This logic doesn't work though. So if Direct pays so much more to providers (because they aren't tough negotiators like Charlie), but they keep their prices close to the competition, they would go out of business very quick. High costs + low income = bankruptcy. You can't have it both ways. Either Direct pays out the nose for the programming and therefore their customers pay a lot more, or they can afford to keep costs close. Has the difference between Direct and Dish drastically changed over the last 10-15 years?
FOX Dispute?
- Thread starter zippyfrog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 338
- Views 30K
Directv has millions more subscribers than Dish does. That fact in and of itself can make Directv's negotiations less tough, as they can automatically get volume discounts from the content providers, that Dish needs to fight tooth and nail to get a rate anywhere in the same range.
There, I fixed that for 'ya
27+9=28
Here's another equation. Over the last 10+ years, the top 1/3 spending teams (yes, the Cardinals is one of them) have taken over 2/3 of the playoff spots, with the top 5 spending teams taking almost half of them. Until MLB adopts a team salary cap like the rest of professional sports, it's a joke.
I disagree with that. The customers that I ask about howm much they're paying xxxxxxx now always reply with a much larger number. Heck, my Comcast was over $289.00/mo when I switched, and now I've been paying Dish $127.00 month for 3 years and my internet, which went from 100MB/s to 1GB/s is $90.00. That $600.00 savings covers my Water and Local Trash/Sewage bills for the year.
Yo Numb Dude... You know I've always liked and respected your posts but since you quit DISH you've turned into kind of a mini Claude. This is the DISH Network Support Forum after all.
That may be more true of the AL side, but I still like seeing some "small ball" and managing on the NL side. It's not always a slugfest.
That is a separate dispute between Dish and Sunbeam Television.
Fox channel blacked out on Dish Network in dispute over fees
Baseball is more competitive certainly than football and basketball that both have salary caps. I challenge anyone to check on how many different teams in each sport have made it to their respective championship game or series in each sport in the last 20 years. You will find that by far, a higher percentage of teams in baseball have made it then in the other two sports. I don't really follow the NHL but they have a salary cap and I'm sure the number is less than baseball.
The next sports fallacy you can tackle is that player salaries drive ticket prices. If the understand the economics behind sports franchise ownership, you know that is not true either.
Good job cherry-picking. Why not just look at how many different champions there were instead?
Looking at the entire playoffs is more telling because it's making the playoffs which generates more revenue for the teams that make it and more interest in the fanbase.
We need to take some of these posts to the sports section!!There are times that we really need to get that "Unlike" button back.
I've had mixed feelings about MLB playoff rounds for some time. On the one hand, it makes September a lot more interesting for at least 10 teams. But by the same token, it rewards teams who get hot at the last minute, instead of the teams with the best record. Now you have 2 wild cards, a DS, an LCS before you ever get to the WS. In the olden days, the two best teams from each league duked it out at the end of the season.
Of course, I'm saying all this knowing full well that it was because of the Wild Card that the Cardinals ultimately won it all in 2011. And I suppose having the wild card winner face the highest seeded team keeps it fair.
But there's something to be said for earning the right to be the best team over the course of the whole year, not just in the last month.
This is a good point. Is anyone else sick of seeing the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals?
I do find it interesting that you have to resort to percentage of teams, since there are not the same number of teams in each sport, which makes me wonder when MLB is finally going to expand to 32 teams, to match the trend in the other sports.
Rather than ticket prices, the more relevant discussion for this thread (and this forum) would be the cost of TV rights, which then have to be passed on through retransmission consent negotiations with pay-TV providers, and then ultimately to the subscribers.
Don't get me started on the format of the MLB playoffs. I could see the play-your-way-in Wild Card round if it were a best-of-three round, but doing it as a one-game playoff? That should be reserved for when two teams are actually tied for a playoff spot. It does not seem fair that the second-place Wild Card team can win a single game and advance in the playoffs, no matter how many games they were trailing the first-place Wild Card team at the end of the regular season.
So, If I were re-doing the playoffs, I would have each round add two games to the series. Start with a best-of-three play-in Wild Card round, then best-of-five Division Series, best-of-seven League Championship Series, and (I know probably not a popular opinion) a best-of-nine World Series. If that sounds crazy, remember that if you go back far enough, the World Series actually was best-of-nine at one point. (I know that because one of the two times the Cleveland Indians won the World Series (in 1920) they won 5 games to 2.)
