Just dawned on me that there are no games on SEC+ as you would expect for the SEC teams' home games. More than ever I think placing these games on ESPN+ is simply a choice by ESPN to make people pay for it that don't already have it.
Ocalaman is my buddy..has done pbp for me when I had other things going on..and he is super knowledgeable about softball
SEC+ broadcasts only SEC events. ESPN+ broadcasts a far greater range of events. For example I can watch the Texas Tech regional on ESPN+. It costs $13.80 extra per month and for me is worth it. And I have no buffering problems.
Not sure I agree with that. Some regional games are on the SEC Network. I see no obvious reason why the other games at SEC home stadiums, such as our game, can't be broadcast on SEC+. It is done all the time during regular season. What's the difference other than greed? This is just an academic discussion. I purchase ESPN+ every month as there are too many games and events on it that I don't want to miss. Edit: Only thing I can think of is it may give a visiting team, such as Mercer in our case, the means to see the game on ESPN+ as they always do and they might not have SEC Network and SEC+. Questionable reasoning, though, since there are several games on the SEC Network and the ACC Network and, for instance, all of USF's games are on ESPN+ but when they play at KSP during the season it will never be on ESPN+....just SEC Network and more likely on SEC+ since it isn't considered a major game. Again, I can't discern a logical reason why the whole system changes from the constant during regular season to regionals. Except for a way for ESPN to rake in more bucks.
That makes sense. But what if neither of the paired top-16 seeded teams advance? Suppose Eastern Illinois wins the Austin regional and USC Upstate wins the Clemson regional? Granted pigs will fly first, but just out of curiousity, what would happen?
If they both made bids the team that beat the higher seed would host. If only one bid--they would host. If none bid--I can't remember what they do in that case.
I would imagine since they are both 4 seeds it would come down to who has the better facility. NCAA has certain criteria stadiums have to meet in order to host regionals/super regionals though.
I'm assuming you like them giving UF 70 million or so per year. They have to get the money from somewhere.
ESPN Press just announced commentating teams for each regional:Batter Up: ESPN Presents Every Pitch of the NCAA Softball Regionals on the #RoadToWCWS We got Aleshia Ocasio and Krista Blunk. Don't think I've listened to a game called by Blunk
Lol, I don’t particularly care for any huge corporations either, but most of them provide services we refuse to live without. Disney/espn provides a bunch of them. They’re probably making a lot more off your service subscription than they would off the + sub though. If you really want to hurt them, cancel your tv sub too.
Easy for you to say! I have YouTubeTV instead of Hulu+Live TV because I would rather give money to Google than Disney and I have very little positive to say about Google either. And, yes, I know that Google has to pay Disney something for the broadcast rights to Disney-owned channels; but I do my personal protests where and when I can and in my feeble mind it's worthwhile. It doesn't do you or anybody else any good to try to change my mind or even understand my thinking on this.
You beat me to it. Same comment. Aleshia is pretty good and knowledgeable. But she has a very unique style. She has the same very low key way of talking. You could light a firecracker under her butt and her tone would never change. Which is for the better, I guess. At least it isn't fake emotion going crazy on a passed ball with nobody on base, or whatever.
