Topic: Some more "outlier" thoughts

[whf]

Driving down from NKY to Boone in the rain today, I started thinking about our discussions concerning the value of ESPN (often + for all but football) versus the streaming broadcasts we've been experiencing for several years.  As the devil's advocate, here are a few points to consider in Favor of streaming.

1. ESPN is a pay to play network, it is achieved by some TV deal or some other Streaming outlet.  ESPN+ costs about $6.00 per month.  So there is no Free ESPN that I am aware of.
2. Most everyone has Internet, and if I'm correct, even segments of our population who can't afford DirecTV and other outlets get internet free, or assisted.  Facebook has no fee, so if your son is playing football and you are hard-strapped to pay to get ESPN, you can watch your son for free. 
3.Stadium is a Sinclair outlet with digital channels in most (I think 60 or so) midwest and southern cities.  Games from Stadium are also often on Facebook. Both digital TV an Facebook Stadium broadcasts are most often free for viewing.
4. CBSSN's Facebook presentations are also free.
5. One could come to the conclusion that for parents, families, friends, and other supporters, streaming outlets are actually better financially and availability wise for a large segment of our population.  What is missing is the advertising of the broadcasting of the games to non-aligned casual watchers; which I think there are very few of any more because there team is playing somewhere too.

[herdfan129]

I don't mind our media deal as long as we make the Facebook games bottom Tier. The selections should go as follows.

1. CBS/CBS Sports
2. Stadium

These three could be in any order for all I care:

3/4/5. CBS Facebook
3/4/5. Stadium Facebook
3/4/5. ESPN+

[Herd72]

 I hate the constant tweets on the screen. You can swipe to turn them off on a mobile device but I have a Firestick with the Facebook Watch app. with no way to swipe on the tv. If I had see one more Arrrrrrgh I would have lost my mind! One other gripe ? dogs in Marshall gear and endless click now if you think so and so will win. If I can?t go in person ESPN is the way to go. You can get the ESPN app and ESPN+ for $6.99 a month on any mobile device and a Chromecast or Firestick to send it to the big screen or just an adapter and HDMI cable. So you would spend less for ESPN and ESPN+ Each month than lunch at McDonalds or a couple of Starbucks.

[herdfan129]

I hate the constant tweets on the screen. You can swipe to turn them off on a mobile device but I have a Firestick with the Facebook Watch app. with no way to swipe on the tv. If I had see one more Arrrrrrgh I would have lost my mind! One other gripe ? dogs in Marshall gear and endless click now if you think so and so will win. If I can?t go in person ESPN is the way to go. You can get the ESPN app and ESPN+ for $6.99 a month on any mobile device and a Chromecast or Firestick to send it to the big screen or just an adapter and HDMI cable. So you would spend less for ESPN and ESPN+ Each month than lunch at McDonalds or a couple of Starbucks.

I actually think OTA Stadium (Plus streamed online for out of towners) is better than ESPN+. This at least puts you on regular tv in the local area.

[MUther]

I hate the constant tweets on the screen. You can swipe to turn them off on a mobile device but I have a Firestick with the Facebook Watch app. with no way to swipe on the tv. If I had see one more Arrrrrrgh I would have lost my mind! One other gripe ? dogs in Marshall gear and endless click now if you think so and so will win. If I can?t go in person ESPN is the way to go. You can get the ESPN app and ESPN+ for $6.99 a month on any mobile device and a Chromecast or Firestick to send it to the big screen or just an adapter and HDMI cable. So you would spend less for ESPN and ESPN+ Each month than lunch at McDonalds or a couple of Starbucks.

There's little gear wheel on the bottom right of the screen for settings during the stream.  You simply highlight it and select and then select turn off comments.  I also use a firestick so I know it will work for you.  I didn't see a single comment or picture the whole game. 

[forphase1]

Driving down from NKY to Boone in the rain today, I started thinking about our discussions concerning the value of ESPN (often + for all but football) versus the streaming broadcasts we've been experiencing for several years.  As the devil's advocate, here are a few points to consider in Favor of streaming.

1. ESPN is a pay to play network, it is achieved by some TV deal or some other Streaming outlet.  ESPN+ costs about $6.00 per month.  So there is no Free ESPN that I am aware of.
2. Most everyone has Internet, and if I'm correct, even segments of our population who can't afford DirecTV and other outlets get internet free, or assisted.  Facebook has no fee, so if your son is playing football and you are hard-strapped to pay to get ESPN, you can watch your son for free. 
3.Stadium is a Sinclair outlet with digital channels in most (I think 60 or so) midwest and southern cities.  Games from Stadium are also often on Facebook. Both digital TV an Facebook Stadium broadcasts are most often free for viewing.
4. CBSSN's Facebook presentations are also free.
5. One could come to the conclusion that for parents, families, friends, and other supporters, streaming outlets are actually better financially and availability wise for a large segment of our population.  What is missing is the advertising of the broadcasting of the games to non-aligned casual watchers; which I think there are very few of any more because there team is playing somewhere too.

While some of that is true, there are also some real issues with what you posted.  I'll let others talk about the rest, but #2 is not true.  My ex-stepmom would have loved to have watched the Herd Saturday, but where she lives there are no viable internet options for streaming.  It takes her 10 minutes to simply check her email as the internet is so poor.  And she has no other real options as frontier is her only option (no cable) and their service is terrible.  She does, however, have DirecTV or Dish (I forget which one) so watching on Thursday won't be an issue.  Sure, in most cities and the like internet options are multiple and are fast and easy.  But for many in our state fast reliable internet is still a dream.  My guess, and it's just that, a guess, is that fewer folks don't have good access to the internet than don't have access to ESPN.  But I could be wrong.

[MUther]

People forget that 5 minutes out of any town in WV it's the middle of the woods.  Satellite internet will not run good stream feeds.  They average 20 Mbps.  I have 600 Mbps and still occasionally get a little buffering. 

[goherd24]

People forget that 5 minutes out of any town in WV it's the middle of the woods.  Satellite internet will not run good stream feeds.  They average 20 Mbps.  I have 600 Mbps and still occasionally get a little buffering.

6 meg internet will stream 1080 netflix.

[svherd]

It?s a bush league package. Facebook is laughable.

[herdorbust]

It?s a bush league package. Facebook is laughable.

I?ll take it over no tv. People have become spoiled.

[svherd]

I?ll take it over no tv. People have become spoiled.

Didn?t say that. We deserve better as a league and school. Another CDOA blunder

[Herdmeister]

I don't mind our media deal as long as we make the Facebook games bottom Tier. The selections should go as follows.

1. CBS/CBS Sports
2. Stadium

These three could be in any order for all I care:

3/4/5. CBS Facebook
3/4/5. Stadium Facebook
3/4/5. ESPN+

CBSSN and Stadium have the rights and they alone can decide on the platform they choose to show the game on. We nor CUSA have any say in that matter

[herdfan129]

CBSSN and Stadium have the rights and they alone can decide on the platform they choose to show the game on. We nor CUSA have any say in that matter

Yes we do. Get serious. CBS and Stadium have the right to put it on Facebook because our conference leadership allowed that to happen in negotiations. Don't pee down my back and try to tell me it's raining.

It's pretty simple. In the next negotiation you simply negotiate the structure I outlined above. That alone would be a drastic increase for our media deal imo.

[whf]

I acknowledge there is internet problems many rural places... but believe that is minor compared to those who don't have Cable  or Satellite feeds. 

What I think really needs to happen is that our conference needs to do some prompting where and how to access these games, and MU in particular.  Don't be afraid to be a bit of a Captain Obvious, tell folks just exactly how it works.  And, for goodness sakes, get the word out about HerdZone and the ability to connect in one click to most games.

[elginherd]

People forget that 5 minutes out of any town in WV it's the middle of the woods.  Satellite internet will not run good stream feeds.  They average 20 Mbps.  I have 600 Mbps and still occasionally get a little buffering.

-The issue with the geosats' internet isn't really the 20 Mbps, it's the data caps where they throttle the speed after using a relativity small amount of data.

-The buffering is not from your end. It's from the upload.

You are correct about being in the woods. Additionally there are neighborhoods around Huntington that aren't well served with good broadband.

[MUonium]

these may have been answered or at least attempted who knows how many times but i don't recall (too time consuming to search, lol)

when MU or anybody else decides to stream on espn+, besides espn making money, does MU or conference make any money?

concerning media ease of accessibility of games to Herd fans or any school's fans (over however many years), is there any correlation to the drop in attendance of home games? 

my line of thought- is it overall cheaper and easier for fans and at the same time, is MU not losing money, as well?

[MUsince96]

Remember reading stories on how playing on a certain channel or making the NCAA tournament where the nation is watching results in X amount of free publicity and student applications rose X%?

That?s the issue with playing on channels like Stadium and Facebook.

It?s sufficient for the tech savvy diehards but you aren?t broadening your reach to new fans or students.

[svherd]

Remember reading stories on how playing on a certain channel or making the NCAA tournament where the nation is watching results in X amount of free publicity and student applications rose X%?

That?s the issue with playing on channels like Stadium and Facebook.

It?s sufficient for the tech savvy diehards but you aren?t broadening your reach to new fans or students.

This X 1000!    Exactly

[herdfan129]

Remember reading stories on how playing on a certain channel or making the NCAA tournament where the nation is watching results in X amount of free publicity and student applications rose X%?

That?s the issue with playing on channels like Stadium and Facebook.

It?s sufficient for the tech savvy diehards but you aren?t broadening your reach to new fans or students.

Facebook I agree, but Stadium is literally on real TV so I'm not sure what the complaint is with it.

[MUsince96]

Facebook I agree, but Stadium is literally on real TV so I'm not sure what the complaint is with it.

Well on my TV it?s channel 10-504. Not sure how many are finding it.

A digital sub channel. I think it?s a sub channel most places.

[MUsince96]

I wish Sinclair would rebrand Tennis Channel to Stadium. They could still show tennis but it allows for more programming. Plus Tennis channel is on most expanded basic packages. Right there with ESPN and FS1.

[puma]

As a cord cutter, it's kind of annoying having to find a single provider that has CBS Sports, Stadium, all of the iterations of ESPN, plus pay for ESPN+ on top of it all. And then figure out what exactly "Local Markets Only" means or if a game is actually on regular CBS Sports or CBS Sports on Facebook. In previous years, I believe we had Fox FS1/2 and Fox Regional Sports on top of it all.

It's definitely better than no TV at all and I admit this is all a bit of an old man rant.

I just wish it was less convoluted.

[herdfan129]

Well on my TV it?s channel 10-504. Not sure how many are finding it.

A digital sub channel. I think it?s a sub channel most places.

Yeah, but more likely for a casual fan to find it on there as opposed to facebook or even ESPN+.

[MUsince96]

Yeah, but more likely for a casual fan to find it on there as opposed to facebook or even ESPN+.

I think ESPN+ is becoming more and more ?normal?

I?ve been out multiple times to eat while Marshall or WVU are playing and the establishments have had it on the TVs.

[elginherd]

Remember reading stories on how playing on a certain channel or making the NCAA tournament where the nation is watching results in X amount of free publicity and student applications rose X%?

That?s the issue with playing on channels like Stadium and Facebook.

It?s sufficient for the tech savvy diehards but you aren?t broadening your reach to new fans or students.

Expanding on being telecast on Facebook...

When trying to find on the FB Watch app on my Android TV streaming device, a least for bogus, third party links were actually shown more prominently than the official link. Same thing using a Firestick (which is an Android fork).
That is a serious manner which should be addressed by CBS after the conference office notices this...of course they won't even give a sh%t.