Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NFL Sunday Ticket’s last season (with DirectTV)


onmyown
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jesse said:

I’d shell out $400 a year to just stream all the games without signing up for directTV. I spend way more. Money going to sports bars every Sunday to watch the game ffs. 
 

Whoever gets the Sunday Ticket is definitely going to allow streaming since it’s how most people watch things anyways. Plus, Amazon and NBC have been doing it successfully for a few years now. 

You have had the ability to stream NFL Sunday Ticket without having DirecTV for years.  Comcast pissed me off so bad I went to DTV back around 2009.  I had it and Sunday Ticket up thru 2016.  Since then I've been with other providers and stream Sunday Ticket on my iPad and thru my Playstation to my TV.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Sunday ticket for ages but got fed up with directv and left a few years ago.  Since I get the panthers locally, the red zone channel suffices but if the full games are ever available without directv and legal, then I'd love to have them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wes21 said:

You have had the ability to stream NFL Sunday Ticket without having DirecTV for years.  Comcast pissed me off so bad I went to DTV back around 2009.  I had it and Sunday Ticket up thru 2016.  Since then I've been with other providers and stream Sunday Ticket on my iPad and thru my Playstation to my TV.  

How?  I thought that was if you were in places that couldn't have satellite.  Admittedly I haven't tried so I don't know if that is just honor system or how they know.  But since I had directv in the past, I figured they know I could have it and choose not to.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until people in rural America can get Broadband services, satellite television will have a prominent place. Between Directv and Dish, close to 25 million people use it. 

AT&T just sold a 30% stake in directv.  Most think it is the precursor to selling the satellite service to Dish, at which point AT&T will have nothing to do with satellite TV and will heavily push AT&TV and HBOmax, their streaming services.

In any event, the NFL Sunday ticket will be available on another platform soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, w280sax said:

How?  I thought that was if you were in places that couldn't have satellite.  Admittedly I haven't tried so I don't know if that is just honor system or how they know.  But since I had directv in the past, I figured they know I could have it and choose not to.

Bingo. I tried to sign up for it, but couldn't since I live in an area where we have Dish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Texas now, so am I understanding this correctly - there is not going to be a way to watch Panthers games this year without subbing to DirecTV proper? No individual streaming package like in previous years?

I wish there was a way just to subscribe to individual teams games, like just a Panthers package or NFC South package for like 100 bucks. I’d be all over that.

Edited by joemac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, joemac said:

I live in Texas now, so am I understanding this correctly - there is not going to be a way to watch Panthers games this year without subbing to DirecTV proper? No individual streaming package like in previous years?

I wish there was a way just to subscribe to individual teams games, like just a Panthers package or NFC South package for like 100 bucks. I’d be all over that.

The NFL will remain reticent to offer that kind of product for fear of having a dip in both TV deal value and ad revenue. 

I do think it is sort of inevitable that it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

If you don't allow streaming in the modern era, you will lose advertising revenue and subscribers. 

The days of the majority of people having cable or satellite TV are coming to an end.

I think the days of TV channels are coming to a end as well. They have for years forced cable and satellite to buy huge packages for one or two decent channels. Local TV is the same. Now people have moved on to more of a content based watching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Snake said:

I think the days of TV channels are coming to a end as well. They have for years forced cable and satellite to buy huge packages for one or two decent channels. Local TV is the same. Now people have moved on to more of a content based watching. 

Happy to chat the world of tv business models over in the Huddle Lounge or Nerdvana forums so as not to clog up the Panthers forum with non-football related conversation.

nutshell: Channels aren't going away. How you access them or what they're bundled with is a different story. And think of "bundles" as yesterday's cable-TV packages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rocky Davis said:

when AT&T bought DirecTV I was out.

They don't know anything about customer loyalty.

Yep.  Att ruined  dtv...from support to pricing etc 

had dtv for many years and other than the outages due to t storms. No technical gripes 

I’m a golfer and tennis player so being able to get the extra rds of  coverage in the big tournaments other than the same four players over and over again is great 

I’ve loved Sunday ticket as I have to be in CA frequently 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Direct TV sucks.  I ditched them about 8 years ago.  I had the BASIC package and they would go up $10 a year.  So over a period of time I was paying $180 a month just for their most vanilla package with ZERO premium channel upgrades.  I love how some companies reward loyal customers with continuous rate hikes just so they can lure in new customers with introductory offers.  I briefly tried U-verse before cutting the cable altogether and I couldn't be happier without a huge monthly cable/satellite bill!!!

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
    • Won’t stop until people stop buying overpriced poo.
×
×
  • Create New...