SimpleCoach D3 Soccer YouTube Channel

[Hopkins92]

Hey SC, I dropped this in another thread but wanted to put it here to be more direct:

I'd very curious to hear from a Landmark coach about the effect of going Pay Wall this fall. My conjecture is that it's not all that popular as it limits the ability of recruits (and their parents) to check out their team and get a feel for style of play and whatnot.

I spoke to One of the Landmark coaches and he definitely was not for pay to view...it was a Conference decision...

Pretty short-sighted, IMO.

Honestly, I can see NESCAC and/or UAA pulling this, (don't feel like typing it all out in a PC way)... I just don't think the juice is worth the squeeze for Landmark.

I watch a lot of sports. There are only 2 teams on the planet where if you forced me to pay, I would. (USMNT and MI football) Other than parents of current players, and MAYBE hardcore alumni, I just don't see how the #'s($$) work here.

Honestly, if the CC goes paywall, I'm done. I have other stuff I can fill my time with (probably to my wife's relief.) The irony(?) here is that when I joined this board, streaming games was the exception rather than the rule. I highly doubt they are using the Amazon Prime/YouTube TV model of bringing you in at a low price point (free in this case) and then charging increasingly higher subs costs. But... Man, I sure hope this isn't the direction other conferences go.

[jknezek]

Hey SC, I dropped this in another thread but wanted to put it here to be more direct:

I'd very curious to hear from a Landmark coach about the effect of going Pay Wall this fall. My conjecture is that it's not all that popular as it limits the ability of recruits (and their parents) to check out their team and get a feel for style of play and whatnot.

I spoke to One of the Landmark coaches and he definitely was not for pay to view...it was a Conference decision...

Pretty short-sighted, IMO.

Honestly, I can see NESCAC and/or UAA pulling this, (don't feel like typing it all out in a PC way)... I just don't think the juice is worth the squeeze for Landmark.

I watch a lot of sports. There are only 2 teams on the planet where if you forced me to pay, I would. (USMNT and MI football) Other than parents of current players, and MAYBE hardcore alumni, I just don't see how the #'s($$) work here.

Honestly, if the CC goes paywall, I'm done. I have other stuff I can fill my time with (probably to my wife's relief.) The irony(?) here is that when I joined this board, streaming games was the exception rather than the rule. I highly doubt they are using the Amazon Prime/YouTube TV model of bringing you in at a low price point (free in this case) and then charging increasingly higher subs costs. But... Man, I sure hope this isn't the direction other conferences go.

Who else do you think is really watching besides those 2 groups, maybe 2 or 3 people from this board, and maybe a recruit or two, who is much more likely to go see a game and speak to the coach? I think it's stupid also, but I think the people that really should be irritated are the parents who are already paying for their kid to attend and now need to pay even more to watch them play....

[PaulNewman]

Yes, my Rochester kid didn't play a sport but with tuition and board now like 75K per year I'd be literally out of my mind.

[Kuiper]

Hey SC, I dropped this in another thread but wanted to put it here to be more direct:

I'd very curious to hear from a Landmark coach about the effect of going Pay Wall this fall. My conjecture is that it's not all that popular as it limits the ability of recruits (and their parents) to check out their team and get a feel for style of play and whatnot.

I spoke to One of the Landmark coaches and he definitely was not for pay to view...it was a Conference decision...

Pretty short-sighted, IMO.

Honestly, I can see NESCAC and/or UAA pulling this, (don't feel like typing it all out in a PC way)... I just don't think the juice is worth the squeeze for Landmark.

I watch a lot of sports. There are only 2 teams on the planet where if you forced me to pay, I would. (USMNT and MI football) Other than parents of current players, and MAYBE hardcore alumni, I just don't see how the #'s($$) work here.

Honestly, if the CC goes paywall, I'm done. I have other stuff I can fill my time with (probably to my wife's relief.) The irony(?) here is that when I joined this board, streaming games was the exception rather than the rule. I highly doubt they are using the Amazon Prime/YouTube TV model of bringing you in at a low price point (free in this case) and then charging increasingly higher subs costs. But... Man, I sure hope this isn't the direction other conferences go.

Just for a thought exercise, I'll ask the question:  Is it a good deal for the schools and the conference?  In the Landmark Commissioner's bio, she reports that "This landmark agreement, valued in the seven figures, brings a new level of support by providing direct funding and enhancements to all 10 member institutions." Let's say it is an even $1 million.  In a bio bragging about her accomplishment in getting the deal, she wouldn't say it is "seven figures" if she could plausibly say it is almost "mid" or "high" seven figures, so it is likely closer to 1 than 5 or 10.  Let's also assume that conservative number and assume they pass along all of that to the schools.  $100,000 per school sounds pretty good for many of the members of the Landmark, which has schools with a wide range of endowment fund sizes.  Many of those schools are highly tuition dependent and don't get huge amounts in annual giving.  $100,000 would be a decent-sized donation and likely cover a lot of athletic department costs.  So, the Commissioner sells it to the schools.  It may be that only a majority or even super-majority need to support it, which could leave the schools that don't like it (perhaps the wealthier ones) to decide whether they will leave the conference because of it.  They are kind of stuck and agree to it. 

Of course, the problem is that it isn't $100,000 in direct funding to the school annually or in a lump sum.  It's probably paid over the life of the deal, which could mean it only provides a small fraction of that money to schools each year (maybe 10% per year in a 10 year deal).  It is also "valued" at seven figures, which means that it likely includes contingent amounts based on how many actually pay for the individual streams and possibly how many new subscriptions they can attribute to Landmark Conference subscribers (which FloSports will account for in a way to minimize the allocation as much as possible).  In a contingent value deal, there may also be a ceiling on the amount FloSports will pay for those individual streams and new subscriptions, and they are using the cap as part of the deal valuation even if the ceiling is highly unlikely to be reached. 

Moreover, only a portion of the valuation comes from actual direct funding to the schools.  The rest comes in "enhancements to all 10 member institutions."  In the press release, they claim to provide "enhanced production" to members, which would be worth something if they were actually sending out the camera crews and announcers and upgrading the streaming quality, but I highly doubt any of that is the case.  As the press release states later,  "Throughout the term, FloSports will not only distribute thousands of Landmark Conference games live, but curate fandom via breaking news, highlights, editorial storytelling, and analysis."  Someone has attached a value to that editing and SportsCenter-style production, but it is probably much higher than the actual benefit to the schools.  The problem is that schools aren't investment banks and they don't really know what that means or why it might not translate to additional dollars or better students.  They think it will make the conference look more professional and the schools seem "big league," which, of course, isn't true, but also assumes people will watch it.  The critiques on this board assume that the benefits are for people to pay per game or to subscribe to FloSports and since very few people follow DIII sports other than parents and a few alums, that won't happen.  The schools, however, are hoping that people who subscribe to FloSports for other DI leagues will surf through the channels, find the Landmark games, and watch them and that will raise the profiles of those schools.  I have no idea if that will happen, but I have watched Patriot League games on ESPN+ and while the halftime production value is definitely better (albeit more sterile) than the student announcers on some of these DIII streams, it's kind of irrelevant.  I certainly don't think Loyola Maryland is any higher level as a school than The College of New Jersey, University of Scranton, Emerson College, or Ithaca College (all of which are ranked around the same by US News as "Regional Universities North") and if I'm deciding D1 is better than DIII, than a halftime highlight show isn't going to make me pivot toward a DIII if I'm a potential recruit. 

Put all that together, and the most a school might make is $10K a year if the deal valuation is around $1 million (the conservative estimate admittedly).  Quite possibly they will only make $5-8K a year plus the benefit of "exposure," for the reasons explained above, which some media expert tells them is worth a ton if they paid for advertising, but none of these places would ever be advised to advertise nationally in these kinds of specialized athletic platforms if this was just a direct sale of media spots.

So, who does benefit from this deal?  The Commissioner and staff of the Landmark Conference benefit, probably directly through some form of direct funding from FloSports (which further reduces the direct funding to members) and indirectly from the ability to say they negotiated this first-in-industry D3 media rights deal (which the Commissioner is already doing by putting it in her bio).  Who else?  Athletic Directors of schools.  They are the ones who will receive the funding from the media rights deal and even if it's only $5-8K, that's better than nothing for an Athletic Department considering none of it will be distributed to individual teams most likely.

Who gets hurt?  Coaches and Development staff at schools.  Coaches lose out on a platform for recruits and development staff get angry alums.  Neither are consulted on these kinds of deals though.

[jknezek]

+K Kuiper. That's exactly how I read it also. There is no way they make much money on this deal. You broke it down nicely how "high 7 figures" means pretty much nothing.

[Maine Soccer Fan]

Old adage loosely adapted: glance at the price, study the terms.

[Coach Jeff]

Kuiper great job...i do feel bad for the players and the parents.  I am so thankful my son's university has not gone to pay per view.  Thanks again Kuiper

[SimpleCoach]

Week Two Games of the Week.

Game ... or Games ... of the Week

[SimpleCoach]

Week three Game...or Games... of the Week - The Midweek Edition

Game ... or Games ... of the Week

[SimpleCoach]

Here you go.  The Return of the New Show with @PaulNewman!

The New Show, Season Two, Episode One

[JFPIV]

Here you go.  The Return of the New Show with @PaulNewman!

The New Show, Season Two, Episode One

Great conversation!  You should watch "The Bear."

[SierraFD3soccer]

Here you go.  The Return of the New Show with @PaulNewman!

The New Show, Season Two, Episode One

Great conversation!  You should watch "The Bear."

Definitely, plus ditto as to "The Bear."  Very few shows where its very funny, sad plus tragic often all at once. On top of all it not preachy.

[PaulNewman]

Here you go.  The Return of the New Show with @PaulNewman!

The New Show, Season Two, Episode One

Great conversation!  You should watch "The Bear."

Definitely, plus ditto as to "The Bear."  Very few shows where its very funny, sad plus tragic often all at once. On top of all it not preachy.

Yes, I admit I was thrown a little and had nothing in my "break glass for awkward moments" bag when the Great One had no knowledge of The Bear....but then again I had never heard of it until like 3 months ago...and then binge-watched both seasons in two weekends. 

For those in know, gun to your head, Episode 6 (Jamie Lee Curtis) or Episode 7 (Richie), season 2? 

[JFPIV]

Here you go.  The Return of the New Show with @PaulNewman!

The New Show, Season Two, Episode One

Great conversation!  You should watch "The Bear."

Definitely, plus ditto as to "The Bear."  Very few shows where its very funny, sad plus tragic often all at once. On top of all it not preachy.

Yes, I admit I was thrown a little and had nothing in my "break glass for awkward moments" bag when the Great One had no knowledge of The Bear....but then again I had never heard of it until like 3 months ago...and then binge-watched both seasons in two weekends. 

For those in know, gun to your head, Episode 6 (Jamie Lee Curtis) or Episode 7 (Richie), season 2?

I have been to those Christmas dinners several times in my life (less only the "accident" with the car), so I'll take Richie's episode seven.

[Hopkins92]

Richie episode is one of my favorite single shows of all time.

(Went with my wife to Chicago a couple of weekends ago... Al's Beef, Lou Malnati's and a Chicago dog from Relish. Touristy? Yes. Also delicious!!)