pw13

With ESPN broadcasting "nearly 200 games" from Canada's professional football league, how many years would that encompass?
I suspect they mean nearly 200 broadcasts this year, with games shown more than once. As we know, there are 86 CFL games (81 regular-season, five post-season).

jonny24eh

I'd pay maybe 10-15 a month for just CFL online only. Maybe up to 20 for all of TSN, depending what rugby they had, but I think most of it is on sportsnet.

I've never had, and don't plan to ever have, cable, so until CFL/TSN figures out online-only, they're missing out on money from people like me.
The poster formerly known as jonny24.

Eat\'em raw!

TravelPat1

I'm not even sure exactly how much I pay for cable - but with how much sports I can end up watching between Leafs, Raptors, Jays, Toronto FC, CFL, NFL, NCAA Football, curling, Premier League, UEFA soccer etc I consider it money very well spent. 

And that doesn't even take into account some of the other shows I enjoy on other cable channels like Star Trek Discovery, Outlander, Handmaid's Tale or being able to occasionally check into the craziness south of the border on CNN etc.

The odd time I've tried to stream live sports the picture and sound quality is just nowhere near the quality that I can reliably get with cable all the time.   

Hank01

 Would be interested in Dazyn for $150 a year for the entire sports line up of live sports .

Maybe the CFL should look here for a service provider .

Anybody have a subscription maybe an American that has tried it out ? Is it any good .

Looking it up on my own there's a buffering problem and resolution is terrible from reviews .

Figured as much live sports on the computer is never as good and I had Shaws free range package letting me watch on my laptop .
I assume you mean Dazn?
If you watch lots of sports...sure.  If it was say only for CFL, no.  
It is improving, but the viewer is full on crap.  To start the NFL season it wasn't even close to worth it....slow, buffering, poor video, hit and miss on sound, games starting way way late...it was the perfect storm of bad in every way imaginable.  later in the season it seemed somewhat better...so here is hoping.  
Never really noticed issues with anything outside of NFL stuff though, so I have wondered if they have a system that works differently than other sports perhaps...like perhaps something from the NFL's side is weird.  Perhaps it interfaces with gamepass and that is the issue...dunno. If it is the same this year I will drop it, but we will watch other stuff and it is fine...the odd buffering, same as most streaming.  The interface still sucks and it is not super high quality video, but that's fine.
  It is odd that it's mainly the NFL that has problems . I would want it for football CFL and NFL if I got it but I want quality picture and on time . 

  I didn't even know the commonwealth games was going on until I looked up what they had on today for programming .

depopulationINC

 Would be interested in Dazyn for $150 a year for the entire sports line up of live sports .

Maybe the CFL should look here for a service provider .

Anybody have a subscription maybe an American that has tried it out ? Is it any good .

Looking it up on my own there's a buffering problem and resolution is terrible from reviews .

Figured as much live sports on the computer is never as good and I had Shaws free range package letting me watch on my laptop .
I assume you mean Dazn?
If you watch lots of sports...sure.  If it was say only for CFL, no.  
It is improving, but the viewer is full on crap.  To start the NFL season it wasn't even close to worth it....slow, buffering, poor video, hit and miss on sound, games starting way way late...it was the perfect storm of bad in every way imaginable.  later in the season it seemed somewhat better...so here is hoping.  
Never really noticed issues with anything outside of NFL stuff though, so I have wondered if they have a system that works differently than other sports perhaps...like perhaps something from the NFL's side is weird.  Perhaps it interfaces with gamepass and that is the issue...dunno. If it is the same this year I will drop it, but we will watch other stuff and it is fine...the odd buffering, same as most streaming.  The interface still sucks and it is not super high quality video, but that's fine.
 It is odd that it's mainly the NFL that has problems . I would want it for football CFL and NFL if I got it but I want quality picture and on time .

  I didn't even know the commonwealth games was going on until I looked up what they had on today for programming .
TSN would fight this hard, understandably.  The CFL would be smart to put Dazn into TSN's minds very subtly a few months before the next negotiations.  Losing the CFL would really hurt TSN right now, and I think there would be a fair number of people that would drop cable and move to Dazn and something like netflix or crave or something.  TSN is putting themselves at risk by not developing a stand alone subscription to online streaming.  I get it...it is a fine balancing act to not piss off cable providers who still butter their bread.

It is weird that the issues seemed focused on the NFL.  After making my post I actually did some reading and it is something they are clearly aware of.  As I said...there was an improvement later in the season, and the product director (link at bottom) discussed that they knew there were still issues and discussed some of the things they were doing to improve it.  I am pretty hopeful that it will be improved this season.  I will give it another go, but it the frame rate is not improved I won't continue with it.  They need to be better with starting games live (or within minutes of...I can understand a small delay) and if they have any hopes of mass appeal it needs to go true HD....I don't mind lower quality for on my phone or a tablet or PC or whatever...but if I am putting it on my TV I need some quality there. 

DAZN is still a baby...it is at best an infant.  I love the concept, so I am willing to be patient and give it time.  It still only 1.5 years old overall and been in Canada for under a year.  What I like is that in any interviews, DAZN is owning the issues for the NFL broadcasting.  They are not deflecting.  I stall can't figure out WHY the NFL went with them in Canada, considering they had something already...it has never made sense to me...but it is what it is.

If you are a hockey fan and want to check out some KHL, get it.
If you are an NCAA basketball fan, get it
If you are a soccer nut, get it (even though it lacks Premier League with DAZN Canada)
I am hopeful rugby expands on it, but there is some.  Starting to enjoy watching the odd match.
There is a total lack of NHL or MLB on DAZN Canada (offered elsewhere, NA TV money is too big to compete with thus far).


Oh, a really nice feature is that it has on-demand!!!



https://mobilesyrup.com/2018/01/09/dazn-canada-interview/

rpaege

I'm not so sure I'll have to pay extra for this since I use SlingTV, which carries all of the ESPN channels (for various extra fees, depending on which channels you want). Though I will drop it in a second if it stops carrying CFL games.

clx1407

People in the US who watched the CFL either paid for ESPN (which gives you access to ESPN3) or they received ESPN3 because their ISP paid for it.  Now, are those people going to pay another $5 a month for all the CFL games?  Highly doubt it.

I do see there are early season games scheduled for broadcast on ESPN2 which can be seen without paying another fee for ESPN+.  However we all know when the NCAA and NFL starts, the CFL on any ESPN linear channel is nonexistent.

Well, the good thing is that the CFL is not an exclusive to ESPN+.  We were all hoping that if the CFL was going to be on ESPN+, it might also stay on ESPN3.  But when the content of ESPN+ was first introduced, cynics said it mostly just ESPN3 that is no longer "free".  So, we should not be surprised if the CFL is gone from ESPN3.
OK but I thought the CFL will be televised on ESPN +? Because of this, I just removed WatchESPN from my Roku lineup.

rpaege

The more I look into this the more it just looks like another way to access ESPN3 content without a cable subscription, and it won't affect how you already receive it. If this is the case — and the plus.espn.com site is unclear about it — it's a good thing, and just another breakaway from the cable model.

https://www.cutcabletoday.com/espn3-live-stream/

okie

The $5/month streaming service ESPN+ says 200 games on their website, but that is not possible.  I assume they just mean the full season.  Currently, there is no ESPN+ app for Roku.

The linear ESPN2 and ESPNews will show a total of maybe 25-30 games live but the concern is that without ESPN+, there is no way of accessing the rest.

ESPN+ has just opened and there are already complaints from viewers who used to be able to watch lesser-popular sports but now cannot since those events moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+.  That confirms what ESPN previously stated in that there will be different content between ESPN3 and ESPN+.  Could there be some overlap?  Only if we are lucky will the CFL show up on both services, but we will likely have to wait for the season to start before definitely knowing one way or another. 

I am expecting that if you want to view the full 2018 CFL season in the US, you must subscribe to ESPN+.

Paolo X

How I wish as a new cable subscriber (the premium has never been lower, and number of channels for the money never higher, versus getting only internet access plus adding Netflix, etc) that I could get access to this content for an extra $5 with my cable subscription on regular cable TV, without having to get the rest of ESPN, instead of having to subscribe separately.

This might be the way to go instead of pirate streams, but I wonder about reliability on any given new offering.

If you are in the US, the first 30 days are free if you sign up through 19 April.
Where there is a will in the US, there is a way without having to pay also for the rest of the ESPN crap through cable or satellite. Rpaege referenced Sling TV, which might be one cheaper way to access the content given it is unclear just how many games will be on regular ESPN. Note that ESPN simulcast CFL games on one of its channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS) on also ESPN3 in prior seasons, and all games otherwise not on one of the regular channels were available on ESPN3. It appears now that many of the games that formerly were on ESPN3 via simulcast won't be any more and will only be available via ESPN+. We shall see.

What irks me a bit is that it appears ESPN will be charging more for this ESPN+ content when otherwise it was included with your regular ESPN channels including ESPN3 in prior seasons.

Well the league does need more money from those watching in the US, so that's not so bad, but there's more.

I made in my previous post for the opposite case, in which I gladly would pay my cable company $5 per month to watch the ESPN+ content as part of my cable subscription. Or I would pay even more, but don't tell them that.

Whether or not Comcast makes it happen here in Greater Philadelphia, I'm getting it done. I am doubtful, for Comcast even leaves off NBC Sports Network, which it owns, on its lower-tiered subscriptions in the Philadelphia market if not also others. But I get FS1, which they do not own. Huh? Can you say greed and terrible marketing decision!? If it were not for the World Cup coming this June, I would be complaining a lot more.

For the CFL, by not accommodating me and others to pay $5 per month more to access the CFL or anything else on ESPN+, they would be leaving money on the table all because like more folks than ever I don't want to pay for all the other ESPN crap. Like me, we'll find the content some other way much as I have done with very high success since 2010.

Will the cable and satellite people ever get it right and just make decent money anyway on charging people for only the content for which they wish to pay instead of trying to force ESPN and other crap on us for some bundled fee only to offer more up-sells? ???
Best Regards, Paolo

Paolo X

The $5/month streaming service ESPN+ says 200 games on their website, but that is not possible.  I assume they just mean the full season.  Currently, there is no ESPN+ app for Roku.

The linear ESPN2 and ESPNews will show a total of maybe 25-30 games live but the concern is that without ESPN+, there is no way of accessing the rest.

ESPN+ has just opened and there are already complaints from viewers who used to be able to watch lesser-popular sports but now cannot since those events moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+.  That confirms what ESPN previously stated in that there will be different content between ESPN3 and ESPN+.  Could there be some overlap?  Only if we are lucky will the CFL show up on both services, but we will likely have to wait for the season to start before definitely knowing one way or another.

I am expecting that if you want to view the full 2018 CFL season in the US, you must subscribe to ESPN+.
I believe you are correct though we shall see.

It appears to be such an awkward but hardly surprising set-up by the cable and satellite industry to charge subscribers for the ESPN channels (and other crappy channels in some bigger bundle) and then charge them a bit more for ESPN+ instead of just charging people directly without cable for the content on ESPN+!

This scheme sounds no different fundamentally than the old $10 per month "sports package" up-sell after your bill for ESPN channels plus all the crap you did not watch, instead of more sports channels that you really wanted in that "bundle," after your bill was just hiked a certain number of dollars per month.

Paolo X

The more I look into this the more it just looks like another way to access ESPN3 content without a cable subscription, and it won't affect how you already receive it. If this is the case — and the plus.espn.com site is unclear about it — it's a good thing, and just another breakaway from the cable model.

https://www.cutcabletoday.com/espn3-live-stream/
If this is the case and it's easily accessible like that without a cable subscription or even with a cable subscription that does not include ESPN channels as have I, it makes all the sense in the world. I'm thinking they'll screw it up though.

Packman

The $5/month streaming service ESPN+ says 200 games on their website, but that is not possible.  I assume they just mean the full season.  Currently, there is no ESPN+ app for Roku.

The linear ESPN2 and ESPNews will show a total of maybe 25-30 games live but the concern is that without ESPN+, there is no way of accessing the rest.

ESPN+ has just opened and there are already complaints from viewers who used to be able to watch lesser-popular sports but now cannot since those events moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+.  That confirms what ESPN previously stated in that there will be different content between ESPN3 and ESPN+.  Could there be some overlap?  Only if we are lucky will the CFL show up on both services, but we will likely have to wait for the season to start before definitely knowing one way or another.

I am expecting that if you want to view the full 2018 CFL season in the US, you must subscribe to ESPN+.
I believe you are correct though we shall see.

It appears to be such an awkward but hardly surprising set-up by the cable and satellite industry to charge subscribers for the ESPN channels (and other crappy channels in some bigger bundle) and then charge them a bit more for ESPN+ instead of just charging people directly without cable for the content on ESPN+!

This scheme sounds no different fundamentally than the old $10 per month "sports package" up-sell after your bill for ESPN channels plus all the crap you did not watch, instead of more sports channels that you really wanted in that "bundle," after your bill was just hiked a certain number of dollars per month.
This whole roll out irks me too.  I could stomach it more if ESPN charged customers who are currently subscribers to ESPN somewhere between $0-$1.99......maybe even $2.99 for ESPN+.  However, to charger current ESPN subscribers the same price as non-subscribers just seems to be a huge money grab to me.  Regardless, I'll probably sign up during the CFL season and 'grin and bear it'.  While signed up, I'll take advantage of the MLS access and 30-30 access.  Then when CFL is done, I will unsubscribe.......

I'm not subscribing until the CFL releases the broadcast schedule (beginning of the CFL season) and I'm holding out hope that some games will be on the linear networks, ESPN3 and ESPN+.  However, I know the chances of that are slim to none..........all games that were on ESPN3 will move to ESPN+ :( with a smattering of games on the linear channels.  Until confirmed, I'm waiting.

depopulationINC

The more I look into this the more it just looks like another way to access ESPN3 content without a cable subscription, and it won't affect how you already receive it. If this is the case — and the plus.espn.com site is unclear about it — it's a good thing, and just another breakaway from the cable model.

https://www.cutcabletoday.com/espn3-live-stream/
If this is the case and it's easily accessible like that without a cable subscription or even with a cable subscription that does not include ESPN channels as have I, it makes all the sense in the world. I'm thinking they'll screw it up though.
ESPN+ is specifically being promoted as a cable cutter platforn
 


Users Online

70 Guests, 8 Users (9 Spiders)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
SeaFiddle, Cool, mycko75, papazoola, Lennywasout, Mightygoose, ExPat, sth1988, Google (9)

Most Online Today: 137. Most Online Ever: 489 (Nov 26 2017, 08:38 PM)