SEC Women’s Tournament 2022

#301
#301
Saturday’s SEC Championship between and Kentucky was the most watched WBB game of last week, averaging 520,000 viewers. The Gamecocks have been consistently among the most viewed games this year as their brand continues to grow.

FNVh1KFXEAE3sET
 
#307
#307
It would have had even more viewers if the game hadn’t been put on ESPNU. I know a couple of people who have Comcast packages that inexplicably don’t include ESPNU. They have all the other ESPNs and SECTV, but not the U.

This has happened before, too, that they put one of the top women’s games of the year on a channel sooooo many people don’t get. Would the men’s SEC-T championship game ever be relegated to ESPNU? Of course not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Maniac
#308
#308
lvocd said:
It would have had even more viewers if the game hadn’t been put on ESPNU. I know a couple of people who have Comcast packages that inexplicably don’t include ESPNU. They have all the other ESPNs and SECTV, but not the U.

This has happened before, too, that they put one of the top women’s games of the year on a channel sooooo many people don’t get. Would the men’s SEC-T championship game ever be relegated to ESPNU? Of course not.
Click to expand...
ESPN had about 6 straight hours allocated to women's basketball championships. There's no way they would all be on the main network, especially on a Sunday. Honestly, we're lucky we get to see them on one of the TV broadcast channels instead of ESPN+.
 
#309
#309
Amb3096 said:
ESPN had about 6 straight hours allocated to women's basketball championships. There's no way they would all be on the main network, especially on a Sunday. Honestly, we're lucky we get to see them on one of the TV broadcast channels instead of ESPN+.
Click to expand...

I get that, but, IMO, the SEC Tournament championship was the biggest game going on in that time slot, and I feel like it deserved to be on a channel everyone gets. And like I said, can you imagine the men's SEC Tournament championship going to ESPNU? You kinda made my point by saying we were lucky the they weren't all on ESPN+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange Maniac
#310
#310
Amb3096 said:
Tamika Catchings is the only POY I can think of that missed a large chunk of the season, and Tennessee played pretty well without her until the tournament.

Also, The BEast sucks. It's impossible to objectively gauge what Bueckers' return means because the competition they've been playing since her return is so subpar. Personally, I think a healthy UConn is easily a top 3 team, but the Selection Committee isn't going to just give them a #1 seeding.
Click to expand...

Tamika played 17 games, so more than half the reg season. Indeed, her absence cost LV's in post-season. That was 2001 season.

You missed the point of any top-tier team playing above expectations whether vs. other good teams or playing well above expectations vs. teams in the #50-#125 range. If Massey projects 30 point margin vs. a so-so team and SC or Stanford or UConn win by 50, that is substantial outperformance. When one's schedule is set, the teams can only play their schedule. Conference membership and invites are driven by Men's Football.

I concur, I doubt highly that the NCAAW Selection Committee will bestow a #1-seed on UConn. It appears they will be the 2nd or 3rd #2-seed. But the Committee allegedly is using the "G Curve" more than "S Curve" so ranking has less import in which Regional is chosen for teams, especially with three of the Power 5 Conferences with 4 or more teams in Top 16 that have to be spread out to avoid first two round matchups. That forces other Conferences' teams to bounce around. But as always it will be decided on the court, not which airport or interstate a team has to use to get there.

Historically, Tennessee has had the most home city NCAAW Tournament games. Knoxville games 86, Palo Alto 73 games, and 70 in Storrs.

By home state hosting Regionals: it is CA at 57, Texas at 55, Tennessee at 30, Virginia at 30, NC 30, Washington at 24, Louisiana and CT at 21. CA and TX benefit from multiple large cities that could bid to host a Regional. The best programs over the decades justifiably earn more home games and logically have larger fan bases that allow nearby cities to bid for a Regional knowing they've a better chance to make some money than places that crop up rarely such as Lincoln and Wichita. What surprised me a little was no mention of IN and South Bend. But in retrospect, ND had a short run in 2000 through 2001 and then from 2011 to 2019. Thus, less times to appear on these historical lists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfaninfl2
#311
#311
lvocd said:
It would have had even more viewers if the game hadn’t been put on ESPNU. I know a couple of people who have Comcast packages that inexplicably don’t include ESPNU. They have all the other ESPNs and SECTV, but not the U.

This has happened before, too, that they put one of the top women’s games of the year on a channel sooooo many people don’t get. Would the men’s SEC-T championship game ever be relegated to ESPNU? Of course not.
Click to expand...
I don't think that many people have old school cable and not the ESPN app streaming. It's inexplicable to me that anyone is still paying for a Comcast Cable package, which is at least twice as expensive as any of the live streaming services. I get all ESPN free with my streaming service. With the app, you get every game on every ESPN channel live and then also on demand. So I don't think a game on any of the ESPNs is "relagated" any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka
#312
#312
glv98 said:
I don't think that many people have old school cable and not the ESPN app streaming. It's inexplicable to me that anyone is still paying for a Comcast Cable package, which is at least twice as expensive as any of the live streaming services. I get all ESPN free with my streaming service. With the app, you get every game on every ESPN channel live and then also on demand. So I don't think a game on any of the ESPNs is "relagated" any more.
Click to expand...
Which live streaming services do you like?
 
#315
#315
glv98 said:
I don't think that many people have old school cable and not the ESPN app streaming. It's inexplicable to me that anyone is still paying for a Comcast Cable package, which is at least twice as expensive as any of the live streaming services. I get all ESPN free with my streaming service. With the app, you get every game on every ESPN channel live and then also on demand. So I don't think a game on any of the ESPNs is "relagated" any more.
Click to expand...

I agree. We cut the cable years ago and our bill is now 1/2 of what it was..maybe more. We use YoutubeTV with a roku and watch almost all the the games from all the conferences. Very, very few are not available. I shake my head at the number of fans that complain about not being able to see games. Even after suggesting the streaming options, they say they cant afford to switch. I doubt they have really checked into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glv98
#317
#317
VA_VOLFAN said:
Did you get to ever catch up on her interviews?
Click to expand...

never could get past the part that wanted me to join the site,,,not interested in another soc media to navigate...sigh


Amb3096 said:
I have YouTube TV and Hulu+ (incl. Disney and ESPN+). I pay less than I did with DirecTV, and it's much more flexible/user friendly.
Click to expand...
I had spectrum, to the tune of 233 a month (bundled)...dropped my tv package and downloaded the spectrum app on ROKU,,picked out my 15 channels and now my bill is 127 a month
 
#319
#319
Lucy said:
Thanks! We have Netflix, Disney and Prime and the full Comcast tv/internet package. I need to do some research here.
Click to expand...
I really like YouTube TV. I have it paired with a GoogleTV device, and it's really easy to use. It aggregates everything from the streaming services into one platform, so you don't have to constantly go into the various apps to look for content. It will give you recommendations based on your preferences.
 
#320
#320
Amb3096 said:
I really like YouTube TV. I have it paired with a GoogleTV device, and it's really easy to use. It aggregates everything from the streaming services into one platform, so you don't have to constantly go into the various apps to look for content. It will give you recommendations based on your preferences.
Click to expand...
Wow! I will definitely look at that!!
So different than three channels and the local public tv channel!! We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto!
Thx!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amb3096 and chuckiepoo
#321
#321
I have DirectTV stream thru Roku for live tv, which I have only bc I'm a live news and sports junkie. Some people don't use live at all. I pay 100$/mo. for 3 streams meaning 3 devices can be streaming at same time. I only need 2 so my daughter in another town uses one. The pkg gives me access to all the apps, ESPN, PBS, History Channel, etc so you have all of that on demand. No contract, no customer service, no extra hardware, just need wifi.

I have Netflix (share daughter's stream in return for providing the live stream for her LOL) and Disney + as paid add ons. I've had Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount + and several others in the past when they had something specific I wanted to watch on them. Then I cancel when I'm done. You can add and drop services at will and most have free trials. Total a la carte tv. I love it.

I know people who have You Tube live stream and really like it. It all seems kind of complicated at first but it's awesome. So yeah, the days of 3 channels and PBS and aluminum foil on the rabbit ears antenna are long gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSanon, Volfaninfl2 and chuckiepoo
#322
#322
Lucy said:
Wow! I will definitely look at that!!
So different than three channels and the local public tv channel!! We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto!
Thx!
Click to expand...
Caveat: you still have to subscribe to the different streaming services, but Google TV can aggregate Prime, Disney, HBO, ESPN, YTTV, etc. onto a single loading screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and Lucy
#323
#323
Lucy said:
Which live streaming services do you like?
Click to expand...
Not that you asked me, but streaming is the way to go, at present. We use YouTube TV. For a sports-oriented person, I would recommend considering fubo TV. It is essentially the same price as YouTube TV and carries more in the way of sports channels. With the Elite package ($79.99/mo) or the Sports add-on ($10.99/mo), you get the Pac12 network with fubo TV that you don't get with YouTube TV. Each of the services generally has a free trial so you can become more familiar before making a decision and none require a long-term contract. I would suggest looking closely at the channel listing for each service to ensure you're getting what is best for you. For example, with fubo tv (which I have recommended), you have to go to the Elite package ($79.99/mo) or get the sports add-on in order to get ESPNU. (Which was obviously important during the Women's SEC tournament!) Just fyi.

And, Coach J, you should look at fubo tv. With the Sports add-on, it is still less than $100./mo.

Jim
 
  • Like
Reactions: krichunaka and youcancallmeAl
#324
#324
glv98 said:
I have DirectTV stream thru Roku for live tv, which I have only bc I'm a live news and sports junkie. Some people don't use live at all. I pay 100$/mo. for 3 streams meaning 3 devices can be streaming at same time. I only need 2 so my daughter in another town uses one. The pkg gives me access to all the apps, ESPN, PBS, History Channel, etc so you have all of that on demand. No contract, no customer service, no extra hardware, just need wifi.

I have Netflix (share daughter's stream in return for providing the live stream for her LOL) and Disney + as paid add ons. I've had Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount + and several others in the past when they had something specific I wanted to watch on them. Then I cancel when I'm done. You can add and drop services at will and most have free trials. Total a la carte tv. I love it.

I know people who have You Tube live stream and really like it. It all seems kind of complicated at first but it's awesome. So yeah, the days of 3 channels and PBS and aluminum foil on the rabbit ears antenna are long gone.
Click to expand...
Here in Florida, we also have Directv Stream, Choice package, with Roku, 90+ channels, includes local stations, sports, news, movies, my library of recordings, pretty much everything, for $102 total. The only difference is that ours includes 20 streams. Someone from all over the country could use it. We bundle with internet, so that’s $40. Using my stepson’s Netflix account.

Really recommend, we saved a ton of money switching from Directv to Directv Stream, and get so much more. No monthly charge for Roku, and home page shows all extra Apps, such as ESPN, Netflix, Fox Now, Roku tv, etc.

Also, was able to use Roku with all our TVs, and some were older.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: glv98
#325
#325
CannonVol80 said:
Not that you asked me, but streaming is the way to go, at present. We use YouTube TV. For a sports-oriented person, I would recommend considering fubo TV. It is essentially the same price as YouTube TV and carries more in the way of sports channels. With the Elite package ($79.99/mo) or the Sports add-on ($10.99/mo), you get the Pac12 network with fubo TV that you don't get with YouTube TV. Each of the services generally has a free trial so you can become more familiar before making a decision and none require a long-term contract. I would suggest looking closely at the channel listing for each service to ensure you're getting what is best for you. For example, with fubo tv (which I have recommended), you have to go to the Elite package ($79.99/mo) or get the sports add-on in order to get ESPNU. (Which was obviously important during the Women's SEC tournament!) Just fyi.

And, Coach J, you should look at fubo tv. With the Sports add-on, it is still less than $100./mo.

Jim
Click to expand...

I've got Fubo and I get all the UT games on SECN+ and ESPN+
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top