Question about that is the sports highlight show not suppose to show highlights of the game? In fairness to Revs and CSNNEit was advertised all week long it was going to be on Tv38 and I made a thread on here and it was revolution website, twitter, facebook. Season ticket email.
Don't get me wrong. The fact that he didn't want to come here is a huge issue. But it's not like we didn't get anything for him.
Its still irrelevant to the fact that they would show a game in a time slot with the score of that game in the same timeslot at the very beginning. Nevermind the revs, but any sport or team. Lets ruin the program we are about to watch, by revealing the score right before we air it. Its really not that big a deal, but I just found extremely ignorant. As to everything else you mentioned about it being advertised, I missed all of that due to the fact that I was extremely busy last week (and all I really would check anyway is here or the website), and took for granted that my DVR normally records the revs game with no problem. And in regards to your first line, The end of the highlight show went into the time slot of the revs, that's the part you are missing. Its not about what highlights that show was showing, it was the time they did it, with the shows overlapping eachother.
NESN,ESPN,FOX they all do it on re-broadcasts. NESN does it every time with Bruins/Red Sox in 2 broadcasts.
Its not like I was watching the channel at that time, all I did was press play of the revs game on my DVR. All they need to due is adjust the times of their programs so they don't overlap, or be more aware of what is playing at what time. Or they could not give a ******** and argue with me about how their right and I'm wrong like most people here do. And I would be surprised if that happened with all those channels. They may show highlights of the game they are about to show next on a highlight/news show, but it doesn't overlap into the next timeslot so that the DVR picks it up.
So if the rebroadcast is scheduled to start at 9:00pm, at 9:01 they are showing highlights of the game they are about to air? I find that hard to believe.
FWIW, the first rebroadcast of the game on CSNNE was at 11pm the night of the game. The Revs had the announcement about the alternate channel and the rebroadcast time on the front of their homepage 10 days prior to the game: http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/news/2014/03/revolution-united-match-april-5-be-carried-mytv38
That wasn't the problem. I knew well in advance about the alternate channel. We don't get it in CT, so I had to set my DVR to record the 11PM showing. Which I did. I turned it on Sunday morning and immediately knew the score because they ran over with their highlights show by about 5 minutes and the last thing they discussed on their highlights show was... the Revs. I'm not making it out to be the end of the world, and I personally don't blame the Revs - I'm sure CSNNE didn't tell them they were going to do this. It was really annoying though. I avoided, everything that might have given me a spoiler all night, just to have actual broadcast provide it.
Squawka Performance Score - 4/5 @ DC 30.96 - Andrew Farrell 14.77 - Daigo Kobayashi 3.28 - AJ Soares 1.31 - Steve Neumann -6.30 - Diego Fagundez -12.29 - Lee Nguyen -12.54 - Andy Dorman -14.25 - Saër Sène -19.11 - Chris Tierney -21.25 - Teal Bunbury -24.88 - Bobby Shuttleworth -31.64 - Charlie Davies -36.77 - José Gonçalves Squawka Performance Score - Overall 140.92 - Andrew Farrell 101.28 - José Gonçalves 86.71 - Lee Nguyen 52.35 - Daigo Kobayashi 21.94 - Kelyn Rowe 21.40 - Scott Caldwell 12.87 - Saër Sène 6.29 - AJ Soares 4.10 - Diego Fagundez 1.31 - Steve Neumann -0.13 - Andy Dorman -3.80 - Bobby Shuttleworth -4.21 - Kevin Alston -6.00 - Dimitry Imbongo -8.20 - Patrick Mullins -15.41 - Jerry Bengtson -15.78 - Donny Smith -25.17 - Teal Bunbury -32.25 - Charlie Davies -34.74 - Darrius Barnes -35.19 - Chris Tierney
Wasn't aware it happened on the first rebroadcast. OP mentioned he had recorded a rebroadcast from Sunday. My apologies.
This graph is very interesting to me. It looks like the performance scores for DCU and the Revs go in opposite directions around the time of United's first goal (the own goal). This makes me wonder how the scores would look over time in some of the games that it looks like the Revs relax after getting a lead? I think the most recent example is the SJ game. It also makes me wonder how squawka scores for individual players will look depending on position, depending on the score of the game when entering the game, depending on the score of the game period (maybe your performance score is high when your team is winning, but dips when your team trails), depending on weather, home/away, with a card, with an injury, long road trip, second game in a week, third game in a week, etc. These could be some useful metrics.
Watch NESN before every Bruins/Red Sox in 2, especially if the previouse stuff carried(ie: Bruins/Red Sox game went over schedule and they are behind by few mins.) They damn well will have game highlights and score shown. In fact it happened last night on NESN. Bruins game went to SO, so it went over its allotted time by 17 mins. Bruins rebroadcast was scheduled for 12AM. If someone DVR the Bruins rebroadcast they would have seen the highlights and score of the game when watching it. Take you to Saturday Night, the game was broadcast on TV38 and replay was being shown on CSNNE. Celtics game went over scheduled time on CSNNE, so thus Sports Night show was late getting on the air. Thus Revs game went on later than DVR scheduled. This stuff is going to happen on rebroadcast of a sporting event you didn't get to see or record live.
When it was Fox Soccer Channel and not Fox Sports 1, they would do this every single time they showed a Champions League game on tape delay starting at 5 PM - you'd go to the channel at 4:59 PM and Rob Stone would be wrapping up highlights/the score of the game that they were just about to air.
I do not have a horse in the spoilers/replay discussion, but the discussion makes me pine for a possible future. One where the only scheduled content is live content or the first run of a show. After that, the content should be available to subscribers at their convenience. There is no reason that you have to schedule a Red Sox in 2 game at 2:30 AM (for example). Just make the content available for download/stream (like Netflix, Hulu) for a limited amount of time (for example a week) and for a price. This would be great for those on odd work schedules or when other commitments that get in the way. This might also be competition for the DVR. I wonder why something like this does not already exist for sports? MLS Live is kind of like this, I guess. Perhaps other sports have similar packages? Anyway, not trying top sidetrack things way off topic, but I believe that something like this will happen in the future (if it does not already exist) and it will be cool.
The reason to show such stuff is that stations no longer play the National Anthem late at night and then put up a test screen until morning, I assume because you can't show commercials in a test screen. If that's the case, there's no reason not to show content you already own, it's free, and whatever tiny fee they might get for the ads is still more than they'd get for not showing anything at all. If it were cost effective to have more new content in those periods of time, the stations would do it, but if it isn't, they're just going to schedule recordings of previous shows, and nobody's going to pay much attention to a transition between these shows, it's really not worth the effort to them.
I get the point that more or less says you need 24 hours of content and you already own it so why not show it and any ad revenue you get is gravy. I just think a Hulu model does the same thing without time/schedule constraints and Hulu has ads as well (as you probably know). For example. I can watch Modern Family whenever I want without a fee on Hulu and I just have to watch a few commercials along the way. Sports should be available the same way. Having a schedule might actually leave some tiny bit of ad money on the table. Who knows?
My only point was that having replays available on Hulu or whatever won't stop the channels from showing replays, seeing as they have nothing better to show. I'd agree that situations where someone sees a score as they're waiting to watch a replay they know nothing about might push those people away from the channel for replays, but I'd think that such situations are rare overall. Yes, I'd actually think it's most common in soccer, as over the years us fans got used to watching replays, or delayed broadcasts, and it's just an assumption, but I don't think it happens much with the other major sports here, where someone waits until a replay to watch a game. There are obviously delayed broadcasts for the Olympics, but that's a special case here, where they show lots of delayed events, and the broadcasters do try to be careful about giving results away.
Thanks. I do have that. With a toddler I end up watching the games at some random times and it is a big help now that I live out of the Boston area.
I guess my point was that the replays that channels show generally have a short lifespan/limited availability of when they are shown unless they make their way to ESPN classic, at which point they might appear a few more times, but at times that might not work for you. In sports, an example might be yesterday's Sox or Bruins game. It might be shown tonight, but I am not sure if it is available next week? There might be some reason why you missed it yesterday and cannot see it tonight, but you could watch it next week at some point if it is available. In this case when you watch the replay at your convenience next week you are forced to watch some ads that you would not have seen if your only options were the regular re-runs. The same goes for network programming. In the days before Hulu/etc if you miss an episode you had to wait for a re-run months later. If you missed that, then you probably missed it for good. Anyway, as others have said, it appears that this sort of thing exists in the sports realm if you are willing to subscribe. Perhaps the Revs can follow the lead of the trailblazing Crew and bundle MLS live with their season tickets next year (I know the Crew have TV issues that they are trying to address)? This might have prevented all of this tv/replay/spoiler/hulu discussion in the first place.
Whether its a scroller or highlights, both give away the result. I'm not saying it's not annoying, I hate that myself (I've watched games with furniture blocking the lower edge of the screen!). But, lets be clear, this is a Comcast issue. No, but Parkhurst clearly did. That's a problem everywhere. Ronaldo wanted out of ManU, because he knew he could do even better. Players know their careers are short. When they are performing at a high-level, of course they think that's the time they need to make a big move. That's not unique to the Revs Salaries are negotiated by the league. Parkhurst was going to get his $400K no matter where he went in MLS. And, while you're putting word in his mouth, he didn't say anything about anyone being cheap, but I think he did mention playing on grass. As for "having a shot", there are plenty of people (including national journalists covering MLS) that disagree. Good point. Things like OGs can have a serious psychological effect on a team, especially when they have been struggling (the "here we go again ..." syndrome). The fact that it seems like we let that be a factor shows they still have to get mentally tougher (even though they did make significant strides last year IMO).
The Revs aren't the only team with that problem, but it sure seems funny that a lot of players who do have options wind up elsewhere. To paraphrase George Orwell, "All MLS Clubs are equal, but some are less equal than others." Just like Lartentowicz, right? But he had the leverage of a David Beckham and could pick the team he wanted to play for. Parkhurst doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would come out and say that directly and explicitly, but that doesn't mean he might not think it. There is a reason a guy who was in the stands at the first ever Revs home game, who grew up a fan of the team, who played here during the team's most successful era ever decided he'd rather play in central Ohio than for his home town team. We may not know those reasons, but the fact that he could have come here but didn't speaks volumes.