I know that this has been discussed in the past, but I wanted to see if anyone has found a good solution. I currently have att uverse which still pains me with frequent dart world championships and still has no resolution with fox sports re: big east basketball. I am considering cutting cable all together, especially as I can now, evidently, get espn through roku. The only thing I use TV for is espn, fox sports, and the primary channels that are free. If I can figure out a way to watch MU games I could cut cable altogether. Anyone have any legit ways that they have found to watch the MU games without cable TV? With that said, anyone have roku and care to comment on its espn access & ease of use? Thanks
ot: fox sports 1 & cutting cable
Printable View
-
06-08-2015, 12:14 PMdubs98ot: fox sports 1 & cutting cable
-
06-08-2015, 03:01 PMdw3dw3dw3
You have to have a cable subscription for it to work with the Roku... Works the same as Xbox, they want to be your hub for everything.
No legit ways out there outside of watching your parents cable through a slingbox or similar device. -
06-12-2015, 06:35 AMAwilhelmscreamIf you live in Chicago there's another option. Sony has released in Chicago and a few other test markets something they're calling Playstation VUE. Basically it streams cable through a playstation 3 or 4 (for right now, soon to be sony smart TVs as well). It's substantially cheaper even at the most expensive tier and also allows you to adjust your channel packages month to month. As soon as it's available in SC that's the route the wife and I are going. ESPN is part of the barebones package on there. Google Playstation VUE and check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by dubs98
-
06-12-2015, 08:47 AMdubs98
thanks a bunch. I live in Ann Arbor, but will definitely look into this to see when it will work its way out here. Much appreciate the insight. I really think cable is so close to being a thing of the past and am looking forward to choosing packages that only include what I use/need.
-
06-12-2015, 09:01 AMdubs98
just read up on it and it definitely looks good with the one exception that it does not carry espn. If I could get fox sports 1/2 I could probably live without espn, but would definitely miss it. getting close to making the jump to cord cutting, but still sitting at the edge. all info helps.
-
06-12-2015, 10:00 AMGoose85This is going to have the biggest impact on college sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by dubs98
The big boys in college sports remind me of a Patrick Ewing quote "Sure we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too." Big tv revenues don't ensure athletic department profitability.
As dubs98 pursues cutting cable as many seem to be trying to do, or have done, what impact will that have on the big boys in college sports?
Networks like ESPN have paid the way for the Big 5 conferences to increase spending, pay big for facilities, pay assistants like head coaches, and now kick in extra for athletes on top of the schollie. ESPN and the like make bank from charging people who have cable but never watch their product (everyone with Time Warner or AT&T pay for all programming).
What happens in 5 years when Dubs98 and many others have successfully cut the cable cord? Do these other avenues to consume sports present enough revenue to ESPN to keep paying crazy money for college football TV deals? What happens to conferences if the networks say we will give you 75% of what we give you now? No big deal for the non power 5, they are already playing at a financial disadvantage, but the power 5 will be significantly impacted. -
06-12-2015, 10:51 AMAlan Bykowski, "brewcity77"
Live sports are the only reason to keep cable/satellite.
-
06-12-2015, 11:01 AMLitehouse
I wonder if FS1 might have a big opportunity with these slimmed down cable packages as a low cost alternative to ESPN.
-
06-12-2015, 03:50 PMwarriorfan4lifeThat would be a great idea, and they should also heaviły invest in ramping up their digital presentation/offerings. Got to reach current and future cord cutters, and not be bound by cable viewership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Litehouse
-
06-12-2015, 04:02 PMTheSultanThe problem is they own no rights to anything substantial. So what are they going to show? And for them to get rights, they have to pay a lot of $$$, meaning they have to then charge more.Quote:
Originally Posted by warriorfan4life
I'm beginning to think that NBC Sports had it right. They went for value additions on niche sports that draw a relatively small, but passionate fan base. I'm not sure Fox is ever going to compete with ESPN given that it is trying to go toe to toe with them. -
06-12-2015, 07:17 PMMU/Panther
Never say never, but many contracts are locked up until 2026.
-
06-15-2015, 08:40 AMGoose85It's been awhile, but I thought I had read somewhere when the contracts for one of the conferences was done that there was a point during the contract where either party could request out of a renegotiation. I doubt that happens as live sports is what advertisers are paying for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MU/Panther
-
06-15-2015, 11:48 AMTheSultanThe B10 is up after the 2016-17 year. I would guess they are going to get some sort of lucrative deal done with ESPN/ABC and Fox both getting games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goose85