- Article: Where Do We Point The Finger?
Today, 03:17 PM
- Article: When Should We Start Worrying About Teddy? Not This Year
Today, 03:11 PM
- Article: Vikings Journal Mailbag: David Yankey, Drafting and the Offensive Line
Today, 12:53 PM
- Article: Fantasy Football Week 13 Rankings
Today, 12:18 PM
- Article: Fantasy Football Pants Party Podcast - Week 13
Today, 12:48 AM
- Former Viking And Love Boat Coordinator Fred Smoot Arrested
Yesterday, 01:35 PM
- MUST SEE: Vikings' Matt Kalil Knocks Hat Off Fans' Head
Yesterday, 10:35 AM
- REPORT: Phil Loadholt Done For Season With Torn Pec
Nov 24 2014 08:52 PM
- Aaron Rodgers downs a "Grape Crush" at postgame press conference...
Nov 24 2014 03:35 PM
- Vikings legal team working with NFL to keep AP on sidelines
Nov 24 2014 03:03 PM
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.