Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Premium Content
Meek
Member Posts: 7,031
from the Bleenor Bored - my daughter's a husky!!!!!!!
from the husky football bored - my kid got into UW!!!!!!
$10.95/month
from the husky football bored - my kid got into UW!!!!!!
$10.95/month
Comments
It goes to prove that those completely desperate for information will pay for any kind of information.
Thanks for the DM update....I guess.
But I'm not on the Broad of Investors so what the fuck do I know.
What the fuck is there to actually talk about, besides DM.c and shitty Jude articles?
So is the value in the month to month subscription fee or should the 'in season' content be considered what you are paying $100+ for. In other words anything outside the season is fluff and the buyer should not expect anything during that time.
I think the real issue is whether the venue offers true value 'in season'. In my opinion, by the the very nature of sports and fans, a site cannot expect paid embers to restrain from offering up their opinion and the defense of the opinion as necessary. How this affects the site business plan and site reporters in their quest for team access is the site's problem. If the Washington athletic department is prone to vindictive behavior towards fan sites when their product is scrutinized and criticized, then the paid fan site management should set up an appointment with the AD and or assistant that handles such and work out the problem. Again, my opinion.
This past season the format changes at Dawgman, which is what this board in general relates to, were said to be an effort to have general football talk and side bar posts segregated to the Husky board while have the new board be restricted to deeper discussions of Husky football. Presumably I guess by enticing more football experts to add their supposed wealth of knowledge. On the surface i suppose, added value to a paying member. I guess each paid member needs to decide if that move had any added value.
The fan experience on game day in my opinion, should not be subjected to draconian moderation.
Anyway, I'm just rambling on here, the question of value and whether censorship is tolerable is definitely something everybody has to figure out themselves. This site too must figure out what it is to offer for free in exchange for member loyalty and participation. I've not been here during season by I suspect the site administrators want to attract some experts to add to discussions about recruting and the team coaching and so forth.
1) The value proposition outside of the season is very low unless you are a huge fan of recruiting (which really only matters as you head to LOI day).
2) The content provided by the paid staff members was of a fairly low quality in comparison to what you could get elsewhere for either free or for a nominal cost. I brought this up years ago that the biggest value offered was the message boards and the interaction between members, including the chat interaction. The direction clearly was away from that and more towards articles that said that guys were more quick than fast multiple times in the same sentence, regurgitating practice interviews (which you could get elsewhere for free or far cheaper), providing insight that wasn't particularly revolutionary, and being critical of members that disagreed with the "preferred" viewpoint.
3) If you look throughout the Internet, there's plenty of places where you get tremendous value where analysts break down what it is that you are seeing on the field in gameday and/or providing ways that teams can improve what it is that they are doing. There are sites tied to Oregon fans that do a tremendous job of breaking down how their offense works. If you go to a website like Grantland, you will often find tremendous breakdowns of what is going on that actually make you think about things. Instead, you were paying for analysis that wasn't much more deep than "well, it's a road game and Washington hasn't won in that place in 15 years so I'm not going to pick them to win this game." Terrible.
4) The decision to switch to 2 separate boards was great in theory. Problem was that NOBODY had a clue about what belonged on one compared to the other and it turned into a consistent cluster.
5) Ultimately, the egos of the leadership turned many off and away ... including long-time contributors. There was so much CYA behavior going on that in the process of doing so exposed those with the super egos of having an agenda that was tied to access and being cool.
Not a good effort by me.