Jump to content

2022-23 MLB offseason thread


shadow_operative

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

To prepare you, Fubo doesn't have TBS.  So the playoffs are a problem.

Yeah I know, but I also read talk about the TNT TBS TRU coming back soon potentially so maybe that will happen before then.  I typically go to every home playoff game anyway and then will either go out or go to a friends to watch the away games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Scraps said:

They are all ass except regular cable that you get raped on 

DirecTV Stream is pretty decent.  I get all regional sports channels (Bally, ATTSN, etc), MLBN, TBS, all ESPNs, plus I get LHN when I log in through the ESPN app. It’s not cheap, but $85/mo isn’t that much more expensive than the others and it’s way less than I paid for satellite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

DirecTV Stream is pretty decent.  I get all regional sports channels (Bally, ATTSN, etc), MLBN, TBS, all ESPNs, plus I get LHN when I log in through the ESPN app. It’s not cheap, but $85/mo isn’t that much more expensive than the others and it’s way less than I paid for satellite.  

I had DTV for 20+ years.  Fuck those people in the ass with a saguaro and a rusty carburetor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WBT said:

Y'all seem poor

No, and the most maddening thing about the blackouts situation (and I'm talking across all sports here) is that there are frequently games that I would happily pay to watch, but I'm not allowed to.  So I instead end up watching free illegal streams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


just charge $25 / month, year round for all content. I would gladly pay 

They would take a major bath at that pricing premium. They get roughly $7 a month for rsn’s and mlb channel. Roughy 7% of the subscriber base ever watches those channels. That means the other 93% are subsidizing your watching Astros, Rockets and MLB for example. If MLB/RSN went to stand alone pricing they’d lose the ability to be able to charge all their subscribers for those channels on basic package. 
essentially, there are way more non sports fans than sports fans and as sports fans we get a huge subsidy from the rest of the world for our channels. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

They would take a major bath at that pricing premium. They get roughly $7 a month for rsn’s and mlb channel. Roughy 7% of the subscriber base ever watches those channels. That means the other 93% are subsidizing your watching Astros, Rockets and MLB for example. If MLB/RSN went to stand alone pricing they’d lose the ability to be able to charge all their subscribers for those channels on basic package. 
essentially, there are way more non sports fans than sports fans and as sports fans we get a huge subsidy from the rest of the world for our channels. 

Yeah this.  MLB makes huge money from RSNs.  If you want to watch your local team, subscribe to a carrier with the RSN.  If not, you're either poor or like to whine on the internet more than you like watching your team.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WBT said:

Yeah this.  MLB makes huge money from RSNs.  If you want to watch your local team, subscribe to a carrier with the RSN.  If not, you're either poor or like to whine on the internet more than you like watching your team.

Incorrect.

My carrier carries the Rangers, but not the Astros.  There are very few Astros fans in the Panhandle, yet we are considered local.  600 fucking miles from Houston.  People in Natchez, Mississippi are not considered local for Astros broadcasts, but I am, and they are 300 miles closer to H-town, and it's not due to availability of broadcasts, but extremely arbitrary boundaries such as state lines.

Multiple people in this thread have made it sound like it is a function of money/ spending/ frugality.

The fact that it is exactly none of those is part of what makes it so stupid/ frustrating.  I am absolutely willing to pay for MLB.cm streaming or whatever.  I still cannot( legally)  watch Astros games because of their idiotic model.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, slorch said:

Incorrect.

My carrier carries the Rangers, but not the Astros.  There are very few Astros fans in the Panhandle, yet we are considered local.  600 fucking miles from Houston.  People in Natchez, Mississippi are not considered local for Astros broadcasts, but I am, and they are 300 miles closer to H-town, and it's not due to availability of broadcasts, but extremely arbitrary boundaries such as state lines.

Multiple people in this thread have made it sound like it is a function of money/ spending/ frugality.

The fact that it is exactly none of those is part of what makes it so stupid/ frustrating.  I am absolutely willing to pay for MLB.cm streaming or whatever.  I still cannot( legally)  watch Astros games because of their idiotic model.

Yeah we weren’t referring to you but rather to the people who said a La carte. They have to change the blackout rules. It’s absurd. 100 miles-tops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, patrickdrinksbeer said:


he said choose a carrier that does offer ATT sports net. (maybe that’s not possible in lubbock, i have no idea)

Mine does. We get the Rangers.  If they were to add a second coverage, it would most likely be the Rockies. I don’t have a problem with any of that. I have a problem with not having access to my team.

Edited by slorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, slorch said:

Incorrect.

My carrier carries the Rangers, but not the Astros.  There are very few Astros fans in the Panhandle, yet we are considered local.  600 fucking miles from Houston.  People in Natchez, Mississippi are not considered local for Astros broadcasts, but I am, and they are 300 miles closer to H-town, and it's not due to availability of broadcasts, but extremely arbitrary boundaries such as state lines.

Multiple people in this thread have made it sound like it is a function of money/ spending/ frugality.

The fact that it is exactly none of those is part of what makes it so stupid/ frustrating.  I am absolutely willing to pay for MLB.cm streaming or whatever.  I still cannot( legally)  watch Astros games because of their idiotic model.

Seriously... look into DirecTV Stream.  I'm in Tulsa and I get RSNs for Astros, Rangers, Cardinals, and Royals because I'm "local" for all of them even though none are closer than a 4 hr drive (7hrs for Houston and StL).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...