Official Vent Thread

[adam]

The Vikings are having a historically improbable season. Every metric from point differential to average yards gained/lost per play to expected yards per play to more esoteric stuff like DVOA plus almost everyone's eye test says they should be at best 8-7 and easily a little worse. Instead they are 12-3 with 2 games left. They are 11 and 0 in close single-score games which either tied or set a new record. It has broken multiple brains.
With minor exceptions, Vikings fans have reacted the same as have fans of any team that wins more than they probably should, which means many defiant theories about how they just know how to win and W-L is the only stat that really matters and conspiracies about why the media does not respect them. Conversely, pundits fall over each other to call the Vikings frauds and get more hysterical every week as the team keeps winning improbable games. Every win just causes everyone to believe their priors were confirmed- Vikings fans stay smug because they won; the analysts remain confident despite the result because the game stats are consistent with all of their takes.
FWIW, I think the Vikes are well coached and don't make many mistakes of the sort that give games away, but that only probably could explain being 10-5 at most. They've been very lucky. The Bills did make some mistakes like that, the Colts have maybe the worst coach in the NFL, our defense can't make stops consistently but gets a lot of timely turnovers which almost never repeats year-over-year, and opposing kickers miss on double doinks while our guy who never before showed signs of being clutch keeps hitting late game winners. It's like 50 years of hideously unfair bad team karma is being repaid in one season. And every week I expect it to end, and it doesn't, and I wait for doom the next weekend. It's honestly the most fun I've had watching them ever

But I post this here because, as someone who has spend 7 years going on and on about underlying stats and confirmation bias, and trying to get fans to acknowledge that neither the fates nor refs nor luck is against them and not overreact when results and play do not coincide, I'm sitting it all out. Apparently I have it in me to harass exactly one team community about this stuff and it's you guys. I'm sorry. And Happy New Year.

I think the way their defense is set up to give up a ton of yards in a bend but dont break philosophy, leading to FGs instead of TDs contributes to this statistical anomaly. I wonder if you looked at the 86 or 90 Giants teams who played the same Umbrella Defense under Parcells if you’d see the same statistical anomalies.

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

The Vikings are having a historically improbable season. Every metric from point differential to average yards gained/lost per play to expected yards per play to more esoteric stuff like DVOA plus almost everyone's eye test says they should be at best 8-7 and easily a little worse. Instead they are 12-3 with 2 games left. They are 11 and 0 in close single-score games which either tied or set a new record. It has broken multiple brains.
With minor exceptions, Vikings fans have reacted the same as have fans of any team that wins more than they probably should, which means many defiant theories about how they just know how to win and W-L is the only stat that really matters and conspiracies about why the media does not respect them. Conversely, pundits fall over each other to call the Vikings frauds and get more hysterical every week as the team keeps winning improbable games. Every win just causes everyone to believe their priors were confirmed- Vikings fans stay smug because they won; the analysts remain confident despite the result because the game stats are consistent with all of their takes.
FWIW, I think the Vikes are well coached and don't make many mistakes of the sort that give games away, but that only probably could explain being 10-5 at most. They've been very lucky. The Bills did make some mistakes like that, the Colts have maybe the worst coach in the NFL, our defense can't make stops consistently but gets a lot of timely turnovers which almost never repeats year-over-year, and opposing kickers miss on double doinks while our guy who never before showed signs of being clutch keeps hitting late game winners. It's like 50 years of hideously unfair bad team karma is being repaid in one season. And every week I expect it to end, and it doesn't, and I wait for doom the next weekend. It's honestly the most fun I've had watching them ever

But I post this here because, as someone who has spend 7 years going on and on about underlying stats and confirmation bias, and trying to get fans to acknowledge that neither the fates nor refs nor luck is against them and not overreact when results and play do not coincide, I'm sitting it all out. Apparently I have it in me to harass exactly one team community about this stuff and it's you guys. I'm sorry. And Happy New Year.

I trust analytics as a tool, not the end all be all. The Vikings this year should not be 12-3 this year - and I say this as a lifelong fan.

That aside, for this year’s team it is obvious that the change in coaching, both tactically and emotionally, has had a huge effect that pure analytics cannot quantify. Under Zimmer, the team was tight and angry. The players this year are loose and having fun. Can’t math that.

I still have enough scars to expect it to crash spectacularly in the playoffs, but I’ll have (and had) fun until it does.

 

[mgarbowski]

I trust analytics as a tool, not the end all be all. The Vikings this year should not be 12-3 this year - and I say this as a lifelong fan.

That aside, for this year’s team it is obvious that the change in coaching, both tactically and emotionally, has had a huge effect that pure analytics cannot quantify. Under Zimmer, the team was tight and angry. The players this year are loose and having fun. Can’t math that.

I still have enough scars to expect it to crash spectacularly in the playoffs, but I’ll have (and had) fun until it does.

In other news.
Sad.

 

[adam]

In other news.
Sad.

Sorry, but that’s why college football playoffs are awesome and necessary. Otherwise we would have gotten Georgia v Michigan for the title game. Would have lost out on the TCU v Michigan & OSU v Georgia games. And now looking like TCU v OSU might be the fun national championship no one expected.

PS, now that the playoffs will expand next year, they really should do a 3rd place consolation game. Even this year I’d like to see Michigan v Georgia next week just to know how that would have turned out.

 

[Brooklyn Blue]

In other news.
Sad.

Cannot win if you combine poor goal line calls with poor referees with a young quarterback making overconfident throws. I’ve watched enough football to be convinced TCU would win 3 out of 10 games. Tonight was one of the 3 - fair play Frogs. Good luck next week (but I’ll take Georgia by 14).

 

[mgarbowski]

Cannot win if you combine poor goal line calls with poor referees with a young quarterback making overconfident throws. I’ve watched enough football to be convinced TCU would win 3 out of 10 games. Tonight was one of the 3 - fair play Frogs. Good luck next week (but I’ll take Georgia by 14).

Plus a season worst performance from the o-line and a D that gave up way too many big plays after we scored. It was a weirdly impressive performance from Michigan to make it a final drive contest given all that. and thank goodness for field goal misses at midnight.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I'm so poised to switch to home internet via T-Mobile or Verizon, then YTTV or Hulu+ which would get me at around $100.
Currently I'm at $190 for Comcast, so the savings would be significant. I would likely just add Netflix which I already have, and I guess HBO Max for US Soccer, maybe.

My vent is, T-Mobile offers home internet 5 houses down from me, but not at my house. So my choices are Comcast or now Starlink. As revolutionary and impressive as Starlink is, unfortunately it doesn't quite deliver on the value proposition for me where I live, but getting rid of Comcast has value in and of itself! So I'm waiting for either wireless coverage or a Starlink price drop.

This is me, except I want to get away from Optimum and onto FIOS. There are houses about 30 yards away on either side of me that get FIOS, and it’s not available for me.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Thinking back to the post that started this topic, it occurs to me that the old bulk cable model offered exactly what Shwafta seemed to want. One bill from one service that offered everything available. Everyone hated it, because everyone hated paying one big price which included a bunch of stuff they didn't want. So now we have this. Which aggregated probably costs more though there's probably a lot more sports available now, especially worldwide soccer, than at any time in even the recent past.

I think what we actually want but we rarely say directly is we should be able to get all the programming we want, including all the sports, for less money than we have to pay to get it now, regardless of how many subscriptions or bills it entails. Which is an indirect way of saying that players, leagues, federations, and owners make too much, because there's no way for us to pay less without that resulting.

Well, the old bulk cable model was also a monopoly provider and charged high rates. Still, there is creep in this new system. Besides the tendency of similar programming to fraction across multiple streaming services, the various cable replacements are bulking up too. When I started YTTV, it had all the channels I needed, not much more, and was $35/month. Now it’s 3X the size, has nothing else in which I am interested, and costs $65/month.

 

[LionNYC]

I'm now paying $260 a month for Spectrum Silver (includes HBO and Showtime) with 500 mbps internet. All the promos on the bill have been removed. Am I crazy to still be paying this every month?

 

[ZYanksRule]

I'm now paying $260 a month for Spectrum Silver (includes HBO and Showtime) with 500 mbps internet. All the promos on the bill have been removed. Am I crazy to still be paying this every month?

I'm on a FIOS deal that is about $190/month for virtually every channel plus HBO, showtime, and even a few other movie channels. Includes 300 mbps Internet. So yeah, your price seems high.

 

[moogoo]

Well, the old bulk cable model was also a monopoly provider and charged high rates. Still, there is creep in this new system. Besides the tendency of similar programming to fraction across multiple streaming services, the various cable replacements are bulking up too. When I started YTTV, it had all the channels I needed, not much more, and was $35/month. Now it’s 3X the size, has nothing else in which I am interested, and costs $65/month.

but at least it gives you unlimited DVR and lets you share with 5 other people with individual profiles. it is pricey but not enough for me to get rid of it... yet.

 

[mgarbowski]

Well, the old bulk cable model was also a monopoly provider and charged high rates.

Cable providers were an intermediary monopoly who collected rents from both content providers and consumers.
New tech let both sides cut them out, and a brief period where Netflix held pseudo monopoly power until new streaming services started. Now we’re still left with monopoly conditions because of copyright. It’s not a single entity but each content owner can force consumers to add a new service if you want their product. If you want Star Wars, Marvel, Bundesliga or college football, you have to deal directly with Disney. Need Game of Thrones, pay HBO. For PL, NFL or baseball the copyright owner makes you buy multiple services.

 

[Seth]

I hate this whole thing LOL

I have Spectrum cable/internet, which is unfortunately cheap now that my entire co-op has a special deal on it (although we also have the option to get Fios). The problem is that every time I consider cord cutting it ends up being way more hassle and a lot more expensive to get all the stuff that's included in what I have. I also have Netflix, Apple TV, Disney/ESPN/Hulu, and Paramount+. (Those last two for Star Wars and Star Trek, respectively, of course.) Oh, and Amazon Prime.

The problem is that I can drop cable but I still need internet access, so how much could I really save? Especially if I also have to add in something like YouTube TV maybe. I'd love to be a cord cutter but I just don't see it saving me any money.

And I'm not even going to mention that I just can't bring myself to get Peacock+ for some reason even though I'm missing a lot of Man City matches. I refuse LOL

 

[adam]

Cable providers were an intermediary monopoly who collected rents from both content providers and consumers.
New tech let both sides cut them out, and a brief period where Netflix held pseudo monopoly power until new streaming services started. Now we’re still left with monopoly conditions because of copyright. It’s not a single entity but each content owner can force consumers to add a new service if you want their product. If you want Star Wars, Marvel, Bundesliga or college football, you have to deal directly with Disney. Need Game of Thrones, pay HBO. For PL, NFL or baseball the copyright owner makes you buy multiple services.

Exactly. It’s not as a la cart as we’d all hoped. And content providers are forcing streamers hands.

Want to carry paramount on YTTV? Then you also have to carry discovery.

But discovery is expensive. I’ll have to charge the consumer an extra $5 a month for it to cover my costs.

Take it or leave it.

It’s the same exact shit they pulled on the cable companies. At least with the streamers you can add/subtract those 5-7 channel packages whenever you want. So wait till your favorite show ends and cancel. Enough of us do that and they’ll be forced to create better/more content. Or they’ll up the price to factor in seasonal cancellations.

 

[Gotham Gator]

but at least it gives you unlimited DVR and lets you share with 5 other people with individual profiles. it is pricey but not enough for me to get rid of it... yet.

I agree. YTTV is the best service out there, and it's not really any more expensive than the others. I am just disappointed by the mission creep. I was much happier having those benefits on a much smaller package.

One thing about making the switch - which I did back in 2018* - I found having my "cable" subscription on line to be so much more convenient than having it through the cable company. I could suddenly watch my own cable feed on any device, anywhere. So easy to carry the iPad into the kitchen and watch while cooking dinner, catch the World Cup on my computer at work, have the familiar channels and set up while on vacation, etc. etc.

Now, that was a big change back in 2018. It might be less so now as the cable companies improve their products. But, I don't see the reason to be loyal to the people who dragged their feet on innovation and provided terrible customer service for two decades before being forced to change.

---
* - This is a link to my original Cord Cutting thread. Not sure it makes sense to move this discussion there as this one includes stuff on streaming services too, but it might be good to find it a home outside of the Vent thread.

 

[Gotham Gator]

I will provide this update to my experiences with Cord Cutting since I began in 2018.

• I have gradually become much less enamored of Roku. Their devices are cheap, but they don't always work that well. Further, Roku actually charges the streaming services a fee to have access to their boxes. That's not a business model I can support.
• I started the Cord Cutting thread to ask about streaming TVs. I bought a TCL Roku enabled TV that was and still is recommended by Wirecutter. It was and remains terrible. Lots of buffering issues. Crashes frequently. The Roku service on it basically does not work. I bought an AppleTV to use with it instead.
• One thing I did not get into very much is the quality you can now get with over the air broadcasts. Just buy a good quality antenna, and you can get a lot of the terrestrial networks in full HD for free. I've used it at times for things that I didn't get through YTTV, and it's just as good quality as streaming - indistinguishable really. The caveat is that what you receive is dependent on where you live. You probably won't get everything.
• When I cut the cord, my monthly bill with Optimum was appx. $275. This included phone, cable, internet, and the package of premium channels (HBO, Cinemax, Showtime). Right now, I pay Optimum $137/month for phone & internet. I pay YTTV $65/month. I no longer get HBO, etc., but I have added Disney+ and Peacock (trying to get off that one) for about another $14. So, right now I am at about $215/month or $60 less and with better service.

 

[Revfugee]

I'm so poised to switch to home internet via T-Mobile or Verizon, then YTTV or Hulu+ which would get me at around $100.
Currently I'm at $190 for Comcast, so the savings would be significant. I would likely just add Netflix which I already have, and I guess HBO Max for US Soccer, maybe.

My vent is, T-Mobile offers home internet 5 houses down from me, but not at my house. So my choices are Comcast or now Starlink. As revolutionary and impressive as Starlink is, unfortunately it doesn't quite deliver on the value proposition for me where I live, but getting rid of Comcast has value in and of itself! So I'm waiting for either wireless coverage or a Starlink price drop.

I did the math, got set to cut the cable with Spectrum, and when I called to cancel they figured out a way to match what I would have been paying through Sling and YouTube TV. So I stayed. For now.

 

[FootyLovin]

I have gradually become much less enamored of Roku. Their devices are cheap, but they don't always work that well. Further, Roku actually charges the streaming services a fee to have access to their boxes. That's not a business model I can support.

Is there a clear (or multiple) best option for a device alternative to Roku? I have to keep cable for my in-laws who live with me. But I have a Roku device for all the streaming platforms. Don't like how slow it is and a couple other niggling issues and didn't know about the business model. Other suggestions?

 

[Gotham Gator]

Is there a clear (or multiple) best option for a device alternative to Roku? I have to keep cable for my in-laws who live with me. But I have a Roku device for all the streaming platforms. Don't like how slow it is and a couple other niggling issues and didn't know about the business model. Other suggestions?

I've just gone with AppleTV.

 

[adam]

Is there a clear (or multiple) best option for a device alternative to Roku? I have to keep cable for my in-laws who live with me. But I have a Roku device for all the streaming platforms. Don't like how slow it is and a couple other niggling issues and didn't know about the business model. Other suggestions?

I really like the Amazon sticks. They update often and are cheap. Good user interface too.