The Cubs will not be getting the boatload of money from this that they envisioned.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-cubs- ... r-concern/

Looks like Sinclair's MO is to couple multiple channels which results in higher carriage fees. Everyone like the Tennis Channel?

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

Right now I'm paying $6.75/month for "Regional Sports Fee" and that's with the Cubs/Sox/Hawks/Bulls under their "undervalued" rights package.

I can't imagine how outrageous the monthly fee will become under the re-negotiated rates and subscribing to essentially 2 RSNs.

Once my contract ends with Comcast I'll likely cut cable as the value isn't there with RSN fees and Chicago/IL taxes.

Cubs should go straight to streaming.

doesn't make as much money as having housewives addicted to HGTV or grandma tuning into TV Land subsidize cubs fans.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat. Regular TV is dying and most providers are gun shy with respect to these deals. Especially after the Dodgers debacle. If Cubs don't get the offer they are looking for, they should move forward with a different plan that fits better with TV viewing landscape of today.

It's a tough call. Stream-only should be the right answer. But baseball's fandom is primarily old boomers who watch entertainment on TV. You'd be cutting out a huge segment of fans.

Why won't you think of the Iowa grandmas!!!!!

Yeah, you can't go to internet-only, that alienates too many people, but at the same time, you can't gouge the cable customers even further.

_________________

The problem for a baseball channel is that there isn't a huge market. The Cubs-Brewers game on NBC Sports Chicago that setup the wild card game had 274,000 viewers which was the highest since the championship season. It's hard to really get a cable company scared about those low numbers and potential subscriber loss. For comparison, ESPN2 at noon for the Purdue-Indiana game got 368,000 viewers and Minnesota-Wisconsin after that got 1,000,000+. Now, obviously Big Ten football is going to outdraw a regional team but that's also the problem. An Iowa fan when they aren't on will probably watch that Minnesota-Wisconsin game.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Exactly. People bitch and moan about ESPN for a variety of reasons but the quantity & quality of games and studio shows broadcasted is vastly superior to a RSN let alone whatever the hell a Cubs-only channel will broadcast.

I thought they might have been able to get away with it if they had brought the Blackhawks along with them for the other six months of the year, but Cubs and only Cubs is gonna be a hard sell.

_________________

Stream it for a monthly rate or ala carte per game. Sell broadcasting rights, as well to get more money. Provide additional content with the monthly fee that includes on demand and minor league games.

Give it up.

Nobody watches baseball. Even the retards that watch a meaningless bowl game on ESPN outnumber you.

_________________

The first couple teams that got these snookered the cable giants. Now the light has shone and cables have been cut as well. The giant tv deals like this are no more. I predicted it.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

No you didn't.

_________________

Even early on, there were missteps. The YES Network took about a year to hit its stride after the Yankees dumped MSG, and both the Twins and Royals tried to start their own RSNs before quickly finding out the markets weren't there for them and scurrying back to Fox.

_________________

Thank god I'll be gone from Chicago for 80% of the season starting mid-2018. I can just buy the MLB package and get blacked out from just the Nationals and Orioles except when I'm back visiting my dad.

Now he will be pissed if Comcast doesn't carry them. He's a very casual fan, but he likes having the games on.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Lot of good points here.

But for those of you local there, would that mean you would pay extra for the Cubs channel even if you have local cable? or would the local cable station add it to the list of channels and you then would need to pay extra for that?

If they left MLB.TV that would really suck. I like having access to all the games and all the teams other than the cubs. If I have to pay for a sub just to watch the cubs i dont know if that would work for me.

The Padres deal that Jeff Moorad negotiated (along with Reinsdorf's animosity toward him) ultimately cost him his chance to own the team. And it was the SoCal precursor to the Dodger deal.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don

That's the question. Are they on an entry or mid-level cable tier at a lower carriage fee with a high number of subscribers or are they part of a sports package or a stand-alone channel for higher money with less subscribers? Obviously, it is in their best interests to be on as many TVs as possible even if the price per subscriber is less which they make up with total numbers of subscribers. You would think they have a streaming package for people without cable. Personally, I just don't wanted it added to my Sling Blue, assuming there will be high carriage fee.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

They should offer Harper 1/3 of the TV deal, as long as Boras negotiates it for them.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

You have identified a problem that goes deeper than the Cubs TV deal.

Many young people I know would gladly go to baseball in person now and NEVER watch a single game on tv. Kind of like hockey.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Agreed with this. Most young people that I know find baseball boring. They may still go to a game in the summer to drink, but there's no way they are watching these games on TV with any regularity.

I haven't taught a class of kids that showed interest in watching baseball in over a decade. There is not a person under 18 who has a clear recollection the last time the White Sox were relevant and the Cubs run the past four years has not shown up much in my classes in terms of added interest in baseball.

_________________

I wouldn't put baseball and hockey together on this. Hockey is just not popular but that's not because of the issues that are hurting baseball- pace of play, long games, and inactivity. If anything, hockey's fast pace game meshes better with today's kids' lack of attention span than most other sports.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

MLB Network is celebrating 10 years.

When they first came on I was like how will this network survive in the offseason.

They've done a great jobs putting together excellent shows and documentaries and their daily analysts keep baseball alive in the offseason.

But I'm a die hard baseball fan. I really doubt the average person watches MLB network in the offseason.

I think the same would be true w/ the Cubs network. What will they do in the offseason? Especially when you have the Bears , Bulls, Hawks in full stride from Nov thru April.

Baseball is the only 12-month season.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.