IC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.

Quote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.

I agree. But I still find this very obnoxious. The people most likely to pay FloSports are those already paying for their child to play sports at a D3 school. It's just an appalling double dip on those parents.

Quote from: jknezek on July 12, 2024, 09:10:12 AM

Quote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.

I agree. But I still find this very obnoxious. The people most likely to pay FloSports are those already paying for their child to play sports at a D3 school. It's just an appalling double dip on those parents.

How much are they going to charge us?

Quote from: Little Giant 89 on July 12, 2024, 08:31:58 AMIC, I suspect that most DIII athletic directors would bite off your hand for 27K in annual income.

The hand they bite might actually be the hand that feeds them though.

1. If I donate money every a year to IC's athletic department on Giving Day, and now, I've got to give money to Flo Sports watch IC athletics, I may decide that my personal budget doesn't allow me to do both.

2. Reducing the audience for your college's events is almost never good. The goal should be to increase your audience.

3. Forcing people to jump through monetary hoops for your formerly free product is not going to make them happy. (Heck, jknezek sounds annoyed on behalf of other people.) They may still do it, or they may say "all they ever ask me to do is give them money" — because even if the money technically goes to FloSports, that's not how everyone is going to read it — and it may sour them on their relationship to the college.

My family has been around higher ed for a really long time, and between that and my own personal experience being in the thick of it since 2016, most people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.

Ithaca once got a $17 million dollar gift from someone who wasn't even an alum. Why? Because every year he gave money to the Communications school IC and another college. Every year, the student at IC who benefitted from his gift (the money was given to them to help them cover the costs associated with producing a films), along with the Dean, hand wrote a thank you note to this person.

When this individual died, his lawyer called our dean and said that the reason IC was getting so much — and the other school almost nothing — was because every time this person got a thank you note from us and not the other school, he took some of the money he had earmarked for them and put it with the money he earmarked for us. Over the years, it added up and...the rest is history.

And that $17 million understates it. That's just what he *gave*. The dean created an endowment with some of the initial money, and now, more than 30 years later, the comms school is getting more than $800,000 a year. All for probably 20 bucks worth of stamps and envelopes and paper.

The point is, everything you do has consequences, and you may not realize it until too late.

It's entirely possible I'm overstating the potential negative impact of making people pay to watch D3 sports. Maybe everyone will ultimately just complain like I am, and then pony up anyway. Maybe it won't materially impact anyone's relationship with the college.

But $27,000 a year — the equivalent of 0.013% of Ithaca College's 2023-24 operating expense budget — is not enough money for me to want to find out. But maybe that's why I'm not an AD. Maybe I am completely misreading this.

IC7

If I give to the school I can get matching money from my employer.  If I give to Flo that will not happen. I have a budget of my own.

I think you're missing one of the most basic things. When schools first started broadcasting over the internet it became so much easier for parents to follow their kids and see games, even if the school was far beyond driving distance for every game. Lots of schools benefitted by recruiting athletes from areas they were less likely to score from before, all because now family could still participate more than one or twice a season.

Now along come some of these schools thinking, "it's only a few more bucks, parents will pay it." And for the most part I think they are correct. But there will be some who say school A isn't much better than school B, and school B is closer and isn't going to charge me to watch my kid play the sport I'm already paying for him to attend and play.

And I hope those parents make it known that this nickel and dime crap isn't worth it from a competitive or enrollment point of view. It doesn't take a whole lot of prospects saying "nah, I'll stick with B" before that $27K starts to look real expensive instead of really like a benefit.

Unless, of course, FloSports can do such a good job as to make it worthwhile. My limited experience with FloSports is they haven't, and I suspect it would cost too much to make it worth it on their end to make the production improve to make it worthwhile.

So I hope a few parents put these schools on blast. It's not a huge amount of money, but it's one more thing. Maybe a few parents and a few prospects turning away with this as a mentioned factor will make the whole stupid idea die.

Or maybe a few athletes will get the bright idea to say "if you are going to make money off of us, maybe you need to start paying us benefits" and watch those D3 schools cave in a hurry.

It's not like D3 can use any of the excuses about free education that D1 finally failed at.

Quote from: Gray Fox on July 12, 2024, 01:09:34 PMIC7

If I give to the school I can get matching money from my employer.  If I give to Flo that will not happen. I have a budget of my own.

Right, that's my point. It's not a free $27,000 they found on the ground. That's what the school gets from Flo for pushing a cost to its audience. And its audience may take the $50 (or whatever) they give to Flo and treat it like a donation to the athletic department — after all, they're giving money in exchange for access to athletics. And then they don't give that $50 when the school comes calling for money. So now, they've actually only made $26,950

Quote from: jknezek on July 12, 2024, 01:12:51 PMNow along come some of these schools thinking, "it's only a few more bucks, parents will pay it." And for the most part I think they are correct. But there will be some who say school A isn't much better than school B, and school B is closer and isn't going to charge me to watch my kid play the sport I'm already paying for him to attend and play.

And I hope those parents make it known that this nickel and dime crap isn't worth it from a competitive or enrollment point of view. It doesn't take a whole lot of prospects saying "nah, I'll stick with B" before that $27K starts to look real expensive instead of really like a benefit.

Very well stated, and yes, another example of the long-term relationship damage that can be done.

Ithaca Volleyball has a roster consisting of players from

Texas (X2), Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, California, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Pennslyvania.

Just two players are from New York, and one of those is from Ossining. I suspect all of those parents are going to have to watch their daughters online, and, were IC one of the schools that made them pay to do so, it might bother them, and you know what, Wisconsin Whitewater is less than an hour from Madison.

Straws, camels, and all that

I've seen it from both sides, one season of an ESPN+ subscription when my son was playing soccer at a D1 school and then the ability to watch a free, but clearly not same quality output, when he moved to Amherst.  Being in Australia, I know that if the only way I could watch him play was to pay, that I would be jacked off, but do it.  I guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash, but I would expect given endowment sizes at many of them, it would be a very difficult decision to justify for a modest outcome.

Quote from: EnmoreCat on July 13, 2024, 03:29:15 PMI guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash

$27,000 for 25 sports at Amherst would be an extra $1,100 per sport a year.

The college has a $3.3 billion endowment.

Quote from: EnmoreCat on July 13, 2024, 03:29:15 PMI've seen it from both sides, one season of an ESPN+ subscription when my son was playing soccer at a D1 school and then the ability to watch a free, but clearly not same quality output, when he moved to Amherst.  Being in Australia, I know that if the only way I could watch him play was to pay, that I would be jacked off, but do it.  I guess in the case of NESCAC schools where I suspect most of the soccer programs probably don't operate on extravagant budgets, they might like the extra cash, but I would expect given endowment sizes at many of them, it would be a very difficult decision to justify for a modest outcome.

I have seen a handful of NESCAC football and baseball games.  They have a good quality and don't actually need Flo.  But they already have money.

Quote from: IC798891 on July 12, 2024, 12:53:41 PMmost people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.

Holy moly, bold and double underline this. 

FloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution.  But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do.  Worth that risk for $27k?  Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it instead of making them feel like they need to pay a ransom to be one of dozens of people to watch a Wednesday night basketball game where the single swivel camera is going to miss 10-15% of the game?  I absolutely get the need for more resources for broadcast support, but I'm not sure this is the way. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 18, 2024, 03:33:40 PM

Quote from: IC798891 on July 12, 2024, 12:53:41 PMmost people outside of the philanthropy/development offices, have no idea how hard it is to establish genuine connections with the community the college depends on for support, be it students, alumni, family of students, etc. and how easy it is to alienate them.

Holy moly, bold and double underline this. 

FloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution.  But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do.  Worth that risk for $27k?  Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it instead of making them feel like they need to pay a ransom to be one of dozens of people to watch a Wednesday night basketball game where the single swivel camera is going to miss 10-15% of the game?  I absolutely get the need for more resources for broadcast support, but I'm not sure this is the way. 

I agree with the sentiments raised in this thread and am glad that my alma mater opted out on this deal.  However, I do think there is a decent reason why schools/conferences are partnering with Flo Sports.

I strongly doubt that the approximately $27K of revenue is why schools/conferences are choosing to partner with Flo Sports. However, Flo Sports eliminates the costs and expenses the schools incur to video and broadcast their events.  A school could very easily reason that the costs and expenses to broadcast events that a few dozen will watch is not worth it but, if a third-party is paying those costs and expenses, at least the school will have its events broadcasts and their alumni/supporters/fans have access to the events without traveling to the event site.

The ability to watch DIII sporting events anywhere but in person is fairly new. When I was attending TLU (98-02), there was no internet broadcast of their games.  Maybe there was a radio broadcast but, if you wanted to watch the game, you had to go to the game.

We have been extremely fortunate that access to DIII sports through internet broadcasts have been, mostly, free of charge. What other professional/college teams could we watch for free in the history of sports, except for over-the-air television (and we all know that DIII sports will never be broadcasts over the air)?

I am not saying this is a compelling reason for a school/conference to partner with Flo Sports.  I agree that building good will with your alumni/supporters base likely outweighs the benefits a school receives from the Flo Sports deal.  All of that said, I can also see where a school weighs those pros and cons and determines that having a third party incur the costs and expenses to broadcasts its sports event is more or equally beneficial, especially if it means that the school will continue to have its events broadcasts where alumni/supporters will have access to it besides in person.  What if the alternative is no internet broadcast?  How does that continue to build goodwill?

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 18, 2024, 03:33:40 PMFloSports is never ever going to sustain an athletics program or an institution.  But the people schools are holding up for FloSports subscriptions do.  Worth that risk for $27k?  Aren't there ways to raise $27k and make your donor base feel energized about it? 

If your philanthropy and development people know what they're doing, then yes

As I have mentioned elsewhere, $27,000 is roughly 6% of what Ithaca athletics raised in the college's annual Giving Day last year.

If you're in such dire financial straits that you really need that piddling sum...you're probably in a death spiral anyway

Quote from: TLU02SA on July 18, 2024, 04:23:07 PMAll of that said, I can also see where a school weighs those pros and cons and determines that having a third party incur the costs and expenses to broadcasts its sports event is more or equally beneficial, especially if it means that the school will continue to have its events broadcasts where alumni/supporters will have access to it besides in person.  What if the alternative is no internet broadcast?  How does that continue to build goodwill?

This doesn't happen with Flo, to be clear. Each school is still responsible for all production of events to a very basic standard laid out in the contract.  When I did my piece for d3hoops, it was pretty clear to me this is an okay deal for schools who already meet the broadcast standards and probably not a very good one for schools who will have to use the money to invest in upgraded broadcast capabilities.

As for the money - my understanding is that the deal is an overall for the conference which they divvy up as they see fit.  There's really no way to know what each school in each conference is going to receive.