SAC and FloSports Announce Historic Streaming Rights Partnership

[Bearhof]

[BlazerLady]

Folks in the GSC complained a lot last year but it is what it is. At least you'll get to see those games too as part of your subscription but you get access to tons more.

I'm on board for the annual fee because I wanted to watch UNA in a post-season softball tournament a couple of months back on FloSoftball and I'm also a huge fan of DCI on FloMarching (which also carries the big HS band competitions). There's also FloHoops, FloHockey, FloGymnastics, and similar for lots of other sports. It's all included.

The only thing good about the annual fee is if you are interested in other sports.
Also, they do record the games and replay them, and one of their commentators helped with our Coaches Show.

[BlazerLady]

I guess gone are the days when you could have friends and family simply check out a SAC football game. Same goes for potential recruits, coaches, and even friends in the Military looking for a good game to watch. The media sell-out means less exposure for the SAC teams.

And that was my concern. You can't invite friends and family to watch a game without a subscription.

[canadarican]

I know it doesn't happen often, if ever, but I have to agree with Eagle74. I think this is not a great deal overall for the SAC based on information I have been given.

[Eagle74]

Both Barton and Erskine will be included in the cut (check out their websites).

[canadarican]

Why should it be split evenly? I understanding having a baseline - everybody gets this amount - for the revenue. But would make sense for the larger revenue generating schools to get a higher amount of the pot relative to the percentage of the revenue they are bringing to the site (assuming that Flo is even able to do this (I have my doubts)).

Dont all the major conferences split tv money?

[BEARS]

Why should it be split evenly? I understanding having a baseline - everybody gets this amount - for the revenue. But would make sense for the larger revenue generating schools to get a higher amount of the pot relative to the percentage of the revenue they are bringing to the site (assuming that Flo is even able to do this (I have my doubts)).

[Eagle74]

It appears to me that the biggest losers with this deal will be the fans and players (and their families) .

Will the extra dollars, after profits, production cost, manhours / labor cost, employee benefits / insurance, infrastructure investments, etc, be split evenly between the conference schools, including the scheduling alliance schools? What does the average monetary return for each school equate to? Will those funds be directed to the athletic departments, and again split evenly between all sports programs, or will the funds be used anyway the administrations decide?

[Larold]

I guess gone are the days when you could have friends and family simply check out a SAC football game. Same goes for potential recruits, coaches, and even friends in the Military looking for a good game to watch. The media sell-out means less exposure for the SAC teams.

Those days went last year in GSC.
For those signing up,be very careful. I followed prompts for monthly service last season and was charged for annual package.
Their Customer(no) Service doesn't make mistakes( you can't even be connected directly to humans.....or whatever they use)
I got FLO-D.

[BEARS]

LR would be smart to include FloSports as part of Bears Club. They upped the price by $500 this past year anyways, would only make sense to throw BC members this bone.

[Eagle74]

I wonder which schools will offer 'certain recruits' and players a number of viewing subscriptions?

[RedFromMI]

So what I am reading is that we are going to pay for what we were getting free previously without any sort of benefit?

Actually, it may have been free for the viewer, but it cost the individual school money to provide the streaming platform. Someone has to pay the content networks for the platform.

This changes the source of that money to the viewers.

[BlueBlood]

I'm not an SAC guy, but I saw the thread title. I've (unfortunately) had to purchase FloSports from time to time to watch some away games. Not a fan at all. ESPN+ is much cheaper and user friendly. FloSports seems clunky by comparison. The quality of the broadcast is really whatever quality the home school is producing (which is the same with ESPN+ or any platform for that matter). I never mind the ads on ESPN+ that much, as it just makes it seems like a regular network broadcast. Unfortunate development for you guys.

[Larold]

So what I am reading is that we are going to pay for what we were getting free previously without any sort of benefit?

Wait and see the FULL FLO FLOP
Poor reception tone deaf customer service..

[Eagle74]

Looking at the big picture, most of the SAC football players do not come from homes with disposable incomes, if fact, many come from economically depressed family limited budget situations. How many players are now going to have and tell their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins friends ect, that they can no longer watch any of their games being streamed, without paying money?


Now, if I was with a non SAC school in a recruiting war with an SAC school for a key player (or players) being able to let that potential player know that his family and friends will be able to watch him (or her) play (especially for away games) live via the internet at no cost, would be a huge selling feature.