>The primary assets of MLABAM are intellectual property rights (contracts for content). The business is resale

You can say that about any number of startups that focus on delivering content: Netflix, Steam, Youtube, etc.

> and the revenue model is biased toward dividend type payouts rather than reinvestment for continued growth. This may make it a lucrative business line, but it doesn't make it a startup.

MLBAM has had both dividend payouts and reinvestment. They were started with a $77 million initial investment [1] and turned it into a $5 billion business in a decade and a half. You don't get that kind of growth without reinvestment.

> It started on third base not ramen.

Can't disagree, but isn't that the point of an accelerator? Isn't that supposed to be the differentiator between going to someone like Y Combinator before going to a VC? They are supposed to give startups a head start and guidance that they wouldn't normally receive in order to help them be more successful.

[1] - http://www.fastcompany.com/1822802/mlb-advanced-medias-bob-b...

When Netflix was a startup, the disruptive idea was sending DVD's through the mail as often as you liked for a fixed monthly fee but only so long as you never had more than two at a time. YouTube stopped being a startup when Google bought them almost a decade ago. Since, it's seen incremental change but hasn't disrupted anything.

Neither was built on the value of exclusive rights to content. My understanding is that this is mostly true for s Steam as well, but I don't know as much about its evolution. MLABAM didn't go through an accelerator so RoboCop is riding a unicorn on that one.