Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Not grateful for the commercials Author: voy vey [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09:51:37 11/15/24 Fri In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Three and A Half Hour Football Games" on 13:00:51 11/14/24 Thu I'm not grateful for the commercials, because: 1) I PAY a monthly fee for ESPN+. Commercials belong on free TV. (And keep this to yourself, but if the commercials are needed because monthly fee doesn't fill the Disney coffers enough, I'd gladly pay more to have no commercials.) 2) Half the commercials are Ivy League fluff. I think people watching Ivy League sports on ESPN+ don't need to be persuaded to have a positive opinion of Ivy League sports. Complete waste of time. 3) Completely anecdotal, but it feels like there are more--but shorter--commercial timeouts in these games on ESPN+ than there are on "real" broadcasts. Breaks are often 2 minutes instead of 3, but they seem to be more frequent, thus disrupting game flow more often and creating more downtime for the in-person fans. The NCAA moved to address the increasing run time of games by letting the game clock run after first downs except in the last 2 minutes of a half. But then, they negated much of the benefit by adding a two-minute timeout (more commercials while players stand around...yay!). Timing football games should undergo a major re-think, but we seem to be stuck in a mindset of "it is this way because it's always been this way." Stopping the clock after incomplete passes or out-of-bounds plays was instituted because of the extra time it would take to retrieve the ball from a far-flung location and spot it for the next play, compared to a run up the middle. For decades, we've had dozens of balls available at a moment's notice; there's no longer a need for such stoppages. Injuries, penalties, and the ever-increasing endless replay reviews are the only valid reasons to stop the game clock. There's my curmudgeonly five cents (inflation). Now, get off my lawn, you darn kids. I've got clouds to yell at. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Quaker62 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:07:03 11/15/24 Fri Regarding your last sentence: Joe Paterno, when speaking to an alumni group about how they can best support the program, said "we need your money, just not your two cents." Same goes for ESPN+ [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:44:54 11/15/24 Fri Cable stations are not "free tv." And they have commercials. And its even tougher for Dartmouth fans, as we generally get three commercials: Engelberth Construction, the Richards Group, and Ivy fluff. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:31:38 11/16/24 Sat I consider cable to be in the same realm as broadcast. You're paying for the delivery of channels, individual channel carriage fees are generally pennies per month (excluding ESPN). Streaming, on the other hand, costs much more for one product, more akin to the old cable "premium" channels like HBO, which were commercial-free. For what ESPN+ costs, there's no justification (IMO) for commercials, especially on low-demand content like Ivy sports and other FCS conferences. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Lion Rooter [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:31:17 11/17/24 Sun everything is now monetized - remember NHL hockey - the boards were white -- now ads abound -- even PBS has commercials for pete's sake! Agree it is annoying -- but apparently it costs a lot to field a football team -but I do shudder when the guy with the flourescent mitt comes on the field - it kills momentum. Some people are saying remove ads from the beginning of movies but I remember people booing when a local jewelry store ad came on at the flics. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]