Tigers dropped the ball -- no 'free' game telecasts

IdahoBert · #1 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 02:02 AM

Tigers dropped the ball -- no 'free' game telecasts
There is still hope for an agreement at some point with a free outlet.
Lynn Henning / The Detroit News

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...129/SPORTS0104

Lots of folks wrote at different times last year to squawk about Tigers games and their sabbatical leave from local "free" television, which had been Channel 50's province until contract talks fizzled early in 2005.

They were assured -- it might have been my mistake -- that 2006 would see a return to normal. Channel 50 would, no doubt, be back in the Tigers telecast business. The Tigers, after all, had a duty to their non-cable audience to make at least 25 games a year available, especially when there were plenty of senior citizens on fixed incomes who depended on Channel 50 to sate their Detroit baseball appetites.

Believing the Tigers and a local TV station would hook up again in 2006 might have been a bad assumption. Ditto for thoughts that, even if the Tigers and Channel 50 came to another impasse, FSN Detroit would come to the rescue -- of the cable audience, anyway -- with additional telecasts.

Wrong, and double wrong.

There might be no "free" television in 2006. Likewise, FSN Detroit is picking up no more telecasts in 2006 -- 114 -- than it did in 2005.

Why did the TV stations get cheap, or indifferent, to Tigers baseball?

They didn't.

You can put this one on Tigers owner Mike Ilitch.

It is known among informed local TV people that the Tigers and Channel 50 didn't do business for much the same reasons talks broke down a year ago: negotiations dawdled, and the Tigers were asking for stiff rights-fees, issues which became academic when the Tigers and Channel 50 never talked past some late-autumn 2005 conversations.

This is not a new problem, although it should have been an old one. Other teams and their local media outlets seem always to get business deals tied up in reasonable time and in ways that benefit both parties. Detroit, alas, is a different

The Tigers are notorious for having been latecomers to the table. It was the biggest reason why Channel 50 had to say sayonara a year ago. A television station needs, at some point, to get on with its programming life. Why Ilitch fails, annually, to understand this is hard to fathom.

Channel 50 ran into another dead-end during the offseason. Net result: Those folks who can't swallow a monthly cable bill -- and they are many -- can stretch their imaginations and visualize what the field and the players look like as they tune into Dan Dickerson and Jim Price on local radio. That is, assuming you're in one of those areas where radio reception along the Tigers network isn't fuzzy or non-existent.

We're not finished.

FSN Detroit would have at least soothed the cable-payers with its ambitious offer: 140 games, minimum, for 2006.

FSN's lavish package moved up the ladder at Tigers headquarters and straight to Ilitch's office. There it died, for reasons no one seems to understand.

Quick tabulations suggest a whole bunch of people lost here for reasons that were thoroughly unnecessary:

The Tigers: They aren't in position to be turning down revenue or audiences, in any shape or form. They also should have been mindful of how many in their audience, the elderly in particular, depended on those telecasts to sustain a lifelong relationship with Detroit baseball.

Channel 50 and FSN Detroit: Each has a long alliance with the Tigers. Channel 50 wasn't making any big money on the Tigers -- the ink was more red than black during a couple of lean seasons -- but the Tigers' presence was important. The Tigers should have accommodated a willing partner.

FSN Detroit was joining other major-market cable outlets in offering a 2006 package that would have televised, at the very least, 85 percent of Detroit's schedule. Credit the FSN folks for getting aggressive even with Red Wings playoffs and Pistons playoff fever to consider.

Fans: Detroit's baseball camp ought to demand that it be treated as well as other teams. Every team and town in the Central Division -- Kansas City included -- televises more baseball games than Detroit.

The general managers at Channel 50 and FSN Detroit -- Shaun McDonald and Greg Hammeran, respectively -- politely declined Monday to talk about their negotiations, or lack thereof, with the Tigers.

Bob Raymond, who handles TV contracts for the Tigers, declined comment except to offer this sliver of hope: the Tigers and a local TV entity, unidentified, might yet reach agreement on expanded TV coverage. Raymond could say nothing more.

Once upon a time, baseball fans had a different expectation with respect to the Tigers and electronic media.

The Tigers' audience had a deep relationship with its radio broadcasters, whether it was Ty Tyson, Harry Heilmann or Ernie Harwell. They viewed a televised game with George Kell at the microphone as a delicious bonus.

When television came around, a new relationship developed. The Tigers need to remember that relationships go both ways. TV made its effort for 2006. The Tigers need to make a commitment in kind.

redshark63 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 06:47 AM

I hear Tyrus' keyboard warming up....

5...4...3...2....1...

rhino · #3 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Why did the TV stations get cheap, or indifferent, to Tigers baseball?

They didn't.

You can put this one on Tigers owner Mike Ilitch.

Quote:

FSN's lavish package moved up the ladder at Tigers headquarters and straight to Ilitch's office. There it died, for reasons no one seems to understand.

Money.
Illitch is all about lining his pocket. He continues to fail to understand that he may own the Tigers but the Tigers are not a regular business that should be run for profit only. There is a degree of public obligation to not only run the team with a profit motive in mind but with the understanding that the Tigers also belong to the fans and they should be considered equally along with making money. Unfortunately Illitchs ego will not let him recognize this obligation to the public. Like the spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home when he is not allowed to pitch, Illitch would rather ruin the game for all then suck up a little humility.

keglerv · #4 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshark63

I hear Tyrus' keyboard warming up....

5...4...3...2....1...

Tyrus was my first thought when I was reading this article. At least I wasn't the only one.

qsilvr2531 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhino

Money.
Illitch is all about lining his pocket. He continues to fail to understand that he may own the Tigers but the Tigers are not a regular business that should be run for profit only. There is a degree of public obligation to not only run the team with a profit motive in mind but with the understanding that the Tigers also belong to the fans and they should be considered equally along with making money. Unfortunately Illitchs ego will not let him recognize this obligation to the public. Like the spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home when he is not allowed to pitch, Illitch would rather ruin the game for all then suck up a little humility.

You are kidding yourself if you think there is a public obligation for an owner to televise the games. There are plenty of financial reasons for doing so, but Illitch doesn't have any obligation to the public. It's also worth noting that a bad TV deal can hamstring a team if the contract is to long. The Mets TV deal (which may have expired by now) cut into their revenues significantly and was part of the reason they couldn't compete with the Yankees financially, even though they were in the same market.

Do you think the public has an obligation to Illitch to attend games and buy merchandise regardless of the quality of the product on the field?

Personally, I'd like to see the Tigers get aggressive like the Indians and try to start up their own Tiger TV channell. If it works for the Indians, they are going to increase their revenues significantly. Of course, now is probably a good time for the Indians to make that move because of the competitive position their team is in. The Tigers might not be in such a great position to try something like this yet.

Oblong · #6 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 08:19 AM

I agree with qsilv. Certainly there's a worthy debate on whether doing games on free TV is a valid marketing tool but I don't agree that an owner HAS to put the games on free TV. I don't think an owner has to do anything that can cost him money. Everybody's so willing to spend other people's money.

Todd · #7 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 08:29 AM

[QUOTE=qsilvr2531]

Do you think the public has an obligation to Illitch to attend games and buy merchandise regardless of the quality of the product on the field?

QUOTE]

nope but they have to pay for the infrastructure of Comerica park through taxes...

qsilvr2531 · #8 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd

nope but they have to pay for the infrastructure of Comerica park through taxes...

They didn't have to do that either. They choose to do that (or maybe more accurately, someone else choose to make them do that), which isn't the same thing. Cities keep getting blackmailed into funding new stadiums, and I don't expect that will change anytime soon unfortunately.

Brent · #9 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblong

I agree with qsilv. Certainly there's a worthy debate on whether doing games on free TV is a valid marketing tool but I don't agree that an owner HAS to put the games on free TV. I don't think an owner has to do anything that can cost him money.

I agree that the owner doesn't have to put games on free TV. But, I'm confused as to what cost the team has when they do so.

From a marketing standpoint, lack of free TV and crappy radio access absolutely kills the Tigers. Obviously everyone here loves the game of baseball and will go to great lengths to watch it. But what about the Tiger fan of tomorrow? I remember reading in Trump's first book (The Art of the Deal) about publicity (negative or positive) and the benefits it brings to a company. It was true when he wrote it 20 years ago and it's true today. If the Tigers netted zero dollars in a deal with public TV, they would still benefit. There isn't a company in the world that isn't trying to increase their customer base. Except perhaps the Detroit Tigers. The entire idea of increasing customer base is the driving force behind things like the WBC. Selig gets it, Illitch doesn't.

If this type of crap continues and the team repeats the last 12 years, the 2018 Tigers will become the 2004 Montreal Expos.

Oblong · #10 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:14 AM

How do they benefit by reaching out to an audience that cannot afford or is unwilling to spend money on cable TV? If they can't or won't do that then what are the chances they will make it to a game? A franchise isn't made on the merits of 25 games being on free TV. There's nothing being lost here that a winning season will not cure. It's people whining over something they never really noticed they had. The bark is bigger than the bite.

As for publicity, they get more by not being ont he air. if they were on the air nobody would notice and nobody would watch. I wouldn't be surprised if only a few thousand people watched the Tigers on free TV.

rhino · #11 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:16 AM

What I took from the article was there was a deal proposed by Channel 50 to televise the games. The money wasn't to Illitchs liking

Quote:

the Tigers were asking for stiff rights-fees,

. The pattern was repeated again when FSN propsed to televise an additional 26 games

Quote:

FSN's lavish package moved up the ladder at Tigers headquarters and straight to Ilitch's office. There it died,

. As Henning points out here

Quote:

They aren't in position to be turning down revenue or audiences, in any shape or form.

the issue is not about Illitch losing money, the issue comes down to Illitch not making enough money to suit him. This is where a public obligation comes into play. I did not here, nor have I ever, suggested Illitch not be allowed to make money on the Tigers. My arguement is the Tigers are not a regular business. Along with the prestige and honor of owning a MLB franchise with history as deep as the Detroit Tigers, comes an obligation to put the fan base on equal terms as the quest for more profit. There is no hint anywhere that Illitch would not have made money on the deal. The story has been consistant for the last two years: Illitch wants more money and until he squezes out every dime the fan base will be allowed to suffer.

Oblong · #12 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:43 AM

So was the fan base in 1980 worth less because only a couple dozen games were televised?

What does being on free TV have to do with prestige and honor?

Ilitch has a sense that things will turn around here in a big way in the next year or so and when that happens he'll be in a stronger position to bargain.

qsilvr2531 · #13 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:51 AM

I think Oblong's last sentence is dead on. Illitch is gambling that the team will improve going forward, and doesn't want to get stuck in a lower value deal right before the team improves and he could get significantly more.

Auburndale Ray · #14 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 09:56 AM

Even the lowly Devil Rays has 142 games on Free TV this season...

Illitch is just wrong...

Brent · #15 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblong

How do they benefit by reaching out to an audience that cannot afford or is unwilling to spend money on cable TV? If they can't or won't do that then what are the chances they will make it to a game? A franchise isn't made on the merits of 25 games being on free TV. There's nothing being lost here that a winning season will not cure. It's people whining over something they never really noticed they had. The bark is bigger than the bite.

It's about increasing their customer base. You really can't believe that the Tigers aren't losing revenue from televising more games on tv. The Tigers raked in $19M in 2000 from TV. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1297
$19 Million 2001, almost half of what they brought in through ticket sales.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...s-expenses.htm
The Tigers could even buy the airtime and keep the commercial revenue themselves. If that winning season happens that will fix all this, then the Tigers would make even more money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oblong

As for publicity, they get more by not being ont he air.

They do now. But what about in May and June with the Cup and NBA playoffs are going on? No one will be talking about the lack of Tiger games on TV, the Tigers will get zero advertising. A game on TV during a night with no Wings or Pistons would generate publicity and viewers.

Brent · #16 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qsilvr2531

I think Oblong's last sentence is dead on. Illitch is gambling that the team will improve going forward, and doesn't want to get stuck in a lower value deal right before the team improves and he could get significantly more.

There are things such as 1 year deals.

Oblong · #17 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:20 AM

If the Wings and Pistons are in the playofs then nobody will be watching the Tigers.

shauntacular · #18 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:24 AM

Heh I will! I can watch both Piston and Tiger games!

Oblong · #19 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent

It's about increasing their customer base. You really can't believe that the Tigers aren't losing revenue from televising more games on tv. The Tigers raked in $19M in 2000 from TV. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1297
$19 Million 2001, almost half of what they brought in through ticket sales.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...s-expenses.htm
The Tigers could even buy the airtime and keep the commercial revenue themselves. If that winning season happens that will fix all this, then the Tigers would make even more money.

That's $19 million for local TV/Cable/and Radio. We are only talking about local TV here. I imagine the local TV cut of that is pretty small considering the amount of games involved compared to 162 radio and over 100 for cable. It's also a more expensive production.

tiger337 · #20 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:38 AM

The Boston Red Sox also have zero games on free TV this year. If you don't buy NESN (or have it as part of your cable package), you don't see them.

Canon Fodder · #21 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:46 AM

Though Ilitch has no obligation to make these extra 26-48 games available to the viewing public, it would probably help him sell a few more $5 pizzas if fans were able to plop down and watch game when the kitties are on the road in the in July.

Canon Fodder · #22 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger337

The Boston Red Sox also have zero games on free TV this year. If you don't buy NESN (or have it as part of your cable package), you don't see them.

But at least you can buy access to watch the games.

As far as I can tell, most Tiger fans (those with cable at least) can see games on FSN, and then a few on WGN. Maybe an ESPN game or two (which will probably be blacked-out for FSN anyway). So what's that add up to? 120 games? As I Tiger fan, I'm unable to watch more than forty games of my regional team. Actually, I would have more opportunity to watch games if I didn't live in the region. Ridiculous.

tater6 · #23 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger337

The Boston Red Sox also have zero games on free TV this year. If you don't buy NESN (or have it as part of your cable package), you don't see them.

How many games will be on NESN?

Oblong · #24 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canon Fodder

But at least you can buy access to watch the games.

As far as I can tell, most Tiger fans (those with cable at least) can see games on FSN, and then a few on WGN. Maybe an ESPN game or two (which will probably be blacked-out for FSN anyway). So what's that add up to? 120 games? As I Tiger fan, I'm unable to watch more than forty games of my regional team. Actually, I would have more opportunity to watch games if I didn't live in the region. Ridiculous.

Who watches 162 games? I don't follow you.

Canon Fodder · #25 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 10:58 AM

Who takes the afternoon off work to watch the Tigers road opener? Who would plan their Friday and Saturday night of opening weekend around a pair of 8:05 starts? Who gets excited about a 10:05 start in Seattle that's nearly four months away?

I DO.

And none of these games are televised in this area. That's a joke.

Oblong · #26 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:11 AM

You don't run television based on a handful of people.

tiger337 · #27 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater6

How many games will be on NESN?

All of them if you want to pay for it.

Todd · #28 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger337

All of them if you want to pay for it.

damn i wish we could gte that with the Tigers

tiger337 · #29 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canon Fodder

But at least you can buy access to watch the games.

As far as I can tell, most Tiger fans (those with cable at least) can see games on FSN, and then a few on WGN. Maybe an ESPN game or two (which will probably be blacked-out for FSN anyway). So what's that add up to? 120 games? As I Tiger fan, I'm unable to watch more than forty games of my regional team. Actually, I would have more opportunity to watch games if I didn't live in the region. Ridiculous.

I have a different perspective. Not too long ago, you could only watch a handful of games on TV. I think being able to watch 100 games is awesome - like a dream come true. I probably wouldn't feel that way if I was younger but it just amuses me to see the outrage at not being able to see 162 games.

Todd · #30 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger337

I have a different perspective. Not too long ago, you could only watch a handful of games on TV. I think being able to watch 100 games is awesome - like a dream come true. I probably wouldn't feel that way if I was younger but it just amuses me to see the outrage at not being able to see 162 games.

I think the outrage comes from that fact that teams like the stinking D-rays have more games on TV then the Tigers

Oblong · #31 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:35 AM

that's mature.

diaspora04 · #32 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:44 AM

As an out of market fan, I actually get to see more games by buying the MLB cable package, though many of the feeds are supplied by the opposing teams. I also don't have to worry about blackouts.

The best way to solve this is to make $500-600M and buy the Tigers.

Dan in NY

qsilvr2531 · #33 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent

There are things such as 1 year deals.

Sure, and it's hard to imagine him turning down a reasonable 1 year deal. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it seems clear that the cost of the 1 year deal wasn't worth it to him.

Tramfan · #34 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd

I think the outrage comes from that fact that the stinking D-rays have more games on TV then the Tigers

and the Royals, and the Pirates, etc, etc .....

it's diferent game and a different market now than it was in 1984 people. TV can and is used as a marketing tool. Even if the Tigers get hot this year and set things up for a nice package next year, they still lose opportunity to capitalize on this year. So do you start on a new market next year from scratch or would you rather build on new market carry over from the previous years successes?

It sounds like FSD was willing to take the initiative and put together a deal similar to what they do with the Red Wings, that being subcontracting the telecasts to free tv stations. However the Tigere apparently didn't decide one way or another, and they did drop the ball. Additionally, if the Tigers indicate they still want to add free tv games, all this is obviously still important to them.

Adams Brush St · #35 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger337

(...)I probably wouldn't feel that way if I was younger but it just amuses me to see the outrage at not being able to see 162 games.

To me, the only outrage comes in the fact that we are pretty far behind what is percieved as standard these days. Here we are in the 8th largest metro area in the nation and we can't get a good chunk of games on TV. I don't want to point to the Devil Rays as an example because we all know that drawing people to that stadium of theres is near impossible, here it really isn't that bad. I am, however, somewhat bothered by the apparent indiference in the front office.

But to be fair, Illitch really does not have responsibility to give us TV coverage of any games if it is not financially prudent. However, I find it odd how we are the only team in the league that can't get a deal done in some way, shape or form. I'm surprised an outlet like Comcast Sports Net isn't interested (I'd imagine the FSN contract might be a legal monkey wrench). Perhaps a bullet might have to be swallowed, but if we can waste millions of dollars on hurt/retired ball players still on the payroll, I wonder why we can't try to buy our way into a network or TV deal.

I think requesting all 162 games is ludicrous. I don't think 130-140 is too much to ask though.

lesgoblu02 · #36 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 12:04 PM

Speaking of Tampa Bay's stadium...

Are there any plans at all to get out of that God-foresaken place and build an outdoor stadium? The St. Pete area is beautiful and, it seems, would be a prime location to build an outdoor venue on or near the water. Hell, I would probably drive down for the Tigers series' if they didn't play in that craphole.

Canon Fodder · #37 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 12:29 PM

I think it's ridiculous that I can't pay to watch all 162 games. Buying the MLB Ticket (or whatever it's called) would still blackout certain games. Yet, if I lived elsewhere, I could see every televised game for a fee.

Why should a Tiger fan in Atlanta have more access than a fan in Detroit that is willing to pay? Sure, I could get an out-of-market card for a satellite dish, but that's a hassle and illegal.

Diehard fans living in the region have less access than than those fans elsewhere and the only roadblocks are artificial.

That's ridiculous.

dadair6 · #38 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canon Fodder

Why should a Tiger fan in Atlanta have more access than a fan in Detroit that is willing to pay? Sure, I could get an out-of-market card for a satellite dish, but that's a hassle and illegal.

Diehard fans living in the region have less access than than those fans elsewhere and the only roadblocks are artificial.

That's ridiculous.

In using your example, yes a fan in Atlanta has more access to more televised games. But the thing many on here fail to realize is we have access to 81 LIVE games.

I've posted my opinion a few times about television, or, lack thereof. Yes, it sucks there aren't more televised games, but we are dealing with for-profit corporations. Their sole intent is to make money. If either side felt it was not a smart business move to televise more games that's their perogative.

dt35456884 · #39 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 01:09 PM

Well, I can only speak from my experience last year with the MLB Extra Innings DirecTV package when I say that I don't think this is a big deal.

I'm estimating here, but this is how the television coverage roughly broke down last summer.

FSN Detroit: 114 Games
WGN: 5 Games (might be more this year with the Cubs series)
ESPN: 3 Games
Other feeds offered by Extra Innings (NESN/Opponent's FSN/YES Network): 30 Games

In total, I think there might have been about twelve to fifteen games that were not available to me on television. Most of them were afternoon games. All told, I can only recall maybe 4 or 5 times over the course of the entire summer where I was at home in the evening and wanting to watch the Tigers play, but wasn't able to.

Of course, I was living in the U.P., which is well outside of the blackout area. Now I live just outside of Flint. Whether I'll be blacked out of some of those out-of-town feeds during home games, I don't know. But that's still only about 15 games I'd miss. And if I get to the ballpark a half-dozen times this summer (something I couldn't do last year), I might only really miss about 10 games. Not a big deal at all, especially with XM.

estrepe1 · #40 (**permalink**) 03-22-2006, 01:23 PM

None of the games against the White Sox are on WGN this year.

2 of the games against the Cubs are on WGN. 1 of those 2 games will not be on FSDetroit as well. So there is one gained.

The ESPN games haven't been announced yet.