FrioAg 00 said:

---

Agreed. Too many Astros fans treating them like rivals already, and 1 successful year isn't enough for them to earn the spot as a rival.

I'd rather stay focused on being better than LA, the Yankees and Braves.

---

Is you focusing on the Braves, Dodgers and Yankees going to help us beat those teams?

It's February 23. If some of us want to entertain ourselves visualizing ways to eff with the Rangers fans, let us have our fun.

So its through MLB, but the blackout restrictions are lifted. Please get in on this Astros.

Edit to add: "MLB is able to lift the blackout for D-backs games previously distributed on Bally Sports Arizona." I am guessing this is what gives MLB the ability to do it. No contract restrictions.

I don't think the Astros can do this without taking a revenue hit. The economics are a bit dense but I believe, in the end, the local sports cable contracts end up being more money for the Astros because the cable customers end up paying for the channel whether they watch or not. I'm no expert though.

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

Robbie Grossman is still available. Would the Astros have interest in signing him as bench depth?

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

You wouldn't. But lots of people don't want Directv, Xfinity, Fubo, etc. but we get it because that's our only option to watch the Astros. We have for pay ~$100 a month for 6 months to watch our team. This would save us $500.

Cancel your DTV that's lets say $100/month and opt for this streaming service that's $99/all season.

Doesn't work if you're like us and have Fubo anyways as out typical streaming service.

Mathguy64 said:

---

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

For those that have cut the cord and don't want the commitment/hassle of a DTV contract, they want the option to stream the games a la carte. So for me, I would cancel FuboTV, subscribe to Astros.tv, and keep my Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Disney, and HBO subscriptions.

Farmer1906 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

You wouldn't. But lots of people don't want Directv, Xfinity, Fubo, etc. but we get it because that's our only option to watch the Astros. We have for pay ~$100 a month for 6 months to watch our team. This would save us $500.

---

This is my understanding. They are offering "in-market" viewers to purchase the games for 19.99/month or a one time charge of $99. If the Astros announced that I would sign up instantly.

Here is the issue though. Originally, the Astros were making $73 M a year from AT&T. They went belly up and Crane took it over (with Tilman) / launched Space City. The new revenue is expected to be ~$50 M. If the Astros were to go with a model like the Dbacks then they'd need to sell 500K subs. That assumes there is zero money coming from TV providers. Space City loses a ton of negotiating power if it offers a direct-to-consumer stream. Maybe the next deal Crane makes nets the Astros 25 M from TV providers. Then he'd need to sell 250K subs. Even then it seems like a very large number.

I imagine that when the Astros and Rockets teamed together to acquire ATTSN from Warner Brothers and re-brand to SCHN they inherited the same contracts with the DirecTV, Fubo, XFinity, etc. of the world that doesn't allow them to offer a la carte. Just me speculating.

CFTXAG10 said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

You wouldn't. But lots of people don't want Directv, Xfinity, Fubo, etc. but we get it because that's our only option to watch the Astros. We have for pay ~$100 a month for 6 months to watch our team. This would save us $500.

---

This is my understanding. They are offering "in-market" viewers to purchase the games for 19.99/month or a one time charge of $99. If the Astros announced that I would sign up instantly.

---

You're right. I was referring to how we're all paying for FUBO, DTV, etc and it costs us around 75-125 a month. A new direct-to-consumer stream would save us a pretty penny.

CFTXAG10 said:

---

I imagine that when the Astros and Rockets teamed together to acquire ATTSN from Warner Brothers and re-brand to SCHN they inherited the same contracts with the DirecTV, Fubo, XFinity, etc. of the world that doesn't allow them to offer a la carte. Just me speculating.

---

I believe you are correct. Now when do those deal expire?

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

Most people have some sort of streaming cable option, but if you do have cable pretty much only for Astros games, you can certainly get rid of it in favor of this and go antenna.

If you have something like YouTube TV, it's just replacing the RSN fee you pay for Fubo or DTV stream, so doesn't make a ton of sense from that perspective.

BCEDAg said:

---

Robbie Grossman is still available. Would the Astros have interest in signing him as bench depth?

---

No, because we have plenty of outfielders who crush lefties in Chas, Jake, & Doobie. If we add anything, I think it needs to be an OFer who can hit RHP well. We may roll the dice with someone like Melton or Loperfido since they're LHH.

Looks like the Red Sox are playing a college team today in an exhibition game. Twins play another one tonight.

Here is an article that talks about the economics a bit.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/texas-sports-nation/astros/article/regional-sports-network-bankruptcy-astros-rockets-17805557.php

This is what I was alluding to in my previous post.

Quote:

---

One reason for the high cost of cable and satellite fees, in fact, is the high cost of pro sports. Comcast customers in Houston, for example, pay $10.49 per month in RSN fees to cover the cost of AT&T SportsNet Southwest, which is believed to be in the $6 range, and Bally Sports Southwest, even if they don't watch a minute of sports programming.

Major League Baseball receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from RSN contracts. While that money could disappear if the RSNs collapse, forcing MLB to develop a new distribution model, commissioner Rob Manfred said recently that games will remain available.

"I think you should assume that if Diamond doesn't broadcast, we'll be in a position to step in," Manfred said. "Our goal would be to make games available not only within the traditional cable bundle but on the digital side, as well."

---

Beat40 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

Most people have some sort of streaming cable option, but if you do have cable pretty much only for Astros games, you can certainly get rid of it in favor of this and go antenna.

If you have something like YouTube TV, it's just replacing the RSN fee you pay for Fubo or DTV stream, so doesn't make a ton of sense from that perspective.

---

This one irks me. I'd like to know what is stopping SCHN from being added to YTTV. Non-compete with other providers? They just don't want to hassle with it? Profit margin isn't there? If they allowed me to pay an RSN fee for a SCHN add-on I would gladly do it.

DBacks weren't the first. Colorado already launched theirs as well. But as mentioned, it was because ATT Sports went belly up and they didn't make the same deal Crane did. I think initially things like this will hurt viewership. People can't channel surf to a game anymore. There's also a lot of people that still don't understand how to stream.

CFTXAG10 said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

So maybe I'm dense. Ok it's not maybe. I know I am.

Someone help the old guy here.

Out of market this new Dbacks stream won't work. You use MLB TV if you live out of market and want to watch the Dbacks.

In market they have a new streaming service. But the definition of in market means you already have an in market solution. Right? So this stream is an option in place of what you already have.

I'm trying to imagine it here. I have DTV so I get all Astros games. I'm in market. Why would I want to pay for another version of that?

---

Most people have some sort of streaming cable option, but if you do have cable pretty much only for Astros games, you can certainly get rid of it in favor of this and go antenna.

If you have something like YouTube TV, it's just replacing the RSN fee you pay for Fubo or DTV stream, so doesn't make a ton of sense from that perspective.

---

This one irks me. I'd like to know what is stopping SCHN from being added to YTTV. Non-compete with other providers? They just don't want to hassle with it? Profit margin isn't there? If they allowed me to pay an RSN fee for a SCHN add-on I would gladly do it.

---

YTTV doesn't want to mess with RSNs, I assume because of the rates they want to charge.

I personally am ok with it. RSNs are the main reason direct to customer isn't happening.

agdaddy04 said:

---

DBacks weren't the first. Colorado already launched theirs as well. But as mentioned, it was because ATT Sports went belly up and they didn't make the same deal Crane did. I think initially things like this will hurt viewership. People can't channel surf to a game anymore. There's also a lot of people that still don't understand how to stream.

---

I was listening to both the NFL commish and NBA commish talk about it and they've both said research shows the younger generations prefer streaming over traditional things like cable. We're in limbo right now, but I think MLB needs to get on board with a good streaming option sooner than later because a lot of the younger generation is consuming that way.

agdaddy04 said:

---

DBacks weren't the first. Colorado already launched theirs as well. But as mentioned, it was because ATT Sports went belly up and they didn't make the same deal Crane did. I think initially things like this will hurt viewership. People can't channel surf to a game anymore. There's also a lot of people that still don't understand how to stream.

---

Do people still channel surf?

Look how cable is declining.

https://nscreenmedia.com/us-pay-tv/#:~:text=Big%20TV%20channel%20bundle%20homes%20declined%20by%208%20million%20over%20the%20last%20year&text=from%2070.3%20million%20in%20Q2,offset%20some%20of%20the%20losses.



What do you think would happen to those #s if live sports all went DTC?

I would love this as an alternative as well

Quote:

---

Amazon is now a minority owner of Diamond Sports Group's Bally Sports regional networks.

Diamond announced Wednesday that Amazon had taken a minority stake in the company as part of its bankruptcy restructuring. More significantly for sports fans across the country, Amazon's stake in the company means that games televised on Bally Sports channels will be available to local fans via Amazon Prime.

Nearly 40 teams across MLB, the NBA and the NHL have local television contracts with Bally Sports regional affiliates, but not all television providers have deals to carry Bally Sports networks. YouTubeTV users have long been unable to watch their local teams' games without subscribing to Bally Sports' streaming service.

Now, those fans should be able to see their teams play if they have an Amazon Prime subscription.

Quote:

---

"We are thrilled to have reached a comprehensive restructuring agreement that provides a detailed framework for a reorganization plan and substantial new financing that will enable Diamond to operate and thrive beyond 2024," DSG CEO David Preschlack said in a statement. "We are grateful for the support from Amazon and a group of our largest creditors who clearly believe in the value-creating potential of this business."

---

---

I have Xfinity and don't channel surf. I pretty much go to the sports on demand section of Xfinity and review all the live sports currently on and choose what to watch from there. I am rarely choosing my channel from the guide

That would be great too. Unless I am missing something your options right now are:

DirecTV Choice - $109.99/month
FUBO TV - $80+$15 = $95/month
XFINITY - $60+RSN fee + equipment charge = $100/month neighborhood

Beat40 said:

---

I didn't have the Diamondbacks on my bingo card as the first to do this. Let's go. Astros need to get this done.

---

Padres had it last year and again this year. Fallout of RSNs going down

We play baseball today 😎 pic.twitter.com/YJWYwjVgis

— Chicago White Sox (@whitesox) February 23, 2024

The White Sox are so bad that maldy is batting 7th.