TV

  • This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated by NoPittyHere.
Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #106322

    Game not on wvsports.com?!

    #106328

    It is WVUSports.com, not wvsports.com

    #106411

    Much to my surprise, I was able to get it on wvusports.com for the first time. Don’t know how or why. Won’t ask.

    #106412

    Now ….. Will WVUSports.com stream the games that are on ESPN+ ?????

    #106427

    game was on Nexstar via Wheeling 7 on mytv comcast 803 found it by luck

    #106429

    Now ….. Will WVUSports.com stream the games that are on ESPN+ ?????

    Absolutely not.

    #106434

    Rhetorical question, no doubt. One more shot at an inept Bowlsby that got us into this fiasco. Our 4 best games (KU and BU) on an outlet that we have to pay for. And you can only get it if you have access to internet speed that can process it. AND only if you have the phone or PC/laptop/ipad that can do it.

    Gone are the days that you can just turn on your TV and tune into ESPN, ESPN2, ABC,or any of the other programming outlets. Bowlsby got railroaded into accepting this from ESPiN.

    #106453

    What is the benefit to the conference and/or the teams in this contract with ESPN? Is there a great enough monetary reward that is received as a trade off to less exposure
    and a position of secondary stature in the sports arena? And stress to we older dudes
    that have to worry about getting one frigin letter right to access streaming media such as
    WVUsports vs wvsports or Nexstar vs Nextstar?

    #106463

    I live abroad right now and if anyone thinks their internet is bad, you should try living in Asia. I can barely listen to the radio stream on wvusports.com, this situation isn’t getting any better for the foreseeable future. I am almost to the point that I am going to stop trying to watch or listen to any WVU games.

    #106481

    Thanks for that info, vacationeer. I have read about cell service being ubiquitous and inexpensive, but never took the extra step of thinking about full internet connectivity.

    If you don’t care to reply, are you in an urban area or outside?

    #106482

    Note that you paid for the ESPN family on your cable or satellite subscription – quite a lot, in fact. Last time I checked ESPN alone charged providers $6.50 per subscriber per month, with other family members less but still significant. So while you weren’t paying them directly, or may not have noticed it, you definitely were paying for it.

    This wasn’t a perfect deal. However, by leveraging ESPN and not going it alone, schools other than OU and Texas avoided the massive costs of building out their own studios and obtaining crews for all of these games.

    The exposure question is a fair one. Is Texas hurt by putting their content on subscription-only LHN? OU on SoonerSports? Yes, they are different in terms of national perception. ALso, all schools will still have games on the ESPN family outside of ESPN+.

    I think there have always been issues as games have moved from totally free (that was radio) to TV that was subscriber based. Buying a cable subscription is the same as buying ESPN+ – it’s just the scope is much wider. If you don’t care about the 100 shopping networks on cable or satellite, then buy just what you want. This ala carte mode is continuing to gain momentum, but will it ever take over completely?

    And I fully acknowledge the problems with getting good broadband. Wasn’t the same true with over the air in the early days of TV, until more antennas, repeaters and then cable came into the picture? I know that doesn’t help WVU fans now. Just pointing out that it’s not a new issue.

    The monetary aspect is a difficult comparison. Will it help in future negotiations for broadcast rights? I think so.

    #106505

    Kevin, your comparison to good broadband to early days of TV is laughable. TV in the 70’s moved quickly to cable. Almost 50 years ago.
    And trying to say that we are paying additional for ESPN? Also laughable. It’s part of the cable package. If you don’t want ESPN you can’t just ignore it and take them off your cable listing.
    And then there is the streaming that needs another device…… not just your TV. How many fans don’t have a newer computer and have to rely on pre windows 7?
    Lots of problems with having to watch a game thru streaming that we never had before.

    #106599

    I live in the city.

    #106608

    Did you catch Huggs comment about start times because of the change to ESPN+ ????? He’s not a happy camper about the problems that come up with this. They won’t know start times because of other programming. Won’t know the start time till the Chief’s game is over? Says the B12 has to work out these problems. Check it out starting at the 15:30 mark in Greg’s post on Huggins discusses WVU’s win over Nicholls.

    Huggins Discusses WVU’s Win Over Nicholls

    #106640

    Kevin, your comparison to good broadband to early days of TV is laughable. TV in the 70’s moved quickly to cable. Almost 50 years ago.
    And trying to say that we are paying additional for ESPN? Also laughable. It’s part of the cable package. If you don’t want ESPN you can’t just ignore it and take them off your cable listing.
    And then there is the streaming that needs another device…… not just your TV. How many fans don’t have a newer computer and have to rely on pre windows 7?
    Lots of problems with having to watch a game thru streaming that we never had before.

    Television began in the 1930s, and cable didn’t really come around until the 1970s. I wouldn’t call that “quickly”.  And cable didn’t penetrate everywhere quickly. It took a long time for it to come to rural areas, just as broadband and higher speed cell service is taking a long time to do so. The only point there was that we are still in relatively early days of broadband and streaming as opposed to over-the-air TV.

    As for paying for ESPN now, you certainly do. You make the choice to be on cable, which is a bundled model as all U.S. systems are. Just because you can’t remove ESPN from that bundle doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for it. (Note that there is a fight now to force cable systems to offer ala carte pricing. That will likely drag out for years.)

    Smart TVs will connect to the internet in your house, so if you have one of those you don’t need another device.

    I fully acknowledge all this costs more money, and that it’s a burden many can’t or won’t choose to bear. But it’s not unique to this arena. Most of us spend way more on a phone now than we did in the 1970s, when we got one for a few bucks or used the one the phone company provided for a small fee, which included replacements. As techonology advances, there are costs that consumers have to bear if they want to take part.

    Again, though, there are parallels. Pre-cable, how many people in crenellated topology like West Virginia didn’t get many TV stations until repeaters and antennas were positioned on ridge or mountain tops to get signals down into valleys? The same thing is in play now with satellite TV. Several houses in my neighborhood can’t choose that because they don’t have the clear view of the sky required.

    I agree all of these things are issues, and they shouldn’t be ignored.

    #106647

    I just have this to say about all of it:

    I have always had cable, and tried satellite for the two mandated years. With BOTH of them, I’ve paid MANY times over for “content” that neither I, nor my family EVER use. Part of that “content” is ESPiN’s “family of networks,” much of it as bloody useless to me (an avid sports fan) as are the 1372 worthless shopping channels, and a plethora of other just as worthless channels. I, like every other subscriber, have been baited into paying hundreds of times over for “content” we never use, just to get a few things we actually DO use. It’s criminal.

    But there’s more–ESPiN has gone even further, in forcing me to pay ADDITIONAL fees for even more worthless crap in order to actually use it a handful of times in an entire YEAR. EFF them…I’m not giving them another DIME. The greedy mouse’s adopted orphan known as ESPiN can kiss my ass. And MARK MY WORDS, their “fee” for the rest of you who are hooked into it for their crap, will only continue to increase. Enough is enough as I see it, whether or not another several billion ISN’T enough for them. I’ve HAD it.

    And if this isn’t enough, I’m sick and tired of ESPiN’s meddling in collegiate affairs in the bowl selection process; the “national championship” process; complete monopoly of bowl broadcasts; and through it all, having to put up with the idiots they put out there during not only their broadcasts, but pregame and halftime shows that aren’t even watchable anymore, given not just their level of incompetence, but their biases.

    I love sports as much as the next guy, but there’s a hell of a lot more to life than just sports. Especially when I have to sacrifice more, and work harder and longer hours to pay to watch it.

    #106653

    I just have this to say about all of it:

    I have always had cable, and tried satellite for the two mandated years. With BOTH of them, I’ve paid MANY times over for “content” that neither I, nor my family EVER use. Part of that “content” is ESPiN’s “family of networks,” much of it as bloody useless to me (an avid sports fan) as are the 1372 worthless shopping channels, and a plethora of other just as worthless channels. I, like every other subscriber, have been baited into paying hundreds of times over for “content” we never use, just to get a few things we actually DO use. It’s criminal.

    But there’s more–ESPiN has gone even further, in forcing me to pay ADDITIONAL fees for even more worthless crap in order to actually use it a handful of times in an entire YEAR. EFF them…I’m not giving them another DIME. The greedy mouse’s adopted orphan known as ESPiN can kiss my ass. And MARK MY WORDS, their “fee” for the rest of you who are hooked into it for their crap, will only continue to increase. Enough is enough as I see it, whether or not another several billion ISN’T enough for them. I’ve HAD it.

    And if this isn’t enough, I’m sick and tired of ESPiN’s meddling in collegiate affairs in the bowl selection process; the “national championship” process; complete monopoly of bowl broadcasts; and through it all, having to put up with the idiots they put out there during not only their broadcasts, but pregame and halftime shows that aren’t even watchable anymore, given not just their level of incompetence, but their biases.

    I love sports as much as the next guy, but there’s a hell of a lot more to life than just sports. Especially when I have to sacrifice more, and work harder and longer hours to pay to watch it.

    Would not surprise me at all if we have to begin paying for any sporting event we want to see. Especially playoffs and championship games.

    #106658

    I know you’re being facetious, Allen, but in all seriousness, I’d take that offer in a heartbeat if I only had to pay for what I watch–the caveat being that it was ad free. But that’ll NEVER happen, because viewership would drop like impeachment approval in the polls and two, ESPiN and ilk wouldn’t only lose that ad money, they’d go belly-up and nose down as a result, and faster than you could say, “I’ve been ripped off again!”.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.