How to watch the College Football Playoff championship game

There have been 37 college bowl games/playoff games so far this year. More were scheduled, but five were canceled. The first two games were on December 17, and the 38th one, the national championship game, will be tonight. In all, 74 schools will have played games this post-season.

Streamers used to have a difficult time watching the games live -- at least legally -- but that changed in the 2015 season when the first live streaming service, Sling TV, launched. Now, there are several live streaming services, and you have lots of options when it comes to watching bowl games.

The Game

Monday, January 10

College Football Playoff National Championship Presented by AT&T

8:00 PM ESPN

Alabama vs Georgia

How to Watch

The game will be on a streaming service that carries ESPN. Here are the services for that network.

ESPN/ESPN2

ESPN carries many college games during the season. A few are carried on ESPN2. All services that carry ESPN also carry ESPN2:

• Sling Orange ($35)
• Vidgo ($55)
• YouTube TV ($65)
• Fubo ($65)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70)
• DirecTV Stream ($70)

The cheapest way to watch all of the bowl games is Sling Orange ($35).

Dropping Live TV Streaming

Every football season, I subscribe to a live streaming service, usually Sling TV, to watch football. Well, there's one more game left in the college football season, the national championship tomorrow night. After that's done, I drop Sling TV.

A lot of people use a live streaming service, some call it "Cable 2.0," year-round. I don't. There's nothing that I watch live year round. I am fortunate enough to live in an area where I can watch local channels via an antenna. I don't need YouTube TV, Hulu+Live TV, Fubo, or any other service that carries local channels. The fact that my go-to service for college football is Sling TV is because I don't need locals, and Sling TV doesn't carry locals. That's why it's so much cheaper than other services.

With no need for a live streaming service, I'm about to save $35/month by dropping Sling TV. And that's one thing I really like about streaming. All I have to go is go to the Website and cancel.

It's simple and straightforward. I won't get billed when the month ends, and I won't have access to those channels then either. Come next football season, I'll subscribe.

Of course, the way I do it isn't the only way. Even if you don't care about sports, you can still use this concept of subscribing and canceling throughout the year.

For example, I do the same thing with Hulu. Right now, I don't have a subscription. I will, I just don't at the moment. There are some shows I watch, but they aren't airing right now, or only a few are airing. In a month or two, there will be enough shows in the queue where it'll be worth it to subscribe again, and I will.

Doing it this way saves me some money. While there are things to watch on Sling TV -- or any other live streaming service -- I can find plenty to watch without the service year-round. Same thing with on-demand services such as Hulu. I could find something to watch right now, if I had a subscription. But without it, I still have stuff to watch, and when I do subscribe for a month a little later, I'll watch all the stuff that's only on Hulu. Then, I'll cancel again and save some money.

Is it a lot of work to do it this way? Isn't it simpler and easier to just subscribe and keep the subscription? Or subscribe for a year and save money? Sure, that's a viable option. But for me, the whole idea was to save money. I can subscribe at month-to-month prices for less than yearly discounted price because I won't subscribe as often. To me, the extra work pays off with saving money. I like saving money.

So, Hulu is not active at the moment, but will be in a month or two. Sling TV is about go to inactive, and will remain so until football season. It works for my Streaming Life, and keeps the costs down.

Would expanded playoffs have made a difference?

For quite some time, several of my online friends have advocated and expanded college football playoff system. We've not been some Johnny-come-lately about it. We've been clamoring for this online for over a decade and a half. And privately for longer. If you want a refresher of one of our latest calls, there's a post I wrote last month that you can review here.

If that had been how things were done this year, would we have still ended up with Alabama and Georgia playing for the title? Heck, I don't know. And that's the point. The four-team playoff pretty much guaranteed Alabama vs. Georgia.

Had the 16-team format been in place, you would have had:

(1) Alabama (SEC)
(16) Northern Illinois (Mid American)

(2) Michigan (Big Ten)
(15) Utah State (Mountain West)

(3) Georgia (At-large)
(14) Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)

(4) Cincinnati (American)
(13) Louisiana (Sun Belt)

(5) Notre Dame (At-large)
(12) Pittsburgh (ACC)

(6) Ohio State (At-large)
(11) Utah (Pac 12)

(7) Baylor (Big XII)
(10) Michigan State (At-large)

(8) Mississippi (At-large)
(9) Oklahoma State (At-large)

Or, if you had NFL style seeding, you would have had:

(1) Alabama (SEC)
(16) Michigan State (At-large)

(2) Michigan (Big Ten)
(15) Oklahoma State (At-large)

(3) Cincinnati (American)
(14) Mississippi (At-large)

(4) Baylor (Big XII)
(13) Ohio State (At-large)

(5) Utah (Pac 12)
(12) Notre Dame (At-large)

(6) Pittsburgh (ACC)
(11) Georgia (At-large)

(7) Louisiana (Sun Belt)
(10) Northern Illinois (Mid American)

(8) Texas-San Antonio (Conference USA)
(9) Utah State (Mountain West)

I think either way, Alabama and Georgia make it to the second round. Michigan and Cincinnati would have had an easier time in the first pairing, but the second pairing (the one I prefer) would have had them face tougher opponents. Either way, they could have made it through.

So, with all four of the CFP teams making it through the round of 16, would they have made it further? That depends on which seeding was used. The first has Alabama playing the winner of Mississippi-Oklahoma State. The other seeding would have Alabama playing a lesser opponent. That's not a slap of those two teams, just a reality. Alabama would probably have made it through the second round, putting them in the four-team round.

Michigan would have played either the Baylor-Michigan State winner, or the Louisiana Northern Illinois winner. While the first would have been a tougher game, Michigan would have been favored to make it to the third round, putting them in the group of four. So, no change so far.

Georgia would have faced either Ohio State (the other team in the pairing was Utah, and those two actually played in a bowl, with Ohio State winning), or Cincinnati. So my preferred seeing would have kept one of the actual final four teams out of that round. Georgia would have handled Cincinnati much as Alabama did in reality, the different style of Ohio State would have made an interesting game. Still, int he playoffs, the SEC usually beats the Big Ten, so in either case, Georgia makes it to the final four.

In the top pairing, Cincinnati would have faced the winner of Notre Dame-Pittsburgh. Cincinnati would probably have won that matchup, although both would have been tough opponents. It's very possible that Cincinnati would not have made it to the final four regardless of seeding.

Oh, the other team, assuming the NFL-style seeding? The winner of Baylor-Ohio State against Utah-Notre Dame. That would have been a good game.

In either case, you would have had Alabama, Michigan, and Georgia as three of the four remaining teams. In one seeing, Cincinnati would have been the fourth team, as it was in reality, but in the other seeding, you would have one of four very good teams: Baylor, Ohio State, Utah, or Notre Dame.

In the top seeding, you would have what you ended up with. And if the outcome of those games didn't change, you'd still have Alabama vs Georgia.

In the other seeding, you would have Alabama vs Georgia as well, but in a semi-final game. The other game would have been Michigan against Baylor-Ohio State-Utah-Notre Dame. I'm not even going to pick the winner, because it doesn't matter for me to make my point.

However you think that matchup would go, the final game would not have been Alabama vs Georgia. You would still get to see that, but in the semi-finals if my preferred seeding was in place. The championship would have been the winner of that game against a team from the Big Ten, Big 12, or Notre Dame.

The end result would still be a champion from the SEC, as I thing either Alabama or Georgia would win a matchup against any of those (they did beat one already in reality).

If you kept the current seedings, just expanded to 16, you'd have exactly what you ended up with anyway. What you would gain would be the fans of Baylor, Notre Dame, and Ohio State knowing whether or not their teams could have made it.

If you seeded conference champions at the top, you would get a different championship game. You'd get a different final four even. So an expanded playoff may not have changed the result -- it would if they did it right -- but it would have answered some questions, or ehanged things entirely.

I still think it's a good plan.

Powering a streaming stick from USB? Don't.

Sticks are a popular way to add a streaming device to a TV. I have streaming sticks by Roku and Amazon on my TVs, as well as Google Chromecast, on different TVs, but on my primary TV, my main way of watching isn't with a stick. However, I do use them on occasion. All of my Amazon Fire TV devices are Fire TV Sticks, for instance, so when I decide to use Amazon Fire TV, I'm using a stick. I have no issues with sticks. They're great.

One thing that crops up often in the Roku support forums is odd behavior from a Roku stick, and it turns out that the user is powering it from a USB port on a TV rather than with the included Roku power supply. The other thing is that for some overseas locations, Roku doesn't even include a power supply on some devices, so you have to use the USB port on the TV. And, Roku has included instructions on how to use the USB port on the TV to power the stick.

That means that Roku says, "Sure, go ahead, power your Roku device with the USB port on your TV." But I say otherwise.

Now, if it comes down to the company that built the device (Roku) and some random jackass on the Internet (me) telling you two different things about the device, you should really listen to the ones that built the device. Except you shouldn't. Roku will say you can do it. I say maybe you can, but maybe you can't. And, based on the number of Roku support questions about it, the evidence tends to lean toward me.

But this isn't just a Roku thing. Amazon Fire TV Sticks shouldn't be powered by the USB port on the TV either. I'm pretty knowledgeable about Roku, more so than I am about Fire TV. But I'm pretty good with Fire TV, just better with Roku. So, is my suggestion that you shouldn't power your Fire TV via the USB on your TV not valid? Or not as valid? No, my suggestion is right. And one Fire TV expert agrees with me.

Elias Saba at AFTVNews.com says to not use the USB port on the TV to power a Fire TV stick.

The main reason not to use the USB port on a TV to power a Fire TV Stick is that it greatly increases the risk of damaging or “bricking” your streaming device. I know there are going to be thousands, if not millions, of people who will be quick to mention that they have been powering a Fire TV Stick with their TV’s USB port for years without any issues. That’s fine and I believe them because I’m not saying doing so will absolutely damage the Fire TV Stick, but it does make it much more likely for something to go wrong.

He has a lot more to say about it, and it's all good advice. He even added a new column for this year emphasizing the advice. I'm glad to see others on other platforms confirming my experience and suggestions.

Like real life, your Streaming Life can benefit from the experience of others. And maybe their (including mine) experience will help yours to be better.

Next Gen TV

There are reports that half of the USA will be in range of at least one TV station with Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) by the end of 2022. That's a good thing. Well, I suppose it is. Next Gen TV is supposed to be wonderful and offer all kind of great things. The biggie is 4K TV over the air. There's also Dolby AC-4 (7.1.4, Atmos). Other stuff, too. The big thing is the TV broadcast could look and sound better. If you have the right equipment.

Now, if you are a streamer, and only a streamer, this doesn't really matter. Your streaming services will deal with all of that. But, if you do use an antenna, it might make a difference.

I'll use my current situation as an example. In one of the rooms, I have an HD TV with Roku, Apple TV, Chromecast, and Fire TV devices attached. I do not have an antenna attached to that TV. There's more to this, but keeping it simple, let's say that's the extent of it. In that case, Next Gen TV won't mean a thing for that TV.

Let's suppose I upgrade that TV to a new 4K TV. Next Gen TV still won't make a difference, since there's no antenna attached.

So now let's add an antenna. Am I good to go with the new Next Gen TV features? No.

The problem isn't the antenna. A TV antenna is a TV antenna. The old antennae that worked for the analog VHF and UHF stations work for digital/HD VHF and UHF. There's no such thing as an "HD TV antenna." It's a TV antenna. All that "HD TV antenna" stuff is marketing, not reality. Nothing special is needed to pick up HD TV signals. And that will remain true for Next Gen TV. The same antenna will work. The same antenna that used to pick up new episodes of "I Love Lucy" and "Gunsmoke" will work today, and will work with Next Gen TV. You will not need a new antenna. But you might need a new TV. Or at least a new tuner.

Remember when things transitioned over to digital from the old analog TV? Remember those boxes you could request and took forever to arrive so you went to Walmart and bought your own anyway for about $40? Remember that? Yeah, look for that again. Only since the switch to Next Gen TV is voluntary, and since TV stations will still broadcast in ATSC 1.0 for years after switching, if you want to take advantage of Next Gen TV, you'll have to buy a converter box. Or a new TV.

Now, in my situation, I do have an antenna, but it's not connected to any TV. Rather, it's connected to a Tablo device, which puts it on the network for all my TVs. There's also an Air TV device connected that does the same thing. So what then? Well, I'll need to replace those devices since they don't support Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0). Tablo has introduced a Next Gen TV version that works with both the current ATSC 1.0 and the new ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV). Which costs about $60 more than the current top of the line device.

So, what should you do? If you're not in range of a station currently or soon broadcasting in ATSC 3.0/Next Gen TV, then you really don't need to do anything. If you need to buy a new TV, do consider getting one that is compatible.

If you don't have an antenna, or don't plan to get an antenna, you really don't need to do anything. This whole Next Gen TV thing only matters if you are able to pick up an ATSC 3.0 signal. No antenna, no picking up the signal.

But, if you have an antenna, you'll want to keep Next Gen TV in mind when you do buy a TV, or if you buy a Tablo or Air TV device. Right now, there is no Air TV device that's compatible, and only one expensive Tablo device that is compatible. I don't know when Air TV might start their jump onto the Next Gen TV bandwagon.

Of course, if you don't use an antenna, and aren't looking to add one soon, Next Gen TV doesn't make a difference to your Streaming Life.

Fawesome, a deeper look

Some weeks back, I took a quick look at the Fawesome app. It's another free streaming app, ad-supported app with some good selections and some bad ones. It's one of several that you can find for different streaming devices, and I said before that it's one I would probably keep and watch from time to time.

Well, I did. And I will still. But I don't want to give the impression that it's an exceptional app. It's not. But it is a good app. By that I mean I have experienced a lot of apps that were not as good. This is better than most of its type.

The quality of the app is fine. The drawbacks are common to these types of apps. The selection of movies isn't great, but it's okay. It's not up to that of Crackle, for instance, but it's okay.

The commercials play every 10-12 minutes of movie time, and can run 2-3 minutes. That gives you 10 minutes of movie, then 2 minutes of commercials, another 10 minutes of movie, another 2 minutes of commercial, another 10 minutes of commercial, another 10 minutes of movie, and so on. And the breaks are pretty hard breaks. They'll interrupt a sentence, or a word, and play a commercial. When the break is over, the movies picks up with a few seconds rewind. Not great, but I've seen worse.

If you haven't noticed, most of the positives I've mentioned are along the line of "I've seen worse." That doesn't seem to speak highly of it, and I suppose that's correct. But, the reality is that there aren't a lot of better apps of this type.

Another thing I don't like is that the app plays the next movie automatically. There's no way to turn that off, and it's one of the things I hate most about apps. I'm okay with autoplay in an app, since some people like it. But I don't like it, and if it's there, I want the ability to turn it off. A lot of apps don't allow that, and I tend to not use those apps as often.

So, after using Fawesome for a bit, I've concluded that I may still use it some, but not often. It's still on my Roku device, and it'll probably be there for a bit. And it'll stay there until I decide to do an app cleanup and decide I haven't used it in a month or more. So, yeah, it's still a part of my Streaming Life, but I'm not sure for how long. Should it be a part of yours? Maybe. I say you should give it a shot. If the things I don't like don't really bother you, then it might be an app you use a lot.

How to watch the bowl games: Day 15

There are 44 college bowl games/playoff games this year. The first two were on December 17, and the last one, the national championship game, will be on January 10. In all, 86 schools will have played games this post-season.

Streamers used to have a difficult time watching the games live -- at least legally -- but that changed in the 2015 season when the first live streaming service, Sling TV, launched. Now, there are several live streaming services, and you have lots of options when it comes to watching bowl games.

The Games

One bowl game, the last bowl game before the championship game next week, is scheduled.

Tuesday, January 4

TaxAct Texas Bowl

9:00 PM on ESPN

Louisiana State (6-6) vs. Kansas State (7-5)

How to Watch

Today's game will be on a streaming service that carries ESPN. Here are the services.

ESPN/ESPN2

ESPN carries the most games. A few are carried on ESPN2. All services that carry ESPN also carry ESPN2:

• Sling Orange ($35)
• Vidgo ($55)
• YouTube TV ($65)
• Fubo ($65)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70)
• DirecTV Stream ($70)

The cheapest way to watch all of the bowl games is Sling Orange ($35).