That's just effing great. The Stanford-VT Orange Bowl game was NOT on Broadcast OTA TV last night here in the Bay Area.

Something like 85% of houses have cable or satellite. Now some of them don't have ESPN but that is a lot different than PPV where people had to have cable and then the desire to spend a lot of money for one nights entertainment.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Far more cable households than Pay Per View ones, but by removing almost all of the games from Over-The-Air TV the system risks going the way of boxing.

100% of TV owners can receive free OTA broadcasts. Only 35% can receive PAY cable TV. 95% can receive PAY satellite. 0% can receive FREE cable. 0% can receive FREE satellite.

Obviously schools that receive public funds should broadcast sports on FREE OTA TV. They owe the taxpayers that much.

Broadcast networks are awarded DTV primary and secondary channels by the FCC and have plenty of capacity.

The new Congress should introduce legislation to mandate FREE OTA TV for college games.

free TV after BUYING the fancy digital antennae.

Terrible wrote:

Obviously schools that receive public funds should broadcast sports on FREE OTA TV. They owe the taxpayers that much.

Because public taxes pay 100% of the budget for college sports? Because free college sports broadcasts are some sort of public right? Because colleges should forego sports broadcast revenue and take money from other programs to pay for their athletic departments?

There's a gap in your argument that I'm having trouble filling.

The legislation should be written to mandate that schools that accept taxpayer funds provide FREE OTA broadcasts on OTA Digital TV or they forfeit all funds received that year. The schools do not have to accept taxpayer funds if they don't want it.

Actually there no such thing as a Digital Antennae. Any UHF antenna can receive UHF analog TV signals or UHF digital TV signals. I just use a cheap $1.98 two aerial indoor antenna with a magnetic base and I get every channel in the TV guide.

I live in a rural area near Columbus and some people were not happy they couldn't watch the game. Hard for a family to drive 20 miles to watch the game at a sports bar when they have a couple kids going to school the next day.

asdfasdfas wrote:

Something like 85% of houses have cable or satellite. Now some of them don't have ESPN but that is a lot different than PPV where people had to have cable and then the desire to spend a lot of money for one nights entertainment.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Far more cable households than Pay Per View ones, but by removing almost all of the games from Over-The-Air TV the system risks going the way of boxing.

Yeah, technically I have cable, but I have a 13 channel basic package, only because I can only get one over-the-air station with an antenna. I don't have ESPN so as a result I have not watched a single bowl game this year. I probably would have watched a few if they were on network TV.

Less than 1/3 of US households pay for cable/sat/adsl TV service. 95% get over-the-air channels via broadcast. Looks like college football can't compete with reality shows. What a shame that the BCS has killed college football.

I guess I knew that Ohio was a backwater place, but are you really telling me that there are an appreciable number of people in Ohio who a) do not have internet (you can watch the game online), b) do not have cable, and c) live so damn far from civilization that it is a 20 mile drive to the nearest establishment with a cable television? Is it still 1937 in Ohio?

And if you had espn how many would you have watched. Not having espn is a good proxy for someone that doesn't care to watch sports on TV. M

Mr. Obvious wrote:

asdfasdfas wrote:

Something like 85% of houses have cable or satellite. Now some of them don't have ESPN but that is a lot different than PPV where people had to have cable and then the desire to spend a lot of money for one nights entertainment.

Yeah, technically I have cable, but I have a 13 channel basic package, only because I can only get one over-the-air station with an antenna. I don't have ESPN so as a result I have not watched a single bowl game this year. I probably would have watched a few if they were on network TV.

The NCAA has lost sight of their mission to serve the public which pays their salaries and provides for their families. They've become a bunch of greedy bastards by accepting Hollywood TV money and allowing Hollywood to exclude 2/3rds of the public.

Less than 1/3 of US households pay for cable/sat/adsl TV service. 95% get over-the-air channels via broadcast. Looks like college football can't compete with reality shows. What a shame that the BCS has killed college football.

Terrible wrote:

The legislation should be written to mandate that schools that accept taxpayer funds provide FREE OTA broadcasts on OTA Digital TV or they forfeit all funds received that year. The schools do not have to accept taxpayer funds if they don't want it.

Why stop there? Based on your logic, people should be allowed to attend the games for free.

In fact their salaries and a big part of college athletics is directly or indirectly paid for by TV revenues, not tax money. Which is why TV money dictates so much of what college sports do.

slackerdom wrote:

free TV after BUYING the fancy digital antennae.

There is no such thing as a 'digital' antenna (fancy or otherwise - any antenna will do).

I bought my house about 10 years ago and it had the old relic antenna up on the roof that hadn't been used for awhile. I never subscribed to cable or satellite, just went up on the roof and put an extension on the antenna mast to raise the antenna a bit, pointed it , hooked up the antenna cable and, BOOYA, free OTA TV - for 10 years. I bought a HDTV a long time ago (early adopter) and now have a few in the house.

I streamed that Stanford-VT game (and others) using ESPN3. Not nearly as good as OTA HD. Any bowl game involving a public university football team should be REQUIRED to be broadcast on OTA TV.

I want my free TV!

That's fine. If the schools don't want taxpayer funds then they can elect to not take federal education funds. If it makes business sense then by all means leave the federal education system. It's a free country.

Service wrote:

That's fine. If the schools don't want taxpayer funds then they can elect to not take federal education funds.

Except that this is not what the law requires.

asdfasdfas wrote:

And if you had espn how many would you have watched. Not having espn is a good proxy for someone that doesn't care to watch sports on TV. M

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Yeah, technically I have cable, but I have a 13 channel basic package, only because I can only get one over-the-air station with an antenna. I don't have ESPN so as a result I have not watched a single bowl game this year. I probably would have watched a few if they were on network TV.

Probably about the same amount. I like watching sports on TV but I just don't watch TV that much in generally. I am often out doing other things.

Congress & Obama should change the law else college football will die and become a niche sport. Only allowing 1/3 of US TV viewers to watch the games is worst thing for any sport. Taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidize cablecos.