NESN to offer standalone streaming service for games (IN MARKET)

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,364
But $9 a month is less than nesn gets from the cable companies for each sub. So it makes no sense form their perspective to offer it at that price.
I guess it depends on how much they’re getting for each sub. They’re not getting anything from me right now, so if they can get $9 from me through a subscription, why not?

If they’re getting $30 per month from each cable subscription (which I doubt…?), they can still go cheaper than that on the subscription when they consider that 1) most people won’t drop cable because of the new NESN service, and 2) those that do drop cable will do so in favor of NESN’s service, and there would likely be a few hundred thousand (?) new subscribers to boot, which would more than offset the cord cutters.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
11,579
Here's another way to look at it:

Let's say a heavy user of Netflix or HBOMax streams 50 hours/month. The value of those hours is comparable to going to a movie, so call it 7.50/hour -- getting you $375 dollars worth of entertainment for your $15/month.

A moderate user of NESN's app might watch 8 games/month. The value of those games is comparable to an unexceptional seat at the ball park, call it $25/game. That's $200 dollars worth of baseball for the $30/month. Throw in $200 worth of bleacher seats for the live experience and you're up to $400 in value -- so the same surplus entertainment value (SEV) as a Netflix subscriber pays. And everyone thinks Netflix and HBOMax are good values.
I mean, sure, you could choose to look at it this way.

Another way to look at it is that you’re paying $30 a month for NESN.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
21,850
I mean, sure, you could choose to look at it this way.

Another way to look at it is that you’re paying $30 a month for NESN.
Even when the Sox and Bruins are good, NESN is nowhere near worth $30. I mean, there are still 21 hours left in the day and I'm not spending that time watching Charlie Moore or Dining Playbook or Dirty Water TV. "Saved by the Bell" looks down its nose at the troika of suck and awkwardness.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,456
Santa Monica, CA
Or pretty much everyone they went with YouTube TV.

How many people that you know are savvy enough to deal with a VPN connection for their TV just to get MLB.TV for $5/month cheaper? I'm guessing these folks make enough that the effort to save $30 for the season pays for itself.
It's not an insignificant number. Especially when $5 less per month gets you all MLB games, not just the Red Sox, and also is only charged for 6 months, not the whole year.

(Unless I missed it - certainly possible - there is no option for a monthly subscription. Not everyone wants to pay for six months to watch hockey, in fact probably only a minority of Red Sox fans do.)
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,996
And 8 tickets is a pretty good carrot -- if they're $25 bleacher seats, that's a couple hundred bucks right there. If there's any flexibility at all in those tickets (e.g. can you split them up among multiple games, can you trade them with friends, can you sell them off), then it's really a no-brainer.
On the website to sign up, it says 8 tickets to a single game. Doesn't say what seats, or what games you can choose from, or if you can resell them (I'm guessing not.)
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,996
It's not an insignificant number. Especially when $5 less per month gets you all MLB games, not just the Red Sox, and also is only charged for 6 months, not the whole year.

(Unless I missed it - certainly possible - there is no option for a monthly subscription. Not everyone wants to pay for six months to watch hockey, in fact probably only a minority of Red Sox fans do.)
The monthly option is $1 for the first month and $30 per month after that. But you get no free tickets.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,262
I guess it depends on how much they’re getting for each sub. They’re not getting anything from me right now, so if they can get $9 from me through a subscription, why not?

If they’re getting $30 per month from each cable subscription (which I doubt…?), they can still go cheaper than that on the subscription when they consider that 1) most people won’t drop cable because of the new NESN service, and 2) those that do drop cable will do so in favor of NESN’s service, and there would likely be a few hundred thousand (?) new subscribers to boot, which would more than offset the cord cutters.
there’s a delicate balance there, though. If nesn goes direct to consumer at the same price they charge Comcast or whomever, suddenly the cable provider may drop nesn and let consumers know they can just add it in their own. If there are 10 million hh paying nesn $10 through the cable subs (making the number up), and those companies drop nesn, how many bother with the dtc nesn product? Guarantee it’s way less than 10 million.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Also factor into your monthly cost how many Red Sox games you're not getting on NESN and who those games are against. Seems like nearly half the MFY games are on FOX and ESPN as are a few other games against "high profile" teams. Then add into the mix Apple TV, Peacock and whoever else MLB decides to bring in as broadcast partners and you're going to find yourself watching more and more games away from a service that you pay $30/month for.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
15,181
Any idea if you will be able to fast-forward or rewind during a game?
I tried FUBO and FF-rewind was not allowed during a live game. Which is a complete joke for the $80 a month they charged me before I dropped them.
I will probably sign up for this if the video quality is good, there aren't a lot of crashes, and you can pause, rewind, and fast forward during games.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,103
Jackson Heights, NYC
MLB and NESN should partner to cover blackout restrictions. I would pay NESN $10 a year to have an easy non vpn way to watch the 20 Sox/MFY games that I currently cannot watch because I live in NYC and don't have cable. I'm saying I'm willing to pay more than just my mlb.tv sub to get legal access to games. Not the kind of money they want, but tbh they'd make a whole lot more if they just gave us a cheap option to do what needs to be done.
 

TDFenway

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Aug 21, 2016
46
$30 is too much - NESN is making Sinclair look good which takes talent.



https://thestreamable.com/news/sinclair-announces-initial-pricing-for-bally-sports-dtc-streaming-app

On Wednesday, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group revealed its earnings report for the first quarter of 2022. It was an eventful three months for the broadcasting giant as they continued to slowly inch toward the long-awaited launch of their Bally Sports direct-to-consumer (DTC) streaming service.

The company announced that the plan was still to have a soft launch of the streamer this quarter and that it will cost $189.99 annually or $19.99 per month. Later during the company’s earnings call, CEO Chris Ripley referred to the upcoming service as “Bally Sports+.”

The service would allow fans access to stream NBA, NHL, and select MLB teams on their Bally Sports RSN in their local markets.

Currently, Bally Sports RSNs are only available to stream on DIRECTV STREAM as part of their $89.99 Choice Plan. Over the last two years, the channels were dropped by YouTube TV, Sling TV, Hulu, and fuboTV.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,262
MLB and NESN should partner to cover blackout restrictions. I would pay NESN $10 a year to have an easy non vpn way to watch the 20 Sox/MFY games that I currently cannot watch because I live in NYC and don't have cable. I'm saying I'm willing to pay more than just my mlb.tv sub to get legal access to games. Not the kind of money they want, but tbh they'd make a whole lot more if they just gave us a cheap option to do what needs to be done.
thats not really up to nesn though; yes network owns those rights and isn’t going to go for that.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
51,397
So here's an unpopular opinion: I think it's actually a reasonable price.

In-market games are clearly significantly more valuable than the out-of-market MLB app, so comparing the prices is apples-and-oranges. [Or, more properly, apples-and-grapes.]

And comparing the price to using a VPN is akin to comparing the price of a used car to stealing one. Of course it's not the same... but one is legal and the other isn't.

Certainly many people get expensive cable packages specifically to get the Red Sox and/or Bruins, and they now have the option to stream. OTOH, this is no skin off the nose of folks who prefer to keep the bundle.

And 8 tickets is a pretty good carrot -- if they're $25 bleacher seats, that's a couple hundred bucks right there. If there's any flexibility at all in those tickets (e.g. can you split them up among multiple games, can you trade them with friends, can you sell them off), then it's really a no-brainer.

The big if to me would be if the quality of the stream and the app is solid. I have to admit I don't have huge confidence in NESN on that front, but maybe MLB/BAM is helping with the build-out?
The concept of supply and demand prevents one , at least with current Red Sox production levels, to sell $25 tickets for $25.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,262
Yes, I'm essentially asking MLB & NESN to sort it out, and i'm willing to pay above and beyond for it.
It would lead to a major loss of local revenue for teams, though. I don’t think it’s any of the parties best interests, even if some fans would want it. If you don’t need nesn to watch Sox games in Boston, than suddenly nesn is much less valuable and the Sox ability to put forward a competitive team is compromised. Same goes for every other team; although it certainly might be favored by the smaller markets who have a lot less to lose.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,650
Unreal America
Value is always in the eye of the beholder when it comes to pricing. Lots of people think nothing of spending $75 on a single UFC or Boxing PPV. And yet getting ~20 Sox games for $30 seems high.

If nothing else, in-market Sox fans who cut the cord now have an option. As an out-of-market fan, MLB.tv continues to be one of the great values in media IMHO.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
9,523
Are people paying $25 a month for MLB.tv? It's really easy to get a full-season subscription for anywhere from $5-10 total in the week or two after T-Mobile gives out their free subscriptions for the season. There are a lot of people out there selling those subscriptions for under $10... I think I paid $5 this year.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,277
NH
I've not watched the Sox since the trade anyway, but whenever I go back, it won't be by paying $30 a month. That is simply an insane amount for one team. That's ~$1 a game to stream. 8 tickets? Who thought this was a good idea? As opposed to just something normal like 4x2 or 2x4. I can't imagine trying to coordinate 8 people to go to a single game.

Now a straight stream of like $120 for the year or $15 a month or something? Sure. But at $30 -- you're just pushing people to other options, even with the tickets.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
5,262
What are the other legal options for in market fans? Subscribing to cable or a YT TV, right? Which is fine by NESN. Clearly this doesn’t make sense for most people but it’s not designed to be a mass reach product- at this point. I imagine it’s largely about setting up the product so that they have the ability to go direct to consumer in a bigger way if forced to do so (the next time they need to negotiate with Comcast, charter, optimum, etc.)
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,315
My Desk
When I was a kid - I had to pay my parents $20 a month in 1993 to get NESN on cable in Connecticut. $30 for this app seems like a reasonable price to me. I would not want FUBO for $70.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
51,397
When I was a kid - I had to pay my parents $20 a month in 1993 to get NESN on cable in Connecticut. $30 for this app seems like a reasonable price to me. I would not want FUBO for $70.
Back then you had much less competition for entertainment, though.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,519
Any idea if you will be able to fast-forward or rewind during a game?
I tried FUBO and FF-rewind was not allowed during a live game. Which is a complete joke for the $80 a month they charged me before I dropped them.
I will probably sign up for this if the video quality is good, there aren't a lot of crashes, and you can pause, rewind, and fast forward during games.
I have Fubo and can pause, rewind, FF etc.?
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
15,181
I have Fubo and can pause, rewind, FF etc.?
I could not ff/rewind during live games on FUBO. The only options during live games were to start from the beginning or go to Live.
I called their customer assistance line and they said that's just the way it is during live broadcasts with certain networks, and there was nothing they could do about it. FUBO also crashed frequently, and I had to log in every single time I used it. It was the worst streaming service I've ever used and I cancelled after about 10 irritating days of using it. They charged me $80 for one month. So if this NESN app works well, I will gladly subscribe for $30 month.
 

gtmtnbiker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,275
Are people paying $25 a month for MLB.tv? It's really easy to get a full-season subscription for anywhere from $5-10 total in the week or two after T-Mobile gives out their free subscriptions for the season. There are a lot of people out there selling those subscriptions for under $10... I think I paid $5 this year.
It’s easy to find a bunch of people selling their sub for $3 on slick deals. $5 is too rich for me.
 

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,326
Land formerly of Sowheag
I have given up on seeing the Red Sox on tv anymore. It used to just be on tv. You would turn it on and get your local station playing the game. Cable and streaming services are just too complicated. Everyone is so greedy. I have very fond memories of watching Yaz, Rice, Lynn and Evans playing the outfield.Now my adult kids never put a ballgame on and I can't blame them. I guess it is the marketplace working its magic.
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
8,848
NJ
Why so? You can already buy every NESN Red Sox game for $100 year (MLB.tv) and every Bruins game for another $80 (ESPN+). You’d still need cable games against your local teams though.
I have mlb.tv and I have espn+ but I don’t think they have every bruins game? I may be wrong there. Also I was thinking you’d get all the Celtics games as well.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
612
OK, so it looks like people who no longer watch any Red Sox games at all think this is an absurd amount to charge people to watch Red Sox games. And people who continue to pay $100-plus a month for cable think this is an insane amount to charge people to watch Red Sox games. But those of us who still watch Red Sox games and who no longer pay $100-plus a month for cable think this is a reasonable amount to charge people to watch Red Sox games. I THINK that covers it, but let me know if I’ve missed anything.
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,519
I could not ff/rewind during live games on FUBO. The only options during live games were to start from the beginning or go to Live.
I called their customer assistance line and they said that's just the way it is during live broadcasts with certain networks, and there was nothing they could do about it. FUBO also crashed frequently, and I had to log in every single time I used it. It was the worst streaming service I've ever used and I cancelled after about 10 irritating days of using it. They charged me $80 for one month. So if this NESN app works well, I will gladly subscribe for $30 month.
All you have to do is automatically record the games and you have full control.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
515
Boston
When I was a kid - I had to pay my parents $20 a month in 1993 to get NESN on cable in Connecticut. $30 for this app seems like a reasonable price to me. I would not want FUBO for $70.
I remember it being the same in the late 90s in MA. This was also at a time when close to 80 games were over the air on channel 68 in Boston, so NESN might have been carrying 80ish games a year compared to 140-145.

If I still lived in Boston where the racket of Comcast pricing leads to $150 savings to cancel cable and keep internet, $30 a month would be attractive. Outside the city, its pretty easy to find cable packages for $50-$60 a month that are pretty inclusive.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,972
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
All I want.

ALL I want.

Is to get NESN out of market. I will pay full price. I will pay a premium. I just want to have full LEGAL access to NESN and all of its programming.

Sigh.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
22,011
Alamogordo
Yeah, "legal" probably wasn't the right word. But "steal" is. VPN's enable you to get content the rightsholder is trying to prevent you from accessing. And the rightsholder paid an awful lot of money for those rights and the opportunity to monetize them.
Then the rights holder shouldn't black me out of 4 markets, none of which is closer than a 7 hour drive from me, and none of which I can actually get the local sports channels for where I live.
 

Scott Cooper's Grand Slam

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2008
3,144
New England
In-market folks looking for a Fubo alternative should consider DirecTV Stream. It has NESN, NBA, NFL, and the Celts. You won’t save money compared to cable or Fubo, but the experience is better than Fubo.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
9,976
Springfield, VA
I'm a FIOS subscriber out of market (DC, duh) and...
(rot13'd to avoid Google spiders)


Ba n ynex V qrpvqrq gb tb fgenvtug gb ARFA.pbz n pbhcyr jrrxf ntb naq frr jung unccrarq jura V gel gb fgernz ARFA. Naq vg jbexrq! V pyvpxrq ba gur SVBF ybtb naq nccneragyl vg arire purpxrq gb frr jurgure ARFA vf va zl pnoyr cnpxntr (vg'f abg). Fb V'z trggvat nyy Fbk tnzrf naq rirelguvat ryfr jvgubhg cnlvat n qvzr.

Ernyyl phevbhf vs gung'f gehr sbe bgure sbyxf.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
15,181
All you have to do is automatically record the games and you have full control.
The very first thing I did when I got FUBO was set it to automatically record every Red Sox and Bruins game. Still didn't let me FF/rew. Maybe there is something I could have done to fix it, but it wasn't obvious or even clear, and their customer service person didn't say anything about it. It doesn't matter anymore anyway, since I dropped them. IMO it's a horrible service with many other problems, and way overpriced.
I'm glad this new NESN streaming app is coming out and if it I hear good things about how it works I will sign up for it.
 

begranter

Couldn't get into a real school
SoSH Member
Jul 9, 2007
2,309
...people who no longer watch any Red Sox games at all think this is an absurd amount to charge people to watch Red Sox games...
For others such as myself that fall into this contingency, especially if you lost access to NESN because of the YTTV breakup, do you find yourself going to fewer Red Sox (and Bruins) games in person? I haven't been to Fenway or the Garden for hockey since NESN and YTTV broke up. Admittedly some of that is COVID and some of that is the state of the baseball team, but I find it really hard to get excited to spend what it costs to go to a game these days when I don't have that day-to-day connection with the team that NESN enabled.

To me, this is where the sports business is missing the forest through the trees. I would think that providing viewers options to access your teams' games, especially for regional sports like hockey and baseball that also have local regional blackouts for their services, is directly correlated with ticket demand, game viewership, and apparel sales. I would also think that those factors, combined with the added viewers and advertising revenue that can be charged for those extra eyes plus the operational broadcasting efficiencies, could make up for whatever exclusive broadcast revenue teams get. Total conjecture, but there has to be a more fan-friendly model that remains profitable for the teams and league.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,650
Unreal America
I have given up on seeing the Red Sox on tv anymore. It used to just be on tv. You would turn it on and get your local station playing the game. Cable and streaming services are just too complicated. Everyone is so greedy. I have very fond memories of watching Yaz, Rice, Lynn and Evans playing the outfield.Now my adult kids never put a ballgame on and I can't blame them. I guess it is the marketplace working its magic.
Not to be a jerk, but cable is too complicated? I mean, the Sox have had at least half their schedule on NESN since the 80s. Now it's, what, 135 games/year? You turn your set-top box to the NESN channel, and you watch the Sox.

Look, I get that not everyone sees the value in buying cable. But if you live in New England and want to watch Sox games, I can't think of anything much easier than getting cable and watching NESN.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
18,650
Unreal America
All I want.

ALL I want.

Is to get NESN out of market. I will pay full price. I will pay a premium. I just want to have full LEGAL access to NESN and all of its programming.

Sigh.
Once upon a time, DirecTV had a sports package where you could get just about every regional sports network, but not the live games. Not sure if that's still a thing. If it is, you'd essentially have what you want by getting that, MLB.tv (for live Sox games) and ESPN+ (for live Bruins games).
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,700
ct
I've not watched the Sox since the trade anyway, but whenever I go back, it won't be by paying $30 a month. That is simply an insane amount for one team. That's ~$1 a game to stream. 8 tickets? Who thought this was a good idea? As opposed to just something normal like 4x2 or 2x4. I can't imagine trying to coordinate 8 people to go to a single game.

Now a straight stream of like $120 for the year or $15 a month or something? Sure. But at $30 -- you're just pushing people to other options, even with the tickets.
Honest question for the folks who buy boxing and UFC. Assuming the fights are on the level, you could be paying between 75 to 100 bucks for a fight that could end in the first or second round. Is that amount of money worth it or a good value for possibly 30 seconds to a couple of minutes of action?
At least with the Sox you're guaranteed 270 innings of action in a month.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
5,989
Boston, MA
For others such as myself that fall into this contingency, especially if you lost access to NESN because of the YTTV breakup, do you find yourself going to fewer Red Sox (and Bruins) games in person? I haven't been to Fenway or the Garden for hockey since NESN and YTTV broke up. Admittedly some of that is COVID and some of that is the state of the baseball team, but I find it really hard to get excited to spend what it costs to go to a game these days when I don't have that day-to-day connection with the team that NESN enabled.

To me, this is where the sports business is missing the forest through the trees. I would think that providing viewers options to access your teams' games, especially for regional sports like hockey and baseball that also have local regional blackouts for their services, is directly correlated with ticket demand, game viewership, and apparel sales. I would also think that those factors, combined with the added viewers and advertising revenue that can be charged for those extra eyes plus the operational broadcasting efficiencies, could make up for whatever exclusive broadcast revenue teams get. Total conjecture, but there has to be a more fan-friendly model that remains profitable for the teams and league.
Teams make the majority of their money on their regional sports network. Charging $30 per month is the fan-friendly model they've come up with. Undercutting that in the hopes that the people who don't want to spend money on the team suddenly decide to spend money on tickets is a money loser for them.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
18,506
The cradle of the game.
So they're targeting the window of consumers that have cut the cord on cable completely, live in New England, and are not savvy/edgy enough to use a VPN. Some slice of market.
I was literally going to cut the Spectrum cable cord this weekend and sign up with Fubo and their 4K Sox games that NESN has been promoting. So if NESN is now COMPETING with Fubo, do they kick Fubo to the curb like YouTube? If so, it makes sense to go full-on a la carte for everything. I guess?

In the end, I'll go with whatever gives me live 4K at the cheaper price, but I also wonder what the latency/delay will be like compared to cable. Because all the other streamers are a good 0:30 sec.+ behind cable.

Isn’t it a pain in the ass to set up a VPN to work on a tv? I know it’s straightforward on a PC and you could output from there to a TV via HDMI, but if I just want to watch on a TV with a Roku there’s no easy solution for this that I’m aware of.
I'd also be curious to learn of a stable VPN solution for Roku and Apple TV, one that hopefully preserves true 4K.

Looks like 4K is on its way, big news even for Xfinity customers who can authenticate their subscriptions in the app
But NESN has been promoting 4K through DirecTV, Verizon Fios and Fubo for weeks now. I was under the impression that Fubo was live-streaming Sox home games in 4K already. No?
https://nesn.com/4k/
 
Last edited:

biollante

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 22, 2001
9,326
Land formerly of Sowheag
I only have cable for the internet.
I got rid of it for tv, too many weird schemes.
They get my money for tickets but not NESN.
I understand the business model but I just don't want to be a part of it.
I don't pay money for boxing.
We do get hulu and somehow Yankee and Mets games are on that streaming service from time to time.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,972
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Once upon a time, DirecTV had a sports package where you could get just about every regional sports network, but not the live games. Not sure if that's still a thing. If it is, you'd essentially have what you want by getting that, MLB.tv (for live Sox games) and ESPN+ (for live Bruins games).
I get the games online. I actually just want the access to the network and its other programming.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,041
Maine
I get the games online. I actually just want the access to the network and its other programming.
Out of morbid curiosity, what other NESN programming are you hoping to watch, Charlie Moore, Dining Playbook, or the gambling shows? Live game coverage is the only thing of value that they show.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
21,972
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Out of morbid curiosity, what other NESN programming are you hoping to watch, Charlie Moore, Dining Playbook, or the gambling shows? Live game coverage is the only thing of value that they show.
I like being able to watch the pre and post game content. Hate that the second a game ends I am cut off. Beyond that though, as a no longer local, I like some of the kitchy Boston themed shows for old times sake.