2022-23 Detroit Tigers Offseason Thread

[KL2]

1 hour ago, Tenacious D said:

Is it really cord cutting?  I have to believe the TV audience is diminishing because baseball is waning in popularity.  Its biggest advantage is that it owns the summer, while the other three major sports overlap in the fall-spring. MLB has to figure out how to market their marquee players, as well as teaching them how to market themselves via social media.  The only baseball player that I’ve seen do that effectively has been Trevor Bauer, who then got canceled.

It's 100 percent cord cutting. 

College football, NFL, NHl, NBA and college basketball are all facing the same challenge. 

[gehringer_2]

9 hours ago, mtutiger said:

The cost of the service that Bally is offering is a big issue as well. Peacock, Paramount+, HBO Max, Disney+, you name it... they are all significantly cheaper.

At 19.99 per month, you get the die hards... and little else. Casual fans largely are gonna be cut out.

Yup. And the disparity is even worse when you consider that if you buy a premium channel you pretty much get 24 hrs of content for the day. Buy Bally you get ... one game.

[Edman85]

13 hours ago, KL2 said:

It's 100 percent cord cutting. 

College football, NFL, NHl, NBA and college basketball are all facing the same challenge. 

NFL isn't dependent on RSN's. College football and basketball aren't either. MLB, NBA, NHL are. I guess they all hurt a bit when ESPN loses subscribers, but streaming services offer ESPN.

Now, I forget if it was the write-up in Fangraphs or BP (both were good), but it was pointed out this doesn't mean the RSN model is dead and kaput. It was a mismanaged situation by Sinclair/Diamond and they just racked up too much debt on the deal they couldn't stay afloat. This does not mean an RSN can't be profitable, but it certainly isn't the cash cow it was 15-20 years ago.

The cable model revolves around bundling and making sure people are paying for stuff they don't watch. Not everybody is a sports fan, but every cable subscriber has ESPN. Every cable subscriber has Fox News and MSNBC, although I doubt there is anybody who watches both at this point.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Edman85

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

NFL isn't dependent on RSN's. College football and basketball aren't either. MLB, NBA, NHL are. I guess they all hurt a bit when ESPN loses subscribers, but streaming services offer ESPN.

Now, I forget if it was the write-up in Fangraphs or BP (both were good), but it was pointed out this doesn't mean the RSN model is dead and kaput. It was a mismanaged situation by Sinclair/Diamond and they just racked up too much debt on the deal they couldn't stay afloat. This does not mean an RSN can't be profitable, but it certainly isn't the cash cow it was 15-20 years ago.

The cable model revolves around bundling and making sure people are paying for stuff they don't watch. Not everybody is a sports fan, but every cable subscriber has ESPN. Every cable subscriber has Fox News and MSNBC, although I doubt there is anybody who watches both at this point.

what's trickier is that higher interest rates have put an end to free money investments - someone is going to have build a business plan that is actual defensible if Sinclairs newly minted ivestor/owners ever hope to unload the asset they are about to have dropped in their lap.

[buddha]

37 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

what's trickier is that higher interest rates have put an end to free money investments - someone is going to have build a business plan that is actual defensible if Sinclairs newly minted ivestor/owners ever hope to unload the asset they are about to have dropped in their lap.

so many businesses were built on the free money model.  its been almost 20 years of it now?  youre going to see a lot more bankruptcies now that weve returned to a "normal" rate environment.

[CMRivdogs]

Just wondering if it would be worth it to put the games on one of the commercial stations’ sub channels. I’m thinking it might be more watchable than old westerns and sitcoms. 
Since most of the sub channels are already on a lot of cable systems anyway. Plus you get the over the air capabilities. A bit of a throwback actually. It might also give you the possibility of streaming on a subscription basis as well

Edited February 5, 2023 by CMRivdogs

[Toddwert]

Bless you boys top 30 Prospect list

[KL2]

8 hours ago, Edman85 said:

NFL isn't dependent on RSN's. College football and basketball aren't either. MLB, NBA, NHL are. I guess they all hurt a bit when ESPN loses subscribers, but streaming services offer ESPN.

Now, I forget if it was the write-up in Fangraphs or BP (both were good), but it was pointed out this doesn't mean the RSN model is dead and kaput. It was a mismanaged situation by Sinclair/Diamond and they just racked up too much debt on the deal they couldn't stay afloat. This does not mean an RSN can't be profitable, but it certainly isn't the cash cow it was 15-20 years ago.

The cable model revolves around bundling and making sure people are paying for stuff they don't watch. Not everybody is a sports fan, but every cable subscriber has ESPN. Every cable subscriber has Fox News and MSNBC, although I doubt there is anybody who watches both at this point.

My comment was more the decline in all sports tv viewership via cable not specific to rsn l's which I explained at length before in this thread.

 

They all face challenges with cord cutting. It's why the nfl is now on Amazon and baseball has looked at Apple.

[KL2]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yup. And the disparity is even worse when you consider that if you buy a premium channel you pretty much get 24 hrs of content for the day. Buy Bally you get ... one game.

But that's true for pretty much any activity. Concert museums sports, whatever.

It's also a factor for a premium channel. I'm not sure most people watch everything on paramount plus. They watch a couple things then it sits there.

I'm not sure it's much of a factor. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by KL2

[KL2]

3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Just wondering if it would be worth it to put the games on one of the commercial stations’ sub channels. I’m thinking it might be more watchable than old westerns and sitcoms. 
Since most of the sub channels are already on a lot of cable systems anyway. Plus you get the over the air capabilities. A bit of a throwback actually. It might also give you the possibility of streaming on a subscription basis as well

The problem with subchannels is they are maxed in what they can send out. If you send out one hd signal the substation almost always has to be sd because of said cap. When your showing a 4x3 480 show from the 70s is fine. Sports fans probably aren't gonna sit for long with sd or a low mbit HD program.

[gehringer_2]

27 minutes ago, KL2 said:

But that's true for pretty much any activity. Concert museums sports, whatever.

It's also a factor for a premium channel. I'm not sure most people watch everything on paramount plus. They watch a couple things then it sits there.

I'm not sure it's much of a factor. 

I think it figures in the perception of the overall entertainment value even if not the reality - it would for me anyway. If I buy a premium stream, any time on any evening I can find something to stream. A sporting event you have to do on it's schedule and especial for Hockey or Basketball, it's only every other day during the season at best so in terms of paying for availability of a desired entertainment, so I'll take the entertainment stream if the prices are close and I have only 'x' $ to spend.  You can DVR stuff (which I do) to  make it more 'on demand', but if you are a fan odds are you already got the score. I'll still watch a hockey game after I know the outcome, but I would rate it's value lower, and I nearly never watch a baseball game after the fact unless there is some unique aspect - no hitter kind of thing etc. Obvious this is pretty YMMV kind of personal preference stuff.

[mtutiger]

38 minutes ago, KL2 said:

But that's true for pretty much any activity. Concert museums sports, whatever.

It's also a factor for a premium channel. I'm not sure most people watch everything on paramount plus. They watch a couple things then it sits there.

I'm not sure it's much of a factor. 

The thing about a Bally Sports subscription is, when you look at it over the course one one season of baseball, you are paying about the same as someone like me (who lives outside of the Tigers viewing market) pays to have MLB.TV. 

It's true that Bally also gives you the ability to watch the Wings and Pistons, but if you aren't especially interested in the other content being created (or in this case played) locally or are a casual observer of any of these teams, the odds that you avail yourself of the service at $19.99 a month is pretty low... 

Edited February 5, 2023 by mtutiger

[Edman85]

35 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The thing about a Bally Sports subscription is, when you look at it over the course one one season of baseball, you are paying about the same as someone like me (who lives outside of the Tigers viewing market) pays to have MLB.TV. 

It's true that Bally also gives you the ability to watch the Wings and Pistons, but if you aren't especially interested in the other content being created (or in this case played) locally or are a casual observer of any of these teams, the odds that you avail yourself of the service at $19.99 a month is pretty low... 

I would pay 20 a month for Tigers games if it was the only way for me to watch them, unless of course cable would offset that.

[gehringer_2]

39 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The thing about a Bally Sports subscription is, when you look at it over the course one one season of baseball, you are paying about the same as someone like me (who lives outside of the Tigers viewing market) pays to have MLB.TV. 

It's true that Bally also gives you the ability to watch the Wings and Pistons, but if you aren't especially interested in the other content being created (or in this case played) locally or are a casual observer of any of these teams, the odds that you avail yourself of the service at $19.99 a month is pretty low... 

I'm paying DirectTV $6/mo for Bally. I'm OK with that but I won't go to $20. If someone who watches as much Tigers and Wings as I do won't, there can't be much of a market out there at that price beyond Edman!  📺❌

Edited February 5, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Shinzaki]

Most stand alone streaming services top out around $10.  I could do $10...didnt see the value in $20

[Tenacious D]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

I would pay 20 a month for Tigers games if it was the only way for me to watch them, unless of course cable would offset that.

Of course you would—you spend time in a baseball online forum.  I agree that the majority of fans would not pay that premium, especially when the team is largely irrelevant due to lack of marquee players or winning baseball.

[Cruzer1]

 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Shinzaki said:

Most stand alone streaming services top out around $10.  I could do $10...didnt see the value in $20

$10 seems more reasonable.

I would be curious to know what market research led to setting that price... 

[oblong]

Planet Fitness determined $10 was the point at which people tend to stay on. Of course saying “you will go back to the gym” and watching sports is not quite the same but I can see mentally where people let things go at $10 and under. 

[casimir]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

$10 seems more reasonable.

I would be curious to know what market research led to setting that price... 

Kind of makes one wonder where this will all be in 5, 10, 15 years.  How many offerings will be purely a la carte on their own, how many will be bundled?  Will sports teams be predominately on their own app/channel or will cities/regions package multiple sports, or will leagues take control of all of their teams?

Old enough to remember when the local cable company had an "A" side and a "B" side that needed to be manually flipped.  Don't remember why they went 2-30 on either side rather than go 2-60 with no A/B, its just what we had to deal with.

[Tenacious D]

1 minute ago, casimir said:

Kind of makes one wonder where this will all be in 5, 10, 15 years.  How many offerings will be purely a la carte on their own, how many will be bundled?  Will sports teams be predominately on their own app/channel or will cities/regions package multiple sports, or will leagues take control of all of their teams?

Old enough to remember when the local cable company had an "A" side and a "B" side that needed to be manually flipped.  Don't remember why they went 2-30 on either side rather than go 2-60 with no A/B, its just what we had to deal with.

I hope people are still interested in baseball to the same degree in 15 years.  Not a great long-term business model when your core audience is the AARP crowd.

[Tiger337]

11 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

I hope people are still interested in baseball to the same degree in 15 years.  Not a great long-term business model when your core audience is the AARP crowd.

They'll fix it with further expanded playoffs, gambling and home run derby replacing extra innings.  

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

They'll fix it with further expanded playoffs, gambling and home run derby replacing extra innings.  

This is all sarcasm I know, but in all seriousness, part of making sure people remain interested in the sport is making sure that it is still accessible to the average fan on television or streaming device. Which brings you back to the discussion of Bally and RSNs and what kind of impacts a bankruptcy might have on the marketplace.

[Tiger337]

57 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

This is all sarcasm I know, but in all seriousness, part of making sure people remain interested in the sport is making sure that it is still accessible to the average fan on television or streaming device. Which brings you back to the discussion of Bally and RSNs and what kind of impacts a bankruptcy might have on the marketplace.

It could be reality.  Expanded playoffs for sure, gambling for sure and they have even discussed home runs deciding tie games.  

[Turnbuckle]

On 2/4/2023 at 4:03 PM, Tenacious D said:

Is it really cord cutting?  I have to believe the TV audience is diminishing because baseball is waning in popularity.  Its biggest advantage is that it owns the summer, while the other three major sports overlap in the fall-spring. MLB has to figure out how to market their marquee players, as well as teaching them how to market themselves via social media.  The only baseball player that I’ve seen do that effectively has been Trevor Bauer, who then got canceled.

I think it's cord cutting combined with Bally not playing nice with online streaming services.  

I don't know anyone with cable anymore.  I know several who have live tv streaming subscriptions, though.  I got YouTube TV a few years ago expecting to finally get to watch the Tigers again.  Then I realized Bally wasn't on there.  What a waste.

But if you look at video game sales data, the MLB The Show series is more popular than ever.  In 2022 it was on the top ten selling Playstation games despite it also being available on the Nintendo Switch and for free with a Game Pass subscription on the XBox.

They desperately need to figure out video broadcasting availability to J6Ps.  I'm a huge fan turning into a lapsed one through a combination of a miserable team and an impossibly complicated, expensive, and/or restricted access to viewing live games.