Pre-Game Talk: Cord-cutters - Where to Legally Stream Playoffs

I'm just gonna continue watching for free. The fact that people can't figure out where to watch them mother f***ing games is the biggest load of bullshit the NHL does. It's worse than the shitty reffing. We need ONE f***ing streaming service to see all games and the NHL would make more money then divvying up shit to a bunch of networks and f***ing over fans. This is so f***ing stupid.
They almost certainly wouldn't. The modern state of affairs is not consumer friendly, but it is also extremely lucrative for the teams and leagues. The NHL's TV deals account for about $2B of annual revenue (which will go up with the new Canadian TV deal) and exclusivity is the driver of that revenue. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA all have the same business model of dividing up their TV/streaming rights to multiple networks. You are going to have to come up with a pretty damn compelling argument to convince me that the NFL is stupid and doesn't know how to make money off their product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
They almost certainly wouldn't. The modern state of affairs is not consumer friendly, but it is also extremely lucrative for the teams and leagues. The NHL's TV deals account for about $2B of annual revenue (which will go up with the new Canadian TV deal) and exclusivity is the driver of that revenue. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA all have the same business model of dividing up their TV/streaming rights to multiple networks. You are going to have to come up with a pretty damn compelling argument to convince me that the NFL is stupid and doesn't know how to make money off their product.

Interesting that you bring up the NFL when talking about knowing how to make money. This is according to Grok, so it seems like the NHL is doing the opposite of the NFL.

NFL: ~75-85% of games are free OTA (210-240 of 285 games) in most markets, driven by CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC broadcasts.

NHL: ~1-2% of games are free OTA nationally (~15-30 of ~1,400 games), with up to 10-20% in select markets with local OTA deals.

Why the Difference?: The NFL’s shorter season (285 vs. 1,400 games) and long-standing policy of prioritizing free TV in local markets (even for cable/streaming games) maximize OTA access. The NHL’s longer season and reliance on RSNs and national cable/streaming deals (ESPN, TNT) limit free broadcasts.

All I want is one single place I can PAY to watch my team and the NHL won't let me give them money.
 
I really hope the MLS Season Pass is doing great numbers for Apple since it's by far my preferred product among any of the things these leagues are trying to do in the new streaming era. I pay one subscription fee and I can watch every MLS game live and on demand.

I suspect that the economics won't shift the bigger leagues to a similar model, though, any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drubilly
Interesting that you bring up the NFL when talking about knowing how to make money. This is according to Grok, so it seems like the NHL is doing the opposite of the NFL.

NFL: ~75-85% of games are free OTA (210-240 of 285 games) in most markets, driven by CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC broadcasts.

NHL: ~1-2% of games are free OTA nationally (~15-30 of ~1,400 games), with up to 10-20% in select markets with local OTA deals.

Why the Difference?: The NFL’s shorter season (285 vs. 1,400 games) and long-standing policy of prioritizing free TV in local markets (even for cable/streaming games) maximize OTA access. The NHL’s longer season and reliance on RSNs and national cable/streaming deals (ESPN, TNT) limit free broadcasts.

All I want is one single place I can PAY to watch my team and the NHL won't let me give them money.
NFL Sunday Ticket is $480 and blacks out tons of games. It blacks out Thursday Night Football, Monday Night Football, and any game on TV locally. The NFL gets $2.7B a year from ESPN/ABC for Monday Night Football, $1B from Amazon for Thursday Night Football, and $2B from each of Fox, CBS, and NBC for Sunday games to air regionally. And now Netflix has gotten involved too. The NFL isn't prioritizing free TV. They are maximizing revenue by taking massive stacks of cash from any and all networks that will pay. Networks like Fanduel, Comcast Sports, etc have absolutely no ability to outbid the OTA network channels for the rights to local broadcasts and the OTA network channels love being able to broadcast the NFL without having to screw their prime time TV lineups with weeknight games.

In order to watch every Chiefs game this year in-market, you needed ESPN, Netflix, and Amazon Prime subscriptions. Depending on how you access ESPN, you also might have needed a digital antenna or a Paramount+ subscription because CBS isn't on Sling and you can't use a cable/streaming log in through their app directly. In order to watch every game out-of-market, you needed all those services plus the $480 Sunday Ticket package.

Your complaint is the lack of a one-stop-shop and the NFL very much doesn't have that. They have segmented out their games to as many places as they can. They have a cheaper TV experience for in-market fans of a single team and a significantly more expensive TV experience for out-of-market fans and/or fans of multiple teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
I really hope the MLS Season Pass is doing great numbers for Apple since it's by far my preferred product among any of the things these leagues are trying to do in the new streaming era. I pay one subscription fee and I can watch every MLS game live and on demand.

I suspect that the economics won't shift the bigger leagues to a similar model, though, any time soon.
I wish that they were making their numbers public. Apple and MLS won't reveal how many subscriptions they sold or how many viewers they average. I don't view that as a bad sign (Apple is tight-lipped about this info for all of its content), but it would be nice for us normies to know how it is doing.

I think it has been an overwhelming success for die hard fans. People like us would come out way ahead if the NHL did something similar. But it is objectively limiting their growth. There are tons of casual fans who would watch games if they were available on their existing cable package, but aren't going to plunk down money for a separate service. That's how I have been with the Cardinals for over a decade and it is how I've been with STL City. I was excited when they came, but I've wound up watching way fewer games than I would have if they were on a service I already had. I just don't care about soccer enough to spend the money to try and become a bigger fan.

I hope that they find a good balance long-term. It will be huge for sports fans if the MLS can show proof of concept for a blackout-free streaming service that co-exists with at least somewhat lucrative non-exclusive TV deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
I wish that they were making their numbers public. Apple and MLS won't reveal how many subscriptions they sold or how many viewers they average. I don't view that as a bad sign (Apple is tight-lipped about this info for all of its content), but it would be nice for us normies to know how it is doing.

I think it has been an overwhelming success for die hard fans. People like us would come out way ahead if the NHL did something similar. But it is objectively limiting their growth. There are tons of casual fans who would watch games if they were available on their existing cable package, but aren't going to plunk down money for a separate service. That's how I have been with the Cardinals for over a decade and it is how I've been with STL City. I was excited when they came, but I've wound up watching way fewer games than I would have if they were on a service I already had. I just don't care about soccer enough to spend the money to try and become a bigger fan.

I hope that they find a good balance long-term. It will be huge for sports fans if the MLS can show proof of concept for a blackout-free streaming service that co-exists with at least somewhat lucrative non-exclusive TV deals.
Seems like extremely shortsighted move to limit your potential fanbase when you go exclusively PPV. I subscribe to AppleTV+ and it still isn't included. Seems like a lot to ask to pay to watch local team, as their doesn't appear to have been any other way to watch until recently announced changes.
 
Seems like extremely shortsighted move to limit your potential fanbase when you go exclusively PPV. I subscribe to AppleTV+ and it still isn't included. Seems like a lot to ask to pay to watch local team, as their doesn't appear to have been any other way to watch until recently announced changes.
They do schedule multiple games each season that are freely available on AppleTV if you have a subscription to the service, so you should be able to watch a few games that way if it catches your interest. I don't know if they're doing a good job promoting those games or how many there are per season, but at least they're doing something to reach outside the season pass.

I wish that they were making their numbers public. Apple and MLS won't reveal how many subscriptions they sold or how many viewers they average. I don't view that as a bad sign (Apple is tight-lipped about this info for all of its content), but it would be nice for us normies to know how it is doing.

I think it has been an overwhelming success for die hard fans. People like us would come out way ahead if the NHL did something similar. But it is objectively limiting their growth. There are tons of casual fans who would watch games if they were available on their existing cable package, but aren't going to plunk down money for a separate service. That's how I have been with the Cardinals for over a decade and it is how I've been with STL City. I was excited when they came, but I've wound up watching way fewer games than I would have if they were on a service I already had. I just don't care about soccer enough to spend the money to try and become a bigger fan.

I hope that they find a good balance long-term. It will be huge for sports fans if the MLS can show proof of concept for a blackout-free streaming service that co-exists with at least somewhat lucrative non-exclusive TV deals.
Yeah, I don't know anyone who has bought the MLS Season Pass that isn't enjoying it. But it definitely comes at some kind of cost towards surfacing the league to a wider audience.

I'm not really sure if cable is successfully doing that these days, though, either. The last time I had any kind of television was when I was living with my dad for a year after college and that was 15+ years ago. None of my friends have cable/satellite television subscriptions and I doubt many in the generations younger than my millenial generation do either. I'm not sure any current professional league has a solution to that, but I guess things like the NBA's focus on social media are seeing some success.

I've barely watched a Cardinals game since I left my dad's, but if there was an MLB equivalent to MLS Season Pass I would buy it.

I'm watching every Blues and City game, but City is getting more revenue from me even though I'm more of a hardcore Blues fan. It just seems silly that this is an issue that's existed for almost 20 years and these companies still haven't found a way to extract revenue from people like me, outside of the games I attend in person.
 
Fan Duel still has a free month going on right now if you use promo code BASEBALL30. Think you have to be in the St Louis region though.

Been watching on it for the past month. Just canceled and made a new account and it still works.
 
Bought a Super Box off Amazon or Walmart, 1 time purchase, you can get everything on that box. If a game is being streamed you can get on Super Box. NHL,NFL,MLB, MLS College football and hoops save some $$
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad