tmwiese55

For the unevenness stuff you can chalk that up to the network messing with them. They were in a constant battle against cancellation and the network pushing out showrunners and such and trying to change the show to get better ratings. Wonder how much better it would've been if they just left them alone.

Right, live sports is one of the few instances where you really need, well, at least where it's really really better if you just have normal cable.

For sure, I'm frankly shocked it's gone on this long with everything such as Netflix, etc. It's been a running joke for years how everyone uses each others logins and they've done very little to counter it. It's only a matter of time.

IDK, I have multiple friends that use my Fox Sports login to watch Brewers/Bucks. One tries my charter stuff on everything where you need to show that you have cable and it works. The funniest part is that I actually got rid of Charter in November and the logins still work. I have internet another way now and am still able to login to the Charter app and watch everything for free. I'm going to keep riding it for free as long as I can just to spite them, even though I hate not just having normal cable. 3 months so far. My dad has Spectrum and when I try to use it, what I described happens. I can watch Hallmark Channel but it will not allow me to connect to Spectrum live without being on their network, i.e., in their house. You wouldn't be able to use the Spectrum TV app but you should be able to use 3rd party apps like Fox Sports Go, ESPN, TBS/TNT, etc. Many networks offer their own app. As long as those channels are part of the original cable package you should be able to log into those using Spectrum credentials. For context, I believe the Spectrum TV app is a way to access your cable subscription without needing to use one of their cable boxes. Say you have 4 or 5 TVs in your household, having a box for each of them would get pricey, so you could use the app instead to cut down on the box fees. It's only intended for use at a customer's home. ------- Yes that is what Spectrum TV app is. It's designed as a way for you pay for it on one TV but then have access to all your other TVs(so you don't have to pay 15/month for each box). As I said though, I currently watch the Spectrum TV on my smart TV using other internet and it works fine and has been for 3 months since cancelling. Chances are this is just due to not logging out and wouldn't work if say I just gave you the details now and you tried it on your TV. And as you said, using your Charter login to access FS Go, ESPN etc worked for several other people off mine for years with no issue. No one ever tried the Spectrum App so IDK. I know for one of them it has since stopped working once I cancelled but I'd guess he logged out and couldn't get back in. Others it's still chugging along. If you lived wherever and had a friend paying for cable here I'd be really surprised if you couldn't log into FSGO using his login. I do have a friend's info as a backup if/when mine stops working, I got it because I thought I would get cut off, so I guess I'll know more if/when I ever have to try it. But that reminds me, I gave that login to the other friend who's stopped working from mine and it worked for him no problem.

IDK, I have multiple friends that use my Fox Sports login to watch Brewers/Bucks. One tries my charter stuff on everything where you need to show that you have cable and it works. The funniest part is that I actually got rid of Charter in November and the logins still work. I have internet another way now and am still able to login to the Charter app and watch everything for free. I'm going to keep riding it for free as long as I can just to spite them, even though I hate not just having normal cable. 3 months so far.

If you know someone who does pay for cable you can probably get their logins and watch everything for free. Toss your friend like $20/month

I was pleasantly surprised by it. Of course some nitpicks, but going in I didn't expect much since it's a tough show to keep going but I think they did well overall and I was thoroughly entertained the whole time. I'd say clearly better than season 2 and then debatable with the original but I'd still pick original

B99 and Veep, totally agree with you guys. Amazing shows. Veep was top notch through the end. Latest season of B99 maybe took a dip down but still very good and worth watching. Archer: Agree this season is way better than the last two that just go so out there. Not at the original levels, but great to see them getting back to the basics a bit that made the show great to begin with

The outcome of that episode was fantastic. I was rooting for that outcome since being introduced to that character. Can't wait to see the effects on the rest of the season/series. I used to make fun of all the GoT fans around me, now I get it! Yup, kind of reaction and feelings of how good this show was is what made it so great to begin. which makes the last seasons so frustrating. Seriously the show had legit argument for best show ever and this person is experiencing it now. It really was that good.

Make a commitment to get all the way through season 1 of GoT. Takes a bit to get all the families and characters straight. I watched my first episode about a month ago. It's EXACTLY how I thought it would be, and that's not a compliment. I kept watching til the middle of season 3 because I wanted more of the characters (except for the Stark kids) to die, but they never did. Soulless fantasy porn devoid of any redeeming qualities. The sheer hollowness of substance in GoT is rivaled only by outer space and the bookshelves of 20th century philosophers. I've met strains of streptococcus that have more heart than any character in that show. This isn't my normal genre by any means. But I was pretty much hooked after the end of the first episode. Then the Ned storyline in season hooked me all the way. Funny you mention you quit middle of season 3. Let's just say if you made a few more episodes you'd have got what you wanted in probably the best episode of the series and one of the biggest shockers in TV. Stuff no other show has done For ability to watch, yes having no kids is the key. Two TVs in living room is big too. Put sports on the silent TV, you can still watch and see what's going on while watching another show. I don't care what the announcers say anyway and there is a ton of downtown in sports that you don't need to watch(especially baseball and football).

Agree with the Shield watchers. PRobably the most underrated show out there. never gets its name thrown in with the all time greats when it might be #1 of this TV Boom era. Last time I looked it up out of curiosity it wasn't on Netflix or Hulu though, I don't know why, but that's probably killing it's popularity.

Yea the original seasons are pretty much gold. The new Netflix added stuff isn't as good but still it's better they made it than not. It will be a show that struggles to hold up years and years down the line due to so many current affairs related things like Iraq/Bush, etc. But for people above like 25 it should be good for everyone.

Yup, I think I posted that a few weeks ago too. Shocking how well it holds up. I just rewatched it again

I do similar, just fluff stuff on in the background. Others on Netflix would be Parks and Rec, New Girl, and Cheers. You'd be surprised how well Cheers holds up

I only watched the shooting specific episode as I don't really watch SP, but was told by friends to watch that one. I don't know, since it would be the gun rights people being offended here I don't think they care too much about offending those people. Sure, they are making light of it since it's a comedy show but their point on it as that it's ridiculous that this continues to happen and we do nothing as a society. So in a sense they are on the right side of the issue or at least the side that is valuing kids lives so I don't think they're offending victims so to speak. Basically, they're mocking the people content with doing nothing. Not mocking the kids/victims themselves, if that makes sense.

So good! Yup, it's perfect. Blackish is right there with it though.

I think Braun did it both years with clutch late season game winning ding dongs, but could be wrong.

I also agree that series MVPs could/should sometimes go to losing teams when their performances are clearly superior. Think LBJ in their first loss to the Warriors when he had no help (love and Kyrie hurt) and had to do everything himself and still won 2 games. Can't think of one of the top of my head for baseball but I'd guess Bonds would be a possibility if we went back and looked at stats.

Key word here is should. I do think it was the deciding factor between Braun and Kemp in 2011. To take it to the extreme example, do you think the World Series MVP can come from the losing team? I think this question is a good test to explain why many people prefer the MVP to come from a playoff team. True and if it is a virtual tie then sure have that be a factor, like Braun/Kemp. MKE won 14 more games that year btw. Also, playoff team vs non playoff team is often a significant difference in wins and you can make an argument of putting up stats in a lower pressure situation. If one guy is on the best team and the other the second best team and they're only 2-3 games difference it really shouldn't matter. But you're right, should is the key word. Just takes a few people to say 'derp his team won the division.' Note: personally I have no problem giving it to non-playoff players. Trout is the best player in the league, any year he's healthy he should probably get the MVP. But as noted above, one can make the arguments about pressure etc.

Which is just wrong. Baseball being the sport or at least second most that one individual player has the least impact on a team winning. So if you're within a few games of each other it should be completely irrelevant.

Yelich has definitely surpassed Baez. Great SLG does not compensate for a bad OBP, and all the talk about his versatility is overplayed. Yelich can move over to a premium defensive position and be a mediocre defender there just like Baez. Baez playing great 2B defense is no better than Yelich's LF defense. It does not translate to CF, but Baez's 2B defense doesn't really translate to SS very impressively either. I still think Cain is my leader, but I can't stick to my guns much longer at this rate. You don't have to be a slugger to be MVP if you're the best leadoff man in baseball. His OBP has basically been .400 all year and he plays premium CF defense. A lot of teams are just hoping for bonus offense if they have a premiere defender at CF, SS, or C, and the Brewers are getting a .400 OBP. It's ludicrously valuable. For all the talk of Yelich being hot at the right time, that's just narrative - not value. I think Cain's consistency has probably been more valuable. He has basically been the NL leader in WAR for position players literally since day 1 by some measures. All well said. Thing is we know how MVP voting works. The counting stats matter. We can say how it should be but that's just not reality. 310/400 with 11 HRs and 41 RBIs just isn't going to win MVP. Yelich has also scored 20 more Rs than Yelich. Also, Yelich's OBP is only 14 below Cain's right now but Cain is 130 behind in OPS. That difference in slugging is huge. Also, WAR and defensive metrics are still so unknown/flawed/inexact or whatever you want to call it that voters and even people like us have to hesitate to put tooo much weight into those things. And again it's not like yelich is some kind of liability on D to create a massive gap there as it would be if Yelich's stats were being gained at 1B or DH. Sure is nice to have two guys legit in the conversation though.

I suppose I'm biased and all but I really think he should clearly get it over Baez now that he's closed the HR/RBI gap so much. Those were the arguments the other way and they're now greatly reduced. It's really down to those two IMO.

I thought I remember basic spray charts taking his fly balls and overlaying them to MP that they expected his HRs to go up a decent amount. not necessarily into the low 30s though, more like mid 20s

I'm not sure what I posted back then (I hope it was in support if I posted at all), but to me I liked it because he was barely older than Brinson yet a proven player signed for years. And to me Brinson was overrated, especially in that if he was injured for another year and/or came up to MLB and did poorly then he'd lose all his prospect/upside/hype and plummet down the rankings/trade value. So a good time to get for sure value in return for Brinson.

I just don't see the rush when he's signed for 5 years already. No need to do it now imo. Re-assess in a couple years. You'll know more about him and if he gets hurt, you'll know more on the financial landscape after such a weird offseason, you'll know more about other contracts you'll have given out, etc. I just don't see the rush.