i was just reading Dave Cameron's column about the ridiculous, insane MLB blackout policy. It got me to thinking, which is always a dangerous thing, but bear with me. The biggest complaint with both MLB.tv and the cable package, which I forget the name of, is that they are subject to the world's most pathetic blackout rules.
If all you want is to watch a lot of baseball, $120 a year doesn't sound too bad - and as a Mariner fan in Seattle or the NW, only being blacked out for one team probably isn't that big of a deal since you can watch M's games on FSN or Root or whatever it's called now. But if you're in Dave's situation, or in Iowa, or southern Nevada, you're kinda hosed - up to six teams are unavailable to you, so on any given night you're potentially missing almost half the games available.
The solution everyone wants to see, obviously, is reform of the blackout rules so your MLB.tv subscription can show you every game available. As with all things business, though, you can assume that would come with a cost.
So my question to you, LLoyal reader, is simple. How much would you pay for an MLB.tv subscription if that subscription made every single game available to you, no matter where you live or who your "local" team is?
Also, all that other off-topicky stuff. Weekend plans? Oscar-watching parties to attend? Go to town.