CW app

All of the major broadcast TV networks have apps so you can watch the shows, current and past. There's always a catch, though. You have to authenticate against a TV provider: a cable, satellite, or streaming service. Most of those streaming services are $65/month or more. You can't just watch anything you want in the app for free.

Except, with the CW app, you can watch for free/

CW doesn't require authentication against a TV provider. You launch the app and you watch your shows. That's how you would want it to work, and how the CW app does work.

If you're a fan of the shows on the CW -- Legacies, Superman & Lois, Walker, Roswell New Mexico, Penn & Teller: Fool Us, Riverdale, or any of the other shows -- this is a great and free way to watch them.

I realize that the CW isn't the most watched network -- according to Nielsen, it's the 8th most watched network -- but the fanbase is a pretty loyal one. Those that find shows to watch seem to really enjoy them.

As a streamer, I'm happy to see a major network offer content for free. If you had an antenna, you could watch it for free. But, with CW, you don't need an antenna. You can just watch the shows via the app on your streaming device.

If CW shows are of interest to you, you may find that the CW app will be a great addition, and help you enjoy your Streaming Life even more.

Blogs for cord cutters

While I am certainly happy that you've stopped by here, and I'm hoping my tips, suggestions, and comments might be helpful, I certainly know there are other places online that can help you as a cord cutter. Here are a few blogs that you might like.

Amazon Fire TV Blog

If you use Amazon Fire TV, you might find their blog useful for finding out about some of the features of that streaming platform. They don't post every day. In fact, they only post a handful of times a month. Last month, six times. The month before, 12 times. And, every post won't necessarily be something you absolutely need to know about, it's a good resource if you're in the Amazon ecosystem.

Chromecast Blog

For as much as Google does online, posting on the Chromecast Blog isn't anywhere near the top of their list. They have posted five times this year. That's it. But, I still check it every day. If there's something posted there, it's probably a big deal. Or somebody was assigned to "just post something." Kinda hard to tell. About half of one and half of the other, I suspect.

Tablo Blog

If you have an antenna and a Tablo device, you may find this useful. They post every couple of weeks, or more often when new features are introduced. And while much of it is "hey, we got a sale going on" kind of things, there are some articles that are for cord cutters, and antenna users in particular. You don't necessarily have to be a Tablo user, but the primary focus is their customers, same as the other blogs listed.

Air TV Blog

Air TV is another platform that lets you add an antenna to your local network. It's owned by Dish Network, who also owns Sling TV. And, while I'm listing this entry as the Air TV Blog, it's really the Sling TV news page. From the Air TV Website, the "blog" link takes you to the Sling TV news page, so I'm including this for that platform.

Plex Blog

Even if you don't use Plex server, the Plex Blog covers other functionality from the service. Plex has a selection of free streaming that you can use without running a Plex server. They don't post that often, but if you run a Plex server, it's worthwhile. Even if you don't run a Plex server, you can find updates about their free streaming content. It's worth a shot.

There are more blogs that you may find useful, but these are some that I check every day. If they make your Streaming Life a little easier, then I've done my job in bringing them to you.

College Football Playoffs: A better idea

They announced the four teams in the college football playoffs yesterday, and nobody was happy. Okay, four fan bases were happy. But there were some fan bases that could legitimately claim that their team was one of the four best teams. 

Notre Dame fans feel their team was one of the four best, despite the loss to Cincinnati two months ago. Big XII champ Baylor's two losses were to Oklahoma State, who they beat for the championship in a rematch, and to Texas Christian on an interception with a minute left in the game. Ohio State didn't make the Big Ten title game on a tie-breaker, but has been impressive the last half of the season. Even Mississippi, with two losses, one to SEC champ Alabama and the other to bowl-bound Auburn, can claim to be one of the better teams. This may upset Cincinnati fans, but how many of the top ten ranked teams would have gone 13-0 with the schedule the Bearcats had? I'm thinking all of them.

Regardless, this is what we have. But what we actually have isn't what we should have.

Several of us online -- me and some family and friends with an online presence -- have been proponents of a 16-team playoff for several years. I'll lay out the case for it.

Keep in mind that there is talk of the CFP expanding. Almost all of the schools want that. The sticking point is how many teams make the playoffs. Currently, there are four. One faction wants eight, and another faction wants twelve. We'll probably get twelve, but when that happens is unknown. But twelve isn't enough, at least according to me and my friends.

With 12 teams, you'll have four teams with a first round bye. But there is still that round. Two-thirds of the teams will play one more round. That means if one of those makes the championship, they'll have played one extra game. Upping to 16 levels that. Everyone who makes the second round and beyond will have played the same number of games.

If you have 12, going to 16 won't extend the season at all, because the round already exists. The 12-team plan just has four teams sitting out the first round. So, it would be more fair to have 16 teams rather than 12.

The 12-team format also will call for six conference champions -- the Power 5/Autonomy 5 champions and the highest ranked of the other five -- and the six best of the rest. The 16-team format allows all ten conference champions to make the playoffs. Win the SEC? You're in. Win the MAC? You're in. Win your conference, and you're in. That still leave six spots.

The six at-large spots would be the best teams that didn't win their conference. In the seven years of the CFP prior to this season, four teams that did not win their conference made the playoffs -- Alabama, Ohio State, and Notre Dame (twice) -- with one of those (Alabama) winning the championship.

I prefer that the ten conference champions get the top ten seeds, as a reward for winning their conference. That's how other football leagues do it, but we'll stick with the seeding of the CFP committee. It's more important to be in the field of 16 than where you are in the field of 16.

With that in mind, here's how the playoffs would look this year if they followed this plan:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Michigan (Big Ten)
3. Georgia (At-large)
4. Cincinnati (American)
5. Notre Dame (At-large)
6. Ohio State (At-large)
7. Baylor (Big XII)
8. Mississippi (At-large)
9. Oklahoma State (At-large)
10. Michigan State (At-large)
11. Utah (Pac 12)
12. Pittsburgh (ACC)
13. Louisiana (Sun Belt)
14. Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)
15. Utah State (Mountain West)
16. Northern Illinois (Mid American)

If they put the ten conference champs as the top ten seeds, it would look like this:

1. Alabama (SEC)
2. Michigan (Big Ten)
3. Cincinnati (American)
4. Baylor (Big XII)
5. Utah (Pac 12)
6. Pittsburgh (ACC)
7. Louisiana (Sun Belt)
8. Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)
9. Utah State (Mountain West)
10. Northern Illinois (Mid American)
11. Georgia (At-large)
12. Notre Dame (At-large)
13. Ohio State (At-large)
14. Mississippi (At-large)
15. Oklahoma State (At-large)
16. Michigan State (At-large)

Whichever seedings you choose, number 1 hosts number 16. Number 2 hosts number 15. Number 3 hosts number 14. And so on. Some of the matchups are really good. Some are not, but that's always the case. In the seven years of the CFP (14 semifinal games) 12 games have been double-digit wins. Only two were one score games.

On the other hand, some of those mismatches may not really be. You never know what a team may do once given the opportunity. Upsets do happen, so you might end up with a surprise or two by the time the title game rolls around.

The plan also calls for eight consolation bowls. First round in mid-December, and the losers would still get a bowl. At least two of those bowls would get conference champions. The four teams that lost in the second round could get a bowl, but I don't really care.

For second round pairings, you could either have a set bracket at the start, or you could have the highest remaining seed hosting the lowest remaining seed, similar to how the NFL does it. Doesn't really matter to me. The most important thing is that teams are rewarded for a great season, with the opportunity to win it all.

What does all this have to do with streaming? Well, other than that's how I watch all my games, nothing specific to streaming. But as a streamer, I appreciate the fact that I can watch any post-season game I want. My Streaming Life is good.

Xumo or Pluto TV

I've not written a lot about Xumo. In fact, I've written very little about it. But I need to.

Xumo might be described as a poor man's Pluto TV. But that would be wrong. Pluto TV is Xumo on steroids. But it just may be that Xumo is a better option than Pluto TV. Here's why.

Content. Now, content is king at Pluto TV. That service has so many different streams available, it's hard to keep up with. In the early days, Pluto TV was a mess. Content was awesome, but it was so hard to find anything. Many of the features didn't work, or didn't work correctly. But they got all that fixed.

Today, Pluto TV is fantastic. But so is Xumo.

It's true that Xumo doesn't have as much as Pluto TV, but that's not really a bad thing. Look at it this way. Remember when you had cable TV, and you were paying for so many channels you didn't watch? It's kinda like that.

Of course, it's not exactly like that, because you paid for cable TV, and both Xumo and Pluto TV are free. But the idea of having more than you need still applies. I mean, it's free, so it's not really a problem. Unless you have to scroll through nearly 100 extra channels in order to find what you want.

Pluto TV has around 250 different streams (channels). Xumo has around 180. But, looking over the streams, there are a lot of the same content. Some of the content is exactly the same. Both carry stream of The Asylum, for instance.

They'll carry some of the same streams. Some is different, but similar type of content. Both will carry streams of action films, or Black cinema, or some other type of movies. The same, but not exactly the same.

Xumo has about 70%-75% of the content that Pluto TV has, with a lot of overlap of same or similar content. Both have quality programming, since Pluto TV is owned by Paramount and Xumo is owned by Comcast.

Which do I prefer? Pluto, but not by much. Xumo is great. Pluto TV is great. You can't really go wrong with either one. Both are a part of my Streaming Life, and should be a part of yours, too.