# Extra Innings Package to be on DirecTV



## hornetsfan30m (Jun 26, 2006)

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/s...ml?ref=baseball


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

hornetsfan30m said:


> 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.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/s...ml?ref=baseball


So it looks like it is indeed going to happen. Hopefully this will provide the impetus to make needed improvements to the package (without upping the costs much).

Glad to see that D* is keeping a focus on staying the sports leader. It's why I became a customer way back when, and why I've stayed even during the recent turbulence.

If this does go through, I do feel bad for those baseball addicts who have cable and can't install a dish due to line-of-sight or other issues. At least (as opposed to Sunday Ticket) the option is there for the online package (which actually has had better game coverage than the sat/cable version).


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Here is the correct link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/sports/baseball/20base.html


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm glad I stayed with D*.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Wait till the E* crowd and cable subs find out...


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

If it will be exclusively on one sat or the other, I'm glad its on D*.

But there really are a lot of people who simply can't put up a dish, and I feel for them.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> If it will be exclusively on one sat or the other, I'm glad its on D*.
> 
> But there really are a lot of people who simply can't put up a dish, and I feel for them.


Same on both counts.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I don't see this as a big deal, in fact paying that kind of money may be a mistake. Why? First, how many are there that don't already get their home team on an RSN? Of those that don't, (Moved from their hometown) how many would actually change services just to pay for this package? Remember, most households just watch tv - not obsess about it like we sometimes do here. There are some who do really want to see alot of games, and Direct will get those, but how many subscribers, really are we talking about? I think it is a big mistake to look at how many subscribe to the package now and think anywhere near that many will go to Direct TV.
It may be good for MLB in that they get that kind of money, but they could risk losing fans, though I would say probably not lose that many fans.

I had the opposite opinion when XM got the baseball exclusive. In that case, they would provide my hometeam game anywhere in the US I happened to be. As I travel sometimes, this was a big thing, had I been a Sirius subscriber, I would have switched to XM.


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

My guess is that D* will start a baseball superfan package that will include fantasy stats, mix channels, HD games and, the baseball channel when it's finally available. In fact maybe they'll bring back the XM baseball channel as part of the deal. They'll pick up an additional $99 from some subs while raising the base package price only the usual year-to-year amount.

BTW, does anyone remember what the MLBEI renewal price was last year?


----------



## serenstarlight (Sep 16, 2006)

gpg said:


> My guess is that D* will start a baseball superfan package that will include fantasy stats, mix channels, HD games and, the baseball channel when it's finally available. In fact maybe they'll bring back the XM baseball channel as part of the deal. They'll pick up an additional $99 from some subs while raising the base package price only the usual year-to-year amount.
> 
> BTW, does anyone remember what the MLBEI renewal price was last year?


$149 billed at 4 payments of $37.25


----------



## bobsloop (Nov 22, 2006)

This is fantastic news. I am not happy about those without DirecTV losing it, but if MLB is going to go to having one carrier I am glad it is DirecTV. My brother cannot get it at his condo because of line of sight issues so he will be upset, but I am thankful.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I hope they get more games than just the RSNs in the deal and lots of HD.


----------



## WolfClan Dan (Jan 10, 2007)

I wonder if this will further degrade the picture quality... as occurs during football season.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

One thing that stuck out to me was that their 24-hour baseball channel would ALSO be exclusive to DirecTv, unlike the NFL Network. I'm not sure I entirely see why that would be good for baseball, although 2009 is a long way off.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I am VERY excited about this....I am hoping more games gets put on HD


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

I wonder how soon the arrangement would start. Not for the 2007 season, right? They must already have contracts signed for at least the next year or 2 with InDemand.

As for HD availability, I'm thinking you wouldn't have the NFL bandwidth issue because this would likely happen once their new satellites are set for the new capacity.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

This is effective this year, the Extra Innings package was up for renew as it had expired this past 2006 season. So starting this spring, D* only for Extra Innings.


----------



## gregchak (Jan 8, 2007)

This should be awesome. Now that D* will have no competition for MLBEI they can charge whatever they want. That's what they are doing with NFLST and that costs way too much. I'm really going to enjoy it when they up the rates just because they can. This truly is a great deal for D* but I think it will bad in terms of $$ for the people that subscribe to the package. I also think charging more for an additional package just to get the HD version of the games is a crock of you know what. Thanks MLB for screwing the fans you have left.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

gregchak said:


> This should be awesome. Now that D* will have no competition for MLBEI they can charge whatever they want. That's what they are doing with NFLST and that costs way too much. I'm really going to enjoy it when they up the rates just because they can. This truly is a great deal for D* but I think it will bad in terms of $$ for the people that subscribe to the package. I also think charging more for an additional package just to get the HD version of the games is a crock of you know what. Thanks MLB for screwing the fans you have left.


Rules of capitalism: if you think the price is too high, don't buy it...they'll lose money and lower the price. At least that's theoretically how it should happen. Will we all cancel EI for a moderate price increase? As a Yankee fan stuck in New Hampshire, the answer for me is no, but for those just trying to get more games, _maybe_?


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

gregchak said:


> This should be awesome. Now that D* will have no competition for MLBEI they can charge whatever they want. That's what they are doing with NFLST and that costs way too much. I'm really going to enjoy it when they up the rates just because they can. This truly is a great deal for D* but I think it will bad in terms of $$ for the people that subscribe to the package. I also think charging more for an additional package just to get the HD version of the games is a crock of you know what. Thanks MLB for screwing the fans you have left.


Once again repeat after me..NFL sets the price for ST. Just like MLB will set the price for MLB EI just as it has done in previous years. Nothing will change. D* still wont be setting any prices for these packages. As far as the HD games we won't know what plans they have for additional charges till they announced.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

WolfClan Dan said:


> I wonder if this will further degrade the picture quality... as occurs during football season.


There are many, many more baseball games in a season (or even a day) than there are football games.

The big issue with ST was the impact of the HD games. Thus far, there's been little mention of HD coverage.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

WolfClan Dan said:


> I wonder if this will further degrade the picture quality... as occurs during football season.


Probably not if they get the new sats up ...


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

harsh said:


> There are many, many more baseball games in a season (or even a day) than there are football games.
> 
> The big issue with ST was the impact of the HD games. Thus far, there's been little mention of HD coverage.


And I wouldn't expect additional HD baseball until the new birds are up and operational -- late season this year if we're lucky, most likely 2008.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

I fail to understand why so many people are happy about this. Since when has LESS choice been a good thing? Other than people here talking out of their collective rear ends, there's been no hard evidence that these "superfan" ideas are even being considered. All we've heard so far is the possibility of a 24/7 MLB channel. I can pretty much guarantee you that with this new deal, the price will go up for the base package, without any of the new features being speculated about. Why is this good again?

And ya know, given the recent hearings in JUDCOMM in re: DirecTV's exclusive lock on NFL Sunday Ticket, this move will only shift Congressional attention to these 'exclusive' deals. Not sure why MLB wants more of this.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

bills976 said:


> I fail to understand why so many people are happy about this. Since when has LESS choice been a good thing? Other than people here talking out of their collective rear ends, there's been no hard evidence that these "superfan" ideas are even being considered. All we've heard so far is the possibility of a 24/7 MLB channel. I can pretty much guarantee you that with this new deal, the price will go up for the base package, without any of the new features being speculated about. Why is this good again?
> 
> And ya know, given the recent hearings in JUDCOMM in re: DirecTV's exclusive lock on NFL Sunday Ticket, this move will only shift Congressional attention to these 'exclusive' deals. Not sure why MLB wants more of this.


If anything, I am just happy that since I am the only D* member on the block and within my friends...I am the only one who can access the MLB games.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

The ONLY reason why there were hearings in Congress regarding the ST is because Arlen Spector is in the hip pocket of Comcrap. Plain and simple...As far as the price going up thats possible but its not a decision for D* to make just like they dont set the price for the other packages its the league that will set that. Im happy to be a D* sub with these exclusives. Its much better being on this side as opposed to being with a carrier who acts like some sort of fly by night operation in that you may not see the same channels you watched the night before by the time you wake up the next morning. Can you say E* and their various negotiating fiascos lately?


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Heck, go to the Dish forum here and you see several saying they are leaving Dish because they got EI on Dish when they signed up.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

RSN's are going on the new sats which means if they produce the games in HD, then you will get them in HD.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

bills976 said:


> I fail to understand why so many people are happy about this. Since when has LESS choice been a good thing? Other than people here talking out of their collective rear ends, there's been no hard evidence that these "superfan" ideas are even being considered. All we've heard so far is the possibility of a 24/7 MLB channel. I can pretty much guarantee you that with this new deal, the price will go up for the base package, without any of the new features being speculated about. Why is this good again?
> 
> And ya know, given the recent hearings in JUDCOMM in re: DirecTV's exclusive lock on NFL Sunday Ticket, this move will only shift Congressional attention to these 'exclusive' deals. Not sure why MLB wants more of this.


 The real queston is will they adress the "blackout" issue. Why pay for a package when you cant watch ALL the games?


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

DCSholtis said:


> The ONLY reason why there were hearings in Congress regarding the ST is because Arlen Spector is in the hip pocket of Comcrap. Plain and simple...As far as the price going up thats possible but its not a decision for D* to make just like they dont set the price for the other packages its the league that will set that. Im happy to be a D* sub with these exclusives. Its much better being on this side as opposed to being with a carrier who acts like some sort of fly by night operation in that you may not see the same channels you watched the night before by the time you wake up the next morning. Can you say E* and their various negotiating fiascos lately?


NO!! The NFL was granted a antitrust exemption when they merged with the AFL. One rule that is still in effect is that all NFL games must be availble on free tv inside the teams market (unless the game does not sell out" Congress has a huge vested interest here


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

juan ellitinez said:


> NO!! The NFL was granted a antitrust exemption when they merged with the AFL. One rule that is still in effect is that all NFL games must be availble on free tv inside the teams market (unless the game does not sell out" Congress has a huge vested interest here


The NFL Network games were carried on "free TV" in those local markets, it was not available on "free TV" for out of market games, but how does this affect the games that have been on ESPN for years? Those games have not been on "free TV".

The NFL Network is on both D* and E* and over 170 cable systems, there is no "exclusivity" for the NFL Network, the only "exclusivity" is for the Sunday Ticket package which is for out-of-market games and therefore is outside the realm of the antitrust exemption as you stated. This will be the same for the MLB Extra Innings package.



DCSholtis said:


> The ONLY reason why there were hearings in Congress regarding the ST is because Arlen Spector is in the hip pocket of Comcrap.


NOTHING happens in congress anymore unless there is a special interest pushing a button. The only reason that Specter held the hearings was because Comcast wanted access to it. The arguments against the exclusive contract are invalid because it does not affect the in-market television broadcasts.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

bluedogok said:


> ...but how does this affect the games that have been on ESPN for years? Those games have not been on "free TV".


ESPN games were/are carried OTA in the participating markets as well.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.


----------



## jcrandall (Jun 18, 2004)

Charlie would never put up that much money for just out of market sports. Look at RSN HDs, he won't even pay for Local sports


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.


Or does D* go after the NHL and NBA for exclusive rights.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> ESPN games were/are carried OTA in the participating markets as well.


Really.....I didn't know that. I just figured it was cable or SAT. So who are the participating markets? Bristol, Connecticut one?


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Really.....I didn't know that. I just figured it was cable or SAT. So who are the participating markets? Bristol, Connecticut one?


The markets of the teams involved in a particular game.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Oh...I guess that makes sense. I thought you meant 24x7.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

bluedogok said:


> NOTHING happens in congress anymore unless there is a special interest pushing a button. The only reason that Specter held the hearings was because Comcast wanted access to it. The arguments against the exclusive contract are invalid because it does not affect the in-market television broadcasts.


I agree with you 100%.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

TANK said:


> Or does D* go after the NHL and NBA for exclusive rights.


There's no indication (yet) that the other leagues are looking for exclusive deals. Don't see the NHL doing it, given how they are trying to grow their exposure (anyone remember their disastrous deal with SportsChannel America?). Who knows what the NBA would do...though even w/o their league pass there is a lot of TV exposure.

If either did look for exclusive deals, I would expect to see D* be aggressive once again. The are going back to one of their original key strategies of being the leader in (out-of-market) sports programming. I'm very glad to see that...even if I do have some concerns about exclusivity and its impact on hardcore fans that can't install a dish.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

NBA or NHL will not go exclusive. They both back downed from going exclusive in their video games deals citing "competition is good to have" so I doubt you'll see it happen. 

Both MLB and NFL have exclusive contracts for one publisher in the video game market. Those two leagues are more open to exlusive's than the NHL or NBA. 

Besides having the NHL exclusive would be a waste of money. It's not that popular in the US to fork out the money if one was possible.


----------



## bobsloop (Nov 22, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.


Does anyone really care about the NHL? Nobody watches that stuff. It's fun in person but not on TV. And the NBA is just a bunch of thugs. College basketball is much more fun.


----------



## bobsloop (Nov 22, 2006)

bills976 said:


> I fail to understand why so many people are happy about this. QUOTE]
> 
> The only thing I am real happy about is that if EI is only going to be with one carrier I am glad it is DirecTV since that is what I have.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Yeah, NHL & NBA don't have nearly the interest MLB & NFL have...I don't think they'd want to do it.


----------



## cmcgill (Sep 20, 2004)

WolfClan Dan said:


> I wonder if this will further degrade the picture quality... as occurs during football season.


I doubt there would be any degradation, since all (well, probably 99%) of these games are already being carried on the existing RSN's, unlike football.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Does anyone really care about the NHL? Nobody watches that stuff.


Come to Buffalo and say that, you probably won't leave alive


----------



## jcrandall (Jun 18, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> Come to Buffalo and say that, you probably won't leave alive


Toss in Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, and the 51st state up north Canada. :lol:


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

So is San Diego's cable owned 4SD which forbids Padres games on Directv going to finally be available out of market?


----------



## Knepster (May 31, 2006)

wneilson82 said:


> Heck, go to the Dish forum here and you see several saying they are leaving Dish because they got EI on Dish when they signed up.


My dad is leaving cable and switching to DirecTV because of this and because of the announcement of more HD channels. Seems like a good decision to me, they will increase their subscriber base.


----------



## bagsy (Jan 21, 2007)

I am currently with E* and have been tossing back and forth the idea of switching to D* for a while now. The main reason I wanted to switch is because I can get an extra RSN with the sports package on D*. However, I love the dvrs with E* (1 dvr for 2 tvs -- view stuff on both tvs that was recorded on either one). The current price for D* would be less than what I'm paying, even if I got 2 dvrs with D* (have 1 dvr receiver with E* hooked to 2 tvs). If I wait until the price increases Feb. 6, I would need to subscribe to a higher package with D* to get the channels I want and would end up paying more money than now. I really want the extra RSN with D* but want the dvr with E*. I had decided to stay with E* until I just found out about the MLB EI being available only on D*. I guess that made up my mind very easily. I am one of the people who will be switching to Directv from Dish because of this. I'm probably going to be buying older dvrs, though, so I don't have to worry about the issues of the R15.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

juan ellitinez said:


> NO!! The NFL was granted a antitrust exemption when they merged with the AFL. One rule that is still in effect is that all NFL games must be availble on free tv inside the teams market (unless the game does not sell out" Congress has a huge vested interest here


They were allowed to merge but they do not have a permanent exemption as baseball does.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

masterdeals said:


> Toss in Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, and the 51st state up north Canada. :lol:


And a few of us here in Arizona that used to live in northern country.


----------



## matty8199 (Dec 4, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.


I don't think it would be possible for a cable company to get exclusive rights to any of the major sports packages, because that would make it literally impossible for any subscriber without that cable company to have access. In other words, if Comcrap had exclusivity for any of these and you lived in an area with say Time Warner Cable, you'd be out of luck. The league would be putting a hard cap on their available number of subscribers, which would be a bad thing for them. D* and E* being available nationwide gives them an advantage there...line of sight issues not withstanding.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bagsy said:


> I'm probably going to be buying older dvrs, though, so I don't have to worry about the issues of the R15.


This is fine until you decide that you want your RSNs in HD.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

The contract would have to go through InDemand, not a specific cable company.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> And a few of us here in Arizona that used to live in northern country.


And lots of us down here in Tampa.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.





araxen said:


> Does anyone really care about the NHL? Nobody watches that stuff. It's fun in person but not on TV. And the NBA is just a bunch of thugs. College basketball is much more fun
> 
> Both MLB and NFL have exclusive contracts for one publisher in the video game market. Those two leagues are more open to exlusive's than the NHL or NBA.
> 
> Besides having the NHL exclusive would be a waste of money. It's not that popular in the US to fork out the money if one was possible..





DonCorleone said:


> Yeah, NHL & NBA don't have nearly the interest MLB & NFL have...I don't think they'd want to do it.


You'd be happy to hear that the original reports said that DirecTV did approach the NHL with a similar exclusive offer like that MLB appears to have taken.

The NHL Center Ice is the second highest package taken in the US, slightly above Major League Baseball's Extra Innings. The NHL wasn't interested, as they didn't want to piss off Comcast and their deal with Versus.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

D* going for the NHL is fine by me.

Never watched a single NHL game for longer than 10 minutes except maybe some NHL Finals Game 7's near the end of the games


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

bwaldron said:


> ESPN games were/are carried OTA in the participating markets as well.


I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure. When I lived in Dallas (91-93) they were not on ESPN yet. I have lived outside a football city ever since (Oklahoma City and Austin). The thing that irritated me about living in-market was the restriction on game broadcasts, I saw less games in Dallas than I did in OKC or Austin.



bobsloop said:


> Does anyone really care about the NHL? Nobody watches that stuff. It's fun in person but not on TV. And the NBA is just a bunch of thugs. College basketball is much more fun.


Born and raised in Oklahoma and lived either there or Texas my entire life, and I have Center Ice to go along with Extra Innings and Sunday Ticket. I am a Colorado Avalanche, Boston Red Sox and overall football fan. I hardly watch any basketball anymore (even Oklahoma games) because the poor officiating ruins the game to me. It drives me nuts, even when I would watch games that I could less who won.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

bobsloop said:


> Does anyone really care about the NHL? Nobody watches that stuff. It's fun in person but not on TV. And the NBA is just a bunch of thugs. College basketball is much more fun.


Does anybody care about the NHL? Wake up! If you're in KC, you'll probably realize that a *lot *of people here are excited about the possibility of an NHL franchise.

I agree with the NBA. If anybody doesn't have the NBA package, they can always watch the players on CourtTV.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

:lol: 
I actually watched the Spurs game earlier, flipping back and forth in between that and the football game. Most amount of basketball I ever watched in my life at one time. While I’m not saying I’m the newest NBA fan, I’m not, maybe next time I’ll watch a whole quarter, provided there’s no NFL or NHL games on.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> :lol:
> I actually watched the Spurs game earlier, flipping back and forth in between that and the football game. Most amount of basketball I ever watched in my life at one time. While I'm not saying I'm the newest NBA fan, I'm not, maybe next time I'll watch a whole quarter, provided there's no NFL or NHL games on.


"Basketball"? I thought NBA meant "Not Basketball Anymore"


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> While I'm not saying I'm the newest NBA fan, I'm not, maybe next time I'll watch a whole quarter, provided there's no NFL or NHL games on.


If you do decide to watch a whole quarter, make it the fourth - that's the one with most of what actually matters.


----------



## Proc (Jan 19, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> ..The NHL Center Ice is the second highest package taken in the US, slightly above Major League Baseball's Extra Innings...


Wow. NHL CI has more subscribers than MLB EI?

Does anyone know the numbers, subscriber-wise to:

NFL Sunday Ticket
MLB Extra Innings
NHL Center Ice
NBA League Pass

???

I think it'd be interesting to see how the subscriber numbers compare.


----------



## whitey2755 (Oct 9, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> D* better be careful, because a cable company or E* may go after exclusive rights for the NHL and NBA, and that would really suck if they weren't on D* anymore.


That is EXACTLY what I was thinking. Personally I believe that these packages should be available to all outlets. A lot of the reason I left cable was that there was no choice for the consumer.


----------



## whitey2755 (Oct 9, 2006)

purtman said:


> Does anybody care about the NHL? Wake up! If you're in KC, you'll probably realize that a *lot *of people here are excited about the possibility of an NHL franchise.
> 
> I agree with the NBA. If anybody doesn't have the NBA package, they can always watch the players on CourtTV.


Just don't take my Penguins, Purtman. Actually, it looks as if the city and state afe finally gonna come through. Sincerely wish you the best of luck in obtaining a team.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Well, from what I have seen so far...

NFL Sunday Ticket (exclusive to DirecTV) has around 2 million subscribers.
MLB Extra Innings has 750K subscribers.
NBA League Pass has 600K subscribers, although this was in an article that stated MLB Extra Innings had less than 300K subscribers.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

In case anyone missed it earlier, it appears DirecTV approached the NHL about an exclusive for the Center Ice package. The NHL balked because of their dealings with cable companies.


----------



## cforrest (Jan 20, 2007)

I don't think any of the other packages, NBA & NHL, will ever go exclusive to one provider. Stern likes the NBA to be available in any many homes as possible. NHL will want the same, not to mention that both the NHL & NBA have a lot of owners with ties to cable companies. Knicks & Rangers come to mind since Cablevision owns them, I think the 76ers are owned by Comcast. I am sure there are other teams out there owned by a Cable MSOs.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

whitey2755 said:


> Just don't take my Penguins, Purtman. Actually, it looks as if the city and state afe finally gonna come through. Sincerely wish you the best of luck in obtaining a team.


I totally understand. I'm from Connecticut and saw the Whalers leave. However, it looks like the state may not come through in PA. It will be interesting.

I have mixed emotions about the Pens. I don't want to see Pittsburgh lose a franchise. However, as you can understand, I would love to be able to see Crosby, Malkin, Fleury and others come here. It would be exciting.

Of course, we could always have the Predators move here...


----------



## whitey2755 (Oct 9, 2006)

purtman said:


> I totally understand. I'm from Connecticut and saw the Whalers leave. However, it looks like the state may not come through in PA. It will be interesting.
> 
> I have mixed emotions about the Pens. I don't want to see Pittsburgh lose a franchise. However, as you can understand, I would love to be able to see Crosby, Malkin, Fleury and others come here. It would be exciting.
> 
> Of course, we could always have the Predators move here...


I would say it's about 70/30 the Pens stay. You hit on exactly why they can't leave (87,71,29). After several dreadful years, the fans here deserve them.

How did the Whale draw? My perception here in PA was that they always were overshadowed by the B's. I'd like to see a team back in Winterpeg as well.

The Preds I could see moving. There isn't a 40 year history like the Pens.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> Yeah, NHL & NBA don't have nearly the interest MLB & NFL have...I don't think they'd want to do it.


I have to agree with you 100%, the fan base for BOTH hockey and basketball is so much smaller that those two leagues NEED MAXIMUM exposure just to survive. If the exposure was limited to the percentage of the 15 million homes with DirecTV, those leagues would submerge QUICKLY.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

The NHL exposure arguement is flawed. If they really needed all the exposure why did they go with a network called OLN(now versus). The NHL is poorly run and the only reason it isn't bankrupt is because of Canada keeping it afloat.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

whitey2755 said:


> I would say it's about 70/30 the Pens stay. You hit on exactly why they can't leave (87,71,29). After several dreadful years, the fans here deserve them.
> 
> How did the Whale draw? My perception here in PA was that they always were overshadowed by the B's. I'd like to see a team back in Winterpeg as well.
> 
> The Preds I could see moving. There isn't a 40 year history like the Pens.


The Whalers were definitely overshadowed by the B's in some regard, but it helped the Whale that Harry Sinden was running the Bs. I'm a big Bruins' fan, but they're still paying for Sinden's and Mike O'Connell's mismanagement.

As far as drawing, the Whale actually did fairly well for a while. They wanted the Civic Center improved. I don't know if you recall, but the Civic Center lost its roof in 1978 to the weight of very heavy wet snow. Later on when ownership wanted improvements. Governor John (238234821) Rowland balked. Rowland, who is the only governor from Connecticut to go to jail (he was in a fed pen in PA), probably could have had them. But he was too busy investing the state's money in Enron in exchange for Enron's donations to the Republican Governors Association.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

Araxen said:


> The NHL exposure arguement is flawed. If they really needed all the exposure why did they go with a network called OLN(now versus). The NHL is poorly run and the only reason it isn't bankrupt is because of Canada keeping it afloat.


The OLN deal was the best at the time. However, Bettman made sure it was a short deal so that he could open things up with ESPN and others. With HD in the picture, INHD and HDNET both have some incredible games in HD. That should also help with the exposure.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

I must admit that I am surprised by the MLB lack of #'s

MLB has a huge following in this country

If D* gets a majority of the games to go in HD and the blackouts are lifted just a little, I think that within 2 years, the numbers will rise and rise up quite a bit


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

wneilson82 said:


> I must admit that I am surprised by the MLB lack of #'s
> 
> MLB has a huge following in this country
> 
> If D* gets a majority of the games to go in HD and the blackouts are lifted just a little, I think that within 2 years, the numbers will rise and rise up quite a bit


Consider that most people who grow up an area are still able to watch their home teams over the air. In my situation, I grew up in CT so I am an a Yankees' fan. I like in KC now. I get the chance to watch the Yankees and sometimes the Royals. I can't always watch the other games. If people feel they won't have time to watch other games, they don't bother getting the package.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

wneilson82 said:


> I must admit that I am surprised by the MLB lack of #'s
> 
> MLB has a huge following in this country


I am a big Twins fan. Between Fox Sports North and the games that show on local affiliates, I can see all the games I want to. I am not a big enough fan of MLB in general to want to spend the money on EI. I have a feeling I am not alone in that. My home team plays 162 games a year, most of those on TV. I don't have time to watch a bunch of other games (much less the desire).

I'm not really surprised by the numbers.


----------



## BruceS (Sep 23, 2006)

I suspect that the small numbers are due to the blackout restrictions that seem to become more restrictive each year.

When I first subscribed to EI in the eighties, you could receive all games carried by EI. This was on PrimeStar, so DirecTV may have been different.

When DirecTV purchased PrimeStar, there were still few restrictions and you could even view either team's broadcast as long as you also purchased the sports package.

The first blackouts that I remember, were if the game was not sold out and you lived in the home team's market area.

Last season, the Yankees started forcing a blackout of the visiting team's broadcast for all Yankee games when you lived in the Yankees market area.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

purtman said:



> If people feel they won't have time to watch other games, they don't bother getting the package.


You do know there is something called DVR...right? 

I am a Detroit Tigers fan and record most of their games and watch them when I can.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Araxen said:


> NBA or NHL will not go exclusive.


What the heck is the NHL?


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

purtman said:


> The OLN deal was the best at the time. However, Bettman made sure it was a short deal so that he could open things up with ESPN and others. With HD in the picture, INHD and HDNET both have some incredible games in HD. That should also help with the exposure.


It was the best deal money wise, but it wasn't the best deal for exposure of the sport to get the casual fans back. All the die-hards know the NHL is on Vs/OLN but the casual fan? They prolly think the NHL is on the verge of bankruptcy.


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

I really think 70% of Yanks games are blacked out, so I think I'm going to pass this year and maybe set up a sling box back in NJ and watch it over the net. I'm tired of black outs, enough is enough, it's worthless if you are yanks fan.


----------



## NKy.Yall (Apr 8, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> The ONLY reason why there were hearings in Congress regarding the ST is because Arlen Spector is in the hip pocket of Comcrap. Plain and simple...As far as the price going up thats possible but its not a decision for D* to make just like they dont set the price for the other packages its the league that will set that. Im happy to be a D* sub with these exclusives. Its much better being on this side as opposed to being with a carrier who acts like some sort of fly by night operation in that you may not see the same channels you watched the night before by the time you wake up the next morning. Can you say E* and their various negotiating fiascos lately?


:joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: Could not agree more !!!!!!!!!!!!!! and once being on the other side of the fence in E*s corner I beleive I can honestly make that statement. On my own behalf anway,others will surely disagree,but thats fine they are more than entitled to their own opinions as well.


----------



## NKy.Yall (Apr 8, 2004)

wneilson82 said:


> I must admit that I am surprised by the MLB lack of #'s
> 
> MLB has a huge following in this country
> 
> If D* gets a majority of the games to go in HD and the blackouts are lifted just a little, I think that within 2 years, the numbers will rise and rise up quite a bit


Yeah,I agree.Were those numbers from D* subs only or combined numbers of EI subs from all other venues???


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Combined...i think someone made a rough estimate that MLB could bring 200k subscribers to D*

That would surprise me if it is remotely that high at first but eventually...I think the number could be higher than that AND current D* people may be interested in trying it with a solid amount of HD games


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

I can tell you one customer it's bringing.............me. They are coming out to install on Saturday.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> I really think 70% of Yanks games are blacked out, so I think I'm going to pass this year and maybe set up a sling box back in NJ and watch it over the net. I'm tired of black outs, enough is enough, it's worthless if you are yanks fan.


Wow. I think I got almost every Yankee game here in Baltimore. You do know to sometimes look at the other team's channel. Right?


----------



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. I think I got almost every Yankee game here in Baltimore. You do know to sometimes look at the other team's channel. Right?


I don't look at the YES channel since 99% of the time it's not on YES, so I scroll till I find it, I have my favorites set up only to display baseball when I want to watch a game.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

saleen351 said:


> I don't look at the YES channel since 99% of the time it's not on YES, so I scroll till I find it, I have my favorites set up only to display baseball when I want to watch a game.


Yes, the Yankees will be blacked out on YES if they're not on the other team's station. I always look for the baseball in the 700s rather than 622. I probably saw around 130 Yankees' games last year.
You won't see them normally on Friday evenings, but sometimes they are.


----------



## greenie95125 (Feb 3, 2006)

hornetsfan30m said:


> 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.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/s...ml?ref=baseball


Hey, that's GREAT news. Now D* has a monopoly on baseball, and can charge wherever the hell they want.

No matter, after the "lack of HD baseball fiasco" last year, I'll just sub to MLB.TV over the internet. It's almost as good as sd, and I can watch it anywhere.

--Mike


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

greenie95125 said:


> Hey, that's GREAT news. Now D* has a monopoly on baseball, and can charge wherever the hell they want.
> 
> No matter, after the "lack of HD baseball fiasco" last year, I'll just sub to MLB.TV over the internet. It's almost as good as sd, and I can watch it anywhere.
> 
> --Mike


MLB will probably set the price.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

purtman said:


> MLB will probably set the price.


 And they have to makeup for the loss of cable and e* subs


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

juan ellitinez said:


> And they have to makeup for the loss of cable and e* subs


MLB has already made up the revenue.........with the package price that Directv paid.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

MLB will not have to set the price. Because the possible contract with DirecTV is exclusive, for a guaranteed price over the term of the deal, MLB won't have to price anything. Just like Sunday Ticket, this will be priced by DirecTV if the contract is signed.


----------



## YankeeFan (Jan 31, 2006)

purtman said:


> You won't see them normally on Friday evenings, but sometimes they are.


Unfortunately, the Yankees gave an exclusive contract to WWOR (Local NY Channel 9) for all the Friday night games and some of the Tuesday night games. So any games that are played in the Bronx on those days will not be available via MLB EI (which TOTALLY SUCKS). I've sent letters to MLB and WWOR about this but have received no response. I even tried "moving" to NY but since the channel 9 feed is on a spot beam, no dice. The only time I was able to see a Tuesday/Friday game was when they were playing somewhere else and I saw the game on the home team's network via MLB EI. So I get screwed twice, have to pay for MLB EI...AND MLB TV so I can catch the Tuesday/Friday games...


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

YankeeFan said:


> Unfortunately, the Yankees gave an exclusive contract to WWOR (Local NY Channel 9) for all the Friday night games and some of the Tuesday night games. So any games that are played in the Bronx on those days will not be available via MLB EI (which TOTALLY SUCKS). I've sent letters to MLB and WWOR about this but have received no response. I even tried "moving" to NY but since the channel 9 feed is on a spot beam, no dice. The only time I was able to see a Tuesday/Friday game was when they were playing somewhere else and I saw the game on the home team's network via MLB EI. So I get screwed twice, have to pay for MLB EI...AND MLB TV so I can catch the Tuesday/Friday games...


Hopefully D* will be now motivated to improve the package. No reason that there should be more games available in the online version than on D*.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

YankeeFan said:


> Unfortunately, the Yankees gave an exclusive contract to WWOR (Local NY Channel 9) for all the Friday night games and some of the Tuesday night games. So any games that are played in the Bronx on those days will not be available via MLB EI (which TOTALLY SUCKS). I've sent letters to MLB and WWOR about this but have received no response. I even tried "moving" to NY but since the channel 9 feed is on a spot beam, no dice. The only time I was able to see a Tuesday/Friday game was when they were playing somewhere else and I saw the game on the home team's network via MLB EI. So I get screwed twice, have to pay for MLB EI...AND MLB TV so I can catch the Tuesday/Friday games...


That is just terrible.

What does this accomplish for people outside the NY area?


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

YankeeFan said:


> Unfortunately, the Yankees gave an exclusive contract to WWOR (Local NY Channel 9) for all the Friday night games and some of the Tuesday night games. So any games that are played in the Bronx on those days will not be available via MLB EI (which TOTALLY SUCKS). I've sent letters to MLB and WWOR about this but have received no response. I even tried "moving" to NY but since the channel 9 feed is on a spot beam, no dice. The only time I was able to see a Tuesday/Friday game was when they were playing somewhere else and I saw the game on the home team's network via MLB EI. So I get screwed twice, have to pay for MLB EI...AND MLB TV so I can catch the Tuesday/Friday games...


Ditto on all of that. I wrote letters to YES, the Yanks, and MLB...never got 1 response. What's even more aggravating is that the Red Sox had a similar Friday night deal with the local WB in Boston, but it worked out that if you weren't in the WB's range, they still showed it on NESN. I wish they could have done that with YES. Only thing I don't know is how long the contract with WPIX lasts.


----------



## untouchable (Jun 24, 2006)

actually, D* isn't becoming the exclusive carrier of EI until 2009

here is the article: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161090/directv-signs-mlb-s-extra-innings-package


----------



## YankeeFan (Jan 31, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> Only thing I don't know is how long the contract with WPIX lasts.


I think I read somewhere that it's in place for ten years.


----------



## YankeeFan (Jan 31, 2006)

wneilson82 said:


> That is just terrible.
> 
> What does this accomplish for people outside the NY area?


It creates a bunch of pissed off Yankee fans. Friday's are probably the only day I have time to actually sit down with a few cold ones and watch a complete game.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

untouchable said:


> actually, D* isn't becoming the exclusive carrier of EI until 2009
> 
> here is the article: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161090/directv-signs-mlb-s-extra-innings-package


The 24-hour baseball channel that they will have the exclusive to starts in 2009. The exclusive to the EI package thing may well take effect before that.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

untouchable said:


> actually, D* isn't becoming the exclusive carrier of EI until 2009
> 
> here is the article: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161090/directv-signs-mlb-s-extra-innings-package


Here you go. The first part "makes", not "will make", DirecTV the exclusive home. That means present tense. Once this deal is finalized, they are it. There is no delay until 2009.
The MLB channel will come on board in 2009.

DirecTV has agreed to pay $700 million over seven years for the package, according to US media reports. The deal* makes* DirecTV the exclusive home of Extra Innings, which had until now also been available via cable.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

YankeeFan said:


> Unfortunately, the Yankees gave an exclusive contract to WWOR (Local NY Channel 9) for all the Friday night games and some of the Tuesday night games. So any games that are played in the Bronx on those days will not be available via MLB EI (which TOTALLY XXXXX). I've sent letters to MLB and WWOR about this but have received no response. I even tried "moving" to NY but since the channel 9 feed is on a spot beam, no dice. The only time I was able to see a Tuesday/Friday game was when they were playing somewhere else and I saw the game on the home team's network via MLB EI. So I get screwed twice, have to pay for MLB EI...AND MLB TV so I can catch the Tuesday/Friday games...


If the visiting team has the game, you may still be able to see the games. I caught a few games when the Orioles played the Yankees on Friday nights because the Orioles had the broadcast. Remember, that even though the Yankees gave WWOR exclusive rights to their games, they do not have the right to block the visiting team from showing the game. It would be hard to imagine to get all 30 teams on board with this one and give up their revenues.


----------



## tstarn (Oct 1, 2006)

bills976 said:


> I fail to understand why so many people are happy about this. Since when has LESS choice been a good thing? Other than people here talking out of their collective rear ends, there's been no hard evidence that these "superfan" ideas are even being considered. All we've heard so far is the possibility of a 24/7 MLB channel. I can pretty much guarantee you that with this new deal, the price will go up for the base package, without any of the new features being speculated about. Why is this good again?
> 
> And ya know, given the recent hearings in JUDCOMM in re: DirecTV's exclusive lock on NFL Sunday Ticket, this move will only shift Congressional attention to these 'exclusive' deals. Not sure why MLB wants more of this.


FYI.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/john_donovan/01/23/directv.extrainnings/


----------



## Pete K. (Apr 23, 2002)

untouchable said:


> actually, D* isn't becoming the exclusive carrier of EI until 2009
> 
> here is the article: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/161090/directv-signs-mlb-s-extra-innings-package


Nope. Read it again. If indeed an MLB inks an exclusive deal with Direct TV, it will begin this season. The "long awaited" 24/7 baseball channel, which would be a part of the deal, would start in 2009.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

I feel bad about those fans who cannot install a dish and will have to rely on the broadband package.

Those who _choose_ not to, I also have some sympathy for, but less. They choose their provider for whatever reason...if MLB is important enough to them, they'll become a D* subscriber. Same as Sunday Ticket, with (sadly, as a baseball fan) smaller numbers.

MLB wins by getting the bucks from DirecTV; DirecTV wins (they hope) by increasing their subscriber base. The baseball owners also gain by protecting the value of their national contracts to some extent (if all games are available to everyone, the value of their exclusive deals goes down). I'm sure the owners believe they will gain by "forcing" some people to follow their local teams, though I think that's dubious and wrongheaded.

Some fans lose, undoubtedly and sadly. Hopefully those fans who do buy the package (existing or new D* subs) will be rewarded with a much-improved Extra Innings (which has long been the worst of the major sports packages).

I salute D* for being aggressive in pursuing such deals. They are a competitive weapon for them vs. other providers and their "triple play" deals and the like. They are trying to enhance their position as _the_ provider of choice for sports fanatics, a big market with nice demographics.


----------



## untouchable (Jun 24, 2006)

Pete K. said:


> Nope. Read it again. If indeed an MLB inks an exclusive deal with Direct TV, it will begin this season. The "long awaited" 24/7 baseball channel, which would be a part of the deal, would start in 2009.


Well, sorry guys...I didn't want to cause any problems, I didn't mean to read it wrong...


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

purtman said:


> If the visiting team has the game, you may still be able to see the games. I caught a few games when the Orioles played the Yankees on Friday nights because the Orioles had the broadcast. Remember, that even though the Yankees gave WWOR exclusive rights to their games, they do not have the right to block the visiting team from showing the game. It would be hard to imagine to get all 30 teams on board with this one and give up their revenues.


Theoretically, you're right. However, I can say that I can probably count on 1 hand (and not use all of my fingers) the # of times we actually got the Friday game last season. Sometimes it would also be on the opponent's local channel, but even when it was on an RSN, it was rarely aired. Hopefully that changes this year.


----------



## Knepster (May 31, 2006)

For what it's worth, my dad has Comcast, and is an EI subscriber. He will switch to D* so he can continue with EI, but called Comcast to ask them if they would still be carrying it this season. Keep in mind this is from a CSR, so who knows how accurate the info is, but he said the woman from Comcast told him they would still have EI through April and part of May this season, then they would lose it. Seems odd to me, but who knows.


----------



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> Theoretically, you're right. However, I can say that I can probably count on 1 hand (and not use all of my fingers) the # of times we actually got the Friday game last season. Sometimes it would also be on the opponent's local channel, but even when it was on an RSN, it was rarely aired. Hopefully that changes this year.


Part of that was because a) the Yankees played the Blue Jays multiple times on Fridays and the Jays don't have an RSN in the U.S. Also, the Yankees played those hated Bosox on a few Fridays.


----------



## DonCorleone (Jan 29, 2006)

Knepster said:


> For what it's worth, my dad has Comcast, and is an EI subscriber. He will switch to D* so he can continue with EI, but called Comcast to ask them if they would still be carrying it this season. Keep in mind this is from a CSR, so who knows how accurate the info is, but he said the woman from Comcast told him they would still have EI through April and part of May this season, then they would lose it. Seems odd to me, but who knows.


We admittedly don't have the details to firmly refute, but I think it's _highly_ unlikely that the new contract would start mid-season. I'm frankly surprised, though, that the CSR was even aware of the deal since the ink is barely dry.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

DonCorleone said:


> We admittedly don't have the details to firmly refute, but I think it's _highly_ unlikely that the new contract would start mid-season. I'm frankly surprised, though, that the CSR was even aware of the deal since the ink is barely dry.


Agree. And I don't think the ink is actually even dry at all, yet.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

DonCorleone said:


> We admittedly don't have the details to firmly refute, but I think it's _highly_ unlikely that the new contract would start mid-season. I'm frankly surprised, though, that the CSR was even aware of the deal since the ink is barely dry.


All it takes is getting asked about the loss of programming due to contracts a couple times and any sharp CSR asks the manager, who runs it up the chain till (s)he gets an answer, converts the answer into phone speak that will not hurt or alienate the customer and send it to all CSRs as a Memo...


----------



## RayChuang1654 (Mar 2, 2006)

I think DirecTV could end up being hauled into court for violating the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts for their exclusive deal with MLB for the _MLB Extra Innings_ package. Because _MLB Extra Innings_ up till now is available on Dish Network and larger cable providers such as Comcast, Time Warner, etc., this exclusivity could be construed as an illegal tie-in business deal, which is a major no-no under the Federal laws I mentioned.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

RayChuang1654 said:


> I think DirecTV could end up being hauled into court for violating the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts for their exclusive deal with MLB for the _MLB Extra Innings_ package. Because _MLB Extra Innings_ up till now is available on Dish Network and larger cable providers such as Comcast, Time Warner, etc., this exclusivity could be construed as an illegal tie-in business deal, which is a major no-no under the Federal laws I mentioned.


Nope, don't think so.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

IF that was the case they couldve/shouldve been sued in the years PRIOR to everyone getting in on the package. Remember with MLB EI first started D* WAS the exclusive provider. No E* or Cable. They are just going back to that arrangement thats all. Nothing illegal.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Indeed. If anti-trust laws applied, don't you think that they would've been sued over the NFL ST?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Actually, DirecTV and the NFL were sued over NFL Sunday Ticket. Someone didn't feel it was appropriate to force the purchase of an entire season if they only wanted one Sunday's worth of games.

The plaintiff won, and that is why you can call up on any given Sunday and buy one Sunday's slate of games instead of the whole season. Guess the deal was lawful.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

RayChuang1654 said:


> I think DirecTV could end up being hauled into court for violating the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts for their exclusive deal with MLB for the _MLB Extra Innings_ package. Because _MLB Extra Innings_ up till now is available on Dish Network and larger cable providers such as Comcast, Time Warner, etc., this exclusivity could be construed as an illegal tie-in business deal, which is a major no-no under the Federal laws I mentioned.


I think you are wishing something because you are mad that you are missing out on EI now?


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

RayChuang1654 said:


> I think DirecTV could end up being hauled into court for violating the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts for their exclusive deal with MLB for the _MLB Extra Innings_ package. Because _MLB Extra Innings_ up till now is available on Dish Network and larger cable providers such as Comcast, Time Warner, etc., this exclusivity could be construed as an illegal tie-in business deal, which is a major no-no under the Federal laws I mentioned.


Same could be said for the larger cable companies if they would've been able to outbid D* and E* for the Extra Innings Package.

At least with D*, you can be assured of nation wide coverage. Same cann't be said for the larger cable companies. In fact, my local cable company, Mediacom, doesn't offer Extra Innings or any other pro sports PPV package.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

This E* subscriber thinks it's great news! I get to save $149 and free up time for spending with my family. I might even take them to Iowa Cubs games here in Des Moines, where tickets cost 5 bucks, parking is free, and Triple-A baseball is an insignificant step below what passes for "major league" baseball. Thank, you, MLB and DirecTV!


----------



## akw4572 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ira Lacher said:


> This E* subscriber thinks it's great news! I get to save $149 and free up time for spending with my family. I might even take them to Iowa Cubs games here in Des Moines, where tickets cost 5 bucks, parking is free, and Triple-A baseball is an insignificant step below what passes for "major league" baseball. Thank, you, MLB and DirecTV!


That deal has always been available.


----------



## RayChuang1654 (Mar 2, 2006)

Have you noticed that both MLB and DirecTV have suddenly gone quiet over the rumored deal for _MLB Extra Innings_ going exclusive on DirecTV? I do know that ESPN Radio hosts in the last two days were getting a *HUGE* amount of negative calls and emails over this potential deal, and it's likely that DirecTV may have second thoughts about going to an exclusive deal due to the potential _huge_ negative PR fallout.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

D* does not care about any PR fallout I can guarantee you that. IF There is a deal to be done it will get done. There is still a long way to go before the start of the season. We arent even into exhibition baseball yet.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

DCSholtis said:


> D* does not care about any PR fallout I can guarantee you that. IF There is a deal to be done it will get done. There is still a long way to go before the start of the season. We arent even into exhibition baseball yet.


How about MLB?

Wait, what was I thinking?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RayChuang1654 said:


> Have you noticed that both MLB and DirecTV have suddenly gone quiet over the rumored deal for _MLB Extra Innings_ going exclusive on DirecTV? I do know that ESPN Radio hosts in the last two days were getting a *HUGE* amount of negative calls and emails over this potential deal, and it's likely that DirecTV may have second thoughts about going to an exclusive deal due to the potential _huge_ negative PR fallout.


Ray, do you think DirecTV really cares about the bad PR? They look at the big picture and realize that over the next couple years, they will acquire new subscribers because of this exclusive deal.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

RayChuang1654 said:


> ...it's likely that DirecTV may have second thoughts about going to an exclusive deal due to the potential _huge_ negative PR fallout.


No, I don't think it's likely at all. Why would they care about fallout? I don't think current customers are going to cancel over the deal...and they will definitely gain some customers from the exclusive.

Negative fallout could impact MLB, but they were aware of what they were doing when they agreed to the deal. Check AVSForums and you'll see that some folks have communicated w/ the higher-ups at MLB...they are aware of the fallout, but seem secure in their decision.


----------

