What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Is the Final Four on TV

Re: Is the Final Four on TV

KTDC hit the nail on the head.

This could have been very popular here in the Boston area with two local teams involved.

NCAA did a internet broadcast which was very good coverage despite the young woman announcing mispronouncing many names. She kept referring to Picard of Harvard as "Pickett" or something like that.

My son was here from Los Angeles last weekend and gave me a "ROKU" (?spelling) which let me do the internet on the 40 inch TV which was nice.

If you go to the NCAA website you will find the link after you wade through all the basketball crap involving colleges that I have never heard of.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

I don't know, I watched the games on the NCAA website and I thought the production was terrible. No broadcast "team". Just low quality. The picture was all yellow or green and kinda dark. And it wasn't even in high definition.
 
I don't know, I watched ry the games on the NCAA website and I thought the production was terrible. No broadcast "team". Just low quality. The picture was all yellow or green and kinda dark. And it wasn't even in high definition.

Yeah, someone forgot to white balance the primary camera for the second game. Not streaming in HD, 15 years into the new millennium, is unconscionable.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

NCAA did a internet broadcast which was very good coverage despite the young woman announcing mispronouncing many names. She kept referring to Picard of Harvard as "Pickett" or something like that.

I don't know how anyone would think that the NCAA broadcast was anything but below average at best, bush-league at worst. They didn't start any coverage until right before opening face-off, the play-by-play announcer had all kinds of problems with the player names, there was no color analyst and the picture went out of focus multiple times. I didn't bother watching the BC-Harvard game, but I find it hard to believe it got much better. It's bad enough that the NCAA can find a spot to broadcast the games (though there is arm wrestling today on the main ESPN later today), but it's totally inexcusable that they can't produce a better on-line production.
 
I don't know how anyone would think that the NCAA broadcast was anything but below average at best, bush-league at worst. They didn't start any coverage until right before opening face-off, the play-by-play announcer had all kinds of problems with the player names, there was no color analyst and the picture went out of focus multiple times. I didn't bother watching the BC-Harvard game, but I find it hard to believe it got much better. It's bad enough that the NCAA can find a spot to broadcast the games (though there is arm wrestling today on the main ESPN later today), but it's totally inexcusable that they can't produce a better on-line production.

Well, hope that at some point Providence College wins a bid to host a Frozen Four...they have a TV studio built into the press box area.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

I don't know how anyone would think that the NCAA broadcast was anything but below average at best, bush-league at worst. They didn't start any coverage until right before opening face-off, the play-by-play announcer had all kinds of problems with the player names, there was no color analyst and the picture went out of focus multiple times. I didn't bother watching the BC-Harvard game, but I find it hard to believe it got much better. It's bad enough that the NCAA can find a spot to broadcast the games (though there is arm wrestling today on the main ESPN later today), but it's totally inexcusable that they can't produce a better on-line production.

Yeah, the CIS Championship Tournament was on tv here last weekend with Cassie Campbell doing the colour and Jennifer Botterill doing the ice level interviews and very competent play by play...excellent coverage information wise and visually. They were well informed about the teams, players and coaching staffs and knowledgeable, of course, about the game. Sad that the NCAA can't, or choose not to, do better.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

I actually find it odd at this point, and in an age where so many people are dropping cable altogether, how many people will refuse to even consider streaming a game. They ask if it's on tv, you tell them you can watch it online, and their reaction is, "so it's not on tv?"

Of course, the problem, I suspect, is that when they do watch streaming events, it ends up being like bush-league productions that the NCAA gives this tournament. Admittedly, I haven't watched this years online coverage, but based on what others have said, it was a lot like it's been in previous years. It really is a shame that if there isn't going to be TV, they can't at least produce quality online coverage. I've watched dozens of games on BTN2Go this year, and the quality is every bit as good as watching on regular tv. If they could get the quality of streaming coverage up to that of a regularly televised game, I'd actually rather see it stay as a free stream - compared to putting it on ESPN49, where you need the ultra-super-sportspak to even get the channel.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

I actually find it odd at this point, and in an age where so many people are dropping cable altogether, how many people will refuse to even consider streaming a game. They ask if it's on tv, you tell them you can watch it online, and their reaction is, "so it's not on tv?"

Of course, the problem, I suspect, is that when they do watch streaming events, it ends up being like bush-league productions that the NCAA gives this tournament. Admittedly, I haven't watched this years online coverage, but based on what others have said, it was a lot like it's been in previous years. It really is a shame that if there isn't going to be TV, they can't at least produce quality online coverage. I've watched dozens of games on BTN2Go this year, and the quality is every bit as good as watching on regular tv. If they could get the quality of streaming coverage up to that of a regularly televised game, I'd actually rather see it stay as a free stream - compared to putting it on ESPN49, where you need the ultra-super-sportspak to even get the channel.
Great question and comment. I'll admit I'm one of those for whom sports webcasts are an almost automatic no. I will be watching today, however. My issues:

1. Steamed games went online well before they were presentable. Amateurish announcing and camera work were the norm. But much worse was the frequent tendency for the stream to freeze up while it was buffering. Several times I had the experience of getting excited for a game, only to have to turn it off because it was 100% unwatchable. In other words, so aggravating it was literally worse than nothing. :mad: In my head, I know that the webcasts are much better now. But in my gut, it's hard to shake those memories.

2. My satellite bill is north of $100/month. Putting any additional $$ toward sports viewing -- even pocket change -- is an almost automatic no. Today's webcast is free, so fortunately it's a non-issue for the big game. But for those of us usually on the outside looking in, we frequently read about web viewers having to strategically subscribe to and then cancel an array of services offered by other schools in order to get the desired games. Granted it's a lazy reaction, but my gut says "just say no."

3. I already spend a lot of time on sports. Probably too much. Saying no to webcasts is a convenient way to put a lid on the time invested. An easy to administer decision rule, if you will.

4. Family members have shown me it's pretty easy to put a webcast on the big TV. So, maybe that will help me come around. Conversely, I have to say the idea of watching a game on a cell phone has little appeal for me. OK, if I'm stuck in an airport, maybe. Otherwise, not.

Hope this helps you understand the "other side." Based on the above, I may yet add the occasional webcast to my viewing habits. Bottom line? Old, but still young enough to learn a few new tricks -- if somewhat grudgingly.;)
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

The bottom line for me is that online streaming is not yet ready for prime time; the quality is still very much hit or miss. I love it when the picture is in high def and the motion is smooth. A knowledgeable and entertaining announcing crew is always a bonus. But all too often the freezing picture, poor camera work and herky-jerky motion give me a headache! Maybe in a few years complaints like mine here will be rare...I certainly hope so.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

The bottom line for me is that online streaming is not yet ready for prime time; the quality is still very much hit or miss. I love it when the picture is in high def and the motion is smooth. A knowledgeable and entertaining announcing crew is always a bonus. But all too often the freezing picture, poor camera work and herky-jerky motion give me a headache! Maybe in a few years complaints like mine here will be rare...I certainly hope so.

I'm a fan of online streaming of games. I'm here today *because* of online streaming of college hockey.

Back in Feb of 2004, I was living in Los Angeles, bored on a Saturday night, and I thought to myself 'I wonder how the UW hockey team is doing this year?' So I pulled up their web site and discovered that they were streaming a game right that minute! 'Holly crap! I can *watch* UW hockey sitting here in LA?!? This is fantastic!!" (I can remember the particular game, a famous one for Badger fans: three goal 3rd period comeback against North Dakota, and a hat-trick by a guy with the improbable name of Robbie Earl - no relation.)

So I got into the habit of checked when UW would be streaming games. More often than not, it would be the women and not the men's games, so I started watching those, and became a fan of women's hockey.

Yeah, the quality was lousy. Yeah, it buffered and halted and dropped altogether. But I was sitting in my apartment in Los Angeles watching UW hockey!!
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

As I sit in my hotel room (which actually has ESPNU?!) waiting for the Men's selection show to start, seeing a high school dance contest on tv, I just keep thinking, how great would it be to have the Women's Frozen Four Championship on ESPNU right before, or even right after the Men's selection show.

As far as the quality of streams, there is no reason the quality can't be there. Last year during the Men's playoffs, I actually found the WatchESPN feed to be a much higher quality than the SD feed of ESPNU on cable. Even the BTN+ games for the women this year were very good for stream and video quality, even if they were clearly College TV level productions. A big reason why what we're seeing from the NCAA for the championships again this year is such a shame.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

From what I read on Twitter today, Turner Sports(not ESPN) owns the TV rights. Apparently the Big 10 Network(partially owned by Fox) inquiried about televising it and Turner Sports wanted an "Absurd" amount of money for it that the Big 10 Network didn't bother asking again.
 
Re: Is the Final Four on TV

If someone knows why the NCAA would sell the TV rights to an organization that has no interest to actually use those rights, please explain!
 
If someone knows why the NCAA would sell the TV rights to an organization that has no interest to actually use those rights, please explain!

I heard package deal with men's basketball. Why it's done this way, no idea. Why Turner Sports won't be reasonable, no idea. Perhaps there's some contract language about selling it off.
 
I heard package deal with men's basketball. Why it's done this way, no idea. Why Turner Sports won't be reasonable, no idea. Perhaps there's some contract language about selling it off.

Turner Sports won't sell because why take eyeballs away from basketball, no matter how few?

Also they & NCAA long term want to maximize the value — sell "cheap" now, get a cheap price later. All the current athletes and fans suffer in the meantime. Shake my head.
 
Back
Top