Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
March 04, 2007
Bud on DirecTV

Bud Selig spoke with reporters about the DirecTV deal:

Speaking to reporters before Saturday's Cubs-A's game, Selig called it "a slight controversy, in some places."

He pointed out the deal is close to being completed but is not done.

"I've heard for years we have too much product out there," Selig said.

"Everywhere I've gone ... there's no market that has less than 350 to 400 [televised] games, and some [like Chicago] have quite a bit more than that. We have an enormous amount of product out there.

"As for this deal, what fascinates me is I have spent a lot of time going over it and trying to find out who can't get [DirecTV].

"We're down now to such small numbers, that I'm really wondering [about the fuss].

"... In a year or two, when people understand the significance of this deal ... everybody will understand it."

There are two things worth talking about here. The first is the idea of too much product. When I started working on Baseball Tonight in 1990, ESPN was broadcast six games a week nationally. And not too many people were watching. The reason was that except for Sunday night, ESPN couldn't show games in market. So if the Red Sox were playing Cleveland, those two cities got the backup game. The market for out of market games is small compared to the market for home team games. That's just a fact of life.

But having more broadcasts available does eat into those local broadcasts a bit. Someone might want to watch that Mets-Cardinals game rather than their local Royals-Orioles game. And EI certainly eats into ESPN broadcasts. The more product out their, the less providers are going to make off the product they can broadcast. So I understand this concern, although I believe it's balanced by building a bigger fan base.

On the other hand, the argument that you can see 350 to 400 games in any market talks past the argument the opposition makes. No one is complaining about the amount of games available. People are complaining about the choice available. An Indians fan in South Dakota wants to see Indians games, not whatever ESPN or Fox is airing that evening or afternoon. It goes back to the home team trump card. It doesn't matter if a person can see 350 games if 330 aren't of interest to them. Most people (I'm not included here) don't watch baseball games just because they are on. They watch games that have some meaning to them. Bud needs to realize this and address that issue directly. Otherwise, he sounds like a man out of touch.

Baseball Musings is holding a pledge drive in March.


Posted by David Pinto at 10:58 AM | Broadcasts | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I'm not surprised that he is that dense. Whether it's that he doesn't understand or doesn't care is irrelevant. The owners must realize he should not be in charge. They're all allegedly smart enough to have made fortunes capable of buying a team. Why do they let Selig represent them. Surely it can't be because he used to be one of them. So what? He's harming the product they still own. They need to find their spines.

I'm not switching to DirecTV. I don't want to spend the initial startup cost, and I don't really want to drill holes in my house. (The Money Pit is real. It's a long unfortunate story. But even tiny holes in the wall make me afraid.)

But I'm an addict. I must have Phillies games. What I hate most about this is that I'll have to give Selig validation, even though it'll be a clear misinterpretation of the data on his part. I'm going to sign up for MLB.tv. I'll hook my computer to my television and watch the poor quality. I'll be unhappy but placated. And Selig will declare victory because fans still have options that are allegedly wonderful. Ugh.

The end of the Selig era can't come soon enough.

Posted by: Tony at March 4, 2007 11:55 AM

And yet, as a DirecTv customer just south of Washington DC, I get far fewer than 350 to 400 games per year, because of the Orioles and Nationals TV deals combined with local channel availability. I'd say the number is closer to 100.

Even with Extra Innings, I couldn't see any of the Red Sox games that were played at Baltimore due to channel blocking.

Posted by: Josh at March 4, 2007 12:10 PM

I still don't see why it is baseball's 'duty' to allow non-DirecTV owners to receive the package. If they want to sign a deal with DirecTV, it should be their right to do so. They realize that some people will not be able to receive DirecTV, just like some people can't receive cable. Do people think that it's the government's right to tell who MLB can and can't do business with? It you as an individual don't want to switch to DirecTV (i.e. don't want to drill holes in your house), then that's your right, too. If you can't get DirecTV, well, oh well. Life isn't exactly fair all of the time. You can always switch apartments or move or watch it online or listen to it on the radio or whatever.

Should the government get involved because there is no Trader Joe's near my house? I really want one nearby and I think it's unfair that there isn't one, so maybe I should get the gov't to force Trader Joe's to open one up over here.

P.S. Tony: DirecTV startup costs are very low, and in some cases non-existent. And you can get the DirecTV dish attached to a pole sunk into the ground next to your house if you don't want it attached to your house.

Posted by: shawn at March 4, 2007 12:32 PM

In response to Shawn, MLB is allowed to operate as a monopoly by Congress. As such, they need to ensure that their actions strike a balance between the commercial interests of baseball and the public good. Allowing MLB to use their monopoly powers to advance one delivery channel over another is abusive.

Posted by: David at March 4, 2007 01:17 PM

I don't see where anyone suggested that the government get involved in this. Where did that come from? I think the points made were more that Selig is out of touch with the average viewer and by making the changes that we have to does validate his actions. He is going to see this from his myopic viewpoint of "see it works"

Posted by: emains at March 4, 2007 03:40 PM

The one point you touched upon is key: end the local national blackouts.
It pisses me off to no end that the BoSox are on Fox almost every other weekend (or so it seems), and because of that I can't ever watch those games. Why? Because I'm in Chicago and between the two teams here, one is on just as often. Just because I live here doesn't mean I want to watch the local games instead of my team.
To fix this, I went out and bought an xm home reciever so I can at least listen. But why should I have to pay twice?

Posted by: Jacques at March 4, 2007 04:09 PM

I don't know whether Selig is just plain lying or is that much out of touch. I'm quite comfortable with my cable, I see no reason why I should have to switch to DirecTv. This deal is asinine. "Too much product?" Not hardly. Not only do I want to get my Yankee games (out of market) but yes, there are times when the only game on is a Diamondbacks/Brewers game, and I'll sit and watch the last few innings of that. There is no good reason why MLB should limit viewership to one media provider.

Posted by: rbj at March 4, 2007 05:28 PM

This is what you get in socialism--no choice. MLB, Inc. is a socialist, highly centralized operation with no oversight.
Second, I have experience with DirecTV and cable, & there's no comparison between the 2. I'd kill myself before getting DirecTV again. I could elaborate, but that's the bottom line.

Posted by: susan mullen at March 4, 2007 08:18 PM

Funny, I would rather go without TV than to trade my DirecTV for cable. If I had a choice between nothing and cable, I would choose nothing every time.

Posted by: shawn at March 4, 2007 09:31 PM

Shawn,

David's point about government-permitted monopoly is correct. If you want the benefits of special treatment, you have to accept the drawbacks. That said, I've stated (at my site, not here) that the government should stay out and let Selig be as stupid as he wants.

As for the startup cost, to get the equivalent service I get with cable, I'd have to spend at least $400. I can afford that, but that doesn't mean I want to toss it around just because.

As for Selig's too much product, that might have more to do with the blackout restrictions. As Jacques said, we all have to accommodate this craziness in some ridiculous way.

Posted by: Tony at March 5, 2007 08:44 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?