FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Dr. Acula]

Is this guy 115 years old? No, listening to the radio on your telephone is not a good alternative. No.

I'm flabbergasted that UMU is actually PAYING to do this. I thought it was the other way around, that STO was paying the University for the right to carry the games, and therefore their decision to not stream the games is somewhat defendable on the grounds of budget or something. But this? This is just silly. All kinds of silly. No, it won't affect the "atmosphere" of game day. The "welfare of students"? What's up, straw man. That's ridiculous. He actually argues that a tape delay is actually a good thing, because hey-- the players get to see themselves on the magic light box after the game.

Ugh. This just makes me angry. What a waste.

All of the schools with games on STO (Mount, BW, Ashland, NDC) pay STO by buying up large amounts of the ad time during the 3 hr broadcasts.  That's why if you're watching a BW game there are 800 commercials for BW and most of the rest are local businesses that are supporters of BW (local car dealerships, insurance agencies, etc.)  STO basically gets 3 hrs of free programming from all of these local DII/III games.         

[wally_wabash]

This is Leonard Reich answer to no streaming at Mount games....   

A couple of points here...

- The concern about streaming live hurting attendance is legitimate, but also not really grounded in any evidence.  I think I recall a conversation many years ago about why Wabash didn't stream games (it was either just before or just after Wabash let Hometown Sports come in and start doing games..I want to say it was 2007 or 2008) and the concerns were twofold.   First, they didn't want to do something in-house that wasn't great and two, they didn't want to dissuade people from coming to the games.  Eventually the demand for getting the games out visually to people across the country won out and game attendance at Hollett Little Giant Stadium hasn't been hurt at all.  I'd be interested to hear what impact, if any, streaming games has had on other schools that have well attended home games, but my sense is that this is negligible. 

- It's more than a little disingenous for the guy to say they're trying to protect the atmosphere at Mount Union Stadium.  They're protecting their gate, plain and simple.  I'm not saying that's wrong by any stretch, but using the "atmosphere" is a weak spin. 

- Wabash, who it would seem puts on a very well received streaming broadcast, does it with volunteer students, in-house equipment, and zero classes for communications or broadcasting.  Smart, motivated students can produce a quality broadcast.  Saying you don't have a communications program isn't a good reason to not be doing this. 

And after all of that, there's still not a good reason why they can't have both a tape delay broadcast for the 7500 people who get STO on their dish AND a live stream.  You can do both.  You should do both.  Treating a live stream broadcast like its something that is beneath you is ridiculous in 2013.  In 2007 maybe.  But not now.  Americans consume insane amounts of video media- tv, movies, sports- through internet streaming.  It's not a fad and it's not embarrassing.  Time to turn the clocks forward, fellas. 

[Joe Wally]

This is Leonard Reich answer to no streaming at Mount games.   
I can't give you specifics but let me assure you that Mount Union spends a considerable amount of money with the television broadcasts it produces.  Mount Union has to pay Image Video to produce the games, Joe Tait to broadcast the games and STO to carry the games.  For playoff games we even have a hefty per game rights fee to the NCAA to broadcast the games.  It is a considerable investment that has given nationwide exposure via cable and satellite systems to alums, parents and recruits nationwide.

The tape delay broadcasts also give our own student-athletes a great thrill to watch themselves on TV on the same day as the game.

In that regard, we are obligated to protect our broadcast partners and showing a live feed of the game takes away that exclusive right to them and their advertisers.

Also we want to protect the atmosphere at Mount Union Stadium.  I may be bias but I said this long before I worked at Mount Union that it is really one of the special places nationwide to watch a college football game and if you are playing an opponent who Mount Union has had a long history of success against and the weather might not be good then there might be a pretty bad crowd considering if it was streamed live people with smart TV's, I-Pad's or whatever could watch the game anywhere but at the stadium and that would have an adverse effect on the student athletes and their welfare and we do not want to take that chance.

There are numerous ways to follow the game action with social media, audio, live stats feed and even WRMU has a service that on a phone you can call and get the radio feed so while I know it may not be ideal for some fans there are ways to follow the action.

We do not have a communications department/TV program like some of the other schools you  reference and you use athletic training as an example and I think we should pursue broadcasting like we do athletic training ... which is a combined effort of professors teaching and professionals overseeing practical applications.  Mount Union has to make a decision academically and from an administrative standpoint to make that happen.

I can tell you we are always looking at options and technology is becoming more feasible but I can tell you we want to make sure when the time comes we are doing it at a high level and we will not do it until we can do it at a professional level.
Well there is nothing I said that is a secret so you can do what you want with the information.  I would tell everyone the same thing.

I think the environment with technology and expense for streaming is becoming more feasible and will be something we constantly evaluate.

We were doing TV before anyone else and I think it is also special to have something no one else has and it is done at such a high quality that STO has chosen to us and told other schools in Ohio NO.

Nothing is perfect and if we get to that point we want the best thing possible not just for football but I have to think of all 23 teams we have and what works best for everyone.

There are many moving pieces here that involve a lot of people on campus so it is going to take some time.

The good news is if we get by Wesley the next two games will be streamed LIVE online.

Some would argue that whatever we are doing works ok given results on the field and attendance numbers compared to other teams during the playoffs.

It may not simply be that they "don't want" to hurt the broadcast coverage that they have invested in.  It may be that they are contractually obligated not to compete in any fashion against that broadcast coverage.

[skunks_sidekick]

Hmmmph......well Lenny is not 115, and I am betting that his "answer" is his best effort of interpreting a PC answer for the folks that are asking for streaming video.  I personally believe there is one person who has put the halt to streaming, and at this time he is the "do all end all."

It could just be a situation of if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.  I don't agree with that stance, but it's not really a problem for me either.

[HScoach]

I find it very funny that the Wabash guys are the ones complaining the loudest about Mount not streaming online.    Not sure why this strikes me so oddly, but maybe it's because "Wabash always fights complains".   

[BashDad]

Some would argue that whatever we are doing works ok given results on the field and attendance numbers compared to other teams during the playoffs.

This is his summation. It, too, is ridiculous. Not even acknowledging his insinuation that somehow a tape-delayed broadcast on a local sports affiliate has a bearing on the outcome of a football game, the second point is worth totally demolishing.

Here are the attendance figures from this weekend:

Rowan at Mary-Hardin Baylor : 2582
UW-Plattville at NCC: 2500
Franklin at UW-W: 1420
Wartburg at Bethel: 3145
St. John Fisher at Hobart: 1420
Ithaca at Wesley: 1004

Linfield isn't included here, because they didn't report attendance. It should be noted, though, that their first round game drew a crowd of 2159, and all season they never played a game in front of less than 1782.

Anyway, the average of the above games is 2,012. UMU's draw was 1704. That's 300 below the average and ranks 4th (probably 5th) out of the 8 games played, all the rest of which offered streaming video.

[BashDad]

I find it very funny that the Wabash guys are the ones complaining the loudest about Mount not streaming online.    Not sure why this strikes me so oddly, but maybe it's because "Wabash always fights complains".

I'd like to watch the best team in the country play games. Sue me.

[wally_wabash]

I find it very funny that the Wabash guys are the ones complaining the loudest about Mount not streaming online.    Not sure why this strikes me so oddly, but maybe it's because "Wabash always fights complains".

For me at least it's because I'm a fan of the sport and I want to watch Mount Union play football in games other than the Stagg Bowl.  Preferably before the game result has been known and widely reported on. 

[rscl70]

Some would argue that whatever we are doing works ok given results on the field and attendance numbers compared to other teams during the playoffs.

This is his summation. It, too, is ridiculous. Not even acknowledging his insinuation that somehow a tape-delayed broadcast on a local sports affiliate has a bearing on the outcome of a football game, the second point is worth totally demolishing.

Here are the attendance figures from this weekend:

Rowan at Mary-Hardin Baylor : 2582
UW-Plattville at NCC: 2500
Franklin at UW-W: 1420
Wartburg at Bethel: 3145
St. John Fisher at Hobart: 1420
Ithaca at Wesley: 1004

Linfield isn't included here, because they didn't report attendance. It should be noted, though, that their first round game drew a crowd of 2159, and all season they never played a game in front of less than 1782.

Anyway, the average of the above games is 2,012. UMU's draw was 1704. That's 300 below the average and ranks 4th (probably 5th) out of the 8 games played, all the rest of which offered streaming video.

1. I don't believe the other schools attendence was better because they offered streaming video.

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Some would argue that whatever we are doing works ok given results on the field and attendance numbers compared to other teams during the playoffs.

This is his summation. It, too, is ridiculous. Not even acknowledging his insinuation that somehow a tape-delayed broadcast on a local sports affiliate has a bearing on the outcome of a football game, the second point is worth totally demolishing.

Here are the attendance figures from this weekend:

Rowan at Mary-Hardin Baylor : 2582
UW-Plattville at NCC: 2500
Franklin at UW-W: 1420
Wartburg at Bethel: 3145
St. John Fisher at Hobart: 1420
Ithaca at Wesley: 1004

Linfield isn't included here, because they didn't report attendance. It should be noted, though, that their first round game drew a crowd of 2159, and all season they never played a game in front of less than 1782.

Anyway, the average of the above games is 2,012. UMU's draw was 1704. That's 300 below the average and ranks 4th (probably 5th) out of the 8 games played, all the rest of which offered streaming video.

1. I don't believe the other schools attendence was better because they offered streaming video.

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

Because there are alumni out there (like me in FL) who can't make the trip to Alliance Every Weekend.  I guess I could invest in Dish Network if I really wanted to see the games, all be it on tape delay.

[AO]

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

You've got more fans that are sitting at home now and not watching than fans that would go home to watch if given the option.  Stream the game and let everyone watch.

[wally_wabash]

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

I guess I didn't state it explicitly before, but I think the people that go to the game are going to the game whether it's on TV, the web, or otherwise.  For a little more context from what I've heard about this at Wabash is that there were a lot of requests from folks who lived 45 minutes away in Indy or 90 minutes away in NW Indiana that really wanted the games available online.  Those are the people that get you wary...the people close enough to reasonably show up when they want to but might not because they can get the game on their computer.  I think what was found is that those people in close proximity weren't coming to the games anyway, so it's not like people who were showing up stopped because the game was online. 

I do understand the concern about giving people the option to NOT come to the game.  The hypothetical is completely logical.  But I think what you'll find is that your fans that come to games will come to games even if there is that streaming option available.  The people who watch at home probably weren't coming anyway. 

[section13raiderfan]

I watch the games live AND rebroadcasted. Live is better! There is nobody to high five at home after scores. The only thing missing from the stands is instant replay. That will probably happen before video streaming since a scoreboard can generate income with advertising. Of course a sweetheart broadcasting deal like Notre Dame can generate cash too!

[HScoach]

I find it very funny that the Wabash guys are the ones complaining the loudest about Mount not streaming online.    Not sure why this strikes me so oddly, but maybe it's because "Wabash always fights complains".

I'd like to watch the best team in the country play games. Sue me.

Tempting, but the payoff isn't worth the effort. 

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

You've got more fans that are sitting at home now and not watching than fans that would go home to watch if given the option.  Stream the game and let everyone watch.

Honestly, with the students home for break and the OSU/MeatChicken game on at the same time, I was very surprised the attendance was a high as it was.   Attendance for the 2nd round is historically bad. 

Because there are alumni out there (like me in FL) who can't make the trip to Alliance Every Weekend.  I guess I could invest in Dish Network if I really wanted to see the games, all be it on tape delay.

I realize it sucks for the alumni that aren't local, but until one of the rich ones wants to pony up the $ to sponsor the streaming broadcasts, I doubt we see it any time soon.    There's a bunch of construction on going that is paid for by wealthy donors, maybe we should be hitting them up for some internet productions?

[bleedpurple]

2. With playoff attendence already low, why would Mount want to give more people the opportunity to sit at home?

You've got more fans that are sitting at home now and not watching than fans that would go home to watch if given the option.  Stream the game and let everyone watch.

First of all, I think we should thank Mr. Reich for providing an extensive comment. Agree or disagree, at least he laid out the reasoning.  Obviously, the school feels like it is in their best interest to protect their relationship with STO and perhaps even are contractually bound to do so.  I wonder though, if the school is paying for the time (through advertising), could they not have leverage to change any "exclusivity"agreement? Isn't a cable system (or any TV station) about selling "time"? If that time is bought and paid for, why would they care if there is streaming as well? It's not like Nabisco would complain, the schools ARE the advertisers. I'm sure there's more to it than my rudimentary understanding.

UW-W televises every home game locally. IMO that only impacts attendance negatively on bad weather days.  And on those days, it can REALLY impact it. But on other days, I don't think it hurts it at all.  Having literally grown up in the UW-W program, having attended there myself, and currently having two boys that attend UW-W, I think the situation with students is pretty much the same as it has always been.  The students that don't go to the games usually don't care about the games (apathy). I would say the same thing about the locals as well. Bad weather days some may stay home. But most days (including some pretty darn cold ones), people will show up. The whole atmosphere at a college game cannot be duplicated on TV or through streaming. People who don't go to the game due to apathy are certainly not going to bother watching it on some streaming broadcast.

My two cents worth (which is worth even less on the OAC Board) is that Mount should do whatever it takes to offer a quality streaming for the sake of the alumni. There are probably former players who would like to watch the games from afar. These guys poured their hearts and souls into building this program and they should be taken care of. There are also loyal fans (and dare I say donors) that would appreciate the step.  The good news is that Mr. Reich said that streaming is being continuously evaluated. If it is true that there is one person holding this back, perhaps someone can get his ear.  That person probably didn't become successful without allowing people to challenge his viewpoint. Maybe someone should talk to him.