Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The good thing is that in the NHL come playoff time, all the games are on the NBC networks so you can go on the NBC site and watch games on there for free so I'm not sure you need a package for that for the NHL

Still requires you to be a cable/satellite subscriber though, which is unfortunate. And it even checks to ensure that you have the right tier of service. I.e., if you have basic cable, they'll let you watch NBC games, but not NBCSN games.

 

[forty_three]

Also, this is a fascinating discussion on the future of TV. I think most are preparing for a fallout. Netflix/Amazon Prime/Roku/Sling are changing the game completely in their own ways. If blackout restrictions ever change, I wouldn't have cable. Only thing keeping me paying a disgusting amount a month is live, local sports. If I were out of market, seeeeee ya.

Yep. And I am extremely anxious to see what the moving of the guys from Top Gear to Amazon Prime does. I know I will subscribe, but up until they canned Clarkson in March, I counted Top Gear as one of the five or so reasons I still have Direct TV.

The reasons to keep cable/satellite are dwindling.

How do you get Sky Sports on Roku? Can you also get BTSport?

It's up and down, but go look for an app called "Channel Pear". It's a user supported app that allows you to watch streams from other places (until the providers squash it). Up until last week it had Sky 1 - 4. Just a few days ago, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Tottenham had channels show up. You get the app on your roku and add channels to your library online.

The downside is you are at the mercy of the people who hook up the streams and giant corporations who don't like to share. So it's hit and miss. I've had BBC 1 - 3 for two months though. No prob.

Still requires you to be a cable/satellite subscriber though, which is unfortunate. And it even checks to ensure that you have the right tier of service. I.e., if you have basic cable, they'll let you watch NBC games, but not NBCSN games.

There are some sports on ESPN three occasionally that I want to watch, but I don't get ESPN 3 on Direct TV so I can't watch. So I just torrent them later after someone has cut out the commercials for me.

If ESPN would just realize that by letting me watch online they can make ad revenue on the commercials PLUS place ads on the page as well, they'd make money on me. But no. They want to be sure they get the $.06 per day they make on me being a "subscriber".

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

There are some sports on ESPN three occasionally that I want to watch, but I don't get ESPN 3 on Direct TV so I can't watch. So I just torrent them later after someone has cut out the commercials for me.

If ESPN would just realize that by letting me watch online they can make ad revenue on the commercials PLUS place ads on the page as well, they'd make money on me. But no. They want to be sure they get the $.06 per day they make on me being a "subscriber".

I think it's actually something like 3 times that. I think they're in the range of $6 per subscriber per month. Figure a standard 30 day month and they're getting $.20/day.

 

[forty_three]

I think it's actually something like 3 times that. I think they're in the range of $6 per subscriber per month. Figure a standard 30 day month and they're getting $.20/day.

ooooh, those shrewd negotiators.

 

[pixburgher66]

I think it's actually something like 3 times that. I think they're in the range of $6 per subscriber per month. Figure a standard 30 day month and they're getting $.20/day.

I need to see if I can find that article again, but there was one discussing how ESPN may be on the brink of failure (they're already sending a lot of talent away for various reasons) if ala carte cable becomes a thing.

 

[tducey]

Given ESPN's current problems you got to think they'd look at broadcasting more of their events online. More people watch stuff online these days so it could be easy money for ESPN.

 

[pixburgher66]

ESPN for $36? Analyst Shows True Cost of A La Carte Cable -- The Motley Fool This article touches on it...not the one I read though. But yeah, it's insanely expensive. And I wouldn't miss it really.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I need to see if I can find that article again, but there was one discussing how ESPN may be on the brink of failure (they're already sending a lot of talent away for various reasons) if ala carte cable becomes a thing.

Yep ESPN has been getting rid of some high profile people and they're cutting costs because they're not getting the ratings they used to

 

[pixburgher66]

Yep ESPN has been getting rid of some high profile people and they're cutting costs because they're not getting the ratings they used to

Frankly, they spent exorbitantly on unnecessary things. I mean, I'm no business person, but the set they have is absolutely ridiculous. Their thing is that there's never been real competition, and I doubt they really foresaw this stuff. Very Roman.

 

[BGDave]

The Decline and Fall of the ESPN Empire - by BGDave copyright 2015

Chapter 1 - They crapped on hockey
Chapter 2 - The ESPYs

short book

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

ESPN for $36? Analyst Shows True Cost of A La Carte Cable -- The Motley Fool This article touches on it...not the one I read though. But yeah, it's insanely expensive. And I wouldn't miss it really.

I understand the point that's being made, but they seem to have one fatal flaw in their assumptions. The math that is used seems to assume that we have either 100% through bundles (the current method) or 100% through a la carte channel selection.

The flaw that I see is that some people would no doubt want to continue having their bundle with a zillion channels, while only some would move to an a la carte package.

And the fact is that other countries already have options like this. When I lived in Sweden, there were the various tiered bundles of course, but there was also an option to select 10 channels. Obviously that wasn't true a la carte, but I got only the 10 channels I wanted.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Frankly, they spent exorbitantly on unnecessary things. I mean, I'm no business person, but the set they have is absolutely ridiculous. Their thing is that there's never been real competition, and I doubt they really foresaw this stuff. Very Roman.

Now, NBC/NBCSN has really stepped up to the plate with their coverage and while I think Fox and FS1 can be better, there's more competition now and more of those people are going elsewhere - the content that ESPN has stinks because it's more about pop culture and people yelling and screaming at each other than it is about actual content - too many First Takes, PTI's, Around the Horn's and all of those other shows which are about the same thing and not enough actual commentary

 

[Puck082]

For me ESPN has always been the go to station for sports highlights. I remember each morning they did a great job on Sportscenter going through each baseball, hockey, football, etc. Whatever season it was they did a great job. Then it was probably a few years before they dropped hockey that it all started going down hill. Big personalities, more about news coverage (OJ Simpson, Aaron Hernandez) and ridiculous coverage of Lebron James' decision. It was stuff like that that really made them a laughingstock in my mind.

For me, I now go to NHL Network for NHL highlights and MLB Network for MLB highlights, etc. Those channels are more about the sport than anything else.

For $36 a month, i'll just boost my internet connection and be able to stream my NHL Game Center that much faster

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

"What the fuck has my owner done to me and why is he using the word "swag"?!"

 

[jstewismybastardson]

even with the human jersey, Nicks dog probably skates faster than his master

 

[Comeds]

For me ESPN has always been the go to station for sports highlights. I remember each morning they did a great job on Sportscenter going through each baseball, hockey, football, etc. Whatever season it was they did a great job. Then it was probably a few years before they dropped hockey that it all started going down hill. Big personalities, more about news coverage (OJ Simpson, Aaron Hernandez) and ridiculous coverage of Lebron James' decision. It was stuff like that that really made them a laughingstock in my mind.

For me, I now go to NHL Network for NHL highlights and MLB Network for MLB highlights, etc. Those channels are more about the sport than anything else.

For $36 a month, i'll just boost my internet connection and be able to stream my NHL Game Center that much faster

In the early 90s I would almost always watch Sportscenter each night. Sometimes it was the 11 pm version, other times it was 2 am version. I liked it a lot and would even watch the highlights of sports I didn't follow. Back then it seemed like they moved around enough so you didnt have to watch 15 minutes of any one sport at a time. They would parcel it out.

Then I watched the NHL and NHL2Night. Since they ended I only watch the NFL games (can't handle the highlight shows anymore). I might miss not seeing some of them, but there is no way I would pay just to watch a game or two per season that interests me.

 

[forty_three]

For me ESPN has always been the go to station for sports highlights. I remember each morning they did a great job on Sportscenter going through each baseball, hockey, football, etc. Whatever season it was they did a great job. Then it was probably a few years before they dropped hockey that it all started going down hill. Big personalities, more about news coverage (OJ Simpson, Aaron Hernandez) and ridiculous coverage of Lebron James' decision. It was stuff like that that really made them a laughingstock in my mind.

For me, I now go to NHL Network for NHL highlights and MLB Network for MLB highlights, etc. Those channels are more about the sport than anything else.

For $36 a month, i'll just boost my internet connection and be able to stream my NHL Game Center that much faster

I find that in the 30 - 45 minutes I spend at Rooster's eating wings, I get all the highlights they have to offer and start seeing them repeat stories.

It's actually how I know it's time to get back to the office. "Oh, there's the Tom Brady graphic again. Gotta go."

 

[Puck082]

In the early 90s I would almost always watch Sportscenter each night. Sometimes it was the 11 pm version, other times it was 2 am version. I liked it a lot and would even watch the highlights of sports I didn't follow. Back then it seemed like they moved around enough so you didnt have to watch 15 minutes of any one sport at a time. They would parcel it out.

Then I watched the NHL and NHL2Night. Since they ended I only watch the NFL games (can't handle the highlight shows anymore). I might miss not seeing some of them, but there is no way I would pay just to watch a game or two per season that interests me.

Yeah - that's exactly when they were the go-to for me. The 90s. It's just trash now. They might as well just buy Deadspin and have that be the programming 24/7. We'd be able to find out that James Harden took an upper decker in the Nike offices before jettisoning to Adidas.

 

[Puck082]

Hey while we're talking about TV Programming, can anyone vouch for NHL Gamecenter over getting the package through your provider? Thinking about buying Apple TV and doing NHL Gamecenter instead of having Fios give me another colonoscopy.

 

[mattola]

/That's more like it.

That sounds like Brandon Sutter type money.....


Book it

Vancouver Canucks @VanCanucks
#Canucks sign Brandon Sutter to 5-year contract extension; average annual value of $4.375M.

That's quite the foundational piece.

huh