You're way off the point, OF. The reason the NFL is able to do what it does is that it's a one game a week schedule. MLB, NBA, NHL all have more than one game a week, which makes it a much more regional thing than the NFL. You're never going to get the eyeballs on the games that the NFL does. Also remember that the issue with Diamond isn't just an MLB thing, it's those other two leagues as well.
I think I have a much closer relationship to this product than anyone else on this board and it's safe to say there are other elements at play as well. First, the NFL owns the broadcast rights to games, where in other leagues the teams do. In addition, the regional nature of the other sports means that the production needs to be local/regional instead of national. That's why you have Tony Romo traveling to the best game and Bob Fitzgerald traveling with the team. The broadcasters are actually team employees.
The thing to realize here is that the problem isn't with the product. It's that Diamond spent too much to acquire the rights from Fox/Disney. It was a bad business decision by the company and they're struggling with the payments on the purchase rather than a lack of revenue.
You look at the other RSNs and they're doing fine. But the teams that are doing best are the ones who have their own networks. Of course, this is more feasible in large markets like New York where you have YES and MSN. A smaller market like Memphis (why would that be my example?) would struggle with this model because there just isn't the content to fill a full network.
Looking forward, there's a real crossroads we're coming to in this world. Live sports have practically kept the TV cable industry afloat as more and more people transition to streaming but that isn't going to last forever. The big questions in live sports on TV surround how the model will translate to the streaming environment. Do I have an answer for that? No, I'd be making a lot more if I did.
But that's another reason that something like MSN is such a great deal for Dolan and the Knicks. Because they control the rights to their product (instead of having licensed to a RSN), they can be more nimble on streaming platforms. They haven't locked themselves in to a contract where the provider is at risk of going bankrupt.
As for the leagues taking control of the product, I don't know that's in the best interest of the viewers. It's possible, and I'm definitely biased. But what that will means is that there are fewer cameras at every game, which means more shared cameras between broadcasts, which means a viewing experience less tailored to the local viewer, who is the target for the broadcast. Sure the NBA has TNT, TBS, and ESPN broadcasting national games and that's great. But those are premiere games Warriors/Lakers, Ja/Zion, or Celtics/76ers. But in the Bay are you going to watch a Rockets/Magic game? Not a chance. How about Blazers/Bucks? That's a game with star power but the answer is still no. Hornets/Wizards? Please get me a drink...
But that doesn't mean those local markets don't want to see those games. The NBA has a plan to take over production for the rest of the season but that's just a temporary thing. There's just too much involved for them to run/manage all that goes into 162 or 82 games a year. Plus, what do you do with the Yankees or Knicks, who literally built their own cable channels? Do you just say, "Good idea but sorry?"
I understand what you're saying about why it seems like it might make sense for the league to step in but it really isn't feasible.
The positive aspect to it is that live sports aren't going anywhere and there
will be a transition to streaming. Diamond's potential (pending) bankruptcy may actually help push that forward. It's just going to take some adjustment and learning new technology on the part of viewers to get there.
(02-18-2023, 10:30 AM)Giants Wrote: You nailed it CC. Creating more action throughout a shorter game is all about developing a product that fits the attention span of the next generation. Of course, some of us will miss the languid pace of the game. C’est la vie….
Count me as one who strongly disagrees with this. I think the biggest issue with baseball's issues has nothing to do with the product on the field and everything to do with how they market the game. Sports are about characters–stars–and MLB is consistently terrible at figuring out an effective, coherent way to market its stars.
If you look at MLB since Selig took over, it has consistently shot itself in the foot by taking the bag of cash in front of them instead of positioning the sport for continued growth down the line. I don't want to get into all the specifics because there are too many, but the best example is that they actively remove highlights from fan posts on social media or within web articles in deference to the RSNs broadcast rights. Does the RSN broadcasting license technically apply here? Yes. Is it crazy to minimize fan engagement by taking down the best avenue to get as many possible eyeballs on the most exciting moments in the sport? Absolutely.
The NBA has the same broadcast license rules but recognizes this is free advertising for the product and a vehicle to keep fans engaged in an organic way that can't help but benefit.
This is just one example and there are many more (I'm particularly interested in MLB's approach to labor in the minors). I strongly, STRONGLY believe that it isn't a sport issue but a business issue that Manfred is ignoring and trying to patch with sport fixes. It's like putting a bandaid on a fever.
