PDA

View Full Version : RPI Hockey 2015 - 2016 (Part II): We want more banners, not more flags



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33

Ralph Baer
03-04-2016, 07:58 AM
Ed Weaver article http://www.troyrecord.com/sports/20160303/mens-ice-hockey-rpi-hosts-brown-in-playoff-opener

TucsonMike
03-04-2016, 09:33 AM
http://rpitv.org/news_updates/28-rpi-hockey-playoffs-will-not-be-streamed-live-on-rpi-tv

This blows. Makes for a pretty easy $$ decision for me though - continue to donate to our world class RPITV crew, and ECAC Hockey can take their $9.95 stream and shove it up their greedy *****es.

ServinisScores
03-04-2016, 09:42 AM
http://rpitv.org/news_updates/28-rpi-hockey-playoffs-will-not-be-streamed-live-on-rpi-tv

This blows. Makes for a pretty easy $$ decision for me though - continue to donate to our world class RPITV crew, and ECAC Hockey can take their $9.95 stream and shove it up their greedy *****es.

I second that. Very bush league move by the EZAC.

LTsatch
03-04-2016, 11:08 AM
http://rpitv.org/news_updates/28-rpi-hockey-playoffs-will-not-be-streamed-live-on-rpi-tv

This blows. Makes for a pretty easy $$ decision for me though - continue to donate to our world class RPITV crew, and ECAC Hockey can take their $9.95 stream and shove it up their greedy *****es.

I just replied to a similar sentiment on the Colgate thread. I have already emailed Asst. ECAC Commissioner Ed Krajewski with my complaint over the current internet playoff viewing setup and cost. Others should do the same. Good luck this weekend.

FreshFish
03-04-2016, 11:11 AM
I second that. Very bush league move by the EZAC.


I agree 95%, the only caveat being whether NY State labor laws require ECAC Hockey to employ only all-union work crews on their broadcasts.

Either way, I think a combination of a fan boycott of BoxCast combined with a deluge of emails to info@ECACHockey.com from each one of us letting them know how displeased we are with that decision and why we did not sign up for the service, might get their attention. We might mention that, if we knew that a portion of that $9.95 were going to RPITV, we'd gladly have subscribed. Make them feel it in the bottom line, how much this decision cost them.

100 people = $1,000 x 2 nights = $2,000. Probably a fairly significant percentage of their total. Plus the extra expense of paying the BoxCast crew to duplicate what RPITV is already doing with volunteers (RPITV would have to receive a percentage from each person who signs up for the streaming service; it might be problematic to pay the crew directly though...).

As DrD says in another context, "Make them pay."

lugnut92
03-04-2016, 11:21 AM
http://rpitv.org/news_updates/28-rpi-hockey-playoffs-will-not-be-streamed-live-on-rpi-tv

This blows. Makes for a pretty easy $$ decision for me though - continue to donate to our world class RPITV crew, and ECAC Hockey can take their $9.95 stream and shove it up their greedy *****es.

Way to go RPI TV for stepping up for themselves. They're by far the best streaming service in the conference. If the ECAC wants to take the RPI TV feed and charge for it in the playoffs, RPI TV should absolutely be compensated. I'm just glad that I'm still close enough to attend the games in person rather than be held hostage by BoxCast.

rpi82
03-04-2016, 11:31 AM
Way to go RPI TV for stepping up for themselves. They're by far the best streaming service in the conference. If the ECAC wants to take the RPI TV feed and charge for it in the playoffs, RPI TV should absolutely be compensated. I'm just glad that I'm still close enough to attend the games in person rather than be held hostage by BoxCast.

Didn't RPI TV broadcast the ECAC semis and finals from AC a few years back when nobody wanted the rights and RPI wasn't even playing? This is how the ECAC pays them back?

I probably won't make it up to HFH tonight because of a late afternoon business meeting, but I was planning on watching the 2nd and 3rd periods. However, given the circumstances, I won't pay for this service. I'll just stream WRPI tonight and pick up a ticket for tomorrow night. Let's Go Red!

FlagDUDE08
03-04-2016, 02:00 PM
Way to go RPI TV for stepping up for themselves. They're by far the best streaming service in the conference. If the ECAC wants to take the RPI TV feed and charge for it in the playoffs, RPI TV should absolutely be compensated. I'm just glad that I'm still close enough to attend the games in person rather than be held hostage by BoxCast.

You're still giving money to EC$$; they set the minimum ticket price, and get the revenue from that. Some schools (like Cornell) still up their price, and get the difference.

lugnut92
03-04-2016, 02:08 PM
You're still giving money to EC$$; they set the minimum ticket price, and get the revenue from that. Some schools (like Cornell) still up their price, and get the difference.

You're suggesting that I pay to go to RPI games...

FlagDUDE08
03-04-2016, 02:12 PM
You're suggesting that I pay to go to RPI games...

You're the one that's choosing to go based on an internet video stream. Both choices involve cash going to the same place.

Granted, I don't like EC$$ Hockey's choices any more than you do.

vicious
03-04-2016, 02:36 PM
Looking ahead to 2017, could RPITV amass the necessary resources (staff and equipment) to possibly stream all four first round games from home sites (and presumably the four second round home sites, and the semis and finals)? I realize it's a real stretch given where the operation is at right now. But if those pieces could fall into place over the next year, then maybe RPITV should consider submitting its own bid for the rights for 2017 (or whenever the league's deal with Boxcast is up). Under the right terms, it could turn out to be a moneymaker for RPITV.

another idea is that if resources are an issue, what if RPITV struck a deal to stream, say, games from two home sites in the first round, and leave the other two up to Boxcast. Basically split the deal. Then let's see who gets the most viewers. My guess, regardless of opponent, is RPITV.

On the other hand, I don't how much faith I have in the league striking a fair deal or giving students at one of its member schools an opportunity to really shine. They way they've handled the Boxcast deal to this point speaks volumes about them.

FlagDUDE08
03-04-2016, 02:55 PM
Looking ahead to 2017, could RPITV amass the necessary resources (staff and equipment) to possibly stream all four first round games from home sites (and presumably the four second round home sites, and the semis and finals)? I realize it's a real stretch given where the operation is at right now. But if those pieces could fall into place over the next year, then maybe RPITV should consider submitting its own bid for the rights for 2017 (or whenever the league's deal with Boxcast is up). Under the right terms, it could turn out to be a moneymaker for RPITV.

another idea is that if resources are an issue, what if RPITV struck a deal to stream, say, games from two home sites in the first round, and leave the other two up to Boxcast. Basically split the deal. Then let's see who gets the most viewers. My guess, regardless of opponent, is RPITV.

On the other hand, I don't how much faith I have in the league striking a fair deal or giving students at one of its member schools an opportunity to really shine. They way they've handled the Boxcast deal to this point speaks volumes about them.

Few things to consider:

One, students are usually getting ready to go on Spring Break. Mind you, the support from the student and alumni members is extraordinary. But even with them, do they have enough people to do a full crew at more than one site? And do those other sites even have the capabilities to put out the high quality stream RPI-TV puts out?

Two, EC$$ Hockey is still going to demand the pay wall because these games are how they generate revenue, and I don't know if Youtube is set up to be able to handle that. That's one of the primary reasons they do what they do. Mind you, it may be possible to buy the rights from them, assuming there isn't a long-term contract already in place (and I wouldn't be surprised if there is), but do you know any rich alums that are willing to shell out what is probably five figures for a single hockey game?

RHamilton
03-04-2016, 03:00 PM
Looking ahead to 2017, could RPITV amass the necessary resources (staff and equipment) to possibly stream all four first round games from home sites (and presumably the four second round home sites, and the semis and finals)? I realize it's a real stretch given where the operation is at right now. But if those pieces could fall into place over the next year, then maybe RPITV should consider submitting its own bid for the rights for 2017 (or whenever the league's deal with Boxcast is up). Under the right terms, it could turn out to be a moneymaker for RPITV.

another idea is that if resources are an issue, what if RPITV struck a deal to stream, say, games from two home sites in the first round, and leave the other two up to Boxcast. Basically split the deal. Then let's see who gets the most viewers. My guess, regardless of opponent, is RPITV.

On the other hand, I don't how much faith I have in the league striking a fair deal or giving students at one of its member schools an opportunity to really shine. They way they've handled the Boxcast deal to this point speaks volumes about them.

It really depends why the league is with BoxCast. There's a possibility they genuinely think it's good for exposure rather than something that brings in income. Maybe the ADs really like their sliver of that pie. If income is even in the cards, most of the money surely goes to BoxCast -- typically it's something like a minimum fee is paid to BoxCast for the streaming equipment and support, then any profits over a threshold are split. It could be simply the plug-and-play simplicity of the system. All BoxCast does is supply a little... box... that plugs into the school's provided camera. There's some support and recommendations for cameras and settings, but nothing is "produced" by BoxCast. This is really what makes it frustrating for groups like RPI TV and likely WCKN which aren't directly affiliated with a school's athletics department.

I don't speak for RPI TV (anymore), but the resources certainly aren't there for additional "productions", however there's quite a lot of know-how about how to stream for free, and RPI TV has a second, single-camera with graphics setup that could be duplicated and exported around the league with a lot of work by the RPI TV guys and some instruction to the home staff. Pack Network evolved out of Northeastern's video efforts and could be a model for RPI TV or loosely affiliated exterior business venture.

Ultimately, I think it's lack of resources (read "laziness") and lack of vision from the ECAC that lead to this issue.

FlagDUDE08
03-04-2016, 03:05 PM
It really depends why the league is with BoxCast. There's a possibility they genuinely think it's good for exposure rather than something that brings in income. Maybe the ADs really like their sliver of that pie. If income is even in the cards, most of the money surely goes to BoxCast -- typically it's something like a minimum fee is paid to BoxCast for the streaming equipment and support, then any profits over a threshold are split. It could be simply the plug-and-play simplicity of the system. All BoxCast does is supply a little... box... that plugs into the school's provided camera. There's some support and recommendations for cameras and settings, but nothing is "produced" by BoxCast. This is really what makes it frustrating for groups like RPI TV and likely WCKN which aren't directly affiliated with a school's athletics department.

I don't speak for RPI TV (anymore), but the resources certainly aren't there for additional "productions", however there's quite a lot of know-how about how to stream for free, and RPI TV has a second, single-camera with graphics setup that could be duplicated and exported around the league with a lot of work by the RPI TV guys and some instruction to the home staff. Pack Network evolved out of Northeastern's video efforts and could be a model for RPI TV or loosely affiliated exterior business venture.

Ultimately, I think it's lack of resources (read "laziness") and lack of vision from the ECAC that lead to this issue.

They obviously left B2/A1 because that company dissolved last year. However, something tells me the pay wall has a lot to do with it. After all, EC$$ Hockey probably still thinks that if people can watch the game for free, they won't attend the game in person. I bet if they could, they'd put blackout regulations on radio, too. However there may be some FCC regulations surrounding that, although professional handegg is able to blackout internet radio streams...

jericho
03-04-2016, 03:32 PM
You're the one that's choosing to go based on an internet video stream. Both choices involve cash going to the same place.

Granted, I don't like EC$$ Hockey's choices any more than you do.

Again, you're assuming that he PAYS to attend games...

FlagDUDE08
03-04-2016, 04:00 PM
Again, you're assuming that he PAYS to attend games...

Unless he hitchhikes from New Haven, the assumption is still sound.

jericho
03-04-2016, 05:01 PM
Unless he hitchhikes from New Haven, the assumption is still sound.


This just confirms what everyone already knew. :rolleyes:

lugnut92
03-04-2016, 09:30 PM
You're the one that's choosing to go based on an internet video stream. Both choices involve cash going to the same place.

Granted, I don't like EC$$ Hockey's choices any more than you do.

I was going regardless.

LTsatch
03-04-2016, 09:31 PM
WTH, win a tourney game and you guys suddenly clam up? Good win.

Ralph Baer
03-05-2016, 01:44 AM
WTH, win a tourney game and you guys suddenly clam up? Good win.

We kept posting on the game thread.