Quote from: Ron Boerger on December 16, 2025, 12:25:25 PMAustin College named Dr. Rebecca Cantor, currently Provost and Chief Academic Officer at Spring Hill [AL] College, as their 17th president.  She will begin her term in July 2026; current president Steven O'Day will continue in the role until his retirement in May 2026.  Prior to her arrival at Spring Hill, Dr. Cantor was at Savannah School of Arts and Design, where she served as department chair, professor of English and Assistant Provost.  Dr. Cantor will also serve as Professor of English at Austin.

As she has never served at a school with a football program, it remains to be seen how her arrival will impact the 'Roo program, and 'Roo athletics in general. 

Dr. Cantor was a D1 volleyball player at Fairfield University, so she's definitely got an athletics background (she's apparently in their athletics Hall of Fame, at least as a member of one of their teams when she was there). That's two straight presidents for AC with an athletics background (O'Day was the women's soccer coach at Franklin & Marshall back in the day).

Quote from: WUPHF on December 08, 2025, 10:11:36 AMI assume that all Flo Sports writers are freelancers, but hard to say.

Flo has 18 conferences along with multiple team events among other things.

The margins must be too small to properly staff the content teams.

I'm guessing they use local college student interns (UT is only a stone's throw from their offices in downtown Austin) for a lot of that content.

Quote from: WUPHF on November 16, 2025, 09:54:31 PM

Quote from: jekelish on November 16, 2025, 05:08:38 PMI don't think people understand that ESPN+ streaming stuff isn't done by ESPN. It's handled by the schools, just like how Flo works. So it'll still be fully reliant on what the schools have at their disposal.

People understand how ESPN+ works.

I feel certain that ESPN would be upgrade for no other reason than the software.

I personally disagree, based on comments I've seen with people complaining about ESPN+ broadcasts over the years. Lots and lots of people have no idea that colleges are responsible for those, not ESPN. That's not really debatable, it's absolutely what happens. The ESPN+ broadcasts are only as good as what the colleges have, just like Flo is only as good as what the colleges have. (And that's not up for debate, that's a hard fact.)

Quote from: Gray Fox on November 16, 2025, 03:15:35 PM

Quote from: WUPHF on November 16, 2025, 03:11:52 PM

Quote from: y_jack_lok on November 16, 2025, 03:06:33 PM^^^ What convinces you?

The part about the decreased quality over the short run.

After ESPN or Disney take over it will look better then now but maybe not better than before.

Well, that's definitely not gonna be the case if it ever happens. I don't think people understand that ESPN+ streaming stuff isn't done by ESPN. It's handled by the schools, just like how Flo works. So it'll still be fully reliant on what the schools have at their disposal.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on September 08, 2025, 09:15:25 AMSince all Flo is doing is rebroadcasting the school's streams, contracts are most likely on a school-by-school basis. I noticed them pre-Flo.

I can say that I know part of the contract is that the schools are obligated to run, minimally, ads for Flo. Any additional ads are up to the school, but they are required to run a certain number of Flo ads during each broadcast.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 23, 2025, 10:43:22 AMThis is supposedly Lindsey Plotkin:  https://www.si.com/college/texas/author/lindsey-plotkin

A UT journalism major who writes for their student paper and occasionally for SI.com. 

That would make sense, since Flo is based in Austin.

Quote from: Kuiper on August 19, 2025, 06:25:08 PM

Quote from: y_jack_lok on August 19, 2025, 05:12:05 PMThe past couple of days I've been thinking about what it takes for FloSports to make a profit for providing the streaming platform for schools and conferences given that Flo is paying to have them on the platform. I guess the two revenue streams are subscriptions and advertising. (Are there others?) And I'm also guessing that the number of subscriptions affects the ad revenue. Perhaps, also, the number of viewers of each event has an effect. Anyway, if $30,000 per school is, in fact, what Flo pays, then (thinking only about annual, not monthly, subscriptions) at $108 for a 12 month subscription, each school would need to generate 277 such subscriptions for Flo to break even. Does that seem likely to happen?

Flo's business model is going after things where demand is very inelastic.  So, niche sports where no one else is broadcasting them and the fans are passionate and can't go without it.  Or, in this case, colleges where parents want to watch their children play when they can't be there and there is no ability to substitute another event where their children are not on one of the teams.  Considering how many schools have a high percentage of their students playing sports, 277 is a pretty low floor for parent subscriptions on average.  Alumni and other fans probably supply the profit.

That's a great point that I had never really considered. Like, how many other services are streaming at a high quality, things like jiujitsu and various forms of racing? I'm sure there are others, but especially in the US, there can't be too many.

Quote from: HansenRatings on August 13, 2025, 10:08:51 AMJust posted on Twitter: 2025 Conference Preview

(right click and open in new tab for better resolution)

Well that's interesting, I didn't realize that Jess Hoel had pulled himself out of the portal so that's certainly gonna make McMurry dangerous this year in their final season in the SCAC.

Quote from: Gray Fox on August 17, 2025, 03:24:03 PM

Quote from: jekelish on August 17, 2025, 03:15:44 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2025, 02:03:19 PMFlo isn't producing the games, even for these D-I games. It's just a streaming service when it comes to game day broadcasts.

Yep. And on the same note: it's important to realize that ESPN+ streams are not produced by ESPN, either. They're produced by those schools and made to look uniform within the ESPN ecosystem, but the responsibility is on the schools.

Then why do they need Flo? Not even an incremental gain?

I mean, you could say the same about schools/conferences that are on ESPN+. Obviously not like, the ACC Network or anything like that, but for example America East. You get the branding without actually having Vermont and UMass Lowell on Big Monday, and Flo is trying to create a similar brand for schools outside of that ESPN/ESPN+/Power 4 dynamic, is what it feels like to me. I've long been skeptical about Flo but, upon learning more, I'm starting to get why schools/conferences are making the switch. I'm still not 100% sold but I'm getting it more, the more I learn.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 17, 2025, 02:03:19 PMFlo isn't producing the games, even for these D-I games. It's just a streaming service when it comes to game day broadcasts.

Yep. And on the same note: it's important to realize that ESPN+ streams are not produced by ESPN, either. They're produced by those schools and made to look uniform within the ESPN ecosystem, but the responsibility is on the schools.

Quote from: y_jack_lok on August 13, 2025, 06:04:59 PMDo I understand this correctly? FloSports is not who will be archiving game broadcasts. That is up to individual schools? If so, how would you access the archived broadcast -- via the school's website?

No, it's an easy thing to get confused by, of course. But the old broadcasts will apparently be archived on Flo, but behind the paywall. Schools will have the option to take the old broadcasts and put them on their own free platforms after 24 hours.

Quote from: WUPHF on August 13, 2025, 04:09:11 PMThanks Ryan for the clarification, I thought that was universally part of the agreement.  My understanding is that all UAA broadcasts on Flo will be free 24 hours after the game has ended.

My understanding is that it is now the policy that the 24-hour thing is, in fact, universal. It's just a matter of whether or not schools actually follow through with it.

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 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: 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: Pat Coleman on July 16, 2025, 08:51:18 PM

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.

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.