WGN getting 20 games this year and screwing the out of town viewers

[bierboy]

This is one of the shittiest moves yet -- those of us who are out of town fans now getting shafted for 20 games next season since WGN-TV is getting so many more than they have in the past. Unbelievable....I'm ready to spit darts at McDouchebag for this shitty move. He has no clue....</p>


 </p>


And, yeah it's the NHL that is forcing this issue, but it's the marketing dept. that allows these assholes to take so many games. Do they have ANY IDEA how they're screwing the out of town fans?</p>

 

[Tater]

Not only that, but the coverage on WGN is horseshit.</p>

 

[R K]

I'm guessing Rockford is out for all 20 of those games as well.  Yikes!</p>

 

[bierboy]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="R K" data-cid="208367" data-time="1377891897">
<div>


I'm guessing Rockford is out for all 20 of those games as well.  Yikes!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Yeah, this really stinks.</p>

 

[R K]

Not to mention Center Ice will black them out as well.  That's a shitty situation for sure.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

The worst is how they have the kids from Devry running the cameras and such.

 

[bookjones]

Eh, I just as easily turn the argument and say that non-cable/non-satellite (for almost 20 yrs now for me!) sports fans have for decades now been screwed by all the major sports leagues except the NFL (who as usual are the only league with a fucking clue) by allowing games and Playoffs to be almost exclusively on pay TV. Tennis too has mostly gone this route. All of it has been to my chagrin. **** pay TV!  :icon-twisted:</p>


 </p>


But seriously, I don't understand why more fans don't just give up the ghost and get year-long subscriptions to HockeyStreams either for their primary hockey viewing or as a suppliment to their Pay TV programming. It is IMO pretty much THE BEST and in the end for what you get pretty nominal $100 a hockey fan can spend. It's the price of one ticket and evening at the UC. EVERY NHL game both home and away play-by-play in real-time and archived for the whole year for your perusal, full-length/condensed/highlight versions of the archived games, Olympics, World Championships, some KHL, WJCs, Spengler Cup, various other tournaments etc. which are all also archived. AND even better they decided this summer to continue their 2012-13 lockout solution contingency plan and continue to carry all the AHL! and CHL games (HALLELUJAH---I was praying for this after being spoiled last season) live and via archive (except QMJHL gms are live only, not archived). There's a 2nd party HS web app which at least on my Galaxy phone looks great. The NHL feeds are HD unless not offered in HD by the original broadcaster. You can watch them on their player, 2nd party players, stream though VLC, Roku, Xbox, PS3, etc. Been subscribing for years now and every year as they improve the servers the quality of the NHL feeds and options has only gotten better (there's pretty much nothing that can make AHL and some of the other league feeds better though, lol). And to top it off you can pay via PayPal rather than giving out new cc info. WIN-WIN all around. It's really a no-brainer. </p>

 

[bierboy]

The point is that the number of games we've gotten used to viewing the past several years is being reduced by a substantial number. I don't want to pay any more than I already am, and I won't cut the cable (yet) especially since I'm an invested TiVo user...</p>

 

[bookjones]

Well there's always a flipside to the coin is all I'm sayin'---though I freely admit I am in a non-pay TV minority. For me having more broadcasts on regular ole antenna/network broadcasting like WGN and NBC are perfect and much appreciated. I like being able to just turn on the TV and not having to watch on a computer to large HD monitor or by running a connection from computer to Roku to TV. Also, since I have a TV hard drive I can record these broadcast signal games (which I guess doesn't matter because of my HS subscription but is still a plus at the time). </p>


 </p>


Eh, I don't know but it seems to me like it's not too much to ask to have a mere quarter of a pro team's games available for regular TV broadcasting to it's market and this move to give WGN more Hawks games may bring it more in line percentages-wise with what the other teams allow to local TV like the Bulls/Sox (between WGN and WCIU) and the Cubs (WGN)? </p>


 </p>


IDK. Maybe it's just a one season experiment thing? Perhaps next year they will resort back to the scheduling you've grown more accustomed to.</p>

 

[bierboy]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bookjones" data-cid="208400" data-time="1377983761">
<div>


Well there's always a flipside to the coin is all I'm sayin'---though I freely admit I am in a non-pay TV minority. For me having more broadcasts on regular ole antenna/network broadcasting like WGN and NBC are perfect and much appreciated. I like being able to just turn on the TV and not having to watch on a computer to large HD monitor or by running a connection from computer to Roku to TV. Also, since I have a TV hard drive I can record these broadcast signal games (which I guess doesn't matter because of my HS subscription but is still a plus at the time). </p>


 </p>


Eh, I don't know but it seems to me like it's not too much to ask to have a mere quarter of a pro team's games available for regular TV broadcasting to it's market and this move to give WGN more Hawks games may bring it more in line percentages-wise with what the other teams allow to local TV like the Bulls/Sox (between WGN and WCIU) and the Cubs (WGN)? </p>


 </p>


IDK. Maybe it's just a one season experiment thing? Perhaps next year they will resort back to the scheduling you've grown more accustomed to.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>


You're missing the point -- in the other sports, out of the Chicago-land area, viewers can still watch the Bulls, White Sox and Cubs on WGN. But you cannot watch the Blackhawks on WGN (outside of Chicago) due to NHL restrictions. And McDoucheBag KNOWS this, yet he still allows WGN to carry more of the Hawks games....this screwing the out of town Hawks fans.</p>

 

[bookjones]

No, I understood your point but it's the same case anyone who is a fan of any Chicago team but doesn't live in the immediate market can make. As far as I am concerned that just basically goes with the territory of being a long-distance fan. Not saying it doesn't suck for out of town fans but as someone who lives in-market and also happens to not have pay TV I care more about more games being freely available here. I really can't be outraged by a hometown sports franchise making more games available to more of it's local audience on broadcast TV. . .but then I am not an out of town fan so of course I don't have a problem with it.</p>

 

[bierboy]

Let's be realistic; the number of OTA viewers continues to be on the decline, even in large metro areas where there are lots of OTA choices. There's nothing to be gained by airing more Hawks games on an OTA station and more to gain by offering more games on cable/sat....</p>

 

[bookjones]

I already conceded OTA viewers are a minority. For the vast majority of in-market fans they will watch the games on their cable/satellite versions of WGN so the Hawks lose nothing in terms of their local audience but can pick up some OTA even while pissing off and blacking out some out of town viewers. Your argument is likely correct about OTA size but I'd argue that cable/satellite viewers are fast becoming a relic of the TV experience past and those numbers are in decline with more and more people admitting every year that they are giving up conventional cable/satellite and going with Netflix, Hulu, Apple TV, Amazon, etc. in addition to other streaming formats. Especially with all of the major sports leagues having online packages just like TV packages. </p>


 </p>


In any event, whether a person officially does something like HockeyStreams or not there is never not a Hawks regular season game that doesn't have multiple online streams available for free so as far as I am concerned, any fan anywhere can actually see all the Hawks games if they want to.</p>

 

[IceHogsFan]

Are you f'n kidding me???</p>


 </p>


I am certainly going to have my voice heard.</p>

 

[bierboy]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bookjones" data-cid="208404" data-time="1377986347">
<div>


 </p>


In any event, whether a person officially does something like HockeyStreams or not there is never not a Hawks regular season game that doesn't have multiple online streams available for free so as far as I am concerned, any fan anywhere can actually see all the Hawks games if they want to.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Yeah, but the quality (if you DON'T choose to subscribe to HockeyStreams) is VERY poor. And you can't find hockey on any of those alternate video sources you quote (Hulu, Netflix, etc.)...</p>

 

[bookjones]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bierboy" data-cid="208406" data-time="1377990037">
<div>


Yeah, but the quality (if you DON'T choose to subscribe to HockeyStreams) is VERY poor. And you can't find hockey on any of those alternate video sources you quote (Hulu, Netflix, etc.)...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Well then I really don't know what to tell ya? First and foremost you're a Hawks fan and you naturally want to see all their games. On the one hand though you've already stated you don't want to pay more for your TV and do the essentially $9/mo for HockeyStreams which is totes understandable and your fiscal prerogative but on the other hand you don't want to miss those 20 games so to my mind it becomes a beggars can't be choosers scenario where you are at the stream quality mercy of the people who kindly enough put them up every game which you are also free to decline doing. Your situation reminds me in a way of how I have felt about following the Hogs for years now in that I desperately wanted to catch some prospects action but am clearly am not in-market for their games and also absolutely refused to pay AHL Live several hundred a year for mostly scoreboard-quality feeds so I had to compensate by listening to their radio broadcasts, watching highlight videos on YT, reading the Rockford press, and only catching a few games on broadcast TV when they played the Wolves. Until HS thankfully started streaming the AHL games in 2012-13 in my experience of hunting all over the interwebz for ways to see various prospect games AHL streams are for all intents an purposes, non-existent except for the occasional mega-popular franchise.</p>

 

[R K]

It pretty much blows ass WGN is not available, and going further they black out Center Ice, a service you do pay for.</p>


 </p>


I feel for you folks it's a dumb fucking policy.</p>

 

[mikita's helmet]

so, if I live out of town, WA state in my case, and I subscribe to Center Ice, on 10/12 when WGN broadcasts the Hawks home game vs. the Sabres, if Center Ice is broadcasting the MSG Sabres broadcast on one of its channels, I should be able to watch that right, or on 11/23 when the Hawks are in Vancouver, if CBC's  HNIC broadcast is scheduled on one of Center Ice's channels, I should be able to see that </p>


 </p>


...right?</p>


 </p>


...wrong?</p>

 

[CLWolf81]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Mikita's Helmet" data-cid="208412" data-time="1378021151">
<div>


so, if I live out of town, WA state in my case, and I subscribe to Center Ice, on 10/12 when WGN broadcasts the Hawks home game vs. the Sabres, if Center Ice is broadcasting the MSG Sabres broadcast on one of its channels, I should be able to watch that right, or on 11/23 when the Hawks are in Vancouver, if CBC's  HNIC broadcast is scheduled on one of Center Ice's channels, I should be able to see that </p>


 </p>


...right?</p>


 </p>


...wrong?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


If you are in Washington, this won't apply. You should be able to reach the usual CSN feeds on Center Ice during most games because your in Washington. Sometimes, however, you will get the HNIC feed instead just because its there. Either way, you should be fine. Heck, you will likely be able to view the other team's coverage should you hate having Pat Foley sounding drunk by the first puck drop.

 </p>


If you are anywhere within Blackhawks jurisdiction (which you, Mikita, are not), however, it does apply. And its a big chunk of excess games they would black out for the people outside Chicago, I can tell you that. IHF has major reasons to be angry about this.</p>


 </p>


And of course, because your in Washington, you aren't considered within the range of the Blackhawks market. If anything, you MIGHT get Vancouver's blackouts, if any, but I don't know anything about their market spread. </p>


 </p>


I've had Center Ice for two seasons, and living in Chicago, they force us to watch the games on CSN or WGN when they apply. Never am I allowed to watch the other team's footage against the Hawks, as they black out the opponent's footage as I am in Chicago. </p>

 

[mikita's helmet]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="CLWolf81" data-cid="208420" data-time="1378138780">


If you are anywhere within Blackhawks jurisdiction (which you, Mikita, are not), however, it does apply. And its a big chunk of excess games they would black out for the people outside Chicago, I can tell you that. IHF has major reasons to be angry about this.
</p></blockquote>
Thanks, Wolf.


I think Bierboy's thread title "...screwing the out of town viewer" confusededed me. I know that Rockford, and perhaps cities like Joliet, have had this issue in the past, and it will be even more so - 20 games, yikes - this season. Like IHF, and others like him, I'd be F'n PO'd if this situation applied to me. Hawks are reaaling screwing their fan base, what with ticket prices constantly rising and now screwing over their fans in the outlying region. dumb, dumb, dumb.


Thanks again for the clarification.