Field of Dreams
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
WiffleballHero
Field of Dreams
In today's social (and MLB's economic) climate, this is probably impossible, but: I think this game, if it continues to be a "thing," should emphasize baseball's impact on the relationship between father and son. The emotional impact from the film (and book) is when Ray realizes his relationship with his dad had disappeared except for their mutual love of the game -- and that Ray inherited his interest in baseball from the same man against whom he tried all his adult life to rebel. His -- and his father's, supernaturally -- redemption at the end is through a game that has now become a pastime that has been handed down from generation to generation for around 150 years. That is the "romantic" hold on people, particularly males, that other sports don't seem to have in North America.
Yes, the maguffin in the movie centers around Shoeless Joe and deadball-era players, but that's just a hat rack to hang the real meaning of the book/film. The story is about family. Men in particular have become emotional during the ending of Field of Dreams precisely because it reminds them of their relationship with their fathers, and the "gift" of fandom these men have given their sons. The relationship they've had with their dads because of baseball. MLB could really make this game a celebration of fathers and sons, and portray that relationship as an important and enduring positive in family life.
Alas, that would likely be deemed "something"-ist, and the screaming tomcats on Twitter would get the good ol' Rage Machine cranked up to 11 about that sort of horse-and-buggy, neanderthal celebration of family males. And besides, how do you directly profit from deeply held personal sentiment? Long-term, maybe, but short-term? MLB is designed to separate people from their money ASAP, not create conditions where people can "dip themselves in magic waters." There's just no truckload of corporate cash ready to be grabbed for that kind of thing.
Yes, the maguffin in the movie centers around Shoeless Joe and deadball-era players, but that's just a hat rack to hang the real meaning of the book/film. The story is about family. Men in particular have become emotional during the ending of Field of Dreams precisely because it reminds them of their relationship with their fathers, and the "gift" of fandom these men have given their sons. The relationship they've had with their dads because of baseball. MLB could really make this game a celebration of fathers and sons, and portray that relationship as an important and enduring positive in family life.
Alas, that would likely be deemed "something"-ist, and the screaming tomcats on Twitter would get the good ol' Rage Machine cranked up to 11 about that sort of horse-and-buggy, neanderthal celebration of family males. And besides, how do you directly profit from deeply held personal sentiment? Long-term, maybe, but short-term? MLB is designed to separate people from their money ASAP, not create conditions where people can "dip themselves in magic waters." There's just no truckload of corporate cash ready to be grabbed for that kind of thing.
Field of Dreams
4C6A6D78717D6A7C741F0 wrote: I watched the start, and then caught the ending. Great exhibition of MLB and my home state. I really wish MLB would let us watch baseball here though. Six teams blacked out effectively blacks out all ten teams in the central divisions.
Did you get an email a few weeks back about mlb tv? It had a survey in it about the service. I complained about a couple issues:
1. I'm blacked out with the Pirates, based on my location. However, when I was in Ocean City Maryland, the Nats and Orioles also got blacked out. I wasn't aware that not only is a select team(s) blacked out, but also if you happen to be traveling, you get blacked out based on your standing location.
2. It must have been you, because I also complained there were people who said they had up to six teams blacked out, and they don't even have a MLB team in their state. I talked about this with people when discussing steaming services in general. I was told I was FOS, no service would do that. Apparently, MLB is getting away with it because it's an insulated community. If something like this happened with Fortnite (I honestly couldn't come up with a better equivalent) there'd be congressional involvement.
Yes, I did.
Yes, the blackout policy is based off of current location. They use location services on mobile devices, and IP addresses on computers, to determine location. Which is why you can spoof your location through a VPN when not viewing on a mobile device. But, I have moral hangups with using a VPN for that purpose. So, I don't do it, though I know a lot of people do.
The reasoning behind the blackouts is to protect the regional sports networks (RSNs). They pay a lot of money for exclusive rights to televise a game in a certain area. So, here in Iowa, Comcast Sports (White Sox), Bally Sports (Cards, Twins, Brewers, Royals), and whatever the Cubs RSN is claim it as "home" territory. None of those teams are a convenient drive from me. The closest are probably the Twins, a good five hours away.
But, their RSNs want exclusive rights here. However, no cable company is going to pay the exorbitant fees to carry each network. They'll carry one, maybe two. In fact, after Fox Sports switched to Bally, the only provider who carries them is AT&T/DirecTV. So, unless you subscribe to that specific carrier, or spoof your location through a VPN, you can't watch Twins, Brewers, Cardinals, or Royals games in Iowa, despite each of them claiming this as home territory.
The entire thing is nonsensical, and the fans are the only ones who suffer. And MLB doesn't care. The RSNs pay the teams, and expect exclusive rights, they charge outrageous carriage fees to the cable/satellite/streaming services, which they don't want to pay, and consequently, no one can watch these games.
There's some talk that the RSNs may just circumvent the providers and offer apps where you can subscribe and stream their content. Then, they don't have to pay carriage fees. But, again, here in Iowa, that will probably mean having to subscibe to six different apps to get everything you want. I don't want to do that. I won't do that. I can think of a lot better ways to spend money than to watch the Bucs get the crap beat out of them 19 times a year by the Brewers on Bally Sports Wisconsin, or whatever it is.
It's really not that complicated. MLB should have complete TV revenue sharing, with a national contract like the NFL. If you subscribe to a service like MLB.TV, you get every game. Obviously, the cost will probably have to increase, but I'd gladly pay north of $200 a year for MLB.tv if it meant getting every Pirates game without all of this nonsense.
Did you get an email a few weeks back about mlb tv? It had a survey in it about the service. I complained about a couple issues:
1. I'm blacked out with the Pirates, based on my location. However, when I was in Ocean City Maryland, the Nats and Orioles also got blacked out. I wasn't aware that not only is a select team(s) blacked out, but also if you happen to be traveling, you get blacked out based on your standing location.
2. It must have been you, because I also complained there were people who said they had up to six teams blacked out, and they don't even have a MLB team in their state. I talked about this with people when discussing steaming services in general. I was told I was FOS, no service would do that. Apparently, MLB is getting away with it because it's an insulated community. If something like this happened with Fortnite (I honestly couldn't come up with a better equivalent) there'd be congressional involvement.
Yes, I did.
Yes, the blackout policy is based off of current location. They use location services on mobile devices, and IP addresses on computers, to determine location. Which is why you can spoof your location through a VPN when not viewing on a mobile device. But, I have moral hangups with using a VPN for that purpose. So, I don't do it, though I know a lot of people do.
The reasoning behind the blackouts is to protect the regional sports networks (RSNs). They pay a lot of money for exclusive rights to televise a game in a certain area. So, here in Iowa, Comcast Sports (White Sox), Bally Sports (Cards, Twins, Brewers, Royals), and whatever the Cubs RSN is claim it as "home" territory. None of those teams are a convenient drive from me. The closest are probably the Twins, a good five hours away.
But, their RSNs want exclusive rights here. However, no cable company is going to pay the exorbitant fees to carry each network. They'll carry one, maybe two. In fact, after Fox Sports switched to Bally, the only provider who carries them is AT&T/DirecTV. So, unless you subscribe to that specific carrier, or spoof your location through a VPN, you can't watch Twins, Brewers, Cardinals, or Royals games in Iowa, despite each of them claiming this as home territory.
The entire thing is nonsensical, and the fans are the only ones who suffer. And MLB doesn't care. The RSNs pay the teams, and expect exclusive rights, they charge outrageous carriage fees to the cable/satellite/streaming services, which they don't want to pay, and consequently, no one can watch these games.
There's some talk that the RSNs may just circumvent the providers and offer apps where you can subscribe and stream their content. Then, they don't have to pay carriage fees. But, again, here in Iowa, that will probably mean having to subscibe to six different apps to get everything you want. I don't want to do that. I won't do that. I can think of a lot better ways to spend money than to watch the Bucs get the crap beat out of them 19 times a year by the Brewers on Bally Sports Wisconsin, or whatever it is.
It's really not that complicated. MLB should have complete TV revenue sharing, with a national contract like the NFL. If you subscribe to a service like MLB.TV, you get every game. Obviously, the cost will probably have to increase, but I'd gladly pay north of $200 a year for MLB.tv if it meant getting every Pirates game without all of this nonsense.
Field of Dreams
I guess there is another option. And this should be a no-brainer. The commissioner should make use of the "good of the game" clause, or whatever it's called, and decree that no two teams not from the same market can claim the same territory. So, the Cubs and White Sox, Yankees and Mets, Angels and Dodgers, Giants and A's, and Nats and Orioles can claim the same territory in their city, but MLB should limit it beyond that.
So, again, using Iowa as an example, the Cubs and Sox can have east central Iowa, Brewers northeast, Cardinals central and southeast, Royals southwest, and Twins northwest. At least that way, fans could still watch those games.
So, again, using Iowa as an example, the Cubs and Sox can have east central Iowa, Brewers northeast, Cardinals central and southeast, Royals southwest, and Twins northwest. At least that way, fans could still watch those games.