|
|
|
|
|
|
by rconti
3514 days ago
|
|
|
That model is fucking insane. I've gotten all of my TV over-the-air for years, which includes a surprising number of NFL games though almost no local baseball/hockey.. which is ironic, because the channels that air that stuff are actually worth the money to me, if I didn't have to pay the ESPN tax. I considered the NHL all access even though I don't watch a ton of hockey, until I realized they blackout local games. Totally untenable model. I do pay NFL.com for streaming. $100/year, I can watch any game I want at any time, and they also do those glorious condensed games that only take 45 minutes to watch, so I can sneak in a game I missed. The only drawback (and this is a biggie for some, I'm sure) is that they're not live; 10:30am PST games up for streaming by 1:30pm; 1:30pm games by 5pm, for example. That doesn't matter to me because I'm not likely to "waste" 3 hours of midday on my 2 free days of the week watching football; I'd just DVR it and watch it in the evening if it was available OTA anyway. I'd also pay to stream F1 races, but that's not available either. I like some sports, but I just don't have any interest in the sports industrial complex. |
|
|
And because we cut cable-tv to stay sane financially, we get very little access to live sports games on over-the-air TV.
You wouldn't believe how LITTLE sports my kids watch on TV spontaneously, compared to how much I used to watch when a lot of important games were shown over-the-air TV.
What little they watch, it's from youtube. For some highlight or some incredible goals. But that's unlikely to turn them into a fan (serious or casual) of a particular sports or pro team.
The greed powered cable-tv movement has really driven a lot of fans away from pro sports teams.
This imo is a classic example of greed for short-term gain costing dearly in long-term.
Many kids in cable-tv-less households really don't interact with pro sports teams. What do you think the kids from such family will do when they grow up?