NESN Deal(?)
- Thread starter Guapo
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction Score
- 25,800
Last edited:
zls44
Your #icebus Tour Director
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,206
- Reaction Score
- 24,909
Its probably the same deal they've always had. Bunch of other leagues have gone to FloSports, which HE worked with for the playoffs.
One reason I'm so excited for new conference leadership next season. Let's get some fresh ideas. Its insane the league doesn't have a deal, even with Flo. Its embarrassing.
One reason I'm so excited for new conference leadership next season. Let's get some fresh ideas. Its insane the league doesn't have a deal, even with Flo. Its embarrassing.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,479
- Reaction Score
- 25,800
Do you know what the issue is? Is it a lack of vision or backwards thinking?
I think each of these schools individually understands that they have a marketable product, why can't they capitalize?
zls44
Your #icebus Tour Director
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 9,206
- Reaction Score
- 24,909
Both.
The league just doesn't seem to value broadcasting the games that much. It then falls to the individual schools, who all have different aspirations and technical capabilities, spun on from their own local importances (for example, Maine and UNH hockey in those areas is their Alabama football, so the games are all televised/produced at a high level; meanwhile, UConn has a...lesser...production).
Northeastern, Vermont and BU are the best trio I've seen. They also don't charge. Don't assume charging=better product. UNH and BC are on ESPN+, UMass-Lowell charges a ton for their package, UConn charges as well and its just a port from the scoreboard even for the games that get put on TV. Too much fragmentation. They need everyone to produce at roughly the same level, right now they're miles apart from school to school.