I watched the opening 15 minutes of the NBC pre game show and it was pretty tedious - they are stringing it out for 5 and a half hours until kick off so its just endless padding and adverts. I'll probably tune in about 10.30pm to watch the last minute build up.
Slightly geeky but I wonder what NBC's superbowl intro will be. 3 year's ago they just did a special version of their usual annoying Sunday Night Football intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5oIkGzzOwU
Carrie Underwood now sings to SNF on NBS so will sing tonight's Super Bowl XLIX intro, CBS will be the US broadcast to Super Bowl 50, as Super Bowl 50 is not using the usual Roman Numerals which would be Super Bowl L.
As in, I assume it will be the normal NBC commentary on both Sky sports 1 and 3 - the same thing on both channels. The only difference in the game coverage will be the pre/post match studio stuff - but I doubt sky are showing the NBC studio stuff today?
If Sky had the rights to NBC's build up they would have been showing it all evening, as they did last year with Fox's coverage, instead of taking it from the NFL Network.
And Sky have never taken much interest in extensive post-game coverage. With the game ending around 3am on a workday the live audience that would keep watching would be too small to justify it. They have not even scheduled a return to the NFL Network's programming for that, but just some Football Life episodes as filler.
A few minutes around the half time show and trophy presentation, which would amount to the difference whilst Sky's own studio coverage is on air, would not justify the cost of rights and a producer.
So Sky Sports 1 and 3 are simulcasting the same thing... WHY?
For the same reason as the darts final and some European soccer matches. Because not everyone can receive SS3 or SS5. So why needlessly require people to change channels or deny others the chance to watch just to show low rated filler programming.
For the same reason as the darts final and some European soccer matches. Because not everyone can receive SS3 or SS5. So why needlessly require people to change channels or deny others the chance to watch just to show low rated filler programming.
Surely anyone who has a Sky Sports sub via other methods (BT Vision, Talk Talk etc) would be watching via SS1. Sky and Virgin have SS1 and SS3 and the you get both of these anyway, so why not just have this on SS1?
Darts was different as SS3 was renamed SS Darts so had everything on there but was not available on BT Vision/Talk Talk etc so made the final available on SS1 as well.
Darts was different as SS3 was renamed SS Darts so had everything on there but was not available on BT Vision/Talk Talk etc so made the final available on SS1 as well.
And SS3 has been effectively Sky Sports Super Bowl showing only NFL programming from 6am Monday morning. Their continuous live Super Bowl coverage began at midday this afternoon, whilst SS1 obviously had Super Sunday to show this afternoon.
So by your analogy they should show the SuperBowl on SS1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? Why not F1 and maybe Sky Arts 1 and 2 while we're at it?
Not quite sure how you leaped to that somewhat absurd conclusion from my comment. I merely asked the rhetorical question as to what was being shown to highlight the fact there is unlikely to be anything significant to show instead, so why is the decision to simulcast even an issue to anyone. I would understand the concern if a key event was being missed to accomodate the same event being shown twice, but clearly not the case here.
$ky
I wish the rolleyes icon still existed, I hate this. Sky are a business, not a charity. Why shouldn't they seek to maximise profits?
And to be fair, Channel 4 are taking NBC too so it makes you wonder how many viewers are watching SS1/3?
Since 2009 the BBC and Channel 4 have used the US host broadcaster for game coverage the same as Sky. Despite that and the late start the Super Bowl is Sky Sports' highest rated NFL game of a season.
I wish the rolleyes icon still existed, I hate this. Sky are a business, not a charity. Why shouldn't they seek to maximise profits?
I have to admit, I deliberately did that to antagonise. As I know it annoys the fanboys.
Well, as it's been explained now that NFL took over SS3 it makes sense now to show the game and allow other non-Sky viewers to see it in SS1. Shame no-one mentioned that before (as I'm not an American Football but and just observed a waste in duplication)
Comments
Carrie Underwood now sings to SNF on NBS so will sing tonight's Super Bowl XLIX intro, CBS will be the US broadcast to Super Bowl 50, as Super Bowl 50 is not using the usual Roman Numerals which would be Super Bowl L.
BT Sport / ESPN have it.
If Sky had the rights to NBC's build up they would have been showing it all evening, as they did last year with Fox's coverage, instead of taking it from the NFL Network.
And Sky have never taken much interest in extensive post-game coverage. With the game ending around 3am on a workday the live audience that would keep watching would be too small to justify it. They have not even scheduled a return to the NFL Network's programming for that, but just some Football Life episodes as filler.
A few minutes around the half time show and trophy presentation, which would amount to the difference whilst Sky's own studio coverage is on air, would not justify the cost of rights and a producer.
Arena = Eurosport I think
Australian = BT/ESPN
That seems weird. They did something similar with the Scotland v England game last year
For the same reason as the darts final and some European soccer matches. Because not everyone can receive SS3 or SS5. So why needlessly require people to change channels or deny others the chance to watch just to show low rated filler programming.
Why? Just why?
Why not? It isn't as though there is a boatload of live sport options they could otherwise show. What is on SS2, 4 and 5 presently?
Surely anyone who has a Sky Sports sub via other methods (BT Vision, Talk Talk etc) would be watching via SS1. Sky and Virgin have SS1 and SS3 and the you get both of these anyway, so why not just have this on SS1?
Darts was different as SS3 was renamed SS Darts so had everything on there but was not available on BT Vision/Talk Talk etc so made the final available on SS1 as well.
So by your analogy they should show the SuperBowl on SS1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? Why not F1 and maybe Sky Arts 1 and 2 while we're at it?
What I'm saying is SS1 is universally available on all Pay Platforms. SS3 isn't so this game should only be on SS1. Cost-cutting by $ky...
And to be fair, Channel 4 are taking NBC too so it makes you wonder how many viewers are watching SS1/3?
And SS3 has been effectively Sky Sports Super Bowl showing only NFL programming from 6am Monday morning. Their continuous live Super Bowl coverage began at midday this afternoon, whilst SS1 obviously had Super Sunday to show this afternoon.
Not quite sure how you leaped to that somewhat absurd conclusion from my comment. I merely asked the rhetorical question as to what was being shown to highlight the fact there is unlikely to be anything significant to show instead, so why is the decision to simulcast even an issue to anyone. I would understand the concern if a key event was being missed to accomodate the same event being shown twice, but clearly not the case here.
I wish the rolleyes icon still existed, I hate this. Sky are a business, not a charity. Why shouldn't they seek to maximise profits?
Since 2009 the BBC and Channel 4 have used the US host broadcaster for game coverage the same as Sky. Despite that and the late start the Super Bowl is Sky Sports' highest rated NFL game of a season.
I have to admit, I deliberately did that to antagonise. As I know it annoys the fanboys.
Well, as it's been explained now that NFL took over SS3 it makes sense now to show the game and allow other non-Sky viewers to see it in SS1. Shame no-one mentioned that before (as I'm not an American Football but and just observed a waste in duplication)
So what is the point of that then? It's only reason I'm watching!
been some good adverts so far.
Watching NBC on a live stream (WITH adverts)
I'm watching Channel 4, Sky Sports 1+3 as well as listening to BBC Radio 5!