Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)

[Spydey629]

Then a bunch of people who've already made up their minds about the NHL being an incompetent organization helmed by a cross between Satan and a despot will bitch and moan about spending the money and believe it to be more worthwhile elsewhere.

At some point you just have to freely admit that outside of the Northeast and Canada, with pockets in between, no one outside of the wider American cultural zeitgeist gives a shit about hockey. Learn to live with it and work to further what you have, instead of continually going on a Quixotic crusade against windmills trying to change something that has been the case for 25 years plus.

Yes and no.

Will the NHL ever be the top sport in North America? Absolutely freakin' not. However, it doesn't have to be considered a fool's errand to make it more popular than it currently is. The issue is the perception that a 4th line plugger is just as important as the 1st line stud left winger.

Here's the facts. He's not. He never will be. He may block the shot that helps his team win Game 7, but he's not the guy that puts butts in the seats 41 nights a year. He's not the reason that someone from Timbuktu tuned in... that guy in Timbuktu wants to see that stud left winger do things that we can't even imagine on skates, much less do ourselves.

The sooner some of the dinosaurs in this game realize this - both in management and in the fan bases - we will all be better off. And so will the game.

 

[BigEezyE22]

I don't really see why they can't be just as profitable with a digital streaming service.

$10/mo to watch any nationally televised game (entry level for new fans)

$30/mo to watch all of your home teams games, no exceptions. And follow the local teams ancillary content like documentaries, replays, etc

$10/mo to have no ads whatsoever.

Make this an a la carte structure where you can buy what you want.

Finally $100/mo to watch all of the NHL, all teams, all ancillary content, no ads.

100/ mo just to watch NHL? F that

 

[patnyrnyg]

No they’re going continue to blackouts even if they get less money . These leagues want to die on the blackout hill.

Don't think it was the leagues that want the blackouts. Think they want as many people as possible to be able to watch as many games as possible. Think it is the RSN's and cable providers who want the blackouts. They know the real value of their service is the live local sports. In order for me to have access to all the NY teams on one system, I need Spectrum or satellite. Yes, some are now available on services like Fubu, You Tube TV. However, last time I checked, there is nothing that has MSG (Rangers) and SNY (Mets) and the channels my wife wants and we want for our kids (ages 9 and 6). We have looked into dropping Spectrum and then getting the apps we need. Cheapest way is to use Spectrum. If I didn't want the Mets and Rangers? Would be cheaper to drop Spectrum.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Yeah, if you're in Texas, you get EITHER the Astros or the Rangers depending on where you live.

My point was that if RSN revenue is going down because of cord-cutting, and that money can't be recovered if people who don't watch RSNs or live sports simply cut the cord and watch Netflix.. then opening up the streaming rights to be universal regardless of location is a way to create new revenue you weren't getting before.

Of course the RSNs won't like it, but I said "the ideal outcome" knowing that it's ridiculously hard to get to. If the RSNs keep losing subscribers and can't pay the rights fees they owe (Like Bally's and AT&T) then the teams get their rights back and can hand them over to MLB like the Padres/DBacks did.

The dividing line between SD/ARZ and those Ballys has paid is the DTC streaming: Ballys is offering in-market streaming packages to offset cable subscription losses. THAT is what is keeping RSNs alive in 20 cities. If the leagues agree to STOP giving the RSNs any streaming whatsoever (As soon as they contractually are able to), MLB can just make MLBtv both an "out of market" AND an "in-market" product like they have in SD/ARZ.

That can create the new revenue streams.

BTW, I use the Rangers/Astros as an example because I once explained why Rangers games were blacked out in Round Rock (just north of Austin)... to Nolan Ryan, in his stadium. Huge life highlight right there.

Can someone in Houston get Rangers games on mlb.tv? If not, that to me is the first issue they need to fix. They should not have any deadzones. If the team is not available via the RSN through a cable provider (or direct to consumer) than their games should be available on the various packages. I am not talking about a situation where the RSN and provider are in a contract dispute and therefore the RSN is pulled from the provider.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

 

[MMC]

 

[Spydey629]

WBD confirms the AT&T SportsNets go dark by the end of the year, and ESPN (!?!?) could be who takes over local rights, IF the leagues take equity stakes.

WSJ: ESPN partnership talks include possibility of local rights

ESPN is reportedly discussing the possibility of acquiring local rights to "Big Four" teams as part of its search for a strategic partner.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

 

[KevFu]

Can someone in Houston get Rangers games on mlb.tv? If not, that to me is the first issue they need to fix. They should not have any deadzones. If the team is not available via the RSN through a cable provider (or direct to consumer) than their games should be available on the various packages. I am not talking about a situation where the RSN and provider are in a contract dispute and therefore the RSN is pulled from the provider.

No. That's exactly what's being discussed. You get one or the other, and you can't BUY the other even if you're willing to pay.

Those rules made sense in the cable era, but not in the streaming era.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No. That's exactly what's being discussed. You get one or the other, and you can't BUY the other even if you're willing to pay.

Those rules made sense in the cable era, but not in the streaming era.

Is that unique to baseball in the States?
Can get both for NHL streaming wise in Canada, as well as Blue Jays.

 

[KevFu]

Is that unique to baseball in the States?
Can get both for NHL streaming wise in Canada, as well as Blue Jays.

I think the same situation exists in hockey, it's just far less pronounced.

There's no Texas or Ohio divide, because there's only one NHL team in each state.

It probably only exists in places like Hartford, where you either get Bruins on NESN, or Rangers on MSG, and can't buy the other.

Or Toledo, where it's Red Wings or Jackets and can't buy the other.

 

[mouser]

Or Toledo, where it's Red Wings or Jackets and can't buy the other.

For today’s history lesson Ohio and Michigan once went to war over Toledo:

Toledo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Toledo ultimately ended up in Ohio, but to this day historians continue to debate whether or not that was a victory for Ohio.

 

[oknazevad]

For today’s history lesson Ohio and Michigan once went to war over Toledo:

Toledo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Toledo ultimately ended up in Ohio, but to this day historians continue to debate whether or not that was a victory for Ohio.

Holy Toledo!

Had to.

 

[yada]

Can someone in Houston get Rangers games on mlb.tv? If not, that to me is the first issue they need to fix. They should not have any deadzones. If the team is not available via the RSN through a cable provider (or direct to consumer) than their games should be available on the various packages. I am not talking about a situation where the RSN and provider are in a contract dispute and therefore the RSN is pulled from the provider.

Im in dallas, i am a braves fan. I do NOT have ballys which is required for the texas rangers nor do i have the chance to get houston astros games.

Last year the braves played the astros in houston, the game was blacked out for me on mlbtv. Some dumb ass reason it said that houston was in my local area. Thankfully mlbtv is better then most other leagues and i only had to wait 3 hours after the completion of the game.

Their blackout regions are by far the most egregious but at least you dont have to wait 3 days from completion of your local teams game to watch.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I think the same situation exists in hockey, it's just far less pronounced.

There's no Texas or Ohio divide, because there's only one NHL team in each state.

It probably only exists in places like Hartford, where you either get Bruins on NESN, or Rangers on MSG, and can't buy the other.

Or Toledo, where it's Red Wings or Jackets and can't buy the other.

I believe there are deadzones in NJ and parts of upstate NY. One particular in NJ I have heard of where provider has the MSG's, but the games get blacked out and you are blacked out on the various NHL packages. The kicker is they can't get the Flyers either. So, it is basically a true blackhole for hockey fans.

No. That's exactly what's being discussed. You get one or the other, and you can't BUY the other even if you're willing to pay.

Those rules made sense in the cable era, but not in the streaming era.

Even in the cable-era it didn't make sense. At least when the league packages first started being made available on digitial cable.

 

[Spydey629]

I believe there are deadzones in NJ and parts of upstate NY. One particular in NJ I have heard of where provider has the MSG's, but the games get blacked out and you are blacked out on the various NHL packages. The kicker is they can't get the Flyers either. So, it is basically a true blackhole for hockey fans.


Even in the cable-era it didn't make sense. At least when the league packages first started being made available on digitial cable.

I think I live in the PA Black Hole for sports. The Harrisburg area is considered territory for Pittsburgh, Philly, and the DC/Baltimore teams.

ESPN+ will block out the seven MLB and NHL teams, and Harrisburg CBS affiliate flips a coin every week the Steelers and Ravens play at the same time.

 

[Spydey629]

Warner Bros. Discovery Plans Max Sports Tier Debut For MLB Playoffs

Warner Bros. Discovery plans to debut its long-awaited sports tier for Max with the start of October’s MLB playoffs, according to industry sources.

frontofficesports.com

Awesome, if this happens. Hopefully for around $25/month or less.

 

[KevFu]

If Hulu can be a shared venture of multiple TV networks/studios trying to follow Netflix's lead but without the inventory to go it alone...

... why couldn't the major networks/studios launch a joint streaming service that was just "All their sports content. In one place. For one price."

Wouldn't that lead to more revenue for each of them?

 

[oknazevad]

If Hulu can be a shared venture of multiple TV networks/studios trying to follow Netflix's lead but without the inventory to go it alone...

... why couldn't the major networks/studios launch a joint streaming service that was just "All their sports content. In one place. For one price."

Wouldn't that lead to more revenue for each of them?

The broadcast networks have always used sports as a bit of a loss leader. The ad revenues from the sports broadcasts themselves barely cover the massive rights fees, but the eyeballs allow them to cross promote other shows.

That's what they're trying to do with sports on their streaming platforms. Getting people to subscribe to them for the sports offerings with the hope that they stick around to watch other shows as well. A co-owned all-sports platform doesn't serve that purpose. Also, the trend for each company is towards consolidating streaming platforms to make them one-stop-shopping to increase platform engagement time. That's why CBS All Access became Paramount+ (and why Showtime's separate service was merged in). And why HBO Max became just "Max" when the Discovery series were added. A separate service for sports only runs counter to that.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

 

[KevFu]

The broadcast networks have always used sports as a bit of a loss leader. The ad revenues from the sports broadcasts themselves barely cover the massive rights fees, but the eyeballs allow them to cross promote other shows.

That's what they're trying to do with sports on their streaming platforms. Getting people to subscribe to them for the sports offerings with the hope that they stick around to watch other shows as well. A co-owned all-sports platform doesn't serve that purpose. Also, the trend for each company is towards consolidating streaming platforms to make them one-stop-shopping to increase platform engagement time. That's why CBS All Access became Paramount+ (and why Showtime's separate service was merged in). And why HBO Max became just "Max" when the Discovery series were added. A separate service for sports only runs counter to that.

See, I understand this from a corporate business practice standpoint. But I think it's counter-intuitive to CONSUMER BEHAVIOR.

The reason Sports ratings/ad sales NO LONGER covers the rights fees is because of the amount of "non-viewer, carriage fee revenues" that have been lost.

The CONSUMER has the option to subscribe to Netflix, Prime, Apple, Peacock, Paramount+, Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu; and of course, cable (which has RSNs) or league out-of-market packages.

BECAUSE FAMILY UNITS still have the highest percentage of households, the ad revenues from VIEWERS are down because of people making budget decisions: I might WANT to watch ALL THE SPORTS, but can't afford all of them, so it's pick-and-choose.

Not to mention that the consumer currently has the tech advantage of password sharing.

These streaming services/networks have to know that they're not ALL selling to EVERYONE, because who the hell can afford that? It's $1300 a year to get all nine of the top streaming services. And you can't get some ESPN/Fox stuff without a cable login.


A joint-shared service (like Hulu, but all sports), or an add-on bundle that each service has that includes all the sports from every service (just straight-up rights trading)... would almost certainly be more additional sales to people NOT buying your service, but the value-add of it makes it worth it to buy the add-on.

 

[Kirk Van Houten]

Disney, streamers, reportedly interested in local rights

Disney, Amazon, Apple and more are said to be interested in acquiring local NBA rights in the event that Diamond Sports goes under.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that Disney and three of the biggest streamers — Apple, Amazon and Google — are among those interested in acquiring local NBA rights, but only if they can do so for a “critical mass” of teams. The majority of NBA local rights are owned by the bankrupt Diamond Sports Group, operator of the Bally Sports RSNs. Diamond said in a statement to Bloomberg that its goal is to produce and televise all of the NBA games to which it has rights. There is no immediate indication that it would lose or relinquish enough rights for a bulk acquisition to be feasible, though that could change in the event its contract negotiations with Comcast and DirecTV — its top-two distributors — fall through. (DirecTV, it should be noted, is also said to be interested in acquiring bulk local rights should they become available.)

 

[patnyrnyg]

I think I live in the PA Black Hole for sports. The Harrisburg area is considered territory for Pittsburgh, Philly, and the DC/Baltimore teams.

ESPN+ will block out the seven MLB and NHL teams, and Harrisburg CBS affiliate flips a coin every week the Steelers and Ravens play at the same time.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Ravens claim Harrisburg as a secondary market.

 

[patnyrnyg]

If Hulu can be a shared venture of multiple TV networks/studios trying to follow Netflix's lead but without the inventory to go it alone...

... why couldn't the major networks/studios launch a joint streaming service that was just "All their sports content. In one place. For one price."

Wouldn't that lead to more revenue for each of them?

Do you mean TNT, TBS, FS, etc creating their own version of Hulu? If so, would that cause less cable providers to include it as part of basic cable, thus off-setting the benefit of the service? Do you mean just the "national" channels or are you including local stuff?

 

[KevFu]

I was saying the national stuff.

There's SEVEN different subscriptions you need to watch ALL the sports on the streaming services, right? That's like $1300 a year, but still doesn't get you Fox Sports which requires a cable login!

(And maybe this is my ignorance if something like Fubo has this accomplished).

What percentage of people are buying all seven? People are making their decisions based on their budgets and adding additional services to get more sports just isn't happening because of the price.

But let's say the 7 of them come together (after Fox does a DTC stream subscription) and they cut a deal for a clean trade of streaming rights: You can use mine, I can use yours and we put it all as an "add-on" to each service at the same price.

So it's now $15 MORE a month to get the Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle with "Total Sports Add-On" that now it has ALL the Fox/Max/Apple/Peacock/Paramount sports, too. And Max offers the same Total Sports Add On for same price.

What sports fan with ONE service isn't tacking on the extra $15 a month when subscribing to ALL services is $1300?

It's extra money they're not currently getting (from families that can't afford multiple services).

 

[Spydey629]

I was saying the national stuff.

There's SEVEN different subscriptions you need to watch ALL the sports on the streaming services, right? That's like $1300 a year, but still doesn't get you Fox Sports which requires a cable login!

(And maybe this is my ignorance if something like Fubo has this accomplished).

What percentage of people are buying all seven? People are making their decisions based on their budgets and adding additional services to get more sports just isn't happening because of the price.

But let's say the 7 of them come together (after Fox does a DTC stream subscription) and they cut a deal for a clean trade of streaming rights: You can use mine, I can use yours and we put it all as an "add-on" to each service at the same price.

So it's now $15 MORE a month to get the Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle with "Total Sports Add-On" that now it has ALL the Fox/Max/Apple/Peacock/Paramount sports, too. And Max offers the same Total Sports Add On for same price.

What sports fan with ONE service isn't tacking on the extra $15 a month when subscribing to ALL services is $1300?

It's extra money they're not currently getting (from families that can't afford multiple services).

I was saying the national stuff.

There's SEVEN different subscriptions you need to watch ALL the sports on the streaming services, right? That's like $1300 a year, but still doesn't get you Fox Sports which requires a cable login!

(And maybe this is my ignorance if something like Fubo has this accomplished).

What percentage of people are buying all seven? People are making their decisions based on their budgets and adding additional services to get more sports just isn't happening because of the price.

But let's say the 7 of them come together (after Fox does a DTC stream subscription) and they cut a deal for a clean trade of streaming rights: You can use mine, I can use yours and we put it all as an "add-on" to each service at the same price.

So it's now $15 MORE a month to get the Disney/Hulu/ESPN bundle with "Total Sports Add-On" that now it has ALL the Fox/Max/Apple/Peacock/Paramount sports, too. And Max offers the same Total Sports Add On for same price.

What sports fan with ONE service isn't tacking on the extra $15 a month when subscribing to ALL services is $1300?

It's extra money they're not currently getting (from families that can't afford multiple services).

It all depends on a person’s preferences. I know a lot of folks saying we’re coming to a tipping point of picking what sport(s) you are a fan of and want to watch, but I’d wager most folks are there already. There aren’t too many fans of *everything*.

I’m in the middle of cord cutting right now, and am just waiting to see how things shake out with WBD selling AT&T Pittsburgh for which path I go down.

My preferences are hockey (Penguins), college football (Penn State), with the NFL, golf, and soccer a distant third and counting. I’ve got to a Plan A and B right now, waiting as long as I can to pull the trigger before Week 0 for football.

I currently have ESPN+ from Verizon and Prime thanks to my wife’s love of one day shipping, so I am not counting those here.

Plan A: Fubo + Max. Fubo has everything for me covered, except TNT for hockey. Sounds like that is being done by the time the season rolls around, with Max adding Turner’s live sports by October. ($74.99 + $15.99 [or more])

Plan B: Sling + antenna (already purchased) + FSG’s Pittsburgh version of NESN360 — IF that’s what happens. ($55 + $20??)

Obviously, I’d prefer Plan B for pricing. But even adding Peacock and Apple TV+ to either option for more sports still has my monthly bill lower than what I paid Comcast last month for cable and internet.