News on TV Deal

[Heads22]

6 minutes ago, Donaldo said:

As far as I know, Pacers games only air on Fox Sports Indiana.

We get them on FSMW in Iowa occasionally. My original point still stands though, its not the Cardinals network.

[Thad Bosley]

Seems a major market team like the Chicago White Sox ought to be able to negotiate a major market TV deal.

[southsider2k5]

48 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Seems a major market team like the Chicago White Sox ought to be able to negotiate a major market TV deal.

Then again your assumption could just be wrong. 

[Thad Bosley]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Then again your assumption could just be wrong. 

As is more likely the case your assumption on this topic.  I’m siding with Steve Stone on this one.  When a guy of his stature refers to the Sox as a “major market team”, seems pretty logical to line up with his thinking.  That and it is just blatantly obvious.  

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

As is more likely the case your assumption on this topic.  I’m siding with Steve Stone on this one.  When a guy of his stature refers to the Sox as a “major market team”, seems pretty logical to line up with his thinking.  That and it is just blatantly obvious.  

Until the number comes in no where near a major market team, which will really make it obvious.

[Thad Bosley]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Until the number comes in no where near a major market team, which will really make it obvious.

Don’t worry - you only lose this argument by the margin you do on days that end in “y”.   

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Don’t worry - you only lose this argument by the margin you do on days that end in “y”.   

It's not like you even acknowledge reality when it happens.  Why start now?  Keep the hate alive.

[Harry Chappas]

On 6/30/2018 at 3:17 PM, Dick Allen said:

Hers something that might be behimd a paywall, but sort of throws everything in the air. The Cubs will probably start their own network, I am guessing they are hoping the Bears join them.

Bears programming would work out pretty well IMO. The only problem they may have is it could be too homer, and not so unbiased coverage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-cubs-tv-channel-fox-rsn-future-20180625-story.html

Bears programming is basically talk radio.  I guess you could cover the hell out of training camp.   

[Eminor3rd]

12 hours ago, Fan O'Faust said:

As is more likely the case your assumption on this topic.  I’m siding with Steve Stone on this one.  When a guy of his stature refers to the Sox as a “major market team”, seems pretty logical to line up with his thinking.  That and it is just blatantly obvious.  

Again, you just misunderstand what "major market" means, just like in the last thread where you brought this up. It isn't necessarily intuitive, so I don't blame you for not understanding major media marketing, but you should try to learn a bit about how markets work if you're going to want to form pointed opinions about them -- if for no other reason than to alleviate your own personal stress level.

[soxfan18]

On 6/30/2018 at 4:17 PM, Balta1701 said:

Does the ownership group of the Bulls/Sox still own part of the network or did that arrangement end when it was no longer Comcast?

Comcast owns NBC.  They just changed the name so the branding was the same and had synergy with NBC Sports nationally.  

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by soxfan18

[Balta1701]

Just now, soxfan18 said:

Comcast owns NBC.  They just changed the name so the branding was the same nationally.  

 

So the White Sox/Reinsdorf group used to own a portion of that network, has that changed?

[soxfan18]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

So the White Sox/Reinsdorf group used to own a portion of that network, has that changed?

Nope.  It's still owned 40% by Reinsdorf, 20% by Wirtz, 20% by Ricketts, and 20% by Comcast, and will be that way until the contract ends after the 2019 season. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, soxfan18 said:

Nope.  It's still owned 40% by Reinsdorf, 20% by Wirtz, 20% by Ricketts, and 20% by Comcast, and will be that way until the contract ends after the 2019 season. 

So if the White Sox don't renew, then they give up their 40% of the network? Does someone have to buy them out? That seems like strong motivation to stay.

[Heads22]

It'd be nice if all their games ended up on NBCSN, that way I could watch all of them, and that's all I care about

[Thad Bosley]

On 7/3/2018 at 10:24 AM, Eminor3rd said:

Again, you just misunderstand what "major market" means, just like in the last thread where you brought this up. It isn't necessarily intuitive, so I don't blame you for not understanding major media marketing, but you should try to learn a bit about how markets work if you're going to want to form pointed opinions about them -- if for no other reason than to alleviate your own personal stress level.

Forget about me, then.  Where is Steve Stone’s thinking off then when he routinely refers to the Sox as a “major market” team?

[Eminor3rd]

14 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Forget about me, then.  Where is Steve Stone’s thinking off then when he routinely refers to the Sox as a “major market” team?

Steve Stone is a pitcher, not a marketing executive.

I mean generally speaking, Chicago a major media market -- in a vaccuum. But in terms of baseball media, both because of negotiated contractual channel exclusivity and because of the way the MLB literally divides territory amongst the teams, the White Sox do not occupy a major media market.

That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't spend money -- but it's disingenuous to suggest that the fact that the Sox are in a big city means that its owners are pocketing a larger amount of money than teams in smaller cities. Baseball, as a product, is a very strange bird, given the monopoly exceptions that have been granted by the government. 

Here's an illustration that is related: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html

Edited July 5, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Thad Bosley]

20 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Steve Stone is a pitcher, not a marketing executive.

I mean generally speaking, Chicago a major media market -- in a vaccuum. But in terms of baseball media, both because of negotiated contractual channel exclusivity and because of the way the MLB literally divides territory amongst the teams, the White Sox do not occupy a major media market.

That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't spend money -- but it's disingenuous to suggest that the fact that the Sox are in a big city means that its owners are pocketing a larger amount of money than teams in smaller cities. Baseball, as a product, is a very strange bird, given the monopoly exceptions that have been granted by the government. 

Here's an illustration that is related: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/23/upshot/24-upshot-baseball.html

Eminor, where are we restricted then?  Where in this “major market” do the Cubs, the other, clearly “major market” team in the city, have access to this market that the Sox do not?  I think in this argument you conflate the Sox’ inability to compete in this market that is available to them with some mindset the market isn’t even open to them at all.   

[Eminor3rd]

19 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Eminor, where are we restricted then?  Where in this “major market” do the Cubs, the other, clearly “major market” team in the city, have access to this market that the Sox do not?  I think in this argument you conflate the Sox’ inability to compete in this market that is available to them with some mindset the market isn’t even open to them at all.   

The Cubs control a much greater share of the media assets in the region. Look at that map -- the doesn't explain cause, but it does a good job illustrating the effect. 

I think it was Lip Man maybe, in the last thread where we were talking about this, that provided a nice breakdown of the broadcast rights/licenses of each franchise over the latter half of the 20th century. I think that a lot of the Cubs' regional dominance comes from the Tribune ownership years and the way they were able to leverage that relationship to dominate the WGN TV broadcasts for so long. That gets them a much further reach geographically, which expands their media market. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Eminor3rd

[Thad Bosley]

1 minute ago, Eminor3rd said:

The Cubs control a much greater share of the media assets in the region. Look at that map -- the doesn't explain cause, but it does a good job illustrating the effect. 

Is this a similar phenomenon in the NY and LA markets between the teams in those markets?

[Eminor3rd]

1 minute ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Is this a similar phenomenon in the NY and LA markets between the teams in those markets?

Absolutely -- and each market has had its share of interesting caveats. For example, the Dodgers have been infamously impossible to find on cable TV in much of the great LA market in recent years because of hard-line negotiating tactics with whichever regional provider they have. The Yankees, through the establishment of the YES network, have essentially become immune to any broadcast limits with the Mets by making sure their channel is carried everywhere in the market instead of competing with the Mets over a contract with the best local provider.

[southsider2k5]

53 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

Is this a similar phenomenon in the NY and LA markets between the teams in those markets?

You don't believe the Yankees and Mets are on equal footing do you?

[Lip Man 1]

51 minutes ago, Eminor3rd said:

Absolutely -- and each market has had its share of interesting caveats. For example, the Dodgers have been infamously impossible to find on cable TV in much of the great LA market in recent years because of hard-line negotiating tactics with whichever regional provider they have. The Yankees, through the establishment of the YES network, have essentially become immune to any broadcast limits with the Mets by making sure their channel is carried everywhere in the market instead of competing with the Mets over a contract with the best local provider.

I just saw yesterday where the Dodgers are moving five games to "free-TV" because of the on-going issues with their regional sports network and cable operators in So. California.

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, Eminor3rd said:

The Cubs control a much greater share of the media assets in the region. Look at that map -- the doesn't explain cause, but it does a good job illustrating the effect. 

I think it was Lip Man maybe, in the last thread where we were talking about this, that provided a nice breakdown of the broadcast rights/licenses of each franchise over the latter half of the 20th century. I think that a lot of the Cubs' regional dominance comes from the Tribune ownership years and the way they were able to leverage that relationship to dominate the WGN TV broadcasts for so long. That gets them a much further reach geographically, which expands their media market. 

Correct. The power of the Tribune Company in owning the Tribune, plus WGN radio, plus WGN-TV, plus Superstation WGN plus Chicagoland cable TV (I think that's what it was called) clearly gave them a huge advantage. Now add in the Sox bizarre reluctant to even fight for their own share of their home market (i.e. "We're Chicago's American League team...") and the marketing brilliance of John McDonough in promoting Wrigley Field and the experience (even though the Cubs sucked on the field for many years) and it all added up to the situation where we are in now.

Ironically Eddie Einhorn himself predicted this was going to happen the day the Sox were eliminated by Baltimore when he said (paraphrasing) 'As long as the Tribune Company holds all these media outlets the Sox will never get a fair shake...' (I've got the WLS broadcast from that night in my library which has the story and the quotes) 

Of course EE was partially responsible too because he was the biggest proponent of the 'We're Chicago's American League team' concept and then SportsVision which was a brilliant idea, but ahead of its time and a dismal failure which kept the Sox out of the eye of the public and turned a generation of fans to the Cubs because they could actually watch their games.

It's a very complicated story but again the end result is the Sox find themselves in the position they are in clearly second fiddle in the market and from that standpoint facing some serious issues.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Lip Man 1

[ScootsMcGoots]

19 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Correct. The power of the Tribune Company in owning the Tribune, plus WGN radio, plus WGN-TV, plus Superstation WGN plus Chicagoland cable TV (I think that's what it was called) clearly gave them a huge advantage. Now add in the Sox bizarre reluctant to even fight for their own share of their home market (i.e. "We're Chicago's American League team...") and the marketing brilliance of John McDonough in promoting Wrigley Field and the experience (even though the Cubs sucked on the field for many years) and it all added up to the situation where we are in now.

Ironically Eddie Einhorn himself predicted this was going to happen the day the Sox were eliminated by Baltimore when he said (paraphrasing) 'As long as the Tribune Company holds all these media outlets the Sox will never get a fair shake...' (I've got the WLS broadcast from that night in my library which has the story and the quotes) 

Of course EE was partially responsible too because he was the biggest proponent of the 'We're Chicago's American League team' concept and then SportsVision which was a brilliant idea, but ahead of its time and a dismal failure which kept the Sox out of the eye of the public and turned a generation of fans to the Cubs because they could actually watch their games.

It's a very complicated story but again the end result is the Sox find themselves in the position they are in clearly second fiddle in the market and from that standpoint facing some serious issues.

Serious issues that they re able to overcome? What would they need to do to overcome those issues? And are they too stubborn to overcome them?