The NEWMAC has now officially joined the Landmark in signing with Flo Sports for a paywall stream of all of its games.
https://newmacsports.com/tournaments/?id=39
QuoteWestwood, MA (February 28, 2024) – The NEWMAC and FloSports, a global independent sports media company and streaming platform, today announced a historic five-year media rights agreement under which FloSports will become the exclusive media partner of the NEWMAC beginning in the 2024-2025 academic year. By providing the NEWMAC with a national platform and additional resources, the agreement will enhance the NEWMAC's standing as a preeminent NCAA Division III conference.
"As a conference, our mission is to be at the forefront of the evolving landscape of college athletics to create the best possible experience for our student-athletes," said Patrick B. Summers, NEWMAC Executive Director. "Our partnership with FloSports enables the NEWMAC to continue building on our success as a conference by providing our student-athletes and institutional brands with increased exposure and a national platform."
Under the terms of the agreement, FloSports will distribute more than 1,100 regular season and postseason NEWMAC events live and on-demand across 17 sports, with member institutions having the option to post full games free of charge on their institutional platforms 72 hours after each contest. FloSports investment into the conference will enhance overall production quality and media operations of member schools throughout the term of the contract. FloSports will also leverage the nationally and internationally recognized brands of the NEWMAC member institutions by producing original content and social media programming throughout the conference over the five-year term.
"This partnership will allow the NEWMAC to continue to elevate its brand and highlight our most valuable asset – our student-athletes. We are proud to be a leader among athletic conferences, and our NEWMAC Presidents Council is unanimous in its belief that this is the right path forward for the NEWMAC," added Stephen Spinelli Jr., President of Babson College and Chair of the NEWMAC Presidents Council.
With 90 percent of the revenue from the agreement going back to the NEWMAC member institutions, the agreement will enable the implementation of improved broadcast production standards and continued equity in production quality between corresponding men's and women's sports.
I don't think this will be the last conference to sign up with Flo Sports. With Landmark and now NEWMAC, it's pretty clear that their plan is to sign up as many conferences as possible so that the value proposition for D3 fans will shift in favor of subscribing. See the statement below from Flo Sports:
"We are committed to providing the comprehensive destination that NCAA Division III conferences, schools, student-athletes, and fans deserve, and are proud to make an investment in the NEWMAC to serve this mission," said Mike Levy, Senior Vice President, Global Rights Acquisition & Partnerships at FloSports. "We remain steadfast in our belief that there is significant value to be unearthed at the Division III level, and the NEWMAC's combination of athletic excellence and nationally recognized member institutions makes the conference a significant addition to our platform."
Ironically, I don't think this move will be a good one for D3 sports' argument for avoiding employer status in the eyes of the NLRB and the law. Any new revenue streams are going to make D3 look closer and closer to D1, even if the amount of money is minuscule in the overall picture. Plus, a media partner is going to impose requirements and restrictions on students that add to the argument that colleges are exercising control over the students-athletes for purposes of determining whether they are employees.
When news of this broke earlier this month, D3hoops' Ryan Scott did a very in-depth dive into the Flo-nomenon(tm):
https://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2023-24/d3-go-with-the-flo
The SCIAC has announced (https://thesciac.org/news/2024/6/4/general-sciac-taps-flosports-as-exclusive-media-partner-through-multi-year-rights-agreement.aspx)it has signed an agreement to broadcast all games on Flo Sports. They did negotiate to give free access after three days on the school's individual platforms (which may mean it depends upon the individual school as to whether it is provided), but otherwise their games will now all be behind a paywall.
QuoteLAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. - June 5, 2024 - The Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a multi-year media rights agreement with FloSports, a global sports media company, making it the exclusive digital platform for the SCIACtv Network beginning with the 2024-25 academic year.
"The SCIAC and its nine member institutions are thrilled to begin a partnership with FloSports," SCIAC Commissioner Jenn Dubow said. "This agreement provides opportunities to enhance our conference and institutional efforts to provide a quality streaming experience for our student-athletes, alumni, family and fans. FloSports has demonstrated a significant and sincere commitment to providing funding and exposure for small-school college sports in a collaborative way that can help each of our institutions' unique approach and goals to streaming and athletics communications. This is a direction DIII is headed as a whole and the SCIAC will continue to position itself as a leading conference while ensuring we maintain a primary focus on our student-athlete experience in all endeavors."
The SCIAC becomes the third Division III conference partnering with FloSports after the Landmark Conference announced an agreement in July 2023. It is home to three national championships in the 2023-2024 season, including two from California Lutheran for Women's Soccer and Men's Volleyball along with Pomona Pitzer for Men's Cross Country.
Over the length of the five-year partnership FloSports will stream all live and on-demand SCIAC events, including the conference's 21 championships. The SCIAC and FloSports have developed a shared vision for enhancing broadcast production standards and athletics communication efforts across all nine member institutions, with FloSports providing annual investment in the conference and each member.
On-demand access will last for a period of 72 hours following each contest, after which video will be archived on the SCIACtv Network and member institutions will be able to provide access free-of-charge through their institutional platforms. FloSports will also leverage the local, national and international brands of SCIAC member institutions by producing original content and social media programming.
Does that mean I will need to wait three days to watch for free? Some of the current broadcasts are very bad.
This appears to be a near identical deal to what the Landmark and NEWMAC have, which means it comes with some minimum requirements for broadcasts that increase over the five years. I agree, some of the SCIAC schools will have to step up more than others.
I also wonder what pressure Flo is getting from their current partners. I know there was a lot of complaint about the mid-major D1 baseball coverage. The schools are responsible for that, of course, but the customers complain to Flo. I'm not sure how that affects things.
I know there's a review period after two or three years, where either side can back out of the deal. We'll have to wait to see how the conferences and Flo feel about this arrangement.
I'm not a huge fan of this arrangement, but I appreciate why conferences do it and, ultimately, monetization is going to have to happen, so we can chalk this up to the learning process as we figure it out.
This is info I was just sent by Oxy Women's Basketball:
Hi , if you are referring to watching our games online
Occidental Women's Basketball
they will no longer be free, no
You'd have to subscribe to FloSports. You can get a monthly or annual subscription. The subscription will give you access to everything on FloSports, not just SCIAC competition
Quote from: Gray Fox on June 05, 2024, 11:23:16 PMThis is info I was just sent by Oxy Women's Basketball:
Hi , if you are referring to watching our games online
Occidental Women's Basketball
they will no longer be free, no
You'd have to subscribe to FloSports. You can get a monthly or annual subscription. The subscription will give you access to everything on FloSports, not just SCIAC competition
Yes, but you should be able to review the gamesd 72 hours after completion on the school's site. At least that is the landmark model.
Quote from: NEPAFAN on June 06, 2024, 07:05:51 PMQuote from: Gray Fox on June 05, 2024, 11:23:16 PMThis is info I was just sent by Oxy Women's Basketball:
Hi , if you are referring to watching our games online
Occidental Women's Basketball
they will no longer be free, no
You'd have to subscribe to FloSports. You can get a monthly or annual subscription. The subscription will give you access to everything on FloSports, not just SCIAC competition
Yes, but you should be able to review the gamesd 72 hours after completion on the school's site. At least that is the landmark model.
The same for the SCIAC according to the excerpt of the press release I posted earlier on this thread. So, if you want to watch a game to see a team's style of play (e.g., if you are a recruit) or to gauge the quality of a team or a particular player (e.g., for rankings or all american team selections), you can just wait until it's available for free. If you want to watch it live because you are interested in the outcome of a game, though, you have to subscribe. My guess is the biggest group in the latter category are the followers of the opponent of a Landmark/NEWMAC/SCIAC team in a non-conference game or diehard fans of a particular DIII sport (which, to be fair, is probably limited to the people on this board)
Another conference, the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference, joins (https://www.scacsports.com/news/2024-2025/scac_flosports)the FloSports bandwagon, although this one is messy.
QuoteThe Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference (SCAC) announced today it has entered into a multi-year, seven-figure media rights agreement with FloSports, a global sports media company, making it the fourth Division III conference to be featured on the upcoming FloCollege platform. The agreement will also fuel productions for the soon to be created SCACtv Network beginning in the 2024-25 academic year.
The messy part is that not all the conference schools are participating
QuoteOver the length of the five-year partnership, FloSports will stream all live and on-demand SCAC events from participating members Centenary College, Colorado College, Concordia University (Texas), University of Dallas, McMurry University, University of the Ozarks, Schreiner University and University of St. Thomas, including the conference's 18 championships on FloCollege. On-demand access will last for a period of 72 hours following each contest, after which video will be archived on the SCACtv Network and member institutions will be able to provide access free-of-charge through their institutional platforms. FloSports will also leverage the local, national and international brands of SCAC member institutions by producing original content and social media programming.
Only 8 schools are listed, when the conference currently has 12 members. The fact that Trinity and Southwestern aren't listed makes sense because they are moving to the SAA next year, but that still leaves 2 other schools opting out - Texas Lutheran and Austin College.
On the schools not signing this deal, it raises real questions about Austin College and Texas Lutheran. Three possible explanations:
1. Austin and TLU held out on principle to the idea of selling their games and were willing to forgo the revenue (even from the championship games) to do so. Seems unlikely Flo Sports would go along with that because it hurts the value of its product. It makes it less likely everyone will sign up because some games will still be streamed for free and it sets a bad precedent for future conferences.
2. Austin and TLU are going to the SAA. The SAA has 10 members with Southwestern and Trinity and without Birmingham Southern and this would give them 12 (although they are losing Hendrix in 2025). If you were going to identify teams that might make sense for the SAA, from both an academic and geographical perspective, it might be those two. You could start thinking about a western and eastern division of the SAA, with maybe Millsaps moving to the West, which alleviates some of the travel burden for most schools.
3. Austin and TLU are going to the ASC. Seems unlikely, but the ASC could have lured them away in a last ditch effort to stay alive. They would both bring football teams, which is the biggest issue for the ASC, and maybe they have agreed to cover enough expenses to make it worth their while.
I think the SAA explanation seems most likely, but that's just a guess.
As I posted on the SCAC football board, the failure to include TLU and Austin is a *huge* eye opener. The conference has basically opened itself up to treating members differently (and sharing revenue only with the eight noted).
Dwayne Hanberry (who I see watching as I enter this) does so many things right that you have to wonder if the conference presidents (or eight of them) are the ones driving this. Does not bode well.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 11, 2024, 05:19:53 PMAs I posted on the SCAC football board, the failure to include TLU and Austin is a *huge* eye opener. The conference has basically opened itself up to treating members differently (and sharing revenue only with the eight noted).
Dwayne Hanberry (who I see watching as I enter this) does so many things right that you have to wonder if the conference presidents (or eight of them) are the ones driving this. Does not bode well.
I modified my post to go over the possible explanations for why Austin College and Texas Lutheran aren't included. To me, an unannounced conference move seems most likely.
Agreed. And this time the ASC might be just as likely as the SAA given both came from there and the travel would be much simpler.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 11, 2024, 05:24:51 PMAgreed. And this time the ASC might be just as likely as the SAA given both came from there and the travel would be much simpler.
For what it's worth, TLU just posted about it
https://tlubulldogs.com/general/2024-25/releases/20240710dy20yp
QuoteIn a decision made with its fan base in mind, Texas Lutheran has decided to opt-out of this agreement initially - deciding to continue to offer all home games and matches to Bulldog fans for free on their YouTube Channel, TLU+, for free with immediate access to all. TLU games will still be housed on the conference's new SCACtv Network with road conference games being found on the paid subscription service at every institution this season but Trinity, Southwestern, and Austin College. TLU can still choose to opt-in to join the FloSports platform at a later date.
That's kind of a non-answer to the question in mind, because I don't see why FloSports would want to allow it if there wasn't a better reason than we just don't want to participate. Pomona-Pitzer and CMS are much richer than TLU and Austin and not participating would have made more sense for their families and alums, but they are going along with the other SCIAC schools. Either the SCIAC has a different governance structure and majority rules or FloSports was getting desperate for more content and caved when the SCAC couldn't get all schools to sign on to the deal.
There's a fourth explanation, or a variant of the previous ones I mentioned upthread, as to why Austin and TLU didn't sign on to the SCAC's FloSports deal.
It may be that they are not confident that the SCAC without Trinity and Southwestern will be to their liking and they want to remain flexible for a possible future move (whether or not they have had any discussions with the SAA and the ASC already about the possibility of a move). If these FloSports deals are being structured as grant-in-rights deals by the schools, then schools should take a close look at the litigation involving the ACC and Clemson/Florida State. In a world in which conference membership is constantly changing because of schools closing or cutting certain sports, the last thing a school wants is to limit its ability to be nimble and adjust to changing circumstances by moving elsewhere.
For a SCAC school, this seems particularly relevant because there are potentially three conferences that have overlapping geographical coverage now and membership has shifted back and forth repeatedly over the years. For a SCIAC school, that may have been less of an issue because there are no other DIII schools or conferences nearby and it would take a massive shift of a bunch of NAIA or DII schools to DIII for a new conference to develop. Indeed, in the SCIAC, some of the wealthier schools may have signed on because they needed to help the poorer schools create more revenue flows to make sure they stick around and keep the conference viable.
Good on the schools who are not upending their entire model of access for a piddling sum — the initial article on the D3hoops mentioned something revenues of like $27,000 a year per school, which is LOL.
As I was told by someone at my institution, that basically covers three road trips for football. It's a drop on the revenue bucket
IC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.
Quote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.
I agree. But I still find this very obnoxious. The people most likely to pay FloSports are those already paying for their child to play sports at a D3 school. It's just an appalling double dip on those parents.
Quote from: jknezek on July 12, 2024, 09:10:12 AMQuote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.
I agree. But I still find this very obnoxious. The people most likely to pay FloSports are those already paying for their child to play sports at a D3 school. It's just an appalling double dip on those parents.
How much are they going to charge us?
Quote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.
The hand they bite might actually be the hand that feeds them though.
1. If I donate money every a year to IC's athletic department on Giving Day, and now, I've got to give money to Flo Sports watch IC athletics, I may decide that my personal budget doesn't allow me to do both.
2. Reducing the audience for your college's events is almost never good. The goal should be to increase your audience.
3. Forcing people to jump through monetary hoops for your formerly free product is not going to make them happy. (Heck, jknezek sounds annoyed on behalf of
other people.) They may still do it, or they may say "all they ever ask me to do is give them money" — because even if the money technically goes to FloSports, that's not how everyone is going to read it — and it may sour them on their relationship to the college.
My family has been around higher ed for a really long time, and between that and my own personal experience being in the thick of it since 2016, most people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.
Ithaca once got a $17 million dollar gift from someone who wasn't even an alum. Why? Because every year he gave money to the Communications school IC and another college. Every year, the student at IC who benefitted from his gift (the money was given to them to help them cover the costs associated with producing a films), along with the Dean, hand wrote a thank you note to this person.
When this individual died, his lawyer called our dean and said that the reason IC was getting so much — and the other school almost nothing — was because every time this person got a thank you note from us and not the other school, he took some of the money he had earmarked for them and put it with the money he earmarked for us. Over the years, it added up and...the rest is history.
And that $17 million understates it. That's just what he *gave*. The dean created an endowment with some of the initial money, and now, more than 30 years later, the comms school is getting more than $800,000 a year. All for probably 20 bucks worth of stamps and envelopes and paper.
The point is, everything you do has consequences, and you may not realize it until too late.
It's entirely possible I'm overstating the potential negative impact of making people pay to watch D3 sports. Maybe everyone will ultimately just complain like I am, and then pony up anyway. Maybe it won't materially impact anyone's relationship with the college.
But $27,000 a year — the equivalent of 0.013% of Ithaca College's 2023-24 operating expense budget — is not enough money for me to want to find out. But maybe that's why I'm not an AD. Maybe I am completely misreading this.
IC7
If I give to the school I can get matching money from my employer. If I give to Flo that will not happen. I have a budget of my own.
I think you're missing one of the most basic things. When schools first started broadcasting over the internet it became so much easier for parents to follow their kids and see games, even if the school was far beyond driving distance for every game. Lots of schools benefitted by recruiting athletes from areas they were less likely to score from before, all because now family could still participate more than one or twice a season.
Now along come some of these schools thinking, "it's only a few more bucks, parents will pay it." And for the most part I think they are correct. But there will be some who say school A isn't much better than school B, and school B is closer and isn't going to charge me to watch my kid play the sport I'm already paying for him to attend and play.
And I hope those parents make it known that this nickel and dime crap isn't worth it from a competitive or enrollment point of view. It doesn't take a whole lot of prospects saying "nah, I'll stick with B" before that $27K starts to look real expensive instead of really like a benefit.
Unless, of course, FloSports can do such a good job as to make it worthwhile. My limited experience with FloSports is they haven't, and I suspect it would cost too much to make it worth it on their end to make the production improve to make it worthwhile.
So I hope a few parents put these schools on blast. It's not a huge amount of money, but it's one more thing. Maybe a few parents and a few prospects turning away with this as a mentioned factor will make the whole stupid idea die.
Or maybe a few athletes will get the bright idea to say "if you are going to make money off of us, maybe you need to start paying us benefits" and watch those D3 schools cave in a hurry.
It's not like D3 can use any of the excuses about free education that D1 finally failed at.
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 12, 2024, 01:09:34 PMIC7
If I give to the school I can get matching money from my employer. If I give to Flo that will not happen. I have a budget of my own.
Right, that's my point. It's not a free $27,000 they found on the ground. That's what the school gets from Flo for pushing a cost to its audience. And its audience may take the $50 (or whatever) they give to Flo and treat it like a donation to the athletic department — after all, they're giving money in exchange for access to athletics. And then they don't give that $50 when the school comes calling for money. So now, they've actually only made $26,950
Quote from: jknezek on July 12, 2024, 01:12:51 PMNow along come some of these schools thinking, "it's only a few more bucks, parents will pay it." And for the most part I think they are correct. But there will be some who say school A isn't much better than school B, and school B is closer and isn't going to charge me to watch my kid play the sport I'm already paying for him to attend and play.
And I hope those parents make it known that this nickel and dime crap isn't worth it from a competitive or enrollment point of view. It doesn't take a whole lot of prospects saying "nah, I'll stick with B" before that $27K starts to look real expensive instead of really like a benefit.
Very well stated, and yes, another example of the long-term relationship damage that can be done.
Ithaca Volleyball has a roster consisting of players from
Texas (X2), Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, California, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Pennslyvania.
Just two players are from New York, and one of those is from Ossining. I suspect all of those parents are going to have to watch their daughters online, and, were IC one of the schools that made them pay to do so, it might bother them, and you know what, Wisconsin Whitewater is less than an hour from Madison.
Straws, camels, and all that
I've seen it from both sides, one season of an ESPN+ subscription when my son was playing soccer at a D1 school and then the ability to watch a free, but clearly not same quality output, when he moved to Amherst. Being in Australia, I know that if the only way I could watch him play was to pay, that I would be jacked off, but do it. I guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash, but I would expect given endowment sizes at many of them, it would be a very difficult decision to justify for a modest outcome.
Quote from: EnmoreCat on July 13, 2024, 03:29:15 PMI guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash
$27,000 for 25 sports at Amherst would be an extra $1,100 per sport a year.
The college has a $3.3 billion endowment.
Quote from: EnmoreCat on July 13, 2024, 03:29:15 PMI've seen it from both sides, one season of an ESPN+ subscription when my son was playing soccer at a D1 school and then the ability to watch a free, but clearly not same quality output, when he moved to Amherst. Being in Australia, I know that if the only way I could watch him play was to pay, that I would be jacked off, but do it. I guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash, but I would expect given endowment sizes at many of them, it would be a very difficult decision to justify for a modest outcome.
I have seen a handful of NESCAC football and baseball games. They have a good quality and don't actually need Flo. But they already have money.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 12, 2024, 12:53:41 PMmost people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.
Holy moly, bold and double underline this.
FloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution. But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do. Worth that risk for $27k? Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it instead of making them feel like they need to pay a ransom to be one of dozens of people to watch a Wednesday night basketball game where the single swivel camera is going to miss 10-15% of the game? I absolutely get the need for more resources for broadcast support, but I'm not sure this is the way.
Quote from: wally_wabash on July 18, 2024, 03:33:40 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 12, 2024, 12:53:41 PMmost people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.
Holy moly, bold and double underline this.
FloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution. But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do. Worth that risk for $27k? Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it instead of making them feel like they need to pay a ransom to be one of dozens of people to watch a Wednesday night basketball game where the single swivel camera is going to miss 10-15% of the game? I absolutely get the need for more resources for broadcast support, but I'm not sure this is the way.
I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread and am glad that my alma mater opted out on this deal. However, I do think there is a decent reason why schools/conferences are partnering with Flo Sports.
I strongly doubt that the approximately $27K of revenue is why schools/conferences are choosing to partner with Flo Sports. However, Flo Sports eliminates the costs and expenses the schools incur to video and broadcast their events. A school could very easily reason that the costs and expenses to broadcast events that a few dozen will watch is not worth it but, if a third-party is paying those costs and expenses, at least the school will have its events broadcasts and their alumni/supporters/fans have access to the events without traveling to the event site.
The ability to watch DIII sporting events anywhere but in person is fairly new. When I was attending TLU (98-02), there was no internet broadcast of their games. Maybe there was a radio broadcast but, if you wanted to watch the game, you had to go to the game.
We have been extremely fortunate that access to DIII sports through internet broadcasts have been, mostly, free of charge. What other professional/college teams could we watch for free in the history of sports, except for over-the-air television (and we all know that DIII sports will never be broadcasts over the air)?
I am not saying this is a compelling reason for a school/conference to partner with Flo Sports. I agree that building good will with your alumni/supporters base likely outweighs the benefits a school receives from the Flo Sports deal. All of that said, I can also see where a school weighs those pros and cons and determines that having a third party incur the costs and expenses to broadcasts its sports event is more or equally beneficial, especially if it means that the school will continue to have its events broadcasts where alumni/supporters will have access to it besides in person. What if the alternative is no internet broadcast? How does that continue to build goodwill?
Quote from: wally_wabash on July 18, 2024, 03:33:40 PMFloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution. But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do. Worth that risk for $27k? Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it?
If your philanthropy and development people know what they're doing, then yes
As I have mentioned elsewhere, $27,000 is roughly 6% of what Ithaca athletics raised (https://givingday.ithaca.edu/leaderboards) in the college's annual Giving Day last year.
If you're in such dire financial straits that you really need that piddling sum...you're probably in a death spiral anyway
Quote from: TLU02SA on July 18, 2024, 04:23:07 PMAll of that said, I can also see where a school weighs those pros and cons and determines that having a third party incur the costs and expenses to broadcasts its sports event is more or equally beneficial, especially if it means that the school will continue to have its events broadcasts where alumni/supporters will have access to it besides in person. What if the alternative is no internet broadcast? How does that continue to build goodwill?
This doesn't happen with Flo, to be clear. Each school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract. When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.
As for the money - my understanding is that the deal is an overall for the conference which they divvy up as they see fit. There's really no way to know what each school in each conference is going to receive.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 19, 2024, 07:50:48 AMEach school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract. When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.
Thanks. I had not caught that previously. So, Flo is only providing the platform through which events are broadcasts? Each school is still responsible for providing cameras, announcers, graphics, mics and other on location equipment?
Quote from: TLU02SA on July 19, 2024, 11:40:41 AMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 19, 2024, 07:50:48 AMEach school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract. When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.
Thanks. I had not caught that previously. So, Flo is only providing the platform through which events are broadcasts? Each school is still responsible for providing cameras, announcers, graphics, mics and other on location equipment?
Yes. Flo has done some promotional stuff, too. They covered the Landmark day at the Palestra in person (a college gameday kind of setup), did some preseason video hits promoting teams, and written pieces on the website - but those aren't contractual, as far as I know.
Quote from: TLU02SA on July 19, 2024, 11:40:41 AMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 19, 2024, 07:50:48 AMEach school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract. When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.
Thanks. I had not caught that previously. So, Flo is only providing the platform through which events are broadcasts? Each school is still responsible for providing cameras, announcers, graphics, mics and other on location equipment?
Exactly. Each school is responsible for every aspect of the broadcast except for where it winds up being broadcast to. Which, obviously, some schools can handle pretty easily. Others are not. The Lone Star Conference (D2) is apparently on the verge of making the move, and sounds like even they are worried about being able to handle the requirements, at least at some of the schools.
Quote from: jekelish on July 22, 2024, 05:20:28 PMQuote from: TLU02SA on July 19, 2024, 11:40:41 AMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 19, 2024, 07:50:48 AMEach school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract. When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.
Thanks. I had not caught that previously. So, Flo is only providing the platform through which events are broadcasts? Each school is still responsible for providing cameras, announcers, graphics, mics and other on location equipment?
Exactly. Each school is responsible for every aspect of the broadcast except for where it winds up being broadcast to. Which, obviously, some schools can handle pretty easily. Others are not. The Lone Star Conference (D2) is apparently on the verge of making the move, and sounds like even they are worried about being able to handle the requirements, at least at some of the schools.
If nothing else, Sul Ross should be worried.
It's official that the Lone Star made the move.
The NEWMAC announced (https://newmacsports.com/news/2024/8/6/general-newmac-releases-options-for-2024-2025-flosports-subscriptions.aspx)subscription options for their FloSports package
This seems like it's missing information. What if you're a fan, but not with an actual NEWMAC school .edu address? What's the discounted rate for signing up through their landing page? And what's the difference between FloCollege and the regular package? Does not getting it mean you only get NEWMAC games? If so, then fall sports are kind of screwed since they would sign up before Oct 1, unless they only want the games of their school, which makes the whole thing pretty pricey. If this is how the roll-out is going to be explained at all conferences signing up with Flo, it's already a bad sign.
QuoteFans with a NEWMAC member institution .edu email address will be able to sign up for a discounted subscription price of $9.99 per month or $71.88 per year ($5.99/month). A standard FloSports subscription costs $29.99 a month or $150 for the year ($12.50/month), however NEWMAC fans can gain a discounted rate by signing up through the NEWMAC's Landing Page on FloSports by October 1, 2024.
Starting October 1, 2024, FloSports is launching FloCollege, a new destination to stream nearly 12,000 Division I, II and III games through leading web, mobile, and Connected TV applications. Subscription plans will be available at $19.99 per month or $107.88 per year (8.99/month). Subscribers with a NEWMAC member institution .edu email address will still be able to sign up for a discounted subscription price of $9.99 per month or $71.88 per year ($5.99/month). NEWMAC fans are encouraged to sign up using the NEWMAC's Landing Page on FloSports in order to receive any discounts.
Watch NEWMAC on FloSports on AppleTV, Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Android TV or by casting.
North Carolina Wesleyan agrees to a deal with FloSports, which appears to be a standalone deal not with USA South conference
https://x.com/bishopsports/status/1828919707086278996?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
Quote from: Kuiper on August 30, 2024, 05:48:02 PMNorth Carolina agrees to a deal with FloSports, which appears to be a standalone deal not with USA South conference
https://x.com/bishopsports/status/1828919707086278996?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
The jerks won't let anyone reply to their tweet, either. Classy.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 30, 2024, 06:01:20 PMQuote from: Kuiper on August 30, 2024, 05:48:02 PMNorth Carolina agrees to a deal with FloSports, which appears to be a standalone deal not with USA South conference
https://x.com/bishopsports/status/1828919707086278996?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
The jerks won't let anyone reply to their tweet, either. Classy.
North Carolina Wesleyan had, hands-down, the worst football broadcast in the USA South last season. It'll be a steep learning curve for them to live up to the standards.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 30, 2024, 09:05:29 PMQuote from: Ron Boerger on August 30, 2024, 06:01:20 PMQuote from: Kuiper on August 30, 2024, 05:48:02 PMNorth Carolina agrees to a deal with FloSports, which appears to be a standalone deal not with USA South conference
https://x.com/bishopsports/status/1828919707086278996?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
The jerks won't let anyone reply to their tweet, either. Classy.
North Carolina Wesleyan had, hands-down, the worst football broadcast in the USA South last season. It'll be a steep learning curve for them to live up to the standards.
Does anybody who already has a FloSports account want to help me out and watch some of the NC Wesleyan game tonight and let me know how it goes so I can decide if it will be worth it to pay to watch one game next week?
On the Men's Soccer board I observed that I had to shell out $14.99 to watch Amherst play WPI, where there was no commentator and camera work which wasn't 100pct good at keeping up with the play. I do hope the Athletic Department there spends my contribution carefully. I emailed the Athletic Department at WPI to complain, being fully aware that the response, if any, will likely be unsatisfying.
From what I understand PBP for soccer is not required until the second year of the contract.
So I did pay the $14.99 for a month subscription to FloSports to watch Huntingdon play at NC Wesleyan. The broadcast exceeded expectations. The picture was clear and had two camera angles that they switched between with one behind one end zone. The only negative to the end zone camera was because of the structure that it's in, it couldn't see the left side of that end zone. The announcers were good. They kept it fairly even and did a good job of not being complete homers.
The oddest thing that happened was part way through the 4th quarter when it seems like the HC roster they were using somehow switched to last year's roster. They started calling Aiden Cox(wearing #3 at QB), Aiden Quinn, who was a freshman listed as #3 last year. On a punt return they called #12 Ryheem Quinney, Kyler Chaney and freshman RB #24 De'Roderick Hepburn was called Jaden Hester. Chaney and Hester were both seniors last year.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 30, 2024, 09:05:29 PMQuote from: Ron Boerger on August 30, 2024, 06:01:20 PMQuote from: Kuiper on August 30, 2024, 05:48:02 PMNorth Carolina agrees to a deal with FloSports, which appears to be a standalone deal not with USA South conference
https://x.com/bishopsports/status/1828919707086278996?s=46&t=uXiupHZfR0TxrRyWF9BmRg
The jerks won't let anyone reply to their tweet, either. Classy.
North Carolina Wesleyan had, hands-down, the worst football broadcast in the USA South last season. It'll be a steep learning curve for them to live up to the standards.
Who would watch a NCW game, anyway? Back in the day I attended a road game there. I literally counted the fans in the stands. 84. So, they get a deal with Flo so that 3 people can watch? Who makes these decisions?
FloSports Launches New 'FloCollege' Streaming Service (https://thestreamable.com/flosports-launches-new-flocollege-streaming-service?utm_source=www.d3playbook.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=flosports-launches-new-flocollege-streaming-service&_bhlid=2a39a84afeb3c00357b22eeebd454583e6d9f281) [thestreamable.com article]
Excerpts:
Quote[...]
FloCollege will launch for subscribers as of Tuesday, Oct. 15. The streamer will carry two main subscription options: a monthly plan for $19.99, or a yearly option for $107.88 — around $8.99 per month, though of course, the entire subscription price is due upfront with the annual plan.
Students with a .edu email address from a partner institution will be able to sign up for FloCollege for $9.99 per month or $71.88 per year.
[...]
In addition to the BIG EAST and CAA, FloCollege will provide games from schools in the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (GLIAC), Landmark Conference, New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference (NEWMAC), South Atlantic Conference (SAC), California Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA), Lone Star Conference (LSC), Gulf South Conference (GSC), Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC), Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference (SCAC) and Northeast-10 Conference (NE10).
The article does not mention that not all schools in a conference will participate. The SCAC has four schools that have opted out and there may be schools in other conferences who will not.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on September 25, 2024, 11:02:55 AMFloSports Launches New 'FloCollege' Streaming Service (https://thestreamable.com/flosports-launches-new-flocollege-streaming-service?utm_source=www.d3playbook.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=flosports-launches-new-flocollege-streaming-service&_bhlid=2a39a84afeb3c00357b22eeebd454583e6d9f281) [thestreamable.com article]
Excerpts:
Quote[...]
FloCollege will launch for subscribers as of Tuesday, Oct. 15. The streamer will carry two main subscription options: a monthly plan for $19.99, or a yearly option for $107.88 — around $8.99 per month, though of course, the entire subscription price is due upfront with the annual plan.
Students with a .edu email address from a partner institution will be able to sign up for FloCollege for $9.99 per month or $71.88 per year.
[...]
In addition to the BIG EAST and CAA, FloCollege will provide games from schools in the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (GLIAC), Landmark Conference, New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference (NEWMAC), South Atlantic Conference (SAC), California Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA), Lone Star Conference (LSC), Gulf South Conference (GSC), Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SCIAC), Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference (SCAC) and Northeast-10 Conference (NE10).
The article does not mention that not all schools in a conference will participate. The SCAC has four schools that have opted out and there may be schools in other conferences who will not.
I thought these stats from the article announcing the new platform were interesting
https://www.flosports.tv/2024/09/24/flosports-launches-flocollege-on-october-15-a-new-home-for-college-sports-featuring-more-than-12000-live-games-across-division-i-division-ii-and-division-iii/
QuoteSince the start of the 2024 college sports season, FloSports has seen a 37% increase in viewers for football and a 45% increase for soccer.
It's not surprising since the number of conferences using the service has increased, but it means people are buynig and using the service rather than going without their favorite teams and it probably means people who buy it for their favorite teams are using it to watch other games too.
Yeah, they have an "increase" because if you want to see broadcasts for dozens of schools you have no choice.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on September 25, 2024, 07:48:06 PMYeah, they have an "increase" because if you want to see broadcasts for dozens of schools you have no choice.
Yep. Honestly, the fact that it's only 37% with the number of schools that have gone behind their paywall feels lower than I would have expected.
Penn State Behrend has a button to donate to support streaming. The minimum is $10, but it's optional.
Quote from: ADL70 on September 26, 2024, 01:25:51 PMPenn State Behrend has a button to donate to support streaming. The minimum is $10, but it's optional.
Even if it is per game and optional, it is good.
FloSports sent a survey to my email account today that covered my experience so far.
Little East Conference signs a deal with Flo Sports (https://littleeast.com/news/2025/4/3/general-little-east-conference-secures-five-year-media-rights-agreement-with-flosports-will-join-flocollege-platform-beginning-in-2025-26.aspx)
QuoteFollowing unanimous approval of the Little East Conference (LEC) Presidents Council, Commissioner Albert Bean, Jr. announced the LEC has entered an exclusive five-year media rights agreement with FloSports that will begin in the upcoming 2025-26 academic year. The seven-figure partnership makes the LEC the fifth NCAA Division III conference to join the FloCollege portfolio.
"We're very excited about our new partnership and five-year media rights agreement with FloSports," said Bean. "This agreement will greatly enhance the visibility of the Little East Conference, assist us in telling the truly great stories and achievements of our student-athletes and team, and provide access to an international platform for those who choose to subscribe. Working with our conference members and FloSports, we look forward to delivering outstanding live video streaming and value added extras, which includes our content being available alongside other prominent NCAA Division I, II and III conferences."
The LEC will add over 1,000 broadcast events annually to the internationally available FloCollege platform, which features a growing number of NCAA conferences. In addition to the LEC, FloCollege subscribers will have access to events broadcast by the Division I Big East Conference and Coastal Athletic Association (CAA), and DIII Landmark Conference, New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference (NEWMAC), Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference.
FloCollege will deliver live and on-demand coverage for the majority of the LEC's 23-sponsored championship sports, and will invest in original content and storytelling initiatives online and across social media aimed at elevating the profile of the LEC's student-athletes and institutions. Sports not offered by the LEC (football, gymnastics, wrestling, etc.) may be opted into the FloCollege platform based on institutional decisions.
These FloSports articles are always written with such a slant.
They use the term "seven-figure deal", which is accurate, but is clearly done to underscore how little money each school receives each year. Funny that they don't mention the cost to consumers in that same article.
Unlike other conferences, when the SCAC signed on with Flo Sports a year ago, it allowed some schools to opt out. Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, and Texas Lutheran all opted out. Texas Lutheran has now decided to opt in for 2025-26.
Texas Lutheran is opting in to the SCAC Flo Sports deal in 2025-26 (https://tlubulldogs.com/general/2024-25/releases/20250615fok46f)
QuoteAfter initially opting out of the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference's (SCAC) multi-year, seven-figure media rights agreement with FloSports, Texas Lutheran Athletics has announced their decision to join the rest of the conference's agreement with FloSports. Starting with the 2025-26 season, all Texas Lutheran athletic events will stream on the FloCollege subscription-based streaming platform. FAQ | SCAC Release
The Bulldogs previous streaming platform, TLU+ on YouTube, will now serve as an archival database that will still feature TLU athletic events on-demand at later dates but will no longer show the games and matches live. "We look forward to continuing to provide the same high-caliber streams to Bulldog fans that they have grown accustomed to on TLU+ on the FloCollege platform," said Director of Sports Information and Sports Marketing Bryce Hayes. "Our first partnership came at the SCAC Championship track meet this spring which went extremely well and I look forward to seeing Nick Trumble and the rest of our staff continuing to strengthen our broadcasts in conjunction with FloSports."
"FloSports is a conference wide initiative that started in 2024-2025. TLU opted out initially to see what impact this type of streaming would have. Since FloSports is a conference wide partnership that is of great benefit to every conference member," said Director of Athletics Bill Miller. "FloSports not only allows the SCAC to build its own streaming network but provides the member institutions with the resources necessary to ensure the ability to provide a consistent, high-quality product while taking advantage of cutting-edge technology that might not otherwise be affordable and/or available. The SCAC and its members believe that this type of streaming is the way of the future."
See ya, TLU events. Of course with Trinity going to the still-blessedly free of Flo SAA, there won't be as many opportunities anyway.
If TLU was desperate enough to take the pittance they're going to get from Flo, the SCAC better hope the ASC doesn't offer them several million to rejoin like they did McMurry and Schreiner.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 19, 2025, 08:18:08 AMIf TLU was desperate enough to take the pittance they're going to get from Flo, the SCAC better hope the ASC doesn't offer them several million to rejoin like they did McMurry and Schreiner.
Elite post
With Trinity and McMurry leaving the SCAC, it seems that TLU can stay as the elite sports program in the SCAC. That means numerous opportunities for the Pool A's in numerous sports. I am not sure about long term football for the SCAC.
In an era of NIL, what does that do to Colorado College with its D2 and D3 sports hybrid?
You know the federal research cuts, threats to international student visas, and other issues are of concern to research universities when the UAA signs up with Flo Sports.
UAA signs a deal with Flo Sports (https://uaasports.info/news/2025/6/20/general-uaa-and-flosports-enter-exclusive-media-rights-agreement.aspx)
QuoteAUSTIN, TX (June 20, 2025) – FloSports and the University Athletic Association (UAA) have entered into an exclusive five-year media rights agreement that will begin in the fall of 2025, bringing eight elite universities to the FloCollege platform. Through the agreement, FloSports will provide a global platform to live stream over 650 regular-season and postseason events annually. The partnership further reinforces FloSports commitment to supporting Division III athletics adding a sixth conference to the FloCollege portfolio.
The UAA is composed of eight prestigious member institutions and is the only DIII conference where all members are elite research institutions, they include: Brandeis University, Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve University, Emory University, New York University (NYU), University of Chicago, University of Rochester, andWashington University in St. Louis (WashU).
UAA teams are regularly represented in the NCAA postseason in all 20 of their sponsored sports, regularly leading the conference standings in the NACDA Learfield Directors' Cup, including each of the last two academic years. During 2023-24, the UAA won national championships in six of its 20-sponsored sports. Emory University won the Directors' Cup for the 2024-25 academic year, with three other UAA institutions (WashU, NYU, University of Chicago) finishing in the top ten. In recent history, UAA teams have won national championships in basketball, golf, soccer, swimming & diving, tennis, and track & field.
"I speak on behalf of all eight UAA institutions when I say how excited we are to partner with FloSports and bring UAA content to FloCollege," commented Sarah Otey, Commissioner of the UAA. "UAA student-athletes are second to none in their academic and athletic successes - and we are grateful to have a streaming network that will give us an opportunity to appropriately promote them. This agreement will allow our institutions to ensure they can stream UAA competition and promote the UAA brand in a manner that best reflects the exceptional nature of our UAA student-athletes."
FloCollege will deliver live and on-demand coverage for the UAA's full sports calendar across 20 different sports. Beyond live competition, FloSports will also invest in original content and storytelling initiatives online and across social media aimed at elevating the profile of UAA student-athletes and institutions.
Michael Levy, FloSports SVP of Global Rights & Acquisition, added, "The UAA boasts some of the most accomplished universities at both an academic and athletic level in Division III. Our partnership with them is a direct investment into the success of their conference and Division III athletics."
FloSports is investing more than $50 million to support rights fees, production, content, product technology, and marketing for its NCAA rights. The direct investment in conference rights helps member institutions apply funding towards their own broadcast and production capabilities to further enhance the quality of coverage across all sports, ensuring parity and inclusivity.
Uggh UAA signs with Flo
https://athletics.case.edu/documents/2025/6/20/UAA_FAQ.pdf
Sadly the pebbles are starting to push bigger rocks down the hill. I suspect all of D3 will go this route over the next couple years unless FLO goes belly up.
Quote from: jknezek on June 20, 2025, 11:52:47 AMSadly the pebbles are starting to push bigger rocks down the hill. I suspect all of D3 will go this route over the next couple years unless FLO goes belly up.
To state it more optimistically, the value proposition for a FloSports subscription is growing (more games you might want to watch on the network and fewer games available for free outside the network) and the importance of D3 to Flo Sports is increasing, which means that Flo has more incentive to take care of the schools/conferences/subscribers that use it. This is especially true with some of the original 5 year-deals coming due in the next few years and the possibility of fragmentation destroying Flo's business model if a competitor picks off a few unsatisfied conferences.
In the case of the UAA, I wouldn't be surprised if Brandeis had been bringing this up for awhile and it started to gain allies as many other conference athletic departments faced cuts and hiring freezes. Many of these research universities have been proactively instituting budget controls because of all the federal funding threats instituted and in the works through the legislative and judicial processes. I wouldn't be surprised if the Centennial Conference is considering it with Hopkins being hammered by the federal funding cuts and several other of the wealthier members schools at risk of losing endowment income from the increased endowment tax rates. Among other conferences with high endowment members and threats of the loss of research grants, the NEWMAC already has a Flo Sports deal, as does the SCIAC.
If the cuts to Pell grants come through in the Budget Bill, I expect many more athletic departments will be under orders to increase revenue generation and Flo Sports is the low hanging fruit right now.
Quote from: ADL70 on June 20, 2025, 11:19:35 AMUggh UAA signs with Flo
https://athletics.case.edu/documents/2025/6/20/UAA_FAQ.pdf
As if we needed any more proof that even the schools for smart kids are capable of doing really dumb things.
Quote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 12:18:00 PMQuote from: jknezek on June 20, 2025, 11:52:47 AMSadly the pebbles are starting to push bigger rocks down the hill. I suspect all of D3 will go this route over the next couple years unless FLO goes belly up.
To state it more optimistically, the value proposition for a FloSports subscription is growing (more games you might want to watch on the network and fewer games available for free outside the network) and the importance of D3 to Flo Sports is increasing, which means that Flo has more incentive to take care of the schools/conferences/subscribers that use it. This is especially true with some of the original 5 year-deals coming due in the next few years and the possibility of fragmentation destroying Flo's business model if a competitor picks off a few unsatisfied conferences.
I wouldn't characterize Flo Sports being subjected to a potentially competitive market for D3 sports streaming as an optimistic outcome. Pay per view is pay per view, no matter which vendor you're paying to watch a game.
In this case, "more optimistic" means drinking expired milk gone bad, as opposed to drinking expired milk gone bad to wash down a sandwich made with moldy bread.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 20, 2025, 12:34:11 PMQuote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 12:18:00 PMQuote from: jknezek on June 20, 2025, 11:52:47 AMSadly the pebbles are starting to push bigger rocks down the hill. I suspect all of D3 will go this route over the next couple years unless FLO goes belly up.
To state it more optimistically, the value proposition for a FloSports subscription is growing (more games you might want to watch on the network and fewer games available for free outside the network) and the importance of D3 to Flo Sports is increasing, which means that Flo has more incentive to take care of the schools/conferences/subscribers that use it. This is especially true with some of the original 5 year-deals coming due in the next few years and the possibility of fragmentation destroying Flo's business model if a competitor picks off a few unsatisfied conferences.
I wouldn't characterize Flo Sports being subjected to a potentially competitive market for D3 sports streaming as an optimistic outcome. Pay per view is pay per view, no matter which vendor you're paying to watch a game.
In this case, "more optimistic" means drinking expired milk gone bad, as opposed to drinking expired milk gone bad to wash down a sandwich made with moldy bread.
The "optimistic" part is that Flo Sports will want to pay more attention to the consumer to avoid losing conferences, which might mean that they focus on keep product standards up. It's admittedly a glass half-full perspective that mostly only applies if you follow teams that are in conferences that already have FloSports deals (so, you no longer have an option of free streaming for your school), but that's where we are right now.
It's safe to say at this point probably every conference had some level of contact, welcomed or otherwise, from FLO or another streamer. To my knowledge there hasn't been another platform actually secure rights but I do know of another one out there that has at least contacted a conference in the East.
The genie is out of the bottle, it's just a matter of seeing down the line if there will be total holdouts (there are programs out there keen to do what they can to self-monetize) and if the conferences that do go this route all end up on one platform of are fragmented between multiple.
It is totally ridiculous that a conference like the UAA says they need this, and I don't care what stupidity is going on in DC (and there's a lot of it).
One thing I know about streaming services: as soon as they feel they have a sufficient captive audience, they will jack the price up, then start selling commercials, usually simultaneously. You'd be hard pressed to find any (maybe Apple TV+) that don't do both in quick succession. Just look at Amazon Prime which has just increased commercials to something like six minutes/hour, after initially bragging about how they'd never have any and then implementing 3 minutes/hour last year. Now six. Unless you pay more, of course, and even then you'll be stuck with ads on their live programming. I expect nothing less from Flo.
Quote from: ziggy on June 20, 2025, 12:47:42 PMThe genie is out of the bottle, it's just a matter of seeing down the line if there will be total holdouts (there are programs out there keen to do what they can to self-monetize) and if the conferences that do go this route all end up on one platform of are fragmented between multiple.
The interesting part of UAA going with FloSports is that Rochester already had its own paywall for streaming of their games. So, either that wasn't very successful (or revenue was too volatile to be helpful for budgeting) or, assuming the UAA needed unanimous consent from its members to go this route, FloSports offered a better deal that got Rochester more than they were getting in their best years from their own streaming fees.
Quote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 01:03:06 PMQuote from: ziggy on June 20, 2025, 12:47:42 PMThe genie is out of the bottle, it's just a matter of seeing down the line if there will be total holdouts (there are programs out there keen to do what they can to self-monetize) and if the conferences that do go this route all end up on one platform of are fragmented between multiple.
The interesting part of UAA going with FloSports is that Rochester already had its own paywall for streaming of their games. So, either that wasn't very successful (or revenue was too volatile to be helpful for budgeting) or, assuming the UAA needed unanimous consent from its members to go this route, FloSports offered a better deal that got Rochester more than they were getting in their best years from their own streaming fees.
Maybe. Or maybe it just wasn't enough of a difference to stand in the way of something all their conference mates want and possibly cause problems or resentment in the future. While UAA schools could join other conferences, they benefit from the association they currently have, and being known as the problem child is probably not a good idea.
Quote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 01:03:06 PMQuote from: ziggy on June 20, 2025, 12:47:42 PMThe genie is out of the bottle, it's just a matter of seeing down the line if there will be total holdouts (there are programs out there keen to do what they can to self-monetize) and if the conferences that do go this route all end up on one platform of are fragmented between multiple.
The interesting part of UAA going with FloSports is that Rochester already had its own paywall for streaming of their games. So, either that wasn't very successful (or revenue was too volatile to be helpful for budgeting) or, assuming the UAA needed unanimous consent from its members to go this route, FloSports offered a better deal that got Rochester more than they were getting in their best years from their own streaming fees.
Rochester's paywall was a form of self-monetization but I meant to refer to advertising and sponsorships that keep the stream available for free while also being able to bring in some revenue from it.
Quote from: jknezek on June 20, 2025, 01:12:51 PMQuote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 01:03:06 PMQuote from: ziggy on June 20, 2025, 12:47:42 PMThe genie is out of the bottle, it's just a matter of seeing down the line if there will be total holdouts (there are programs out there keen to do what they can to self-monetize) and if the conferences that do go this route all end up on one platform of are fragmented between multiple.
The interesting part of UAA going with FloSports is that Rochester already had its own paywall for streaming of their games. So, either that wasn't very successful (or revenue was too volatile to be helpful for budgeting) or, assuming the UAA needed unanimous consent from its members to go this route, FloSports offered a better deal that got Rochester more than they were getting in their best years from their own streaming fees.
Maybe. Or maybe it just wasn't enough of a difference to stand in the way of something all their conference mates want and possibly cause problems or resentment in the future. While UAA schools could join other conferences, they benefit from the association they currently have, and being known as the problem child is probably not a good idea.
Fair (Pomona had a story like that for why they went along with other SCIAC members in signing with FloSports last year), but if Rochester had a story about why self-monetizing was a better deal than what FLoSports was offering without too much hassle, I assume that they would have tried hard to make the case to the other members. I doubt FloSports' promise of "original content and storytelling initiatives," plus whatever value to alum and parents from access to other FloSports content, was enough of a value-add to persuade the other UAA schools if Rochester could show how they could get higher monetary returns. My guess is everyone liked the fixed returns they could get from FloSports over the variable returns they could get under Rochester's model.
I replied (https://x.com/rboerger/status/1936085132890259526?s=61) to the UAA tweet (https://x.com/newsuaa/status/1936077599391797402?s=61) announcing the Flo deal, saying it was sad they felt it necessary to force people to watch their students. They locked down replies to only people they follow shortly thereafter. Sensitive much?
Quote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 12:38:40 PMQuote from: Gregory Sager on June 20, 2025, 12:34:11 PMQuote from: Kuiper on June 20, 2025, 12:18:00 PMQuote from: jknezek on June 20, 2025, 11:52:47 AMSadly the pebbles are starting to push bigger rocks down the hill. I suspect all of D3 will go this route over the next couple years unless FLO goes belly up.
To state it more optimistically, the value proposition for a FloSports subscription is growing (more games you might want to watch on the network and fewer games available for free outside the network) and the importance of D3 to Flo Sports is increasing, which means that Flo has more incentive to take care of the schools/conferences/subscribers that use it. This is especially true with some of the original 5 year-deals coming due in the next few years and the possibility of fragmentation destroying Flo's business model if a competitor picks off a few unsatisfied conferences.
I wouldn't characterize Flo Sports being subjected to a potentially competitive market for D3 sports streaming as an optimistic outcome. Pay per view is pay per view, no matter which vendor you're paying to watch a game.
In this case, "more optimistic" means drinking expired milk gone bad, as opposed to drinking expired milk gone bad to wash down a sandwich made with moldy bread.
The "optimistic" part is that Flo Sports will want to pay more attention to the consumer to avoid losing conferences, which might mean that they focus on keep product standards up. It's admittedly a glass half-full perspective that mostly only applies if you follow teams that are in conferences that already have FloSports deals (so, you no longer have an option of free streaming for your school), but that's where we are right now.
They did do a very good survey a month or so ago. I assume they will take the replies seriously.
Where are these schools going to see this money? It's nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Quote from: stlawus on June 20, 2025, 05:51:49 PMWhere are these schools going to see this money? It's nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Bingo. Especially for the U freaking rich A A.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 20, 2025, 06:13:26 PMQuote from: stlawus on June 20, 2025, 05:51:49 PMWhere are these schools going to see this money? It's nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Bingo. Especially for the U freaking rich A A.
It always reminds me of the scene from Moneyball when David Justice asks where the team is seeing the money from the vending machines. From what I read about other conference deals, the money they are getting would cover like one year of tuition and board for one student.
I signed up very briefly last Fall to watch Amherst play at WPI and my experience led me to send this email to WPI Athletics:
"My son plays for Amherst MSOC (it won't be hard to work out who he is) and I watched the game between them and WPI today. I understand that college athletics programmes need to maximize revenue streams, but charging $14.99 to watch a game where there is no commentator and the camera isn't always able to keep up, is quite cheeky. If you are going to charge, at least make it a worthwhile product."
Still awaiting a response.
Quote from: EnmoreCat on June 20, 2025, 06:25:36 PMI signed up very briefly last Fall to watch Amherst play at WPI and my experience led me to send this email to WPI Athletics:
"My son plays for Amherst MSOC (it won't be hard to work out who he is) and I watched the game between them and WPI today. I understand that college athletics programmes need to maximize revenue streams, but charging $14.99 to watch a game where there is no commentator and the camera isn't always able to keep up, is quite cheeky. If you are going to charge, at least make it a worthwhile product."
Still awaiting a response.
And that's exactly the other part of the equation. Flo promises improved broadcast quality and so many of them either still have nobody doing commentary, use "AI" cameras that only fitfully follow the run of play, or both.
There will be hell to pay if my alma mater ever blunders into flo.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 20, 2025, 07:25:01 PMQuote from: EnmoreCat on June 20, 2025, 06:25:36 PMI signed up very briefly last Fall to watch Amherst play at WPI and my experience led me to send this email to WPI Athletics:
"My son plays for Amherst MSOC (it won't be hard to work out who he is) and I watched the game between them and WPI today. I understand that college athletics programmes need to maximize revenue streams, but charging $14.99 to watch a game where there is no commentator and the camera isn't always able to keep up, is quite cheeky. If you are going to charge, at least make it a worthwhile product."
Still awaiting a response.
And that's exactly the other part of the equation. Flo promises improved broadcast quality and so many of them either still have nobody doing commentary, use "AI" cameras that only fitfully follow the run of play, or both.
There will be hell to pay if my alma mater ever blunders into flo.
My understanding is that schools still produce all the broadcasts themselves and decide whether to have professional broadcasters, students, or none at all. At most, Flo requires minimum quality standards for the video itself, but in the interviews with commissioners of conferences who have signed on with Flo, they all suggest it was a no-brainer because their schools already had agreed to minimum standards as part of their conference agreement, so the Flo's standards must not be much higher than that. I did see Pomona-Pitzer offering multiple cameras (one on drone) last season for the first time, but I can't say whether that was because of Flo or just a natural technological advance. Bottom line is that if your school had commentators and decent sightlines and quality before, it will stay that way, and if they didn't, it will stay that way too. For most schools, FloSports is just revenue for the school and a little bit of cross-promotion on the channel. It's sort of like the fact that some schools sell tickets for regular season D3 games and others don't, but it doesn't really affect the viewing experience at the field/court etc.
I went to check out the FloSports subscriptions and discovered my email address is already registered with them (since 2018). I have a vague memory of that, but I'm not sure what for. Was FloSports broadcasting stuff for free back then? I know I never paid them for anything as I've never been hit up for any kind of renewal.
Anyway, the two subscription options -- $29.99/month billed monthly or $12.49/month billed as $149.88 annually -- are more than I'd be willing to pay no matter how much stuff I could watch, since my interests are limited. Maybe this will work out for any schools/conferences that sign on, but if I have to start paying to watch things I've previously been able to watch for free, then I'll just stop watching. If my alma mater and its conference go this route it will also adversely affect my charitable giving -- which isn't a whole lot, but has been consistent for decades.
The UAA commissioner posted (https://x.com/UAA_commish/status/1936078131040805157) this: "Extremely excited to announce a partnership that will be a game changer for the UAA in our ability to brand and promote student-athlete success." We hear this all. the. time. but I have never seen any evidence of how the game was changed. Crappy broadcasts where they were crappy before, the promised free archived games after a period of time don't seem to be anywhere, etc.
And ... the NWC is apparently going too for the usual $30k/school/year. https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1936467531281101265
Quote from: y_jack_lok on June 21, 2025, 10:59:07 AMI went to check out the FloSports subscriptions and discovered my email address is already registered with them (since 2018). I have a vague memory of that, but I'm not sure what for. Was FloSports broadcasting stuff for free back then? I know I never paid them for anything as I've never been hit up for any kind of renewal.
Anyway, the two subscription options -- $29.99/month billed monthly or $12.49/month billed as $149.88 annually -- are more than I'd be willing to pay no matter how much stuff I could watch, since my interests are limited. Maybe this will work out for any schools/conferences that sign on, but if I have to start paying to watch things I've previously been able to watch for free, then I'll just stop watching. If my alma mater and its conference go this route it will also adversely affect my charitable giving -- which isn't a whole lot, but has been consistent for decades.
I was watching mostly women's BB at my school. I was donating to them. I cut my donation because I can't afford both a donation and Flo.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 21, 2025, 01:16:21 PMAnd ... the NWC is apparently going too for the usual $30k/school/year. https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1936467531281101265
Doesn't surprise me considering the SCIAC and the SCAC in Region X are already with FloSports, but it's interesting that although you can find reference to individual schools and FloSports on the Flo website, no one has issued issued a press release and it's not on the NWC website. Maybe they are spacing them out to increase the attention.
The NWC schools aren't nearly as wealthy as the UAA schools. I may have been one of the mere handful of people who watched their streams despite having no connection whatsoever to any of the schools.
Bob Q has a lot of insider contacts - the deal gets announced in the next few days, you'd think.
I truly do not understand the economics of this. $30,000 - even for the smallest of D3s - is not "game changing" money. Add in the possibility of increased production costs, and the net profit is even less. Is that worth alienating parents and donors, all while limiting the overall exposure for your program?
If we're talking $100,000/year, maybe I'd understand. But this is selling your soul for a ridiculously low price. The fact that entire conferences are willing to go along with this is mind-boggling.
If I were a president or AD, I would literally laugh at the offer.
I think our SID said the money would pay for three football road trips.
As I've said elsewhere though, what boggles my mind is that a school hasn't simply reached out to a donor(s) and asked them to help cover the costs associated with broadcasting, while keeping their content free for fans.
Why would a college not just say "Hey, rather than you giving FLO sports the money, why don't you give it to us directly, allowing us to do what they're doing, while also keeping access open to everyone, and allowing our brand to reach more eyeballs?"
As others have said, $27,000 a year is a literal drop in the bucket for even the smallest of D3 schools. It's also an amount that a school could likely very easily raise during its annual Giving Day were it to set up a dedicated fund for it.
But instead, we're going to get paywalled content, which will just further close D3 off to the public.
Quote from: IC798891 on June 21, 2025, 07:23:36 PMI think our SID said the money would pay for three football road trips.
As I've said elsewhere though, what boggles my mind is that a school hasn't simply reached out to a donor(s) and asked them to help cover the costs associated with broadcasting, while keeping their content free for fans.
Why would a college not just say "Hey, rather than you giving FLO sports the money, why don't you give it to us directly, allowing us to do what they're doing, while also keeping access open to everyone, and allowing our brand to reach more eyeballs?"
As others have said, $27,000 a year is a literal drop in the bucket for even the smallest of D3 schools. It's also an amount that a school could likely very easily raise during its annual Giving Day were it to set up a dedicated fund for it.
But instead, we're going to get paywalled content, which will just further close D3 off to the public.
My guess is that they don't talk about it as $30K per year (the amount apparently has gone up from the $27K per year when it first came out). They tell their Presidents that they brought in $150K in guaranteed money paid over five years. I'm not saying that's worth it, but I can tell you that getting a 5-year commitment is highly valued compared to funding something with an annual fund where contributions often fluctuate with the economy and personal feelings about the coaches or the program or a one-year sponsorship that you have to hustle each year to get them to re-up. Plus, Deans and Presidents always "book" their revenue adds on the front-end on an accrual basis when they are using them to cite their job accomplishments rather than waiting until each payment is made.
I'd be very interested in having someone from one of the conferences or schools that has signed on with FloSports come on here and explain in some detail (not a "Tweet") the rationale for the decision, the pros and cons that were weighed in making it, the perceived benefits to the conference/institution and athletes, how/why they think it will be better for fans/viewers, and some information about the dollars and cents of the deal -- does it represent an actual increase in revenue for the athletic department/conference, etc., etc..
Quote from: Kuiper on June 21, 2025, 07:36:51 PMI'm not saying that's worth it, but I can tell you that getting a 5-year commitment is highly valued compared to funding something with an annual fund where contributions often fluctuate with the economy and personal feelings about the coaches or the program or a one-year sponsorship that you have to hustle each year to get them to re-up
But that's the
entire purpose of your philanthropy department. That is how you establish relationships that sustain your institution long-term!
What drives me nuts about this entire Flo Sports discourse is how it's couched in larger concerns about the long-term viability of D3 institutions and yet:
1. Paywalling your athletic contests
decreases your school's exposure, and
decreases points of contact between your school and its constituents, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing.
2. You're investing in a relationship with an entity that has no vested interest in your school's long-term survival instead of with the people who care the most.
You need to chase upside. Alumni are the ones who may significantly increase their giving later, through climbing the ranks of their respective industries or starting and selling companies. They're the ones you need to invest your time into.
For crying out loud, the very existence of a Flo Sports paywall
tells you that there are people out there willing to give money to watch your school's athletics competitions! Why are you letting Flo Sports take the money rather than getting it for yourself and trying to set up long term success?
Quote from: IC798891 on June 22, 2025, 10:03:16 AMQuote from: Kuiper on June 21, 2025, 07:36:51 PMI'm not saying that's worth it, but I can tell you that getting a 5-year commitment is highly valued compared to funding something with an annual fund where contributions often fluctuate with the economy and personal feelings about the coaches or the program or a one-year sponsorship that you have to hustle each year to get them to re-up
But that's the entire purpose of your philanthropy department. That is how you establish relationships that sustain your institution long-term!
What drives me nuts about this entire Flo Sports discourse is how in couched in larger concerns about the long-term viability of D3 institutions and yet:
1. Paywalling your athletic contests decreases your school's exposure, and decreases points of contact between your school and its constituents, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing.
2. You're investing in a relationship with an entity that has no vested interest in your school's long-term survival instead of with the people who care the most.
You need to chase upside. Alumni are the ones who may significantly increase their giving later, through climbing the ranks of their respective industries or starting and selling companies. They're the ones you need to invest your time into.
For crying out loud, the very existence of a Flo Sports paywall tells you that there are people out there willing to give money to watch your school's athletics competitions! Why are you letting Flo Sports take the money rather than getting it for yourself and trying to set up long term success?
100% dead on. I recently gave to SLU in strong part due to this reason. They are adroit enough to say in fundraising emails/texts that giving helps fund these efforts so I feel like my giving (even if paltry compared to most) still feels meaningful and directly impactful. This is just human nature. And I ask again, where are these schools seeing the money? 30k does absolutely nothing for almost all of these institutions.
Quote from: stlawus on June 22, 2025, 01:24:20 PMQuote from: IC798891 on June 22, 2025, 10:03:16 AMQuote from: Kuiper on June 21, 2025, 07:36:51 PMI'm not saying that's worth it, but I can tell you that getting a 5-year commitment is highly valued compared to funding something with an annual fund where contributions often fluctuate with the economy and personal feelings about the coaches or the program or a one-year sponsorship that you have to hustle each year to get them to re-up
But that's the entire purpose of your philanthropy department. That is how you establish relationships that sustain your institution long-term!
What drives me nuts about this entire Flo Sports discourse is how in couched in larger concerns about the long-term viability of D3 institutions and yet:
1. Paywalling your athletic contests decreases your school's exposure, and decreases points of contact between your school and its constituents, which is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing.
2. You're investing in a relationship with an entity that has no vested interest in your school's long-term survival instead of with the people who care the most.
You need to chase upside. Alumni are the ones who may significantly increase their giving later, through climbing the ranks of their respective industries or starting and selling companies. They're the ones you need to invest your time into.
For crying out loud, the very existence of a Flo Sports paywall tells you that there are people out there willing to give money to watch your school's athletics competitions! Why are you letting Flo Sports take the money rather than getting it for yourself and trying to set up long term success?
100% dead on. I recently gave to SLU in strong part due to this reason. They are adroit enough to say in fundraising emails/texts that giving helps fund these efforts so I feel like my giving (even if paltry compared to most) still feels meaningful and directly impactful. This is just human nature. And I ask again, where are these schools seeing the money? 30k does absolutely nothing for almost all of these institutions.
Great points and 100% agree to the last 2 points. It does almost nothing to help these institutions.
Does 30k help augment the budget in the SI Dept?
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 23, 2025, 01:52:36 AMDoes 30k help augment the budget in the SI Dept?
Probably, but the point I'm trying to make is, you could instead fundraise that 30k from alumni — which can provide long-term benefits to your institution, rather than restrict viewership of your games — which can have negative consequences for your institution.
The days of free streaming are ending across the college landscape. It stinks for the fans, but it's a financial reality that the athletic departments are trying to deal with. Everyone is tightening their belts.
While the "rich UAA schools" have plenty of endowment money, that really has nothing to do with this agreement. As we all know, endowment money is earmarked to very specific things, and those things are not operations budget.
As a former UChicago employee, I can only speak for my experience at that school. All other schools have their own unique challenges. The thing that was most galling in my time there was the fact that operations budget and employee compensation was so out of sync with total spending. UChicago has received hundreds of millions of dollars in gifts for capital projects as well as establishing new majors/buildings/programs. They've been buying up any open space they can in Hyde Park since they are totally landlocked.
But that spending spree has the consequences of needing more of the most expensive line item of all: personnel/employees. Operations budget has lagged behind for a good 15 years at this point, and it has resulted in 4 hiring freezes in the last 13 years, plus budget cuts in the pre-COVID times.
UChicago, frankly, does not compensate as well as you think. Between that and the increasing cost of living in Chicago, and they lose out on a lot of people for that reason when they do searches for coaches/athletic staff.
My point is, when you all talk down about the drop in the bucket nature of this agreement, you're not seeing the full picture. This might be very financially advantageous to the athletic departments which are already being squeezed (especially with the cost of conference-game flights/travels).
I don't agree with the Flo agreement due to the cost to consumer and Flo's reputation and the potential fallout with nickel and diming alumni. But the 8 UAA schools would not be doing this together unless it was a significant boost to their budget.
According to the Department of Education's EADA data for 2024 (https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/), the athletic expenses for UChicago totalled $8.2 million ($8,210,820 to be exact). I respectfully ask you to describe how the $30K each of the UAA schools likely got for the upcoming season (that has been the going rate) counts as a "significant boost to their budget." Maybe they got twice the going rate, which seems unlikely, but even if so that would represent less than 1% of total expenditures.
Also according to EADA, the head coaches of UChicago's men's teams receive, on average, the sixth highest amount across all of Division III ($90,636). The head coaches of women's teams also rank sixth-highest overall ($89,226). D3 coaching is not where anyone goes to make much money with the average, across the division (for the 406 schools reporting to EADA) for men's team coaches, being $42.4K.
To add to Ron's point: During Chicago's last giving day (https://givingday.uchicago.edu/pages/athletics-landing-page-1), they got the following athletics' gifts:
$700,000 for baseball
$50,000 for wrestling
$50,000 for lacrosse
$15,000 from "Friends of Maroon Athletics"
$10,000 for women's soccer
$10,000 for women's basketball
$10,000 for men's basketball
$10,000 for men's basketball
$8,000 for men's basketball
$6,000 for men's soccer
$5,000 for softball
$5,000 for volleyball
$5,000 for lacrosse
$5,000 for track
I stopped checking after the first 45 pages (There's 90 more) and these are just the individual sport gifts of $5,000 or more that I saw.
It's like this at every college's Giving Day. Athletics always brings in a disproportionate amount of money, The donors are there.
Someone with more time than me could go through all 135 pages and tally up the gifts with numbers attached, and I bet you'd get north of $2 million
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 23, 2025, 12:10:33 PMAccording to the Department of Education's EADA data for 2024 (https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/), the athletic expenses for UChicago totalled $8.2 million ($8,210,820 to be exact). I respectfully ask you to describe how the $30K each of the UAA schools likely got for the upcoming season (that has been the going rate) counts as a "significant boost to their budget." Maybe they got twice the going rate, which seems unlikely, but even if so that would represent less than 1% of total expenditures.
Also according to EADA, the head coaches of UChicago's men's teams receive, on average, the sixth highest amount across all of Division III ($90,636). The head coaches of women's teams also rank sixth-highest overall ($89,226). D3 coaching is not where anyone goes to make much money with the average, across the division (for the 406 schools reporting to EADA) for men's team coaches, being $42.4K.
This $30K number you're throwing around is not what they're all getting. They're getting a cut of the PPV, it's gonna be more. How much more I do not know. Feel free to reach out to the schools and ask.
Respectfully, travel takes up a huge portion of the budget at UAA schools. The budget is allocated to 20+ sports. You know how much of that $8 million is earmarked for live streaming? Not as much as you'd think. Equipment costs and labor costs add up when you're streaming 100+ events per year, especially if you're paying experienced people who cost more than the average college student with a pulse. Ask any SID in the industry and they'll say that it's gotten harder and harder to find good help. Students are valuing their free time more than making a low-paying side gig.
Average salary is always going to be skewed by long-time coaches who have been there 20+ years, which UChicago has plenty of. As for how many times pay/location has been a factor to coaching/staff candidates dropping out of consideration, it's a large number.
I'm not carrying the water for Flo, far from it. I don't like the deal at all. But I can understand why the schools did it, even if it's going to likely bite them later with alumni donations.
Quote from: blue_jays on June 23, 2025, 01:28:51 PMThis $30K number you're throwing around is not what they're all getting. They're getting a cut of the PPV, it's gonna be more. How much more I do not know.
If so, this is unusual, but it would be a big benefit to the UAA.
I would want to know how much FLO or the schools estimates, what each school is going to get. Let say 500 subscriptions per month at $15.00 per month fee. That is 7,500 per month. Even double that to $30.00 per month, you are talking $15,000 per month. So in revenue $90,000 to $180,000 per year. I think 500 subscriptions is probably on the very high side and then you have people that are going to opt out when the season is over. My guess is more like 100 to 200 per month. How much is flo giving to the schools. I am told between 80-90%. High side gives schools a decent amount on low side, it's not great. Don't see how this has much value to the sports budget of most of these school while pissing off the alumni.
I talked to one NESCAC AD about this when I found out the Newmac went this route and I could no longer watch basketball games this year. They said they were approached, not sure it was Flo, and they said it wasn't really worth it as the school still had to supply play by play and other aspects of the production. In NESCAC you watch live games for free but have to pay for on demand.
Most D3 schools don't charge for attendance there is a reason why!
Would love to see Newmacs revenue numbers from this past school year.
Quote from: IC798891 on June 23, 2025, 12:55:13 PMSomeone with more time than me could go through all 135 pages and tally up the gifts with numbers attached, and I bet you'd get north of $2 million
The page itself tells you (https://givingday.uchicago.edu/pages/athletics-landing-page-1): $11,330,955. "a cut of the PPV" with a few hundred subscribers is a pittance in comparison no matter how you slice it.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 23, 2025, 09:48:39 PMQuote from: IC798891 on June 23, 2025, 12:55:13 PMSomeone with more time than me could go through all 135 pages and tally up the gifts with numbers attached, and I bet you'd get north of $2 million
The page itself tells you (https://givingday.uchicago.edu/pages/athletics-landing-page-1): $11,330,955. "a cut of the PPV" with a few hundred subscribers is a pittance in comparison no matter how you slice it.
That is the entire school's total, not the athletics portion
I must be missing something, which is not a new phenomenon.
Entire conferences signing up with Flo for $30k per year and maybe a few other bucks. I don't get it.
Just hire an Advancement professional (or 2). They will more than cover their costs and bring in more than the $30k from Flo and also develop long term relationships within the community and alum (ni, nae, nus - I always get those confused).
In addition to CNU day, a day of giving as others have mentioned, CNU also has team specific fund raising programs that are highly successful.
Cheers!
Sadly many schools are... not good... at fundraising. FLO provides a solid, dependable (provided Flo stays in business), small revenue stream. For many schools, that is probably attractive. For schools like those in the UAA? Yeah, I don't get it at all.
Personally I hate this model. Monetizing D3 sports is a bad idea. Not only is it a bad idea, it's a loser of an idea. These aren't scholarship kids. They are paying to play. Now parents have to pay to watch? I just want to grab these admin heads and bang them together and point out how stupid this is.
Either your athletics department makes money because you bring in student athletes that pay tuition, adding numbers to your student body, or it brings in prestige because it brings in student athletes that otherwise would have gone elsewhere for a better experience. Either way, the school benefits from the athletic department and shouldn't be nickel and diming these kids and parents to squeeze even more blood from the stone.
If your athletic department does neither of those things, if it costs you money or doesn't add value to your student body, and you feel the need to nickel and dime student athletes, then it is time to give up on your athletics department.
Higher education needs to realize their value proposition is getting thinner and thinner. Small, expensive, not highly regarded liberal arts schools, the type that make up a good percent of D3, are especially vulnerable. Nickel and diming students and parents even more is not going to fix that, and only makes it more expensive. Stop betting on losing models.
As for the UAA schools, which are some of the cream of D3 institutions, you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face and no amount of justifying how much they will make can change my mind on this. There is 0 reason to put your sports behind a paywall. You are some of the best, and most expensive, schools in the country. You choose to associate with a very expensive, geographically diverse, conference, for prestige purposes. This is a pathetic slap in the face to student athlete parents and the few alums that support and love student athletes.
And when the ODAC takes this path, as I suspect most D3 conferences will eventually, I will be just as scathing about W&L, though far more understanding, even if I think it's still a bad idea, for other schools in the ODAC.
I only know of one example of schools opting out of the Flo quagmire when their conference signed up - last year, four of the SCAC schools (Austin, Southwestern, TLU, Trinity) said "keep your pittance, we'll keep doing our own thing". Two of them have since left for the (still?) Flo-free SAA, but TLU has kissed the ring and will go Flo in the upcoming season. It was surprising that Flo allowed only a part of the SCAC to come onboard, but you have to wonder if that was a one-time offer given that half the non-participants were going away in a year. And if Austin ends up doing the same (hopefully not, but they otherwise now find themselves on a lonely island where their supporters have to sign up to see all conference away games for which they receive zero benefit) they may have given the SCAC a year to be totally compliant.
Quote from: CNU85 on June 24, 2025, 10:15:08 AMJust hire an Advancement professional (or 2). They will more than cover their costs and bring in more than the $30k from Flo and also develop long term relationships within the community and alum (ni, nae, nus - I always get those confused)
alumnus = male graduate or former student (singular)
alumna = female graduate or former student (singular)
alumni = male graduates or former students, or all graduates or former students in general (plural)
alumnae = female graduates or former students (plural)
In an era in which the number of people with even a cursory knowledge of Latin is tiny, it's to be expected that most people don't know the differences between these four nouns. So I always explain it thus:
* Everything you did in college was backwards. Therefore, the 'i' in "alumni" stands for all of us, while the 'us' in "alumnus" only stands for me, myself, and 'i'.
* A woman who went to college is an "alumna", because she likely said "naah" if I ever asked her out on a date.
* They are collectively called "alumnae", because they all voted 'nay' to date me.
alumnx or alumnux = all graduates and or former students (gender neutral) of a UAA institution.
Quote from: WUPHF on June 24, 2025, 11:56:18 AMalumnx or alumnux = all graduates and or former students (gender neutral) of a UAA institution.
(https://c.tenor.com/Gbnib9PB0xUAAAAC/laughing-laugh.gif)
Thanks GS. The issue is that I will forget 20 minutes after "learning" it yet again!
I'm going to blame it on age.
Quote from: CNU85 on June 24, 2025, 01:20:53 PMThanks GS. The issue is that I will forget 20 minutes after "learning" it yet again!
I'm going to blame it on age.
's OK. The only thing I remember from two years of high school Latin is that my SAT verbal scores shot way up.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 24, 2025, 03:30:07 PMQuote from: CNU85 on June 24, 2025, 01:20:53 PMThanks GS. The issue is that I will forget 20 minutes after "learning" it yet again!
I'm going to blame it on age.
's OK. The only thing I remember from two years of high school Latin is that my SAT verbal scores shot way up.
I now have a mental image of you finishing the SAT and jumping out of your chair while yelling,
"Veni, vidi, vici!"
I am grateful to my 10th grade Latin II teacher, Mrs Bates, who Julius Caesaer's personal secretary. She demanded mastery of the material, which served me very well for the rest of my life.
I always chuckled at the under-the-table list of feminine 4th declension nouns that we compiled.
I also took a Latin class in 10th grade. Sometimes it helps when watching Jeopardy!
Somebody said recently that in the past 100 years we've gone from taking Latin and Greek in high school to remedial English in college.
Quote from: ronk on June 25, 2025, 10:23:55 AMSomebody said recently that in the past 100 years we've gone from taking Latin and Greek in high school to remedial English in college.
It's from about 2010 and a Conservative Anti-Semite know as Joseph Sobran, it just became popular again as a meme as certain people have been attacking colleges lately.
Sobran, of course, was going for a splash, and didn't account for the fact that most high schools require at least some foreign language to graduate. So yes, not so much Latin and Greek and more Spanish, French, and Chinese. As for remedial English in college, given the "fog a check" nature of a huge swath of college admittance requirements, that's probably true. Back when there were fewer college admittance slots and not every job required a college degree to apply, there probably were fewer students going to college who weren't academically prepared.
Pre-Covid almost 70% of high school graduates enrolled in college. That number has since dropped to closer to 60%. In 1950 it was about 30%. Given that only 50% of students can be "better than average" at English, if you are enrolling more than 50% of high school graduates in college, some are going to be below average and require remediation.
In other words, it's a fun sound byte, as so many things are these days, but it's an easy statement for anyone with a decent college education to put into context. It's not that students are dumber, as the quote is trying to point out or that college is failing, it's that the environment has changed.
Quote from: jknezek on June 24, 2025, 10:31:39 AMSadly many schools are... not good... at fundraising. FLO provides a solid, dependable (provided Flo stays in business), small revenue stream. For many schools, that is probably attractive. For schools like those in the UAA? Yeah, I don't get it at all.
Personally I hate this model. Monetizing D3 sports is a bad idea. Not only is it a bad idea, it's a loser of an idea. These aren't scholarship kids. They are paying to play. Now parents have to pay to watch? I just want to grab these admin heads and bang them together and point out how stupid this is.
Either your athletics department makes money because you bring in student athletes that pay tuition, adding numbers to your student body, or it brings in prestige because it brings in student athletes that otherwise would have gone elsewhere for a better experience. Either way, the school benefits from the athletic department and shouldn't be nickel and diming these kids and parents to squeeze even more blood from the stone.
If your athletic department does neither of those things, if it costs you money or doesn't add value to your student body, and you feel the need to nickel and dime student athletes, then it is time to give up on your athletics department.
Higher education needs to realize their value proposition is getting thinner and thinner. Small, expensive, not highly regarded liberal arts schools, the type that make up a good percent of D3, are especially vulnerable. Nickel and diming students and parents even more is not going to fix that, and only makes it more expensive. Stop betting on losing models.
As for the UAA schools, which are some of the cream of D3 institutions, you are just cutting off your nose to spite your face and no amount of justifying how much they will make can change my mind on this. There is 0 reason to put your sports behind a paywall. You are some of the best, and most expensive, schools in the country. You choose to associate with a very expensive, geographically diverse, conference, for prestige purposes. This is a pathetic slap in the face to student athlete parents and the few alums that support and love student athletes.
And when the ODAC takes this path, as I suspect most D3 conferences will eventually, I will be just as scathing about W&L, though far more understanding, even if I think it's still a bad idea, for other schools in the ODAC.
I hope you are wrong about the ODAC. Like W&L, RMC shouldn't need the revenue. But I suspect some of the ODAC schools might. If the ODAC goes this route I won't subscribe. If there is still separate audio available for RMC games I'll probably tune in for some of them. But I'm just as likely to do something else with my time.
As I said in an earlier post in this discussion: "I'd be very interested in having someone from one of the conferences or schools that has signed on with FloSports come on here and explain in some detail (not a "Tweet") the rationale for the decision, the pros and cons that were weighed in making it, the perceived benefits to the conference/institution and athletes, how/why they think it will be better for fans/viewers, and some information about the dollars and cents of the deal -- does it represent an actual increase in revenue for the athletic department/conference, etc., etc.."
I assumed that students got FloSports for free, but apparently that isn't the case, or it isn't the case at all schools/conferences or in all deals.
You should read this op-ed from a Pitzer student who just graduated and was the Editor-in-Chief of The Student Life, the student newspaper of the Claremont Colleges. You should read the whole thing. It's really well done. (you should also click the link below to read it directly from the website so they get whatever money or benefits they get from clicks, but I cut and pasted a snippet to give you a preview.)
https://tsl.news/i-dream-of-free-streaming-how-flosports-is-buffering-my-5c-fandom/
QuoteDuring my sophomore spring, my high school best friend and I — both sports editors of our respective campus papers at the time — compared our processes for reporting on games. As a Division I journalist, he viewed the action from the private media section and had to filter his post-game questions through the team's PR manager. Meanwhile, as a Division III reporter, I would just plant myself in the stands right next to the players' parents, walk onto the field and grab a few players for an interview.
This is why I love sports at the 5Cs: They're the most accessible higher-level sports you may ever get. Every student can watch hundreds of live games among over a dozen sports from two of the top DIII programs in the country — for free. And when I learned that this extended to free streaming for all sports, I thought I was set for life.
But that was until this year.
Last summer, the SCIAC signed a five-year contract with FloSports to make the platform its sole streaming home, effective this season. FloSports is a streaming service with a dubious history of data collection and privacy violations that houses several DI, DII and DIII conferences in addition to a number of niche sports. However, this means that instead of watching every game for free, students are now being charged $9.99 a month, or $5.99 if they commit for the whole year. For parents, alumni and everyone else, it's even worse, coming in at a whopping $19.99, or $8.99 if you subscribe for the whole year.
Why make this move? Well, if you ask SCIAC Commissioner Jenn Dubow, it's all about a new "quality streaming experience."
"FloSports has demonstrated a significant and sincere commitment to providing funding and exposure for small-school college sports in a collaborative way that can help each of our institutions' unique approach and goals to streaming and athletics communications," Dubow said when announcing the partnership last June.
As my available time for attending games progressively diminished throughout college, my reliance on SCIAC streaming surged. Lacrosse during Wednesday night classes, baseball during beer league and football at house parties — I was locked in and I loved it.
This year though, I have not streamed a single game. That's because, as I've said before, paying to watch DIII sports directly opposes why they are so great. Yes, subscribing also comes with the entire FloSports package, including plenty of college and other obscure sports goodies — but I don't care about those. I care about the teams of people I go to school with: my friends and the parasocial relationships I've developed with athletes I've never met.
Exactly this.
This is a perfect example of how putting up a paywall diminishes connections between your programs and your constituents. Lasting, perhaps irreparable, long-term damage to your brand. For $30,000.
Quote from: Kuiper on June 25, 2025, 12:14:21 PMI assumed that students got FloSports for free, but apparently that isn't the case, or it isn't the case at all schools/conferences or in all deals.
The standard Flo deal for students, as mentioned in the very fine article you provided, is $5.83/month if you sign up for an entire year ($69.99) ... only there are no D3 sports for at least three months out of the year which makes it more like $7.77. And there's darned little in May, mostly NCAA playoffs which are (still) broadcast freely, so in reality it's more like $8.75 a month. And the effective price for non-students if paid annually ($107.88), using the same metric, would be either $11.99/mo (9 months) or $13.49/month.
Schools could obviously pay for student subs, but that would eat up that $30K pretty quickly, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Kuiper on June 25, 2025, 12:14:21 PMI assumed that students got FloSports for free, but apparently that isn't the case, or it isn't the case at all schools/conferences or in all deals.
You should read this op-ed from a Pitzer student who just graduated and was the Editor-in-Chief of The Student Life, the student newspaper of the Claremont Colleges. You should read the whole thing. It's really well done. (you should also click the link below to read it directly from the website so they get whatever money or benefits they get from clicks, but I cut and pasted a snippet to give you a preview.)
https://tsl.news/i-dream-of-free-streaming-how-flosports-is-buffering-my-5c-fandom/
QuoteDuring my sophomore spring, my high school best friend and I — both sports editors of our respective campus papers at the time — compared our processes for reporting on games. As a Division I journalist, he viewed the action from the private media section and had to filter his post-game questions through the team's PR manager. Meanwhile, as a Division III reporter, I would just plant myself in the stands right next to the players' parents, walk onto the field and grab a few players for an interview.
This is why I love sports at the 5Cs: They're the most accessible higher-level sports you may ever get. Every student can watch hundreds of live games among over a dozen sports from two of the top DIII programs in the country — for free. And when I learned that this extended to free streaming for all sports, I thought I was set for life.
But that was until this year.
Last summer, the SCIAC signed a five-year contract with FloSports to make the platform its sole streaming home, effective this season. FloSports is a streaming service with a dubious history of data collection and privacy violations that houses several DI, DII and DIII conferences in addition to a number of niche sports. However, this means that instead of watching every game for free, students are now being charged $9.99 a month, or $5.99 if they commit for the whole year. For parents, alumni and everyone else, it's even worse, coming in at a whopping $19.99, or $8.99 if you subscribe for the whole year.
Why make this move? Well, if you ask SCIAC Commissioner Jenn Dubow, it's all about a new "quality streaming experience."
"FloSports has demonstrated a significant and sincere commitment to providing funding and exposure for small-school college sports in a collaborative way that can help each of our institutions' unique approach and goals to streaming and athletics communications," Dubow said when announcing the partnership last June.
As my available time for attending games progressively diminished throughout college, my reliance on SCIAC streaming surged. Lacrosse during Wednesday night classes, baseball during beer league and football at house parties — I was locked in and I loved it.
This year though, I have not streamed a single game. That's because, as I've said before, paying to watch DIII sports directly opposes why they are so great. Yes, subscribing also comes with the entire FloSports package, including plenty of college and other obscure sports goodies — but I don't care about those. I care about the teams of people I go to school with: my friends and the parasocial relationships I've developed with athletes I've never met.
I loved this piece so much that I bookmarked it. Something tells me that I'm going to link to it in an online discussion somewhere down the road.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2025, 02:35:24 PMQuote from: Kuiper on June 25, 2025, 12:14:21 PMI assumed that students got FloSports for free, but apparently that isn't the case, or it isn't the case at all schools/conferences or in all deals.
The standard Flo deal for students, as mentioned in the very fine article you provided, is $5.83/month if you sign up for an entire year ($69.99) ... only there are no D3 sports for at least three months out of the year which makes it more like $7.77. And there's darned little in May, mostly NCAA playoffs which are (still) broadcast freely, so in reality it's more like $8.75 a month. And the effective price for non-students if paid annually ($107.88), using the same metric, would be either $11.99/mo (9 months) or $13.49/month.
Schools could obviously pay for student subs, but that would eat up that $30K pretty quickly, wouldn't it?
The more I think about that, the more it blows my mind. As someone who provided PBP and color for games when I was at Ithaca, watching as many of their other contests as possible — as well as other teams in the conference — was part of the prep work we did.
I feel like every few months we learn more about it, and every few months I get angrier and angrier that D3 has gone this way
I had to bite the bullet this year and get an annual subscription to FloCollege for the 2025-26 academic year, as Brandeis along with the rest of the UAA decided to go with the Flo. As I stated on the UAA men's basketball page a few weeks ago, the only bright side that I see with this is that I can watch Brandeis games on demand on my Roku TV again-- the streaming player on the Brandeis website last season did not allow me to Chromecast games onto my Roku TV, and the ability to watch games on demand on the player was limited to as long as a new game did not replace it on the player.
Previously, I only subscribed to FloCollege for basketball season, as I also had the benefit of watching Bentley U's conference, the DII NE10, as well as Northeastern U's conference, the Division I CAA, on the service. Bentley is the other college in Waltham, MA, where Brandeis is located, and Northeastern is where my dad and one of my uncles attended undergraduate education back in the 1950s, and where I went to law school after I graduated from Brandeis. Along with NEWMAC also available through FloSports, there was enough value in the service to pay the monthly fee for 3 months of basketball. I had only subscribed to the service in the winter, however, because I did not see a need for it for the fall and spring.
Now that the UAA has joined FloSports, I will need the FloCollege service to watch soccer as well as basketball, so I figured it was best to subscribe right now and pay the one-time $107.88 for the year so that I can at least watch some programs on-demand for July and August before the fall sports start up. I made my payment yesterday, so I am set until the end of June next year with this service.
With my income, $107.88 is a big expense for me to pay for a 1 time payment for the year, but it will save me money over paying at least 6 months of $19.99 each per month. It will also give me the option to watch baseball and softball of the other UAA teams, even if Brandeis is not expected to go to postseason in those sports next spring.
It is a real shame though that a lot of D3 fans, either due to income or due to philosophic objections about paid streams for D3 Sports, will not be able to watch UAA games live for at least the next 5 years. It also will make it harder for me to talk and promote my league as a lot of fans will only be able to get info second hand and not be able to get the experience of watching UAA games for themselves unless they are fortunate enough to live in the areas of these universities and are able to attend in person.
Also, I know this probably sounds dumb and niche but...
As someone who uses a wheelchair, D3 venues often absolutely suck for accessibility. Parking, accessible bathrooms, general access for outdoor areas. They mostly just stink. Especially in the Northeast, where snow and ice make things worse. I resent having to deal with it in 2025, which means I'm super resentful that I might soon have to pay for the accessible option.
So if you're wondering why I'm so vehemently against this, that's why.
I am very curious to see what's gonna happen moving forward with Flo. For those who have not seen the news, the Big East - which is the biggest feather in Flo's cap - just announced they reached a deal to stream through ESPN+ today. So, Flo has lost its biggest collegiate client and, presumably, one of its biggest moneymakers.
Quote from: jekelish on July 08, 2025, 05:05:09 PMI am very curious to see what's gonna happen moving forward with Flo. For those who have not seen the news, the Big East - which is the biggest feather in Flo's cap - just announced they reached a deal to stream through ESPN+ today. So, Flo has lost its biggest collegiate client and, presumably, one of its biggest moneymakers.
They still have the CAA in DI, but my assumption is that the push to expand in DII and DIII and the launch of FloCollege has been in anticipation of the end of the Big East deal. It's just an entirely different market and price point. When they announced (https://www.flosports.tv/2024/09/24/flosports-launches-flocollege-on-october-15-a-new-home-for-college-sports-featuring-more-than-12000-live-games-across-division-i-division-ii-and-division-iii/)FloCollege, they only really highlighted DII and DIII.
Quote"We are building a product that will be best-in-class in serving college sports fans of all levels," said Mark Floreani, FloSports Co-Founder and CEO. "Our vision for FloCollege is to become the essential destination for the thousands of Division-II and Division-III athletes, their families, and fans, while providing much-needed funds to these smaller institutions, who are in critical need of additional revenue resources."
Thanks Kuiper.
Floreani seems to rattle off media-speak.
He cannot hide his disappointment in losing the Big East.
Quote"thousands of Division-II and Division-III athletes, their families, and fans"
The potential Big East audience by itself is larger than the combined D2 and D3 conferences they have
suckered in captured - and more willing to pay because that's what you do in D1. I increasingly do not see what their value proposition is.
Another conference bites the dust: https://rmcathletics.com/news/2025/7/15/general-flosports-and-old-dominion-athletic-conference-enter-exclusive-media-rights-agreement-bringing-ncaa-division-iii-conference-to-flocollege.aspx?fbclid=IwY2xjawLjajNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHh2dv_76hLYoV60mhEomNeKnaQidGyFJaII2TNIHM6068mYIrYG-oA9UZMjK_aem_2HNgc6C84k-fpzUOvUciFA
Looks like it's not just the ODAC: https://www.flocollege.com/articles/14385057-gmac-northwest-oac-and-odac-join-flocollege-in-fall-2025
Quote from: y_jack_lok on July 15, 2025, 01:13:30 PMAnother conference bites the dust: https://rmcathletics.com/news/2025/7/15/general-flosports-and-old-dominion-athletic-conference-enter-exclusive-media-rights-agreement-bringing-ncaa-division-iii-conference-to-flocollege.aspx?fbclid=IwY2xjawLjajNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHh2dv_76hLYoV60mhEomNeKnaQidGyFJaII2TNIHM6068mYIrYG-oA9UZMjK_aem_2HNgc6C84k-fpzUOvUciFA
If the UAA announcement was noteworthy because most of the schools are prestigious with big endowments, this ODAC announcement is significant if for no other reason that there are so many schools in the conference. The ODAC is bringing a lot of potential subscriptions to the table with parents and alums of 14 schools, plus the affiliate schools in certain sports.
QuoteFloSports and the Old Dominion Athletic Conference (ODAC) have entered into an exclusive five-year media rights agreement that will begin in the fall of 2025, bringing the conference's 14 member institutions to the FloCollege platform. Through the agreement, FloSports will provide a global platform to live stream over 1,500 regular-season and postseason events annually. The partnership further reinforces FloSports commitment to Division III athletics - adding an eighth conference to the portfolio - bringing the total to 18 conferences across all NCAA levels in the Fall.
The ODAC, headquartered in Forest, Virginia, stands as the second-largest multi-sport NCAA Division III conference in the country. It has gained national attention hosting NCAA Division III championships in baseball, men's and women's basketball, football, women's lacrosse, men's and women's soccer, softball, men's and women's swimming & diving, and women's volleyball.
The ODAC's full-time member of 14 schools includes Averett University, Bridgewater College, Eastern Mennonite University, Guilford College, Hampden-Sydney College, Hollins University, University of Lynchburg, Randolph College, Randolph-Macon College, Roanoke College, Shenandoah University, Sweet Briar College, Virginia Wesleyan University, and Washington and Lee University. The ODAC also features five associate members in five sports.
"This agreement reflects a thoughtful next step for the ODAC in how we tell the stories of our outstanding student-athletes," said ODAC Commissioner Brad Bankston. "As technology and fan engagement habits evolve, we have a responsibility to adapt while staying true to our mission. FloSports provides a reliable and forward-looking platform that helps us deliver a consistent, quality experience for our teams and fans. Most importantly, this partnership enables us to highlight the achievements of our athletic programs across our wide sports offering - at a level they deserve and with the reach they have earned."
Another Flo Sports conference announcement - the Northwest Conference. The only Region X conference without one at the moment is the ASC and they play so many non-conference games against other Region X conference teams that their parents/alums may end up subscribing anyway.
Flo Sports and Northwest Conference announce an exclusive media rights deal (https://goboxers.com/news/2025/7/15/general-flosports-and-northwest-conference-enter-exclusive-media-rights-agreement.aspx)
QuoteFloSports and the Northwest Conference have entered into an exclusive five-year media rights agreement that will begin in the fall of 2025, bringing all nine colleges and universities to the FloCollege platform.
Through the agreement, FloSports will provide a global platform to live stream over 800 regular-season and postseason events annually. The partnership further reinforces FloSports commitment to Division III athletics - adding a ninth conference to the portfolio, bringing the total to 18 conferences across all NCAA levels in the fall.
"Partnering with FloSports marks an exciting step forward for the Northwest Conference as we expand our reach and elevate the visibility of our student-athletes," said NWC Commissioner Shana Levine. "This collaboration allows us to share compelling stories that reflect our core values of academic centrality, unity, and competitive excellence – while ensuring the NWC is well-prepared for the ever-evolving landscape of college athletics."
FloCollege will deliver live and on-demand coverage for the NWC full sports calendar across 12 different sports. Beyond live competition, FloSports will also invest in original content and storytelling initiatives online and across social media aimed at elevating the profile of NWC student-athletes and institutions. The NWC joins several of its regular non-conference opponents in partnering with FloSports, the industry leader and primary media rights partner for Division III conferences.
Michael Levy, FloSports SVP of Global Rights & Acquisition, added, "The NWC represents a diverse grouping of institutions in the Pacific Northwest that will benefit from exposure on a national platform like FloCollege. We're excited to elevate exposure for these schools and their athletes, while investing in their ability to produce high-quality events."
God, I hate this timeline.
The third conference to announce today (after ODAC and NWC). There may be more. I half expect the NCAA to announce that it's going to sign with Flo for the D3 men's soccer tournament at this point.
OAC signs exclusive media rights deal with Flo Sports (https://www.oac.org/general/2025-26/FloSports/FloSports_Release)
QuoteFloSportsand the Ohio Athletic Conference (OAC) have entered into an exclusive five-year media rights agreement that will begin in the fall of 2025, bringing nine universities to the FloCollegeplatform. Through the agreement, FloSports will provide a global platform to live stream over 1,000 regular-season and postseason events annually. The partnership further reinforces FloSports' commitment to Division III athletics - adding a ninth Division III conference to the portfolio - and the 18th NCAA conference to FloCollege in the fall.
The Ohio Athletic Conference is the nation's third-oldest collegiate athletic conference, founded in 1902. The conference consists of nine members: Baldwin Wallace University, Capital University, Heidelberg University, Marietta College, University of Mount Union, Muskingum University, Ohio Northern University, Otterbein University and Wilmington College.
"This partnership with FloSports is an exciting opportunity for the Ohio Athletic Conference," said Bethany Dannelly, Commissioner of the OAC. "FloSports has demonstrated a strong commitment to Division III athletics, and we are proud to team up with a national leader in digital sports media to elevate the visibility of our institutions, our teams, and most importantly, our student-athletes. This partnership also enhances how fans experience OAC athletics and reinforces our commitment to providing a high-quality, student-centered experience."
FloCollege will deliver live and on-demand coverage for the OAC full sports calendar across 23 sports. Beyond live competition, FloSports will also invest in original content and storytelling initiatives online and across social media aimed at elevating the profile of OAC student-athletes and institutions. The OAC joins several of its regular non-conference opponents in partnering with FloSports, the industry leader and primary media rights partner for Division III conferences.
Michael Levy, FloSports SVP of Global Rights & Acquisition, added, "The OAC is one of the most storied conferences in Division III with a tremendous history in athletics. We're excited to elevate exposure for its schools and athletes, while investing in their ability to produce high-quality events."
**** FloSports and **** their paywall
**** the administrations that are signing up for this garbage with no thought of the impact on their parents, families, alumni, and supporters.
A fourth Flo Sports announcement - the (DII) Great Midwest Athletic Conference (https://ohiodominicanpanthers.com/news/2025/7/15/general-flosports-and-great-midwest-athletic-conference-enter-exclusive-media-rights-agreement.aspx)
QuoteFloSports and the Great Midwest Athletic Conference (G-MAC) have entered into an exclusive five-year media rights agreement that will begin in the fall of 2025, bringing 13 universities to the FloCollege platform. Through the agreement, FloSports will provide a global platform to live stream over 1,450 regular-season and postseason events annually. The partnership further reinforces FloSports' commitment to Division II athletics - adding an eighth Division II conference to the portfolio - and the 18th NCAA conference to FloCollege in the Fall.
The Great Midwest Athletic Conference is a NCAA Division II athletic conference with member institutions located in Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio. The conference sponsors 26 conference championship sport offerings serving more than 7,000 student athletes.
Current full member institutions include Ashland University (OH), Cedarville University (OH), University of Findlay (OH), Hillsdale College (MI), Kentucky Wesleyan College (KY), Lake Erie College (OH), Malone University (OH), Northwood University (MI), Ohio Dominican University (OH), Thomas More (KY), Tiffin University (OH), Ursuline College (OH), Walsh University (OH),
"Partnering with FloSports marks a significant milestone for the Great Midwest Athletic Conference and reflects the collective efforts of our member institutions to produce compelling digital content that has driven demand for wider distribution," said Great Midwest Commissioner Tom Daeger. "We're excited to collaborate with FloSports and their talented team starting in 2025-26 to further elevate the broadcasts our members and the league produce. The revenue generated from this media rights agreement will enable the conference to enhance the championship events for our student-athletes and help member schools improve their production capabilities."
FloCollege will deliver live and on-demand coverage for the G-MAC full sports calendar covering more than 20 sports. Beyond live competition, FloSports will also invest in original content and storytelling initiatives online and across social media aimed at elevating the profile of G-MAC student-athletes and institutions.
Michael Levy, FloSports SVP of Global Rights & Acquisition, added, "The Great Midwest is a powerful DII conference with an attractive footprint in the middle of the U.S. We think its addition to FloCollege will enhance the FloCollege offering, while providing a national platform and robust support across the FloSports network to the conference." FloSports has committed to investing more than $50 Million to support the FloCollege platform and contribute to rights fees, production, content, product technology, and marketing. The direct investment in conference rights helps member institutions apply funding towards their own broadcast and production capabilities to further enhance the quality of coverage across all sports, ensuring parity and inclusivity.
By my count, there are 9 D3 conferences signed on with Flo Sports:
Landmark
NEWMAC
SCIAC
SCAC
LEC
ODAC
OAC
NWC
UAA
I think that's 93 schools (92 if Austin College is still a holdout in the SCAC), which is getting close to accounting for one-quarter of all D3 schools. It's even closer if affiliate schools are included on those deals with respect to their games played in those conferences, such as the football affiliates in the ODAC. Given the regional diversity of the conferences, the chances that a school from a non-Flo Sports conference will play at least one or two non-conference games at a school whose stream is contractually paywalled are also growing significantly.
Well... I'm done I guess. I won't pay to watch W&L sports. I'd donate, but not pay FloSports. It's not the same thing. Bummer.
FloSports = cordyceps
Quote from: jknezek on July 15, 2025, 03:56:31 PMWell... I'm done I guess. I won't pay to watch W&L sports. I'd donate, but not pay FloSports. It's not the same thing. Bummer.
Some of my normal donation went to Flo instead. And I get a matching contribution from my employer
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 15, 2025, 04:36:19 PMQuote from: jknezek on July 15, 2025, 03:56:31 PMWell... I'm done I guess. I won't pay to watch W&L sports. I'd donate, but not pay FloSports. It's not the same thing. Bummer.
Some of my normal donation went to Flo instead. And I get a matching contribution from my employer
You should send that to your athletic director and head of philanthropy
Quote from: IC798891 on July 15, 2025, 04:46:41 PMQuote from: Gray Fox on July 15, 2025, 04:36:19 PMQuote from: jknezek on July 15, 2025, 03:56:31 PMWell... I'm done I guess. I won't pay to watch W&L sports. I'd donate, but not pay FloSports. It's not the same thing. Bummer.
Some of my normal donation went to Flo instead. And I get a matching contribution from my employer
Yes. I rather suspect this will be the end of most of the remaining fandom D3 has managed to accrue since the early 2000s when it became possible to watch the events. It will return to a bastion of only those who live close enough to attend a few games and the devoted parents who follow their kids for a few years and drop out again. To be fair, the fandom never really grew big enough. Not enough alums who cared, but this will return it to the 90s.
You should send that to your athletic director and head of philanthropy
Quote from: jknezek on July 15, 2025, 04:57:36 PMYes. I rather suspect this will be the end of most of the remaining fandom D3 has managed to accrue since the early 2000s when it became possible to watch the events. It will return to a bastion of only those who live close enough to attend a few games and the devoted parents who follow their kids for a few years and drop out again. To be fair, the fandom never really grew big enough. Not enough alums who cared, but this will return it to the 90s.
Not sure what you mean??? On X, Pat and his crew told me their reporting on this from 2024 was all we needed! And assuredly that reporting included interviews with lots of fans who follow D3 sports online, and who would have reassured Pat and his crew that this was a great thing.
I mean, they interviewed plenty of people who were *getting* money from the deal. Most certainly, basic journalism would have taught them to interview people who are now expected to pay for it, to get their take
Quote from: IC798891 on July 15, 2025, 05:07:49 PMI mean, they interviewed plenty of people who were *getting* money from the deal. Most certainly, basic journalism would have taught them to interview people who are now expected to pay for it, to get their take
This is the gist of the problem. None of the articles announcing these deals even hints at benefits for fans/viewers. The closest they come is hyping the fact that you can watch so much more stuff -- more conferences, more sports, etc., etc. The one one possible benefit is that (supposedly) all the broadcasts will be archived, so if you can't watch live you can watch later.
Quote from: y_jack_lok on July 15, 2025, 05:54:11 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 15, 2025, 05:07:49 PMI mean, they interviewed plenty of people who were *getting* money from the deal. Most certainly, basic journalism would have taught them to interview people who are now expected to pay for it, to get their take
This is the gist of the problem. None of the articles announcing these deals even hints at benefits for fans/viewers. The closest they come is hyping the fact that you can watch so much more stuff -- more conferences, more sports, etc., etc. The one one possible benefit is that (supposedly) all the broadcasts will be archived, so if you can't watch live you can watch later.
None of these articles bothered to talk to any fans/viewers. Pathetic journalism
These aren't journalism pieces; they're press releases.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 15, 2025, 04:06:42 PMFloSports = cordyceps
I had to look this up and am glad I did!
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 15, 2025, 07:03:35 PMThese aren't journalism pieces; they're press releases.
Doesn't matter. If they believe there is a benefit to fans/viewers then they would certainly articulate that, even in a press release, as a way to persuade people to pay for a subscription.
When a significant change happens that is going to positively impact a segment of people and negatively impact another segment of people, getting the opinions of both segments of people to tell the complete story is literally Journalism 101.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 09:54:14 AMWhen a significant change happens that is going to positively impact a segment of people and negatively impact another segment of people, getting the opinions of both segments of people to tell the complete story is literally Journalism 101.
Again, it's a press release. The only intent is to shape the narrative that this is good; they do not want to give space for another opinion. The point is to try and convince people this is good for everyone.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 10:33:22 AMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 09:54:14 AMWhen a significant change happens that is going to positively impact a segment of people and negatively impact another segment of people, getting the opinions of both segments of people to tell the complete story is literally Journalism 101.
Again, it's a press release. The only intent is to shape the narrative that this is good; they do not want to give space for another opinion. The point is to try and convince people this is good for everyone.
Do you hear yourself? It's NOT good for everyone. People are telling you, directly, that this is NOT good for them.
That's the other side of this shift of the entire model of D3 sports — ignoring those voices is journalistic negligence
We're all aware of what a press release is. Why is no one writing something that isn't a press release?
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 10:33:22 AMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 09:54:14 AMWhen a significant change happens that is going to positively impact a segment of people and negatively impact another segment of people, getting the opinions of both segments of people to tell the complete story is literally Journalism 101.
Again, it's a press release. The only intent is to shape the narrative that this is good; they do not want to give space for another opinion. The point is to try and convince people this is good for everyone.
I agree that it's a press release and not journalism. But they (both FloSports and the conferences that have signed on with them) have made no attempt to demonstrate how their arrangements benefit fans/viewers. That's probably because there are no benefits to fans/viewers.
Ryan, if you think there are benefits from these arrangements for the people who are now going to have to pay for what they previously got for free, please tell us what they are. So far no one has done that.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 11:22:54 AMWe're all aware of what a press release is. Why is no one writing something that isn't a press release?
and add to that....show me the numbers! I want to see the financial models used by conferences to make this decision.
I bet the model is a Flosports marketing model. Someone show the comparison between what was "promised" vs what has be realized.
Likely the model is that an AD can go to administration and say, "here, we brought in $30k per year by selling broadcast rights." The actual bottom line is of less use to them in that environment.
The reality is, most of the people watching will pay. Basketball and football might have a lot more casuals who won't pony up, but the audience for most other sports are family, friends, and alums.
We've heard the obvious grumbling from the other schools and conferences who've done it, but it's been relatively mild an short-lived.
I'm not defending it; I just think it's not a major concern for the athletic departments. Schools with good broadcasts are getting paid to keep doing what they're doing and schools with crappier ones are getting paid to upgrade their offerings (if only a little bit).
I do think there are unseen repercussions from this move, but those are lessened by every conference who joins up.
I also think Flo is not a long term reality - I think most schools and conferences understand this, too - there's not enough profit in it to be worth what Flo's paying. In that respect, I think conferences are happy to take the money while it's there and they'll figure out what's next when it goes away.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 12:14:23 PMLikely the model is that an AD can go to administration and say, "here, we brought in $30k per year by selling broadcast rights." The actual bottom line is of less use to them in that environment.
The reality is, most of the people watching will pay. Basketball and football might have a lot more casuals who won't pony up, but the audience for most other sports are family, friends, and alums.
We've heard the obvious grumbling from the other schools and conferences who've done it, but it's been relatively mild an short-lived.
I'm not defending it; I just think it's not a major concern for the athletic departments. Schools with good broadcasts are getting paid to keep doing what they're doing and schools with crappier ones are getting paid to upgrade their offerings (if only a little bit).
I do think there are unseen repercussions from this move, but those are lessened by every conference who joins up.
I also think Flo is not a long term reality - I think most schools and conferences understand this, too - there's not enough profit in it to be worth what Flo's paying. In that respect, I think conferences are happy to take the money while it's there and they'll figure out what's next when it goes away.
Your first comment, that I've bolded, confuses me because it's the conferences that are entering into these agreements, not individual schools. The comment also suggests that ADs are acting on their own without institutional knowledge, then saying to the President or some VP "Look, I got us $30k a year for the next five years." I don't think it works that way. It would surprise me greatly if the higher levels of the institutional administrations were unaware that the conferences were in negotiations that would affect their athletic department broadcasts.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 12:14:23 PMI also think Flo is not a long term reality - I think most schools and conferences understand this, too - there's not enough profit in it to be worth what Flo's paying. In that respect, I think conferences are happy to take the money while it's there and they'll figure out what's next when it goes away.
And this is the kind of stupidity that happens when people don't understand that if Flo does go bankrupt, or just decides that the model doesn't work, you won't get the rights back right away even if they stop paying you. See regional sports networks. There could be several years, depending on the contracts, where schools won't have the right to broadcast their own games, and Flo won't do it either.
There is nothing, nothing, about this that is a good idea other than the AD, or really the conference commissioners, wandering over to the conference meeting one afternoon claiming "found money". It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea... it's almost a hallmark of how small colleges and universities are being run these days, badly, and with more than whiff of desperation and no idea how to adapt to the problems they are facing.
Quote from: jknezek on July 16, 2025, 01:03:35 PMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 12:14:23 PMI also think Flo is not a long term reality - I think most schools and conferences understand this, too - there's not enough profit in it to be worth what Flo's paying. In that respect, I think conferences are happy to take the money while it's there and they'll figure out what's next when it goes away.
And this is the kind of stupidity that happens when people don't understand that if Flo does go bankrupt, or just decides that the model doesn't work, you won't get the rights back right away even if they stop paying you. See regional sports networks. There could be several years, depending on the contracts, where schools won't have the right to broadcast their own games, and Flo won't do it either.
There is nothing, nothing, about this that is a good idea other than the AD, or really the conference commissioners, wandering over to the conference meeting one afternoon claiming "found money". It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea... it's almost a hallmark of how small colleges and universities are being run these days, badly, and with more than whiff of desperation and no idea how to adapt to the problems they are facing.
Well said. Not everything related to d3 sports needs to be defended, even tacitly.
Quote from: jknezek on July 16, 2025, 01:03:35 PMIt's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea
This is it 100%.
https://x.com/JoeGinley/status/1945228379801735530
This is exactly the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were a college not getting on the Flo train.
You offer up the free viewing as a benefit of sending your kids to the school. I talk to a lot of athletes, and, while I doubt it alone is enough to sway anyone, they all mention parents being able to watch them as being something that matters to them.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 02:41:02 PMhttps://x.com/JoeGinley/status/1945228379801735530
This is exactly the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were a college not getting on the Flo train.
You offer up the free viewing as a benefit of sending your kids to the school. I talk to a lot of athletes, and, while I doubt it alone is enough to sway anyone, they all mention parents being able to watch them as being something that matters to them.
I would be too, but the SIDs also generally have no visibility as to what the conference will do. That could backfire in the wrong conference.
Quote from: jknezek on July 16, 2025, 01:03:35 PMAnd this is the kind of stupidity that happens when people don't understand that if Flo does go bankrupt, or just decides that the model doesn't work, you won't get the rights back right away even if they stop paying you. See regional sports networks. There could be several years, depending on the contracts, where schools won't have the right to broadcast their own games, and Flo won't do it either.
There is nothing, nothing, about this that is a good idea other than the AD, or really the conference commissioners, wandering over to the conference meeting one afternoon claiming "found money". It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea... it's almost a hallmark of how small colleges and universities are being run these days, badly, and with more than whiff of desperation and no idea how to adapt to the problems they are facing.
For what it's worth (probably not much in this discussion), Flo says they are profitable: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/06/30/flosports-likes-to-see-where-sports-streaming-industry-is-headed/
Quote from: ziggy on July 16, 2025, 03:34:40 PMQuote from: jknezek on July 16, 2025, 01:03:35 PMAnd this is the kind of stupidity that happens when people don't understand that if Flo does go bankrupt, or just decides that the model doesn't work, you won't get the rights back right away even if they stop paying you. See regional sports networks. There could be several years, depending on the contracts, where schools won't have the right to broadcast their own games, and Flo won't do it either.
There is nothing, nothing, about this that is a good idea other than the AD, or really the conference commissioners, wandering over to the conference meeting one afternoon claiming "found money". It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea... it's almost a hallmark of how small colleges and universities are being run these days, badly, and with more than whiff of desperation and no idea how to adapt to the problems they are facing.
For what it's worth (probably not much in this discussion), Flo says they are profitable: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/06/30/flosports-likes-to-see-where-sports-streaming-industry-is-headed/
From the article:
"For a platform like FloSports, the strategy has been tonnage around 25 different sports..."
"Behind ESPN, we're probably the No. 2-player in terms of total tonnage for college."
What the he'll is "tonnage"?
Quote from: ziggy on July 16, 2025, 03:34:40 PMQuote from: jknezek on July 16, 2025, 01:03:35 PMAnd this is the kind of stupidity that happens when people don't understand that if Flo does go bankrupt, or just decides that the model doesn't work, you won't get the rights back right away even if they stop paying you. See regional sports networks. There could be several years, depending on the contracts, where schools won't have the right to broadcast their own games, and Flo won't do it either.
There is nothing, nothing, about this that is a good idea other than the AD, or really the conference commissioners, wandering over to the conference meeting one afternoon claiming "found money". It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea... it's almost a hallmark of how small colleges and universities are being run these days, badly, and with more than whiff of desperation and no idea how to adapt to the problems they are facing.
For what it's worth (probably not much in this discussion), Flo says they are profitable: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2025/06/30/flosports-likes-to-see-where-sports-streaming-industry-is-headed/
They also did a new investment round earlier this year. They talk a lot about revenue, events, and eyeballs, not much about profit except the occasional throw away line.
This is the kind of sentence you get:
"As for traction on the college sports-focused service, the spokesperson told STV Insider "we're very pleased with FloCollege so far." Since it launched in mid-fall of last year, the company still doesn't have stats for a full academic year, but during the short time in market it produced more than 11,000 events that accounted for 125 million live minutes and earned more than 27 million social impressions."
That's old school internet startup talk right there.
https://www.streamtvinsider.com/video/sports-streamer-flosports-scores-new-funding-plans-content-and-distribution-expansions
I'm sure by tonnage they mean something along the lines of "number of events."
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 03:22:58 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 02:41:02 PMhttps://x.com/JoeGinley/status/1945228379801735530
This is exactly the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were a college not getting on the Flo train.
You offer up the free viewing as a benefit of sending your kids to the school. I talk to a lot of athletes, and, while I doubt it alone is enough to sway anyone, they all mention parents being able to watch them as being something that matters to them.
I would be too, but the SIDs also generally have no visibility as to what the conference will do. That could backfire in the wrong conference.
Well, yes, I wouldn't necessarily advise the SIDs to do it, but it's a point of differentiation that can be used, if you have people who *do* know what the conference will do
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 03:45:09 PMI'm sure by tonnage they mean something along the lines of "number of events."
Thanks.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 03:22:58 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 02:41:02 PMhttps://x.com/JoeGinley/status/1945228379801735530
This is exactly the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were a college not getting on the Flo train.
You offer up the free viewing as a benefit of sending your kids to the school. I talk to a lot of athletes, and, while I doubt it alone is enough to sway anyone, they all mention parents being able to watch them as being something that matters to them.
I would be too, but the SIDs also generally have no visibility as to what the conference will do. That could backfire in the wrong conference.
I guess that that could be true of some conferences, but it's definitely not true of the CCIW. The nine CCIW SIDs generally talk to each other pretty regularly about anything and everything regarding the league, and each one appears to be pretty dialed in as to what his or her school's administration has in mind for athletics policy -- and it's the nine presidents and their cabinets who call the big-picture-policy shots in the CCIW, not the league office in Naperville.
Case in point: Last year folks from the eight other CCIW schools were in an uproar over Carthage putting two MBB games on PPV (Marquee Sports Network) long before the Carthage press release announcing it came out.
Again, though, every conference is different, so this is a YMMV situation.
I found some info from the Landmark's tax filings:
For 2023-24, the Landmark received $289,710 for media rights and distributed $242,860 of FloSports revenue to member schools.
With ten schools, Flo only needs each school to have 250 $100 subs to break even. You might get all of those alone from just family members of football players - much more for bigger conferences.
The price point is what bothers everybody, and rightly so, but its the price point they need to stay in business. We all resent being taken advantage of, but supply and demand are cruel, I guess.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 16, 2025, 04:38:32 PMQuote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 03:22:58 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 02:41:02 PMhttps://x.com/JoeGinley/status/1945228379801735530
This is exactly the kind of thing I'd be doing if I were a college not getting on the Flo train.
You offer up the free viewing as a benefit of sending your kids to the school. I talk to a lot of athletes, and, while I doubt it alone is enough to sway anyone, they all mention parents being able to watch them as being something that matters to them.
I would be too, but the SIDs also generally have no visibility as to what the conference will do. That could backfire in the wrong conference.
I guess that that could be true of some conferences, but it's definitely not true of the CCIW. The nine CCIW SIDs generally talk to each other pretty regularly about anything and everything regarding the league, and each one appears to be pretty dialed in as to what his or her school's administration has in mind for athletics policy -- and it's the nine presidents and their cabinets who call the big-picture-policy shots in the CCIW, not the league office in Naperville.
Case in point: Last year folks from the eight other CCIW schools were in an uproar over Carthage putting two MBB games on PPV (Marquee Sports Network) long before the Carthage press release announcing it came out.
Again, though, every conference is different, so this is a YMMV situation.
I would've said the same about a number of leagues Flo signed and yet, in almost every case, almost nobody knew until it was done.
Here is what I could find about the business side of Flo Eventually there will be an IPO.
https://forgeglobal.com/flosports_ipo/
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 04:42:26 PMI found some info from the Landmark's tax filings:
For 2023-24, the Landmark received $289,710 for media rights and distributed $242,860 of FloSports revenue to member schools.
With ten schools, Flo only needs each school to have 250 $100 subs to break even. You might get all of those alone from just family members of football players - much more for bigger conferences.
The price point is what bothers everybody, and rightly so, but its the price point they need to stay in business. We all resent being taken advantage of, but supply and demand are cruel, I guess.
Do you really think that? I know football rosters are big -- well over 100 in most cases, up to 200+ in a few. But it assumes literally every parent will subscribe, plus other relatives. I can maybe see getting to 250 across all sports.
Quote from: y_jack_lok on July 16, 2025, 05:45:30 PMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 04:42:26 PMI found some info from the Landmark's tax filings:
For 2023-24, the Landmark received $289,710 for media rights and distributed $242,860 of FloSports revenue to member schools.
With ten schools, Flo only needs each school to have 250 $100 subs to break even. You might get all of those alone from just family members of football players - much more for bigger conferences.
The price point is what bothers everybody, and rightly so, but its the price point they need to stay in business. We all resent being taken advantage of, but supply and demand are cruel, I guess.
Do you really think that? I know football rosters are big -- well over 100 in most cases, up to 200+ in a few. But it assumes literally every parent will subscribe, plus other relatives. I can maybe see getting to 250 across all sports.
I'm not sure what it is with my word choice today. I did say "might." I think there are some schools where a football team could sell 250 subs before you even get to family members. That's definitely not true everywhere. Some schools won't even get to 100 across all sports. I'm just trying to say that the money isn't a huge risk for Flo.
Yeah, honestly, football seems the least likely to get subscribers, given that Saturday games make travel easy as long as you're relatively close by. 1 p.m. game times might not even require an overnight.
It's the sports with *midweek* games you're going to get people subscribing. For example, IC men's lacrosse played 8 of 19 games on Monday-Thursday. Those are the ones you might get — in addition to families who live too far away to travel at all
Ryan, sorry. Not trying to be contrary or anything (well, maybe a little). I do see where you are going with the economic calculations for FloSports. I guess we have five years to find out how all this plays out. I still think it's bad for the fans/viewers and ultimately for the schools and conferences, for all the reasons that have been articulated by others so much more effectively than I can.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 16, 2025, 04:38:32 PMand it's the nine presidents and their cabinets who call the big-picture-policy shots in the CCIW, not the league office in Naperville.
True of most conferences for something at this level, and that point belies the thought that CCIW SIDs would magically know everything. The Flo MO is to tell conferences to keep this away from their SIDs, ever since the NACC SIDs got the proposal killed in their conference.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 08:51:18 PMQuote from: Gregory Sager on July 16, 2025, 04:38:32 PMand it's the nine presidents and their cabinets who call the big-picture-policy shots in the CCIW, not the league office in Naperville.
True of most conferences for something at this level, and that point belies the thought that CCIW SIDs would magically know everything. The Flo MO is to tell conferences to keep this away from their SIDs, ever since the NACC SIDs got the proposal killed in their conference.
Yeah, the Flo pitch starts at the top, from what I understand. The SIDs have typically been among the last to hear about it, after the pitch has taken place and the presidents/ADs have been told about the potential influx of cash. I know of at least one conference where the SIDs were only told about it after the wheels were already in motion.
Having seen my alma mater decline to join the SCAC Flo effort last year, I can only hope that it continues to do so should the SAA unwisely chase the few dollars offered to most conferences so far.
Agile manages the WIAC network through the Hudl brand and offers a pay per view option for other leagues such as the GLVC in Division II.
Learfield does the same through Sidearm.
It would be interesting to know if they had tried to do something similar to Flo Sports, either before or after Flo made their way in to the market a few years ago.
If not, why not?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 08:51:18 PMThe Flo MO is to tell conferences to keep this away from their SIDs, ever since the NACC SIDs got the proposal killed in their conference.
That is interesting insight, thanks for sharing.
A tweet from Bob Quillman (https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1945819069388587069), who has contacts deep within D3 basketball:
QuoteI've received notes from 11 D3 head basketball coaches, so far, who say their stream viewership is down anywhere from the 40% to 80% after moving to Flo.
I believe @d3datacast has received similar messages.
Yes, let's be sure to cut off over half of prospective student athletes and supporters for that $30K a year. If you miss out on *one* new student across your entire program as a result - all sports combined - you just cost yourself that $30K at your typical private college.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 17, 2025, 08:30:03 AMHaving seen my alma mater decline to join the SCAC Flo effort last year, I can only hope that it continues to do so should the SAA unwisely chase the few dollars offered to most conferences so far.
Given what a high quality production the Tiger Network is (I've gotten to look inside their control room/studio, it's legit), I'd be shocked if Trinity ever jumps on board unless they had absolutely no other choice from a conference contract standpoint.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 11:18:44 AMQuote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 16, 2025, 10:33:22 AMQuote from: IC798891 on July 16, 2025, 09:54:14 AMWhen a significant change happens that is going to positively impact a segment of people and negatively impact another segment of people, getting the opinions of both segments of people to tell the complete story is literally Journalism 101.
Again, it's a press release. The only intent is to shape the narrative that this is good; they do not want to give space for another opinion. The point is to try and convince people this is good for everyone.
Do you hear yourself? It's NOT good for everyone. People are telling you, directly, that this is NOT good for them.
That's the other side of this shift of the entire model of D3 sports — ignoring those voices is journalistic negligence
Frankly, journalism has nothing to do with it. The employees putting out these press releases (SIDs/Athletic Communications) are being told to announce the deal, put in a nice quote that makes the endeavor sound positive, and that's that. I bet the majority of SIDs oppose these Flo deals, but it's not their job to push back. Their AD tells them what to do, and they do it. Just like any other job under the sun, you do what your boss tells you to do, or you no longer have a job.
If you want a journalistic callout of Flo, look to the local city newspaper or the university student newspaper. But don't put any of this on the hardworking SIDs, who bust their humps with 60-80 hour work weeks 9-10 months a year, doing everything they can to serve the student-athletes.
Quote from: blue_jays on July 17, 2025, 12:04:12 PM[...]
If you want a journalistic callout of Flo, look to the local city newspaper or the university student newspaper. But don't put any of this on the hardworking SIDs, who bust their humps with 60-80 hour work weeks 9-10 months a year, doing everything they can to serve the student-athletes.
+1
Not to mention they are paid a pittance. They have enough to deal with without being involved in this conversation.
Quote from: blue_jays on July 17, 2025, 12:04:12 PMFrankly, journalism has nothing to do with it. The employees putting out these press releases (SIDs/Athletic Communications) are being told to announce the deal, put in a nice quote that makes the endeavor sound positive, and that's that.
If you want a journalistic callout of Flo, look to the local city newspaper or the university student newspaper. But don't put any of this on the hardworking SIDs, who bust their humps with 60-80 hour work weeks 9-10 months a year, doing everything they can to serve the student-athletes.
I'm not talking about SIDs at all. I literally never have. I have absolutely no idea where this talking point is even coming from.
I'm talking about the literal D3 sports website we're using, reporting both sides of this issue, rather than just regurgitating the Flo Sports talking points in their "reporting" of 2024. There are people commenting on here, on X, everywhere this is announced, that they don't like it. And all we got was Ryan's piece — which was well-written and very well sourced (from one side).
Also, to make this clearer:
I think Ryan wrote a VERY good article. My criticism is not of his work. It's just frustrating to see a very clear divide between what's being reported and what it seems like I'm reading seemingly everywhere
Ryan did write a very good column.
Since people are mentioning it, I thought it would make sense to re-post the link to the article (https://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2023-24/d3-go-with-the-flo)from Ryan Scott of D3hoops.com, which discussed this issue in February of 2024 right after the NEWMAC joined the Landmark as the two DIII conferences with FloSports deals.
Some of the data and concerns may be out of date by this point, but the way that administrators are slicing the data and thinking about the concerns is probably the same today. As someone noted in calling it one-sided, you have to take some of the quotes and presentation of data with a grain of salt. Administrators from schools in FloSports conferences are generally trying to make the decision look good, while administrators from schools that were at that point outside the FloSports world are offering explanations why they aren't going that direction. Even more telling, some of the latter are now in conferences that have joined Flo, so I imagine they are changing their tune (see, e.g., the quotes from the Case Western administrator). Nevertheless, I think the article is worth a read.
A few takeaways (quotes are from Scott's article) and points of my own:
1. Money for the tech and people to run the broadcasts was (is?) one incentive for doing a Flo Sports deal
Schools do all of the streaming work themselves - cameras, sound, announcers etc - whether they do a Flo Sports deal or not. Schools with money and strong support from the school do it well and their schools look good. Schools without money do it poorly, if at all, and their schools look second (or third) rate. Administrators don't like that.
QuoteThere's a general consensus that broadcasts need to improve — for enrollment, for constituent relations, for the ability to monetize them — and that means more work for athletic department staff. This is the first key factor.
One selling point is that the Flo Sports deal will allow schools to spend more on the technology for cameras, pay the people who make the broadcast run smoothly etc
Quote"Broadcasts rely on people, more than just technology," adds Lycoming Associate AD for Communications Joe Guistina. "When you commit to broadcasting three events at once, as often happens on a Saturday, you need three laptops to run production, often multiple cameras at each event. You might spend, at minimum $20,000 just for basic equipment, but you need people to run all of that equipment. In the most basic two-camera system you need 4-5 people to run a broadcast for each event."
"That [FloSports deal] has helped a lot," says Guistina. "No one likes to pay for something that was free, but a lot of the initial shock has faded away already. We've been able to buy two new cameras, lots of cords and smaller equipment, pay the play-by-play people more, and I've been able to give my [part-time] assistant a raise."
So, when people complain that $30K is a drop in the bucket, I think some schools and athletic departments may look at it as the growing cost of streaming and tech upgrades and this being one way to pay for it.
2. Tech was (is?) also a barrier to doing the Flo Sports deal
People are more forgiving for the awful quality of the broadcast when it's free. When it costs something, they expect more.
QuoteGuistina confirmed that FloSports has not required much additional work on his part, but with a paid subscription comes the pressure to improve performance — after all, everyone wants the presentation to be the best it can be.
That was at least one argument in the NACC for not doing the Flo Sports deal, at least at that point.
QuoteThe inherent pressure for a specific level of broadcast is what's kept some conferences from accepting a broadcast deal. The Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference, comprised largely of small private schools in Wisconsin and Illinois, decided against going with FloSports, at least at this juncture.
"I was in favor of the idea," says NACC Commissioner Jeff Ligney. "The level of investment we would have had to make right away — in cameras, equipment, and especially training — was prohibitive.
The WIAC claims to have had a similar problem
Quotewhile the WIAC is wildly popular, given the size of the institutions and their place within local communities across Wisconsin, the level of and investment in broadcasting varies nearly as widely across the membership.
"We've had the WIAC Network for a year now," notes Harris. "There were some very basic standards the first year and those will increase gradually. We're putting ourselves in a position where we can consider all options."
My guess is that FloSports' "quality requirements" are pretty minimal and restricted to things like the technical specifications of the video so that it can be hosted on Flo's platform without too much degradation in quality.
I tend to think that when the stream goes down or other problems develop, that is more often a local site problem than a Flo Sports problem, but the irony of this as a reason not to do the Flo Sports deal is that viewers are more likely to blame Flo than the school, which inadvertently means that schools that take the Flo money and don't spend it on upgrades are getting away with delivering a crappy product and diverting the blame to Flo.
3. "Exposure" is a vague concept and there's a lot of different ways to think about that
The question when it comes to viewership data is who, when, and how long
The WIAC, which admittedly has larger enrollments than most DIII schools, feels like they have very robust viewership in the 40 minute or more crowd, which isn't a whole game, but is probably a half or close to it in many sports.
Quote"Last year we had 450,000 unique views of 40 minutes or more for our events and we're on pace to top 500,000 this year," reports WIAC Commissioner Danielle Harris.
Landmark sources report drops in viewers after they signed on with Flo
QuoteNo one I've encountered will report raw viewership numbers and the Landmark does not openly share them, but anecdotally, a school can generally expect a 60-70% drop off in total views moving from free to subscription viewing. Boldvich reports "a number close to that range," although for sports outside of football and basketball, where there is less interest outside the immediate fan base, "it's a lot closer to 50%," rather than 60%. Other league sources confirm the same.
They are comfortable with that, however, because one of the main areas for exposure - prospective athletic recruits - which is the heart of enrollment at many small DIII schools, was less a concern for them. They negotiated for free viewing after the Flo exclusive access period and they don't think recruits necessarily watch in real time.
QuoteThe Landmark has also negotiated the rights to have free on-demand replays of all their events after 72 hours of FloSports exclusive access, and schools get up to 120 seconds of free highlights for use and distribution on local and social media.
"I'm not sure how many recruits are watching games live anyway," Boldvich posits. "We are paying extra to keep our Landmark Network operational to give people as much access as they want after the fact."
The national viewers, by contrast, may have been the people who only watched for short periods and just for the score or to watch for a play or two. I guess that's exposure, but I'm not really sure how meaningful that exposure is for the school.
Quote"So many of our free views were just someone tuning in for a play or two, to check the score," says Boldvich.
The initial reports were that Landmark's viewers dropped, but the full game viewers remained constant:
Quote"With the subscription model almost all of our viewers are watching the entire game and the number of people watching entire games haven't decreased all that much."
My guess is those full game viewers are the parents, alums, dedicated fans of the schools. If the recruits are watching the non-live footage, then you're really only left with fans of other schools who might be watching future opponents or because the outcome might affect their schools' relative positions in the standings etc. Not sure if that exposure is what administrators are seeking.
Having said that, for many of these schools, just having familiarity with their name is meaningful and I presume that people who drop in and out of a broadcast can help spread the word or can notice the beautiful facility etc and that can leave a favorable impression. On the other hand, if someone watching track or wrestling on the Flo network sees an ad for a game involving your school, that probably provides some brand exposure too.
In any event, the entire article is worth your time and most of the issues it addresses remain relevant today.
A couple of points of my own:
4. Fundraising is the unknown variable in all of this
Many people suggest that they would rather pay the school directly and not Flo or that the school could fundraise rather than charge. Couple of reactions:
a) Paying the school directly puts a target on your chest. Ask Rochester. People who don't want to pay for things they have had for free typically don't feel differently depending upon who is charging (unless it's the little girl down the street selling lemonade). Joining as part of a conference defers some of those complaints. I'm sure every school is telling some alum that they went along because others were pushing it. Only in the SCAC were there holdouts and a couple of those schools left the conference and one holdout already gave in (Texas Lutheran).
b) My guess is the concern in fundraising is that there are a limited number of dollars and donors will shift funds, rather than non-donors becoming donors. It's also hard to budget a regular operating expense with soft dollars.
5. I think the students is the craziest part.
My guess is very few students sign up for Flo, so why force them to pay? The optics are really bad.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 08:51:18 PMQuote from: Gregory Sager on July 16, 2025, 04:38:32 PMand it's the nine presidents and their cabinets who call the big-picture-policy shots in the CCIW, not the league office in Naperville.
True of most conferences for something at this level, and that point belies the thought that CCIW SIDs would magically know everything. The Flo MO is to tell conferences to keep this away from their SIDs, ever since the NACC SIDs got the proposal killed in their conference.
There's no "magic" to it. It's simply good administrative policy to consult with the employees who have the most firsthand knowledge of an aspect of corporate function before making a radical change to that corporate function, if for no other reason than feasibility. F'rinstance, Ryan's been laying out the financial specs for FloSports vis-a-vis how many subscribers it's going to require per school. Well, the people who have the hard data on how many eyeballs are watching a school's sports webcasts are the SIDs / directors of athletics communications.
With regard to the SID revolt in the NACC, the CCIW's braintrust in Naperville was interested in PPV as well -- I'm assuming FloSports, but I don't know for sure that that was the vendor in question -- but the CCIW's SIDs raised a hue and cry about it. I don't know if the commish's interest in PPV was nixed or simply tabled by the league's presidents, but I do know that there's been a plan in the works for about a year now to go with an umbrella site for the nine schools' individual networks to continue their free streaming, like what the WIAC has.
Excellent post by Kuiper, one part I want to clarify is the fundraising aspect of it, since I've mentioned it a lot.
You're not necessarily asking people all scattershot to kick in some cash.
You're identifying the rising costs of providing these broadcasts as an institutional need, setting up something that can be contributed to, and identifying people that may contribute to it, based on various factors.
To give an example, Ithaca's Park School of Communications often has students earn opportunities to travel somewhere for professional development or have their work featured somewhere. Those trips cost money. So the school created a dedicated fund, called the "Special Opportunities for Students Fund". And every year, their annual Giving Day pitch (https://www.instagram.com/p/DI3r374gYtK/) includes a call out to that.
That's the same model you could use, to get the $30,000 for your sports broadcast costs, or sports information costs, or whatever this FloSports money is.
You say, "Hey, costs of providing these broadcasts have increased, we'd love to be able to provide them for free so we can showcase our student-athletes — and broadcasters — to as many people as possible and share in our [Team Nickname] pride. Just like we've done for so many former great athletes and broadcasters over the years. Would you be willing to contribute to this fund to make that a possibility?"
Maybe it wouldn't work! Not all my ideas do! But I think FloSports is being presented as the only possible solution to the legitimate problem of budget issues.
After all, isn't the whole point that these die-hard fans/parents/alumni are in fact, willing to pay? Why do we need FloSports to be the one getting the money? Rather than allow their constituents to give money to an outside entity, why don't schools encourage that money to go into an endowed fund that can grow that contribution over years, decades?
That's how you establish relationships.
And we may think that it's not some big deal if some casual fan doesn't watch your games. But you never know what connection causes people to feel connected to your institution. The biggest individual gift in the history of Ithaca College came from an individual who had zero ties to IC and in fact, never once set foot on campus in his life. He simply ran into an IC professor in Greece, starting talking about student films, and he decided to give money to help fund them. And endowment was established, it led to the biggest individual gift in school history, and it still gives the school significant money every year.
Quote from: IC798891 on July 17, 2025, 03:45:57 PMExcellent post by Kuiper, one part I want to clarify is the fundraising aspect of it, since I've mentioned it a lot.
You're not necessarily asking people all scattershot to kick in some cash.
You're identifying the rising costs of providing these broadcasts as an institutional need, setting up something that can be contributed to, and identifying people that may contribute to it, based on various factors.
To give an example, Ithaca's Park School of Communications often has students earn opportunities to travel somewhere for professional development or have their work featured somewhere. Those trips cost money. So the school created a dedicated fund, called the "Special Opportunities for Students Fund". And every year, their annual Giving Day pitch (https://www.instagram.com/p/DI3r374gYtK/) includes a call out to that.
That's the same model you could use, to get the $30,000 for your sports broadcast costs, or sports information costs, or whatever this FloSports money is.
You say, "Hey, costs of providing these broadcasts have increased, we'd love to be able to provide them for free so we can showcase our student-athletes — and broadcasters — to as many people as possible and share in our [Team Nickname] pride. Just like we've done for so many former great athletes and broadcasters over the years. Would you be willing to contribute to this fund to make that a possibility?"
Maybe it wouldn't work! Not all my ideas do! But I think FloSports is being presented as the only possible solution to the legitimate problem of budget issues.
After all, isn't the whole point that these die-hard fans/parents/alumni are in fact, willing to pay? Why do we need FloSports to be the one getting the money? Rather than allow their constituents to give money to an outside entity, why don't schools encourage that money to go into an endowed fund that can grow that contribution over years, decades?
That's how you establish relationships.
And we may think that it's not some big deal if some casual fan doesn't watch your games. But you never know what connection causes people to feel connected to your institution. The biggest individual gift in the history of Ithaca College came from an individual who had zero ties to IC and in fact, never once set foot on campus in his life. He simply ran into an IC professor in Greece, starting talking about student films, and he decided to give money to help fund them. And endowment was established, it led to the biggest individual gift in school history, and it still gives the school significant money every year.
On the first point, my point was simply that athletics donors have limited funds and athletics has broader institutional needs. If you identify streaming as an institutional need, the worry might be that traditional donors would simply shift from funds needed for other priorities, rather than increase their donations or start giving when they did not before. There are some things that move people to give more/or for the first time - retirement of a beloved coach, building a new facility, etc - but I don't know if streaming is one of them. Maybe parents would do that, but the worry would be they just compensate by reducing their contributions to the team fund for trips/uniforms/equipment/asst coaches etc. Again, I don't know if schools even tried to do fundraising and fell short, but I'm guessing this is the way the administration is thinking.
Totally agree on your second point about donations coming from unexpected sources. At schools I've been associated with, some big gifts came from non-alums. Most often, though, they were restricted gifts for things like you mentioned. Unless they were locals who lived near campus, they are giving for one specific thing your school did that interested or excited them. Nevertheless, you have to have to have some kind of contact for them to find you and become interested in you and sports can provide that entree. That's why schools like the TV ads during sporting events touting all the things they do on campus besides sports. Of course, there can be a darkside of streaming live events, like a school's coach behaving boorishly on the sidelines and creating a negative impression of a school, but I'm guessing the potential positive outweighs the negative.
Quote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 02:25:24 PMSince people are mentioning it, I thought it would make sense to re-post the link to the article (https://d3hoops.com/columns/around-the-nation/2023-24/d3-go-with-the-flo)from Ryan Scott of D3hoops.com, which discussed this issue in February of 2024 right after the NEWMAC joined the Landmark as the two DIII conferences with FloSports deals.
Some of the data and concerns may be out of date by this point, but the way that administrators are slicing the data and thinking about the concerns is probably the same today. As someone noted in calling it one-sided, you have to take some of the quotes and presentation of data with a grain of salt. Administrators from schools in FloSports conferences are generally trying to make the decision look good, while administrators from schools that were at that point outside the FloSports world are offering explanations why they aren't going that direction. Even more telling, some of the latter are now in conferences that have joined Flo, so I imagine they are changing their tune (see, e.g., the quotes from the Case Western administrator). Nevertheless, I think the article is worth a read.
A few takeaways (quotes are from Scott's article) and points of my own:
1. Money for the tech and people to run the broadcasts was (is?) one incentive for doing a Flo Sports deal
Schools do all of the streaming work themselves - cameras, sound, announcers etc - whether they do a Flo Sports deal or not. Schools with money and strong support from the school do it well and their schools look good. Schools without money do it poorly, if at all, and their schools look second (or third) rate. Administrators don't like that.
QuoteThere's a general consensus that broadcasts need to improve — for enrollment, for constituent relations, for the ability to monetize them — and that means more work for athletic department staff. This is the first key factor.
One selling point is that the Flo Sports deal will allow schools to spend more on the technology for cameras, pay the people who make the broadcast run smoothly etc
Quote"Broadcasts rely on people, more than just technology," adds Lycoming Associate AD for Communications Joe Guistina. "When you commit to broadcasting three events at once, as often happens on a Saturday, you need three laptops to run production, often multiple cameras at each event. You might spend, at minimum $20,000 just for basic equipment, but you need people to run all of that equipment. In the most basic two-camera system you need 4-5 people to run a broadcast for each event."
"That [FloSports deal] has helped a lot," says Guistina. "No one likes to pay for something that was free, but a lot of the initial shock has faded away already. We've been able to buy two new cameras, lots of cords and smaller equipment, pay the play-by-play people more, and I've been able to give my [part-time] assistant a raise."
So, when people complain that $30K is a drop in the bucket, I think some schools and athletic departments may look at it as the growing cost of streaming and tech upgrades and this being one way to pay for it.
2. Tech was (is?) also a barrier to doing the Flo Sports deal
People are more forgiving for the awful quality of the broadcast when it's free. When it costs something, they expect more.
QuoteGuistina confirmed that FloSports has not required much additional work on his part, but with a paid subscription comes the pressure to improve performance — after all, everyone wants the presentation to be the best it can be.
That was at least one argument in the NACC for not doing the Flo Sports deal, at least at that point.
QuoteThe inherent pressure for a specific level of broadcast is what's kept some conferences from accepting a broadcast deal. The Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference, comprised largely of small private schools in Wisconsin and Illinois, decided against going with FloSports, at least at this juncture.
"I was in favor of the idea," says NACC Commissioner Jeff Ligney. "The level of investment we would have had to make right away — in cameras, equipment, and especially training — was prohibitive.
The WIAC claims to have had a similar problem
Quotewhile the WIAC is wildly popular, given the size of the institutions and their place within local communities across Wisconsin, the level of and investment in broadcasting varies nearly as widely across the membership.
"We've had the WIAC Network for a year now," notes Harris. "There were some very basic standards the first year and those will increase gradually. We're putting ourselves in a position where we can consider all options."
My guess is that FloSports' "quality requirements" are pretty minimal and restricted to things like the technical specifications of the video so that it can be hosted on Flo's platform without too much degradation in quality.
I tend to think that when the stream goes down or other problems develop, that is more often a local site problem than a Flo Sports problem, but the irony of this as a reason not to do the Flo Sports deal is that viewers are more likely to blame Flo than the school, which inadvertently means that schools that take the Flo money and don't spend it on upgrades are getting away with delivering a crappy product and diverting the blame to Flo.
3. "Exposure" is a vague concept and there's a lot of different ways to think about that
The question when it comes to viewership data is who, when, and how long
The WIAC, which admittedly has larger enrollments than most DIII schools, feels like they have very robust viewership in the 40 minute or more crowd, which isn't a whole game, but is probably a half or close to it in many sports.
Quote"Last year we had 450,000 unique views of 40 minutes or more for our events and we're on pace to top 500,000 this year," reports WIAC Commissioner Danielle Harris.
Landmark sources report drops in viewers after they signed on with Flo
QuoteNo one I've encountered will report raw viewership numbers and the Landmark does not openly share them, but anecdotally, a school can generally expect a 60-70% drop off in total views moving from free to subscription viewing. Boldvich reports "a number close to that range," although for sports outside of football and basketball, where there is less interest outside the immediate fan base, "it's a lot closer to 50%," rather than 60%. Other league sources confirm the same.
They are comfortable with that, however, because one of the main areas for exposure - prospective athletic recruits - which is the heart of enrollment at many small DIII schools, was less a concern for them. They negotiated for free viewing after the Flo exclusive access period and they don't think recruits necessarily watch in real time.
QuoteThe Landmark has also negotiated the rights to have free on-demand replays of all their events after 72 hours of FloSports exclusive access, and schools get up to 120 seconds of free highlights for use and distribution on local and social media.
"I'm not sure how many recruits are watching games live anyway," Boldvich posits. "We are paying extra to keep our Landmark Network operational to give people as much access as they want after the fact."
The national viewers, by contrast, may have been the people who only watched for short periods and just for the score or to watch for a play or two. I guess that's exposure, but I'm not really sure how meaningful that exposure is for the school.
Quote"So many of our free views were just someone tuning in for a play or two, to check the score," says Boldvich.
The initial reports were that Landmark's viewers dropped, but the full game viewers remained constant:
Quote"With the subscription model almost all of our viewers are watching the entire game and the number of people watching entire games haven't decreased all that much."
My guess is those full game viewers are the parents, alums, dedicated fans of the schools. If the recruits are watching the non-live footage, then you're really only left with fans of other schools who might be watching future opponents or because the outcome might affect their schools' relative positions in the standings etc. Not sure if that exposure is what administrators are seeking.
Having said that, for many of these schools, just having familiarity with their name is meaningful and I presume that people who drop in and out of a broadcast can help spread the word or can notice the beautiful facility etc and that can leave a favorable impression. On the other hand, if someone watching track or wrestling on the Flo network sees an ad for a game involving your school, that probably provides some brand exposure too.
In any event, the entire article is worth your time and most of the issues it addresses remain relevant today.
A couple of points of my own:
4. Fundraising is the unknown variable in all of this
Many people suggest that they would rather pay the school directly and not Flo or that the school could fundraise rather than charge. Couple of reactions:
a) Paying the school directly puts a target on your chest. Ask Rochester. People who don't want to pay for things they have had for free typically don't feel differently depending upon who is charging (unless it's the little girl down the street selling lemonade). Joining as part of a conference defers some of those complaints. I'm sure every school is telling some alum that they went along because others were pushing it. Only in the SCAC were there holdouts and a couple of those schools left the conference and one holdout already gave in (Texas Lutheran).
b) My guess is the concern in fundraising is that there are a limited number of dollars and donors will shift funds, rather than non-donors becoming donors. It's also hard to budget a regular operating expense with soft dollars.
5. I think the students is the craziest part.
My guess is very few students sign up for Flo, so why force them to pay? The optics are really bad.
This is, top to bottom, an excellent post and basically nails every issue. I will say, the need for upgrades to technology, infrastructure, and personnel is, at least in the first year for many of the smaller schools, so high that there's either zero profit or even leaves schools in the red. Obviously, that money helps bring departments up to speed, but I've talked to a few different people at various schools who've moved to Flo and they've said that, after what they've needed to invest, they've had zero revenue and in some cases lost money. And the product isn't necessarily any better than what they were doing better, for free.
I'm not a big fan of this, in general. But I also recognize it's where D3 seems to be moving. I just don't understand how it's sustainable for Flo, at this point, if I'm being totally honest. Especially as we move forward with them having lost the Big East. I don't know what their big money-maker is at this point, because it cannot be D3.
Quote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 04:44:28 PMOn the first point, my point was simply that athletics donors have limited funds and athletics has broader institutional needs.
I feel like I must not be explaining myself when I ask this question. I'm going to try one last time, with apologies to everyone, because maybe there is something *I'm* missing in the answers. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the drawer
If a college is saying "Hey, we need money to defray the rising athletics streaming costs that we provide to our supporters"
And if that college's supporters are saying "We're willing to give money for the ability to watch the college's athletic streams"
It seems the shortest distance between the two points is just: Supporters give their money to the school, earmarked for this specific purpose.
Why are we inviting a third party in at all?
Quote from: IC798891 on July 17, 2025, 07:57:18 PMQuote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 04:44:28 PMOn the first point, my point was simply that athletics donors have limited funds and athletics has broader institutional needs.
I feel like I must not be explaining myself when I ask this question. I'm going to try one last time, with apologies to everyone, because maybe there is something *I'm* missing in the answers. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the drawer
If a college is saying "Hey, we need money to defray the rising athletics streaming costs that we provide to our supporters"
And if that college's supporters are saying "We're willing to give money for the ability to watch the college's athletic streams"
It seems the shortest distance between the two points is just: Supporters give their money to the school, earmarked for this specific purpose.
Why are we inviting a third party in at all?
It may be that we are speaking past each other on this point. I'll say it this way: Assume I generally give $100 to the school's annual fund for athletics and my team fund. Since my disposable income hasn't increased, I'm not upping my athletic department or team fund gift to $200 this year because you've started a streaming fund. I'm just reallocating some or all of my $100 gift to that fund, which means the athletic department or team falls short on funding what they usually get with my $100. The only way that doesn't happen is if I up my gift or some new people give. There are some funding campaigns that bring out new donors or bigger donations, but they may think streaming isn't one of them.
Quote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 08:28:36 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 17, 2025, 07:57:18 PMQuote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 04:44:28 PMOn the first point, my point was simply that athletics donors have limited funds and athletics has broader institutional needs.
I feel like I must not be explaining myself when I ask this question. I'm going to try one last time, with apologies to everyone, because maybe there is something *I'm* missing in the answers. I'm not always the sharpest tool in the drawer
If a college is saying "Hey, we need money to defray the rising athletics streaming costs that we provide to our supporters"
And if that college's supporters are saying "We're willing to give money for the ability to watch the college's athletic streams"
It seems the shortest distance between the two points is just: Supporters give their money to the school, earmarked for this specific purpose.
Why are we inviting a third party in at all?
It may be that we are speaking past each other on this point. I'll say it this way: Assume I generally give $100 to the school's annual fund for athletics and my team fund. Since my disposable income hasn't increased, I'm not upping my athletic department or team fund gift to $200 this year because you've started a streaming fund. I'm just reallocating some or all of my $100 gift to that fund, which means the athletic department or team falls short on funding what they usually get with my $100. The only way that doesn't happen is if I up my gift or some new people give. There are some funding campaigns that bring out new donors or bigger donations, but they may think streaming isn't one of them.
Plus, as I mentioned elsewhere, if you have an employer match, they lose that too.
Quote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 08:28:36 PMIt may be that we are speaking past each other on this point. I'll say it this way: Assume I generally give $100 to the school's annual fund for athletics and my team fund. Since my disposable income hasn't increased, I'm not upping my athletic department or team fund gift to $200 this year because you've started a streaming fund. I'm just reallocating some or all of my $100 gift to that fund, which means the athletic department or team falls short on funding what they usually get with my $100. The only way that doesn't happen is if I up my gift or some new people give. There are some funding campaigns that bring out new donors or bigger donations, but they may think streaming isn't one of them.
I think the analogy I'd use is, if you want food delivered, and your restaurant offers delivery but has a delivery charge, why are you going on the Door Dash App to pay their service fee?
Quote from: IC798891 on July 18, 2025, 01:43:24 PMQuote from: Kuiper on July 17, 2025, 08:28:36 PMIt may be that we are speaking past each other on this point. I'll say it this way: Assume I generally give $100 to the school's annual fund for athletics and my team fund. Since my disposable income hasn't increased, I'm not upping my athletic department or team fund gift to $200 this year because you've started a streaming fund. I'm just reallocating some or all of my $100 gift to that fund, which means the athletic department or team falls short on funding what they usually get with my $100. The only way that doesn't happen is if I up my gift or some new people give. There are some funding campaigns that bring out new donors or bigger donations, but they may think streaming isn't one of them.
I think the analogy I'd use is, if you want food delivered, and your restaurant offers delivery but has a delivery charge, why are you going on the Door Dash App to pay their service fee?
That's fair, but I think a different point. My guess is Rochester lost as many casual fans with its own paywall as FloSports does, but Rochester did get the money from its parents and dedicated fans/alums rather than sharing it with a third party. Someone with connections to that school might have insight as to whether this is better or worse for them net of costs. My point you were responding to was about whether schools would be hesitant to fundraise for it, not whether they should charge a fee for it and provide the service itself. I think those have two different looks to alums and two different potential consequences for the university. There were plenty of people on this board unhappy with Rochester for charging a fee.
We have a test case. The OAC just signed with Flo. Their broadcasts have been proudly and publicly underwritten by an alumni group for a long time - it's been labeled and branded all over their stuff.
One would hope they'd be consulted on this kind of move. If they are like many other schools we've talked to, that may not have happened.
I doubt we'll get all the financial numbers from this, but they will exist. Marietta will know how this affects the relationship with certain alums pretty much right away.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 18, 2025, 04:06:16 PMWe have a test case. The OAC just signed with Flo. Their broadcasts have been proudly and publicly underwritten by an alumni group for a long time - it's been labeled and branded all over their stuff.
One would hope they'd be consulted on this kind of move. If they are like many other schools we've talked to, that may not have happened.
I doubt we'll get all the financial numbers from this, but they will exist. Marietta will know how this affects the relationship with certain alums pretty much right away.
This seems like the canary in the coal mine for my theory. Well, as I said, I've been wrong before
The Add/Drop podcast interviewed a Flo Sports executive, in which he boldly suggests that the Flo Model will increase the quality of the broadcasts and fan experience all the while increasing alumni engagement and, crazily enough, increased student enrollment.
That is the part that bothers me the most, the promises of benefits beyond the revenue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho17QeHMVoE
Quote from: WUPHF on July 24, 2025, 10:09:10 AMThe Add/Drop podcast interviewed a Flo Sports executive, in which he boldly suggests that the Flo Model will increase the quality of the broadcasts and fan experience all the while increasing alumni engagement and, crazily enough, increased student enrollment.
That is the part that bothers me the most, the promises of benefits beyond the revenue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho17QeHMVoE
And of course the guy that posted this turned off comments. Wonder why.
The Add/Drop podcast has all of 21 subscribers, and this podcast all of 12 views as I type this.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 24, 2025, 11:17:18 AMAnd of course the guy that posted this turned off comments. Wonder why.
The Add/Drop podcast has all of 21 subscribers, and this podcast all of 12 views as I type this.
Right, my apologies, I should have mentioned that there is not much to listen to in the podcast to save everyone the time.
This podcaster also interviewed the Landmark Conference AD two or three times and has generally been supportive of the Flo Sports approach.
He still should have asked for concrete examples of how Flo drives alumni engagement or asked about the fact that the approach has drawn criticism among fans on social media.
Quote from: WUPHF on July 24, 2025, 10:09:10 AMThe Add/Drop podcast interviewed a Flo Sports executive, in which he boldly suggests that the Flo Model will increase the quality of the broadcasts and fan experience all the while increasing alumni engagement and, crazily enough, increased student enrollment.
That is the part that bothers me the most, the promises of benefits beyond the revenue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho17QeHMVoE
Since I decided to give FloSports the benefit of the doubt and have paid for a subscription, I will be paying close attention to the quality of the broadcasts and how I feel about the experience. And, for what it's worth, Ill comment here on my observations related to the above claim. I hope others who have subscribed will do the same.
Quote from: y_jack_lok on July 24, 2025, 11:59:01 AMSince I decided to give FloSports the benefit of the doubt and have paid for a subscription, I will be paying close attention to the quality of the broadcasts and how I feel about the experience. And, for what it's worth, Ill comment here on my observations related to the above claim. I hope others who have subscribed will do the same.
That is my plan as well.
^^^ One of the things I do (and I'm sure others do as well) is check in on multiple games (mainly during football and basketball seasons) while watching the game I am primarily interested it. Different schools have different levels of broadcast quality. So I will be looking to see if Flo has improved the broadcast quality of the schools that need help. Hopefully, Flo won't do anything to lower the quality of the broadcasts that are already good.