"Say it Ain't So": Mlb Direct TV deal Update
that will not protect you from this shitstorm, Bud.
In an angry article I hadn't seen before but is linked to at Metsblog, Dan Yetzel at Yahoo Sports offers this tidbit:
InDemand, which distributes the package currently, has upped its offer, but, according to the Washington Times, its deal will pay about $30 million less per year.
So at least there is some negotiation. I guess InDemand is also a worthy target of fan pressure, but you'd figure they are already motivated to make a deal so...
Brian Borawski at the Hardball Times claims a bit of inside information, indicating that perhaps the outcome is not preordained as newspaper news briefs indicate. Borawski's contact
indicated that the exclusive deal wasn’t necessarily something that MLB was pursuing but that it was something that was brought to the table by DirecTV... He also thought that DirecTV would be able to give MLB’s new 24-hour network more attention. Cable companies probably wouldn’t cover it under their basic packages, while under DirecTV, it’ll probably be available to all subscribers.
In addition, Hotfoot posts this email address of Bob Bowman who is said to be the MLB Executive VP in charge of Extra Innings: Bob.Bowman@mlb.com
Take a moment and respectfully let Bob know how you feel, won't you?
More reaction from around the world wide of webs: Let's touch em all!
In an article entitled "In case you had any doubt, MLB doesn't care about you at all," Deadspin is dead on, as usual:
There are millions more who see DirectTV for what it is, an inferior service with poor broadband selection, terrible customer service and technology that'll be outdated halfway through that baseball contract. Because of this deal, there will be fewer people watching baseball next year.
Even Br*ves fans are pissed, and they don't even watch baseball! As Lang Whitaker writes in a Sports Illustrated column (in the spirit of cooperation, I will refrain from mentioning the "man loving in-animate object-or-relative" metaphor that Lang, as any good Atlanta fan would, uses to frame his analysis):
But as much as I love you, Baseball, there's no way I'm spending eight hours at work staring at a computer screen and then coming home and sitting down for three hours to stare at herky-jerky action on another computer screen.
Remember when you were going to put the Spider-Man 2 logo on bases? So you're not perfect. You can make bad decisions. This is one of them. This seems like just another bad choice that you're just determined to make.
The whole thing reminds the Post's Phil Mushnick of another era:
It's reminiscent of the quick-cash Peter Ueberroth days. In 1989, MLB sold exclusive national rights to CBS, even knowing that CBS planned to provide far less baseball than NBC had before it.
MLB wants what the NFL has, but they are not the NFL:
Eric Wilbur of the Boston Globe:
Yes, the NFL also has exclusive rights with DirecTV, but it's a different beast. Whereas the NFL is a weekly venture, displaced fans still have the option of hitting up the local sports pub to catch their favorite team. At most, that's 16 trips to the bar during a season, and that's if you're a fan of, say, the Houston Texans and are living in Maine. You try explaining to your significant other why you've got to spend 162 nights this year down at taproom. Thanks, Bud.