WGN America to drop Sox, Cubs, other sports - Page 5

**Lip Man 1** · #61 06-01-2014, 10:50 PM

GoSox:

The problem is you have to have fast enough internet to avoid stoppages and issues. I don't believe I have that. Plus I have little desire to watch a three hour baseball game on a computer screen.

But thanks for the trip, maybe sometime in the future.

Lip

DSpivack · #62 06-01-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoSox2K3

I hope you're right. The RSNs and ESPN are a total rip off for people who want cable but aren't into sports. Right now, the choice for consumers is pay the high monthly surcharge for these channels (reflected in your bill) or cut the cord.

I really hope the day comes soon where cable/sat providers are forced to offer sports networks a la carte. Let sports fans pay for it themselves and not have the price essentially subsidized by everyone else. The market will dictate how much ESPN and the RSNs can get away with charging customers. No reason why everyone in the NY Yankees television market should have to pay for YES no matter what their interest in that team if they want cable or satellite.

MLB.tv has price options of $79.99 and $99.99 per year:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions...=MLBTVREDIRECT

Probably because they can make a lot more money that way? I don't see a la carte cable coming anytime soon, if ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

GoSox:

The problem is you have to have fast enough internet to avoid stoppages and issues. I don't believe I have that. Plus I have little desire to watch a three hour baseball game on a computer screen.

But thanks for the trip, maybe sometime in the future.

Lip

It doesn't have to be on a computer, it's not difficult to watch on a TV nowadays. But you're right, that depends on the capability of your internet connection.

Another plus for MLB.tv over Extra Innings is travel: you can take it with you, whether that's on a phone, tablet, or computer.

doublem23 · #63 06-01-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

GoSox:

The problem is you have to have fast enough internet to avoid stoppages and issues. I don't believe I have that. Plus I have little desire to watch a three hour baseball game on a computer screen.

But thanks for the trip, maybe sometime in the future.

Lip

There are multiple options out there, first and foremost, assuming you have a TV and computer that have been built in the past decade, there's got to be a cable you can buy to connect the two and basically turn your TV into a monitor for it. Cheap, easy, effective.

If not, there are a couple of streaming devices you can look into, most specifically the Roku and Chromecast. Roku has a few different products but it is basically a device you hook up to your TV and can stream internet programming directly to your TV. It's nice because it is very user-friendly; it has it's own built-in user interface so you basically download "channel apps" to your device and then can pick programming with a remote control.

Chromecast is made by Google, it's a little more open-ended, but you basically hook it up to your TV and then can "cast" whatever is on your browser (you have to use Google Chrome) and that will appear on your television. Not quite as user friendly as the Roku, but it's also a lot less expensive.

Additionally, an MLB.tv subscription also allows you to watch on other devices, such as tablets, aside from just your computer.

Golden Sox · #64 06-02-2014, 06:02 AM

I find it hard to believe that WGN-TV is getting out of the sports business. Didn't they just sign the Blackhawks to a long term TV contract?

doublem23 · #65 06-02-2014, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Sox

I find it hard to believe that WGN-TV is getting out of the sports business. Didn't they just sign the Blackhawks to a long term TV contract?

They did but WGN and WGN America are different things, WGN will continue to show Chicago sports in the Chicago market, WGN America, their national cable channel is getting out of the Chicago-centric sports and programming business. Remember they stopped the News at 9 on WGN America a few months ago, the writing has been on the wall for this move for a while now.

GoSox2K3 · #66 06-02-2014, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSpivack

Probably because they can make a lot more money that way? I don't see a la carte cable coming anytime soon, if ever.

Well yeah, but that totally misses my point. Sure they make a lot more money that way, but my point is it's because they're forcing anyone who wants cable/satellite in that market to pay for YES. They're making more money by refusing to give customers a choice - other than the choice of simply cutting the cord, that is.

Same holds true for the other RSNs. I was just using YES as an example.

No, I don't see a la carte happening anytime soon. The people/corporations making billions from these sports TV deals will never let that happen.

gobears1987 · #67 06-02-2014, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Sox

I find it hard to believe that WGN-TV is getting out of the sports business. Didn't they just sign the Blackhawks to a long term TV contract?

This won't affect Blackhawk games as the NHL didn't allow Hawk games on WGN America in the first place.

It does affect Cubs and Sox broadcasts though. Maybe the Sox will wise up and not re-up with WGN and WCIU. I'd rather see all 162 on CSN (excluding national broadcasts). They get more money per game from them anyways.

Golden Sox · #68 06-02-2014, 09:37 AM

In one of the biggest mistakes the White Sox ever did in my lifetime was when they left WGN TV for Channel 32 after the 1967 season. I hope the White Sox keep some of there games on WGN TV in the future. Both New York baseball teams have all of there games on cable TV. I hope the White Sox don't do the same thing. There are people out there who don't have cable TV. You're reaching more people by having some of your games on free TV.

chisox59 · #69 06-02-2014, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Right now at the house here in Idaho, we have DirecTV and our internet is through CenturyLink. For example we can get You Tube videos through our Wii via our computer. But when I've tried to watch things like "Full Color Football: The History of the American Football League," or the White Sox games that were on You Tube at one time from the 80's, the picture kept freezing and the wheel would appear in the middle of the screen trying to download that video.

So I'm guessing Roku and MLB.tv is useless unless you have the internet capacity to handle it correct???

Thanks for any info on this from anybody.

Lip

It's not internet speed exclusively. It can also be dependent on the amount of RAM your PC has. I was in the same boat as far as far as seeing the wheel and being constantly told it was buffering. My old PC only had 328 meg of RAM. It just kept getting worse as the technology used to provide the feed changed. It wasn't long before I found it useless to try and watch a video of any type unless it was from a disc in my dvd drive. I replaced my PC this year wth one that has 8 GB of RAM and watching videos is again no problem.

I had another problem with my mobile device. My kids had bought me an IPOD Touch a few years ago. I downloaded the AT BAT app to it and was able to use the wireless in the house to listen to the Sox with MLB Audio while I went about my business. The last two years I haven't been able to do that. My IPOD Touch has been upgraded software wise as far as it can go but when I try and add apps to it including AT BAT I'm told I need an upgraded version of software in order to do this. Since that's not available for my device I'm out of luck. Technology is great but it leaves a lot of us behind unless we have the resources to keep upgrading or replacing what we have.

We bought a smart TV last year and use it to watch Netflix. It also has a link to MLB.TV which I may have to use. The kicker with MLB.TV is that if you want to listen to the Sox announcers rather than the opposition you have to buy the premium package which is $20-25 more than the basic one per year. The basic package only gives you one feed and it's their discretion whether it's the Sox or the opponent.

jdm2662 · #70 06-02-2014, 11:23 AM

There is only going to be some flack in places like Rockford, Iowa, Central IL, and maybe parts of Indiana where it is still considered the viewing area for Chicago sports. Other than that, the viewers in the rest of the country are not even going to notice or care. Or, to phrase it better, there won't be enough people to make a difference. The Sox don't have a national following (and have an embarrassment of an announcer to boot, the Cubs don't have the power they used to, and regular season in the NBA is quite boring to most fans. If there is programming that is going to be bring more revenue, that's the reality of life.

***voodoochile*** · #71 06-02-2014, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chisox59

It's not internet speed exclusively. It can also be dependent on the amount of RAM your PC has. I was in the same boat as far as far as seeing the wheel and being constantly told it was buffering. My old PC only had 328 meg of RAM. It just kept getting worse as the technology used to provide the feed changed. It wasn't long before I found it useless to try and watch a video of any type unless it was from a disc in my dvd drive. I replaced my PC this year wth one that has 8 GB of RAM and watching videos is again no problem.

I had another problem with my mobile device. My kids had bought me an IPOD Touch a few years ago. I downloaded the AT BAT app to it and was able to use the wireless in the house to listen to the Sox with MLB Audio while I went about my business. The last two years I haven't been able to do that. My IPOD Touch has been upgraded software wise as far as it can go but when I try and add apps to it including AT BAT I'm told I need an upgraded version of software in order to do this. Since that's not available for my device I'm out of luck. Technology is great but it leaves a lot of us behind unless we have the resources to keep upgrading or replacing what we have.

We bought a smart TV last year and use it to watch Netflix. It also has a link to MLB.TV which I may have to use. The kicker with MLB.TV is that if you want to listen to the Sox announcers rather than the opposition you have to buy the premium package which is $20-25 more than the basic one per year. The basic package only gives you one feed and it's their discretion whether it's the Sox or the opponent.

Put the radio feed on your computer and watch the game on mute on the TV.

TDog · #72 06-02-2014, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golden Sox

In one of the biggest mistakes the White Sox ever did in my lifetime was when they left WGN TV for Channel 32 after the 1967 season. I hope the White Sox keep some of there games on WGN TV in the future. Both New York baseball teams have all of there games on cable TV. I hope the White Sox don't do the same thing. There are people out there who don't have cable TV. You're reaching more people by having some of your games on free TV.

I have always believed the consequences of the White Sox move to WFLD has been exaggerated. WGN went from broadcasting a few home games, mostly day games because WGN didn't want to interfere with its prime-time syndication schedule, to broadcasting their entire schedule, except for the West Coast trips, on a station that was more difficult to get. At the same time, the White Sox were becoming one of the worst teams in baseball. Moving to Chanel 32 didn't make the White Sox bad. The Sox failed to draw 1 million in 1967 when they were a bad weekend away from a trip to the World Series, and they would have drawn less than half a million in their 106-loss season if some of the games had been running on WGN.

The baseball moves made by White Sox management (including playing some home games in Milwaukee in 1968 and 1969) had much more to do with the Cubs becoming the more popular team in Chicago than WGN as the Cubs were becoming the fashionable team to watch across the country, stacked with hitting and pitching and primed to return to the World Series after almost a quarter century of frustration. Baseball Digest picked the Cubs to go to the World Series before the 1969 season (while picking the Mets to finish last).

WGN always had more stake in the Cubs than the White Sox. The White Sox were the second team on WGN in 1967. WGN didn't cause people not to go games in 1970. I've heard the thing about the kids coming home from school and turning on the end of the Cubs games and growing up to be fans, but that would have happened if WGN had continued to broadcast only Cubs and White Sox home games, with the Sox television schedule limited because they played a lot of night games during the week.

I can't imagine any realistic scenario where it would have been the Sox instead of the Cubs being the Superstaion darling team in the early days of heavy cable saturation, when A&E was still showing artsy ballets and classical concerts. I imagine White Sox baseball on WGN might have been very close to the abbreviated schedule ran in the early Reinsdorf years when both WGN and the White Sox opted out of the third year of their three-year contract.

The television moves by the White Sox over the years (some simply being ideas ahead of their time) haven't worked out as well as management had projected. But providing more games on free TV, as the White Sox did in 1968, wasn't a bad idea. And the alternative wasn't as rosy for the White Sox as many consider them to be.