Flo Sports

[Ron Boerger]

Where 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.

[stlawus]

Where 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. 

[EnmoreCat]

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.

[Ron Boerger]

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.

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.

[Kuiper]

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.

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.

[y_jack_lok]

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.

[Ron Boerger]

The UAA commissioner posted 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.

[Ron Boerger]

And ... the NWC is apparently going too for the usual $30k/school/year.  https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1936467531281101265

[Gray Fox]

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.

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.

[Kuiper]

And ... 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. 

[Ron Boerger]

Bob Q has a lot of insider contacts - the deal gets announced in the next few days, you'd think. 

[mc1983]

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.

[IC798891]

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.

[Kuiper]

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.

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. 

[y_jack_lok]

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..