Agreed, ESPN+ has been vastly better than BeIn for Serie A. Not even close. I have never been more tempted to cut the cord than in the last few months of no sports, but if they're going to move big matches to regular ESPN I guess I still can't do it.
I really wish Espn+ would get the Ligue 1 rights. Apart from their appalling commentators Bein does a decent job of showing La Liga and Turkish Lig matches. Also I’m pretty sure that Espn only shows non big matches on espn and espn2. Not sure what the logic is behind that but that is usually what they do. Even during this time of very little live sports in the US they still don’t seem to be airing any of the bigger matches in the near future.
Think of ESPN & ESNP2 as advertising avenues for ESPN+ when it comes to soccer. Then it will all make sense... SA www.soccertvblog.com
During normal times when NFL and College fb or basketball are on sure. However when espn is showing a guy try to break the world lumber lifting record as it’s main live sporting event on a given day due to covid I don’t quite understand the logic. Why not run 1 major or even kind of major Serie A match on one of their channels as it would probably draw more eyes to Espn+. I can’t imagine anyone watching Genoa v Sassuolo and saying, “wow this is great, I need to subscribe to espn+ and watch more Serie A” Kind of off topic, but fs1 has been showing 3 nrl matches each weekend which they never did before due to it being on fs+ or whatever pay channel they usually show it on. I don’t think it’s pulling any kind of viewing numbers (especially at 3am est) but why not expose it now to a bigger crowd and when major US sports start up again then throw it behind a paywall?
My comment references "normal times". I agree that during these times of lack of live events, it is a bit of a mystery why more (especially 'top') matches are not being shifted to the TV channels. The only thing I can think of is that ESPN does not want to look like they are pushing Serie A and other soccer properties "down" to ESPN+ when they have other programming. I believe it's important to ESPN to make ESPN+ the "home of Serie A", "home of Bundesliga", etc. The more matches you put on the TV channels, the more you make ESPN+ an "alternative" rather than the "home of...". It quite literally takes an upside down/reverse mentality to understand this new paradigm of sports on streaming services. And it's not only the US. You have services like DAZN and many many others becoming the new homes of soccer leagues across the world. Old folks, like myself, have to acclimate to this and stop looking at regular TV channels as being "superior" in any way to streaming. Truth is, I find streaming (especially ESPN+) to have a better picture quality and on top of that, almost unlimited channels to show matches kicking off at the same time as well as replays available at a click. Anybody who will argue that Bundesliga's future move from Fox to ESPN+ is not an improvement is stuck in the old paradigm. And so is thinking that not putting more of those matches on regular TV is somehow a slap in the face to the league. They will give us EVERY match. That is all that should matter. Words like "regular TV and "streaming" will slowly fade out of our vocabulary and I for one think that is a good thing. SA www.soccertvblog.com
There are quite a few things that streaming needs to do in order to become as good as “regular TV“ is and has been for years. But I would start with one simple thing: make the streaming broadcasts as live as the TV ones. For example during this weeks EPL games, when I compared the stream via Roku versus NBCSN on my TV, there was nearly a full minute difference between the two. [EDIT: My original post said "four minute" instead of "full minute" which I can blame on Siri. But still 1 minute is way more than it should be. I could live with 5 seconds if need be, but 1 minute no way] That’s just not acceptable for live sports IMHO. Especially in the Internet age where people are following/discussing matches in real time on social media.
Below is the best description I found in regard to streaming delays. Of course, the 3-4 minute delays you talked about are likely a completely different set of problems. Either way, interesting read on the technology (full article HERE): “At the end of the day it still comes down to physics,” fuboTV CTO Geir Magnusson Jr. says, explaining why latency persists. As connected as our world seems, the video still has miles to cover between the glass of a stadium camera and the screen of your viewing device, as well as a series of technical steps that get it there. After being captured, videos are transformed a few seconds at a time into a file format that can be sent across the internet. Then, that video is replicated several times at different qualities, so it can be viewed smoothly with different internet connections. All of those copies are then deployed across a sequence of servers around the country. Individual devices then request the series of files, each a few seconds long, to load and play. In itself, the process can be completed rapidly. The delay largely comes from computers at those steps waiting to have two (or more) chunks before passing one on to ensure the final product appears as a consistent stream rather than being regularly interrupted by a buffering bar. If a chunk is six seconds long and it makes four stops on the journey, that’s 24 seconds of lag right there. But industry research suggests viewers prefer that delay to the possibility of a feed cutting out momentarily due to a failure somewhere in the chain. Two additional factors contribute to the complexity. First, each streaming service has adopted a slightly different method for delivering video, and each device—from iPhone to Android to laptop—demands a different format. That partially explains why the delay can differ from device to device or service to service. fuboTV, for instance, delivers the shortest delay on average according to FOMOPOP’s testing. Magnusson attributed that to the company’s custom-built player, which will get more aggressive on better internet connections, as well as the service’s fine-tuning of which servers it uses in different geographic areas. But every decision in this space comes with a trade-off, and FOMOPOP’s report found fubo’s reliability to be “below average.” Second, ads. Verizon Digital Media Services builds solutions for big-name companies like ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as in-house brands like Yahoo Sports. VDMS president Ralf Jacob says his company has gone from 60 seconds of delay in a basic case at the start of this year to 30 seconds now. A bulk of the remaining delay is built in for the sake of advertisers. One of the big reasons for media companies to offer streams is the ability to individually target advertisements, unlike on traditional TV. But that process takes time and involves a separate server workflow—and it takes even more time if you want to be safe and make sure a program cuts to and back from ad breaks smoothly. Still, Jacob says, having recently met with his team to lay out the 2019 roadmap, he hopes to offer 15 seconds of latency by this time next year, including the ad insertion elements. That would bring streams in line with cable. SA www.soccertvblog.com
Delays suck indeed. That is why I still use rabbit ears and regular OTA broadcast TV for the most live experience I can get. I mentioned earlier that this was going to be the First Euro since ESPN has the rights that I would not watch most of the games in English when at home. I was going to watch most of the matches on Univision/Unimas with less of a delay and with a crisper video picture OTA provides.
And I just noticed that ESPN is going to do the same thing for FA Cup matches. Man U and Arsenal's matches next weekend will be available on ESPN. Thanks corona.
Sorry what I actually stated in my previous post was "nearly a full minute difference" but then the iPhone voice recognition converted it to "nearly a four minute difference" and sadly I didn't catch that on my quick proof read. Sorry. Nevertheless, as I just added to that original post, inserting an "[EDIT:" line, ... "But still 1 minute is way more than it should be. I could live with 5 seconds if need be, but 1 minute no way" Thanks for sharing that SI article (I didn't read the whole thing, only your exerpts) and it's nice to know that they think they can get 60 secs lag down to 15 secs. But they really need to get it down to sub 5 secs in my book. I fully realize there are many less-controllable variables in streaming that don't exist in conventional TV delivery [hmm, that's another thing better about old-fashioned TV delivery architecture ] but if it's technically unfeasible to stream within a few seconds of live, then it's just going to be a step backwards, especially in our always-plugged-in-for-instant-info-feed world. And get ready for many more spoilers if you want to watch live sports the way it's meant to be watched. Your buddies at the stadium (whenever that's possible again!) or those who still watch on TV are going to tell you about that goal way before it pops up on your video stream.
Oh! Thanks for that heads-up. I guess I wasted $5 signing up for ESPN+ again, in anticipation of it being only available online. Oh well, I'll be more than happy to be able to watch it at virtually live ... and record it on my DVR.
My ESPN+ feed seems to be about 12 seconds ahead of ESPN. Craig Burley and Adrian Healey are announcing from a studio. ESPN went to a quick commercial break as the teams were walking out. ESPN has a small graphic on the top right with a FA Cup and ESPN Live logo. (They only seem to show "live" with regularity during soccer, but I digress.) Anyway, it appears ESPN+ is showing the pure international feed. The announcers are different and there's no graphic in the top right. They also didn't go to break when ESPN did.
Wow, that would be a switch! For the stream to be 12secs ahead of the TV broadcast! Hard to fathom. I recently was having a discussion in the NBC thread (I believe) which was prompted by my Gold stream via Roku being nearly a full minute behind the NBCSN broadcast on my cable TV. That relationship of streaming lagging TV is what I've generally found to be the case. I don't think I've ever seen the reverse like you just did.
Watching Sheffield-Arsenal on ESPN TV right now (FA Cup) and decided to compare the streaming off their website and I got surprising results. There were 2 streams available: ESPN+ and ESPN. 1) ESPN+ stream had zero delay compared to my cable TV feed 2) ESPN stream had nearly 60 seconds delay #1 is AWESOME! Apparently Disney and their really exceptional streaming platform can overcome all the challenges we've previously discussed about make digital streams truly live. #2 is HMM
Yeah, I was watching on an actual TV channel as opposed to a stream *of* a TV channel if there's any confusion. And I'm with you all...that's unfathomable for the internet feed to be ahead of an actual "proper" TV channel. I wonder if that had anything to do with the international feed vs synching things up with the ESPN announcers, who I assume were in a studio (or maybe even their homes) in the US, but it sounded like a studio.
I've been wondering about this Saturday's FA Cup Semi at 2:45pm (Arsenal-ManCity) I know it'll be streamed on Espn+ but I heard a rumor that it'd also be on TV (Espn/2). So I then looked up various guides and I didn't see it on either channel. Anyone happen to know??
It's on ESPN+. In order to find out, you can go to the ESPN web site (ESPN.com). Click watch, and click "Schedule & Replays." From there, you click "Upcoming" and can filter by date and by sport. So if you click on Saturday July 18 and "soccer" (and keep the default "all networks"), it clearly shows you that the FA Cup game will be broadcast with both English and Spanish commentary on ESPN+. I've included a screen shot.
Uh, yes, knew that it would be on Espn+, as indicated in my last post What I was trying to find out is if it would also be on Espn or Espn2 TV channels, which is what someone (here?) had rumored a while back. Edit: One of those 2 channels will be wrapping up a Serie A match but the other channel had some pretty "marginal" content at that time so one could imagine...
If it was on ESPN or ESPN2, that would be indicated on the schedule on the website. Sorry I failed to state that in the previous post. So, you can go to the same website and filter for whichever network you're interested in (ESPN2, since you perceptively noted that Italian football is on ESPN at the same time as the FA Cup tie), and it shows that World Team Tennis rather than FA Cup is on ESPN2. I've included a screen shot. Through this same website you're also able to see that ESPNU is showing college softball, and ESPN News is showing X Games at the time of the FA Cup tie. (ESPN Deportes tambien va a pasar el partido de la liga italiana que va a estar en ESPN en ingles.) It really is a wonderful resource to see what the ESPN networks are scheduled to show at any given time!
Thanks for all your efforts, but I’ve been well aware of what you have posted. I guess I should’ve been more explicit about what I was asking... Since what shows up on a TV guide is not always what actually gets shown on that channel (NBCSN is notorious for that) I was wondering if anybody had heard about ESPN possibly putting the FA cup semi finals on real TV. Like they did a few weeks back with a prior round of the FA cup, as Commented on above by Homie?
I've not heard many instances of a network's own website (as opposed to guide data) being incorrect about their own programming. Of course, programming changes are always possible. I googled ESPN FA Cup. It led me to this press release: https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-...nd-efl-championship-matches-begin-today-6-18/ But maybe someone has other information.
Actually come to think of it, Fox used to have incorrect data on its own website. Someone at Fox explained to me that the Fox website used to get its data from the Guide companies, as ridiculous as that sounds. But I don't recall ESPN having incorrect listings on its website.
Thanks. That press release seems pretty conclusive, and leads us to believe the Semis will ONLY be on Espn+. As for other networks listing programs incorrectly on their own website, I would just offer NBC which does it regularly for NBCSN content. For example last weekend they listed "PL Mornings" for 1hr at 6am when in fact it was "PL World" at 6am for 30mins, and "PL Preview" at 6:30 for 30mns. But I don't doubt that ESPN is more reliable than NBC in this regard.
It's my understanding that if something is listed as ESPN+, it's exclusive to the $5/mo ESPN+. I'd say *always* but there've been occasional episodes of shows to trickle out. I was able to save space on my DVR and not record The Last Dance because I accessed it via ESPN+. I saw an episode of whatever Peyton Manning show on ABC. It had advertisements and on-screen graphics for ESPN+, as I'm assuming it debuted there. If something is on linear ESPN or ESPN2, it'll be listed as that. Stuff used to be listed as "ESPN2 or the WatchESPN app" as a reminder that it was also online. Interestingly, I've seen ESPN3 on the MLS website but this seems to be largely defunct, as WatchESPN sort of was the upgrade. Originally, someone needed their ISP to have an agreement for ESPN3 and it was live sports only. It was something like five cents per subscriber per month. When Time Warner finally agreed to carry it, they were the first (or one of) to have WatchESPN, which was full 24/7 streaming access to the ESPN channels. College sports are a good example. Game A -- ESPN/WatchESPN Game B -- ESPN3 Game C -- ESPN+ Game A is on the actual ESPN channel and online. Game B is online only to most (all at this point?) people. Game C is online to everyone who pays for ESPN+ The difference in Watch and 3 seems to be what someone's ISP/TV provider has agreed to carry...if there is any difference at this time.