badly wanted to get the NFL back after giving it up years ago. MLB has not historically (at least in the past 10-20 years) provided the same kind of residual ratings bump as football, but it's still a great value add. Basketball not so much, and hockey only for about five minutes a decade ago.
CCMOO is offline  
post #44 of 859 Old 01-05-2007, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rkunces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

While baseball obviously gets far less than the NFL, there are the local TV/radio rights for baseball, which are much higher than the NFL gets.

Hence why the Mets and Yankees have their own RSNs now.
rkunces is offline  
post #45 of 859 Old 01-06-2007, 06:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Steve O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com...rticleId=53375
By comparison, SBJ said, the NFL's Sunday Ticket had nearly 2 million subs with DIRECTV paying the league close to $700 million per year through 2010.

Then how does this make sense for DirecTV? What that says is that DirecTV pays the NFL $350 per sub. Sunday Ticket doesn't cost that much.

Are they really taking that much of a loss on the NFL deal to get those subscribers?

Of course I suppose if 1 million of those are ones who wouldn't have otherwise gotten DirecTV and at $50 a month minimum, it probably makes sense. Am I reading this right, or am I missing something?

-Steve
Steve O is offline  
post #46 of 859 Old 01-06-2007, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 3,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve O View Post

Then how does this make sense for DirecTV? What that says is that DirecTV pays the NFL $350 per sub. Sunday Ticket doesn't cost that much.

Are they really taking that much of a loss on the NFL deal to get those subscribers?

Of course I suppose if 1 million of those are ones who wouldn't have otherwise gotten DirecTV and at $50 a month minimum, it probably makes sense. Am I reading this right, or am I missing something?

-Steve

I think you're forgetting about the significantly higher subscription fees that commercial establishments pay DirecTV for the package. Many pay several thousand or more per season if I remember correctly from my days of selling DirecTV in the late 90's.
broadwayblue is offline  
post #47 of 859 Old 01-06-2007, 10:34 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Steve: DirecTV believes far more than a million of its NFL-ST subscribers are on board because of the NFL package.

And the vast majority of them are (not even including NFL-ST) "heavy users". The average DirecTV sub pays something just over $60 a month. The NFL-ST subs (even minus their ST fees) spend substantially more than that.

(And commercial establishments do pay even more for NFL-ST and other DirecTV sports packages. Some 2006-07 examples -- based on fire code occupancy:
1-50 $869
51-100 $1,379
101-200 $2,349
201-350 $3,329
351-500 $3,669

That is over and above the DirecTV "Commercial Choice" package, which must be subscribed to for an entire year in order to get NFL-ST. Some examples of those yearly prices -- again based on occupancy:
1-50 $1,702
51-100 $2,007
101-150 $2,397
151-200 $2,832
201-500 $3,237

Then there are the charges for Mega March Madness:
1-50 $479
51-100 $615
101-200 $765
201-500 $965
501-1000 $1,105

And the per season charge for MLB Extra Innings:
1-50 $639
51-100 $849
101-150 $1,129
151-200 $1,339
201-350 $1,499
351-500 $1,609

So a restaurant or bar with a capacity of just under 300, would pay DirecTV $7,485 a year for NFL-ST, MLB-EI, and Mega March Madness along with the DirecTV Commercial Establishment services (which include local channels, and the ESPNs.)
fredfa is offline  
post #48 of 859 Old 01-06-2007, 01:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

Steve: DirecTV believes far more than a million of its NFL-ST subscribers are on board because of the NFL package.

And the vast majority of them are (not even including NFL-ST) "heavy users". The average DirecTV sub pays something just over $60 a month. The NFL-ST subs (even minus their ST fees) spend substantially more than that.

(And commercial establishments do pay even more for NFL-ST and other DirecTV sports packages. Some 2006-07 examples -- based on fire code occupancy:
1-50 $869
51-100 $1,379
101-200 $2,349
201-350 $3,329
351-500 $3,669

That is over and above the DirecTV "Commercial Choice" package, which must be subscribed to for an entire year in order to get NFL-ST. Some examples of those yearly prices -- again based on occupancy:
1-50 $1,702
51-100 $2,007
101-150 $2,397
151-200 $2,832
201-500 $3,237

Then there are the charges for Mega March Madness:
1-50 $479
51-100 $615
101-200 $765
201-500 $965
501-1000 $1,105

And the per season charge for MLB Extra Innings:
1-50 $639
51-100 $849
101-150 $1,129
151-200 $1,339
201-350 $1,499
351-500 $1,609

So a restaurant or bar with a capacity of just under 300, would pay DirecTV $7,485 a year for NFL-ST, MLB-EI, and Mega March Madness along with the DirecTV Commercial Establishment services (which include local channels, and the ESPNs.)

Wow!!!! Those are higher than I was told by Corporate Management of a major, hmmmm, resturant chain, though those words don't seem exactly right in this case - but then again - they probably have a volume discount considering their presence across the USA.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #49 of 859 Old 01-07-2007, 12:09 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
fredfa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Antonio TX 78251
Posts: 49,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Yup, HDTVF, of course there are some major discounts available...but those are the "rack rates".
fredfa is offline  
post #50 of 859 Old 01-08-2007, 01:58 PM
Member
 
ZDrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, I hope this is just a negotiating tactic for a future MLB channel. I'm with Dish for the forseeable future and I would be screwed. If I can't watch the Cubs, I will not be watching any baseball whatsoever. The quality of mlb.com is not good enough for me.
ZDrive is offline  
post #51 of 859 Old 01-08-2007, 10:54 PM
Senior Member
 
evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You can watch the Cubs lose on WGN national feed :}
evil is offline  
post #52 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 11:45 AM
Member
 
ZDrive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Those WGN broadcasts made me a Cubs fan, I used to watch when I got home from school. I'm the kind of person who has to watch all 162 games though. Doesn't MLB get enough revenue without intentionally cutting off people who want to watch their product?
ZDrive is offline  
post #53 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rkunces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Would this deal in anyway help breakdown the Saturday afternoon blackouts or am I just dreaming? And for that matter, would the deal mean that games not televised by an RSN will still be available to watch via in house feed similar to what is done on MLB.TV?
rkunces is offline  
post #54 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 01:16 PM - Thread Starter
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkunces View Post

Would this deal in anyway help breakdown the Saturday afternoon blackouts or am I just dreaming? And for that matter, would the deal mean that games not televised by an RSN will still be available to watch via in house feed similar to what is done on MLB.TV?

You are most likely dreaming - as ST still has blackouts - although for whatever reason, the HD side did not seem to see to many of those after week 1 or 2.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #55 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 03:05 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
homcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

You are most likely dreaming - as ST still has blackouts - although for whatever reason, the HD side did not seem to see to many of those after week 1 or 2.

Yes but the blackouts for ST make some sense. If you can get it locally its blackedout. Saturday baseball is a whole different story, with blackouts of the out of market regional Fox games.
homcom is offline  
post #56 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 08:44 PM
Senior Member
 
OrleansDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So, can someone give me a State of the Union address type response to HDTV and Baseball?

I mean, do teams plan on going towards HD broadcasts for their games or is that too much money and whatnot?

I would buy this in a heartbeat if most games came in HD
OrleansDawg is offline  
post #57 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 09:19 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
homcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrleansDawg View Post

So, can someone give me a State of the Union address type response to HDTV and Baseball?

I mean, do teams plan on going towards HD broadcasts for their games or is that too much money and whatnot?

I would buy this in a heartbeat if most games came in HD

Alot of teams have their home games in HDTV and many are now atarting to have road games in HDTV. NESN did all Red Sox games in HDTV last year. The FSN's are also increasing the number of games they are doing in HDTV. The questions you need to ask are what team or teams are you interested in seeing? Who is your provider and are you interested in your home market team or out of market games on Extra Innings?
homcom is offline  
post #58 of 859 Old 01-09-2007, 09:46 PM
Senior Member
 
OrleansDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have D* and dont really have a favorite team. I am just one of those people who enjoy going home at night and turning on TV after work and watching games.

I just want to know what % of games would be on HD if D* did buy it.
OrleansDawg is offline  
post #59 of 859 Old 01-19-2007, 08:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Scott G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: East Meadow, NY
Posts: 1,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It is all but official :

Extra Innings Package and 24-Hour Channel Headed Exclusively to DirecTV
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
NY Times

Major League Baseball is close to announcing a deal that will place its Extra Innings package of out-of-market games exclusively on DirecTV, which will also become the only carrier of a long-planned 24-hour baseball channel.

Extra Innings has been available to 75 million cable households and the two satellite services, DirecTV and the Dish Network. But the new agreement will take it off cable and Dish because DirecTV has agreed to pay $700 million over seven years, according to three executives briefed on the details of the contract but not authorized to speak about them publicly.

InDemand, which has distributed Extra Innings to the cable television industry since 2002, made an estimated $70 million bid to renew its rights, more than triple what it has been paying. Part of its offer included the right to carry the new baseball channel, but not exclusively.

The baseball channel is scheduled to start in 2009.

M.L.B., DirecTV and InDemand officials declined to comment.

DirecTV is also the exclusive outlet for the N.F.L.'s Sunday Ticket package, for which it pays $700 million annually. Sunday Ticket has about 2 million subscribers; Extra Innings about 750,000, according to The Sports Business Journal.

Extra Innings lets subscribers, for a fee, watch about 60 games a week from other local markets except their own.

The only other way that fans without DirecTV will be able to see Extra Innings will be on MLB.com's mlb.tv service, but they must have high-speed broadband service. About 28 million homes have high-speed service, less than half the number of cable homes in the country. The picture quality of streamed games is not as good as what is available on cable or satellite.

DirecTV is available to about 15 million subscribers.

Last month, Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who was then the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cited DirecTV's exclusivity with Sunday Ticket as a reason to strip the N.F.L. of an antitrust exemption to negotiate all TV contracts for its teams. Comcast, which has complained that it cannot carry Sunday Ticket, is a Philadelphia-based company.
Scott G is offline  
post #60 of 859 Old 01-19-2007, 08:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rkunces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey I'm all for it if we can finally get ota feeds and more HD games.
rkunces is offline  
Reply HDTV Programming

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off