Google Scores NFL Sunday Ticket Package

[navychop]

Or a BIG hole into which someone is throwing money.

 

[bkbiles]

Without doing the math, probably about 200 other games?

Sent from my SM-F936U1 using Tapatalk

Maybe you should do the math and find it isn't worth it.

 

[forecheck]

Was curious so just did the math, if I missed anything please correct:

272 total games, minus:

15 on Amazon
19 on NBC
20 on ESPN (some simulcast on ABC and ESPN+)
1 on ESPN+ (exclusive)
7 on NFL Net

So, that leaves 210 available to Sunday Ticket, but you have to subtract the 3 (4 on week 1) games that are shown locally, so that is 55 games that will be blacked out on Sunday Ticket, leaving 155 games over the 18 weeks, which averages out to 8.6 games a week. I also realize that some markets only get 2 games on Sunday when their team is home so those area will have a few more games, but for most of the country, I think 155 is the number.

 

[navychop]

I’d rather watch tiddly winks.

 

[Juan]

I’d rather watch tiddly winks.

Then you want ESPN+

 

[meStevo]

Maybe you should do the math and find it isn't worth it.

Maybe you should. It's a bargain at $300, especially now that thousands per year in a service I don't want isn't necessary for the option to subscribe.

 

[Mochuf]

Maybe you should. It's a bargain at $300, especially now that thousands per year in a service I don't want isn't necessary for the option to subscribe.

I guess if you're a real NFL fan, it might be worth it. But compared to all of the other professional sports leagues it sure isn't. Every other league package is $100 to $200 less per season, for games that are on all week and not just on Sunday.

 

[meStevo]

I guess if you're a real NFL fan, it might be worth it. But compared to all of the other professional sports leagues it sure isn't. Every other league package is $100 to $200 less per season, for games that are on all week and not just on Sunday.

There's a reason for that though, NFL draws a television audience like no other sport in the US and is the reason they get what they do for their broadcasts.

$300 is nothing when you spend up to several hours a week for 18 weeks enjoying it. Like I said, it's a bargain compared to virtually anything else you can spend that money on. I've got 4 kids, that's like 4 trips to the movies, lol.

The tone is funny in this thread, in the last one the anti-streaming detractors were all about just spending your money on overpriced services you hate because life is short you shouldn't cut the cord because it's a fad and if you do you're being cheap and missing x, y and z (though almost always never correct), while in this one $300 is a bridge too far for 18 weekends of football.

 

[Jimbo]

There's a reason for that though, NFL draws a television audience like no other sport in the US and is the reason they get what they do for their broadcasts.

$300 is nothing when you spend up to several hours a week for 18 weeks enjoying it. Like I said, it's a bargain compared to virtually anything else you can spend that money on. I've got 4 kids, that's like 4 trips to the movies, lol.

IF the NFL was on TV 5 days a week or more, like baseball, it definitely would not be worth the money.
Seeing its a once a week (For YOUR team) remember, ST is Only for those that have favorite teams not in your home area ...

I have 2 teams I follow currently, thats it, so I get twice as much value as some people ... then again, I don't want to pay MORE than the $300 that D* was asking for.

Also, D* wasn't getting $300 per sub .... once you take away all the Free Seasons and Discounted prices they would give out, I wonder what that $300 is down to ?

 

[meStevo]

ST is Only for those that have favorite teams not in your home area

I get ST because I like football, not just to watch my team. I don't turn it off and go find something else to do when the Chiefs game is over, I'm watching the balance of the days action and enjoying watching the day unfold and what that portends for the following week and balance of the season. I may not be in the majority, but I am certain that's a lot of people including most of the people I know personally who watch football. None of them watch just their team. Perhaps that's a product of growing up in a market that didn't have a team until a couple years ago, but I get a lot out of enjoying almost any game between 2 NFL teams, they all have a chance to be amazing games.

Unrelated, some updates on features to expect in case they weren't posted.

YouTube exec says NFL Sunday Ticket subscribers should 'expect' multiscreen Mosaic Mode functionality

YouTube TV has long discussed "mosaic mode" multiscreen viewing, but exec Neal Mohan now says to "expect" that for NFL Sunday Ticket.

awfulannouncing.com

- Mosaic mode / watching multiple games at once

[YouTubeTV has] been discussing the idea of letting viewers pick feeds for a multiscreen watch since last summer. But that “Mosaic Mode” concept hasn’t yet come to fruition. However, in an interview with Nilay Patel of The Verge last week, YouTube chief product officer Neal Mohan said this mode will be ready to go by the time they’re offering NFL Sunday Ticket next fall.​

- The standalone NFLST will share features with YouTubeTV

A lot of this conversation is about YouTube TV, but I’m very excited about being able to offer [Sunday Ticket] service in a la carte fashion on [YouTube] Primetime Channels. We’re going to invest in bringing all of those features that sports lovers appreciate on YouTube TV to the main YouTube app. If you sign up for Sunday Ticket through Primetime Channels, you’ll be able to benefit from features like key plays and game highlights, hiding spoilers, and those types of features that our sports fans have kind of come to expect and enjoy on the YouTube TV side.​

That's the meat of what's at the link, which is a recap of interviews with Verge and The Desk.

 

[Mochuf]

There's a reason for that though, NFL draws a television audience like no other sport in the US and is the reason they get what they do for their broadcasts.

$300 is nothing when you spend up to several hours a week for 18 weeks enjoying it. Like I said, it's a bargain compared to virtually anything else you can spend that money on. I've got 4 kids, that's like 4 trips to the movies, lol.

The tone is funny in this thread, in the last one the anti-streaming detractors were all about just spending your money on overpriced services you hate because life is short you shouldn't cut the cord because it's a fad and if you do you're being cheap and missing x, y and z (though almost always never correct), while in this one $300 is a bridge too far for 18 weekends of football.

I do like football, but what is shown on the broadcast networks on Sunday and Amazon on Thursday is plenty for me. But everyone is different and if $300 works for you, that's okay too. My family cut the cord years ago and currently have Philo for my cable needs, so no sports outside of fighting sports shown on AXS TV. My sports itch is satisfied with ota broadcasts, free MLB.TV I get from T-Mobile every year, whatever Peacock has and ESPN+ that my son gets with his Disney bundle sub. My son does live with us, so no password sharing for the haters out there!

 

[John2021]

3d is a big fail in the home environment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

didn't we already try 3D moons ago and it flopped

 

[John2021]

3d virtual reality..
The glasses

and who is gonna spend the $$$ on VRR glasses??? i know sony has a pair coming out next year for like $600.00. that's a car payment

 

[Juan]

didn't we already try 3D moons ago and it flopped

No no no..i am suggesting 3d virtual reality..with the goggles that google and Amazon make..that would be cool

 

[John2021]

No no no..i am suggesting 3d virtual reality..with the goggles that google and Amazon make..that would be cool

agree.

 

[Bruce]

No no no..i am suggesting 3d virtual reality..with the goggles that google and Amazon make..that would be cool

I have the Oculus from Meta/Facebook, not good to have them on when your Dogs are trying to get your attention.

I was on the couch, watching a movie using them, which was pretty cool, next thing I know one of my Labs did a flying leap onto me.

 

[Bilbo1]

No no no..i am suggesting 3d virtual reality..with the goggles that google and Amazon make..that would be cool

Sports are a more communal experience. People that get together to watch the game aren’t going to put on goggles and go into isolation to get a more immerse game experience. Googles are also not going to excite the Sunday afternoon nap with the game on crowd.

That’s not to say there won’t be some people that will want this experience. I just don’t see people inviting friends over or going to a bar to VR a game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan]

Sports are a more communal experience. People that get together to watch the game aren’t going to put on goggles and go into isolation to get a more immerse game experience. Googles are also not going to excite the Sunday afternoon nap with the game on crowd.

That’s not to say there won’t be some people that will want this experience. I just don’t see people inviting friends over or going to a bar to VR a game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Virtual 50 yard line would excite alot of people...they do have virtual reality games you can interact with people..it can be done but won't be affordable

 

[SamCdbs]

Where was "3D glasses" mentioned in the article? ALL YTTV has purchased is the right to sell out of market games in exactly the form (and with the same commercials) as they are fed to it from Fox and CBS. Its not going to be in 4K, its not going to be filled with targeted ads (which don't work anyway) based on somebody's googling results, its not going to be in 3D. And, BTW, it clearly states they haven't determined a price yet either, the $300 DirecTV charged is way too low. While the package will lose money, even this outfit cannot afford that level of losses.

The only thing of significance in the article that we didn't already know is that YT's vaunted "creators" are going to have some rights to use game footage. There are some good YouTubers that cover sports material, generally w/o highlights, mostly for niche sports that are under-covered by ESPN, et al. David Land is very good with IndyCar, the Hockey Guy is solid with hockey, there are several NASCAR channels that are OK. But I really don't know what some guy in his mom's basement is going to do with the NFL that ESPN, Fox Sports, and the NFL itself don't already do with professionals.

The only other comment, and I know that people have to tout their product, is this whopper:

YouTube’s always been a place for sports fans.

If you don't have the RSNs, no you are not for the vast majority of people in a particular region. That simple.

 

[Bruce]

And, BTW, it clearly states they haven't determined a price yet either, the $300 DirecTV charged is way too low.

You have been so wrong in just about every post concerning ST moving to streaming, why are you adding to it, no one knows yet what they will charge, but those who run Google are not unintelligent, they know what the breaking point as far as pricing goes.

While the package will lose money, even this outfit cannot afford that level of losses.

Another thing you post and have no idea what you are writing about, net income for Google in 2021 was $76 Billion dollars.

In the last quarter reported of 2022, it was $13.9 Billion, now waiting on the last quarter of 2022 results.

https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2021Q4_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf?cache=d72fc76

Google’s revenue continues to grow as its profits are still shrinking

What has a quarter of belt-tightening gotten it?

www.theverge.com

If you don't have the RSNs, no you are not for the vast majority of people in a particular region. That simple.

The one thing you must of forgotten, you can keep your current Live TV Provider, with or without your RSN and still get NFLST, you are not forced to get YTTV, unlike before when you were forced to get DirecTV at a average cost of roughly $2000 over 2 years.

And you can get it even without a Live TV Service, roughly 60 Million out of 129 Million Households.

And since ST is primarily for those who want to watch the out of their area‘s Team(s), is not having the local RSN that big of a deal.

And again, I am glad YTTV does not carry it, hate to pay for something I would never watch.

I just checked out DirecTV’s website, for my area, it is a extra $13.99 a month and you would be forced to pay it, if you watch it or not.