Topic: You know you have hit bottom

[muherdfan]

Actually enjoy facebook games.  Interactive, fun, interviews, spots from fans. Very easy to watch.  I turn my phone on facebook with HDMI cord. On 70 inch tv no problems.

[MarshallGrad]

We are on Facebook because the costs are low. The SEC will always be on the big boy streaming channels because they are the market and that is where the money is. Streaming does open up opportunity for every small college and university for their fans to watch games. None of that exposure will matter to their national prominence, which I think this topic gets mixed up with.

There is almost nothing not being commercially and easily accessed vis streaming already. The medium over which the signal goes is not the issue of what is or is not the future of sports. We are already fully in the streaming age. I stream ESPN and Stadium, CBSSports and FOX Sports, any game on NBC, CBS, or ABS I stream. I know not everyone has sufficient bandwidth, but that is the natural evolution of things and will eventually be resolved. The stream vs coax is not the issue. It seems the point is now, and will always be, where the money can be made. Who is most sellable. I submit that no matter what the medium (e.g., 5g, cable, wifi stream, etc.), the P5 will own whatever it is. You can stream with a high quality production, crew, and on air talent or stream the same thing with a low budget and not so great crew.

The same people that own the current airwaves and streams will be the same, no matter how data is streamed in the future. It is about market and the consumer not about how the signal reaches your screen. Facebook streaming and Stadium have enabled fans of small market teams to watch their games. Thats great. But we can't confuse making games more accessible to its small fan base as akin to leveling the playing field. The money will still go to the streams that deliver the product people want most, which I don't think will be changing any times soon, no matter if 100% of every school program was available on demand on any device, the signal stream people will be watching are the same as they are watching now.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[HERDFAN1999]

I wish we were on regular broadcast networks.  Thers is much more exposure.  The only peole that watch FB broadcasts are those who log in specifically to watch that game which was about 5k.  I guarantee you any game on a broadcast network gets a lot more than 5k.  We have a major exposure problem.  Cable as we know it now may be gone in 30 years but companies that are 30 years before or after the market go bankrupt.  We need much more broadcast exposure in addition to local tv options to reach casual fans within reasonable driving distance.  We want them to be able to easily find the Herd on TV to plant the seeds on eventually getting them to the stadium.  All you get on FB is easy access for diehards.  Everyone else never sees it.

[ed swain]

Last year we were on a Fox station on Dish Fox package.

[elginherd]

We are on Facebook because the costs are low. The SEC will always be on the big boy streaming channels because they are the market and that is where the money is. Streaming does open up opportunity for every small college and university for their fans to watch games. None of that exposure will matter to their national prominence, which I think this topic gets mixed up with.

There is almost nothing not being commercially and easily accessed vis streaming already. The medium over which the signal goes is not the issue of what is or is not the future of sports. We are already fully in the streaming age. I stream ESPN and Stadium, CBSSports and FOX Sports, any game on NBC, CBS, or ABS I stream. I know not everyone has sufficient bandwidth, but that is the natural evolution of things and will eventually be resolved. The stream vs coax is not the issue. It seems the point is now, and will always be, where the money can be made. Who is most sellable. I submit that no matter what the medium (e.g., 5g, cable, wifi stream, etc.), the P5 will own whatever it is. You can stream with a high quality production, crew, and on air talent or stream the same thing with a low budget and not so great crew.

The same people that own the current airwaves and streams will be the same, no matter how data is streamed in the future. It is about market and the consumer not about how the signal reaches your screen. Facebook streaming and Stadium have enabled fans of small market teams to watch their games. Thats great. But we can't confuse making games more accessible to its small fan base as akin to leveling the playing field. The money will still go to the streams that deliver the product people want most, which I don't think will be changing any times soon, no matter if 100% of every school program was available on demand on any device, the signal stream people will be watching are the same as they are watching now.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Good post M-Grad...my point about which physical system delivers broadband was that most of us presently have only one local provider to deliver internet with sufficient bandwidth to stream well. Over the past 8 years I've had to deal with Media-com (in GA) & then Comcast (here in 25701). Both had no competitors. The problem has been that buying sufficient bandwidth to stream from the cable company plus the cost of a streaming service was nearly as expensive as having one of their "triple play" packages. Now (at last) there is a viable competitor in Huntington.

[elginherd]

The biggest problem I see with the live streaming is finding the link to the game.  Much easier to tune to a channel you know to find the game.

That's my only complaint.  I like the streaming and haven't experienced the problems some others have.  Games are shorter thanks to fewer commercial breaks which is nice. 

Is it the future?  It appears to be as of now.  ESPN has lost millions of subscribers in recent years.  I have a few months left on my directv contract.  When it is up I am cutting the cord and dropping directv.  Gonna stream tv.  Haven't decided what service(s) yet.  Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, lots of choices.  I have two requirements.  First I have to find a way to get some local channels.  A big antenna is not on my wife's Christmas wish list.  Second I gotta have some sports channels.

Hulu Live has the best selection of live sports IMO. They allow for two live stream simultaneously. You also get access to Hulu's library of content, which is pretty good, although not as good as Netflix's. In most areas of the country they have the live locals with the exception of ABC. AFA a big ugly antenna goes, I'm using an outdoor Winegard Flatwave antenna with good results. The business part of the antenna is encased in a black plastic cover so it doesn't offend my easily offended wife at all. It's not ugly.

I will say that Hulu's customer service is a pleasant change from Comcrap's & Mediacrap's.

[HerdEcon]

Hulu Live has the best selection of live sports IMO. They allow for two live stream simultaneously. You also get access to Hulu's library of content, which is pretty good, although not as good as Netflix's. In most areas of the country they have the live locals with the exception of ABC. AFA a big ugly antenna goes, I'm using an outdoor Winegard Flatwave antenna with good results. The business part of the antenna is encased in a black plastic cover so it doesn't offend my easily offended wife at all. It's not ugly.

I will say that Hulu's customer service is a pleasant change from Comcrap's & Mediacrap's.

Thanks for the info.  I live far enough out and in a valley by the river that over the air is kinda iffy.  Sounds like antenna technology has improved.  I will check out the Winegard antenna.

[herdfan129]

I love the facebook games. Wish we could get more exposure on it, but I think that's about 10 years away. I wish the games were on facebook AND local TV at the same time. Maybe they are, I don't know.

[elginherd]

Thanks for the info.  I live far enough out and in a valley by the river that over the air is kinda iffy.  Sounds like antenna technology has improved.  I will check out the Winegard antenna.

If that's the case OTA might be really tricky. I'd suggest using this site to see what's realistic for you:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps

In today's world, the local emergency info comes over local tv a lot quicker & more completely than local radio which nowadays is only broadcasting satellite feeds. If one depends on cable & internet for the locals and they go down, you're stuck in the blind. So if you can only get two locals clearly with an antenna, it's still worth it IMO.

[goherd24]

Some of our “fans” are really clueless.  We are lucky we even have an option to be on some network. I am glad we get to watch games.  But hey we could be in the MAC playing in front of crowds less than 5K every week.

Not sure if you're aware or not, but we are playing in cusa in front of crowds of less than 5000 per week, even when title appearances ride on those games.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[goherd24]

Eventually they will be.

The fact you’re trying to compare Marshall to Alabama in terms of accessibility is really all anyone needs to see to know trying to counter your ignorant spewing doesn’t do any good, because you aren’t trying to have rational discussion.

Go cheer for WVU if that’s how you feel the team you cheer for should be. Seriously. Go away.

Seriously, get a clue. My point was to firmly establish the ignorance of thinking college footballs future is Facebook lol. Its pathetic, truly is, that we have to go to facebook to watch our team. Even a local tv channel gives us much more exposure and chances to grow our fanbase.

Some of you are akin to a frog, will jump out of a pot of boiling water immediately if dropped in, but heat it up gradually, you'll sit there and happily boil to death with a smile on your face.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[goherd24]

The biggest problem I see with the live streaming is finding the link to the game.  Much easier to tune to a channel you know to find the game.

That's my only complaint.  I like the streaming and haven't experienced the problems some others have.  Games are shorter thanks to fewer commercial breaks which is nice. 

Is it the future?  It appears to be as of now.  ESPN has lost millions of subscribers in recent years.  I have a few months left on my directv contract.  When it is up I am cutting the cord and dropping directv.  Gonna stream tv.  Haven't decided what service(s) yet.  Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, lots of choices.  I have two requirements.  First I have to find a way to get some local channels.  A big antenna is not on my wife's Christmas wish list.  Second I gotta have some sports channels.

Good luck. FYI, go ahead and save that money now, only a few bucks per month left on the contract to buy out and save now! Cord cutting includes sacrifices, that i am not willing to make, nor are tens of millions of others. Hopefully enough jump ship to bring my prices down, and ill be happier. But i tried that route, not doing it again, and if you actually get content you want, you end up spending maybe 20% less than a directv promo price that you can keep getting if you call in. And if you have a cable and bundle internet its even less of a savings.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[elginherd]

Good luck. FYI, go ahead and save that money now, only a few bucks per month left on the contract to buy out and save now! Cord cutting includes sacrifices, that i am not willing to make, nor are tens of millions of others. Hopefully enough jump ship to bring my prices down, and ill be happier. But i tried that route, not doing it again, and if you actually get content you want, you end up spending maybe 20% less than a directv promo price that you can keep getting if you call in. And if you have a cable and bundle internet its even less of a savings.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I hear you.

Realistic cord-cutting depends on only one thing...sufficient & reliable Mbps at the right price to support the live streaming options.

For us, Hulu's live stream option gives us all what we want including having CBSSN (w/o paying an extra $10/month), Fox regional sports (w/o the $8 regional sports fee) and the local NBC, CBS & FOX stations (without the $10 "local broadcast fee"). Adding to that is that our Comcast deal was to increase close to $45 after our 'intro offer' expired. So we are saving $80 per month over the intro fee now & close to $125 per month after our intro rate expired.

I did spend $30 for an outside antenna plus $20 for an extra 50' of coax upfront so I can get all the locals for free.

[goherd24]

I hear you.

Realistic cord-cutting depends on only one thing...sufficient & reliable Mbps at the right price to support the live streaming options.

For us, Hulu's live stream option gives us all what we want including having CBSSN (w/o paying an extra $10/month), Fox regional sports (w/o the $8 regional sports fee) and the local NBC, CBS & FOX stations (without the $10 "local broadcast fee"). Adding to that is that our Comcast deal was to increase close to $45 after our 'intro offer' expired. So we are saving $80 per month over the intro fee now & close to $125 per month after our intro rate expired.

I did spend $30 for an outside antenna plus $20 for an extra 50' of coax upfront so I can get all the locals for free.

DVR was a big drawback when i tried it, and having to use my phone or tablet to cast things from sling. The DVR was trash, they advertised it like normal dvr but it wasn't. We DvR so much stuff for the kids and us. We rarely watch live tv outside of sporting events.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[elginherd]

DVR was a big drawback when i tried it, and having to use my phone or tablet to cast things from sling. The DVR was trash, they advertised it like normal dvr but it wasn't. We DvR so much stuff for the kids and us. We rarely watch live tv outside of sporting events.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Sling doesn't do dvr well. Sling's biggest advantage is that it's user interface resembles cable.

Hulu does "cloud dvr" which works very well...but there's kind of a learning curve to use it well and the recordings are deleted after 30 days unless you wanna pay for the premium dvr service. We do dvr some stuff, but our main use is live tv & streaming Amazon & Hulu content. We only stream for a max of 2 TV's and that's what Hulu supplies.

Cord-cutting is definitely the correct pathway for us, it may not be for y'all.

[Herdalum83]

Seriously, get a clue. My point was to firmly establish the ignorance of thinking college footballs future is Facebook lol. Its pathetic, truly is, that we have to go to facebook to watch our team. Even a local tv channel gives us much more exposure and chances to grow our fanbase.

Some of you are akin to a frog, will jump out of a pot of boiling water immediately if dropped in, but heat it up gradually, you'll sit there and happily boil to death with a smile on your face.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The future may not be Facebook but it will be an online streaming broadcast. I assure cable and network TV are dying. And live sports are the one thing keeping them hanging on for the most part.

[elginherd]

The future may not be Facebook but it will be an online streaming broadcast. I assure cable and network TV are dying. And live sports are the one thing keeping them hanging on for the most part.

Instead of "dying", I'd say "declining". I totally agree with your first & third sentences. In my 65+ years, this is the best era of quality tv EVER. But most of the great TV comes from Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Showtime, etc ,etc...goherd's point about us cord-cutters lowering his price might turn out to happen. With some competition, the Comcraps of the world might improve in price & customer service.

ESPN (Disney) is/are adjusting to a streaming/cord-cutting environment.

The one MAJOR point, with which I agree with what the OP's original point implies, is the CUSA has been consistently behind in their streaming service both in quality and in accessibility. The big Herdvision announcement in August, 2017 proclaiming that for $11/month games would be available for all devices without apps for Roku, Fire Tv & Apple TV is both inexcusable & below bush league.

[ThunderingHerdFan]

Seriously, get a clue. My point was to firmly establish the ignorance of thinking college footballs future is Facebook lol. Its pathetic, truly is, that we have to go to facebook to watch our team. Even a local tv channel gives us much more exposure and chances to grow our fanbase.

Some of you are akin to a frog, will jump out of a pot of boiling water immediately if dropped in, but heat it up gradually, you'll sit there and happily boil to death with a smile on your face.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

GRASS is GREEN!!!

[puma]

I don't mind playing on Facebook and really do think streaming is the future.

My problem is that we're playing there because that's our only option and it's not part of some kind of grander, long-term plan. There's really no leadership from Marshall or C-USA with any kind of vision. I had the same issues with BeIN, which could have been something good. We're just kind of stuck on Facebook. There's also the huge and immediate downsides like recruits aren't watching Facebook, nor is it playing in the background of sports' bars, and highlights/updates/scores are also significantly less likely to be shown on games on actual TV.

There's just no exposure outside of the 1,500 die-hards with their eyeballs on the broadcast.

[goherd24]

GRASS is GREEN!!!

It certainly is greener, especially with the extra ticket sales, and could you imagine, the possibility of getting a coach that can potentially win titles! Say once every 3 years instead of 10! Oh my!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[MarshallGrad]

It's not a stream vs network issue. Networks can stream as easy as Hulu or Sling, etc.. There is no hardship to any network to stream their content. The issue is, and will always be, who has the money for the most wanted content. Streaming is just the delivery medium. SEC is not the most desired content because of how it is delivered, it is the most desired because that is what the market is saying.

The low cost of streaming can open up content to the masses that is often of limited interest to the masses (e.g., Marshall on Facebook. Potential audience: billions. Actual audience: 5000). What will always remain paramount is who controls the most wanted content, not how the content reaches the viewer.

Even when every house in America has the bandwidth to receive all the content they want via streaming, that stream will still be controlled by whoever is delivering it (i.e. "networks"), for a price.

[elginherd]

It's not a stream vs network issue. Networks can stream as easy as Hulu or Sling, etc.. There is no hardship to any network to stream their content. The issue is, and will always be, who has the money for the most wanted content. Streaming is just the delivery medium. SEC is not the most desired content because of how it is delivered, it is the most desired because that is what the market is saying.

The low cost of streaming can open up content to the masses that is often of limited interest to the masses (e.g., Marshall on Facebook. Potential audience: billions. Actual audience: 5000). What will always remain paramount is who controls the most wanted content, not how the content reaches the viewer.

Even when every house in America has the bandwidth to receive all the content they want via streaming, that stream will still be controlled by whoever is delivering it (i.e. "networks"), for a price.

Good point!