2016 is the 25th anniversary of "New Comiskey Park" or USCF

[WBWSF]

What killed Sportsvision was :

1) Chicago was use to getting their baseball games on free TV.

2) More importantly, Chicago was not wired for cable at the time. It was expensive paying for only one channel, which Sportsvision was.

[southsider2k5]

It's certainly a possibility. But I think the biggest problem with SportsVision is that people simply weren't used to paying for any TV channels. These days there are multiple ways to pay to see an MLB game broadcast and many don't think twice about it.

 

With social media there are more ways than ever to follow a baseball game in real time without needing to pay for it. In fact the trend has long been towards chord cutting.

[Iwritecode]

With social media there are more ways than ever to follow a baseball game in real time without needing to pay for it. In fact the trend has long been towards chord cutting.

 

But to actually watch the game live, you typically have to pay for it. Whether it's cable, a satellite provider, mlb.tv, etc... Back then paying for any type of TV was unheard of.

 

Sportsvision wasn't really a bad idea, it was just a few years too early.

[southsider2k5]

But to actually watch the game live, you typically have to pay for it. Whether it's cable, a satellite provider, mlb.tv, etc... Back then paying for any type of TV was unheard of.

 

Sportsvision wasn't really a bad idea, it was just a few years too early.

 

And for most of Chicago, they won't be able to watch the game at all, because the teams network won't be picked up by most TV providers in Chicago. Remember Comcast has zero incentive to pick up the network as it is competition. Look at LA and Houston's numbers for great examples. The Cubs will be on millions less TVs if they start their own network.

[he gone.]

And for most of Chicago, they won't be able to watch the game at all, because the teams network won't be picked up by most TV providers in Chicago. Remember Comcast has zero incentive to pick up the network as it is competition. Look at LA and Houston's numbers for great examples. The Cubs will be on millions less TVs if they start their own network.

 

Is that what happened in Houston? I lived down there last year and we had a pretty large sports package at the apartment, but couldn't get the Astros. I had the MLB package and could watch every team except the Rangers and Astros due to blackout restrictions. Pretty frustrating.

 

I'm just waiting for the future - like 5-10 years from now when we don't have to buy a whole cable package to watch sports. I watch like 5% of my channels. And then the Blackhawks and White Sox. I'd pay $250 for the Sox and $250 for the Hawks alone and say peace to the rest of my cable package if I could.

[southsider2k5]

Is that what happened in Houston? I lived down there last year and we had a pretty large sports package at the apartment, but couldn't get the Astros. I had the MLB package and could watch every team except the Rangers and Astros due to blackout restrictions. Pretty frustrating.

 

I'm just waiting for the future - like 5-10 years from now when we don't have to buy a whole cable package to watch sports. I watch like 5% of my channels. And then the Blackhawks and White Sox. I'd pay $250 for the Sox and $250 for the Hawks alone and say peace to the rest of my cable package if I could.

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/ar...-TV-4283444.php

 

http://climbingtalshill.com/2014/12/21/wil...rozen-tv-games/

[Iwritecode]

And for most of Chicago, they won't be able to watch the game at all, because the teams network won't be picked up by most TV providers in Chicago. Remember Comcast has zero incentive to pick up the network as it is competition. Look at LA and Houston's numbers for great examples. The Cubs will be on millions less TVs if they start their own network.

 

I'm not completely disagreeing with you. It could be a massive failure. I'm just saying people are much more willing to pay for TV now than they were in 1981.

[harfman77]

And for most of Chicago, they won't be able to watch the game at all, because the teams network won't be picked up by most TV providers in Chicago. Remember Comcast has zero incentive to pick up the network as it is competition. Look at LA and Houston's numbers for great examples. The Cubs will be on millions less TVs if they start their own network.

 

Which is precisely why I think it is a bluff from the Cubs to get more money from Comcast or Fox. What type of programming will the Cubs have in the winter on their network, reruns of old games? You can only show so many greatest games before they lose their appeal. Unless they go out and purchase the rights to the Blackhawks to supplement their programming they just wont have enough pull to get the type of advertising money they would need to be successful.

 

 

[Thad Bosley]

Which is precisely why I think it is a bluff from the Cubs to get more money from Comcast or Fox. What type of programming will the Cubs have in the winter on their network, reruns of old games? You can only show so many greatest games before they lose their appeal. Unless they go out and purchase the rights to the Blackhawks to supplement their programming they just wont have enough pull to get the type of advertising money they would need to be successful.

The Yankees manage to do it in New York with their "YES" network, but the difference is, of course, that they can reach back in their rich, successful history and actually have an inventory of games worth watching again. The same cannot be said of the North Siders. They'd have to run that 23-22 game against the Phillies from back in the 70s at least 50 times a week!

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm not completely disagreeing with you. It could be a massive failure. I'm just saying people are much more willing to pay for TV now than they were in 1981.

 

Two things,

 

#1 that trend is reversing, with more people leaving cable than ever before.

 

#2, the problem is with the networks themselves not being picked up by rival cable providers, not with people not subscribing to watch the Cubs/Dodgers/Astros etc. Fans literally don't get a choice.

[Iwritecode]

#1 that trend is reversing, with more people leaving cable than ever before.

 

People are leaving cable for things like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime. They are still spending money to watch TV, just a different format. Getting to watch TV (especially MLB games) for "free" is just not an expectation most people have anymore. That was why Sportsvision failed.

 

#2, the problem is with the networks themselves not being picked up by rival cable providers, not with people not subscribing to watch the Cubs/Dodgers/Astros etc. Fans literally don't get a choice.

 

IF the Cubs do this, that could be a big reason they fail. BUT, if they are able to come to an agreement with the networks, there will be no shortage of people willing to pay to watch the games. There are already millions of people paying somebody to watch the team now.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Iwritecode

[ewokpelts]

Let's get a couple facts straight:

 

1. The sox are going NOWHERE for the next 14 years, if not longer. The lease, one of the best in us sports, was extended at least until 2029, according to ISFA reports and other media mentions. Which is when the bonds are due to expire for the original 168 million financed for the park in 1988. It was so favorable that the sox extended it TWICE. (First after the naming rights deal for until 2026, and then til 2029). The original lease was 20 years, with a built in 5 year extension at the same terms. So if the sox felt Chicago was a bad market, they could have left the cell in 2011 or 2016 under the old deal.

 

2. Despite low ratings, the sox are still getting paid a lot of money for the tv rights. I have read that CSN pays 450-500k per game for roughly 100 games, so the csn only cut is 45-50 million dollars. By comparison, the padres current deal pays the same amount, but for 162 games. Factor in the 50 or million for the national broadcasts, and you already have upwards of 100 million before you sell one ticket.(WGN may be 125-250k, but I cant confirm). That per game amount is the EXACT SAME as the cubs. And since the cubs air less games on csn, they actually make less tv money than the sox.

 

3. The sox aren't leaving csn, and will likely get a much bigger deal. They currently own 20 percent of the network. And more importantly, the network is on EVERY CABLE SYSTEM IN THE MARKET. It was a condition that Jerry FORCED csn to broker long term carriage deals, so as to avoid being like NESN and YES struggling to get operators on board. When the cubs leave(and they lilkely will), they will have to negotiate all new carriage deals for "cubsnet". And judging by the dodgers tv problems, for a ruse awakening. The sox, meanwhile, don't have to do a thing to make sure they are in 90 percent of homes with cable.

 

Oh, and they will get a huge increase in rights fees despite the ratings. Look at the Angel's deal(125 million a year) and they have poor ratings before and after they signed the deal to stay with fox. Remember, csn won't be paying the cubs.

 

And, the sox have right of first refusal to buy the piece of CSN Chicago the cubs own.