Flo Sports

[IC798891]

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.

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

[IC798891]

We're all aware of what a press release is. Why is no one writing something that isn't a press release?

[y_jack_lok]

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.

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.

[CNU85]

We'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.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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.

[y_jack_lok]

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.

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.

[jknezek]

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.

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.

[stlawus]

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.

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.

[IC798891]

It's such a short-term, eyes closed, non-strategic, idea

This is it 100%.

[IC798891]

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.

[Pat Coleman]

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.

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.

[ziggy]

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.

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/

[y_jack_lok]

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.

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"?

[jknezek]

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.

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

[Pat Coleman]

I'm sure by tonnage they mean something along the lines of "number of events."