teams and rivalry games. Even if you lose, you will get good TV ratings that pay more money. The SEC is going to make sure quality wins matter a lot in the playoff selection too. Don’t be late to the party, adapt now. Just like the NFL finally went to Dual Threat QB’s, skate to where the puck is going, not where it’s been or even where it is right now. Ride the current waves or drown fighting them. ** Edited by Stech at 6/18/2025, 9:17:38 AM

Streaming is becoming less and less. Streaming services are adding more and more linear channels, increasing their prices to match, and therefore becoming more like the cable services that they are trying to replace. Live sporting events seems to be the main thing keeping linear TV alive, whether it's on cable or through streaming services. As long as streaming services are relying on linear channels to provide live sporting events, cable will still be able to compete. Cable services will shrink, but they will still be able to compete.

Features one vs the other. Between the two I still prefer cable vs YT. Functionally cable options ( RE FF PAUSE etc) work more smoothly . My universal remote works great with cable but not so much with YT. I have to use the Samsung TV remote for YT. I’m sure we will eventually move away from Xfinity, but I’m guessing as our YT trial ends we’ll stay with Cable for the near future.

We cut cable a couple of years ago, but mainly because we just don't really watch much TV anymore, particularly now that I have sworn off college sports. I pretty much only watch some golf, a couple of shows on Discovery, and everything else is YouTube videos. I tried a free trial of Hulu and thought the interface was absolutely terrible. I have a Discovery+ subscription, and it is fairly clunky. Like you, I hate having to click through a bunch of menus to find the show I want to watch...or worse, having to type in a search using a remote. If cable hadn't gotten so expensive, I'd most likely still have it. But, instead, I will just boycott all of it and watch free content on YouTube, and hopefully learn a thing or two in the process.

You might be surprised at the content. Clearly you get the 4 major networks (plus the CW), but there are a lot of "cable" channels that now appear in the digital atmosphere. I think I get 60 OTA channels. But on the other hand, you don't get the ESPN channels, or most of the big cable channels. If ESPN ever offers their suite of channels as a stand alone streaming package, you could watch almost all of the VT games.

I prefer the older remotes that give greater control instead of the newer "minimal control buttons" remotes. I use an Apple TV 4K on my den television, and I'm not a fan of that remote either. I ended up purchasing an aftermarket Function (brand) remote to control the Apple device. It appears Samsung tried to emulate the Apple Remote, going from a full function remote to one that most people hate. So I guess my recommendation is to find an aftermarket remote that works well with YTTV. Look for reviews for ones that work well with Samsung and YTTV before purchasing. Or you can go with a 3rd party device like a Roku.

Don't know if they are 100% compatible with all of the functions, but they seem to do all of the basic functions.

since, with streaming vs. legacy cable and broadcast OTA, you have an entirely different set of middle men with their hands out who have to wet their beaks. I think the changes will be significant - if you have any doubt, just look at the enormous trouble Hollywood is having right now and likely will continue to have. The industry is experiencing intense pain in the transition from physical delivery to digital delivery, and the entire system that existed for 100 years has basically been uprooted, and nobody knows what to do about it. The music industry went through the same thing in the late 90's with the internet's rise to prominence and Napster, and I still don't think they've really got it figured out - artists are making something like 1/500th of a penny for every minute their songs get streamed on Apple Music, Spotify, or YouTube. Something to consider about those two examples - Silicon Valley basically calls the shots for both now. That gives you an idea who will ultimately be calling the shots when it comes to broadcasting live sporting events.

** Edited by EDGEMAN at 6/17/2025, 1:17:55 PM

It would be a tough choice. Obviously one has the Hokies. But other than that, I would rather watch an SEC game than an ACC game. I just can’t get excited about the likes of Boston College vs Louisville.

...main channels. You also get the B10N, the Fox sports channels, and the CBS Sports channel.

...and they both offer a practically identical channel lineup. You have to pay for the content whether streaming or via cable. What streaming does is save you the cost of renting the DVRs, cable boxes, and other assorted hardware. You can also save by buying your modem instead of renting one from your broadband provider. I ran the cost when I was a cable subscriber, and found the rental cost would have taken me about 7 months to pay for a new router. Routers last for years, so when it dies you just buy another one and you're probably hundreds of dollars ahead. But be advised that you do have to make a call to get your new modem recognized by your broadband provider, but that's usually a fairly quick process.

streaming-only ESPN subscription, along with all the ESPN+ content.

The only reason I have a TV at the house is because of family members that like to watch TV. Though I still really enjoy watching NHL hockey I must admit. My enjoyment of watching college football and college basketball is waning due to the transfer portal. The transfer portal actually bothers me more than the players getting paid. If I lived by myself I would get rid of the TV!

#1 by a mile is watching youtube videos when i am in bed, just to relax ..maybe an hour from 9pm to 10pm #2 is watching CNBC while i eat breakfast #3 is football, Hokies and NFL, with very little else #4 is netflix or amazon prime for an occassiona movie that's pretty much it

I think 5-10 years may be a good amount of time for streamers to get their ducks in a row to finalize their version of live sports content. But as long as the NFL is in bed with Fox, ESPN, NBC and CBS, Broadcast TV will remain alive and with significant power. The NFL currently has deals through 2033, and I’d expect at least one more 10-12 year deal to take place afterwards. Being as the Power 2 and Big 12 deals end before 2033 and will almost certainly be renewed with the same broadcast TV partners the NFL has, I’d think it’s safe to say that broadcast and cable are fairly safe through 2040 (even if the numbers still are lost to streaming) I’ll be retiring in 2042 around when the next NFL contract deal ends. That might be the one that full sends everything to streaming. Probably won’t care near as much about it as I do now. Now, if the P2 strike a major deal with Netflix, YouTube or Prime TV and eschew the Big 4 sports broadcast companies around 2030-2032, that’ll be telling…. Or if a streamer buys sole rights to the CFP past 2032…. But with the ACC still with ESPN through 2036, I honestly don’t see that happening either. I think it all has 10-20 years left.

...ESPN & Fox will have to find replacement programming. But I don't think either P2 conference completely jumps ship. They'll just expand who broadcasts their content.

but, that's not necessarily the point. Even with the current contracts, you can stream the content vs. watching it on a cable box or antenna. How long do you anticipate we have until the majority of people watching NFL and college games are streaming them via internet connection vs. watching them on OTA broadcast or linear cable?

...a "pay" streaming service through that medium down the road? I receive both HD and SD digital cable channels via OTA broadcasts.

the question will be what the sports leagues will expect to be paid for their content to be streamed on those channels. If you go to, say, CBS.com now on an Autumn Sunday, you can access a free livestream of network CBS, but if they're playing an NFL game, you won't be able to see it on the free livestream, because the contract did not include remuneration to the NFL for free online streaming.

...but scrambled, and subscribers can "unlock" to get the "pay" broadcast sometime down the road. Would guess you would need to run the signal through something like an Apple TV or Amazon Firestick in order to descramble the signal. But a service like Starlink would probably make that obsolete. (Was thinking about rural subscribers without access to broadband.)