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: stlawus on June 22, 2025, 01:24:20 PM

Quote from: IC798891 on June 22, 2025, 10:03:16 AM

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 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.

It's a disgrace this conference along with a few others has chosen this route.
In the long term will hurt their viewership. I watched a ton of UAA games in the past, won't be doing that going forward.
Will piss off parents that are paying for their kids to go to a school and now have to pay to watch.
The conference leaders just don't get it. Small money grab.

Babson is pretty loaded at the guard position for the next 3-4 years. If they find replacement bigs, might just be team to beat in the conference.

On Amherst, I agree have watched them a ton, they have/had talent and shouldn't be close to the bottom of the league.
Coaching is their biggest issue. The substitution patterns and changing starters doesn't make a lot of sense. Keeping a 6'10 center, who is not quick and not a shooter 25 feet from the basket never made any sense.
This being said they did beat Middlebury, Williams and had the ball  with 25 seconds left down by 2 against Wesleyan in the quarterfinals. My guess he is on short lease, as many alums are not happy.

Congrats to him on 30 years, he had a nice run.
Not sure his style would have been a good fit in the NESCAC. Was not big on defense, I think he makes Coach Strahorn look like Tom Thibodeau on defense, lol!

Agree not sure how much he cracks the top 10, but they lack depth after losing 2 bigs during this past season, so he will at least give them depth.

I believe it is Nate Freisthler from Rutgers. He was walk on and did not play this year. Will certainly give them depth at the center position.

Agree Trinity should be number 1. Lose 2 players from their top 10 and still have the 4 core now senior players.

Nescac1 you provide great lists of the players in the portal. From last year and this years list, seems that lots of players don't find new homes.  Do you know if most just go back to original school.

Shane Regan to university of Chicago, great pickup for them. Great school academically for him.

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 16, 2025, 01:21:46 PMYou're also going to see increased pressure to justify athletic spending at schools far more concerned with academics.  The NESCAC might be wealthy, but the money's not unlimited.  I think you're going to see more questions about whether robust intercollegiate athletics is as much an asset to the institution as it used to be.  Media coverage of D1 is certainly not helping any.

As well as the political environment, some alums are just not giving the way the used to due to how the schools are handling politics.

Quote from: cantdothat on May 16, 2025, 02:07:12 PMStrahorn hasn't resigned yet. Keep an eye on a current Ivy League HC who is a Colby alum.

Maybe this is due to reaching a financial settlement. But he is gone.

Quote from: nescac1 on May 16, 2025, 10:27:58 AMWe have yet to see who Colby will hire, of course, but this is now two NESCAC schools who have likely alienated generations of former players and fan bases by passing on / parting ways with solid coaches with longstanding ties to the program, each of which had decades of stability at the top.  Of course, Colby never came close to Amherst's level of success in the NCAA tournament era, so at least they aren't tossing away decades of national contention, but looking at how that decision has worked out for Amherst .... let's just say Colby has a lot of pressure to absolutely nail this hire. 

If you look at the program Strahorn inherited, in the prior 11 years, Colby had five sub-.500 records, zero NCAA tournament appearances, and zero appearances in the NESCAC title game.  And he frankly inherited a very limited roster.  His first few years were rough as a young coach with limited talent on hand, but the trajectory of the program has been steadily improving and he's right now in what should be his coaching prime - as I said in a prior post, in the last five seasons, during a time that NESCAC has been absolutely loaded with talented teams: two NESCAC title games, the first NCAA appearance of this century, and the only two 20-win teams of this century for Colby. 

Will King, Sam Jefferson, Noah Tyson, Max Poulton, Matt Hannah, Jack Lawson, Dan Civiello, Marcos Montiel, Alex Dorion are all guys any NESCAC team would have gladly had during that five-year stretch.  And in 2020 Colby was a badly-timed Sam Jefferson injury away from a likely NESCAC title and maybe a deep NCAA run (as deep as COVID would have allowed at least).  And looking ahead, he had team pretty well set up for the next few years - only one senior and one junior in the top seven guys and a very strong FY class this year. 

Now, as SpringSt7 spoke of, there is likely no coaching staff in place during much of the summer recruiting season, and you have to worry a bit about attrition from current players, plus it's not clear returning players will be as good a fit for a new system, so it's likely that Colby will sacrifice a window to compete with a solid core of talent coming up. 

You would think football might be a cautionary tale for Colby.  By all accounts a ton was put into the program including a splashy, big name hire and a big focus on recruiting, and after a lot of hype, the team while decent hasn't been able to crack .500 under the new coach.  In basketball, is Colby really going to surpass as a program a Trinity team coming off a national title, a Wesleyan team coming off a final four, Tufts and Williams teams each with multiple Sweet 16 appearances in recent seasons, not to mention Middlebury, Amherst and Hamilton, all of whom have strong hoops traditions and the ability to recruit high-level players?  Barring some crazy change in how basketball players are evaluated by admissions (something any coach including Strahorn can benefit from), it's hard to see Colby jumping into consistent NESCAC let alone national contention.  So, what is the point of changing coaches then?   

Agree 100%, great points

Players until recently were told nothing from the AD. Coach told team AD wanted more conference wins and more players on all conference teams.
Someone earlier said this as well.
My guess no smoking gun going to come out, most likely AD wanted changed and got admin to agree to it.
Wouldn't want to be next coach and like said above other Colby coaches need to be on look out.

IMO there is way too much player movement. Go back to the old ways and if you transfer you sit for a year.
Doubt Max Poulton leaves, for 1 year not worth it. But you never know especially if they are going to announce 5 years for everyone. Civello now that is another story.

Quote from: names jaismith on May 12, 2025, 12:05:52 PMI have seen Colby play many times over the last six years.  They were always competitive, sometimes very good and competitive.  Given that no one actually knows why this change was made, and why it was made now maybe a little time for the dust to settle is what we need.  As a long time D3 coach myself, I will say this much.  Typically, when the administration feels a change is in order, it happens pretty soon after the season.  Waiting this long means that the incoming class of recruits are probably as much surprised as anyone else.  It might be difficult for them to find another opportunity that they like.  Sure, high academic recruits want to go to a good school, but they also want to play for a coach with whom they have built a relationship that sometimes goes back to their junior year in high school or even earlier.  A cynic might say that the AD waited until he/she felt most of the new class would remain intact.  But, let's see what really happened.

Very good points and if the AD is cleaning house and the school admin is ok with it, then so be it. We might not like it but it's the way college sports are headed, sadly.
I don't know enough about there other  sports to know how well overall the school does, but not every school can be elite all the time unless that is going to be a priority. For NESCAC schools always seemed that even for the student athletes, academics came first. Maybe that is now changing and winning is moving way up the priority list.