White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks close to leaving NBC Sports for Stadium

[Jcool0]

The White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks are moving closer to completing a deal that would move their games to multiplatform sports network Stadium this fall, and an announcement could come this week, the Sun-Times has learned.

The teams’ contract with rights holder NBC Sports Chicago expires in October, though there’s a possibility that the sides could agree to a six-month extension, in which case Stadium would take over when the Sox begin play next year.

Stadium, whose offices and studio are in the United Center, would convert into a regional sports network and seek distribution on pay-TV providers. It has a streaming platform already in place and conceivably could offer a direct-to-consumer service from its app. The teams, led by Bulls and Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, also are seeking over-the-air partners to carry the games.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports-media/2024/04/15/white-sox-bulls-blackhawks-nbc-sports-chicago-stadium-rsn-jerry-reinsdorf

[nitetrain8603]

No big deal. Goodbye NBCSCH and hello Stadium. The only difference is about a dollar more on your cable bill and it goes directly into Jerry's pockets.

[dougthonus]

The White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks are moving closer to completing a deal that would move their games to multiplatform sports network Stadium this fall, and an announcement could come this week, the Sun-Times has learned.

The teams’ contract with rights holder NBC Sports Chicago expires in October, though there’s a possibility that the sides could agree to a six-month extension, in which case Stadium would take over when the Sox begin play next year.

Stadium, whose offices and studio are in the United Center, would convert into a regional sports network and seek distribution on pay-TV providers. It has a streaming platform already in place and conceivably could offer a direct-to-consumer service from its app. The teams, led by Bulls and Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, also are seeking over-the-air partners to carry the games.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports-media/2024/04/15/white-sox-bulls-blackhawks-nbc-sports-chicago-stadium-rsn-jerry-reinsdorf

If they offer direct to consumer streaming this would be fantastic news.

[League Circles]

Wow, over the air is excellent news

[dougthonus]

Wow, over the air is excellent news

If I could do NFL over the air and some Bulls over the air, the draft via ESPN+, and the rest of the Bulls via stadium direct to consumer app, I could finally get off of youtube TV for $70 a month.

Though my daughter is moving into a condo with paid cable including, so I'm hoping that allows me to stream comcast via her account and cheat the system

[League Circles]

Wow, over the air is excellent news

If I could do NFL over the air and some Bulls over the air, the draft via ESPN+, and the rest of the Bulls via stadium direct to consumer app, I could finally get off of youtube TV for $70 a month.

Though my daughter is moving into a condo with paid cable including, so I'm hoping that allows me to stream comcast via her account and cheat the system

I'll be interested to see how they might be able to simultaneously offer Bulls games via streaming, cable/satellite packages AND OTA all at once. Would be unprecedented in a sense, and I don't really see how the dollars would work out, but ultimately I think the TV services wouldn't be paying very much at all for the programming, because if they were, hard to understand how that could coexist with an OTA channel also paying and needing lots of commercial advertisement revenue. Though who knows. It's got to be clear that the potential customers for OTA vs TV services simple don't overlap a lot. There are probably a lot of people that won't watch OTA no matter what (cause they don't want or can't install an antenna), and likewise probably a lot of people that won't watch TV service provided games no matter what (cause they don't want to pay for a big package deal that they don't use much). I'm pumped for cost savings too but even more pumped for the superior video quality of OTA.

[MalagaBulls]

It looks like a done deal but who knows. Will they sack Stacy & Amin, is KC on his way out?

Read on Twitter

[dougthonus]

Wow, over the air is excellent news

If I could do NFL over the air and some Bulls over the air, the draft via ESPN+, and the rest of the Bulls via stadium direct to consumer app, I could finally get off of youtube TV for $70 a month.

Though my daughter is moving into a condo with paid cable including, so I'm hoping that allows me to stream comcast via her account and cheat the system

I'll be interested to see how they might be able to simultaneously offer Bulls games via streaming, cable/satellite packages AND OTA all at once. Would be unprecedented in a sense, and I don't really see how the dollars would work out, but ultimately I think the TV services wouldn't be paying very much at all for the programming, because if they were, hard to understand how that could coexist with an OTA channel also paying and needing lots of commercial advertisement revenue. Though who knows. It's got to be clear that the potential customers for OTA vs TV services simple don't overlap a lot. There are probably a lot of people that won't watch OTA no matter what (cause they don't want or can't install an antenna), and likewise probably a lot of people that won't watch TV service provided games no matter what (cause they don't want to pay for a big package deal that they don't use much). I'm pumped for cost savings too but even more pumped for the superior video quality of OTA.

My assumption is that there would just be different packages. Some games would be over OTA, some would be on the stadium and that you would need both with the rationale being that perhaps neither side can afford both, so one side will get a premium package of games and the other will get some leftovers, similar to how it used to be with WGN way back in the day.

[dougthonus]

It looks like a done deal but who knows. Will they sack Stacy & Amin, is KC on his way out?

I doubt it, previous changes in broadcasting didn't change up the broadcast team.

I think each of those three is pretty popular.

For my money, they're actually all pretty elite in various ways. Amin is just the best and most entertaining play by play guy they've had. Stacey is probably the most popular guy they've had with the common fan, and KC is a legend in Bulls reporting. I wouldn't mind a different voice than King because I don't think he's an analyst that matches will with deep analytics people, but I don't think I'm the demographic they're hitting with their analyst.

[Jcool0]

No big deal. Goodbye NBCSCH and hello Stadium. The only difference is about a dollar more on your cable bill and it goes directly into Jerry's pockets.

$1 for three teams? Right now NBA Sports cost 17.30 per month. Cable or streaming companies aren't going to want to charge an extra dollar and teams aren't going to want just a 33 cent bump. Marquee still isn't available and who knows if it ever will be. i get its more teams with this but regional sports networks aren't doing well right now.

[nitetrain8603]

No big deal. Goodbye NBCSCH and hello Stadium. The only difference is about a dollar more on your cable bill and it goes directly into Jerry's pockets.

$1 for three teams? Right now NBA Sports cost 17.30 per month. Cable or streaming companies aren't going to want to charge an extra dollar and teams aren't going to want just a 33 cent bump. Marquee still isn't available and who knows if it ever will be. i get its more teams with this but regional sports networks aren't doing well right now.

It's available on DirecTV Stream which is why I switched from YouTubeTV. So I should say, it will be a dollar more for those who would be eligible to get the channel. YouTubeTV, however, tends to play hardball with RSNs. They'll either throw them in the tier where it's 9.99 extra a month, or not have them at all like they did to MLBTV.

[jnrjr79]

The White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks are moving closer to completing a deal that would move their games to multiplatform sports network Stadium this fall, and an announcement could come this week, the Sun-Times has learned.

The teams’ contract with rights holder NBC Sports Chicago expires in October, though there’s a possibility that the sides could agree to a six-month extension, in which case Stadium would take over when the Sox begin play next year.

Stadium, whose offices and studio are in the United Center, would convert into a regional sports network and seek distribution on pay-TV providers. It has a streaming platform already in place and conceivably could offer a direct-to-consumer service from its app. The teams, led by Bulls and Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, also are seeking over-the-air partners to carry the games.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports-media/2024/04/15/white-sox-bulls-blackhawks-nbc-sports-chicago-stadium-rsn-jerry-reinsdorf

If they offer direct to consumer streaming this would be fantastic news.

I guess? It seems pretty well-established at this point that you end up spending more when these things are offered as standalone services as opposed to bundled. Marquee is $20/month and only has a single baseball team. What is Stadium going to cost?

[ChettheJet]

NBC gave up on their NBCSports Network, shifting IndyCar and NASCAR over to USA for numerous races so NBCSN Chicago is kind of out there on a limb by themselves. Likely if Reinsdorf can keep the Blackhawks as a third wheel they can present a solid Chicago package for streaming and cable companies to include on their service .

[dougthonus]

I guess? It seems pretty well-established at this point that you end up spending more when these things are offered as standalone services as opposed to bundled. Marquee is $20/month and only has a single baseball team. What is Stadium going to cost?

If I can watch every Bulls game for less than $70 a month, it is a cost savings to me.

I'm sure it will depend who you and if you derive other value from the bundle, but I don't. I have youtube TV exclusively to watch Bulls games. I occasionally watch some ESPN content, but I can get all of that on ESPN+ already (which is priced at the same cost as the inclusion of it in a bundle anyway).

I may not be the norm, but our family splits MAX, Disney Bundle (ESPN, Hulu, Disney+), has Prime, and a netflix subscription. MAX covers TNT/TBS NBA games, ESPN+ covers ESPN national games / the draft, if I toss in an OTA, I'd get NFL, and then I've now got everything I could want.

[jnrjr79]

I guess? It seems pretty well-established at this point that you end up spending more when these things are offered as standalone services as opposed to bundled. Marquee is $20/month and only has a single baseball team. What is Stadium going to cost?

If I can watch every Bulls game for less than $70 a month, it is a cost savings to me.

I'm sure it will depend who you and if you derive other value from the bundle, but I don't. I have youtube TV exclusively to watch Bulls games. I occasionally watch some ESPN content, but I can get all of that on ESPN+ already (which is priced at the same cost as the inclusion of it in a bundle anyway).

I may not be the norm, but our family splits MAX, Disney Bundle (ESPN, Hulu, Disney+), has Prime, and a netflix subscription. MAX covers TNT/TBS NBA games, ESPN+ covers ESPN national games / the draft, if I toss in an OTA, I'd get NFL, and then I've now got everything I could want.

Yeah, my guess is you are an outlier, but for your use case, it'd be a good value proposition. I subscribe to YTTV, but I watch a lot of stuff beyond NBCSN (though NBCSN is a must-have for me for the Bulls, and not so much these days, the Sox). I am a big tennis fan, so YTTV gets me Tennis Channel, some Premier League stuff, some narrative shows I like, etc. Over-the-air is great, but I'd need to solve for DVR, and reception only really works in my house if I have the antenna right in the window, which isn't near my TVs.

It's funny, I was craving to un-bundle TV for so many years, but now with all the streaming services we subscribe to, I'm sure I'm paying more than I did back when I just had Comcast.

[dougthonus]

Yeah, my guess is you are an outlier, but for your use case, it'd be a good value proposition. I subscribe to YTTV, but I watch a lot of stuff beyond NBCSN (though NBCSN is a must-have for me for the Bulls, and not so much these days, the Sox). I am a big tennis fan, so YTTV gets me Tennis Channel, some Premier League stuff, some narrative shows I like, etc. Over-the-air is great, but I'd need to solve for DVR, and reception only really works in my house if I have the antenna right in the window, which isn't near my TVs.

It's funny, I was craving to un-bundle TV for so many years, but now with all the streaming services we subscribe to, I'm sure I'm paying more than I did back when I just had Comcast.

FWIW, if I could just get basketball for say $20 a month ($240 a year):

HBO: $16 (no ads)
Netflix: $23 (no ads)
Hulu Bundle: $25 (no ads)
YTTV: $70
Total: $134

That's less than I was paying for full cable before I quit it with the bonus of:
Can share with multiple houses (except netflix)
Do not get ads (except YTTV live sports)
Fully on demand
Unlimited DVR
Can watch from anywhere (like I go to Mexico for vacation and all this still works)

Still a huge improvement, especially if you had inflation adjusted the old model going forward. I was paying about $130 for a similar channel set of just linear TV 15 years ago. This would probably be $260 inflation adjusted today without all of the other benefits I mentioned.

[jnrjr79]

Yeah, my guess is you are an outlier, but for your use case, it'd be a good value proposition. I subscribe to YTTV, but I watch a lot of stuff beyond NBCSN (though NBCSN is a must-have for me for the Bulls, and not so much these days, the Sox). I am a big tennis fan, so YTTV gets me Tennis Channel, some Premier League stuff, some narrative shows I like, etc. Over-the-air is great, but I'd need to solve for DVR, and reception only really works in my house if I have the antenna right in the window, which isn't near my TVs.

It's funny, I was craving to un-bundle TV for so many years, but now with all the streaming services we subscribe to, I'm sure I'm paying more than I did back when I just had Comcast.

FWIW, if I could just get basketball for say $20 a month ($240 a year):

HBO: $16 (no ads)
Netflix: $23 (no ads)
Hulu Bundle: $25 (no ads)
YTTV: $70
Total: $134

That's less than I was paying for full cable before I quit it with the bonus of:
Can share with multiple houses (except netflix)
Do not get ads (except YTTV live sports)
Fully on demand
Unlimited DVR
Can watch from anywhere (like I go to Mexico for vacation and all this still works)

Still a huge improvement, especially if you had inflation adjusted the old model going forward. I was paying about $130 for a similar channel set of just linear TV 15 years ago. This would probably be $260 inflation adjusted today without all of the other benefits I mentioned.

You definitely can't "watch from anywhere" unless you have a good VPN that gets you around geolocation issues. YTTV doesn't work out of the US. Nor does HBO. Netflix does, but its content changes. I have Hulu, but can't recall what its restrictions may be.

Back in the day, I had a Slingbox and could watch my cable tv anywhere.

[dougthonus]

You definitely can't "watch from anywhere" unless you have a good VPN that gets you around geolocation issues. YTTV doesn't work out of the US. Nor does HBO. Netflix does, but its content changes. I have Hulu, but can't recall what its restrictions may be.

Back in the day, I had a Slingbox and could watch my cable tv anywhere.

Might be true, when I think about it it may only be netflix that I've tried within Mexico, but all those other things work anywhere in the US at a minimum which is still a huge improvement from being isolated to just your house.

[burlydee]

I guess? It seems pretty well-established at this point that you end up spending more when these things are offered as standalone services as opposed to bundled. Marquee is $20/month and only has a single baseball team. What is Stadium going to cost?

If I can watch every Bulls game for less than $70 a month, it is a cost savings to me.

I'm sure it will depend who you and if you derive other value from the bundle, but I don't. I have youtube TV exclusively to watch Bulls games. I occasionally watch some ESPN content, but I can get all of that on ESPN+ already (which is priced at the same cost as the inclusion of it in a bundle anyway).

I may not be the norm, but our family splits MAX, Disney Bundle (ESPN, Hulu, Disney+), has Prime, and a netflix subscription. MAX covers TNT/TBS NBA games, ESPN+ covers ESPN national games / the draft, if I toss in an OTA, I'd get NFL, and then I've now got everything I could want.

.
I think the market dictates this would be a bad deal for the Bulls. There much better doing what Phoenix just did in my opinion and just finding a regional provider. Put the games on NBC local or Fox or WGN. This package service won't sell and they'll end up scrapping it eventually.

[jnrjr79]

You definitely can't "watch from anywhere" unless you have a good VPN that gets you around geolocation issues. YTTV doesn't work out of the US. Nor does HBO. Netflix does, but its content changes. I have Hulu, but can't recall what its restrictions may be.

Back in the day, I had a Slingbox and could watch my cable tv anywhere.

Might be true, when I think about it it may only be netflix that I've tried within Mexico, but all those other things work anywhere in the US at a minimum which is still a huge improvement from being isolated to just your house.

The thing that does work everywhere is ESPN+. I always really appreciate it when I'm abroad.

Your point is a good one in terms of just being able to use it in anywhere the US is a nice bonus, though I think traditional cable has caught up to that and if you're a Comcast person, you can probably steam it via an app when you travel. I haven't had traditional cable for some years, but that's my understanding.