My thoughts on the Landmark Conference/FloSports partnership

Alright, time to address what will go down as the biggest debate in the D-III sports community during this summer. 

The Landmark Conference signed a deal on Thursday that will effectively move all of its member schools’ games across all sports to the subscription-based platform, FloSports. And yes, that includes all conference tournaments and conference championship games too. 

I saw the news shortly after it broke on Thursday morning, and I wasn’t happy about it. Most within the D-III community took issue with the decision as well. Debate ensued, as coaches, media members, and SIDs chimed in (mostly via Twitter) with their opinions on the pros and cons of this “groundbreaking” move from one of the most well-known conferences in D-III. 

Then Hoopsville’s Dave McHugh came out with a lengthy thread on Twitter, detailing proposed agreements that FloSports gave to a few other D-III conferences. The Landmark’s agreement with FloSports is perceived to be similar, if not the same, as the proposed deals to the other leagues McHugh spoke with on a condition of anonymity. 

And at that point, my opinion was solidified. 

Before going any further, I feel it’s necessary to point out a couple of things. One, there are two sides to every situation, and while one person may see something as a negative, another sees clear positives. And vice versa.

I do not claim to know the exact details of what the Landmark’s agreement with FloSports is, nor do I want to give the perception that I somehow know more than people who have been involved with college sports for the majority of their lives and made this decison for the league. Because I obviously don’t. My opinion is one of many, though I do feel that I hold a perspective that several others also have. If anything, I just wanted to have a chance to run through the reasons I disagree with this decision in a longer format than the 280 characters Twitter allows. 

This decision involves so many aspects, from finances, to D-III promotion, to recruiting, and more. I don’t believe there is a clear right and wrong to this either, though I would contend that the disadvantages far outweigh the positives when it comes to putting D-iII sporting events behind a paywall…a very expensive paywall. 

FloSports costs $150/year for its “all-everything package”, which gives you access to every sporting event that FloSports broadcasts. Many on the pro-FloSports side of this debate have brought up a valid point. Very few were complaining when a number of mid-major D-I conferences moved their broadcasts to ESPN+, the subscription-based ESPN streaming service that broadcasts everything from the Missouri Valley Conference to major league baseball to minor league soccer. I have ESPN+ and can attest that it is well-worth the $9.99/month. 

But here’s the major difference. FloSports doesn’t broadcast the Big 12. FloSports doesn’t broadcasts MLB or NHL games. They stick to niche sports and events, such as motocross or February college baseball tournaments. They have deals with a handful of D-II conferences, but certainly don’t broadcast any conference games involving major D-I programs. ESPN+ does. And for a significant amount less. When you consider that you can get Disney (no ads), Hulu (no ads), and ESPN+ (with ads) for $10 dollars less per month (Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle is $20, FloSports monthly subscription is $30) you can see the stark separation. You’re essentially now just paying $30 to watch the Landmark Digital Network. Currently no other D-III conferences have deals with FloSports, so you’re limited to D-II games and other inconsistent tournaments and events. So it’s a bad deal for the viewer. 

But here’s a better question. How many high school recruits currently have FloSports subscriptions? I know FloSports is rapidly growing in its audience, which is a positive (see, I’m not totally “glass half-empty”) but if I had to guess, the majority of kids these Landmark schools are recruiting aren’t paying $150/year or $30/month for FloSports. I’m not even sure how many have ESPN+, but I would presume there are a few more in that category. Regardless, how are kids supposed to maintain interest in a program recruiting them if they can’t watch the games live? 

I know all Landmark games will be available 72 hours after they are aired (somewhat of a positive?) but will recruits take time to sit down and watch a game that played three days prior? My guess is no. So if they don’t live close, or as is often the case, are playing their high school season at the same time as the college season, and can’t attend games in-person, how are they going to get a look at the program they are considering playing for? 

They won’t. And I venture to guess, it will drive away potential recruits, causing a frustrating situation for coaches. Because if the program in a neighboring conference has their broadcasts online for free, which program will generate higher interest with that recruit over a period of a year (or even two)? Most likely, it will be the one that gives that recruit a chance to see them play live all season long, because it creates a connection that you can’t have with just seeing scores posted to social media, or attending a game once on a visit. I’m not saying livestreams are the main reason why some schools have better success on the recruiting front, but it certainly doesn’t hurt.

Several people have already made this point, but I’d like to echo it. McHugh reported that the Landmark schools will be given somewhere between $25-27k per year. Now that sounds like good money. But consider this for one second. The average cost of attending Elizabethtown for one year is $36,166. Scranton? $50,312 according to the US News & World Report. How about Catholic? $54,630 according to their website. If one, just one, recruit is turned away by the fact of being unable to watch his/her potential future team, that school loses more money than anything they are making. And most of these Landmark schools have 15-20 sports. So one recruit amongst 15-20 sports losing interest in a Landmark program in part because of the livestream situation can cost a university up to $20,000 dollars. Is it worth it for that? 

But you might be saying, “Tuition money goes to the university, this FloSports money will go to the athletic department.” Do we know that for a fact? Sources told McHugh at another conference that the FloSports deal was going to be losing money “all the way around”. Why? Well, it probably starts with Flo requiring additional equipment that most of these departments do not have. And Flo isn’t paying for any of it. 

Saturdays are commonly known as a wild day around a D-III campus. It is not uncommon in the fall to have a home football game, home volleyball game, and home men’s and women’s soccer games all taking place (and overlapping) throughout the day. An encoder is needed to stream each event, so for a situation like that, you’d need three encoders. Flo will provide each school with one encoder, but because most schools have multiple events going on at one time, they likely need at least three available, likely four. And they are required to use the encoders from Flo, which cost $3,000. 

That’s not the only necessary equipment. Football games are required to have two cameras to start, and eventually graduate up to three. Other sports can start with one, but basketball and track & field need to be at two cameras by Year 3. Plus, play-by-play and replay is required for the broadcasts. If you don’t have that already, it isn’t cheap to add. And I’ve watched plenty of basketball games from the Landmark where they are only running one camera. Very possible that these athletic departments will need to purchase additional cameras as they enter into this deal. 

I’d also like to call out something that was on the Landmark/FloSports FAQ page. It says the following: “We understand there will be initial frustration with this new platform - however the funds received from your subscriptions will go back to all of our Landmark Conference member institutions to help them enhance our streaming product and experience for all.”

But here’s what McHugh reported: “The money anyone pays to watch events doesn’t end up with schools. It stays w/Flo. There is no reason for schools to essentially promote this except Flo requires it …”

Now, as I said at the beginning of this, McHugh noted that his report was based on conversations with other D-III conferences who received similar proposals from Flo. That doesn’t mean the Landmark will not make money off subscriptions, but I wouldn’t expect they will. After all, I’d figure that’s how Flo will ultimately end up working to make a profit off of this deal. So that language of, “Pay for a subscription and it’ll help support our athletic department” doesn’t hold up.

Have we considered the parents and alumni yet? My initial thought on all of this (and though a couple of conversations I had) went back to those most invested in these teams outside of the administrators, student-athletes, and coaches themselves: the parents and families of these student-athletes. At the D-III level, while academic scholarships and various other forms of funding can help pay for school, the majority of families are helping their child pay for tuition and the opportunity to get a world-class education. Now, on top of all of that, these schools are going to charge these families $150/year (or I guess $120 if you did it monthly during, say, basketball season)? Does that seem right? 

As was brought up in conversations, it is possible they might come up with some sort of “guest list” for the livestreams, and give an access code to those on that guest list. Which could of course include, donors, recruits, and most importantly, families. There are guest lists at games all the time. How would this be any different? I certainly hope that is the case, but at the same time, I doubt it. Flo would lose money because of that, and we all know that Flo is relying on one group of people to tune into every game: the families of the student-athletes. Additionally, nothing about a “guest list” or special access code was included on the FAQ page with the Landmark’s press release on Thursday. 

To be honest, I reject the idea that other forms of fundraising are unavailable. Yes, I understand the majority of D-III broadcasts aren’t hitting 1,000+ viewers. Especially in sports like basketball, baseball, and softball, where 25+ games are played every year. But an expensive subscription-service doesn’t feel like the only way to increase funding for these institutions. Many times, the university’s alumni association or a group of individual alums will help support a top-quality broadcast because they have a passion for the university and care about the product, unlike Flo, who, per McHugh’s reporting, compared D-II to D-III as “apples to apples” (which is not true). Point being, FloSports doesn’t know the Landmark Conference like those involved with the Landmark Conference do. They don’t have a vested interest in it besides a money-making venture. 

The viewership is certain to decrease, just because the casual viewer isn’t as likely to tune in with a subscription now required. And I can’t help but think that it will be a negative for D-III as a whole, but most importantly, the Landmark Conference. I could see it getting more people to attend the games in person, but not everybody lives close, and I fear that taking this path, while seemingly beneficial for monetary value in the short term, will decrease interest in the conference. And that is not good for D-III as a whole. These teams deserve all the exposure they can get, but putting all of their contests behind a paywall actively works against that. 

The ultimate effect of this decision remains to be seen. The conference has entered a five-year deal with FloSports, so time will tell. If I’m wrong about this, then I’m wrong. But I cannot see this becoming advantageous for the promotion of this great division, and that is the toughest pill to swallow. 

---

If you’re interested in hearing Scott Peterson and I break down the D3 WBB offseason and our projections for 2023-24, tune in TONIGHT at 5 pm CST/6 pm EST on YouTube! Link is below. DM me on Twitter with any D3 WBB-related questions for the livestream, or comment below. Or email me: rileyzayas@proton.me. And if you can’t tune in at 5 pm CST, our full conversation will be available for on-demand playback on YouTube.