2023 D3 Men's Soccer National Perspective

[D3Navy]

I know this may not be the right place for the topic (if so, the admins will take care of it  )...

But I wanted to throw out my thoughts on the paywall trend on the college soccer scene from the national/international level

I'm assuming schools are viewing it as a way to boost revenue and also assuming they've looked at the metrics on the site traffic and how many views they got previously.  That's above my paygrade, so I'm not sure what kinda numbers we're talking.

But IMHO I see it as potentially costing colleges greatly in terms of recruiting and admissions.  If students, parents and (mainly) perspective athletes who live a significant distance from said college are blocked from seeing a game because of a paywall, that perspective athlete may be more easily swayed to look into a college without a paywall. A large part of recruiting in the D3 field falls on the shoulders of the perspective athlete/family.  Their ability to see a team play and evaluate whether they want to pursue that college may be significantly impacted by things as small as this.  I know this is small potatoes and if an athlete really wants to pursue that college, they won't be deterred by whether there is a paywall for viewing games...I just feel like it's working against those coaches and AD's (and Admissions) who already have a tough recruiting job.

Not living in these areas to get to these games, I can't speak to it...but can anyone weigh in on whether these schools are charging for admission to regular season games?  I feel as though that may have been a better place to start when trying to increase revenue.

Thoughts?

There is a hidden cost to offering free streaming -- fewer people attending games in person. If there are no fans at the games, excitement fizzles. Be honest -- how many times have you watched a game on the computer instead of attending in person?

If you offer streaming but charge a fee, maybe more people will attend in person and only family and friends who can't be there in person will pay for the stream.

Interesting discussion.  I live about 35 minutes' drive from Trinity University in San Antonio.  I am an alum, but was not a varsity athlete and, frankly, I don't even know if Trinity had soccer teams while I was there (mid-80s).  But being nearby and having kids in soccer and volleyball it has become a family habit of hopping in the car to go grab a burger and then watch some outstanding sports.  Occasionally, I'll just zip down myself.  That said, the distance is sometimes just too much or other events intrude and having the free live streams of local games is terrific.  It helps that Trinity productions are first rate. 

My anecdotal bottom line: the broadcasts do not deter me, but it's very nice to have.

I will moan a bit about schools that provide very sub-par productions.  St. Johns football charged $17 for the Trinity game and the camera coverage was terrible.  I don't think I saw a receiver catch a ball on a throw beyond 25 yards.  If you charge, you'd better provide a quality product.

Lastly, I would wager that nearly all athletes seriously considering a school to play for not would rely upon a broadcast.  They'd make an in-person visit.  Most Trinity athletes will tell you that the team atmosphere and the school is as important to them as the success of the program.

Keep up the broadcasts, free if possible, but nothing beats an evening at the pitch watching some great athletes do what they love.

[camosfan]

My take and this is pure speculation, I think charging for online viewing is negative, I see schools making more from donations than would be realized from charging for viewing. I would not make a donation to a program that charges.

[College Soccer Observer]

I think the NESCAC has a reasonable compromise.  Games are streamed live for free, are are available to watch on demand or download afterward for a fee.

[jdfranklin23]

@Ejay that's a good idea with the "Activities Fee".  And I agree I don't know that it is swaying a lot of recruits to go elsewhere.  But I can say as a lil' league coach and parent, I have definitely sent email announcements to teams notifying them of a game involving nationally ranked men's and women's teams and including a link to the live video feed.

[Kuiper]

I know several kids from LA who have been recruited by University of Rochester for men's soccer and neither the kids nor their parents ever mentioned the streaming fee for games as a factor at all even though we're so far away that realistically it would be the only way for friends and family to watch any of their games.  To be honest, most of these people probably had no idea games were streamed at all, so it's likely more like a bonus to find out games are streamed than a disadvantage to find out the streaming was not free.  My guess is that it cost UR far more to send a coach out to showcases like MLS Next Fest in the LA area to watch the kids (which was how the kids got interested in the school) than the school gets in streaming fees and the cost to parents is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the school and the flights back and forth to get to Rochester.

I could see the paywall keeping alums from staying invested in the program.  Maybe it might make a small difference if a kid has choices at the end, but I doubt it.  In the case of the kids I know from here, the distance, the weather, and the programs of study were the deciding factors in going elsewhere.  College is too big a decision to come down to that expense.  For the kids, the locker room and the athletics amenities are far more important (for better or worse).

[Hopkins92]

We had a pretty robust conversation on this prior to the season starting. I don't have time to dig it up, but jknezek broke down the financials (big picture, speculative) and it comes down to probably not really worth it for the Landmark... But you could see how the conference big wigs could toot their horn on the front end as making money for the member schools.

I'll try to find the post later today...

[jknezek]

We had a pretty robust conversation on this prior to the season starting. I don't have time to dig it up, but jknezek broke down the financials (big picture, speculative) and it comes down to probably not really worth it for the Landmark... But you could see how the conference big wigs could toot their horn on the front end as making money for the member schools.

I'll try to find the post later today...

Wasn't me, but I did agree with whoever did it. Was in regards to the Landmark Conference deal, not Rochester though.

[Hopkins92]

My bad... probably kuiper, then. (It's a compliment, FWIW, as i put you both in the "very smart and analytical" bucket on this board. :-))

[WUPHF]

I am sure there are Rochester parents lurking who would know but does Rochester not have passes to give out to parents and recruits?  A virtual guest list?

I think they do.

I am asking about Rochester but I would think that this is a common practice.

[Hopkins92]

This is from kuiper on Sept 7 in the Simple Coach thread in response to me asking the question about pros/cons for Landmark going paywall.

(And, for the record jknezek, you posted directly after this praising the post, so my brain wasn't that far off.)

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.

[Kuiper]

This is from kuiper on Sept 7 in the Simple Coach thread in response to me asking the question about pros/cons for Landmark going paywall.

(And, for the record jknezek, you posted directly after this praising the post, so my brain wasn't that far off.)

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.

Yes, that was me (for better or for worse!).

For what it's worth, that was really just evaluating whether the Landmark deal was a good deal for the schools.  The Rochester deal may actually produce more money for the teams or the school because they cut out the middleman of the conference, while the Landmark promises more "value," in the form, as I explained in that earlier post, of a halftime show and edited clips that the schools can use in social media.  As I mentioned in my post on this thread, I don't think any of this would really deter a recruit from committing to a school since the recruit is getting personal attention from a coach and the additional cost is to the parent, who can decline to pay if they really care a lot and would be unlikely to bar their kid from considering an uber expensive school because of this one extra (voluntary) charge.  It might affect exposure to prospective recruits, either negatively or positively.  Negatively, if players don't add a school to the list because they don't get to see them on a stream.  Positively, if players happen to get exposed to the school because of advertisements for the Landmark Conference on other FloSports broadcasts if they are a subscriber anyway or if the exposure is so great that non-athletes become attracted to the school and the overall fortunes ($, prestige, and student quality) of the school rise, making it more attractive to athletes too.  Realistically, though, it won't move the needle that much either way.  Where it could is that alums who aren't super connected and/or live far away will drift away from supporting the school, which could hurt giving.

My bigger gripe with both the Rochester and Landmark deals is that they probably benefit someone higher up (conference leaders and athletic directors), for reasons that are not aligned with the interests of the individual teams or their coaches/players.  That means that even if the deals don't directly harm recruiting or exposure too much (since few watch even the free streams), they don't help anybody either, making any slight inconvenience or backlash not worth it.

[WUPHF]

I have to assume that the Flo Sports deal comes with a lot more advertising from major companies rather than say the local pizza chain so I am not sure that cutting out the middle-man moves the pay day needle, but I have not paid to watch a Landmark broadcast so I have no idea.

[Recon]

Excellent points all-around, and the alternative "no effect / no big deal" comments are also quite relevant. Unable to comment much about the landmark conf but have close connections to a few UAA schools, parents, players, professors, etc.. and can say with some level of confidence (and as others have mentioned) that the UR viewing fee is a complete non-issue on program, recruiting, etc.  Any parent paying for these schools, (or alumni) is not withholding a program gift or commenting about a small fee. Although, if every school or conference went to a viewing fee, fans, including those on this board, would watch fewer games...so overall, if it grows, then that's a larger issue.   

The UR fee is $10.95 a month (or $8/game) which gets you appx 8 home games of mens and womens soccer (UAA top conference for womens soccer). So, you get a month of fun for the price of a double latte in NYC or California. Now perhaps a different angle...somewhat confident the fee is not revenue generating per say (too few $), however, it may pay for an enhanced viewing experience. This year I've probably watched entire (or parts) of atleast 50 d3 broadcasts and 60% are nearly unwatchable, quality, camera angle, camera following the play, no announcer, etc.  UR has an excellent professional announcer, terrific job at stats and commentary (not a homer color analyst..). The broadcast is very high quality, shot from a stadium perspective, begins 30 minutes prior, includes lineups, National Anthem, and "immediate" replay of goals and key plays-  it may be one of the most professional productions out there. My guess (could be wrong), is the fee goes mostly to salary, equipment and production. UR gets high attendance for a D3 program, both women and men draw between 200-300 per game, no fee to attend. Do any D3 soccer programs charge for in-person? Most D1 teams are charging $10-20 to attend games, and many draw a much smaller crowd- perhaps they shouldn't charge..  btw, anyone been to a 2 hour movie and bought a bucket of popcorn lately?   

[SimpleCoach]

I have to assume that the Flo Sports deal comes with a lot more advertising from major companies rather than say the local pizza chain so I am not sure that cutting out the middle-man moves the pay day needle, but I have not paid to watch a Landmark broadcast so I have no idea.

I will be providing some clarity on this shortly......

SC.

[Hopkins92]

Excellent points all-around, and the alternative "no effect / no big deal" comments are also quite relevant. Unable to comment much about the landmark conf but have close connections to a few UAA schools, parents, players, professors, etc.. and can say with some level of confidence (and as others have mentioned) that the UR viewing fee is a complete non-issue on program, recruiting, etc.  Any parent paying for these schools, (or alumni) is not withholding a program gift or commenting about a small fee. Although, if every school or conference went to a viewing fee, fans, including those on this board, would watch fewer games...so overall, if it grows, then that's a larger issue.   

The UR fee is $10.95 a month (or $8/game) which gets you appx 8 home games of mens and womens soccer (UAA top conference for womens soccer). So, you get a month of fun for the price of a double latte in NYC or California. Now perhaps a different angle...somewhat confident the fee is not revenue generating per say (too few $), however, it may pay for an enhanced viewing experience. This year I've probably watched entire (or parts) of atleast 50 d3 broadcasts and 60% are nearly unwatchable, quality, camera angle, camera following the play, no announcer, etc.  UR has an excellent professional announcer, terrific job at stats and commentary (not a homer color analyst..). The broadcast is very high quality, shot from a stadium perspective, begins 30 minutes prior, includes lineups, National Anthem, and "immediate" replay of goals and key plays-  it may be one of the most professional productions out there. My guess (could be wrong), is the fee goes mostly to salary, equipment and production. UR gets high attendance for a D3 program, both women and men draw between 200-300 per game, no fee to attend. Do any D3 soccer programs charge for in-person? Most D1 teams are charging $10-20 to attend games, and many draw a much smaller crowd- perhaps they shouldn't charge..  btw, anyone been to a 2 hour movie and bought a bucket of popcorn lately?

Good perspectives... Couple of things:

1) I'm not sure what arrangement the CC has with its schools, and I can't speak to other sports, but for soccer they have a pretty good "professional" set-up, including a non-student game call, decent camera angles and in-game replays. I don't know how long this has been in place, but I'm assuming that they aren't going to start charging anything. Again, no inside knowledge, but I assume the member schools pay for the broadcasts and streaming, so it's already baked in.

2) I can't say I've been to a ton of D3 events, but I've been to more than 2 dozen venues over the years... Never paid a dime. Which is pretty funny, as at least here in MoCo, MD... You're paying $5 to get through the gate (at least for soccer, football and basketball/not for baseball or softball.)