- Article: What to do With Matt Kalil
Today, 03:32 PM
- Article: Fantasy Football Week 16 Rankings
Today, 02:16 PM
- Article: Vikings Journal Mailbag: Next Year's Optimism, Playing Rookies and Draft Strategy
Today, 08:47 AM
- Article: How Does Teddy Compare? - Version 3.0
Today, 07:52 AM
- Time to cut Blair Walsh
Today, 01:22 AM
- This Week in the NFC North - Week 16
Yesterday, 05:17 PM
- NFLPA files lawsuit against the NFL on behalf of Peterson
Yesterday, 12:30 PM
- Article: Big Week for Walsh
Yesterday, 11:28 AM
- Article: How Did the Vikings Change their Gameplan Against the Lions?
Yesterday, 11:26 AM
- Hoge is really down on Johnny Football--really down
Dec 16 2014 08:45 AM
mlb.tv part II
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:13 PM
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:19 PM
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:25 PM
Being in Iowa, I am in the blackout zone for the twins, royals, cardinals, brewers, cubs, and white Sox. Which is totally fair. Also, im still trying to figure out why half my MLB network games get blacked out when neither team is even in the Midwest.
When it comes to the financial powerhouse that is Iowa, it's better safe than sorry. You can't let any of the midwest teams get the upper hand by showing their games to an additional 40 people.
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:28 PM
Posted 24 June 2012 - 02:38 PM
Are we sure this will lead to more access? If the RSNs don't have exclusivity, they offer a lower bid for local rights. It then comes down to whether the amount they (MLB clubs) lose collectively is more than or less than what they get from mlb.tv. If it's more than what mlb.tv can provide, they'll just axe the service completely. There is no constitutional right to watch baseball over the internet.
They wouldn't axe the service. It would be a massive mistake. That's where the future is going and MLBAM is smart enough to know that. They might increase the price or do any number of things but they won't kill the service.