All 22 black market
Good read on the college football game film market. FYI: I don’t have a subscription, but was able to read.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/09/14/college-football-game-film-all-22/
September 14th, 2022 at 10:34 PM ^
Confused, can or can’t I purchase illegal goods?
September 14th, 2022 at 10:41 PM ^
Pssst. Hey, pal. Buddy. Over here.
September 15th, 2022 at 12:32 AM ^
Wanna buy an eight?
September 15th, 2022 at 5:06 AM ^
An eight or an eighth?
September 15th, 2022 at 8:40 AM ^
Sure, how many of those ya got? 21 more? OK, I'll buy all 22.
September 14th, 2022 at 10:42 PM ^
Where are the listings for Cuban cigars and Viagra?
September 14th, 2022 at 11:14 PM ^
Brian is going to be pissed about Seth's next expense report and it's all your fault!
September 14th, 2022 at 11:18 PM ^
dumb question: why can't someone simply go into the stadium, use their phone, and capture an "OK" version of the all 22?
September 14th, 2022 at 11:24 PM ^
Especially when there is only about 20 minutes of true action in a game.
September 15th, 2022 at 6:27 AM ^
Yep. In another thread I semi-seriously suggested crowdsourcing this. Get an MGoBlog crew with end zone seats, capture the videos, and let MGoArchive / whoever put something together from the best clips.
September 15th, 2022 at 10:29 AM ^
Not sure the end zone would give a good view of action at the other end. Maybe we could all chip in and purchase a blimp for an aerial view.
September 15th, 2022 at 8:04 AM ^
I'm pretty sure that both the program (school, AD, stadium mgmt) and TV prohibits it through the ticket contracts. It's probably buried in the fine print that nobody can read for various reasons (not in a locatable position, too small, legal mumbo-jumbo, tiny font, legalese, microscopic printing). Nobody cares about clips here and there, but filming the whole thing would raise ire. Ask Bill Belichick...
September 15th, 2022 at 8:50 AM ^
Filming a live sporting event is also an act of copyright infringement. It's the same as filming a musical like Hamilton. Not saying anyone would care, but there's a chance that YouTube would pull such a video.
September 15th, 2022 at 9:00 AM ^
Yeah, but why put it on youtube? Just have our mgoblog staff use it for their analyses. Anyhow, just an idea.
September 14th, 2022 at 11:23 PM ^
If the opposing teams in CFB can get the full tapes, it does not seem like it would be a big problem if this dear old football blog had the same access? Then we could have even more debates over how we viewed the plays made or not made each game.
September 15th, 2022 at 9:50 AM ^
Sounds like you, or someone like you, might conceivably think about paying some amount of money - however miniscule - for this video. That is why the sports leagues and TV affiliates have had their lawyers establish precedent that posting such videos costs causes damages (costs them money).
September 15th, 2022 at 4:59 AM ^
I'll be honest, I didn't think it was a very good read at all.
September 15th, 2022 at 8:39 AM ^
There's a better read. . . but it's gonna cost ya, buddy. See, I know a guy. . .
September 16th, 2022 at 10:47 AM ^
Yeah this Washington Post article was clearly cut with some low-quality meth. Not pure at all.
September 15th, 2022 at 8:09 AM ^
Can you tell us how you read it without a description? Or provide a synopsis of what was said? It's rather poor form to post a pay-walled link and not even summarize the article.
'Hey guys - this was cool! Too bad you can't read it...'
September 15th, 2022 at 9:04 AM ^
It wasn't paywalled for me. I wish it was.
September 15th, 2022 at 9:45 PM ^
Disable javascript.
September 15th, 2022 at 8:39 AM ^
Meh, not nearly as good as I thought the article was going to be.
Thanks to Apple One for access, though!
September 15th, 2022 at 10:37 AM ^
Quick summary: schools have an all 22 film cartel that they share with each other but no one outside (ANYONE can get all 22 for NFL games for an 80 buck subscription). They don't like the film going beyond the cartel. Why? "Some coaches are weird." Obviously, there's no competitive advantage in keeping it from fans/writers. They just don't like it.
September 15th, 2022 at 11:15 AM ^
Um, maybe I'm going way out on a limb here, but I'd say the real reason is that they sign huge contracts to have the games broadcast by corporate nitwits. When you're being paid billions for the privilege of distributing the content, handing out copies on the side is a bit of a no-no.
As for why the media companies don't make all-22 available, they like to think they know better than their audience, and they think their audience wants pore-o-vision. They could make everything available at no real extra cost for themselves, but media companies are weird, petty, and aristocratically deranged.
September 15th, 2022 at 11:40 AM ^
If the media companies were in charge, then they would sell the all-22s. The article points out that's what they already do with the NFL.
This does seem like the kind of BTN should be showing on random Wednesdays.
September 15th, 2022 at 11:47 AM ^
I don't buy it. "So-and-so won't let me" is an old CYA that probably predates fire and the wheel. Especially for what they pay, if the media wants something bad enough, they get it. Whatever the case for the NFL, it's clearly not a big priority to them.
September 15th, 2022 at 11:57 AM ^
BTN should definitely make some sort of subscription like the NFL does for all 22. But it’s the broadcast angles of CFB that pisses me off to no end. For some reason, CFB broadcasts (ESPN is especially bad at this) and will zoom in and you won’t even see the top or bottom sidelines and so you don’t even see one or two of the receivers pre play or right after the snap! NFL broadcasts, you’re almost always seeing both sidelines and you’ll never not see a receiver pre play or as the ball is snapped. And you get way more replays from multiple angles in NFL broadcasts.
September 15th, 2022 at 1:33 PM ^
The article makes no mention of media company rights or involvement whatsoever. Doesn't mean they aren't involved but it seems like they're not--perhaps since the videos are made by team staffers and not media companies.
What I don't understand is why coaches are so paranoid about the all-22 film getting out 'into the wild'--beyond other teams. First of all it seems there's no way to truly prevent it in this day and age and second of all, since the people best positioned to exploit the footage (other teams' coaching staffs) already have access, what's the real risk?
In the case of let's say the pricing algorithm for airline tickets or health insurance reimbursement rates to providers, the companies maintain strict privacy and confidentiality so as protect their proprietary business models and their profits. This also strikes me as paranoid but at least it's understandable as attempts to prevent collusion among competitors.
College coaches and their schemes and deployments? Already common knowledge to those in the business so why not let the rest of us in, at least for a modest fee?
September 16th, 2022 at 3:36 PM ^
There should have been a warning on your post that there's a UM v. UGA screenshot in that article.