Cheapest way to stream ESPN?

[YeahBuddy]

We haven't paid for cable in many years. We spend little time watching tv. We do spend some money on streaming services but none of them allow me access to ESPN. So what is the cheapest way to stream ESPN? We currently have Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, and Roku. Thanks!

[dukeblue219]

SlingTV Orange is $45.99 and includes the ESPNs. Not sure if something like Fubo has a cheaper option but there's no $8.99 solution that's for sure.

[JoeJohnson]

Sling Orange has ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3. It does not include ESPNU, ESPNEWS if those are important at all. Price $45.99. first month is half off

[the_wiki]

Sports is the only thing cable has left, since all the best shows and movies are on streaming services. They aren’t going to let those contracts go.

Sling is the cheapest. The rest are $80+.

[jayjayc]

ESPN+ is $12/mo.

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... and-Prices

[sycamore]

What about a Disney+ESPN bundle?

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... RMB583A8HG

There are different bundles, maybe this one:
Disney Bundle Trio Basic: For $16.99/month, subscribers get Disney+ (With Ads), Hulu (With Ads), and ESPN+ (With Ads).

Not sure if "ESPN+" lets you view all the ESPN-ish things available.

ESPN+: Watch thousands of live sporting events, the complete 30 for 30 library, and on-demand sports content that includes games, news highlights, ESPN+ originals and more. You can stream directly on the ESPN app or website, or access content on the Hulu app*.

[CardinalRule]

I subscribe to Hulu + Live TV, but I agree that Sling is the cheapest way to get the ESPN “broadcast” networks (not to be confused with ESPN+ which I currently get with a Disney bundle and does not include the ESPN content you are probably looking for).

[quantAndHold]

ESPN+ is $12/mo.

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... and-Prices

ESPN+ is an add-on to ESPN, it doesn’t replace ESPN. Unless you really want to watch University of San Diego play Fresno State. ESPN+ would have that. It also has all the ESPN games on demand, if you subscribe to ESPN, so it is actually a useful add on.

But yeah, the cheapest way to get ESPN is Sling Orange.

[jayjayc]

ESPN+ is $12/mo.

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... and-Prices

ESPN+ is an add-on to ESPN, it doesn’t replace ESPN. Unless you really want to watch University of San Diego play Fresno State. ESPN+ would have that. It also has all the ESPN games on demand, if you subscribe to ESPN, so it is actually a useful add on.

But yeah, the cheapest way to get ESPN is Sling Orange.

Thank you for that clarification.

[coachd50]

What about a Disney+ESPN bundle?

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... RMB583A8HG

There are different bundles, maybe this one:
Disney Bundle Trio Basic: For $16.99/month, subscribers get Disney+ (With Ads), Hulu (With Ads), and ESPN+ (With Ads).

Not sure if "ESPN+" lets you view all the ESPN-ish things available.

ESPN+: Watch thousands of live sporting events, the complete 30 for 30 library, and on-demand sports content that includes games, news highlights, ESPN+ originals and more. You can stream directly on the ESPN app or website, or access content on the Hulu app*.

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

[YeahBuddy]

What about a Disney+ESPN bundle?

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... RMB583A8HG

There are different bundles, maybe this one:
Disney Bundle Trio Basic: For $16.99/month, subscribers get Disney+ (With Ads), Hulu (With Ads), and ESPN+ (With Ads).

Not sure if "ESPN+" lets you view all the ESPN-ish things available.

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

Thank coach! Sounds like sling orange is the way to go. Not sure it's worth $45/month though. We would watch it maybe an hour or two a week.

[MorgansRun]

If you can wait until probably the start of the next NFL season, ESPN Flagship will launch.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/espn-wi ... -2025.html

[mrmass]

https://www.suppose.tv/tv

Great website. Plug in the "channel" you want, it spits out what service carries it.

[TSR]

What about a Disney+ESPN bundle?

https://support.espn.com/hc/en-us/artic ... RMB583A8HG

There are different bundles, maybe this one:
Disney Bundle Trio Basic: For $16.99/month, subscribers get Disney+ (With Ads), Hulu (With Ads), and ESPN+ (With Ads).

Not sure if "ESPN+" lets you view all the ESPN-ish things available.

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

[A440]

Fubo has ESPN and ESPN2 + Foxsports and FS1 and NBC sports.

I believe there is now a Hulu+Disney+Fubo bundle available.

[Zosima]

If you can wait until probably the start of the next NFL season, ESPN Flagship will launch.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/espn-wi ... -2025.html

This will be the best solution when launched. Until then, Sling Orange will likely be the cheapest as the Venu service will not be launched.

[tj]

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

ESPN+ has all out of market NHL games and several exclusive national games, and it simulcasts most big games in most sports that are on ABC and some that are on ESPN. It's certainly not "without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch". It was never intended to be an ESPN replacement.

[count damoney]

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

ESPN+ has all out of market NHL games and several exclusive national games, and it simulcasts most big games in most sports that are on ABC and some that are on ESPN. It's certainly not "without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch". It was never intended to be an ESPN replacement.

I agree 1000%. I would gladly pay double for ESPN+ vs what I am paying. I watch a lot of NHL and luckily my favorite team is not in my home market, so I essentially get all the games except for the ones on NHL network.
I'm a big Women's college volleyball fan and ESPN+ carries a lot games and they are the exclusive provider of the first 3 rounds of the NCAA tournament.
They also carry a lot of NCAA hockey games and a lot of NCAA mens basketball games.
I find it great value for the money.

Not that I'm advocating anything illegal, but if you happen to have someone's provider login info, the ESPN app will let you watch everything that is on the flagship EPSN stations

[yankees60]

https://www.suppose.tv/tv

Great website. Plug in the "channel" you want, it spits out what service carries it.

Looks good. Thanks!

[quantAndHold]

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

Thank coach! Sounds like sling orange is the way to go. Not sure it's worth $45/month though. We would watch it maybe an hour or two a week.

I subscribe to Sling Orange and ESPN+ for the month of March every year, to watch March Madness. Then I cancel on April 7.

It’s perfect for that.

[FullsideCoverman]

If you can wait until probably the start of the next NFL season, ESPN Flagship will launch.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/espn-wi ... -2025.html

The article cited is from Feb 2024, and is quite out-dated. The situation evolves rapidly. The Disney/Fox/WBD bundle cited in the article was to be called Venu, was supposed to launch last September, was held up by a lawsuit filled by Fubo, which was resolved days ago when Disney bought Fubo, but was still at risk of being revived by Fubo competitors, and just this morning, the three companies announced that they are discontinuing Venu before it ever launched.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/10/disney- ... rvice.html

The user Zosima also noted that Venu is no more.

Disney still wants to launch a stand-alone ESPN, but given recent history, I don’t think we can count on it happening until it actually happens.

[tj]

Thank coach! Sounds like sling orange is the way to go. Not sure it's worth $45/month though. We would watch it maybe an hour or two a week.

I subscribe to Sling Orange and ESPN+ for the month of March every year, to watch March Madness. Then I cancel on April 7.

It’s perfect for that.

ESPN doesn't even carry March madness, unless you're referring to the women's tournament.

Mens tournament is aired by CBS, TBS, TNT, TruTV

[TSR]

ESPN+ has all out of market NHL games and several exclusive national games, and it simulcasts most big games in most sports that are on ABC and some that are on ESPN. It's certainly not "without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch". It was never intended to be an ESPN replacement.

I agree 1000%. I would gladly pay double for ESPN+ vs what I am paying. I watch a lot of NHL and luckily my favorite team is not in my home market, so I essentially get all the games except for the ones on NHL network.
I'm a big Women's college volleyball fan and ESPN+ carries a lot games and they are the exclusive provider of the first 3 rounds of the NCAA tournament.
They also carry a lot of NCAA hockey games and a lot of NCAA mens basketball games.
I find it great value for the money.

Not that I'm advocating anything illegal, but if you happen to have someone's provider login info, the ESPN app will let you watch everything that is on the flagship EPSN stations

I agree that ESPN+ has a lot of NHL. It *is* good for that, and I should have mentioned it. I don't watch much NHL personally but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. I DO watch some women's volleyball (the aforementioned small-college team) and you can sometimes catch some good games in markets that don't always make it to ESPN U. I like men's lacrosse, and ESPN+ has some but not all of the college games.

My point is that I have had many conversations with many different people who were confused about the product they just signed up for in the Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ bundle, thinking that they ought to have access to the sports that are on ESPN, when in fact what they have is hockey, less-loved sports from lower-tier colleges, the early hours of smaller golf tournaments, and the like. Conversations that go, "How do I watch Monday Night Football now that I have ESPN+?" The name --- the "plus" --- strongly suggests that you're getting ESPN and more, when in fact you're getting a selection of things that ESPN absolutely did not want to air. This may be semantics, but I'd note that someone in this thread proposed it as a solution to OP's problem and it definitely is not. It's a confusing name for the product and I think deliberately so.

[LuckyInLife]

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

My son is a Division 1 baseball player. I watch the games that I can't get to on ESPN+. The "+" has become the common nomenclature for streaming services, i.e. Disney+ Apple TV+ etc.

[dukeblue219]

Big Cable will do everything in their power to keep ESPN from launching a standalone streaming product, and seemingly will pay them as much as possible to avoid it happening.

When ESPN goes $19.99/mo the cable industry is dead and potentially linear TV in general.

[yankees60]

Big Cable will do everything in their power to keep ESPN from launching a standalone streaming product, and seemingly will pay them as much as possible to avoid it happening.

When ESPN goes $19.99/mo the cable industry is dead and potentially linear TV in general.

As a fan of only three teams -- one of them being the Yankees for which I've paid a lot of money to get their games on YES -- I have no use for ESPN except when that is the only way to see them. In other words, I'd be happy if ESPN went away and all their games were on YES. But none more games are getting fragmented away from YES like Apple TV and, maybe, something else I am forgetting.

[tj]

I agree 1000%. I would gladly pay double for ESPN+ vs what I am paying. I watch a lot of NHL and luckily my favorite team is not in my home market, so I essentially get all the games except for the ones on NHL network.
I'm a big Women's college volleyball fan and ESPN+ carries a lot games and they are the exclusive provider of the first 3 rounds of the NCAA tournament.
They also carry a lot of NCAA hockey games and a lot of NCAA mens basketball games.
I find it great value for the money.

Not that I'm advocating anything illegal, but if you happen to have someone's provider login info, the ESPN app will let you watch everything that is on the flagship EPSN stations

I agree that ESPN+ has a lot of NHL. It *is* good for that, and I should have mentioned it. I don't watch much NHL personally but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. I DO watch some women's volleyball (the aforementioned small-college team) and you can sometimes catch some good games in markets that don't always make it to ESPN U. I like men's lacrosse, and ESPN+ has some but not all of the college games.

My point is that I have had many conversations with many different people who were confused about the product they just signed up for in the Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ bundle, thinking that they ought to have access to the sports that are on ESPN, when in fact what they have is hockey, less-loved sports from lower-tier colleges, the early hours of smaller golf tournaments, and the like. Conversations that go, "How do I watch Monday Night Football now that I have ESPN+?" The name --- the "plus" --- strongly suggests that you're getting ESPN and more, when in fact you're getting a selection of things that ESPN absolutely did not want to air. This may be semantics, but I'd note that someone in this thread proposed it as a solution to OP's problem and it definitely is not. It's a confusing name for the product and I think deliberately so.

You are literally the only person I've heard that thought + should mean "and more". Paramount plus, Disney plus, Discovery plus...it's just the trend of naming streaming platforms...

[quantAndHold]

I subscribe to Sling Orange and ESPN+ for the month of March every year, to watch March Madness. Then I cancel on April 7.

It’s perfect for that.

ESPN doesn't even carry March madness, unless you're referring to the women's tournament.

Mens tournament is aired by CBS, TBS, TNT, TruTV

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

[yankees60]

ESPN doesn't even carry March madness, unless you're referring to the women's tournament.

Mens tournament is aired by CBS, TBS, TNT, TruTV

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

Been a Providence College fan continuously since 1960 (even while getting my undergraduate / graduate degrees at another college which at one point achieved being #1 in the country). With internet access get to watch everyone one of their games. But no other college games other than the finals or maybe also semi-finals. Also, watch all Celtics games so enough basketball for me to watch.

Judging by the prices for NCAA tournament games ... I'd bet that people watching men's college basketball is at an all-time high. The only better basketball being played in the United States is G League and NBA.

[YeahBuddy]

ESPN doesn't even carry March madness, unless you're referring to the women's tournament.

Mens tournament is aired by CBS, TBS, TNT, TruTV

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

I've never watched women's college basketball but I understand its popularity is growing. I've followed mens for decades, and always dreamed of attending in person, but change my mind as soon as I see those ticket prices

[MorgansRun]

If you can wait until probably the start of the next NFL season, ESPN Flagship will launch.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/07/espn-wi ... -2025.html

The article cited is from Feb 2024, and is quite out-dated. The situation evolves rapidly. The Disney/Fox/WBD bundle cited in the article was to be called Venu, was supposed to launch last September, was held up by a lawsuit filled by Fubo, which was resolved days ago when Disney bought Fubo, but was still at risk of being revived by Fubo competitors, and just this morning, the three companies announced that they are discontinuing Venu before it ever launched.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/10/disney- ... rvice.html

The user Zosima also noted that Venu is no more.

Disney still wants to launch a stand-alone ESPN, but given recent history, I don’t think we can count on it happening until it actually happens.

Sure, the Venu cancellation just happened, but the code named Flagship product will still be launched later this year.

https://frontofficesports.com/espn-teas ... -platform/

[dukeblue219]

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

Yes, March Madness continues to be a major television event holding pretty even in ratings over the last decade as TV in general has declined. The women's championship this year did beat the men's easily, though, which not everyone may realize. We shall see what happens in the post-Clark era.

[biscuit5]

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

Yes, March Madness continues to be a major television event holding pretty even in ratings over the last decade as TV in general has declined. The women's championship this year did beat the men's easily, though, which not everyone may realize. We shall see what happens in the post-Clark era.

comment may be statistically biased, as if one doesn't have the channels to watch the games, clearly 'viewership' would decrease. Stating as pretty sure March Madness requires TBS and TNT, I don't have those channels but if I did would prob watch those games.

[biscuit5]

ESPN: Sling Orange for sure, though its pricing just went up. I often get Sling for the college football season but honestly, this year due to the changing streaming landscape, many of the meaningful games seemed to be on network TV (barring most Bowl games). Not sure. In a way it made ESPN meaningless at times, even the SEC channel and similar etc.

That and Sling now seems to interweave (??) a bunch of free "junk" channels which offer little if anything, wasn't quite like that in the past so am not sure where this is headed. Have had good luck with Sling, but the free 'junk' just clutters up the interface etc.

[TSR]

I agree that ESPN+ has a lot of NHL. It *is* good for that, and I should have mentioned it. I don't watch much NHL personally but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. I DO watch some women's volleyball (the aforementioned small-college team) and you can sometimes catch some good games in markets that don't always make it to ESPN U. I like men's lacrosse, and ESPN+ has some but not all of the college games.

My point is that I have had many conversations with many different people who were confused about the product they just signed up for in the Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ bundle, thinking that they ought to have access to the sports that are on ESPN, when in fact what they have is hockey, less-loved sports from lower-tier colleges, the early hours of smaller golf tournaments, and the like. Conversations that go, "How do I watch Monday Night Football now that I have ESPN+?" The name --- the "plus" --- strongly suggests that you're getting ESPN and more, when in fact you're getting a selection of things that ESPN absolutely did not want to air. This may be semantics, but I'd note that someone in this thread proposed it as a solution to OP's problem and it definitely is not. It's a confusing name for the product and I think deliberately so.

You are literally the only person I've heard that thought + should mean "and more". Paramount plus, Disney plus, Discovery plus...it's just the trend of naming streaming platforms...

I am referencing the fifth and sixth posts in this thread, both of which displayed a belief that perhaps ESPN+ included the things that are on ESPN. I'm also referencing multiple conversations I've had with other people who were confused about what it included when they signed up for that bundle. I was confused as well when I purchased the bundle. I'd note that Disney+ contains almost all of Disney's output over the last century (except the movies that they like to pretend they never made) "plus" National Geographic, Marvel, Pixar, etc. Discovery Plus has essentially everything on Discovery, "plus" HGTV, Food Network, Animal Planet, etc. Truly "Discovery and more." Paramount Plus is generally terrible, but it does in fact have most of what CBS airs on it "plus" Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon and some other things. So it is not crazy to think that ESPN+ would be "ESPN plus more" just like all those other channels you referenced. Indeed, ESPN+ stands out like a bit of a sore thumb as the only name that means "nothing that is on ESPN."

I'm glad you get value from it. I get a little.

[yankees60]

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

I've never watched women's college basketball but I understand its popularity is growing. I've followed mens for decades, and always dreamed of attending in person, but change my mind as soon as I see those ticket prices

"but change my mind as soon as I see those ticket prices"

For certain! And, definitely a sign of how popular that men's basketball is that so many people willingly pay those prices. I'm shocked at how much the ticket prices are for regular season games!

[beyou]

Just a word of caution to the OP - ESPN+ is NOT ESPN. It does not grant subscribers to access to all things on ESPN. For example- one cannot view the college Football Playoff with ESPN+.

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

Depends what you like. Years ago I got a Sat Dish so I could get a regional sports network outside my area, just to watch college sports for a particular school of interest. Sat dish reception was terrible in bad weather and sometimes they changed the programming so I could no longer see what I wanted, so I dropped that. Didn't watch my favorite college sports for a long while, then ESPN+ gave me access once again ! There is a TON of college sports and lots of NHL ice hockey, both of which I love and not available anywhere in some cases.

OTOH, I hate regular ESPN because they mess up one of my other favorite sports. They broadcast a handful of MLB games, such that you need both ESPN and some other services combined to get all your MLB games. Then they sometimes force MLB to change the start times of games, usually forcing an 8pm start on a Sunday night so that fans attending the game need to be there really late on a Sunday evening. I would do anything to avoid ESPN getting a nickel from me, until they came up with ESPN+ which truly complements what's available to me. Cable ESPN should be called ESPN- due to their negative impact on MLB games.

[beyou]

I agree that ESPN+ has a lot of NHL. It *is* good for that, and I should have mentioned it. I don't watch much NHL personally but that doesn't mean it's not valuable. I DO watch some women's volleyball (the aforementioned small-college team) and you can sometimes catch some good games in markets that don't always make it to ESPN U. I like men's lacrosse, and ESPN+ has some but not all of the college games.

My point is that I have had many conversations with many different people who were confused about the product they just signed up for in the Hulu/Disney/ESPN+ bundle, thinking that they ought to have access to the sports that are on ESPN, when in fact what they have is hockey, less-loved sports from lower-tier colleges, the early hours of smaller golf tournaments, and the like. Conversations that go, "How do I watch Monday Night Football now that I have ESPN+?" The name --- the "plus" --- strongly suggests that you're getting ESPN and more, when in fact you're getting a selection of things that ESPN absolutely did not want to air. This may be semantics, but I'd note that someone in this thread proposed it as a solution to OP's problem and it definitely is not. It's a confusing name for the product and I think deliberately so.

You are literally the only person I've heard that thought + should mean "and more". Paramount plus, Disney plus, Discovery plus...it's just the trend of naming streaming platforms...

+1

[tj]

In my home we call it "ESPN Minus." I can't believe it is legally acceptable for them to refer to it as ESPN+ when it is absolutely not "ESPN and more" but rather "ESPN without any sporting contest you would ever want to watch." To be fair, my wife teaches at a small college that still has Division I athletics (although it probably shouldn't!), so it's fun to be able to see the occasional field hockey game from our school, but that's about the limit of ESPN+'s value in that bundle.

Depends what you like. Years ago I got a Sat Dish so I could get a regional sports network outside my area, just to watch college sports for a particular school of interest. Sat dish reception was terrible in bad weather and sometimes they changed the programming so I could no longer see what I wanted, so I dropped that. Didn't watch my favorite college sports for a long while, then ESPN+ gave me access once again ! There is a TON of college sports and lots of NHL ice hockey, both of which I love and not available anywhere in some cases.

OTOH, I hate regular ESPN because they mess up one of my other favorite sports. They broadcast a handful of MLB games, such that you need both ESPN and some other services combined to get all your MLB games. Then they sometimes force MLB to change the start times of games, usually forcing an 8pm start on a Sunday night so that fans attending the game need to be there really late on a Sunday evening. I would do anything to avoid ESPN getting a nickel from me, until they came up with ESPN+ which truly complements what's available to me. Cable ESPN should be called ESPN- due to their negative impact on MLB games.

Sunday Night Baseball moved from 8 pm ET to 7 pm ET a few years ago.

[beyou]

Depends what you like. Years ago I got a Sat Dish so I could get a regional sports network outside my area, just to watch college sports for a particular school of interest. Sat dish reception was terrible in bad weather and sometimes they changed the programming so I could no longer see what I wanted, so I dropped that. Didn't watch my favorite college sports for a long while, then ESPN+ gave me access once again ! There is a TON of college sports and lots of NHL ice hockey, both of which I love and not available anywhere in some cases.

OTOH, I hate regular ESPN because they mess up one of my other favorite sports. They broadcast a handful of MLB games, such that you need both ESPN and some other services combined to get all your MLB games. Then they sometimes force MLB to change the start times of games, usually forcing an 8pm start on a Sunday night so that fans attending the game need to be there really late on a Sunday evening. I would do anything to avoid ESPN getting a nickel from me, until they came up with ESPN+ which truly complements what's available to me. Cable ESPN should be called ESPN- due to their negative impact on MLB games.

Sunday Night Baseball moved from 8 pm ET to 7 pm ET a few years ago.

Yes in 2020. But by then I had already cut the cord and dropped ESPN. They punished fans for years, now we are punishing them for years by cutting the cord. Maybe in 2030 I’ll forgive them and change my “policy”. And maybe not even that soon, if they are still preventing fans of regional sports networks and mlb.tv from seeing games.

[quantAndHold]

Yes, March Madness continues to be a major television event holding pretty even in ratings over the last decade as TV in general has declined. The women's championship this year did beat the men's easily, though, which not everyone may realize. We shall see what happens in the post-Clark era.

comment may be statistically biased, as if one doesn't have the channels to watch the games, clearly 'viewership' would decrease. Stating as pretty sure March Madness requires TBS and TNT, I don't have those channels but if I did would prob watch those games.

I would assume most who have ESPN also have TBS and TNT, since all 3 of those are part of most basic cable packages.

[quantAndHold]

Yes, I’m talking about the women. Do people even watch men’s college basketball anymore?

I've never watched women's college basketball but I understand its popularity is growing. I've followed mens for decades, and always dreamed of attending in person, but change my mind as soon as I see those ticket prices

I went to see a top-ten women’s team play last week. Tickets were $6, and parking was $3. The game was every bit as exciting as the men’s games, and the best players don’t run off and register for the NBA draft after their freshman year, so it’s not just a sea of new faces every year.

[yankees60]

OTOH, I hate regular ESPN because they mess up one of my other favorite sports. They broadcast a handful of MLB games, such that you need both ESPN and some other services combined to get all your MLB games. Then they sometimes force MLB to change the start times of games, usually forcing an 8pm start on a Sunday night so that fans attending the game need to be there really late on a Sunday evening. I would do anything to avoid ESPN getting a nickel from me, until they came up with ESPN+ which truly complements what's available to me. Cable ESPN should be called ESPN- due to their negative impact on MLB games.

I am with you there as I tried to explain above. I'd prefer to see all my Yankee games on the YES network and not have them fragmented over other networks, including ESPN. I get nothing extra from ESPN and usually less. When games on not on YES but are, instead, on another network, we oftentimes don't get a pregame show.

[yankees60]

I've never watched women's college basketball but I understand its popularity is growing. I've followed mens for decades, and always dreamed of attending in person, but change my mind as soon as I see those ticket prices

I went to see a top-ten women’s team play last week. Tickets were $6, and parking was $3. The game was every bit as exciting as the men’s games, and the best players don’t run off and register for the NBA draft after their freshman year, so it’s not just a sea of new faces every year.

Women's college basketball can be watchable and exciting with the talent level many of the playershave. But it's a completely different game from the men's game.

[beyou]

OTOH, I hate regular ESPN because they mess up one of my other favorite sports. They broadcast a handful of MLB games, such that you need both ESPN and some other services combined to get all your MLB games. Then they sometimes force MLB to change the start times of games, usually forcing an 8pm start on a Sunday night so that fans attending the game need to be there really late on a Sunday evening. I would do anything to avoid ESPN getting a nickel from me, until they came up with ESPN+ which truly complements what's available to me. Cable ESPN should be called ESPN- due to their negative impact on MLB games.

I am with you there as I tried to explain above. I'd prefer to see all my Yankee games on the YES network and not have them fragmented over other networks, including ESPN. I get nothing extra from ESPN and usually less. When games on not on YES but are, instead, on another network, we oftentimes don't get a pregame show.

And on some networks you get terrible announcers who dont know the team well because they see different teams each week. And we listen to them eli5.

[quantAndHold]

I went to see a top-ten women’s team play last week. Tickets were $6, and parking was $3. The game was every bit as exciting as the men’s games, and the best players don’t run off and register for the NBA draft after their freshman year, so it’s not just a sea of new faces every year.

Women's college basketball can be watchable and exciting with the talent level many of the playershave. But it's a completely different game from the men's game.

You are not wrong about that. The women play more a fundamental style of basketball. It’s a more interesting game than the dunks and 3’s style that the guys play. I got tickets to a men’s game a couple of weeks ago, and it was the 2nd half before anyone on either team even attempted a midrange shot. Honestly, it wasn’t really that interesting. There wasn’t a lot of basketball IQ on display, and if I want spectacular moves, the NBA does it better.

[yankees60]

I am with you there as I tried to explain above. I'd prefer to see all my Yankee games on the YES network and not have them fragmented over other networks, including ESPN. I get nothing extra from ESPN and usually less. When games on not on YES but are, instead, on another network, we oftentimes don't get a pregame show.

And on some networks you get terrible announcers who dont know the team well because they see different teams each week. And we listen to them eli5.

Some of them - like Buck & McCarver - were just terrible to listen to for me. One post season I just kept the TV volume off and only listened to the Yankees radio broadcast.

[yankees60]

Women's college basketball can be watchable and exciting with the talent level many of the playershave. But it's a completely different game from the men's game.

You are not wrong about that. The women play more a fundamental style of basketball. It’s a more interesting game than the dunks and 3’s style that the guys play. I got tickets to a men’s game a couple of weeks ago, and it was the 2nd half before anyone on either team even attempted a midrange shot. Honestly, it wasn’t really that interesting. There wasn’t a lot of basketball IQ on display, and if I want spectacular moves, the NBA does it better.

I guess if you define fundamental as a pre 1980s game, but even then there were frequent dunks in all men's basketball games from high school to NBA. They are just about completely absent from any women's games.

[quantAndHold]

You are not wrong about that. The women play more a fundamental style of basketball. It’s a more interesting game than the dunks and 3’s style that the guys play. I got tickets to a men’s game a couple of weeks ago, and it was the 2nd half before anyone on either team even attempted a midrange shot. Honestly, it wasn’t really that interesting. There wasn’t a lot of basketball IQ on display, and if I want spectacular moves, the NBA does it better.

I guess if you define fundamental as a pre 1980s game, but even then there were frequent dunks in all men's basketball games from high school to NBA. They are just about completely absent from any women's games.

By fundamental, I'm talking about understanding the game, teamwork, strategy, setting up plays, making the extra pass. A dunk is just another type of layup. In itself, it's just not that interesting.

[yankees60]

I guess if you define fundamental as a pre 1980s game, but even then there were frequent dunks in all men's basketball games from high school to NBA. They are just about completely absent from any women's games.

By fundamental, I'm talking about understanding the game, teamwork, strategy, setting up plays, making the extra pass. A dunk is just another type of layup. In itself, it's just not that interesting.

I am still playing and we have a 6'6" guy who plays with us. Several times a night he makes thunderous, powerful dunks. They ARE highly exciting!