Bally's Sports North Subscriptions -- $23/month ???

[short ornery norwegian]

According to one study, a typical cable TV customer is paying roughly $7.20 a month of their bill for ESPN. I don't have numbers on BTN or Bally's, but I believe that both are in the range of $2 to $3 a month.

Without question, sports channels are the most expensive.

the way traditional cable TV works, most channels carry a fee on a per-subscriber basis. there are the pricey channels like ESPN, but there are a lot of channels that only cost 10- or 15-cents a month per subscriber.

the providers also do a lot of "bundling" of channels - meaning that if your local cable TV system wants to carry a popular channel, they must also agree to carry a number of less-popular channels that are offered through the same provider.

 

[MplsGopher]

No thanks. I live out of MN so get the Twins through mlb.tv. Sucks to miss the Wild but don’t care much for the Wolves.

Is Bally's North (the new FSN) offered in Iowa? I guess probably, with Iowa having both "Triple A" affiliates for the Wild and Wolves.

 

[MplsGopher]

If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?

Yankees did this with YES network, and also have the Brooklyn Nets and NYC FC (MLS) on board.

Orioles and Nats also have their own network, just for their games. Those seem to be the only two RSN's like that, at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_sports_network#Current_affiliates

 

[MplsGopher]

The day will come when they go after sports fans who get illegal streaming content like iTunes did with pirating of music.

They'll never get them all ... but yeah, you'll have to ask yourself if the risk vs reward is worth it, when (one day) individual Joe Blow's get slapped with lawsuits seeking tens of thousands in damages because they could prove a device connected to a modem MAC address that was under an account with your name downloaded an illegal stream.

 

[MplsGopher]

the providers also do a lot of "bundling" of channels - meaning that if your local cable TV system wants to carry a popular channel, they must also agree to carry a number of less-popular channels that are offered through the same provider.

They figured it out long ago: everyone from content creators (studios/channels) to distribution, makes more money off consumers when you bundle.

That's why they did it.

Consumers have always said, since the early days of cable, that they wished they could pick and choose their own menu of channels. But they were never given the truth that to do it that way, the cost per channel would be unpalatable.

 

[RememberMurray]

They figured it out long ago: everyone from content creators (studios/channels) to distribution, makes more money off consumers when you bundle.

That's why they did it.

Consumers have always said, since the early days of cable, that they wished they could pick and choose their own menu of channels. But they were never given the truth that to do it that way, the cost per channel would be unpalatable.

Great post.

Greed will cause the end of big time sports as we know it. It certainly seems to be headed over a cliff on a swollen, swift river of greed.

And maybe that's a good thing for all concerned. Perhaps we've been spending too much precious time and hard-earned money on keeping ourselves entertained. Maybe it would be okay if we changed our focus a little.

 

[RockinRanger]

If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?

Probably haven't been too eager to try it again after the complete failure of Victory Sports One in 2004.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Is Bally's North (the new FSN) offered in Iowa? I guess probably, with Iowa having both "Triple A" affiliates for the Wild and Wolves.

I actually live in Wisconsin now. It’s available, just not on YouTube tv which is what we have. Some of the Wolves and Wild games are on it.

 

[60's Guy]

Speaking of money…the Revology ad caught my eye on here. I had never heard of them. Anybody who wants me to do a review over a couple of months of test driving a Shelby, I’m in!

https://revologycars.com/?gclid=Cjw...OGGTaodJtXlPbor65GKeNzQKg4UlIEFRoCyOcQAvD_BwE

 

[#2Gopher]

Since when are the wild on MSNBC? I've seen them on FSN and nbc sports but not MSNBC.

Probably wrong initials. I just remember looking at the guide a while ago. Also knew that they weren't going on this particular channel this coming winter and that was clarified by another poster.

 

[#2Gopher]

I actually live in Wisconsin now. It’s available, just not on YouTube tv which is what we have. Some of the Wolves and Wild games are on it.

Making the rounds? Were in Iowa, now Wisconsin. Heading to Nebraska next?

 

[MplsGopher]

Probably wrong initials. I just remember looking at the guide a while ago. Also knew that they weren't going on this particular channel this coming winter and that was clarified by another poster.

You're probably thinking of NBC Sports Network (NBCSN), which used to be branded as OLN (Outdoor Life Network) and then Versus.

As others mentioned, it is shutting down later this year, so the NHL is going elsewhere.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

Don't tell BTN, but I'd pay pretty much anything if they went off on their own.

 

[MplsGopher]

Sure, lots of people would pay quite a bit for standalone streaming services of main, top-tier content.

They won't allow that. It takes money out of their pockets. Forcing people to pay for bundles is how they maximize revenue. They know they have sports fans hostage, and that they'll (begruddingly) pay for a package of channels they won't use in order to get at cable broadcasts of sports.

You either pay it, or you settle for whatever you can get on antenna or on things like ESPN+ and BTN+ (not the top tier, but more than nothing).

 

[mnsportsgeek]

This is really not a bad price under the assumption it's marketed at people who don't pay for cable. The bigger issue Sinclair has on their hands is they aren't on any of the internet cable alternatives (except for ATT Now).

As a standalone service, for people who don't want cable and just want to watch the Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Loons, etc. it's not a bad price and is much cheaper that getting a full cable package that you won't use.

I think the bigger concern people should be having is that if every new sports TV deal continues to break records, you're treading down a slippery slope of networks needing to utilize PPV to afford those deals. Either that, or you're going to see streaming services at $20+ like this. The amount of money in the major sports is crazy and it's not something that is ever going to be thrown into a $6-$10 streaming package.

If cable fails, you'll be paying $20 for ESPN, $20 for BTN, $20 for Bally, $20 for Fox Sports, etc. (obviously i'm making up the numbers). The sports fans are the big losers in the cord-cutting trend. Every other consumer comes out a winner. There's a good argument to be made that the masses have been subsidizing sports programming for long enough.

 

[Word]

Sports salaries have gotten way out of hand. Time for the market to correct itself.

 

[forever a gopher]

This is really not a bad price under the assumption it's marketed at people who don't pay for cable. The bigger issue Sinclair has on their hands is they aren't on any of the internet cable alternatives (except for ATT Now).

As a standalone service, for people who don't want cable and just want to watch the Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Loons, etc. it's not a bad price and is much cheaper that getting a full cable package that you won't use.

I think the bigger concern people should be having is that if every new sports TV deal continues to break records, you're treading down a slippery slope of networks needing to utilize PPV to afford those deals. Either that, or you're going to see streaming services at $20+ like this. The amount of money in the major sports is crazy and it's not something that is ever going to be thrown into a $6-$10 streaming package.

If cable fails, you'll be paying $20 for ESPN, $20 for BTN, $20 for Bally, $20 for Fox Sports, etc. The sports fans are the big losers in the cord-cutting trend. Every other consumer comes out a winner. There's a good argument to be made that the masses have been subsidizing sports programming for long enough.

I would argue that everybody is the loser in this arrangement. During the football and basketball season, I pay for Hulu live TV for the Gophers. It used to have FSN. Then when it switched to Bally’s and got dropped, the price didn’t go down as a result. So Hulu was offering less content and paying fewer content providers, but charging the same money.

 

[mnsportsgeek]

I would argue that everybody is the loser in this arrangement. During the football and basketball season, I pay for Hulu live TV for the Gophers. It used to have FSN. Then when it switched to Bally’s and got dropped, the price didn’t go down as a result. So Hulu was offering less content and paying fewer content providers, but charging the same money.

The opposition to that argument would be that if Hulu had caved to Bally’s demands, it would have come with a price hike for all users. There’s a reason that YouTube, Hulu, and Fubo all dropped them. They got too expensive.

Also, Hulu added Viacom after they dropped Bally, so yes non-sports viewers tired of subsidizing sports are definitely starting to see the benefits.

 

[1983]

No Wild Wolves or Twins for me. do nit miss it at all.

 

[Hates Monikers]

I wouldn't want to pay it, but I would, and my TV bill would be cut in half. I currently have cable (Xfinity), which I hate and is exorbitantly overpriced. I'm keeping it for now mostly because it has Bally's. My wife and I like to watch the Twins, Wolves and Gopher hockey -- we don't watch all the games or pay close attention when we do, but we like it. This would allow us to move to a much less expensive streaming service and give Xfinity the finger.

If you're already on a streaming service, I can see why you wouldn't pay this price.

 

[howeda7]

This is a stupid path to go down for Sinclaire. What's the incentive for the Twins to re-up with them? The Twins can launch their own app, charge $60 for the whole season and if 500K people sign up, they will make the same/more than what Sinclaire currently pays them for the rights.

 

[howeda7]

If the Twins were killing it this year I would miss it more but I don’t want to send a nickel to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I wonder if Jim Pohlad would consider creating his own network and potentially bring on the Wolves and Wild?

Consider it? They already tried with Victory Sports. That didn't work, because the big cable/satellite providers held the line. But was before streaming. They absolutely will again if Sinclaire goes down this path. I'd expect the Wild and Wolves to do the same.

In either event, there is long-term danger to cutting off access to a chunk of your potential fan base. If I was the Twins I would also find an over-the-air partner and go back to broadcasting Sunday games on free TV.

 

[everybody knows my name]

Good thing I like listening to Twins games on the radio.

 

[MplsGopher]

If cable fails, you'll be paying $20 for ESPN, $20 for BTN, $20 for Bally, $20 for Fox Sports, etc. (obviously i'm making up the numbers). The sports fans are the big losers in the cord-cutting trend. Every other consumer comes out a winner. There's a good argument to be made that the masses have been subsidizing sports programming for long enough.

This really hits it, I'm afraid.

Other than sports, who really is watching cable? You have various niche audiences, that can probably be covered well by various streaming platforms. Discovery is one niche, and they just launched their own platform to take on that "Discovery+TLC+HGTV+Food Network, etc." crowd.

There are a few channels that produce their own content, that people like. FX off the top of my head. And so on.


But honestly, other than sports .... what's really on cable? Lot of reruns.


Of course you get your locals, but you can pretty easily get those with a cheap indoor antenna.



DVR is one nice feature, I will admit.

 

[MplsGopher]

This is a stupid path to go down for Sinclaire. What's the incentive for the Twins to re-up with them? The Twins can launch their own app, charge $60 for the whole season and if 500K people sign up, they will make the same/more than what Sinclaire currently pays them for the rights.

Consider it? They already tried with Victory Sports. That didn't work, because the big cable/satellite providers held the line. But was before streaming. They absolutely will again if Sinclaire goes down this path. I'd expect the Wild and Wolves to do the same.

In either event, there is long-term danger to cutting off access to a chunk of your potential fan base. If I was the Twins I would also find an over-the-air partner and go back to broadcasting Sunday games on free TV.

Not sure about teams going it alone, unless they're mega franchises like the Yankees .... but I could definitely see leagues going it alone.

Pay $30/mo for MLB app, stream every single game in the season (with a home team biased crew ... is what it is), from anywhere in US/Canada. If it's high quality, I don't see why people wouldn't go for it.

Might have to commit to a season to make it work. So maybe commit to pay $210 over Apr-Oct, or perhaps a discount if you pay in full.

 

[1983]

With all pro sports suffering from declining attendance and viewership, why in the world would they make it costly and difficult to watch their product? Limit exposure? Their tactic is antiquated and stupid. The idea would be to get as many people in the venues and watching on all devices.

 

[PMWinSTP]

(Sinclair)The publicly traded media company — which owns exclusive rights to broadcast games for dozens of Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association and National Hockey League teams — is working with investment bank LionTree to raise more than $250 million for the venture, according to two sources with knowledge of the plans..

Tensions between cable operators and broadcasters have gotten so heated in recent years that satellite TV operator Dish in July 2019 stopped paying for rights to Sinclair’s games altogether — correctly betting that its customers wouldn’t drop their Dish subscriptions any faster than before..

Of course, Sinclair will need to negotiate with the NBA, MLB and NHL to secure the rights to stream the games, sources said. Those talks are not finalized, and sources say Sinclair is raising money now to show the leagues it has the funds to back its ambitious venture..

The question now is whether the leagues will OK the plan, and that could depend on how it will affect teams.

Greg Bouris, the Sports Management Program Director at Adelphi University and former communications director for the MLB Players Association, believes teams may take at least a short term loss if Sinclair proves to be successful since this will mean even less revenue from cable providers.

“I think the economics will go backwards and this could be very disruptive. If I was a team owner, I’d be a little nervous.”..

Sinclair raising $250M for new sports streaming service, sources say

Sinclair Broadcast Group is quietly raising money for a new service to stream Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association and National Hockey League games to fans over the Internet, The …

nypost.com

Lion Tree will be throwing good money after bad. Sinclair is losing money hand over fist on these RSNs.