Flo Sports

[WUPHF]

Bravo to the Little East Conference for the best Flo Sports press release yet.

No promises of feature coverage, enhanced promotion, branding and social media.  No mention of an improved streaming experience.  Just the announcement and costs.

https://littleeast.com/news/2025/8/8/general-lec-announces-2025-26-flocollege-subscription-options.aspx

[CNU85]

Allow me to tell a little story. I hope you chuckle a little.

I've been following closely the FLO sports discussion and talking to folks outside of this forum. The prevailing thoughts are that these deals make no sense. Yet, almost every week, another conference signs a contract. These are supposedly smart people making smart decisions. I just don't understand. It's almost to the point that it seems like conferences are signing contracts simply because other conferences have done so. A case of FOMO?

Made me think of this.....decades ago, I worked for a very large international building materials company (quarries, concrete block and pipe plants, etc). We had a driver come to the main office wanting to sign up for a new benefit he heard other employees talking about. They said this is a wonderful benefit and he should also sign up. So, with excitement, he came to the office and to HR to sign up. The HR rep said, "certainly, we can do that. And Direct Deposit is a great benefit" (I told you it was decades ago!). The rep then asked for a voided check (that's how it was done back then. Voided check to get the MICR number). The driver looked at the rep and stated, "I don't have a bank account. I just want the benefit". FOMO in the early days.

Flo Sports analogy - "We're not sure what it really is or what benefit it truly may be, but the others have it, so I want it." Honestly, that's the only semi-logical reason I can come up with. I will continue to scratch my head and tell myself that I'm the dummy and I will keep searching for whatever it is I am missing.

I'm going back to work now...cheers!

[y_jack_lok]

^^^Love that analogy! The actual "benefit" was to the company for no longer having the expense of buying and printing paper checks. But of course it was marketed as a benefit to the employees. Having said that, the direct deposit saves the employees a trip to the bank, so I suppose that's something. Now, if only someone could demonstrate to viewers the benefit they are getting from paying for a subscription to FloSports. Like you, I'll keep waiting and scratching my head.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Bravo to the Little East Conference for the best Flo Sports press release yet.

No promises of feature coverage, enhanced promotion, branding and social media.  No mention of an improved streaming experience.  Just the announcement and costs.

https://littleeast.com/news/2025/8/8/general-lec-announces-2025-26-flocollege-subscription-options.aspx

The LEC charged for their conference tournaments last season, so this isn't exactly new territory for them.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I've been following closely the FLO sports discussion and talking to folks outside of this forum. The prevailing thoughts are that these deals make no sense. Yet, almost every week, another conference signs a contract. These are supposedly smart people making smart decisions. I just don't understand. It's almost to the point that it seems like conferences are signing contracts simply because other conferences have done so. A case of FOMO?

The argument against it is long-term in nature - the damage done to goodwill and PR is not worth the immediate cash infusion.  I don't think schools or conferences are ignoring this, just that they're not sure it's going to be available later.  They get to show the administration they're bringing in revenue, get an immediate boost to the budget, and learn a lot for the future.

Yes, every conference that signs on makes it easier for the next to do it, but I still find it hard to believe anyone thinks this is a long term solution.  At worst, Flo doesn't continue to offer money and conferences can host the streams themselves and charge less - making it look like a victory once people are used to paying.  At best, Flo figures out a way to monetize it and advertise it well and the offers go up.

I've yet to hear from anyone who thought the grumbling and complaints were dealbreakers.  People are upset and they get over it.  That's been the story from all the conferences were got in early.  We'll see if it continues to be the story with all the new additions this year.

[CNU85]

I understand the need for multiple revenue streams for D3 athletics. I just think, as others have stated, there is a cost to using Flo in that you may lose exposure to fans.

If you want to bring in some funds, try this instead. It works. It's now the best selling brand for this brewery. Sold in restaurants, the brewery, grocery stores and even Trader Joe's. Go find a local brewery to work with.

It's a really good beer!

Captains Lager

[Kuiper]

I've been following closely the FLO sports discussion and talking to folks outside of this forum. The prevailing thoughts are that these deals make no sense. Yet, almost every week, another conference signs a contract. These are supposedly smart people making smart decisions. I just don't understand. It's almost to the point that it seems like conferences are signing contracts simply because other conferences have done so. A case of FOMO?

The argument against it is long-term in nature - the damage done to goodwill and PR is not worth the immediate cash infusion.  I don't think schools or conferences are ignoring this, just that they're not sure it's going to be available later.  They get to show the administration they're bringing in revenue, get an immediate boost to the budget, and learn a lot for the future.

Yes, every conference that signs on makes it easier for the next to do it, but I still find it hard to believe anyone thinks this is a long term solution.  At worst, Flo doesn't continue to offer money and conferences can host the streams themselves and charge less - making it look like a victory once people are used to paying.  At best, Flo figures out a way to monetize it and advertise it well and the offers go up.

I've yet to hear from anyone who thought the grumbling and complaints were dealbreakers.  People are upset and they get over it.  That's been the story from all the conferences were got in early.  We'll see if it continues to be the story with all the new additions this year.

I've been saying this for awhile, but administrators (of conference and schools) are no different than corporate executives.  Stakeholders in theory want them to think for the long-term, but they generally get evaluated on short-term returns, their incentives are based on short-term success, and they adjust their behavior accordingly.  So, in this case, if the conference commissioner and ADs announce that they have brought in a $150,000 deal, payable over 5 years, that will cover the costs of live streaming that they've been eating before and maybe covers some other unfunded costs too, the President and board think they are heroes. It helps this year's bottom line and every little bit can help with the school's bond rating etc.  Maybe they also think this will increase their exposure and draw in more students, but the reality is that they are digging around in the couch cushions for nickels and this looks like low-hanging fruit for them.  In many schools, they don't have years to wait and see if a fund-raising campaign will bring in the same $30K every year net (i.e., without regular donors just shifting the same amount they give to the annual fund toward this service). 

Plus, the board (which evaluates the President and ADs etc) is seeing all of these other conferences and reputable schools doing it and wants an explanation as to why they aren't doing it.  They don't want general caution about long-term effects; they want a concrete plan for how they are going to bring in the same amount without doing it and solid projections with data for how that will bring in more money long-term too even without hiring additional development people.  And even if many schools agree that in the long-term this doesn't make sense, if they are part of a conference where half the schools are pushing it, they have to convince other schools it doesn't make sense even if those schools don't have a plan or ability to fundraise and get the same amount.  If those schools aren't buying it, the risk is they move to another conference and that can impose unexpected costs on the schools that remain.  So, the decisions are more complicated and more expected than you might think. 

[jknezek]

I understand the need for multiple revenue streams for D3 athletics. I just think, as others have stated, there is a cost to using Flo in that you may lose exposure to fans.


Captains Lager

No, see, this is the problem. There should be no need for multiple revenue streams for D3 athletics. D3 athletics is literally "pay for play." If your student athletes aren't paying enough, or the schools is not deriving the benefits of having student athletes on campus through tuition and stronger student bodies, you are doing D3 athletics wrong and you should be ending your athletic program.

D3 athletics should not be a drain on the university that requires "multiple revenue streams." D3 athletics SHOULD BE a revenue stream. This is where everything goes wrong when colleges try to turn athletics from tools to generate a better student body to a tool to independently make money, or independently cover costs.

I would argue that a D3 athlete now has a very good case, under the concept of the House case, to take every school that gets sports revenue from Flo to court for a portion of the proceeds. As we've seen with D1, it's not about profitability, it's about a college generating revenue on the backs of the student athletes.

These D3 conferences are being unbelievably stupid and shortsighted. This is bad for current parents, bad for alumni, and, if they aren't careful, it's going to be the base of a lawsuit. All for what? Pennies. Literal pennies on a college budget.

Every time I think about this, I want to go grab all these Presidents and ask how people who are supposed to be so smart, are doing something so stupid, when colleges are already under attack... especially smaller, liberal arts colleges that make up the bulk of D3.

They need to be out selling these schools to students, talking about the value proposition of getting a degree at their school, not nickel and diming perspective student parents to try and stave off one more year of financial trouble.

It's infuriating.

[CNU85]

Interesting points Jk. I will ponder them a little. I still believe that in order to have a successful D3 athletic program, you will need additional funds above and beyond student fees from tuition, ticket sales, etc. Let me think (and research) on this model. I get it conceptually. I just need to find data points that support the model.