Not to mention other staff and the owners scrounging for their next meal. Yes, there are other trends but just follow the Benjamins

What ends up happening is, a pressure point develops. The NFL is testing the limit to see how much a fan will pay/go through to stay addicted. I kicked the habit, but the NFL is definitely winning this game. Don't get me wrong, I would love to watch it, but just not THAT much. I check in on the scores online, but I'm beyond living and dying for it as I once was. I like the ala cart Sling is now doing. I watched the Thursday college game for 5 bucks at home. Then last night, I decided I wanted to watch Indiana and went to a bar and spent $100. But in defense of the bar, it was more fun there. Hopefully things continue to trend that ala carte way. Right now, I am unable to buy free over the air ABC/CBS/Fox from Miami, which is crazy to me (what is wrong with more eyeballs on the commercials). A few years ago I had Aereo, which gave me Miami local channels streamed, for $8/mo. But for some reason, the ABC/CBS/NBC bunch didn't like that, sued, and shut Aereo down. I never could figure out the logic behind that. So we, along with many other people in the boonies, have no access to what most people call "free TV".

the game. And with so many people abandoning over the air TV to go to streaming-only and such packages -- the NFL is trying to reach that market. There were a couple regular season games on Peacock only, and 2 on Netflix only. And if those networks pony up $$$ in the next round of TV negotiations, there will be games there too. People said the same thing years ago when the first playoff games aired on non over-the-air networks such as ESPN.

I thought people were abandoning cable. OTA broadcasts seem to be gaining popularity, in my opinion.

Sports not so much, but the highest rated drama shows get far fewer viewers than the top shows in previous decades. And it will only continue to decrease -- Gen Z folks barely watch over the air TV at all.

I am using the term "over the air TV" to mean live TV that is broadcast from local towers via VHF/UHF signals and which can be watched for free using a receiving antenna. So while you are correct that "live TV" viewership is down compared to decades past, I believe among live TV viewers, the recent trend has been towards "over the air" broadcasts and away from cable TV. ** Edited by MP4VT2004 at 1/10/2026, 10:40:58 PM

Yes, the trend is away from cable, but it is towards streaming everything via whatever internet connection you have, with little differentiation between things like Youtube and Instagram and streaming services and packages that bundle up what used to be called cable channels. There really aren't a lot of people trending towards getting digital antennas and getting broadcast channels to their TVs, especially among younger people.

Here, we only use it for live sports. Everything else is available elsewhere, easier to access, and more reliable. Hell, in my neck of the woods we can't even get ABC over the air.

...in the same bandwidth a single analog channel used before. You will find some "cable" channels also being broadcast OTA.

That's sort of a joke, but honestly as ubiquitous as Prime is these days....and honestly probably has more subscribers than cable. I think this is a you problem.

PLAYOFF GAMES DO NOT BELONG ON STREAMING ONLY. This game should be on one of the 4 major networks, and Prime can simulcast. But playoff games being shown exclusively on Prime is completely unacceptable.

fans that couldn't stream if their life depended on it - my Dad being one of them. I get it with a handful of regular season games, but the playoffs should be accessible to everyone.

There are plenty of people watching this broadcast that would not be able to watch it if is was only available OTA on one of the big 4 networks.

My point being, being on Prime is no more exclusive or restrictive than a game being on basic cable (ESPN) 25 years ago... ** Edited by JoesterVT at 1/10/2026, 7:11:41 PM