Back in the '80s, Reinsdorf was such a savvy businessman that he threw the Sox behind a scrambled subscription channel for years, then moved to cable even though most of the city didn't have it thanks to Chicago City Council ineptitude.
There is an amazing coda to this: Channel 32, which broadcast 60 or so White Sox games, actually sued Reinsdorf to break the contract early because the White Sox were "not desirable to watch."
Does this sound familiar? "The station accuses owners Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn of 'gutting and stripmining the White Sox team of salary investment, player quality and fan goodwill, which has caused fans to {stop watching White Sox games}.'"
Goff is fine (if unspectacular) as host, but I also would be happy for someone else to assume host duties. Maybe Laurence Holmes wants to do it. Hoping we don't get Chuck Garfien or another NBC Sports retread.
I'm gonna miss Will. Yes, it takes him 10 minutes to uncork his takes but he has a lot of good basketball insight. Also, I think a 3-man crew is optimal because it makes for a more lively show.
Speaking of Goff, can anyone make it through 5 minutes of his Ringer podcast? Yikes.
I agree, I can take Goff in this role because he is restricted by TV timing. When he's given less structure like on the radio or even worse in podcasts, it's unlistenable rambling to me
This new RSN is a mess. It’s supposed to launch in three weeks from today and we know virtually nothing about it. It’s supposed to be on an over the air network, but they haven’t announced which one. My guess is that it will be on a WCIU sub channel with horrible resolution. The Blackhawks have three preseason games in September and who knows if NBCSN Chicago will even air those. They also have a game October 1st. Maybe it will be on CHSN, maybe not because they haven’t announced shit about fuck yet. The crazy thing is that Jerry and the Wirtzes knew years ago that they were starting this RSN and had plenty of time to prepare, but they’re half assing it like they do with just about everything.
Yes, I didn't even get into the carriage. TBD if this will be kicked up to a higher cable pay-tier, like on a level with NFL Redzone, and I figure not many will want $10 extra for this crap
My guess is that they’re still negotiating with carriers about pricing. I’m still not sure what is going on with the over the air part of the network. I’ve read conflicting information that all the games will be available over the air and only a few games will be available. The most information came from the press release from a few months ago so 🤷
Woe is me! Where am I going to watch the misery unfold now that NBCS-Chicago has been laid to rest?! Guess I'll have to settle for the ONE nationally televised game vs the Bucks on Nov 20th on ESPN.
I would love nothing more than to catch Jerry and Michael and ask them why they continue to act like they care about owning this organization? Because to me it seems like whether it's the Bulls or the Sox, they're both on autopilot because the owners are content with their mere existence and that's just not a good reason to own a sports organization. If the Bears are valued at $6.4B with only one title, the Bulls have to be worth more with six titles right? My mind always goes back to the investment Jerry made initially in comparison to what the team is valued at now. Jerry has made a TON of money. Can he please just ride off into the sunset, or pass away, ASAP?! And take Michael with him on the way out!!!!!
Jerry has remarked on, especially relative to the White Sox, how impossible it is to not make money owning the Bulls. And thus why he trusts his son to run it.
Kinda curious if I'm on an island or not. If they make watching a game a little bit difficult, I probably just won't. There are a lot of other things to do nowadays. The NBA has more compelling players than at any time I can remember and none of them play here. You'll probably be able to find them the same 2 or 3 days per week on NBC or ESPN, though.
If they make it difficult and expensive, I definitely won't.
As someone on the East coast, it won't affect me since I have to buy League Pass to watch them play anyway. Thankfully I split it with a friend, so it isn't too expensive. Plus, I get a bunch of actually good games to watch too.
But yeah, if they make it even slightly more difficult for fans to watch, I have a feeling their numbers are going to drop fairly significantly. This year's team is not going to be good. They've lost their two best players who also probably happened to be their two most loved players. They're already fighting an uphill battle for viewership. If they make it more difficult to watch games, people just won't watch them.
The League pass effects is real and the way the NBA sets up these deals more generally, I think, words against viewership at the margins.
I'm in Indy, and LP is slowly but surely converting me from a Bulls fan to an NBA fan. I got LP to follow the Bulls, but I increasingly watch other teams.
And, because I'm a cord-cutter, I'm definitely not going to spend on the extra money I'd need to in order to follow the Pacers, who are my local team.
I know I'm only one guy and most folks will just lazily stick with cable, but generally the tends in telecom are going to people doing what I do, and picking and choosing what they want to pay for. The NBA's setup actively pushes me away from paying for the specific products offered by the teams I care about. That is:
1. If given the choice, I'd probably pay a reasonable amount to closely follow the Bulls and the Pacers. But since my only choice to follow the Bulls requires me to pay for a bunch of other stuff, I've ended up decreasing my interest in following the Bulls.
2. Since the LP doesn't have an option for local teams, I just don't closely follow the Pacers at all, especially since I'm paying to see every other team.
It's just kind of a weird outcome when you think about it. Everything the NBA is doing pushes me away from having a deep, connected fandom to the teams I actually care about.
Hah, Ive always thought that was a weird concept. Outside of Derrick Rose, I just cant imagine that theres anyone who cares. Like, does anyone think the fact that Talen Horton Tucker is local is going to drive more than single digit ticket sales?
Yeah, I definitely get where you're coming from. In Virginia the only blacked out games on League Pass are the Wizards and I couldn't care less about them haha.
If you did want to follow the Pacers though as they seem to be on an upward trajectory, you could always just get a tv antenna. I guess that's assuming their games are broadcast on a local tv channel.
It definitely is interesting that League Pass does seem to push local fans away from their local teams (if they're unwilling to pay for cable or whatever other plan they'd need to see local games). I'm sure there are broadcast rights and whatnot that keep local games off of League Pass, but it's definitely a lose-lose for local fans who want to use League Pass to watch their local team.
No such luck, local games are on Bally Sports, which is in chapter 11 and was discontinued by the local cable company about 30 seconds after the last reg season Pacers game . Its a shame they wont get an OTA deal, people here would follow then into hell if they did that.
I could only rarely get their stuff to stream correctly. It was complete trash…. Kind of what Im expecting the new Bulls thing to be.
If it's not free, I'm out. I'm not buying an extra subscription to watch this team give up 135 every night. Any necessary highlights and recaps can be gotten for free. I refuse to pay any entity other than blogabull.com for my Bulls content until the 'dorfs are out of here.
Chicago can support another franchise, I'm sure. Silver could get the Bulls sold in a second by just bringing in the Chicago "Sports Funding Opportunity #23442" franchise to compete with them. Go Flyin' Fundies!
This has been my dream, but Jerry is an oligarchic monopolist. He knows how to manipulate the owners into keeping a second franchise out of Chicago. The only thing he cares about is making money, and he’s still doing that hand over fist. He isn’t going to change.
The NBA couldn’t certainly steer a new or moving franchise into Chicago, but by all indications, it’s not close to on the horizon. Seattle and Las Vegas are much more the front-runners.
The Bears suck, too, but the salary cap, relatively short schedules (and that variance), and the parity of the NFL in general has at least made them relevant from time to time.
Jerry Reinsdorf is one of the worst, if not the worst, in sports because he makes sure the teams are not terrible so he can make money (generally) but rarely good enough to actually compete. If (a) legitimate owner(s) took over the White Sox and Bulls, it would raise the level of those two teams and the Cubs (I think).
Guess I probably should have worded my original comment better. When I said "something good", I meant something true. So generally when he finally said "something good" it was actually him criticizing the Bulls for something stupid they did/were doing.
I have YouTube TV and I REALLY hope they don’t put the games behind a higher pay tier. I’m one of the suckers that watches all the games even when they suck and ownership is actively trying to stay middle of the pack.
Ditto here, YouTubeTV and watch all the games, They are recorded so I can watch quickly at a faster speed during bad games. Last season I watched a majority of games at a faster speed.
I do the same, but on League Pass. Rarely ever watch a game live. Usually I'll start it about an hour late and fast forward through all the commercials and dead-ball time. And if it's particularly bad, I'll just skip forward to see if it gets good.
they announced today that Goff, Kendall, and KC Johnson are all coming to the new network
I'm somewhat surprised with KC, if they don't have a website or podcast. Maybe that's coming too. Otherwise they'll have him on TV (he's fine...) and breaking 'news' on Twitter dot com?
They put out a little update on the Bulls Talk Podcast saying it was basically being handed over to CHSN where the podcast would continue under the same name.
That is what I found interesting. I don't think Bulls Talk was such a huge success that CHSN should have felt like they needed to keep it going. I also don't think the name is so awesome that CHSN would have felt like they should keep the name.
It just comes across as lazy. Instead of creating their own podcast with new hosts and new ideas, they basically just bought an existing podcast because they know it already has a listener base.
it will be moderately interesting to see if CHSN takes over the Twitter and Podcast feeds. Though are less lucrative than a few years ago, but still better than starting from scratch
Ooof. This goes into that easy vs not easy thing. Like what event would really prompt someone who is a casual fan to buy an antenna? "Hey I've had that play-in *revenge* game against the Hawks circled on my calendar for awhile, better get everything sorted." If someone is like me and this is the only reason they would have to buy one and set one up... I think they're probably not going to do it, don't you think?
This is probably the worst possible season to have fans try to do this...
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think this is a good thing. OTA is absolutely better than behind some paywall. Plus, just because it's OTA doesn't mean it won't be available elsewhere. I believe I saw somewhere that they're working on a deal with DirecTV. If they do that with other major providers too, then this is pretty much a win/win.
I would be very surprised if at least some cable providers don't also carry CHSN. The language isn't explicit on the site in the Premium Platforms section, but that's my read. Then probably some kind of app that you might be able to subscribe to directly, but would be accessible to with a cable subscription. I think it's awesome there's an OTA option for all games. Maybe Marquee will follow suit.
If there's an app that you can use with a cable subscription, you better not also have to pay a subscription just to use the app. If there's an option to pay a subscription for the app without the need to also link a cable provider, that would be pretty awesome! I can't imagine that would happen though, because it would eat into League Pass sales.
Ahh yeah - was just thinking how Marquee is doing it now, with an option to subscribe even if you don't have cable. It's steep at like $20/mo and limited to in-market users. Maybe that in-market limitation would mean it'd be compatible with League Pass (similar to OTA).
That would make sense. As an outsider, I don't have to worry about Bulls games being blacked out, except when they play the Wizards. But League Pass is basically useless to anyone who is local, which is probably a large portion of Bulls viewers anyway. So I suppose it would be nice if you could pay a subscription to watch the games in-app if you don't want to pay for cable or for an antenna.
I’m guessing that it will be like Marquee where you can log in through your cable provider or subscribe directly. The network is going live in two weeks so I expect we will see more information about this week. I wonder what they will fill out their schedule when there’s no games.
Is that unrealistic? I mean that's what it was every day as far back as I can remember. I'm not going to buy a digital antenna to watch Patrick Williams blow one handed dunks for the next 4 years. I mean I could, but that's more of a punchline than a plan.
There is something to be said about reaching your audience and going where they are.
While you are correct, it's not as simple as DVR. Someone has to be at least somewhat technologically inclined to set up the hardware and software needed to record OTA programs.
That's the reason DVR became so big in the first place. It's not that people couldn't digitally record their shows prior to TiVo. The cable companies realized that they could just sell a set-top box with a hard drive in it and handle all the software on their side, so all customers would have to do is hit the record button.
Since every thread becomes about Lonzo, where is he, what is he doing, is he running, does he plan to play again and if one day he shall return to us, I read through the current CBA and there is still no specific language about "clearing" players:
As we know teams could (and still can) just tell a player to go home: a contract is no assurance of playing time, whether it's 48 minutes or 0. Strongly suspect the insurer of his contract would be interested if he says he can still play. It's probably in Lonzo's interest to spend this year rehabbing and posting more clips to Instagram. Nobody's going to give him a guaranteed deal above the minimum next year no matter what.
A random factoid: When players get a "second opinion" on an injury, it's from a doctor selected by the team and put on a list. Never knew that! If the player wants a really *impartial* opinion, they will have to pay out-of-pocket and the team doesn't seem to be under any obligation to consider it.
In light of the last paragraph I think the Bulls' bitchiness in their note about Zach's (last!) surgery is now understandable. He didn't just blow off the team doctor, he blew off their nominated "2nd opinion" guy. He paid his own doctor under Klutch's auspices and that doctor recommended surgery. I think from their note we can infer that the Bulls' doctors did not.
Will Perdue is joining Chuggo. Maybe he'll be unshackled! I certainly will be watching/listening to them post-game over the official show, though I was doing that anyway.
This company is controlled by a fake fuckin business man and his son who isn't even a fake business man.
Back in the '80s, Reinsdorf was such a savvy businessman that he threw the Sox behind a scrambled subscription channel for years, then moved to cable even though most of the city didn't have it thanks to Chicago City Council ineptitude.
There is an amazing coda to this: Channel 32, which broadcast 60 or so White Sox games, actually sued Reinsdorf to break the contract early because the White Sox were "not desirable to watch."
Does this sound familiar? "The station accuses owners Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn of 'gutting and stripmining the White Sox team of salary investment, player quality and fan goodwill, which has caused fans to {stop watching White Sox games}.'"
https://archive.is/ETUJk
In the end, he had to sign a sweetheart deal giving WGN 30+ Bulls games just so they'd broadcast White Sox games at all. It really is something.
Goff is fine (if unspectacular) as host, but I also would be happy for someone else to assume host duties. Maybe Laurence Holmes wants to do it. Hoping we don't get Chuck Garfien or another NBC Sports retread.
I'm gonna miss Will. Yes, it takes him 10 minutes to uncork his takes but he has a lot of good basketball insight. Also, I think a 3-man crew is optimal because it makes for a more lively show.
Speaking of Goff, can anyone make it through 5 minutes of his Ringer podcast? Yikes.
I agree, I can take Goff in this role because he is restricted by TV timing. When he's given less structure like on the radio or even worse in podcasts, it's unlistenable rambling to me
This new RSN is a mess. It’s supposed to launch in three weeks from today and we know virtually nothing about it. It’s supposed to be on an over the air network, but they haven’t announced which one. My guess is that it will be on a WCIU sub channel with horrible resolution. The Blackhawks have three preseason games in September and who knows if NBCSN Chicago will even air those. They also have a game October 1st. Maybe it will be on CHSN, maybe not because they haven’t announced shit about fuck yet. The crazy thing is that Jerry and the Wirtzes knew years ago that they were starting this RSN and had plenty of time to prepare, but they’re half assing it like they do with just about everything.
Yes, I didn't even get into the carriage. TBD if this will be kicked up to a higher cable pay-tier, like on a level with NFL Redzone, and I figure not many will want $10 extra for this crap
My guess is that they’re still negotiating with carriers about pricing. I’m still not sure what is going on with the over the air part of the network. I’ve read conflicting information that all the games will be available over the air and only a few games will be available. The most information came from the press release from a few months ago so 🤷
they announced distribution
with...DirecTV ::tumbleweeds::
Woe is me! Where am I going to watch the misery unfold now that NBCS-Chicago has been laid to rest?! Guess I'll have to settle for the ONE nationally televised game vs the Bucks on Nov 20th on ESPN.
I would love nothing more than to catch Jerry and Michael and ask them why they continue to act like they care about owning this organization? Because to me it seems like whether it's the Bulls or the Sox, they're both on autopilot because the owners are content with their mere existence and that's just not a good reason to own a sports organization. If the Bears are valued at $6.4B with only one title, the Bulls have to be worth more with six titles right? My mind always goes back to the investment Jerry made initially in comparison to what the team is valued at now. Jerry has made a TON of money. Can he please just ride off into the sunset, or pass away, ASAP?! And take Michael with him on the way out!!!!!
I bring this up often:
Jerry has remarked on, especially relative to the White Sox, how impossible it is to not make money owning the Bulls. And thus why he trusts his son to run it.
Kinda curious if I'm on an island or not. If they make watching a game a little bit difficult, I probably just won't. There are a lot of other things to do nowadays. The NBA has more compelling players than at any time I can remember and none of them play here. You'll probably be able to find them the same 2 or 3 days per week on NBC or ESPN, though.
If they make it difficult and expensive, I definitely won't.
As someone on the East coast, it won't affect me since I have to buy League Pass to watch them play anyway. Thankfully I split it with a friend, so it isn't too expensive. Plus, I get a bunch of actually good games to watch too.
But yeah, if they make it even slightly more difficult for fans to watch, I have a feeling their numbers are going to drop fairly significantly. This year's team is not going to be good. They've lost their two best players who also probably happened to be their two most loved players. They're already fighting an uphill battle for viewership. If they make it more difficult to watch games, people just won't watch them.
The League pass effects is real and the way the NBA sets up these deals more generally, I think, words against viewership at the margins.
I'm in Indy, and LP is slowly but surely converting me from a Bulls fan to an NBA fan. I got LP to follow the Bulls, but I increasingly watch other teams.
And, because I'm a cord-cutter, I'm definitely not going to spend on the extra money I'd need to in order to follow the Pacers, who are my local team.
I know I'm only one guy and most folks will just lazily stick with cable, but generally the tends in telecom are going to people doing what I do, and picking and choosing what they want to pay for. The NBA's setup actively pushes me away from paying for the specific products offered by the teams I care about. That is:
1. If given the choice, I'd probably pay a reasonable amount to closely follow the Bulls and the Pacers. But since my only choice to follow the Bulls requires me to pay for a bunch of other stuff, I've ended up decreasing my interest in following the Bulls.
2. Since the LP doesn't have an option for local teams, I just don't closely follow the Pacers at all, especially since I'm paying to see every other team.
It's just kind of a weird outcome when you think about it. Everything the NBA is doing pushes me away from having a deep, connected fandom to the teams I actually care about.
maybe this is behind AKME's strategy of signing so many local players
Hah, Ive always thought that was a weird concept. Outside of Derrick Rose, I just cant imagine that theres anyone who cares. Like, does anyone think the fact that Talen Horton Tucker is local is going to drive more than single digit ticket sales?
Yeah, I definitely get where you're coming from. In Virginia the only blacked out games on League Pass are the Wizards and I couldn't care less about them haha.
If you did want to follow the Pacers though as they seem to be on an upward trajectory, you could always just get a tv antenna. I guess that's assuming their games are broadcast on a local tv channel.
It definitely is interesting that League Pass does seem to push local fans away from their local teams (if they're unwilling to pay for cable or whatever other plan they'd need to see local games). I'm sure there are broadcast rights and whatnot that keep local games off of League Pass, but it's definitely a lose-lose for local fans who want to use League Pass to watch their local team.
No such luck, local games are on Bally Sports, which is in chapter 11 and was discontinued by the local cable company about 30 seconds after the last reg season Pacers game . Its a shame they wont get an OTA deal, people here would follow then into hell if they did that.
I could only rarely get their stuff to stream correctly. It was complete trash…. Kind of what Im expecting the new Bulls thing to be.
Wait, you’re in Indy! I thought you were in DC all this time.
I used to be, but I moved away from DC long ago
We got Dallas from Phoenix, Cleveland from Detroit, and MikeDC from Indy! Still Don know where Tex is from…
If it's not free, I'm out. I'm not buying an extra subscription to watch this team give up 135 every night. Any necessary highlights and recaps can be gotten for free. I refuse to pay any entity other than blogabull.com for my Bulls content until the 'dorfs are out of here.
If we all do this, maybe Matt can buy the Bulls back from Jerry?
Nothing is free
Turns out it's free
Chicago can support another franchise, I'm sure. Silver could get the Bulls sold in a second by just bringing in the Chicago "Sports Funding Opportunity #23442" franchise to compete with them. Go Flyin' Fundies!
This has been my dream, but Jerry is an oligarchic monopolist. He knows how to manipulate the owners into keeping a second franchise out of Chicago. The only thing he cares about is making money, and he’s still doing that hand over fist. He isn’t going to change.
The NBA couldn’t certainly steer a new or moving franchise into Chicago, but by all indications, it’s not close to on the horizon. Seattle and Las Vegas are much more the front-runners.
The Bears suck, too, but the salary cap, relatively short schedules (and that variance), and the parity of the NFL in general has at least made them relevant from time to time.
Jerry Reinsdorf is one of the worst, if not the worst, in sports because he makes sure the teams are not terrible so he can make money (generally) but rarely good enough to actually compete. If (a) legitimate owner(s) took over the White Sox and Bulls, it would raise the level of those two teams and the Cubs (I think).
I liked Will Purdue?
Maybe my attention span is too short, but I couldn't stand listening to 20 minutes of drivel to finally hear him say something mildly good.
Honestly, there`s not much good to say about this team. Least he finally found something, surprised he didnt take longer
Guess I probably should have worded my original comment better. When I said "something good", I meant something true. So generally when he finally said "something good" it was actually him criticizing the Bulls for something stupid they did/were doing.
Surprisingly good.
leila rahimi was the best host: only other one with media chops besides amin
I have YouTube TV and I REALLY hope they don’t put the games behind a higher pay tier. I’m one of the suckers that watches all the games even when they suck and ownership is actively trying to stay middle of the pack.
Ditto here, YouTubeTV and watch all the games, They are recorded so I can watch quickly at a faster speed during bad games. Last season I watched a majority of games at a faster speed.
I do the same, but on League Pass. Rarely ever watch a game live. Usually I'll start it about an hour late and fast forward through all the commercials and dead-ball time. And if it's particularly bad, I'll just skip forward to see if it gets good.
I wish I could watch Bulls on League Pass. I live in Chicago, so it is not available for me. The main reason I have YouTube TV is for the sports.
that's what I used to do back when I had it. Now if I care I might turn the 2nd half on in the background if I find a decent stream.
they announced today that Goff, Kendall, and KC Johnson are all coming to the new network
I'm somewhat surprised with KC, if they don't have a website or podcast. Maybe that's coming too. Otherwise they'll have him on TV (he's fine...) and breaking 'news' on Twitter dot com?
They put out a little update on the Bulls Talk Podcast saying it was basically being handed over to CHSN where the podcast would continue under the same name.
RyanReynoldsButWhy.gif
When you get a clever title like that man you hold on for dear life.
That is what I found interesting. I don't think Bulls Talk was such a huge success that CHSN should have felt like they needed to keep it going. I also don't think the name is so awesome that CHSN would have felt like they should keep the name.
It just comes across as lazy. Instead of creating their own podcast with new hosts and new ideas, they basically just bought an existing podcast because they know it already has a listener base.
it will be moderately interesting to see if CHSN takes over the Twitter and Podcast feeds. Though are less lucrative than a few years ago, but still better than starting from scratch
Kevin Anderson just announced he's not going to the new network, hmm
They finally released some information on their website. They will be on OTA on channels 62.2 and 62.3 in Chicago.
https://chsn.com/info
Ooof. This goes into that easy vs not easy thing. Like what event would really prompt someone who is a casual fan to buy an antenna? "Hey I've had that play-in *revenge* game against the Hawks circled on my calendar for awhile, better get everything sorted." If someone is like me and this is the only reason they would have to buy one and set one up... I think they're probably not going to do it, don't you think?
This is probably the worst possible season to have fans try to do this...
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think this is a good thing. OTA is absolutely better than behind some paywall. Plus, just because it's OTA doesn't mean it won't be available elsewhere. I believe I saw somewhere that they're working on a deal with DirecTV. If they do that with other major providers too, then this is pretty much a win/win.
What would your best case scenario look like?
I would be very surprised if at least some cable providers don't also carry CHSN. The language isn't explicit on the site in the Premium Platforms section, but that's my read. Then probably some kind of app that you might be able to subscribe to directly, but would be accessible to with a cable subscription. I think it's awesome there's an OTA option for all games. Maybe Marquee will follow suit.
If there's an app that you can use with a cable subscription, you better not also have to pay a subscription just to use the app. If there's an option to pay a subscription for the app without the need to also link a cable provider, that would be pretty awesome! I can't imagine that would happen though, because it would eat into League Pass sales.
Ahh yeah - was just thinking how Marquee is doing it now, with an option to subscribe even if you don't have cable. It's steep at like $20/mo and limited to in-market users. Maybe that in-market limitation would mean it'd be compatible with League Pass (similar to OTA).
That would make sense. As an outsider, I don't have to worry about Bulls games being blacked out, except when they play the Wizards. But League Pass is basically useless to anyone who is local, which is probably a large portion of Bulls viewers anyway. So I suppose it would be nice if you could pay a subscription to watch the games in-app if you don't want to pay for cable or for an antenna.
I’m guessing that it will be like Marquee where you can log in through your cable provider or subscribe directly. The network is going live in two weeks so I expect we will see more information about this week. I wonder what they will fill out their schedule when there’s no games.
I turn on my TV and there is the game, is the best case scenario.
I suppose I should have said "best case scenario that is still realistic"
Is that unrealistic? I mean that's what it was every day as far back as I can remember. I'm not going to buy a digital antenna to watch Patrick Williams blow one handed dunks for the next 4 years. I mean I could, but that's more of a punchline than a plan.
There is something to be said about reaching your audience and going where they are.
$20 dollars over four years, that's like 10cents a missed dunk. Not bad.
How were games on NBC Sports broadcast? Did you not have to have either an antenna or a cable plan?
Also you can't record off an antenna, have to watch an entire NBA game live (or at least first 30 minutes until garbage time)
That is not true - there are many options for over the air digital recorders.
While you are correct, it's not as simple as DVR. Someone has to be at least somewhat technologically inclined to set up the hardware and software needed to record OTA programs.
That's the reason DVR became so big in the first place. It's not that people couldn't digitally record their shows prior to TiVo. The cable companies realized that they could just sell a set-top box with a hard drive in it and handle all the software on their side, so all customers would have to do is hit the record button.
Sorry, yes you can do it but it's not as easy as with a provider, and neither is flipping to/from the game to something else
Since every thread becomes about Lonzo, where is he, what is he doing, is he running, does he plan to play again and if one day he shall return to us, I read through the current CBA and there is still no specific language about "clearing" players:
https://atlhawksfanatic.github.io/NBA-CBA/
As we know teams could (and still can) just tell a player to go home: a contract is no assurance of playing time, whether it's 48 minutes or 0. Strongly suspect the insurer of his contract would be interested if he says he can still play. It's probably in Lonzo's interest to spend this year rehabbing and posting more clips to Instagram. Nobody's going to give him a guaranteed deal above the minimum next year no matter what.
A random factoid: When players get a "second opinion" on an injury, it's from a doctor selected by the team and put on a list. Never knew that! If the player wants a really *impartial* opinion, they will have to pay out-of-pocket and the team doesn't seem to be under any obligation to consider it.
No Fred (Tedeschi) Clause?
In light of the last paragraph I think the Bulls' bitchiness in their note about Zach's (last!) surgery is now understandable. He didn't just blow off the team doctor, he blew off their nominated "2nd opinion" guy. He paid his own doctor under Klutch's auspices and that doctor recommended surgery. I think from their note we can infer that the Bulls' doctors did not.
Will Perdue is joining Chuggo. Maybe he'll be unshackled! I certainly will be watching/listening to them post-game over the official show, though I was doing that anyway.