'How the NFL fleeces taxpayers'

Has anyone ever heard of Aereo? Does anyone use it?
I wondered why something like this hasn't been done before. Pretty much undercutting Sunday ticket package for a Seahawks fan living in New England by paying $8 a month.
It's a steal.
I see why the NFL and MLB are fighting it, but why shouldn't I be able to see a free TV game in the Denver market here?
When I had Dish, sometimes I paid a dollar on Sundays to switch my local TV markets to Atlanta or Denver to watch the Steelers games.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/technology/nfl-mlb-aereo/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

I've heard about this battle, though I haven't used the service. I'm guessing the NFL and MLB will spend millions on lobbyists and eventually win, though I suspect Aereo is probably exploiting the loophole in a fashion that should remain legal.

It won't kill sports on free TV because the big four networks are going to continue to have the largest ratings and, therefore, will be able to afford the massive rights contracts. Fox isn't going spend billions on NFL rights and then air games on FX for a fraction of the audience.

 

Good point. A parking fee is bullshit anyway, and now it's $30 or more? Goodbye.

 

Because those are built so the innocent amateur student-athletes can blow off some steam by challenging the next school down the road. Those dirty tramp athletes who are sullied by making money for playing a game don't deserve stadiums built for them!

In all seriousness, though, Starman made a good point. It's not like a college can threaten to move its football team across the country if it doesn't get a new stadium. They can nag fans, alumni and politicians with "we won't be able to recruit 5-star athletes if we don't improve our facilities!" and get their stadiums that way, but it's not as powerful an argument as "Build it, or we'll move."

 

The "we can't recruit 5-star athletes" line is there to ensure that rich alums fork over the cash to get these built.

 

You make a good point, but it also supports my original point. They don't have the "powerful argument" and yet we build for them anyway. Like I said, no one makes a peep when it comes to building palatial stadiums and arenas for universities.

 

If you look at a lot of universities, it's not just palatial stadiums -- it's palatial EVERYTHING. A lot of that is because it's easier to get a rich alum (or someone who has a lot of money that needs a tax break somewhere) to finance a sweet new building with his or her name on it rather than money for the general or scholarship fund. Also, dorms aren't all Cockroach Heaven anymore for fear of losing students to other schools or off-campus housing. Harvard conversely has the largest endowment AND largest debtload of any single college.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/business/colleges-debt-falls-on-students-after-construction-binges.html?_r=0

 

That's insane. There is chapter and verse of mega-delays on such projects. (Michigan and Cal are two examples.)

But they're usually done through private donations. And they're done a LOT cheaper.