Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Streaming

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by GorillaBred View Post

    I'm fine with them charging, but it seems like they should realize that they could run it themselves (not through BlueFrame), have better quality, charge less and still make more money--all while the fans are happier and have a better experience. Right now, it's a perfect example of the quintessential problem with monopolized enterprises and that reflects poor leadership at the conference level. It's almost like the same people who came up with silo scheduling came up with this product.
    I don't think blue frame is the issue. Several schools rarely have problems. It's on the schools and the conference imo.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Hornetfan View Post
      Source

      Based on the published subsription rates that's like $200,000 generated by PPV. Granted if the streaming company takes half of it and the conference office takes a quarter that leaves an average of around $3,500 each for the 14 schools.The way it's set up viewers are able to designate which school gets the income when the viewer pays the fees so some schools get a lot more and I'm sure some get a lot less. Why would you give up that source of revenue? What is the tangible advantage to the school? Because the GLVC for example lets you watch their game for free do you support that conference or any of those schools? Do you think their fans support their teams more than MIAA fans support theirs?

      Schools don't let fans in the stadium for free to watch, why should they let people watch online for free?

      Now if the numbers start going down significantly then I could understand going to a free broadcast to try and bring out fans. It's why most of the sports other than football and basketball are free to view.
      You are overlooking the forest for the trees. Charging for a product is fine. Charging for one that you know to be faulty is fraud.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Predatory Primates View Post

        You are overlooking the forest for the trees. Charging for a product is fine. Charging for one that you know to be faulty is fraud.
        Exactly. The reason I don't complain when I tune into GLVC games is because they are free. There are some GLVC schools that do really good work, but there are others that are really, really bad. IF the MIAA schools were taking all their profit money and putting it into the streaming (hiring announcers, another camera), then that's a different issue. But, they're not. They're barely making a drop in the bucket if the numbers quoted are right, and of the three times I've paid to watch an MIAA game in the past two seasons, two times I'd say they were just as bad as the worst free GLVC broadcasts while the other I will say was very good.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TSU_Mike59 View Post

          Exactly. The reason I don't complain when I tune into GLVC games is because they are free. There are some GLVC schools that do really good work, but there are others that are really, really bad. IF the MIAA schools were taking all their profit money and putting it into the streaming (hiring announcers, another camera), then that's a different issue. But, they're not. They're barely making a drop in the bucket if the numbers quoted are right, and of the three times I've paid to watch an MIAA game in the past two seasons, two times I'd say they were just as bad as the worst free GLVC broadcasts while the other I will say was very good.
          I find it interesting that the GLVC offers their network for free, vs. the MIAA. I could never really complain about MIAA broadcasts as I always had a connection and rarely had to pay ;)

          ...but if I did, I would've been disappointed. It's on par with the GLVC's free product, especially since it depends on the school.


          My guess is that the GLVC looks at the investment as a marketing expense. Only die hards will pay for a small college football subscription. You might get a casual football fan to tune into a broadcast of the local college football team if it's free and easy.
          Cool Story Bro

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by BearcatDude View Post

            So for $3500 they are willing to to have their fans gripe and complain about them and a crappy product? Makes sense
            Well to be fair, Northwest administrators are probably used to fans griping and
            complaining - might as well get paid for it.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by GrifFan View Post

              Well to be fair, Northwest administrators are probably used to fans griping and
              complaining - might as well get paid for it.
              And to be fair - a lot of schools are used to crappy products, so might as well get paid ;D
              Help out D2football.com - click on an ad

              Comment

              Ad3

              Collapse
              Working...
              X