# Sen. Kerry to Fight DIRECTV 'Extra Innings'



## Earl Bonovich

*Sen. Kerry to Fight DIRECTV 'Extra Innings'*



> The Democratic senator says a proposed deal with Major League Baseball would be unfair to cable viewers.
> By Phillip Swann
> 
> Washington, D.C. (February 1, 2007) -- DIRECTV is close to landing an exclusive deal to carry Major League Baseball's 'Extra Innings' package. But Sen. John Kerry still hopes to knock the plan out of the park.
> 
> The Massachusetts Democrat plans to raise concerns about the proposed deal today during a Senate subcommittee hearing in which FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will testify.
> ......


Read the rest of the story: *Here at TVPredicitions.com*


----------



## oldpianos

Good to see the Senator is concerned about the really important matters. You know, instead of worrying about that pesky war on terrorism in Iraq, or Health care, or social security, or...


----------



## pdxsam

In Washington, there's time for everything  Since the hearing was already scheduled on other matters, adding this to the agenda really is no big deal relevant to the others you mentioned.


----------



## Jon D

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Sen. Kerry to Fight DIRECTV 'Extra Innings'*
> 
> Read the rest of the story: *Here at TVPredicitions.com*


This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Per DBSTalk rules: No discussion of "politics"...

Since this particular "topic" is about the government involvement in the issue... I will allow a relaxation of the rule..

To address if the government should be involved, or not.
But no "party" or affiliation discussion....


----------



## paulman182

Of course it is "unfair."

But why should it be illegal?


----------



## FTA Michael

Paulman said what I was going to say, but in fewer words. I'd hate to see EI leave Dish and even cable, but I don't think it's worthy of governmental involvement.


----------



## pdxsam

While I agree with your sentiment, think about this for a second. What if Viacom and DirecTv come up with an exclusive arrangement for their slate of channels. Spike, Comedy Central the Nick channels are now packaged as a DTV only package. 

Would you think differently? While I'm not trying to start a flame war and not trying to completely compare EI with a Viacom package, I think it's worth noting that it's an awfully bad precedent. Consider that EI was on all services and now being taken away.

It could happen with more mainstream channels in the future. Where you do draw the line of where government should step in?


----------



## bonscott87

Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


Kinda like Specter doing the same thing a couple months ago crying about the NFL. :hurah:

I'm so glad our elected representatives have nothing better to do then worry about football and baseball. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## oenophile

IMHO - The really bad thing here would not be if D* had exclusive MLB content. It would be if another cable or satellite company had exclusive MLB content. Right now, a sports fan can pretty much get everything wanted from D* (NFL, NBA, MLB, Fox Sports, ESPN packages, etc. etc.). It would be a disaster if it lost coverage of something major, like MLB. I, for one, would have to seriously consider getting two dishes, or D* and cable, etc. At least if someone's going to get exclusive content, let it all be with D*. (See what a pain it is if you care about XM/Sirius content.) And, if you don't like sports (or MLB) content (and are a current D* subscriber), you should still be pretty happy about D* getting an exclusive on MLB. The NFL package is the primary reason why D* is still in business (directly and indirectly)....for those of you who like the rest of D*, you should be happy that it is getting other exclusive content, even if you don't use it.... 

If you are a sports fan (enough to care about Extra Innings), and you don't already have D*.....hmmm.....I'd think about getting it.


----------



## jodavis

pdxsam said:


> While I agree with your sentiment, think about this for a second. What if Viacom and DirecTv come up with an exclusive arrangement for their slate of channels. Spike, Comedy Central the Nick channels are now packaged as a DTV only package.
> 
> Would you think differently? While I'm not trying to start a flame war and not trying to completely compare EI with a Viacom package, I think it's worth noting that it's an awfully bad precedent. Consider that EI was on all services and now being taken away.
> 
> It could happen with more mainstream channels in the future. Where you do draw the line of where government should step in?


I think the government should NEVER step in. If one company gets control of the main stream channels then more channels will come up. There is nothing that prevents another company from starting channels with the same content. This is just the cable companys whining because they arent willing to spend the money to compete with D* in the sports area. D* is willing to spend the money because they know that being the one stop sports shop is getting them more subscriber fees that it is costing them.


----------



## GreatPig

MLB owns the rights to their games and should be able to handle disemination and distribution of all aspects as they see fit. 

The only reason I have D* is for the NFL. If D* believes it to be in their best interest (financially) to have an exclusive agreement, then it's their money. If I don't like it, I won't buy it.

Of course, MLB's antitrust exemption opens them up to more Congressional scrutiny that they otherwise would have.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


And when the Republicans were in power they did any better? :grin:

Fact: Kerry is a baseball fan, a Red Sox fan I believe. How successful he is with MLB remains to be seen. As it has been said so many times before, money talks BS walks. If D* ponies up the big money to get MLB, I doubt he'll be able to do anything about it.

MLB has the strictest controls over their markets. Far more than the NBA or NFL. Example: I live in Southern California. In my area, I get the Padres. But they are exclusively on a cable station owned by Cox and they have NO plans to offer the channel on D*. I can't watch them at all on D* unless they're on Fox. ESPN has had their Sunday games but I can't watch them if the local cable channel is showing them. I can't watch Dodger or Angel games because our area is a Padre Market.

I have had the MLB package and I could get Angel or Dodger games. But it sucks IMHO. There could be a day when there are 15 games on and with the MLB package you'll get 1. I dumped it after that.


----------



## oldschoolecw

It’s funny when Kerry gets off topic of the real issues that are more important. I hope he swallows his foot this time.


----------



## raven56706

oh man... what is the big freaking deal....

If directv is willing to pay the price for it, whats the problem?

Kerry needs to go home, have some ketchup, and shut the #$%# up


----------



## lwilli201

oldschoolecw said:


> It's funny when Kerry gets off topic of the real issues that are more important. I hope he swallows his foot this time.


Don't you mean AGAIN. :lol:

The Dems don't want to do anything wrong before the next prez election, therefore they probablywill not do anything.


----------



## oldschoolecw

lwilli201 said:


> Don't you mean AGAIN. :lol:
> 
> The Dems don't want to do anything wrong before the next prez election, therefore they probablywill not do anything.


If it was again we would not have to ever hear from him again, because he would have choked on it.


----------



## Mixer

Un freaking real. Governemen should have no business getting in between a business deal between two companies. What will happen next. Will they force say EA sports to make their games for all consoles even if they have an exclusinve deal with one of the console makers.

Makes me sick.



Earl Bonovich said:


> *Sen. Kerry to Fight DIRECTV 'Extra Innings'*
> 
> Read the rest of the story: *Here at TVPredicitions.com*


----------



## Greg Bimson

Like this hasn't happened before, and from the other party.

From the article *Sen. Specter Rips NFL On TV* also at TVPredictions.com:


> Specter finished the hearing by suggesting the NFL should be willing to accept less money to ensure that more people can watch their games. However, he did not say he would introduce legislation to make that law.


----------



## adkcek

When Directv gets control of all of the sports what incentive will they have to keep your rates down. I only subscribe to Center Ice but without competition you will not like the prices in the future. You might notice how the Sunday Ticket has a large price jump every season because of the monoply they have on it.


----------



## n3ntj

To me, it doesn't matter if D* is the only carrier of IE. I have D* and subscribe to IE.

I think the MLB blackout rules are totally moronic! The blackout rules for Center Ice make more sense and are much more consumer AND FAN friendly!

BTW..Was John Kerry for it, before he was against it?


----------



## SWTESTER

oenophile said:


> ....
> 
> If you are a sports fan (enough to care about Extra Innings), and you don't already have D*.....hmmm.....I'd think about getting it.


 
Not if:
1. You JUST CARE about baseball.
2. You JUST switched to DISH from cable.
3. You hate Murdoch and will NOT give him a cent of your money.
4. D*'s HD-DVR is a JOKE. -even compared to Motorola's...

D* is just using Sports to keep down their sub loses down due to their flaky DVR's. I hope DISH gets HD RSN's at least.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Greg Bimson said:


> Like this hasn't happened before, and from the other party.
> 
> From the article *Sen. Specter Rips NFL On TV* also at TVPredictions.com:


HEH! Good find! :lol:


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

n3ntj said:


> BTW..Was John Kerry for it, before he was against it?


Better question: will it be a "catastrophic success" if Kerry wins this battle? Or will it end up being "not the battle we wanted, but the fight we're in"? :lol:


----------



## SWTESTER

adkcek said:


> When Directv gets control of all of the sports what incentive will they have to keep your rates down. I only subscribe to Center Ice but without competition you will not like the prices in the future. You might notice how the Sunday Ticket has a large price jump every season because of the monoply they have on it.


Exactly. Probably everybody at D* will also pay for the Directv Sports monopoly. The ads will be *DirecTV-The National Sports Ticket System* or perhaps *Sports, you're hooked, right? Directv is for you.*. I don't think this is good for anybody but DirecTV and the sports leagues.


----------



## jpl

I have to concur with many on here - this is goofy in the extreme. I think there's a tendency in this country to prevent bad practice through force of law. Just because something isn't in the best interest of one party doesn't mean, in my opinion, that that practice should be prevented by force of law. I get into these arguments all the time when debating folks on government intervention. I actually had someone tell me, after I decried the Americans with Disability Act, that I was in favor of discriminating against the disabled. I said no such thing. And I cheer when companies make those types of accomodations. But VOLUNTARILY making accomodation isn't the same thing as being forced to by the government. Yes, I think it's good when a company (again, this is an analogy - not trying to pick a fight on a particular policy) makes those accomodations - but I think it's horrible when the government forces a company to do it.

This is one of those cases. The ONLY case that can be made for this is the fact that major league baseball is, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, a protected monopoly. Because they get that protection, the case CAN be made that the government can push this kind of legislation. Personally, they should just deregulate the whole stinking thing, and let competition come to play. Still, it sticks in my craw when members of Congress (from both parties - this isn't a partisan slam) just ignore certain parts of the Consititution - you know, like that whole free association nonsense. As long as DirecTV isn't doing something to take away another person's rights, I really don't see how it's Washington's business who they do business with, and in what manner.


----------



## Geronimo

oldpianos said:


> Good to see the Senator is concerned about the really important matters. You know, instead of worrying about that pesky war on terrorism in Iraq, or Health care, or social security, or...


Well as important as those issues are I don't know why he would talk to the FCC chairman about them. I am not sure how he intends to introduce this or what the chairman will say. I guess I will see.

saying that this issue is not important is one thing but saying that he should be pursuing other things---AT THIS SUBCOMMITEE HEARING soes not seem reasonable to me.


----------



## hankmack

Link to Kerrys opening remarks:
http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php


----------



## agreer

paulman182 said:


> Of course it is "unfair."
> 
> But why should it be illegal?


They are exempt from many anti-competition laws - when it comes to the sport of baseball, they are the only game in town with no possible competition. The local farm teams are all controlled by MLB and so on. With, for example, football,. there are many small-time semi-pro leagues not in any way affiliated with the NFL that play in smaller markets.

their product is a sort of national tradition and locking it into one company can really hurt the fans who cannot get satellite because of condo restrictions, point of view or obstruction but until now get the product via cable.

The MLB, because of their position has to tread some interesting waters with exclosive deals like this, but, IMHO, if they can make it XM only then the D* deal is as good as done.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

Once DirecTV gets all exclusive sports rights, a glooming monoply will happen. They should have allowed competition.


----------



## purtman

lwilli201 said:


> Don't you mean AGAIN. :lol:
> 
> The Dems don't want to do anything wrong before the next prez election, therefore they probablywill not do anything.


Glad to see we stayed off of the politics as it said above.

Lots of people are acting like this was Kerry's legislation that he is pushing through. He was speaking about the state of communications today -- namely broadband access, emergency 911 setups, and then added the baseball part of things. Can we get back to the real part of of the whole D*-MLB deal? I have D* and EI so I don't worry about this. But A LOT of people are complaining and politicians get elected to serve the people (even though many times they end up serving corporations)


----------



## dogface

Kerry must be a cable subscriber. Don't tell him about Sunday Ticket, he'll really flip his lid.


----------



## Steve Mehs

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Once DirecTV gets all exclusive sports rights, a glooming monoply will happen. They should have allowed competition.


Whatever. This is not a new idea.

Like I said before, I am completely baffled on how many people are complaining about this and think it's 'unfair'. Once upon a time DirecTV had exclusive US rights for all sports packages. NFL Sunday Ticket, NHL Center Ice, NBA League Pass, MLB Extra Innings, WNBA Season Pass and Mega March Madness were all DirecTV exclusives at one point. No one cried back then, what difference is it now.


----------



## purtman

Steve Mehs said:


> Whatever. This is not a new idea.
> 
> Like I said before, I am completely baffled on how many people are complaining about this and think it's 'unfair'. Once upon a time DirecTV had exclusive US rights for all sports packages. NFL Sunday Ticket, NHL Center Ice, NBA League Pass, MLB Extra Innings, WNBA Season Pass and Mega March Madness were all DirecTV exclusives at one point. No one cried back then, what difference is it now.


I am just guessing, but I think it's because subs of other TV providers were able to get a taste of it. One reason I did choose D* was because it has EI. I had Dish before, but without being able to see the Yankees, I didn't go back to it.


----------



## agreer

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> They should have allowed competition.


 Competition to a major and well established legue is hard, example: the XFL tried to play in the NFLs yard and failed miserably.


----------



## agreer

Steve Mehs said:


> Whatever. This is not a new idea.
> 
> Like I said before, I am completely baffled on how many people are complaining about this and think it's 'unfair'. Once upon a time DirecTV had exclusive US rights for all sports packages. NFL Sunday Ticket, NHL Center Ice, NBA League Pass, MLB Extra Innings, WNBA Season Pass and Mega March Madness were all DirecTV exclusives at one point. No one cried back then, what difference is it now.


If memory serves me correctly, which it sometimes doesn't, I think EI and Sunday Ticket were available on C-band a few years before Directv came to exist- ST remained on C-Band till like 2-years ago when the NFL nixed that for a total D* lock...

Also, the minute digital cable started rolling out, we could get EI, NBA, NHL and British Premier and lately MLS PPV packs and that was like 1998.

Mega March Madness (or its equivalent) was broadcast free-to-air for 2 years on WISH-DT (and others I assume) using 4 SD sub channels...


----------



## Jon D

bonscott87 said:


> Kinda like Specter doing the same thing a couple months ago crying about the NFL. :hurah:
> 
> I'm so glad our elected representatives have nothing better to do then worry about football and baseball. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


I agree. And he should be held to task for that as well. Specter probably has comcast. :lol:

Sunday Ticket and/or Extra Innings does not constitute ALL coverage and therefore should not violate any anti-trust or monopoly laws. It simply annoys people that don't like anything the government doesn't have control over.


----------



## Jon D

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Once DirecTV gets all exclusive sports rights, a glooming monoply will happen. They should have allowed competition.


You mean like the already available broadcasts of NFL games on local broadcast networks? DirecTV has a monopoly on nothing. Only an agreement that allows them to rebroadcast the NFL's product.

If we did as you suggest, every channel would have to be able to broadcast every show produced. That is what would kill competition.


----------



## Jon D

SWTESTER said:


> Not if:
> 1. You JUST CARE about baseball.
> 2. You JUST switched to DISH from cable.
> 3. You hate Murdoch and will NOT give him a cent of your money.
> 4. D*'s HD-DVR is a JOKE. -even compared to Motorola's...
> 
> D* is just using Sports to keep down their sub loses down due to their flaky DVR's. I hope DISH gets HD RSN's at least.


Wow. What is there to say? Grow up is all I can think of. :eek2: That whole post was nothing but ignorant hate speech. My goodness.


----------



## SNAP

*AND TAXED*



Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


----------



## iceman2a

This is different than the NFL or any other sports pkg!
Because MLB has an "anti-trust" exemption, granted by congress, they are subject to scrutiny by congress on just about anything it does!
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is!


----------



## Kash76

Kerry is a tool.


----------



## n3ntj

SWTESTER said:


> Exactly. Probably everybody at D* will also pay for the Directv Sports monopoly. The ads will be *DirecTV-The National Sports Ticket System* or perhaps *Sports, you're hooked, right? Directv is for you.*. I don't think this is good for anybody but DirecTV and the sports leagues.


Yeah, I thought competition was supposed to be good for the consumer.


----------



## cebbigh

Antitrust exemption is a big thing for baseball. They want to make exclusive deals like this, fine. Just give up the exemption. Otherwise be expected to have legislative reaction to deals that are not in the best interests of the majority.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

Kash76 said:


> Kerry is a tool.


Bush is a shrub. :lol:


----------



## Lord Vader

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Bush is a shrub. :lol:


And Molly Ivins is dead.


----------



## purtman

cebbigh said:


> Antitrust exemption is a big thing for baseball. They want to make exclusive deals like this, fine. Just give up the exemption. Otherwise be expected to have legislative reaction to deals that are not in the best interests of the majority.


Very, very true.


----------



## Hound

purtman said:


> Very, very true.


Unless the antitrust exemption is repealed, baseball can do whatever it wants
with deals like an exclusive with Directv. Kerry cannot do anything except hold
hearings and complain. A repeal of the antitrust exemption would have to
pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the President.


----------



## Lord Vader

And Bush is NOT going to even consider a repeal of the exemption. No how, no way.

This is nothing more than a bunch of bloviating by a has-been of a politician who wants to keep his otherwise useless name in the public eye.


----------



## snickerrrrs

I hear the Democrats were involved in the design of the R15.


----------



## Kash76

snickerrrrs said:


> I hear the Democrats were involved in the design of the R15.


I like that one!


----------



## TheKnobber

jpl said:


> I have to concur with many on here - this is goofy in the extreme. I think there's a tendency in this country to prevent bad practice through force of law. Just because something isn't in the best interest of one party doesn't mean, in my opinion, that that practice should be prevented by force of law. I get into these arguments all the time when debating folks on government intervention. I actually had someone tell me, after I decried the Americans with Disability Act, that I was in favor of discriminating against the disabled. I said no such thing. And I cheer when companies make those types of accomodations. But VOLUNTARILY making accomodation isn't the same thing as being forced to by the government. Yes, I think it's good when a company (again, this is an analogy - not trying to pick a fight on a particular policy) makes those accomodations - but I think it's horrible when the government forces a company to do it.
> 
> This is one of those cases. The ONLY case that can be made for this is the fact that major league baseball is, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, a protected monopoly. Because they get that protection, the case CAN be made that the government can push this kind of legislation. Personally, they should just deregulate the whole stinking thing, and let competition come to play. Still, it sticks in my craw when members of Congress (from both parties - this isn't a partisan slam) just ignore certain parts of the Consititution - you know, like that whole free association nonsense. As long as DirecTV isn't doing something to take away another person's rights, I really don't see how it's Washington's business who they do business with, and in what manner.


Your argument makes no sense. You both argue for and against the same issue in the same comment! Either Monopolies are bad and you are against DirectTV owning the rights to broadcast all the sports and deny others this right, or Monopolies are good and you will love the fact that DirectTV can charge you whatever they can since they are the only source for the sports you want to watch? You can't have it both ways.

I personally have always favored the free market approach. That is why we have anti monopolistic laws in this country. It doesn't matter if you are a republican, democrat, or scientologist. If one company gains exclusive control over a resource, you will get gouged on price.


----------



## Buzz112

jodavis said:


> I think the government should NEVER step in.


I recently watched a special on the life and theories Prof. Milton Friedman, Nobel economist from the University of Chicago. In a nutshell, he said that every time government gets involved they suppress the natural market forces and make things worse, not better. A lesson that applies not only to health care, but to TV programing as well. If you are interested, PBS is re-broadcasting the special this week end. Check your local listings or go to http://www.freetochoosemedia.org/production/POC/docs/poc_broadcast_info.pdf


----------



## Geronimo

snickerrrrs said:


> I hear the Democrats were involved in the design of the R15.


I had not heard that. But it took Rupert Murdoch to try to sell it to someone.


----------



## JMCecil

TheKnobber said:


> Your argument makes no sense. You both argue for and against the same issue in the same comment! Either Monopolies are bad and you are against DirectTV owning the rights to broadcast all the sports and deny others this right, or Monopolies are good and you will love the fact that DirectTV can charge you whatever they can since they are the only source for the sports you want to watch? You can't have it both ways.
> 
> I personally have always favored the free market approach. That is why we have anti monopolistic laws in this country. It doesn't matter if you are a republican, democrat, or scientologist. If one company gains exclusive control over a resource, you will get gouged on price.


A true "free market" allows for the existance of monopolies.

However, DirecTV is not a monopoly on any of these sports. Even if they get the EI package, it is but a small subset of baseball viewership. It doesn't preclude local broadcast, network deals (TBS, WGN, etc..). So, it doesn't create a monopoly in any way shape or form. It only creates a nitch package...bundling.

The NFLST is exactly the same. There are many, many, many games broadcast outside the ST program.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice to have all packages available on all media. But that possibility is rediculously untenable. So, the sports leagues go after bundle dollars on the side.

Quit the "monopoly this monopoly that" arguments. They don't apply. It might be termed unfair marketing tactics. But even that is a far stretch. This is mostly political sabre rattling of the dumbest kind.


----------



## Lord Vader

A monopoly would, indeed, mean DirecTV and _no one else _ broadcasts *ALL * MLB games. Since this isn't happening, there is no monopoly.


----------



## shippert

Mixer said:


> Governemen should have no business getting in between a business deal between two companies.


Of course, "government" is already intimately involved with both the business of satellite TV and of Major League Baseball. From regulating distant locals to licensing satellite spots and frequencies, to the anti-trust exemption and public funding for sports facilities, neither industry could function as they currently do without a great deal of involvement from the government.

Thus, if the government decides that the actions of these companies are unfriendly to the consumer, it really does have some justification for either addressing that behavior legally or withdrawing the various subsidies it provides, if it so chooses.


----------



## bluedogok

Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


This is what ALL politicians do........they are nothing more than tools of the corporations that own them.



agreer said:


> They are exempt from many anti-competition laws - when it comes to the sport of baseball, they are the only game in town with no possible competition. The local farm teams are all controlled by MLB and so on. With, for example, football,. there are many small-time semi-pro leagues not in any way affiliated with the NFL that play in smaller markets.


There are many independent leagues out there with no ties to the MLB.



iceman2a said:


> This is different than the NFL or any other sports pkg!
> Because MLB has an "anti-trust" exemption, granted by congress, they are subject to scrutiny by congress on just about anything it does!
> I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is!


Because this only afects out-of-market broadcasts, there is nothing in conflict with the anti-trust exemption. Now if ALL game broadcasts were restricted to EI, then there would be a case but since all of the teams have local broadcasting agreements outside of EI and are subjct to the terms and conditions of the local team, how can that be in violation? The teams control their in-market contracts, not the MLB so it is different than the NFL where the league controls the TV rights.


----------



## WolfClan Dan

I take it John Kerry is a either a cable subscriber, or a recipeint of funds from a cable company.

Its a free market. Sheesh.


----------



## dodge boy

Jon D said:


> This is what ********* do. They just can't help themselves. Until ******** get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


Just standing up for free markets! Do you like the price of NFLST?


----------



## n3ntj

WolfClan Dan said:


> I take it John Kerry is a either a cable subscriber, or a recipeint of funds from a cable company.
> 
> Its a free market. Sheesh.


Well, he's obviously a Red Sox fan, but being in DC most of the time, he can only see their games from the CI package he probably has on cable on DC. ...time to switch to D*, Mr. 'Voted For It before I Voted Against It"..


----------



## dodge boy

Government is actually the business of the people (or should be) and looking out for the millions of viewers is far better than the profits of a few companies. I think George W. actually was behind the R15 because it, much like is presidency is unreliable although I support the R15 and can see a usefullness to it.


----------



## Guest

Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


Arlen Spector, who went on record recently against the exclusive NFLST deal with DirecTV, is a Republican. Republicans like to watch sports just as much as Democrats do.


----------



## Guest

n3ntj said:


> Well, he's obviously a Red Sox fan, but being in DC most of the time, he can only see their games from the CI package he probably has on cable on DC.


He could always use a Slingbox to watch the games when he's in DC.


----------



## WolfClan Dan

I still do not understand how EI is any different from Sunday Ticket. DTV made the highest bid, and won the contract. What is preventing Dish, XYZ Cable Co., etc from bidding higher?


----------



## WolfClan Dan

adkcek said:


> When Directv gets control of all of the sports what incentive will they have to keep your rates down. I only subscribe to Center Ice but without competition you will not like the prices in the future. You might notice how the Sunday Ticket has a large price jump every season because of the monoply they have on it.


Its my understanding the NFL, not directv, sets the price for sunday ticket.


----------



## Guest

WolfClan Dan said:


> Its my understanding the NFL, not directv, sets the price for sunday ticket.


Not true. DirecTV pays $700 million per year under the contract they negotiated with the NFL. It is entirely up to DirecTV to decide how much to charge subscribers. The NFL really doesn't have any reason to care, since they get a flat $700 million.

DirecTV paid a ton of money to keep NFLST exclusive. To recoup as much of that cost as possible, they have been raising the price every year.


----------



## shippert

WolfClan Dan said:


> I still do not understand how EI is any different from Sunday Ticket.


Speaking of which, I remember something in the early years of the Sunday Ticket deal that required DirecTV to make it available in its own package, so people could subscribe without having to get any other D* programming.

Is this still (or was it ever) the case for Sunday Ticket? And if EI goes exclusive, might the same terms apply? I'd be a lot more likely get EI from D* if I didn't have to switch over completely.


----------



## dodge boy

shippert said:


> Speaking of which, I remember something in the early years of the Sunday Ticket deal that required DirecTV to make it available in its own package, so people could subscribe without having to get any other D* programming.
> 
> Is this still (or was it ever) the case for Sunday Ticket? And if EI goes exclusive, might the same terms apply? I'd be a lot more likely get EI from D* if I didn't have to switch over completely.


You have to suscribe to a package to get NFLST unless you had it Ala Carte in 2005 or maybe 2004 and kept it Ala Carte through 2006. My buddy gets it Ala Carte, I can not hence one of my reasons for dropping it.


----------



## agreer

WolfClan Dan said:


> I take it John Kerry is a either a cable subscriber, or a recipeint of funds from a cable company.
> 
> Its a free market. Sheesh.


Or he realizes that the only protected monopoly is about to abuse its position by eliminating access to its product to those who cant get a dish... not only due to line of sight, condo boards and the like, but what about people in assisted living facilities, complexes that are cable-only due to sheer logistics and/or historic reasons(imagine the thought of say, 50 D* AT9 dishes on the capitol office building for example), people in offices with cable and not able to set up a satellite and so on.

Because anyone can attempt to compete with NFL, the NFL is free to restrict their product to one service provider, but Baseball cant because they are the sport, you CAN NOT compete!

also, with D* you have to subscribe to a "expanded basic" type of pack like total choice to get it, which is bundling: Cable allows you to get it with just the locals and the required unscrambling/digital tuning equipment.


----------



## JMCecil

agreer said:


> Or he realizes that the only protected monopoly is about to abuse its position by eliminating access to its product to those who cant get a dish... not only due to line of sight, condo boards and the like, but what about people in assisted living facilities, complexes that are cable-only due to sheer logistics and/or historic reasons(imagine the thought of say, 50 D* AT9 dishes on the capitol office building for example), people in offices with cable and not able to set up a satellite and so on.
> 
> Because anyone can attempt to compete with NFL, the NFL is free to restrict their product to one service provider, but Baseball cant because they are the sport, you CAN NOT compete!
> 
> also, with D* you have to subscribe to a "expanded basic" type of pack like total choice to get it, which is bundling: Cable allows you to get it with just the locals and the required unscrambling/digital tuning equipment.


But they are not doing any of the things you are talking about. EI and ST and CI and FCB are all out of market nitch add-ons. They don't restrict ANYONE from viewing the sport in question in any way.

I couldn't possibly care less about baseball but I do subscribe to ST. It is the ONLY reason I have D*. But, I don't cry because it isn't available on another provider. There is nothing "unfair" about exclusive packaging. It's done in every type of marketing known to mankind.

If you think baseball has less chance of competition than football you are nuts. A minimum of three major $$$$$$$ leagues have tried and failed to compete. The only viable television audience for football is the NFL and the NCAA. Anything else will show up as .000000000000000000001 on the Neilson. Baseball, on the other hand, already shows up as .0000000000000001 on the Neilson except at playoff time.


----------



## purtman

JMCecil said:


> Baseball, on the other hand, already shows up as .0000000000000001 on the Neilson except at playoff time.


Try again. Baseball doesn't have "great" ratings during the regular season. However, it still gets decent ratings.


----------



## Lord Vader

Anyone who attempts to compare baseball to football--TV coverage/ratings or otherwise--is simply ignorant of the innate differences between the sports. Baseball plays 7 days a week for 6 months of the year. Football does not. Baseball consists of a 162-game season. Football 16. Baseball does not have a clock that limits its game lengths. Football does.

If the NFL played its games every day of the week--and it's slowly creeping that way with the Saturday games, the Thursday games, some Friday games, and the still omnipresent Monday Night Football--its ratings would drop. It's called oversaturation. However, that doesn't mean it's less popular, just as baseball isn't.

I love *both *sports, but to me, Baseball is THE great American pastime, unique in its appeal.


----------



## goatghost

Jon D said:


> This is what Democrats do. They just can't help themselves. Until Republicans get back in power expect everything that is deemed unfair by the fairness police to be attacked.


Nah. It's all about corporate greed and screwing the little guy.

Republicans believe companies should be allowed to bend people over without any repercussions.

BTW, regulation is not the sole domain of Democrats. Don't forget, the Bush White House is in charge of the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Transportation and Safety Board, etc...all agencies tasked with protecting the public.

In any case, I don't see how allowing Major League Baseball (which is a government-sanctioned monopoly) to limit people's choice helps consumers.


----------



## JMCecil

Lord Vader said:


> Anyone who attempts to compare baseball to football--TV coverage/ratings or otherwise--is simply ignorant of the innate differences between the sports. Baseball plays 7 days a week for 6 months of the year. Football does not. Baseball consists of a 162-game season. Football 16. Baseball does not have a clock that limits its game lengths. Football does.
> 
> If the NFL played its games every day of the week--and it's slowly creeping that way with the Saturday games, the Thursday games, some Friday games, and the still omnipresent Monday Night Football--its ratings would drop. It's called oversaturation. However, that doesn't mean it's less popular, just as baseball isn't.
> 
> I love *both *sports, but to me, Baseball is THE great American pastime, unique in its appeal.


I wasn't denigrating baseball even though I don't care for it. The point is that a rival for football has ZERO chance. A rival for baseball is also not viable even should the anti-trust regulations go away. The national TV market for 2nd tier football/baseball is pretty much nill. The NCAA for the foreseeable future is the only competition. In reality it's not even seen as a competition as much as a partner anymore.

I was trying to separate the supposed anti-trust exemption that baseball has from this discussion. It has nothing to do with it. Baseball has a large number of games that capture extremely small national audiences. There are exceptions of course. Basketball and Hockey have more in common than football from a packaging standpoint. But, the real issue is nothing but cross market/out of market distribution.

In reality the YES network, for example, is closer to violating the fair access rules than any of the season passes.

It's always strange to me when our culture makes the huge leap from "It's not easy for me to ............" "therefore it is illegal/immoral".

Do I like the price of ST? No. I don't like the price of a Mercedes Benz either. Even if there is an insane markup on both products the market will determine the level of profit for the items. Many products are distributed through proprietary means to stop price wars.

Again, I'm all for it if the services somehow end up on all distribution networks. However, I don't see the illegality or immorality involved while it isn't.


----------



## agreer

Wanna revitalize baseball? do a 4-game pre-season, 75 game regular season and start the playoffs in late Aug or early Sept. and set a ~25-30 games/wk maximum...Baseball is uninteresting to me because it is just too long and requiers too much time, following one team is easy, but following 2-5 as I do in other sports is imposibly difficult, thus I just ignore baseball...

make the product more valuable by limiting the quantity!


----------



## Geronimo

Lord Vader said:


> A monopoly would, indeed, mean DirecTV and _no one else _ broadcasts *ALL * MLB games. Since this isn't happening, there is no monopoly.


No one calimed that they have that. DirecTV would have a monoploly on presenting out of market hgames that are part of this package. Saying anything else is twisting words.


----------



## agreer

JMCecil said:


> I wasn't denigrating baseball even though I don't care for it. The point is that a rival for football has ZERO chance. A rival for baseball is also not viable even should the anti-trust regulations go away. The national TV market for 2nd tier football/baseball is pretty much nill. The NCAA for the foreseeable future is the only competition. In reality it's not even seen as a competition as much as a partner anymore.
> 
> I was trying to separate the supposed anti-trust exemption that baseball has from this discussion. It has nothing to do with it. Baseball has a large number of games that capture extremely small national audiences. There are exceptions of course. Basketball and Hockey have more in common than football from a packaging standpoint. But, the real issue is nothing but cross market/out of market distribution.
> 
> In reality the YES network, for example, is closer to violating the fair access rules than any of the season passes.
> 
> It's always strange to me when our culture makes the huge leap from "It's not easy for me to ............" "therefore it is illegal/immoral".
> 
> Do I like the price of ST? No. I don't like the price of a Mercedes Benz either. Even if there is an insane markup on both products the market will determine the level of profit for the items. Many products are distributed through proprietary means to stop price wars.
> 
> Again, I'm all for it if the services somehow end up on all distribution networks. However, I don't see the illegality or immorality involved while it isn't.


I honestly think that the NCAA should no longer be tax-exempt and should be treated just like any other pro sports brand: the NCAA is nothing more than a school sanctioned NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA/WNBA farm league that they can call a "booster program" and a "good thing" because it gives poorer athletes who otherwise could not attend college because of a combination of finances and poor academics free rides when there are a good number of smart people who are sooooo much more deserving of the higher learning than these apes who just slide anyhow so the football team can sell more tickets...

back to topic:

All I was trying to say is that the circumstances may be diferant, baseball MAY be in some trouble here because of their status...trouble and congressional pressures that cant come to bear on the NFL.


----------



## Geronimo

agreer said:


> Wanna revitalize baseball? do a 4-game pre-season, 75 game regular season and start the playoffs in late Aug or early Sept. and set a ~25-30 games/wk maximum...Baseball is uninteresting to me because it is just too long and requiers too much time, following one team is easy, but following 2-5 as I do in other sports is imposibly difficult, thus I just ignore baseball...
> 
> make the product more valuable by limiting the quantity!


baseball revolves areound trafition and its pennant races are meant to be marathons. A four game preseason would be worthless you would not even be able to give all the pitchers work. A 75 game season is too short for this game---though cutting basketball and hockey to that might make sense.


----------



## Lord Vader

Geronimo said:


> No one calimed that they have that.


Actually, several in this thread have either said just that or strongly implied it.


----------



## NFLnut

Kerry is an idiot! He should also propose a Bill which outlaws season tickets at the ballparks. I mean, it's totally unfair that only those who have enough disposable income to be able to afford to buy season tickets at the ballparks are keeping all of those who CAN'T afford to buy season tickets from going to the games! :nono2: 

Typical Liberal nonsense!


----------



## WolfClan Dan

NFLnut said:


> Kerry is an idiot! He should also propose a Bill which outlaws season tickets at the ballparks. I mean, it's totally unfair that only those who have enough disposable income to be able to afford to buy season tickets at the ballparks are keeping all of those who CAN'T afford to buy season tickets from going to the games! :nono2:
> 
> Typical Liberal nonsense!


wrong. typical politician nonsense. this is not unique to any damn party!


----------



## harsh

oenophile said:


> Right now, a sports fan can pretty much get everything wanted from D* (NFL, NBA, MLB, Fox Sports, ESPN packages, etc. etc.).


There are notable exceptions; tennis being the least obscure.


----------



## agreer

harsh said:


> There are notable exceptions; tennis being the least obscure.


Thats a spectator sport?


----------



## JMCecil

harsh said:


> There are notable exceptions; tennis being the least obscure.


This is not a knock against tennis or any other sport. This is simply an economics of scale issue. Enough people will buy out of market packages for the major sports to justify the expense. Tennis can barely get people to watch the finals of the majors let alone the rest of the tour events and the matches leading up to the finals. If there was a market there there would be a package in the works.


----------



## FTA Michael

Also, there aren't a dozen simultaneous "regular season" tennis tournaments every week for four months. There's one big tournament, so there's no need for an out-of-market pay-TV package.


----------



## Greg Bimson

We keep going around on this point...


Geronimo said:


> DirecTV would have a monoploly on presenting out of market hgames that are part of this package.


No, DirecTV would have an "exclusive", not a monopoly. The statement made by Geronimo is akin to saying that CBS had a monopoly on Super Bowl 41, that NBC has a Sunday Night Football monopoly and that ESPN's Monday Night Football is a monopoly. None of these are monopolies. All of these were or are decisions by the league for distributing rights to a broadcasting partner.


NFLnut said:


> Kerry is an idiot!


I pointed this out in an earlier post in this thread:

Like this hasn't happened before, and from the other party.

From the article *Sen. Specter Rips NFL On TV* also at TVPredictions.com:


> Specter finished the hearing by suggesting the NFL should be willing to accept less money to ensure that more people can watch their games. However, he did not say he would introduce legislation to make that law.


Arlen Specter, one of the ranking Republicans in the Senate, said the NFL should be willing to take less money, complain about exclusive deals, and then say he'll do nothing.

Kerry is also grandstanding. It is a politics thing.


----------



## tampa8

Greg Bimson said:


> Like this hasn't happened before, and from the other party.
> 
> From the article *Sen. Specter Rips NFL On TV* also at TVPredictions.com:Arlen Specter, one of the ranking Republicans in the Senate, said the NFL should be willing to take less money, complain about exclusive deals, and then say he'll do nothing.
> 
> Kerry is also grandstanding. It is a politics thing.


I couldn't agree more - both sides do this.


----------



## BobMurdoch

ANY monopoly should be prohibited. If they expect taxpayers to pony up for their stadiums to stay in an area, then they should have the responsibility to make it available to any multichannel provider who wants it AT THE SAMEPRICE as the other guys so any consumer who wants it can get it without having to incur hundreds or thousands of dollars to switch providers.. (ie. don't say it's available, but then charge double what the other guy pays).


----------



## Lord Vader

Don't generalize. It is foolish to say "ANY" monopoly should be prohibited when _some _ monopolies are beneficial, even necessary.


----------



## BobMurdoch

As for Greg's assertion that the Super Bowl wasn't a monopoly, I disagree.... There is a free mechanism available called OTA for any that want to view the content. If you are far away, then it is likely that all or most of the affiliates are available via local channels from cable/satellite or a distant network waiver.

A distribution monopoly revolves around the fact that a distributor creates a monopoly where ONLY he can deliver critical content. IF they want to go this route than they should be forced to accept government regulation of their pricing like any other monopoly (the electric company, the gas company, the phone company, etc.). Once again, I believe special rules apply since major league sports expect government help to finance their large capital projects. If you accept public money, then you have a responsibility to the public greater than any 
"normal" commercial enterprise.

I'm a commercial flooring dealer. If Armstrong decided that they liked me so much that I would be the only one who could sell linoleum in NJ, we would be slapped with an antitrust lawsuit so fast it would make my head spin. Auto dealerships have geographic areas set up by the automakers, BUT you can always travel somewhere farther away to get a better deal if you want.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Lord Vader said:


> Don't generalize. It is foolish to say "ANY" monopoly should be prohibited when _some _ monopolies are beneficial, even necessary.


Fair enough, but they need to be regulated to prevent abuses. Just look at Enron and what they did to California once they had a monopoly in place that was unregulated...


----------



## Greg Bimson

BobMurdoch said:


> ANY monopoly should be prohibited. If they expect taxpayers to pony up for their stadiums to stay in an area, then they should have the responsibility to make it available to any multichannel provider who wants it AT THE SAMEPRICE as the other guys so any consumer who wants it can get it without having to incur hundreds or thousands of dollars to switch providers.. (ie. don't say it's available, but then charge double what the other guy pays).


I'll assume that the statement, "ANY monopoly should be prohibited," should also be amended to include, "or regulated". Most local phone and utilities are monopolies, but should not be prohibited.

And now we get into the discussion of television rights. For a "local" baseball team, those rights are sold to just about anyone. However, for the Los Angeles Dodgers to be available nationwide, Major League Baseball holds the national rights, not the local team.

The Extra Innings package was available to all multichannel providers last year. Major League Baseball made $60 million off of the package. Going exclusive, Major League Baseball will make $100 million from DirecTV. Are you asking that In Demand now pony up the same deal as DirecTV to keep the rights? Or are you asking that Major League Baseball no longer have the ability to sell an exclusive package?


----------



## Greg Bimson

BobMurdoch said:


> As for Greg's assertion that the Super Bowl wasn't a monopoly, I disagree.... There is a free mechanism available called OTA for any that want to view the content. If you are far away, then it is likely that all or most of the affiliates are available via local channels from cable/satellite or a distant network waiver.


So what if it is available for free? That is my point. The content of Extra Innings is about the out-of-market games. The content of the Super Bowl is the NFL's championship games. Major League Baseball has assigned the right of a pay-per-season out-of-market package to DirecTV; the NFL assigned Super Bowl 41 to CBS. It doesn't matter what is "free" and what isn't as each league has assigned exclusives to broadcasting partners.


BobMurdoch said:


> A distribution monopoly revolves around the fact that a distributor creates a monopoly where ONLY he can deliver critical content.


Do what? That's like saying ABC has a monopoly on first-runs of "Lost". ABC paid the producers of "Lost" to develop the series, so ABC has first-run rights.


BobMurdoch said:


> I'm a commercial flooring dealer. If Armstrong decided that they liked me so much that I would be the only one who could sell linoleum in NJ, we would be slapped with an antitrust lawsuit so fast it would make my head spin.


Funny. In Prince George's County, Maryland, all beer/wine/liquor stores must buy their Miller and Molson products from Buck Distributors and buy their Bud/Michelob/Busch products from Hall Distributors. And local Coke and Pepsi manufactuerers and distributors are given "exclusive" sales areas. And even Electrolux and Kirby have exclusive areas.

I am fairly certain that if Armstrong decides you should be the only Armstrong linoleum dealer in NJ, that you would be paying quite a bit for that exclusive. But you certainly wouldn't have cornered the market on all linoleum, as there are other producers. And it certainly wouldn't be against the law.


----------



## Terry K

A couple of key things here:

1. D* and E* put up fits when fX wasn't available to them due to the exclusivity that it had to cable. As I recall the laws were changed to require anything available to cable operators to be made available to satellite carriers that was available via satellite. (D* is being hypocritical here, you can't have your cake and eat it too)

2. MLB IS a monopoly. They are trying to protect owners like Steinbrenner. Even Murdoch didn't want to remain an owner. (This should tell us something)

3. Not everyone can have D* or E*either due to credit issues, line of sight, whatever reason. 

4. Comcast still gets away with offering Philly only via microwave and locks DirecTV and DISH viewers out of that service.

5. Charlie and his infamous battles with Time-Warner (Court TV), Lifetime (Hearst/NBC/ABC) and so on...Charlie has tried (I'm not defending here just posting my perception) to force the programmers to offer him the same terms everyone else gets.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Terry K said:


> 2. MLB IS a monopoly. They are trying to protect owners like Steinbrenner. Even Murdoch didn't want to remain an owner. (This should tell us something)


Bingo. MLB is a monopoly, because there is no competition from another baseball league. DirecTV and the rest of MLB's broadcast partners are not monopolies because they've obtained an exclusive contract with MLB.


Terry K said:


> 3. Not everyone can have D* or E*either due to credit issues, line of sight, whatever reason.


Just like not everyone is wired for cable.


Terry K said:


> 5. Charlie and his infamous battles with Time-Warner (Court TV), Lifetime (Hearst/NBC/ABC) and so on...Charlie has tried (I'm not defending here just posting my perception) to force the programmers to offer him the same terms everyone else gets.


Yes, but I don't think that the perception is close to reality. I think Charlie loves to pick these fights just because of his personality. He is trying to save revenue on his end. After all, there aren't many differences between pricing on providers, unless we are talking about low-end packages. So, these fights are not quite about pricing to the end user.


Terry K said:


> 1. D* and E* put up fits when fX wasn't available to them due to the exclusivity that it had to cable. As I recall the laws were changed to require anything available to cable operators to be made available to satellite carriers that was available via satellite. (D* is being hypocritical here, you can't have your cake and eat it too)
> 
> 4. Comcast still gets away with offering Philly only via microwave and locks DirecTV and DISH viewers out of that service.


And Cox Cable in San Diego locks out satellite viewers from Cox 4, which broadcasts the Padres games.

This was all about program access rules. In order to provide robust competition, the rules were created so that there were minimal differences in programming between satellite and cable. The rules never addressed "premium" programming, such as these out-of-market sports packages.

It reminds me of the possible legislation from Representative Boucher to address the cable "bundle", and trying to reprice the services so they are carrier-agnostic. Cable (and fiber phone companies like Verizon) have a distinct advantage because of this bundling. Do we really need a law to prevent Cable from bundling, in the name of balancing competition?


----------



## stevecon

oldpianos said:


> Good to see the Senator is concerned about the really important matters. You know, instead of worrying about that pesky war on terrorism in Iraq, or Health care, or social security, or...


Those of us residing in the Great State of Massachusetts, know our junior senator as "Live Shot Kerry" (or simply as Live Shot) for his uncanny ability to show up in front of a television news crew. He is able to spout off on *any* subject they report on. John is often seen between say 5 and 6 PM (re: TV News) from the steps of the capitol (whether it is Washington, D.C. or Boston, MA) telling us how he's saved us from ourselves once again! How lucky are we???


----------



## n3ntj

Heck, and I thought Chuck Shumer was Mr. Live Shot. Don't get b/w him and a news camera.


----------



## JMCecil

BobMurdoch said:


> ANY monopoly should be prohibited. If they expect taxpayers to pony up for their stadiums to stay in an area, then they should have the responsibility to make it available to any multichannel provider who wants it AT THE SAMEPRICE as the other guys so any consumer who wants it can get it without having to incur hundreds or thousands of dollars to switch providers.. (ie. don't say it's available, but then charge double what the other guy pays).


It is not a monopoly. Any town you live in that puts up the money for a stadium has local viewing rights to the games regardless of any package the league comes up with. Any consumer who wants to watch a local game can do so FREE OTA. This only has to do with out of market games. You can even get some of those FREE OTA.


----------



## Cerus

Unfair? Like it wasn't unfair of cable co's to fight Dish and DTV when they wanted to start adding local channels to their service years ago. What about all the exclusive rights Fox owns?



> "I am opposed to anything that deprives people of reasonable choices. In this day and age, consumers should have more choices -- not fewer," Kerry said in a statement Wednesday. "A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DIRECTV."


The only choice for network TV and many sports games is Fox. Maybe it's not quite the same since you can get Fox on cable, Dish, DTV etc but it's the same principal. A lot of people aren't able to watch their teams on DTV because of blackouts/lockouts. I'll say the same thing Kerry says, a Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to cable...it works both ways.


----------



## RedskinsForever

agreer said:


> I honestly think that the NCAA should no longer be tax-exempt and should be treated just like any other pro sports brand: the NCAA is nothing more than a school sanctioned NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA/WNBA farm league that they can call a "booster program" and a "good thing" because it gives poorer athletes who otherwise could not attend college because of a combination of finances and poor academics free rides when there are a good number of smart people who are sooooo much more deserving of the higher learning than these apes who just slide anyhow so the football team can sell more tickets...
> 
> back to topic:
> 
> All I was trying to say is that the circumstances may be diferant, baseball MAY be in some trouble here because of their status...trouble and congressional pressures that cant come to bear on the NFL.


Just a little bitter, huh? The easiest way to get through life is to understand that..........LIFE IS UNFAIR!! The quicker you understand this, the quicker you will have peace in your life......I promise you!


----------



## Lord Vader

He's right. Time to revoke the NCAA's tax exempt status. If they're so concerned about punishing schools like south Dakota and Illinois over the use of Native American symbols, then they have enough time on their hands to fill out federal tax forms and pay taxes.


----------

