Sinclair Broadcast Group to rename sports channels after Bally’s casinos

[Fenway]

Genuine question, why would it get dicey with those? Not sure I'm seeing it.

On line betting is legal in those states

The score ticker we all hate will start showing current odds - bet on that

 

[golfortennis]

On line betting is legal in those states

The score ticker we all hate will start showing current odds - bet on that

I see what you did there.....

 

[oknazevad]

I figure as contracts come up, you'll see NHL teams leave for other channels. Granted, it's going to be difficult to go to something with a geographical reach like the Fox Sports regional networks already have, but I suspect if someone does something similar (CBS Sports? Hell, is this where ESPN jumps in and makes its presence felt?) it'll be a slow-rolling exodus.

It won't be ESPN. The whole reason Sinclair wound up with these RSNs in the first place is because Disney wasn't allowed to keep them because of anti-trust concerns because of ESPN's dominant position in national sports networks. Fox didn't want to keep them either, though that is still strange to me. You'd think there'd be some sort of synergy with the national FS1 & FS2, and Fox still has local owned-and-operated stations as part of the broadcast network.

(Of course, I think the whole deal should've been scuttled by antitrust regulations because it ended the independence of a major film and television studio, which is already an industry with a limited number of firms, so such a consolidation is truly reducing consumer choice, but I digress.)

 

[golfortennis]

Someone made a comment on another board that has me thinking. Some of the reasoning they used may be debated, and not sure I agree, but it definitely made me think. They said "Professional Sports are dying. They are becoming a reason to gamble, not something to enjoy with your family."

Fenway and tarheelhockey's posts came to mind when I read that. I'm a capitalist, and so I support looking to maximize revenue, just as I support players getting paid what the market will bear. But that also carries with it a responsibility to "maintain your brand" for lack of a better term. As one example, when MLB brought in interleague play, there was a short term boost(although one could argue it was set up to be successful given the dates), but it also ate away at the World Series' lustre because the teams had now faced each other in very recent memory. A number of media members who pushed for it have admitted the WS has lost something because of it. Has the tradeoff been worthwhile? My personal opinion is no, but I can see where others disagree and I'm not looking to debate that here.

What I am wondering is if the push to get the gambling revenue in could be an inflection point. I suspect it will be more than a minor thing. I know the first week the betting was legal on PGA Tour golf it really wrecked the telecast with the way they kept talking about odds on this or that happening. It seems to have been stopped, but I haven't watched much of the PGA Tour in the last while anyway. But could this become something that completely changes the way they are presented? Done well it could help, but I could see it having the potential to really wreck things.

 

[MBH]

I despise the Sinclair politics - but this is simply smart business and I bet this deal looks cheap within a couple years time.

What's the government going to do about gambling? Their lotteries and casino deals mean they profit off gambling.