If its more than hes making playing minor league baseball....

It could also be a way to get a better minor league contract.

yes, or even a transition to a larger ($$) school via the portal if he performs, etc

IIRC he had an offer or commit to Florida to play QB when we drafted him

When we signed Janko I said why are we signing an older Bubba Thompson we already have that guy. How wrong I was.

I think it was Bama actually

First step of Rangers TV strategy: Games to be available on paid streaming app. https://t.co/77H9Ps5TH8

— Evan Grant (@Evan_P_Grant) January 15, 2025

Now the question, how much will you pay to watch?

Bout .99.

I'll take the subscription service. I live in Dallas and can't even get all the mavs games on YouTube tv even though it is aired on a local channel. I will not be switching. Rather pay the $10-20 for the subscription.

Aren't they offered OTA?!

All you have to do is get a silly antenae. We did that for an Aggie game once. Antennae was like $25.

I think this is just one route they'll ultimately have.

Just the principle of it, I'm glad they didn't go with the new Bally's.

So, to capture $100M... 7months, so you need $14.2M per month.

1M subscribers @ $15M for 7months => $105M. I doubt they'd capture 1M subscribers... but commerical/ad revenue would get there, I'd think. Add post-season.
Stars+Rangers+Mavs could get you some serious year-round revenue.

Live sports don't lend itself to commercial-free. The time space is there.

In radio conversation about subscriptions, they had mentioned an Ad-Free live sports would only mean dead air.

Obviously they will always fill dead time with ads. It's more of the 2nd bite at the apple of subscriptions, and specifically subscriptions specific to one asset/team. Maybe the price will be very low and no big deal. However, this is a sport where attendance has dropped 20% over the past 15-20ish years (peaked at 80mm, now about 64mm). It needs to get in front of eyeballs. I think going to these "you must have my specific app" models may only accelerate decline in interest. It feels a bit like when local newspapers went online and started charging. Subscribers decreased. They offset it with higher prices that then only result in even fewer subscribers. Death spiral. Baseball won't be that extreme, but they need to be very careful about the effort and price required for those eyeballs to see your team.

Again, it's why I think the Mavs model was a smart approach and hope the Rangers find a way to emulate it

I'll do whatever needed to watch Ranger games. I changed tv providers multiple times to be able to watch them. But I haven't watched a Stars game this season because I haven't taken the time to figure out Victory+. I like the Stars and enjoy watching their games, but not enough to put much effort into it.

Now add on a cost to do that and I would probably never see another game again. I'll get around to figuring out a free app, but won't pay for something that I have that little interest in. I'm the casual Stars fan and what the Rangers are doing won't get the casual Rangers fan.

Danny Vermin said:

---

Quote:

---

But I haven't watched a Stars game this season because I haven't taken the time to figure out Victory+.

---

It literally takes less than 5 minutes to download and sign up.

---

I've done that. But I don't think of it because I'm not following along closely enough to know when they play since it's not on my guide or really anywhere around my radar.

Which is my point that I think you missed. I'm not complaining about how hard the sign up process is. I'm showing the mentality of a casual fan, which the Rangers very much want to reach. I watched several Stars games when it was on Bally's because I had it on my tv provider. Put it on a dedicated streaming service for it and I just don't really get around to it since it's not high enough of a priority.

Now add on a cost and I sure as hell wouldn't do it. That's how a lot of potential Rangers viewers will be. But this was likely the best option for the organization so I very much hope it works.

hockey fan is pretty used to having to find where their team is playing.

shack009 said:

---

Flounder Dorfman said:

---

I'll do whatever needed to watch Ranger games. I changed tv providers multiple times to be able to watch them. But I haven't watched a Stars game this season because I haven't taken the time to figure out Victory+. I like the Stars and enjoy watching their games, but not enough to put much effort into it.

Now add on a cost to do that and I would probably never see another game again. I'll get around to figuring out a free app, but won't pay for something that I have that little interest in. I'm the casual Stars fan and what the Rangers are doing won't get the casual Rangers fan.

---

Victory+ is free. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Stars are able to do a free app, but the Mavs and Rangers can't make it free.

I suppose baseball and basketball may be in slightly higher demand, but I also think the hockey fan is a more rabid fan. What do I know…

---

My thought is that NHL doesn't need as much supplemental income and it's easier to get by with only ad revenue.

Team salaries for current or upcoming seasons:

Rangers: $206,335,000 (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/texas-rangers/payroll/_/year/2025)
Mavs: $188,846,761 (https://www.spotrac.com/nba/dallas-mavericks/cap/_/year/2024)
Stars: $85,408,562 (https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/dallas-stars/cap/_/year/2024)

Edit: updated salaries with links

That was about to be my answer but didn't know the numbers. I figured payroll would be quite a bit lower.

Thanks for providing.

dvldog said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Flounder Dorfman said:

---

I'll do whatever needed to watch Ranger games. I changed tv providers multiple times to be able to watch them. But I haven't watched a Stars game this season because I haven't taken the time to figure out Victory+. I like the Stars and enjoy watching their games, but not enough to put much effort into it.

Now add on a cost to do that and I would probably never see another game again. I'll get around to figuring out a free app, but won't pay for something that I have that little interest in. I'm the casual Stars fan and what the Rangers are doing won't get the casual Rangers fan.

---

Victory+ is free. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Stars are able to do a free app, but the Mavs and Rangers can't make it free.

I suppose baseball and basketball may be in slightly higher demand, but I also think the hockey fan is a more rabid fan. What do I know…

---

My thought is that NHL doesn't need as much supplemental income and it's easier to get by with only ad revenue.

Team salaries for current or upcoming seasons:

Rangers: $193,250,000
Mavs: $176,105,780
Stars: $87,532,356

---

I also think you could pitch that the advertisements reach more eyeballs on the rangers and Mavs broadcasts, so it's a more expensive spot to purchase. But again, I don't know anything. What even is marketing?

From what I know the cost associated with Victory + is an MLB requirement for streaming, not a Victory + requirement. In addition, I believe there will be a free option similar to what the Mavs offer plus a weekly game of the week type set up on a channel available on most cable providers. Don't have exact details but this is what I have heard from someone in the know. Should find out those details later today when all is announced.

Quote:

---

but I also think the hockey fan is a more rabid fan. What do I know…

---

You are correct. I watched an entire season on my phone not too long ago.

It was actually talked about when Victory+ was announced.

The guy that owns/runs Victory+ is friends with the Stars GM?/Owner?! and that was how this all came about for them.

Victory+ was based on a kids streaming App. The owner's research indicated that around 2017/2018, the market was saturated with Apps and people were just unwilling to add another or multiple Apps. Much of what you are hearing here. It was a real struggle.

The biggest issue for the Stars is adding casual fans. As opposed to the Rangers and Mavs and Cowboys... the Stars are 4th... maybe 5th in North Texas if you include FCDallas. Most Rangers/Mavs/Cowboys fans grew up playing the sport. Not necessarily with the Stars.

The Stars have to rely on the casual fan catching a game and getting hooked. By offering Victory+ for free, viewers can tune in with little investment. Maybe a playoff game or such. If it is a For-Fee initial contact for the viewer they believed they wouldn't get new fans.

My POV included... if you look at some of the one-off MLB and NFL games picked up... I think it was Paramount that hosted the KC NFL game. Anyone that wanted to watch the game had to subscribe to Paramount and then could cancel. The interest was compelling enough for many to subscribe to get the game. Something like 60% of the subscribers never cancelled their subscription.

The NFL can do that. The Stars in Texas cannot. I guess we'll see the details of the Rangers GTM strategy, but keep that in mind. You might get LAD, NYY, or CHC type fans who are willing to subscribe when the Rangers play them.

shack009 said:

---

Flounder Dorfman said:

---

I'll do whatever needed to watch Ranger games. I changed tv providers multiple times to be able to watch them. But I haven't watched a Stars game this season because I haven't taken the time to figure out Victory+. I like the Stars and enjoy watching their games, but not enough to put much effort into it.

Now add on a cost to do that and I would probably never see another game again. I'll get around to figuring out a free app, but won't pay for something that I have that little interest in. I'm the casual Stars fan and what the Rangers are doing won't get the casual Rangers fan.

---

Victory+ is free. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Stars are able to do a free app, but the Mavs and Rangers can't make it free.

I suppose baseball and basketball may be in slightly higher demand, but I also think the hockey fan is a more rabid fan. What do I know…

---

In the Mavs case, they've at least provided a free over-the-air option which I think is valuable to retain/capture casual fans. So I understand them going the subscription route for the app as it's essentially providing access for the more serious fans that can't get OTA access thru an existing provider or have some other situation where an app makes sense.

I just know that from personal experience, even if I have access, when a sporting event requires toggling over to an entirely different app, I am far less likely to bother unless I'm really motivated to watch. I've absolutely found this to be the case with various NFL games, the Stars, and other misc sporting events that require a different app

Guys, I'm pretty sure there's going to be an OTA component. What I've heard (repeatedly) is that there will be an app, OTA, and also on a lot of market's cable TV channels.

Please note that Evan said "First step". That tells you there's more coming.

rbtexan said:

---

Guys, I'm pretty sure there's going to be an OTA component. What I've heard (repeatedly) is that there will be an app, OTA, and also on a lot of market's cable TV channels.

Please note that Evan said "First step". That tells you there's more coming.

---

Yeah it feels like we're picking apart something that hasn't even been announced, and once announced likely won't be the end product.

From what everyone is saying on here it seems like there will ultimately be multiple ways to watch the Rangers. The more options the better imo.

Rangers and Stars just announced that they are joining Victory+ LOL.