Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

MLB on Sportsnet

3K views 13 replies 9 participants last post by  ticky 
#1 ·
I have seen that in the last couple of weekends Sportsnet is joining games in progress instead of showing the whole game. Today they are showing Baltimore at Chicago White Sox at 4:00pm this game started at 2:00pm so it will be just about over at 4:00pm. They are also showing Seattle at Oakland at 5:00pm this game actually started at 4:00pm.

Why not show the whole Baltimore at Chicago White Sox Game on Sportsnet 1 or Sportsnet 360 that way the whole Seattle at Oakland can be shown at 4:00pm on Sportsnet.

Why is Sportsnet showing 2 partial games when they could be showing 2 whole games?

Why aren't they making use of all the channels they own?
 
#2 ·
They're just using it as filler after the completion of earlier games.

I suspect that showing complete games (other than Blue Jays) would cannibalize from MLB packages offered by Rogers and others.
 
#3 · (Edited)
With all due respect, Jase, that's not accurate.

The Seattle @ Oakland game on Thursday night was originally scheduled to begin on SNP at the start of the game. About a week before, that was changed in order to insert a completely unnecessary hour of Sportsnet Central; thus, we joined the western game in the fourth inning. WHY? That same SC telecast was available on every other SN channel ... the thoughtlessness of supplanting the first hour of a LIVE baseball game with a news report that can be seen on four or five of their other channels is beyond stupid.

The same thing happened today. The Toronto game was over and once more, although the Seattle @ Oakland game was originally scheduled to start on time, the jokers in the SN scheduling department decided that nope ... those of us following the Mariners (or the A's) would have to instead wait to join the game in the third or fourth inning. Once again, instead of serving their audience in the west with respect, we had no recourse but to sit through the last two innings of the Baltimore @ Chicago White Sox game. When SN joined it in the 8th inning, it was tied at 2 with every indication an extra inning game was a strong possibility. Fortunately for us, I guess, the home team scored in the bottom of the inning and it ended soon thereafter. Had it gone long, we'd either be receiving the western game in the last few innings or not at all.

Oh ... and btw, they're doing the EXACT SAME THING ON SUNDAY!

The point is this: what kind of justifiable explanation can SN offer for these unnecessary and intrusive decisions? Such treatment has yet to occur with ANY of the ubiquitous Blue Jays, Yankees or Red Sox telecasts. The only conclusion that appears obvious is that it's eastern elitism in full bloom. (Our interests count, yours don't). What SN seems to be saying is, "the games of the American League East matter far more than those of the west. Yeah, you'll get your western games sporadically here and there, but they may very well be truncated or otherwise sliced and diced. Don't like it? Too damn bad." The ONLY acceptable reason for delaying a LIVE telecast is in the event an earlier game on the same channel is running long. That's beyond SN's control and we can't rightfully complain too much (although there's no reason I can find for not putting the second game on a different SN channel, therefore giving baseball fans east and west complete games).

It seems the programmers in Toronto are choosing to cut up western games as a matter of course with no consideration for those looking forward to them. It's a lousy way to treat those paying the freight in provinces other than Ontario. The myopic SN schedulers need to realize that the message they send each and every time is, "We don't much care about you subscribers that prefer to see the western division of the American league. You'll have to be satisfied with viewing parts of games based strictly on our whims."

WHAT KIND OF SERVICE IS THAT? It's not unreasonable to conclude that such decisions are ignorant and dismissive of those with interests beyond Toronto-inflected sports. It shows contempt and an utter disrespect for the audience outside of their home base. We pay the same (or more) than those in the east, yet we receive a far less agreeable schedule of games ... and it's one that is always subject to change.

BTW, Jase ... do you or any of the other administrators here have a relationship and/or contacts at SN? If so, would you kindly bring this to their attention? I no longer bother sending messages along these lines to them for the simple reason that they choose not to respond. Not one reply, even to tell me to buzz off. Frankly, I see that as just one more example of a company's cavalier, elitist attitude.
 
#4 ·
They do it to us because they can %$#@^& well can! SN could be the reason the MLB Network is not offered on Bell and it has been available for almost 3 years on other systems. I have called and written to Bell about this channel but again probably just a waste of my time..all of the hockey, football, wrestling, basketball and soccer fans should be very lucky to have their dedicated channels and even the college basketball and football fans who are able to have access to these games from the American side of the border! us ball fans are getting ------- ....if only baseball could be as legitimate as wrestling then I know we would have The MLB Network on Bel ?????
 
#5 ·
Alternatively, I do believe that MLB.TV is available to Canadians, with the exception of Blue Jays games. It works on a wide variety of devices. The best way to 'protest' is with your wallet.
 
#6 ·
:frownYou're right. That is an alternative. However...

1. It's an online live streaming service for the computer, not TV. (I'm kinda old and have no desire or interest making the attempt to rearrange my set-up as it stands. Nor should I have to).
2. It's a moot point in my case, anyway. My cable provider (Novus) does not offer MLB.tv.
3. Why should ANY baseball fan, regardless of what teams he follows, be forced to meekly accept the fact that SCHEDULED games he expects to see are constantly reduced to fragments? Again, it's a decision, not something unexpected and beyond SN's control. It's their CHOICE to treat fans of a major league sport with contempt and disrespect. It's relegating western games to a decidedly second class status, if that high.
4. Why should ANY baseball fan, regardless of what teams he follows, have to pay MORE for another service to get what the original provider has scheduled? That is not acceptable.

Until those questions are addressed, SN's rude and dismissive behavior comes across as mean-spirited, due to their inexplicable decision to send an inferior service to "lesser subscribers." They need to explain their thinking and the rationale for such decisions.

Oh, and btw. As mentioned, today's unwanted insertion of the late stages of Baltimore @ Chicago not only replaced the start of the Seattle @ Oakland game, it went another half-hour beyond that. We joined the western game 1 1/2 hours late ... in the 6th inning. The 6th freaken inning! If SN did that to an eastern game, those fans would be off the wall furious, and SN would fall over itself apologizing "for the mistake." That's conjecture, to be sure, but not much of a stretch at all.

I'm sorry, Jase. While your suggestion may work for some, it doesn't get down to the core issue of WHY SN willingly chooses to deliver a lesser version of their service to those outside of their purview. Until they acknowledge and agree to stop treating a large segment of their paying audience with contempt, they have no excuses. None. The arrogance of truncating western-specific games for no apparent reason except because they can is deliberate and intentional. IMO, that's something the CRTC should address. With no justifications offered, SN's actions tells us they consider our interests unimportant and less meaningful than those of teams in their part of the country.

And that stinks.
 
#7 ·
MLB.TV works on Chromecast, a device which connects to your TV. And for $39 (plus tax) it's cheaper than rentng or buying a set-top box that's needed for the secondary SN channels on cable. It also offers programming in HD. Just like cable or sat. The service also works with a variety of other devices and smart TV's, one of which most homes probably already have.

For myself, the reasons certain games aren't offered by a particular provider in a given market are irrelevant. If a competitor offers what I want for a reasonable price, they get my business.

With regards to the topic on hand, once again it would seem more logical that there's a fiscal motivation to their programming decisions. Whether that's concern about cannibalizing sales from other offerings (whether or not your particular BDU offers these products), or the cost of rights vs. potential audience. Sporting event rights have become outrageously expensive. Consequently, difficult decisions must be made. In fact, most BDU price increases over the past decade can be attributed to the costs of acquiring sport broadcast rights.

Unfortunately I don't have contacts high up enough at SN to influence programming decisions.
 
#10 ·
At launch, no announcement was made about MLB Network availability in Canada, home of the Toronto Blue Jays. Network officials had been in contact with Blue Jays owner Rogers Communications (owner of Rogers Cable, the largest cable provider in Canada) about making MLB Network available in Canada, but emphasized prior to the channel's launch that a deal was not imminent.[8]

In August 2008, Rogers secured Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approval for a Canadian digital channel tentatively called "Baseball TV".[9] This license could have been used to launch a localized version of MLB Network with domestic advertising and additional Canadian content, along the lines of NBA TV Canada, which is owned by the parent company of the Toronto Raptors but uses much of the content of the league's U.S. channel NBA TV. It was reported initially that Rogers intended to pursue this approach to bring MLB Network to Canada.[10] However, the licence was issued on the condition the channel launch by August 2011, which did not occur.[9]

Rogers ultimately agreed to sponsor MLB Network's request to be added to the CRTC's list of approved foreign television services, which would permit Canadian cable and satellite providers to import the American feed, as has occurred previously with similar niche-sports services such as Big Ten Network, NFL Network and Golf Channel.[11] The application was published for public comment on June 13, 2012[12] and was approved on November 21, 2012.[13] In the interim, the Rogers-owned Sportsnet One aired selected programs from MLB Network, including Quick Pitch and Intentional Talk.[11]

MLB Network was added to Rogers Cable systems in Ontario on January 8, 2014, in both standard and high definition.[14][15][16] On June 3, 2015, SaskTel announced that it would begin carrying MLB Network.[17]
From their Wikipedia page.
 
#11 ·
Sportsnet did it again yesterday. They showed the last two inings of the Chicago White Sox Baltimore Oriole game which was already available on WGN TV. They could have shown almost all of the Seattle Oakland game instead.

I don't think this has anything to do with The MLB Network which Bell TV will probably never add to their channel lineup.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top