The impending death of Bally Sports

[Screwball]

4 hours ago, Shades of Deivi Cruz said:

I did not have that experience at all. I was a customer for something like 20 years, mostly due to Sunday Ticket. When I cut with them last year, I found it quite easy.  Strangely, I had way more trouble trying to get my parents setup with them. LOL!

Me too, but that wasn't my experience. Good for you. It was truly awful. They got way to expensive, at least where I live, and what I wanted. When the weather got bad it wouldn't work. We finally got fiber so I was out in a heartbeat. Love it. It rocks. My fiber is cheap and I cheat for everything else now. 

[Sports_Freak]

7 hours ago, Edman85 said:

What you do need to watch out for...

ESPN games are random nights, but are exclusive so won't be on MLB.TV (or they may be with a cable subscription with ESPN).

Peacock has a bunch of games. Those won't be on MLB.TV. The first round of the playoffs is also on Peacock.

There are still Friday Apple games. Probably 4-6 Tigers games there.

I don't think Fox or TBS regular season games are exclusive.

If the Tigers main broadcast is MLB, will the games be live for people living in the Detroit market? Several other teams main broadcast last season was on MLB, I wonder if they could watch live games?

[Sports_Freak]

On 2/3/2026 at 7:35 PM, lordstanley said:

I'm hoping the Tigers put their games on a station that charges money but presents a scrambled flickering screen that you can fix if you become adept at fiddling with the horizontal-vertical knobs. Maybe air some soft-core nudity when the Tigers and Red Wings have the day off.  Like IT-tv and ON-tv around 1980. 

I used to get a UHF channel, I think it was in the 60', out of Canada , that occasionally had topless women movies on. And yes, it was all snowy and flickering. But a good imagination made it crystal clear. 😆

[oblong]

8 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

If the Tigers main broadcast is MLB, will the games be live for people living in the Detroit market? Several other teams main broadcast last season was on MLB, I wonder if they could watch live games?

Yes.  There's no way the team would not do that.  There's a lot to consider.... you have the entity that produces the games.  The camera people, the truck people, the announcers (except Benetti who works for the Tigers), etc.  That's what MLB would be doing.  Then the question is what "channel".   It could be an over the air like Channel 20 or it could be an existing slot on local providers.  They could even put them on whatever your current FanDuel channel is by renting the space instead of them showing some gambling program.  Back in the day the Pistons would produce their own games through Palace Sports and Entertainment, then lease/rent the space on the Fox Sports Detroit Network or Channel 50 or whatever.  So in essence it was an infomercial.  The Tigers get very high local ratings and they'd be fools to ignore that.    It was to be on something that fans can 'flip' to.  If they go with an app based system like Apple or Peacock then they lose a lot.  That's still too much of a hurdle for a lot of people. 

I'm sure they've been gaming this out for 2 or 3 years now.  

 

[Sports_Freak]

9 minutes ago, oblong said:

Yes.  There's no way the team would not do that.  There's a lot to consider.... you have the entity that produces the games.  The camera people, the truck people, the announcers (except Benetti who works for the Tigers), etc.  That's what MLB would be doing.  Then the question is what "channel".   It could be an over the air like Channel 20 or it could be an existing slot on local providers.  They could even put them on whatever your current FanDuel channel is by renting the space instead of them showing some gambling program.  Back in the day the Pistons would produce their own games through Palace Sports and Entertainment, then lease/rent the space on the Fox Sports Detroit Network or Channel 50 or whatever.  So in essence it was an infomercial.  The Tigers get very high local ratings and they'd be fools to ignore that.    It was to be on something that fans can 'flip' to.  If they go with an app based system like Apple or Peacock then they lose a lot.  That's still too much of a hurdle for a lot of people. 

I'm sure they've been gaming this out for 2 or 3 years now.  

 

Thanks. I dont care if I have to stream it but I'm not even sure if YouTube TV carries channel 20. But I do have an indoor antenna I bought to watch our local channel 7 (ABC) for Monday Night Football when YouTube and Disney were spatting.  The antenna picked up a ton of local channels but it didnt have the better features like pause and FF. I guess I really dont wanna go back to the 1980's technology to watch baseball. Ans with the season quickly approaching, the Tigers need to let their fans know what's going to happen. Many older fans aren't real tech savvy.

[oblong]

The issues everybody brings up in a way points to the reason why we are in this mess.  There's so many ways to consume our media that there isn't the constant payment a network like Ballys or FanDuel would get from every single cable provider out there.  Our choices are removing the cash cow they were used to.  Any solution is going to leave some people out.  And it could be the best choice financially leaves the most people out of luck.

 

[RedRamage]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

The issues everybody brings up in a way points to the reason why we are in this mess.  There's so many ways to consume our media that there isn't the constant payment a network like Ballys or FanDuel would get from every single cable provider out there.  Our choices are removing the cash cow they were used to.  Any solution is going to leave some people out.  And it could be the best choice financially leaves the most people out of luck.

 

Steaming is way things are headed and as more and more people have grown up on that it will be accepted, and I have no problem with getting my baseball that way. My problem with Bally Sports/FanDuel (and probably with it through MLB as well) is the price point. When regional sports fees were in the $10 range they came out at $20 per month. That just seemed expensive.

[chasfh]

I wouldn't doubt that, especially since the signing of Valdez, the Tigers end up on a major local channel, probably 2. Thar's gold in them thar games now.

[CMRivdogs]

Keep in mind we're not in the early 2000's any more. All over the air channels also have several sub channels, depending on band width. For example Channel 2, could carry the games on 2.2, 2.3 or whatever. Most of these are on cable. The Tigers and the station would probably have to negotiate "carriage rights" with cable operators across the state, and say into Northern Ohio, etc.

That's the easy part, assuming there is side channel capacity. I would assume they could also set up something with MLB media to do this as well as far as production costs. Keep in mind, someone needs to pay for it, so a portion of the costs fall on the fan. If nothing else this would keep them on cable, and give the fans who still use antenna TV a chance to see gaames.

Out of market would be carried on the MLB.TV app as before. 

 

Just spitballing here...but I see them setting up something similar to what they had with FanDuel in house, with the help of their MLB.com agreement.

 

[chasfh]

18 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Keep in mind we're not in the early 2000's any more. All over the air channels also have several sub channels, depending on band width. For example Channel 2, could carry the games on 2.2, 2.3 or whatever. Most of these are on cable. The Tigers and the station would probably have to negotiate "carriage rights" with cable operators across the state, and say into Northern Ohio, etc.

That's the easy part, assuming there is side channel capacity. I would assume they could also set up something with MLB media to do this as well as far as production costs. Keep in mind, someone needs to pay for it, so a portion of the costs fall on the fan. If nothing else this would keep them on cable, and give the fans who still use antenna TV a chance to see gaames.

Out of market would be carried on the MLB.TV app as before. 

 

Just spitballing here...but I see them setting up something similar to what they had with FanDuel in house, with the help of their MLB.com agreement.

 

I don't see why FOX 2 would carry the Tigers on their dot-two. It's premium programming, not an infomercial. If they win the rights, they're running it on the main channel.

[CMRivdogs]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

I don't see why FOX 2 would carry the Tigers on their dot-two. It's premium programming, not an infomercial. If they win the rights, they're running it on the main channel.

Was using .2 as an example. How many subs do they have? Back in 2020 when COVID closed things down Detroit Public TV added a 6th sub channel, partnered with the other Public stations across the state to create The Michigan Learning Channel. It's still functioning nicely with programs aimed to supplement what's being taught, working closely with school systems statewide. 

Stopping before I get to political, but something like this could work out somehow. Channel 2 was an example. My betting would be on another channel, I keep hearing an interest in Channel 20. Could they set up a statewide system of "Independent" stations? 

Or just create a new streaming app...

As to the second part of your question 2.1 is Fox programming, are they willing to give that up for local sports teams and lose national commercial revenue?

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, CMRivdogs said:

As to the second part of your question 2.1 is Fox programming, are they willing to give that up for local sports teams and lose national commercial revenue?

During the summer when there is no first-run programming available? I think so. Even the first-run programs clock sub-one ratings these days. Tiger games would blow that out of the water.

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

During the summer when there is no first-run programming available? I think so. Even the first-run programs clock sub-one ratings these days. Tiger games would blow that out of the water.

I've been out of the market for nearly 6 years. I just checked what WJBK's Fox 2.2 sub channel carries. Old movies, westerns, etc. It's not their main channel. I'm sure revenue from Tigers, Wings, and possibly the Pistons would bring in more $$$ than that.  

[chasfh]

13 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

I've been out of the market for nearly 6 years. I just checked what WJBK's Fox 2.2 sub channel carries. Old movies, westerns, etc. It's not their main channel. I'm sure revenue from Tigers, Wings, and possibly the Pistons would bring in more $$$ than that.  

If Fox 2 were to put the Tigers on one of their dot-twos, I will eat the hat of your choice.

[theroundsquare]

if this comes to pass, i nominate the one on that unmade bed

[RedRamage]

14 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If Fox 2 were to put the Tigers on one of their dot-twos, I will eat the hat of your choice.

If I can stick my nose in where it maybe doesn't belong...

So if the station is making $X on .1 and $Y on .2... where should they put the Tigers? It seems reasonable to saying that they'll get more viewers, and therefore make more money if the Tigers are on .1 -- There's still people won't understand or won't be able to figure out what .2 is all about and so won't see the games. So it's reasonable to say that $A > $B. Now it's just a question of how much more?

If the station pre-empts normal programing on .1 with the Tigers, the expected change in revenue will be $A-$X.
If the station pre-empts normal programing on .2 with the Tigers, the expected change is obviously $B-$Y.

Let's throw some numbers in: X=10, Y=3, A=15, B=12.
In this case they'll get a $5 boost putting it on .1, but a $9 boost by putting it on .2. It makes financial sense to use .2 here.

However, if: X=10, Y=6, A=16, B=11... in this case putting it on .1 is a $6 boost while putting it on .2 is only a $5 boost.

I think @chasfh is arguing that the Tigers will way out perform normal .1 programing and so it's a no-brainer that they should be there. Meanwhile I think @CMRivdogs is arguing that yeah... they will way out perform normal program, but it still might make more financial sense to put them on .2, even if that means slightly lower revenue directly from the games.

[Shades of Deivi Cruz]

38 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

If I can stick my nose in where it maybe doesn't belong...

So if the station is making $X on .1 and $Y on .2... where should they put the Tigers? It seems reasonable to saying that they'll get more viewers, and therefore make more money if the Tigers are on .1 -- There's still people won't understand or won't be able to figure out what .2 is all about and so won't see the games. So it's reasonable to say that $A > $B. Now it's just a question of how much more?

If the station pre-empts normal programing on .1 with the Tigers, the expected change in revenue will be $A-$X.
If the station pre-empts normal programing on .2 with the Tigers, the expected change is obviously $B-$Y.

Let's throw some numbers in: X=10, Y=3, A=15, B=12.
In this case they'll get a $5 boost putting it on .1, but a $9 boost by putting it on .2. It makes financial sense to use .2 here.

However, if: X=10, Y=6, A=16, B=11... in this case putting it on .1 is a $6 boost while putting it on .2 is only a $5 boost.

I think @chasfh is arguing that the Tigers will way out perform normal .1 programing and so it's a no-brainer that they should be there. Meanwhile I think @CMRivdogs is arguing that yeah... they will way out perform normal program, but it still might make more financial sense to put them on .2, even if that means slightly lower revenue directly from the games.

[CMRivdogs]

Not trying to be too argumentative, but I would assume WJBK has an agreement with the Fox Network to carry their network programs. I'm sure the network would balk at giving up prime space 5-6 nights a week to local programing. Especially in a market the size of Detroit. 

The sub-channel, which is most likely on most cable systems, whomever it may be Comcast or whatever. Placing the games on a channel that carries old movies, western, detective shows, etc gives Fox the opportunity for extra revenue. Since WJBK is a Fox owned and operated station I really don't think the parent company would allow the move.

As I've said before, if the Tigers go to over the air TV it would be to someone like Channel 20. Either that or they'll set up their own streaming platform with the RedWings with the help of MLB Production facilities.  

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, RedRamage said:

If I can stick my nose in where it maybe doesn't belong...

So if the station is making $X on .1 and $Y on .2... where should they put the Tigers? It seems reasonable to saying that they'll get more viewers, and therefore make more money if the Tigers are on .1 -- There's still people won't understand or won't be able to figure out what .2 is all about and so won't see the games. So it's reasonable to say that $A > $B. Now it's just a question of how much more?

If the station pre-empts normal programing on .1 with the Tigers, the expected change in revenue will be $A-$X.
If the station pre-empts normal programing on .2 with the Tigers, the expected change is obviously $B-$Y.

Let's throw some numbers in: X=10, Y=3, A=15, B=12.
In this case they'll get a $5 boost putting it on .1, but a $9 boost by putting it on .2. It makes financial sense to use .2 here.

However, if: X=10, Y=6, A=16, B=11... in this case putting it on .1 is a $6 boost while putting it on .2 is only a $5 boost.

I think @chasfh is arguing that the Tigers will way out perform normal .1 programing and so it's a no-brainer that they should be there. Meanwhile I think @CMRivdogs is arguing that yeah... they will way out perform normal program, but it still might make more financial sense to put them on .2, even if that means slightly lower revenue directly from the games.

All due respect, I think using real numbers would show they would make far more money on 2.1 than 2.not 1.

[chasfh]

46 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Not trying to be too argumentative, but I would assume WJBK has an agreement with the Fox Network to carry their network programs. I'm sure the network would balk at giving up prime space 5-6 nights a week to local programing. Especially in a market the size of Detroit. 

The sub-channel, which is most likely on most cable systems, whomever it may be Comcast or whatever. Placing the games on a channel that carries old movies, western, detective shows, etc gives Fox the opportunity for extra revenue. Since WJBK is a Fox owned and operated station I really don't think the parent company would allow the move.

As I've said before, if the Tigers go to over the air TV it would be to someone like Channel 20. Either that or they'll set up their own streaming platform with the RedWings with the help of MLB Production facilities.  

WJBK has more than just an agreement with the FOX Network. They are in fact owned and operated by the FOX network, so it's not as though this would be case of a franchisee dickering with corporate.

I won't argue that there's no way the Tigers end up on 20, 50, 38, or anywhere else instead. I'll even agree in the interest of maintaining comity that it might even be more likely they end up on channel 20. All I would maintain is that if FOX were to agree to air the Tigers on their O&O again in 2026, as they did last season, they would not relegate the broadcast to a dot-two.

[oblong]

Fox 2 has aired Tiger games before. And they run Wings games sometimes. 

[RedRamage]

47 minutes ago, chasfh said:

All due respect, I think using real numbers would show they would make far more money on 2.1 than 2.not 1.

I'll have you know that the amount of respect due is very, very low.

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I'll have you know that the amount of respect due is very, very low.

Noted. Asshole.

😉

[Sports_Freak]

50 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Noted. Asshole.

😉

Let's not turn on each other and just agree Scott Harris is destroying this once proud franchise, huh? 🤣🤣🤣