ESPN+ thought

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A quick random thought about ESPN+. Over time almost all school-produced productions of FCS football games have morphed from local broadcasts to ESPN+ exclusives. While I don't think this was done with the idea of sports as gambling, I'm wondering if this paradigm shift has had a permanent, detrimental effect on all sports (especially FCS football) by forcing FCS broadcasts to ESPN+ streaming.

Broadly speaking: As late as the 1990s, Lehigh fans could watch Mountain Hawk games on basic cable (SE1) and some over the air (WFMZ 69). There was no technology required to watch the game - flick on the TV and turn the channel to the game. Old, young, tech savvy, luddites - they could find the game on TV and watch it.

After the switch to ESPN+ (for Lehigh, but also other schools), it now required outside knowledge to "experience" the game at home. You need the ESPN+ app, and ESPN+ subscription, a login, some way to stream it to your TV.. etc. Some games are required to fit in ESPN or ESPN+ broadcast windows. For many people, this is simply too big a pain in the ass to enjoy a game. The people most motivated to go through all this rigamarole are hardcore fans of the school, and degenerate gamblers.

I feel this has contributed in many ways to the problems that FCS is experiencing. Communities are being eroded by many factors, but even in this simple way, I feel like ESPN+ has contributed more than people realize. Not everywhere - in the Dakotas, especially North Dakota, and Montana, there is still over-the-air broadcasts of games (I think). And - lo and behold - that's where the best FCS followings are. I don't feel like this is a coincidence.

[Reign of Terrier]

ESPN+ is an unmitigated good for FCS football. Before ESPN+, a regional sports provider would carry maybe one game, and it wasn't likely to be YOUR team unless you were proximate to the college geographic location.

I remember listening to games via online radio - which had its own vibe. But man, I wish I could have watched the Montana game in 2007 instead of listening to it/watching the poor res steaming they had at the time.

But people don't remember the pre-ESPN+ status quo. In the Carolinas + Georgia Fox Sports South would carry a socon game but only one. Before the socon negotiated a media deal with ESPN+ but after App/GSU moved up, there was a brief period where the socon had its own digital sports network, accessible via laptop. I have a hard time thinking a conference at the mid major level has the resources to run its own app or streaming platform and equitably provide access to college sports teams.

Because you can watch more than just football and basketball on ESPN+! The socon has soccer, volleyball, and baseball. And you can watch it anywhere and at any time during the same season. What ESPN provides is really the tougher stuff for schools to create and manage themselves, which is the physical infrastructure to host the streaming and archive the content, and the ability to distribute that content live.

Nowadays, college graduates don't typically stay in their college community (arguably they never really did). For FCS football, people's fandom sort of withered, if it ever existed. But now, you can watch games anywhere. I couldn't follow Wofford without ESPN+. People my age care more from my alma mater nowadays than they did 10 years ago - at least when we win. And it's much cheaper than cable.

As the Prophet Billy Joel once said, the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems. I'll just leave it at that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

For FCS football, people's fandom sort of withered, if it ever existed. But now, you can watch games anywhere. I couldn't follow Wofford without ESPN+. People my age care more from my alma mater nowadays than they did 10 years ago - at least when we win. And it's much cheaper than cable.

As the Prophet Billy Joel once said, the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems. I'll just leave it at that.

You drop "FCS football fandom sort of withered" as if ESPN+ wasn't a part of that withering, and it doesn't explain the Dakotas or Montana, where over-the-air TV was largely preserved and where fandom is the most intense.

[Reign of Terrier]

You drop "FCS football fandom sort of withered" as if ESPN+ wasn't a part of that withering, and it doesn't explain the Dakotas or Montana, where over-the-air TV was largely preserved and where fandom is the most intense.

Nobody, including me, watched my school's basketball or football games on TV growing up at the time I was in college. Or at least not more than one or two per year. Now, you can. And they do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nobody, including me, watched my school's basketball or football games on TV growing up at the time I was in college. Or at least not more than one or two per year. Now, you can. And they do.

Certainly that could be true, but in the Lehigh Valley they usually had a certain number of local hoops games a year (Lehigh/Lafayette in particular) that I'm sure were fairly accessible to most homes in the area. I have found that replacing that with "here you go, just create an ESPN account, no, not your Hulu or Disney, now you have to stream it, click the logo, not that one" only seems to reward degenerate gamblers or people who really want to make an effort to watch the game. Removing the casual viewer has consequences - "withering", if you will.

[ST_Lawson]

Nobody, including me, watched my school's basketball or football games on TV growing up at the time I was in college. Or at least not more than one or two per year. Now, you can. And they do.

Same here. When I was a student in the late '90s, none of our games in any sport were shown on any TV service, local or otherwise. Now they're all available streaming online. I wouldn't be surprised if it had an impact on in-person attendance, but it's definitely been a positive for fans that are over a couple hours away and wouldn't be likely to drive to Macomb for a game.

[Mocs123]

Prior to ESPN+ there was rarely a way to watch Chattanooga games other than in person or via local radio. What it really allows me to do is watch away games as I was really never able to do that prior to ESPN+. And while I'm fairly local and am a season ticket holder - I've had to watch several home games on ESPN+ recently - I know there was one earlier this year where my daughter was in an AAU basketball tournament where I had to watch via my phone in between her games. Saturday I'll likely not be able to make it - my wife had surgery today and I'm not sure she'll be getting around well enough to be left alone that long.

[MSUBobcat]

I could be wrong but I think you are greatly exaggerating how many casual viewers were watching FCS football over the air prior to ESPN+. For casuals, if the option was Lehigh on a local broadcast channel or Notre Dame on NBC... sorry but Lehigh wasn't the game of choice.

I also think you are giving too much correlation of fandom intensity in MT and the Dakotas to the availability of watching over the air. Winning programs is what drives the fans, not being able to watch it without the monumentally difficult task of clicking an app. I know Americans are lazy, but damn, we aren't so lazy that if I can't use my channel up/down to find the game, I ain't watching. Smart TV's have been out for what... 2 decades. I don't think having to stream something is hard to figure out even for grandma.

[MSUBobcat]

Same here. When I was a student in the late '90s, none of our games in any sport were shown on any TV service, local or otherwise. Now they're all available streaming online. I wouldn't be surprised if it had an impact on in-person attendance, but it's definitely been a positive for fans that are over a couple hours away and wouldn't be likely to drive to Macomb for a game.

Exactly this. Availability to watch from a cozy couch for next to nothing is likely negatively affecting in-person attendance, but positively impacting overall fan interest. Alumni who move away after graduation previously were unable to easily watch their alma mater, so their fandom I'm sure waned over time. Now they can easily keep up with their school's athletics.

[FUBeAR]

FUBeAR will be attending WCU @ Furman for Homecoming AND will be watching Mercer @ Samford on his iPhone. That capability alone is enough to LOVE ESPN+

LOVE: ACCESS
LOVE: CONTENT
LIKE A LOT: REACH - increase exposure of FCS to the unfamiliar

Things not to like…

1) PRICING - has increased about 3x the rate of (ridiculous) inflation. FUBeAR was willing to pay year-round in order to catch some hoops / lax games and women’s sports, but no more. Refuse to pay their price gouging rates. Their costs have certainly not increased by that multiple and have probably gone down, relatively, as they’ve spread their fixed costs. If FUBeAR understands their program correctly, their primary variable cost is data storage and that’s, relatively, REALLY cheap.

2) Local Production Value - highly variable with some being Gosh-Awful. But - it is what it is. Upgrading that is on the schools and the Conferences. Don’t like it. Can live with it.

3) In-Person Attendance - as previously noted. Could be a pretty big effect here for many schools. FUBeAR knows he’s made the decision from time-to-time to not attend because a) it’s easier and cheaper to watch it on ESPN+, and b) prefer to watch 12 other FCS games as well.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

You drop "FCS football fandom sort of withered" as if ESPN+ wasn't a part of that withering, and it doesn't explain the Dakotas or Montana, where over-the-air TV was largely preserved and where fandom is the most intense.

The Dakotas and Montana schools are geographically isolated and, most importantly, hugely successful. Their status would remain the same even without over-the-air TV access.

ESPN+ offers a platfom for wandering or bored eyes to inadverently catch a random game. It is why I am not a fan of NEC Front Row. Front Row might be free but it is insular. Only NEC fans and family will stumble across its content.

[Yote 53]

NDSU games are broadcast OTA on WDAY.

USD, SDSU, and UND have a deal with Midco Sports which is on Midco Cable who is the most dominant cable provider in the Dakotas and now stretches down into Nebraska and Kansas and east into Minnesota and the northern Metro area of the Twin Cities. You can also subscribe to the Midco Sports Plus app as well.

Games for all 4 schools are readily available across the Dakotas without ESPN+. But, ESPN+ is nice to have for backup and when one is traveling.

[POD Knows]

ESPN+ is a huge positive for FCS sports and all sports as a whole. Hell, I can even watch Lehigh on there if I do desire. It might cause some downturn at the turnstiles but the actual eyes on the games is far larger than it would be without it. Hell, back when I was living in the western part of ND, we could not watch a home Bison game on TV.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Everyone is saying "so, so many more people are watching these games, the reach is great" but who are those people? Where are the numbers? How many people out of the blue are watching a random OVC game on a Saturday? "You can watch the game if you want to go through the effort" is not the same as "the game is on TV". Yes, there are people who are willing to go through the effort - gambling degens and hardcore fans like us. There are a lot of casuals that used to get some exposure that now don't, and I think that number is way more than people here care to admit or understand.

I really contest the idea that it is unmitigated success on the field that has made Montana's national interest. It is the fact that there are multiple generations of people who have grown up in the state and the games are on regular TV, so even casuals can watch the games with zero difficulty. Same with the Dakotas.

The fracturing of all media (print, radio and TV) has had a lot of community-destroying effects, and we're way out of the era of limited channels and content being hard to get, but I don't think enough time has been spent thinking about how that has built on the successes of the past. The next generation of kids are not going to have grown up with Lehigh games on their screens just because they have a bundled ESPN+ subscription.

[FUBeAR]

How many people out of the blue are watching a random OVC game on a Saturday?
https://media.tenor.com/sQ_dnmBeMTgAAAAM/uhm-me.gif

[Reign of Terrier]

If you don’t like ESPN+ the alternative is dozens of Flo Sports-level replacements. Need I say more?

[MSUBobcat]

Everyone is saying "so, so many more people are watching these games, the reach is great" but who are those people? Where are the numbers? How many people out of the blue are watching a random OVC game on a Saturday? "You can watch the game if you want to go through the effort" is not the same as "the game is on TV". Yes, there are people who are willing to go through the effort - gambling degens and hardcore fans like us. There are a lot of casuals that used to get some exposure that now don't, and I think that number is way more than people here care to admit or understand.

I really contest the idea that it is unmitigated success on the field that has made Montana's national interest. It is the fact that there are multiple generations of people who have grown up in the state and the games are on regular TV, so even casuals can watch the games with zero difficulty. Same with the Dakotas.

The fracturing of all media (print, radio and TV) has had a lot of community-destroying effects, and we're way out of the era of limited channels and content being hard to get, but I don't think enough time has been spent thinking about how that has built on the successes of the past. The next generation of kids are not going to have grown up with Lehigh games on their screens just because they have a bundled ESPN+ subscription.

I like that you keep falling back on this "effort" to watch games on ESPN+. On my TV, choosing OTA is no easier than selecting the ESPN app. I almost never break a sweat. Almost.

I still think your grossly exaggerating the number of casual fans that were stopping on FCS games OTA vs watching any random FBS game deemed worthy to be aired on the major broadcast channels.

As for Montana's "national interest", first... WHAAAA??? Outside of FCS fans, most couldn't tell you the first thing about the Griz. And the multiple generations who have grown up on them on regular TV... other than transplants, you are pretty much born a Bobcat or Griz. You don't become a fan because you stumble across it on a rainy Saturday afternoon. xlolx I suspect it is similar in the Dakotas. Hell, like POD stated, in Eastern MT, they don't even get the MT teams' games because they get Bismarck's local news.

[ElCid]

I used to have to look at a local score channel years ago, late 80s. All it did was post scores of every sport. Not ESPN.

The Citadel was on TV a few times over the years in the 80-90s. My F-I-L used to tape them on VHS and send them to me when that happened. I still have our 1988 victory against Navy, played "in Charleston" and broadcast on the local Charleston station.

Then the Internet came along. You could get scores fairly quickly. Relatively speaking. Then eventually you could go to the radio station site and at least listen live from anywhere. I want to say it was around 2000 and it coincided with the broadband explosion. When I was in Guam it was cool listening to games in Charleston, at 8 in the morning on Sundays. Then the first live streams came, but not a lot. Then ESPN started doing them. No cost to watch. I think it was in mid to late 00s when you could put four games on at once in a quad set up. Then the ESPN+ charging happened. What was it, like $5 a month to start. I knew they were hooking people in. Then it was 8 or 9 dollars. What it now, like $12? I got it this year yet again, but I don't like it. I only get it for one thing. FCS games. The quality is usually very poor. The price isn't bad. It may very well affect attendance, but that's not universal. If it didn't exist, I probably would go in person currently. Again, some might though.

It does allow me to see games from other conferences and that does help in the poll, and the pick ems. That's the only reason I got it.

[Reign of Terrier]

The one downside of ESPN+ was in the late 2010s we had to endure MVFC fans (not of SDSU/NDSU) lie and say they saw every top 25 game and that was why they ranked a 3-4 Youngstown state still or whatever.

I’m only slightly joking!

[caribbeanhen]

Sports on TV before cable used to be all you could watch for the most part on a weekend, turn the TV on and you had 3 channels with no other option besides radio. Boomers love sports because you didn't need to go looking for it, all you needed to do was turn on the TV and it was right there with no other options.

ESPN plus is great for guys like us who are already lifelong fans, but today with the net and so many other options, and the fact that you have to go looking for FCS football, it's not really attracting many new fans at all.

[grizband]

Living outside of Montana, ESPN provides the only method to watch Griz football games. This is enough for me to support ESPN+, especially compared to other streaming platforms (or non-streaming platforms).

[Outsider1]

It's not just about the numbers. ESPN+ was a lifeline for me when I was living overseas and needed my fix for my school's games. Now it gives me the chance to watch those other random FCS games as well. I still go to games in person.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

ESPN+ (besides Amazon Prime) is the only streaming service I pay for; never was a Netflix or whatever person. I get tremendous value out of ESPN+ given the numerous schools that I'm personally connected to. Beyond all the football and basketball, being able to watch Kansas State baseball or Lehigh lacrosse in the spring is great! I also use it for golf and Formula 1 coverage.

[UNHWildcat18]

ESPN+ is great for FCS fans. Allows almost everyone to watch whatever game they want, and for some conferences say MVFC who have a good relationship with ESPN have now gotten a few games added to the main channels along with their ESPN+ games.

Don't get me wrong when I was young and couldn't make a UNH game, watching it on comcast sportsnet new england was great, but normal cable tv is going the way of the dodo bird. I hope that some day UNH games are all on ESPN+ and maybe NESN for some OOC match up like Harvard this year.

I do think the specialized videos for football that flo does on their youtube channel is really nice, but overall the service stinks. I mean hell you talk about getting eyes on your program? Any person who watches those highlight channels on youtube will see FCS games added in as well due to them being on ESPN+....... where are the CAA games???? not there because they are on flo. Those channels are getting so much more traffic than any flo video ever will.

[crusader11]

ESPN stinks.

ESPN+ very good.

[Reign of Terrier]

I do think the specialized videos for football that flo does on their youtube channel is really nice, but overall the service stinks. I mean hell you talk about getting eyes on your program? Any person who watches those highlight channels on youtube will see FCS games added in as well due to them being on ESPN+....... where are the CAA games???? not there because they are on flo. Those channels are getting so much more traffic than any flo video ever will.

This is what we call a network effect, and the main reason it’s been good for all the FCS conferences who are on ESPN+. It elevates everyone on the platform and it kind of penalizes everyone who isn’t.

[caribbeanhen]

how many people are watching FCS games on ESPN +

Do they release these numbers without some kind of FOIA request?

[UNHWildcat18]

This is what we call a network effect, and the main reason it’s been good for all the FCS conferences who are on ESPN+. It elevates everyone on the platform and it kind of penalizes everyone who isn’t.

Couldn't agree more.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

This is what we call a network effect, and the main reason it’s been good for all the FCS conferences who are on ESPN+. It elevates everyone on the platform and it kind of penalizes everyone who isn’t.

Someone remind the NEC Commissioner.

[aceinthehole]

Someone remind the NEC Commissioner.

She is an idiot. NEC Front Row was great in the beginning (about a decade ago). It was truly innovative at this level. It was free and provided access to all league games while MAAC, AE, Patriot games were limited to featured broadcasts or paid subscriptions.

But once ESPN+ took off, the league should have just shut down Front Row and signed up with the ESPN distribution.

I think the main reasons we still have NEC Front Row are:
1 - Noreen is an idiot
2 - NEC school productions quality is so bad it doesn't even meet the left low, minimum standards for a ESPN+ branded broadcasts.

[Reign of Terrier]

She is an idiot. NEC Front Row was great in the beginning (about a decade ago). It was truly innovative at this level. It was free and provided access to all league games while MAAC, AE, Patriot games were limited to featured broadcasts or paid subscriptions.

But once ESPN+ took off, the league should have just shut down Front Row and signed up with the ESPN distribution.

I think the main reasons we still have NEC Front Row are:
1 - Noreen is an idiot
2 - NEC school productions quality is so bad it doesn't even meet the left low, minimum standards for a ESPN+ branded broadcasts.

About a decade ago, the socon was in a similar spot - they used the buyout money from App, GSU, and Elon to buy better cameras and invest in improving access to socon games via streaming. But then ESPN+ came along and it was an easy decision to just keep the tech we bought and use them as the distributor.

Is NEC front row free?

The only people/institutions that don't need to care about network effects are the ones who create a high quality product and have their own bargaining power. Popular leagues like the Big 10 and SEC have that power.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

how many people are watching FCS games on ESPN +

Do they release these numbers without some kind of FOIA request?

I think ESPN+ does a pretty good job getting already-active, already turned on technophile sports fans to pay them money to deliver them content. That's not an issue.

But that isn't making new fans, that's monetizing the fans that already exist. That's not engaging casuals or "oh what the heck" folks, who are not going to subscribe to ESPN+ to watch Northern Illinois, Lehigh, or any number of schools. Those are future fans. ESPN+ provides no, zero network effect for them. They provide a network effect for superfans and gamblers. Not real people.

And nobody can answer question your No. 1. The answer varies, but I'm sure it's tiny, and the viewership would be larger if the games were carried conventionally on a TV set. Also, if the numbers were great, you can bet ESPN would publish them.

[Go Green]

ESPN+ is an unmitigated good for FCS football.

A few years back we had a great discussion on the Ivy Board about how guys went around getting scores of Ivy games in the old days if they didn't live in the Ivy footprint.

Most just waited for the newspaper the next day.

Some called up (not cheap in those days) their school's athletic department or football office in the afternoon to get the result.

And quite a few watched local "big" games on ABC or CBS in which they had no interest in hopes that the station would show the score of the completed east coast games during a time-out.

How did we ever survive???

[FUBeAR]

I think ESPN+ does a pretty good job getting already-active, already turned on technophile sports fans to pay them money to deliver them content. That's not an issue.

But that isn't making new fans, that's monetizing the fans that already exist. That's not engaging casuals or "oh what the heck" folks, who are not going to subscribe to ESPN+ to watch Northern Illinois, Lehigh, or any number of schools. Those are future fans. ESPN+ provides no, zero network effect for them. They provide a network effect for superfans and gamblers. Not real people.

And nobody can answer question your No. 1. The answer varies, but I'm sure it's tiny, and the viewership would be larger if the games were carried conventionally on a TV set. Also, if the numbers were great, you can bet ESPN would publish them.
Pretty sure “gamblers” are “real people” today (right or wrong)…

https://www.sbu.edu/news/news-items/2024/02/05/st.-bonaventure-siena-research-survey-reveals-almost-1-in-5-americans-have-an-online-sports-betting-account#:~:text=About%20online%20sports%20bettors% 20from,50%20years%20old%20or%20older.
St. Bonaventure/Siena Research survey reveals almost 1 in 5 Americans have an online sports betting account
Feb 05, 2024

Thirty-nine percent of Americans bet on sporting events and 19%, including 39% of men 18-49 years old and 20% of women 18-49 years old, have an account with an online sports betting service, according to a new survey of United States adults released today by the Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication.
Overwhelmingly, online sports bettors say it’s fun and exciting (93%), makes them more interested in watching the games (85%)…”

“Bettors say it’s fun, and a plurality of all Americans, 48-40%, agree that online sports betting is a great form of entertainment”

”sports betting is popular among sports fans, particularly among young men”


And…FUBeAR would wager (ha ha) that 39% male demographic has a strongly positive correlation with the demographic that makes purchasing decisions and pays for streaming service.

[MSUBobcat]

I think ESPN+ does a pretty good job getting already-active, already turned on technophile sports fans to pay them money to deliver them content. That's not an issue.

But that isn't making new fans, that's monetizing the fans that already exist. That's not engaging casuals or "oh what the heck" folks, who are not going to subscribe to ESPN+ to watch Northern Illinois, Lehigh, or any number of schools. Those are future fans. ESPN+ provides no, zero network effect for them. They provide a network effect for superfans and gamblers. Not real people.

And nobody can answer question your No. 1. The answer varies, but I'm sure it's tiny, and the viewership would be larger if the games were carried conventionally on a TV set. Also, if the numbers were great, you can bet ESPN would publish them.

FCS football is, was and will continue to be a niche sport. No one is becoming a Lehigh fan because they were bored one Saturday and came across an OTA broadcast. Most likely, they wouldn't even stop on the game because somewhere on the list of channels they get OTA, there's a "bigger" game Take this weekend. The 12 EST window has #6 Miami @ Louisville on ABC and Nebraska @ #16 Indiana on Fox. You really think a casual is going to say, "hmmm ranked ACC game, ranked B1G game or Lehigh @ Yale.... Let's check out Lehigh @ Yale." Get serious. If you aren't an alum of an FCS school, or live in a state like MT, where the FCS schools are the top level of football, there's very little chance you care about FCS.

And can you give it up with this "tremendous effort" that only technophiles can figure out ESPN+ nonsense? I'm the furthest thing from a techie; my go-to for computer issues is restarting it and when that doesn't work, I call IT. Even I have no, zero problems watching ESPN+. Streaming has been around for like 2 decades. We're well past the "early adoptors" phase of the life-cycle.

ESPN provides a network for the fans that want to watch it, i.e. FCS fans. Not superfans, not gamblers.... people who actually give a s#it about FCS football.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

She is an idiot. NEC Front Row was great in the beginning (about a decade ago). It was truly innovative at this level. It was free and provided access to all league games while MAAC, AE, Patriot games were limited to featured broadcasts or paid subscriptions.

But once ESPN+ took off, the league should have just shut down Front Row and signed up with the ESPN distribution.

I think the main reasons we still have NEC Front Row are:
1 - Noreen is an idiot
2 - NEC school productions quality is so bad it doesn't even meet the left low, minimum standards for a ESPN+ branded broadcasts.

Always assume No. 1 with Noreen. I call it Noreen's Razor. Plus, the conference loves to brag how it promotes free access to games. As if family members won't grab or already have the Disney Bundle to watch Little Johnny or Sweet Suzie play sports.

As for No.2, this is completely true. SFU does a good job but I once watched a Division I softball game at Merrimack off a GoPro with no announcers and a limited scorebug. But I heard crowd noise.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

FCS football is, was and will continue to be a niche sport. No one is becoming a Lehigh fan because they were bored one Saturday and came across an OTA broadcast. Most likely, they wouldn't even stop on the game because somewhere on the list of channels they get OTA, there's a "bigger" game Take this weekend. The 12 EST window has #6 Miami @ Louisville on ABC and Nebraska @ #16 Indiana on Fox. You really think a casual is going to say, "hmmm ranked ACC game, ranked B1G game or Lehigh @ Yale.... Let's check out Lehigh @ Yale." Get serious. If you aren't an alum of an FCS school, or live in a state like MT, where the FCS schools are the top level of football, there's very little chance you care about FCS.

And can you give it up with this "tremendous effort" that only technophiles can figure out ESPN+ nonsense? I'm the furthest thing from a techie; my go-to for computer issues is restarting it and when that doesn't work, I call IT. Even I have no, zero problems watching ESPN+. Streaming has been around for like 2 decades. We're well past the "early adoptors" phase of the life-cycle.

ESPN provides a network for the fans that want to watch it, i.e. FCS fans. Not superfans, not gamblers.... people who actually give a s#it about FCS football.

LFN creates strawmen and then wait for people to attack them.

It is ridiculous. FCS football survives in the niche world. Unless you are a powerhouse or geographically isolated, your fans are shared with the local big school. At SFU, our best crowds come on Thursday night games. Because on Saturday, the locals only come out when PSU isn't at home or on TV at the same time. It doesn't matter the opponent or the game or what is at stake.

[aceinthehole]

Always assume No. 1 with Noreen. I call it Noreen's Razor. Plus, the conference loves to brag how it promotes free access to games. As if family members won't grab or already have the Disney Bundle to watch Little Johnny or Sweet Suzie play sports.

As for No.2, this is completely true. SFU does a good job but I once watched a Division I softball game at Merrimack off a GoPro with no announcers and a limited scorebug. But I heard crowd noise.

No argument from me. I'd like to see the NEC move Football and basketball games to ESPN+ and leave all other sports in NEC Front Row.

CCSU broadcasts are hit or miss. We have very professional announcers, but limited pre- or post-game production. Camera work is mediocre and sound quality and lighting is below standards, but that also because some of our facilities are old and not TV friendly setups. And technical issues pop up regularly!

I've watch some horrible products from the likes of LIU and others. The whole league is so low budget. SHU had a great production (but not a fan of their announcers).

[Bisonoline]

I love ESPN plus.

[aceinthehole]

About a decade ago, the socon was in a similar spot - they used the buyout money from App, GSU, and Elon to buy better cameras and invest in improving access to socon games via streaming. But then ESPN+ came along and it was an easy decision to just keep the tech we bought and use them as the distributor.

Is NEC front row free?

The only people/institutions that don't need to care about network effects are the ones who create a high quality product and have their own bargaining power. Popular leagues like the Big 10 and SEC have that power.

Yes, NEC Front Row is still completely FREE.

That's the only thing it has going for it. And the app is available on all devices (iOS, Roku, etc).

But it's not like they could charge for it anyway. I bet the viewing audience is in the dozens to hundreds at best per game.

[Reign of Terrier]

Yes, NEC Front Row is still completely FREE.

That's the only thing it has going for it. And the app is available on all devices (iOS, Roku, etc).

But it's not like they could charge for it anyway. I bet the viewing audience is in the dozens to hundreds at best per game.

That honestly just sounds like a waste of money with a high probability of technical problems that wouldn’t get solved in a timely way.

[ElCid]

Pretty sure “gamblers” are “real people” today (right or wrong)…

https://www.sbu.edu/news/news-items/2024/02/05/st.-bonaventure-siena-research-survey-reveals-almost-1-in-5-americans-have-an-online-sports-betting-account#:~:text=About%20online%20sports%20bettors% 20from,50%20years%20old%20or%20older.
St. Bonaventure/Siena Research survey reveals almost 1 in 5 Americans have an online sports betting account
Feb 05, 2024

Thirty-nine percent of Americans bet on sporting events and 19%, including 39% of men 18-49 years old and 20% of women 18-49 years old, have an account with an online sports betting service, according to a new survey of United States adults released today by the Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication.
Overwhelmingly, online sports bettors say it’s fun and exciting (93%), makes them more interested in watching the games (85%)…”

“Bettors say it’s fun, and a plurality of all Americans, 48-40%, agree that online sports betting is a great form of entertainment”

”sports betting is popular among sports fans, particularly among young men”


And…FUBeAR would wager (ha ha) that 39% male demographic has a strongly positive correlation with the demographic that makes purchasing decisions and pays for streaming service.

Sorry, there is no way that 39% of the adult population bet on sporting events. You could never convince me of that. Sounds like PR put out by someone paid by the betting industry in an attempt to normalize it. Unless I read your confusing and ill formatted post incorrectly.

[Reign of Terrier]

Yeah, I don't believe that either. I think it's more likely problem gamblers have registered multiple accounts.

Also, 20% of survey takers will say anything.

[Catbooster]

I think ESPN+ does a pretty good job getting already-active, already turned on technophile sports fans to pay them money to deliver them content. That's not an issue.

But that isn't making new fans, that's monetizing the fans that already exist. That's not engaging casuals or "oh what the heck" folks, who are not going to subscribe to ESPN+ to watch Northern Illinois, Lehigh, or any number of schools. Those are future fans. ESPN+ provides no, zero network effect for them. They provide a network effect for superfans and gamblers. Not real people.
Technophile? Seriously? If you can figure out how to log in to AGS or your email or anything else, you can figure out how to get going on ESPN+. My 96-year-old Mom wouldn't be able to do it (particularly since her mind has started to fail recently), but I hardly think she's the standard to differentiate between technophile and non-technophile.

Am I correct that your premise is that if ESPN+ was not available, FCS would have more new fans? Because a couple times each year some new fans might pause on our games while flipping through the channels? And that's better for fan engagement than for existing fans being able to watch virtually all of our teams' games? Or do you think that if ESPN+ did not exist the local stations would be carrying most of the local FCS games?

Personally, the hardest games to get are the ones that are not on ESPN+ because I don't have ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNews since we cut the cord years ago. I'm at all of the home games but since I have ESPN+ for the away games I watch other FCS games that I wouldn't otherwise.

Most of our games are still carried on local channels. I'm not sure that has changed much since being on ESPN+. It's the games on the main cable channels (ESPN, etc.) that aren't on local TV.

[Catbooster]

Sorry, there is no way that 39% of the adult population bet on sporting events. You could never convince me of that. Sounds like PR put out by someone paid by the betting industry in an attempt to normalize it. Unless I read your confusing and ill formatted post incorrectly.
I agree, unless they are including office pools for March Madness or something like that. Though that would still seem like a stretch.

[FUBeAR]

Unless I read your confusing and ill formatted post incorrectly.
Sorry…maybe try this…

https://vi.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/old-man-in-pink-shirt-with-magnifying-glass.jpg

[FUBeAR]

I agree, unless they are including office pools for March Madness or something like that. Though that would still seem like a stretch.
Y’all need to get out more.

It’s a small sample size, but FUBeAR is almost certain that 100% of FUBeAR Jr’s and Mr. Little Miss FUBeAR’s friends have online betting accounts. FUBeAR Jr. did an internship with one of these firms. Males, 18 (and probably younger with fake ID’s or using older sibs/friends accounts) to 35 are ALL OVER Sports Betting. It started with the rise of Fantasy Teams / Sports and has been facilitated by the ubiquitous availability of massive real-time stats data and macro-content like NFL red-zone. 39% in the demo seems like an undershot to FUBeAR based on his observation.

[ElCid]

Y’all need to get out more.

It’s a small sample size, but FUBeAR is almost certain that 100% of FUBeAR Jr’s and Mr. Little Miss FUBeAR’s friends have online betting accounts. FUBeAR Jr. did an internship with one of these firms. Males, 18 (and probably younger with fake ID’s or using older sibs/friends accounts) to 35 are ALL OVER Sports Betting. It started with the rise of Fantasy Teams / Sports and has been facilitated by the ubiquitous availability of massive real-time stats data and macro-content like NFL red-zone. 39% in the demo seems like an undershot to FUBeAR based on his observation.

Anecdotal.

But I can do that as well. I don't know anyone, in person, who bets on sports. Only this guy on AGS, Flublur or something like that.

[FUBeAR]

Anecdotal.

But I can do that as well. I don't know anyone, in person, who bets on sports. Only this guy on AGS, Flublur or something like that.
Sure, you can deny a large-scale (n=3071) study conducted by a well-known, highly-ranked University, in conjunction with a noted Research Firm. And, you can deny the empirical evidence of 2 different test groups (roughly n=100 each) as “anecdotal.” And, you can continue on, happily, deluding yourself based upon the whims of your own understanding, as is the typical way of the bellhop. Have at it.

[caribbeanhen]

Y’all need to get out more.

It’s a small sample size, but FUBeAR is almost certain that 100% of FUBeAR Jr’s and Mr. Little Miss FUBeAR’s friends have online betting accounts. FUBeAR Jr. did an internship with one of these firms. Males, 18 (and probably younger with fake ID’s or using older sibs/friends accounts) to 35 are ALL OVER Sports Betting. It started with the rise of Fantasy Teams / Sports and has been facilitated by the ubiquitous availability of massive real-time stats data and macro-content like NFL red-zone. 39% in the demo seems like an undershot to FUBeAR based on his observation.

should I get one?

[Catbooster]

Pretty sure “gamblers” are “real people” today (right or wrong)…

https://www.sbu.edu/news/news-items/2024/02/05/st.-bonaventure-siena-research-survey-reveals-almost-1-in-5-americans-have-an-online-sports-betting-account#:~:text=About%20online%20sports%20bettors% 20from,50%20years%20old%20or%20older.
St. Bonaventure/Siena Research survey reveals almost 1 in 5 Americans have an online sports betting account
Feb 05, 2024

Thirty-nine percent of Americans bet on sporting events and 19%, including 39% of men 18-49 years old and 20% of women 18-49 years old, have an account with an online sports betting service, according to a new survey of United States adults released today by the Siena College Research Institute (SCRI) and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication.
Overwhelmingly, online sports bettors say it’s fun and exciting (93%), makes them more interested in watching the games (85%)…”

“Bettors say it’s fun, and a plurality of all Americans, 48-40%, agree that online sports betting is a great form of entertainment”

”sports betting is popular among sports fans, particularly among young men”


And…FUBeAR would wager (ha ha) that 39% male demographic has a strongly positive correlation with the demographic that makes purchasing decisions and pays for streaming service.

I agree that gamblers are real people and LFN should avoid showing his bias by labelling all gamblers as degenerate.

According to your quote above, 39% of all Americans bet on sporting events. Like I said, I can believe that because the wording includes every type of sports bet (like people whose only betting is an office pool for March Madness or a bet once a year on the super bowl with a friend, etc.). That stat is about sports betting in general, not online betting sites. As I was thinking of the various places I've worked and the various March Madness pools I've participated in, 40% seems a little high for participation. But adding in the bets between friends on the super bowl or the Cat/Griz game, I can believe that number even if it does seem a little high.

However, "almost" 1/5 (20%) of Americans have an online betting account? That's a totally different argument that I'm not ready to accept.

According to your post, 39% of men and 19% of women age 18-49 yrs old have online sports betting accounts. Assuming that's true and that women and men are both about 50% of the demographic, that's about 29% of 18-49 yr olds overall who have an online sports betting account (round up to 30%). A quick google search says that age group is about 40% of the population. 30% of 40% is 12% of the total population. So to reach 20%, we need another 8% from the remaining 60% of the population. About 25% are underage so that's about 8% of the total population from the remaining 35% of the population, which means almost 23% of the entire population 50+ yrs old has an online betting account. So only about 6% less than the age group cited in your post. I don't ask everyone I know whether they have an online betting account but I'd be extremely surprised to find the numbers are actually that high. Remember that's not just people making a bet on the super bowl with their friend; that's having an account on an online sports betting site.

As for the last few claims - that the great majority of bettors say it's fun and exciting and makes them more interested in watching the games - that's not surprising to me. I'd agree with that.


Y’all need to get out more.

It’s a small sample size, but FUBeAR is almost certain that 100% of FUBeAR Jr’s and Mr. Little Miss FUBeAR’s friends have online betting accounts. FUBeAR Jr. did an internship with one of these firms. Males, 18 (and probably younger with fake ID’s or using older sibs/friends accounts) to 35 are ALL OVER Sports Betting. It started with the rise of Fantasy Teams / Sports and has been facilitated by the ubiquitous availability of massive real-time stats data and macro-content like NFL red-zone. 39% in the demo seems like an undershot to FUBeAR based on his observation.
It's a small sample size, but my daughter (who is near the young end of that age group) is almost certain that not nearly that many of her friends have online sports betting accounts. I suppose it's possible that both of us are right due to different regions, urban/rural, etc. but I doubt it.


Sure, you can deny studies and you can deny empirical evidence as anecdotal and you can continue on, happily, deluding yourself based upon the whims of your own understanding. Have at it.
It's a survey. A survey is not generally considered a solid scientific study on its own. Do you believe every survey that someone releases? It must be confusing for you at this stage of the election with all of the conflicting surveys out there.

[Reign of Terrier]

As someone who is (still) among the younger demographics on here, sooooo many of my friends and acquaintances roughly my age gamble.

[FUBeAR]

As someone who is (still) among the younger demographics on here, sooooo many of my friends and acquaintances roughly my age gamble.
That’s the wrong number of o’s in word “so” (please correct as some other posters will object to that misspelling)…

AND just because you are part of the demographic that FUBeAR has been highlighting doesn’t mean you know anything about what you are talking about.

These people that have TOTALLY disproven the St. Bonaventure University / Siena Research SURVEY (NOT a study) and the FUBeAR / RoT Surveys (also, definitely NOT studies) have done Google Searches!!!

[Catbooster]

As someone who is (still) among the younger demographics on here, sooooo many of my friends and acquaintances roughly my age gamble.
Gamble or specifically gamble through online sports betting sites? You'd say about 40% of your male friends and 20% of your female friends have online sports gambling accounts? Or even more? Genuinely curious since it isn't what I'd expect. Maybe there are some differences between the SE and NW or something else or maybe I'm just wrong.

[Catbooster]

That’s the wrong number of o’s in word “so” (please correct as some other posters will object to that misspelling)…

AND just because you are part of the demographic that FUBeAR has been highlighting doesn’t mean you know anything about what you are talking about.

These people that have TOTALLY disproven the St. Bonaventure University / Siena Research SURVEY (NOT a study) and the FUBeAR / RoT Surveys (also, definitely NOT studies) have done Google Searches!!!
Your cogent arguments to the points I raised are certainly convincing.

[Reign of Terrier]

Gamble or specifically gamble through online sports betting sites? You'd say about 40% of your male friends and 20% of your female friends have online sports gambling accounts? Or even more? Genuinely curious since it isn't what I'd expect. Maybe there are some differences between the SE and NW or something else or maybe I'm just wrong.

Nowadays, online sports betting is pretty much thr only way. There’s not that many IRL casinos. I think the male number is accurate, but I think the female one is probably a response error of some sort (you typically get 20% of survey takers to say anything) or a reflection that problem gamblers probably ask female friends/loved ones to gamble under their account. No idea if that’s truly a thing, but I wouldn’t be surprised. A good axiom of life in America is that 1/3 of the country lives a life completely alien to you and you should never have your expectations of people too high…or low. Most people can’t read on a 6th grade level for example.

[ElCid]

I agree that gamblers are real people and LFN should avoid showing his bias by labelling all gamblers as degenerate.

According to your quote above, 39% of all Americans bet on sporting events. Like I said, I can believe that because the wording includes every type of sports bet (like people whose only betting is an office pool for March Madness or a bet once a year on the super bowl with a friend, etc.). That stat is about sports betting in general, not online betting sites. As I was thinking of the various places I've worked and the various March Madness pools I've participated in, 40% seems a little high for participation. But adding in the bets between friends on the super bowl or the Cat/Griz game, I can believe that number even if it does seem a little high.

However, "almost" 1/5 (20%) of Americans have an online betting account? That's a totally different argument that I'm not ready to accept.

According to your post, 39% of men and 19% of women age 18-49 yrs old have online sports betting accounts. Assuming that's true and that women and men are both about 50% of the demographic, that's about 29% of 18-49 yr olds overall who have an online sports betting account (round up to 30%). A quick google search says that age group is about 40% of the population. 30% of 40% is 12% of the total population. So to reach 20%, we need another 8% from the remaining 60% of the population. About 25% are underage so that's about 8% of the total population from the remaining 35% of the population, which means almost 23% of the entire population 50+ yrs old has an online betting account. So only about 6% less than the age group cited in your post. I don't ask everyone I know whether they have an online betting account but I'd be extremely surprised to find the numbers are actually that high. Remember that's not just people making a bet on the super bowl with their friend; that's having an account on an online sports betting site.

As for the last few claims - that the great majority of bettors say it's fun and exciting and makes them more interested in watching the games - that's not surprising to me. I'd agree with that.


It's a small sample size, but my daughter (who is near the young end of that age group) is almost certain that not nearly that many of her friends have online sports betting accounts. I suppose it's possible that both of us are right due to different regions, urban/rural, etc. but I doubt it.


It's a survey. A survey is not generally considered a solid scientific study on its own. Do you believe every survey that someone releases? It must be confusing for you at this stage of the election with all of the conflicting surveys out there.

What he said.

Just seemed a bit too high. There are a lot, but not that many. And I'm sure that the survey probably received a grant from some sports betting org. But just guessing.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

I agree that gamblers are real people and LFN should avoid showing his bias by labelling all gamblers as degenerate.

According to your quote above, 39% of all Americans bet on sporting events. Like I said, I can believe that because the wording includes every type of sports bet (like people whose only betting is an office pool for March Madness or a bet once a year on the super bowl with a friend, etc.). That stat is about sports betting in general, not online betting sites. As I was thinking of the various places I've worked and the various March Madness pools I've participated in, 40% seems a little high for participation. But adding in the bets between friends on the super bowl or the Cat/Griz game, I can believe that number even if it does seem a little high.

However, "almost" 1/5 (20%) of Americans have an online betting account? That's a totally different argument that I'm not ready to accept.

According to your post, 39% of men and 19% of women age 18-49 yrs old have online sports betting accounts. Assuming that's true and that women and men are both about 50% of the demographic, that's about 29% of 18-49 yr olds overall who have an online sports betting account (round up to 30%). A quick google search says that age group is about 40% of the population. 30% of 40% is 12% of the total population. So to reach 20%, we need another 8% from the remaining 60% of the population. About 25% are underage so that's about 8% of the total population from the remaining 35% of the population, which means almost 23% of the entire population 50+ yrs old has an online betting account. So only about 6% less than the age group cited in your post. I don't ask everyone I know whether they have an online betting account but I'd be extremely surprised to find the numbers are actually that high. Remember that's not just people making a bet on the super bowl with their friend; that's having an account on an online sports betting site.

As for the last few claims - that the great majority of bettors say it's fun and exciting and makes them more interested in watching the games - that's not surprising to me. I'd agree with that.


It's a small sample size, but my daughter (who is near the young end of that age group) is almost certain that not nearly that many of her friends have online sports betting accounts. I suppose it's possible that both of us are right due to different regions, urban/rural, etc. but I doubt it.


It's a survey. A survey is not generally considered a solid scientific study on its own. Do you believe every survey that someone releases? It must be confusing for you at this stage of the election with all of the conflicting surveys out there.

LFN doesn't do nuance. His kind can't.

Sports gambling has been mainstream since sports themselves became organized.

[ElCid]

LFN doesn't do nuance. His kind can't.

Sports gambling has been mainstream since sports themselves became organized.

"We haven't got any use for gamblers around here. You've done your best to ruin baseball, and horse racing, and this is one game that's clean and is gonna stay clean."

Sorry, couldn't resist. But you are correct, obviously.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

"We haven't got any use for gamblers around here. You've done your best to ruin baseball, and horse racing, and this is one game that's clean and is gonna stay clean."

Sorry, couldn't resist. But you are correct, obviously.

Haha. That was a great movie but as "Shake Down the Thunder" proved; it was hogwash for accuracy.

I personally detest gambling and refuse to participate but I understand the appeal and millions of people wager without becoming addicted - no different than those who can drink without becoming alcoholics. It is a hobby - just one I don't agree with like stamp collecting.

Gambling, like bad news, has always been around. Modern technology has just made us more aware.

[ElCid]

Haha. That was a great movie but as "Shake Down the Thunder" proved; it was hogwash for accuracy.


As the man said, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Or in this case, when the legend conflicts with fact, portrait the legend.