Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You don't think one party and/or political philosophy supports and promotes LBGTQ rights? 78% of self identified LBGT voters supported Clinton in 2016 while Trump carried 14%. That's the definition of owning the transgender issue. Other than African Americans this was the largest divide among voter groups. As someone who supports equal rights and access for all I have no issues with the cause. However, to paint the transgender issue as non-political is simply incorrect. Hell....what isn't political these days in our divided nation?
When 61% of ESPN viewers believes it leans left to act like those on this board who believe the same are in the minority is disingenuous.
I'm impressed you have time to care that I care
[ I'm sick of political discourse that makes everything liberal or conservative and because I'm tired of liberals in Oklahoma being labeled a certain way. I want us to find public education appropriately and pay teachers a living wage, which makes me very livers my the standards of Oklahoma. That's silly.
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.By the way, I added a Poll to this thread, asking "Should it be moved to Crossfire?" What say you? (It's at the top of the page)
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.
But because you do a story on an athlete who is gay and perhaps the first one to openly come out before the NFL draft, or a story on an athlete is is making a body change due to transgender identity doesn't necessarily mean you are pushing an agenda. They are both stories pertinent to their area of coverage. Is covering women's basketball, which has a higher rate of players who identify as homosexual or bisexual than the normal public does, pushing a liberal agenda? That is the argument some on here would make.You don't think one party and/or political philosophy supports and promotes LBGTQ rights? 78% of self identified LBGT voters supported Clinton in 2016 while Trump carried 14%. That's the definition of owning the transgender issue. Other than African Americans this was the largest divide among voter groups. As someone who supports equal rights and access for all I have no issues with the cause. However, to paint the transgender issue as non-political is simply incorrect. Hell....what isn't political these days in our divided nation?
When 61% of ESPN viewers believes it leans left to act like those on this board who believe the same are in the minority is disingenuous.
I'm impressed you have time to care that I care
You don't like the hot dog broadcasting method?(99% filler)That's a big issue with me when it comes to sports broadcasting. I enjoy watching the olympics and back in the day you got to watch entire competitions, winners and losers, successes and failures. Once The networks started their "up-close and personal" coverage you get 5 minutes of highlights surrounded by a half hour of human interest stories. This human isn't interested.
Stoke those embers!But because you do a story on an athlete who is gay and perhaps the first one to openly come out before the NFL draft, or a story on an athlete is is making a body change due to transgender identity doesn't necessarily mean you are pushing an agenda. They are both stories pertinent to their area of coverage. Is covering women's basketball, which has a higher rate of players who identify as homosexual or bisexual than the normal public does, pushing a liberal agenda? That is the argument some on here would make.
Absolutely, and I think it's a good discussion topic...it just morphed into something completely different unfortunately. Even I played into the hijacking by throwing Based Stickman into the mix...but I was unable to get anyone to bite on that.It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.
It wasn't started as that, I can assure you...the thread was started to discuss the potential impact on future TV contracts
and $ amounts for the AAC since the layoffs are a sign ESPN is wanting to cut costs and we can assume that the next
step is to reign in the ridiculous rights fees contracts for their live event content.
Actually didn't Aresco say the AAC was looking at a streaming option with Amazon?The WAC and/or Mtn West is already considering its own digital package of delivering its games. I would think the AAC would also be investigating those options. If done right, that would totally eliminate all this Thurs/Fri night bull we succumb to. Like ole' Degeneration-X used to say ... "if you're not down with that, we got two words for ya ... SUCK IT!"
* Does childish suck-it maneuver at Bristol, Conn. *
Streaming on a strong viable platform is feasible. If Aresco were to be able to strike some deal with Netflix or Amazon or HULU and was the first to do so, that would be an interesting prospect. Those seem to be pretty stable entities. Enough so that a lot of people who have cut the cord and don't have the ESPN/FS1 packages still have those because they can customize their content. MLB streamed a Red Sox game on twitter the other day...it was great. The NFL life streamed their Thursday night games on Twitter. Amazon or Netflix could do the same. It will be interesting because I think this is the direction we're headed and mostly because ESPN found the breaking point in rights fees.still a worthless thread about politics - geez people can we agree to disagree about the value of diversity and the value of a stupid, clueless tweeting president (oops) - unless the focus is how the AAC games should be delivered. Having tried (as others) to watch the MWC Network, I say stick with CBSSN or ESPN (or even Fox); at least until streaming is feasible.
I'd love the streaming option, as I have both Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I do is stream (and OTA antenna)...haven't had cable for about four years.Streaming on a strong viable platform is feasible. If Aresco were to be able to strike some deal with Netflix or Amazon or HULU and was the first to do so, that would be an interesting prospect. Those seem to be pretty stable entities. Enough so that a lot of people who have cut the cord and don't have the ESPN/FS1 packages still have those because they can customize their content. MLB streamed a Red Sox game on twitter the other day...it was great. The NFL life streamed their Thursday night games on Twitter. Amazon or Netflix could do the same. It will be interesting because I think this is the direction we're headed and mostly because ESPN found the breaking point in rights fees.
And how many MW games did you watch last year? How many were on at the bar? I watched none. An embarrassing amount of MAC games though since they were accessible.
That's death for leagues like ours.
ESPN is the worst but it's them or bust.
Plus my degenerate childless self loves Thursday and Friday night games and excuses for more beer.
But you have to have ESPN via a subscription based service (like Cox, DirectTV, etc.) in order to access the WatchESPN stuff. Same with FoxSportsGO. Yes, their streaming is of a good quality. That's why I keep saying Netflix and Amazon...the known streaming services with quality streams and bandwidth...not the crap that the TU/FresnoSt game was streamed on (which I ditched anyway because I was bad luck while watching). Either of those services being a content provider for the AAC would be a game changer IMO.Keep in mind that not all streaming options are equal. WatchESPN has always been available for me from the beginning of a game to the end (with very limited blackout), the production quality is always excellent. games are archived almost immediately after they finish and remain available for 30 days, and the streams are compatible with virtually every imaginable device.
Anyone who paid to watch the UALR game this year can attest how bad it can get.
Anyone who paid to watch the UALR game this year can attest how bad it can get.
ESPN without cable/satellite.But you have to have ESPN via a subscription based service (like Cox, DirectTV, etc.) in order to access the WatchESPN stuff. Same with FoxSportsGO. Yes, their streaming is of a good quality. That's why I keep saying Netflix and Amazon...the known streaming services with quality streams and bandwidth...not the crap that the TU/FresnoSt game was streamed on (which I ditched anyway because I was bad luck while watching). Either of those services being a content provider for the AAC would be a game changer IMO.
It already is if you have any cable/satellite provider. All of our home games are on some ESPN platform and if not them, then it's on Fox Sports or CBS Sports. All of them have live streaming capabilities. I think every TU football game was on one of the major sports networks except for the Fresno game and they streamed it so we were able to see it that way. Moving the access to the games from a cable provider to a streaming provider will not change the couch potato mentality of Tulsa fansWhat incentive will people have to get off their couches and go to the stadium if it becomes this readily accessible?
i.e. will it be affordable for the schools to provide the amenities to outweigh the benefits of watching literally elsewhere?
Sling is okay...I actually think Playstation Vue (you don't have to have a Playstation) is the best bang for the buck in way of channels for the money. And I like the way PS Vue is setup, but when I did the free preview, local channels weren't available yet for Tulsa. The cloud DVR is awesome. I currently get my locals through OTA antenna, and I use a Tivo Roamio for guide, DVR, etc.
I suspect the biggest hold-up there is how do you get the advertising dollars necessary to make it worthwhile for the schools?
If it's not free...then I don't want it.I'm not sure why people think it'd just be some free thing in the Netflix or Hulu subscription they already pay for. :-/