News of the failure of the campaign to return Test cricket to free-to-air television was predictable as it was regrettable.
An era has ended and the long-term future of the game has been jeopardised.
The dangers of failing to expose future generations to live cricket have been eloquently made in these pages by my colleague, Pat Murphy. The present deal is far from ideal.
But amid the hysteria of the debate several factors have been overlooked.
The ECB may be guilty of short-sightedness, but they had little choice but to accept Sky's bid. Television rights accounts for 80 per cent of their income and with rival broadcasters failing to demonstrate their committment in the time-honoured fashion, the ECB were left in an invidious position.
Sky can hardly be blamed for attempting to turn a profit, while the government couldn't realistically be expected to intervene in a lawful - if unfortunate - deal.
No, the real villains of this piece are the BBC. They have let us down. Despite the fact that they receive nearly £2.5 billion a year from the license fee they failed to even submit a bid to broadcast live Test cricket. It was their duty to do so.
They claim that attractions such as the football world cup and Wimbledon - a two-week event - limit their scope for cricket broadcasts. Yet they fail to make use of BBC3 or BBC4 which are inactive through much of the day, while their daytime fare can only be the preserve of the bed-ridden, the imprisoned or those stuck under a rock fall.
It is also worth remembering that Channel 4's committment to cricket was not as strong as some sepia-tinted memories would appear to suggest. It was Channel 4 that used to interrupt coverage with race meetings; Channel 4 that pressurised the ECB to bring the start times of games forward so as not to interrupt teenage drama Hollyoaks; and Channel 4 that broadcast their highlights passage so late at night that only insomniacs saw them.
Sky, however, will show every ball of every game. They are covering the Under-19 World Cup; they cover county games nearly every week of the season; they offer a wide variety of international cricket from all around the world and they have covered every England tour for a decade. They have a track record which proves their commitment to the sport.
Nor are they quite such a niche broadcaster as their detractors suggest. Over 8,000,000 homes now have a subscription; excluding those who access the sports channels through cable.
And don't forget that highlights will be broadcast in the early evening on terrestrial station Five. For many who spend the day in schools or offices, the new deal will represent an improvement.
Perhaps those that cannot afford Sky might be in a better position if they were not obliged to spend over £100 a year on the license fee?