My question on YouTubeTV is the locals, just like the locals you would see on DirectTV?

I'd still get my local abc right. that's not part of the espn dispute is it?

(09-11-2019 07:46 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I'd still get my local abc right. that's not part of the espn dispute is it?

The ABC local stations that are owned by Disney are part of the dispute, and will be taken off the air by DirecTV if there is no deal.
Disney owns the ABC stations in Fresno, LA, and SF, if you're in any of those markets.

Check at the suppose.tv site to make sure a particular streaming service has all of your local network affiliates.

(09-11-2019 07:46 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I'd still get my local abc right. that's not part of the espn dispute is it?

Here you go buddy. Get a Firestick and have at it. I'm in the Comcast monopoly zone but I get 150 mbps for $60/month with a 1024 GB of data/month limit (use maybe a 3rd of that/month). No phone, no cable, none of the Comcast gimmicks.

I just used my 7 day trial on FuboTV as they and Sling are the only streaming service that carries the Pac12 Network (wanted to see the Sac State @ ASU game). I'll likely go Playstation Vue as that has pretty much everything but P12.

Cut the cord, you won't regret it. I had cable for a year back in 2013 but haven't had it since about 2009.

For you local stuff get an HD antenna. You'll get all the local network affiliates plus about 30 spanish ones (comes in handy during World Cup years). Fxck cable.

(09-10-2019 11:34 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  In the grand scheme of things, sports fans don’t really matter. We’re a drop in the bucket. But it’s the viewers of Wheel of Fortune and Bachelor in Paradise who will move the needle.

That's actually not true at all. Sports fans are actually, without question, the most valuable viewers out there. We're the only audience that still watches events live (AKA we still watch commercials) and we need our *specific* game and will go to the *specific* channel that provides it regardless of who it might be (e.g. an Alabama fan needs that week's Alabama game specifically live right now and isn't going to be satisfied any random college football game).

I've said this before: sports channels are simultaneously the top reason why people drop cable (as those who don't watch sports don't have any need to pay the premium for expensive sports channels) AND the top reason why people *keep* cable (for the reasons that I mentioned above). The upshot is that sports channels actually have more relative power with the cable companies today than before because the non-sports viewers are the ones that can more easily satisfy their viewing habits with online streaming, whereas sports channels are really all that's keeping the cable industry alive. (That's why we still don't see, and will likely never see, the mainline ESPN and regional sports networks ever going a la carte.)

As a side note, though, Bachelor in Paradise is amazing. It's generally a terrible reflection of humanity in general, but great entertainment.

(09-10-2019 01:26 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:48 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Sportpocalypse is approaching:

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-bl...looms.html

I have to agree, ESPN is not longer invincible. ESPN is now only in around 85 million households and still dropping. Remember only 20% of cable subscribers watch cable sports. Apparently, those who already cut the cord don’t care about ESPN.
Thinking how the 1 million plus subscribers loss they have just in the first half of the year is concerning and need to trim costs which means not giving Disney the amount they are asking for.

First of all---I question that 20% number.

In 2019--which was the lowest ranked Super Bowl in 11 years---98.2 million people were watching the game in the US. AC Nelson said 67 percent of US homes with televisions in use were tuned into the 2019 Superbowl broadcast. Granted---the Super Bowl is an event. There are many that dont follow the NFL or college sports that probably watch the Super Bowl---but it also suggests that well over 20% of cable subscribers probably watch sports at least occasionally and are likely casual sports fans that would rather have access to games than not. Furthermore, in Houston---I know that Texans games almost always get more than than a 25 share locally. That would mean that 25% of all TV's in use in the market are turned to the game. Ive seen that number climb well over a 30 share locally in certain Texans games. So, Im extremely skeptical of that 20% sports viewer number---especially when one considers that the NFL is just one sport. The numbers I gave say nothing of those that prefer baseball, soccer, the NBA, college sports, or sports like auto racing or UFC. While viewers of these other sports likley overlap to a significant degree----some subset of those viewers are likely to represent a completely different and unique group of subscribers---which would indicate that the percentage of "sports viewers" is at least marginally higher than the numbers I presented (and certainly well over 20%).

(09-12-2019 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sports fans are actually, without question, the most valuable viewers out there. We're the only audience that still watches events live (AKA we still watch commercials) and we need our *specific* game and will go to the *specific* channel that provides it regardless of who it might be (e.g. an Alabama fan needs that week's Alabama game specifically live right now and isn't going to be satisfied any random college football game).

With the cable TV model, yes. With a subscription model like Netflix, maybe not.

As various sports events move to subscription instead of being part of an all-you-can-watch giant bundle, I sometimes think of a British article from a couple of years ago after most of the Premier League matches on British TV moved to subscription services. The article quoted many people who said they didn't feel like paying X pounds per month or season to watch, and either just checked scores on their phones or went to a pub to see matches they really wanted to watch. The trade-off for gaining the subscription revenue is shrinking the overall audience.

I think that would happen here if, for example, major college football becomes a subscription item like NFL Sunday Ticket. To use your example, for every diehard Alabama fan who will pay Sunday Ticket like prices just to make sure they can watch every game, there would be 5 or 10 casual viewers who, like those English fans, either just check scores or go to a sports bar for a game they really want to see.

(09-12-2019 11:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sports fans are actually, without question, the most valuable viewers out there. We're the only audience that still watches events live (AKA we still watch commercials) and we need our *specific* game and will go to the *specific* channel that provides it regardless of who it might be (e.g. an Alabama fan needs that week's Alabama game specifically live right now and isn't going to be satisfied any random college football game).

With the cable TV model, yes. With a subscription model like Netflix, maybe not.

As various sports events move to subscription instead of being part of an all-you-can-watch giant bundle, I sometimes think of a British article from a couple of years ago after most of the Premier League matches on British TV moved to subscription services. The article quoted many people who said they didn't feel like paying X pounds per month or season to watch, and either just checked scores on their phones or went to a pub to see matches they really wanted to watch. The trade-off for gaining the subscription revenue is shrinking the overall audience.

I think that would happen here if, for example, major college football becomes a subscription item like NFL Sunday Ticket. To use your example, for every diehard Alabama fan who will pay Sunday Ticket like prices just to make sure they can watch every game, there would be 5 or 10 casual viewers who, like those English fans, either just check scores or go to a sports bar for a game they really want to see.

here's the thing though. Folks have been saying that for like 30 years now. And it's not happened.

(09-12-2019 11:23 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 11:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Sports fans are actually, without question, the most valuable viewers out there. We're the only audience that still watches events live (AKA we still watch commercials) and we need our *specific* game and will go to the *specific* channel that provides it regardless of who it might be (e.g. an Alabama fan needs that week's Alabama game specifically live right now and isn't going to be satisfied any random college football game).

With the cable TV model, yes. With a subscription model like Netflix, maybe not.

As various sports events move to subscription instead of being part of an all-you-can-watch giant bundle, I sometimes think of a British article from a couple of years ago after most of the Premier League matches on British TV moved to subscription services. The article quoted many people who said they didn't feel like paying X pounds per month or season to watch, and either just checked scores on their phones or went to a pub to see matches they really wanted to watch. The trade-off for gaining the subscription revenue is shrinking the overall audience.

I think that would happen here if, for example, major college football becomes a subscription item like NFL Sunday Ticket. To use your example, for every diehard Alabama fan who will pay Sunday Ticket like prices just to make sure they can watch every game, there would be 5 or 10 casual viewers who, like those English fans, either just check scores or go to a sports bar for a game they really want to see.

here's the thing though. Folks have been saying that for like 30 years now. And it's not happened.

It hasn't happened because the owners of the sports teams and university presidents don't want to be completely behind a paywall.

SEC turned down multiple offers to start a conference network to replace the 12:30 (eastern) syndicated network because they feared loss of fan access. Eventually the money offered was too great and the BTN example had shown you could maintain some broad access. The NFL requires cable games be available OTA in the participating team markets.

They could go behind the paywall, they choose not to.

(09-12-2019 10:24 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:34 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  In the grand scheme of things, sports fans don’t really matter. We’re a drop in the bucket. But it’s the viewers of Wheel of Fortune and Bachelor in Paradise who will move the needle.

That's actually not true at all. Sports fans are actually, without question, the most valuable viewers out there. We're the only audience that still watches events live (AKA we still watch commercials) and we need our *specific* game and will go to the *specific* channel that provides it regardless of who it might be (e.g. an Alabama fan needs that week's Alabama game specifically live right now and isn't going to be satisfied any random college football game).

I've said this before: sports channels are simultaneously the top reason why people drop cable (as those who don't watch sports don't have any need to pay the premium for expensive sports channels) AND the top reason why people *keep* cable (for the reasons that I mentioned above). The upshot is that sports channels actually have more relative power with the cable companies today than before because the non-sports viewers are the ones that can more easily satisfy their viewing habits with online streaming, whereas sports channels are really all that's keeping the cable industry alive. (That's why we still don't see, and will likely never see, the mainline ESPN and regional sports networks ever going a la carte.)

As a side note, though, Bachelor in Paradise is amazing. It's generally a terrible reflection of humanity in general, but great entertainment.

Frank, your take on Bachelor in Paradise is interesting. I watched one season of it, and had to quit, b/c I felt like I was losing more brain cells than if I had spent that time binge drinking.

(09-11-2019 09:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 07:46 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I'd still get my local abc right. that's not part of the espn dispute is it?

The ABC local stations that are owned by Disney are part of the dispute, and will be taken off the air by DirecTV if there is no deal.
Disney owns the ABC stations in Fresno, LA, and SF, if you're in any of those markets.

Check at the suppose.tv site to make sure a particular streaming service has all of your local network affiliates.

FML! yes Fresno

I talked to my guy, he does have espn gms on his site, I think he's gonna put up the abc ones now too if the channels shut down. I can watch every NHL, MLB gm through him. He does MNF and certain NFL gms. Some ESPN NCAA gms.

Deadline has been extended to 9 AM. Right in time for College Gameday.

so when is Fox and FS1 up for a new contract. How many times is directv gonna piss me off? How is it since 1994, when Sun. ticket started, directv is the only one allowed to show every game?

think it's funny that some folks are saying please take ESPN so don't have to watch Browns/Jets on Monday night.....

What a comical deadline now of 9am.

Anyone know what the hold up is? DirecTV added ACCN right away so you would think the relationship was good. Gotta think UVerse is the hold up. AT&T has been trying to wind down that service but Disney isnt going to want to abandon a service that still has 4 million subscribers

Extended till 12 noon...

http://twitter.com/raycoletv/status/1172856377594843136

(09-10-2019 10:12 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:05 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

gdmf, I won't even get to watch the espn gms sat. or the mon. night gm! Does espn have a thing like nbc where you click your cable subscriber and they let you watch online for free?

But you still can get the NFL package.

(09-14-2019 07:58 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Extended till 12 noon...

http://twitter.com/raycoletv/status/1172856377594843136

think it's interesting that he deleted all of his status updates a few minutes ago.

(09-14-2019 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-14-2019 07:58 AM)sctvman Wrote:  Extended till 12 noon...

http://twitter.com/raycoletv/status/1172856377594843136

think it's interesting that he deleted all of his status updates a few minutes ago.

Yeah, I noticed. So what does it mean?