NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[Redux]

Am I supposed to be mad about FAU losing money? Seems like their problem.

No, it's just one of many problems the current bowl structure enables.

[cm husker]

Am I supposed to be mad about FAU losing money? Seems like their problem.

With overall conference payouts, the teams don't actually lose money even if their individual bowl payout appears to be a loss on paper. At least that's my understanding. But I'll need to verify.

 

also, if that's the litmus test, then a lot of football games should go away. I'd be surprised if there aren't a lot of teams "losing money" week to week.

[Redux]

Some numbers from the book I linked above before they revised the book in 2011.

 

Fox stated before Congress, “Almost all postseason bowl games are put on by charitable groups, and since up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the games are dedicated to the community, local charities received tens of millions of dollars a year.”

 

The authors go to town destroying this argument with facts and figures:

 

*27 bowls enjoy not-for-profit status and do not pay taxes

 

*Not a single bowl game is run by a group that can be considered a charity. They are businesses first and foremost.

 

*23 bowl games with public records received $7.5 million in direct government handouts.

 

*The Sugar Bowl received $3 million in funding from Louisiana in 2007 and has its own lobbying firm to ensure its public financing. The organization brought in $34.1 million in revenue and gave ZERO money to charity, despite pulling $11.6 million in tax-free profit and $37 million in assets.

 

*Sugar Bowl executive director Paul Hoolahan received $607,500 in compensation for fiscal 2008. Associate executive director Jeff Hundley took in $375, 732.

 

*The Sugar Bowl cronies live lavishly spending thousands of dollars every year including, $494,177 for “entertainment” in 2005, $201,226 for “gifts and bonuses” in 2007, $330,244 for “decorations” in 2007, plus many, many more.

 

*The 23 tax-exempt bowls produced $186 million in revenue, including $141 million in net assets, but combined to give just $3.2 million (1.7 percent of revenue) to charity. More than half that charity came from just two bowls, the Orange and Chick-fil-A.

[Mavric]

I agree with whoever said that this was designed to help the NCAA monetairly. Limiting the bowls increases the size of the piece of pie each team gets for each bowl. More bowls does not make the pie bigger. It's a supply and demand thing - if they can limit the number of new bowls for 3 years, they can drive up the price per bowl. Whether or not that benefits the team or the NCAA more, I'm not sure. My guess is that it benefits the NCAA but I don't know.

 

Pretty sure the NCAA doesn't get much money from the bowls. There biggest money-maker is the TV rights for the NCAA basketball tournament. They may bet a little from the bowls but it's a pretty small amount.

[Redux]

A story is told about the 2008 Motor City Bowl and how San Jose State and Florida Atlantic tried to gain entrance to the postseason show by seeing who could bid the lowest and be accepted.

 

The game advertised a $750,000 payout, but Florida Atlantic settled on receiving zero cash, but 750k in tickets. Obviously, FAU was unable to sell that many tickets at full-price and ended up over $41,000 short of budget to send its 126-person traveling party to the bowl.

 

Other facts and figures:

 

*Bowl game appearances trigger bonuses for many coaches and athletic department staffers. Alabama paid a total of $1.3 million to its staff after the 2010 BCS title game.

 

*2008 Papajohns.com Bowl advertised a payout of $300,000, but required each school to sell 10,000 tickets. During this trip Rutgers lost $214,000 in unsold tickets, paid $270,000 in bonuses to its coaches and athletic department, and ultimately spent $1.2 million.

 

21 Rutgers executives spent $28,950 getting to the game and spent $60,168 over the six days in Birmingham, Alabama. At the time the school was coming off a New Jersey state audit for its wasteful spending on their trip to the 2006 Texas Bowl.

 

*For the 2009 Outback Bowl, Iowa ate $150,000 in unsold tickets, spent $328,340 on its band for the trip, also being charged $65 per game ticket for each band member ($22,490 total).

 

*Ohio State spent $2 million to appear in the 2010 Rose Bowl and lost $1 million in unsold seats in the 2009 Fiesta Bowl. Maryland spent $1 million to play in the Humanitarian Bowl with a $750,000 payout. Virginia Tech spent $3.8 million for the 2009 Orange Bowl and lost $1.6 million.

 

*Florida’s appearance in the 2009 BCS title game came with an advertised payout of $17.5 million, but after the SEC took that money and other payouts from the conferences seven bowl games, Florida ended up with a payout of $2.467 million. After the costs of playing a bowl game within their own state, the Gators ended up with a profit of $47,000.

 

To quote the authors, “Bowl directors estimate that only fourteen of the thirty-five games generate a legitimate profit for the participating teams.

[Redux]

*Cotton Bowl executive director Rick Baker made $490,433 in 2007, not including benefits.

 

*Nearly two dozen bowl directors earned $300,000 according to federal tax filings.

 

The system has controlled athletic departments as well, since they continue to receive bonuses from their schools for reaching bowl games.

 

*AD Mike Alden (Missouri) gets $24,000, Lisa Love (Arizona State) gets $13,000, Dick Baddour (North Carolina) gets $24,000, etc.

 

*For that pricey 2009 Fiesta Bowl, Ohio State AD Gene Smith earned a $54,000 bonus and then raised football and men’s basketball ticket prices, plus school golf course fees to off-set the revenue shortfall.

 

*Ken Hoffman created the Motor City Bowl and ran the International Bowl for three years and openly admits he picks schools based on ticket sales and not the best matchups. He has become wildly successful and is planning on creating a third bowl game.

 

The author’s state, “Let’s be clear on the scam that’s going on here: Lower-tier bowls exist solely because AD’s are willing to lose their employer’s money to prop the games up. There is no bowl game without the university’s open checkbook to buy tickets they won’t sell and support other expenses. Yet the AD’s have persuaded their employers to handsomely reward them for going to an event that wouldn’t exist without the school.”

 

Even worse, “bowl scouts” still exist today and still travel all over the country, attending games, being wined and dined on school’s tab, even though their purpose is pretty much useless in today’s modern world.

 

An assistant AD calls them the “March of the Entitled,” and says, “They show up and want their asses kissed, steak and scotch. Every single weekend we have to entertain these guys, and they aren’t even scouting, they’re just here for a good time. I’ve been arguing for years we stop, but no one will.”

[cm husker]

 

I agree with whoever said that this was designed to help the NCAA monetairly. Limiting the bowls increases the size of the piece of pie each team gets for each bowl. More bowls does not make the pie bigger. It's a supply and demand thing - if they can limit the number of new bowls for 3 years, they can drive up the price per bowl. Whether or not that benefits the team or the NCAA more, I'm not sure. My guess is that it benefits the NCAA but I don't know.

 

Pretty sure the NCAA doesn't get much money from the bowls. There biggest money-maker is the TV rights for the NCAA basketball tournament. They may bet a little from the bowls but it's a pretty small amount.

 

This is true. It's not a money thing, at least not directly. It may be a branding thing as much as anything

[cm husker]

Arguments to reform and clean up the bowl system don't necessarily lead to a "limit or reduce the number of bowls." Abuses at major bowls, of which there are a lot, will be there whether we have 30 or 60 bowl games.

 

However, the bowls, like all college atheletics, are effectively a massive transfer of wealth from poor college students to rich elites. The "payment of college education" is hardly commiserate compensation.

 

Combine that with the ridiculous notion that a person can donate millions to an athletic program and get a tax deduction, as though it was a library or a lab donation, and you really start to see how corrupt the system is.

[Redux]

We had 3 teams with losing records enter the bowl season in 2015. As Nebraska fans, lucky us. It may have even made a big difference for us moving forward.

 

On the other hand ESPN was pushing to add 3 more bowl games to this years slate. That could have been another 6 teams with losing records entering post season play. For what? To air a game on a Tuesday afternoon? To sell 10,000 of 150,000 seats to Louisiana Monroe Warhawk fans? To get the local HS marching band a gig since bringing your own band costs too much?

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

 

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

[MasterPulverizer]

The reason anyone makes ridiculous amounts of money on collegiate sports is because they don't have to pay their talent. I don't know how the mechanism would work, but jesus 490,000 to run the cottonbowl?

 

And I disagree with the assertion that the NCAA doesn't profit off the bowls. While the basketball tournament is their money maker, advertisers still have to pay the ncaa to the the "officially licensed ..." for the bowl games. Limiting the number of games decreases the amount of advertising spots which artificially limits the supply and increases the demand - am I the only one that sees this?

[cm husker]

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

 

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

 

Can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

[cm husker]

The reason anyone makes ridiculous amounts of money on collegiate sports is because they don't have to pay their talent. I don't know how the mechanism would work, but jesus 490,000 to run the cottonbowl?

 

And I disagree with the assertion that the NCAA doesn't profit off the bowls. While the basketball tournament is their money maker, advertisers still have to pay the ncaa to the the "officially licensed ..." for the bowl games. Limiting the number of games decreases the amount of advertising spots which artificially limits the supply and increases the demand - am I the only one that sees this?

 

You may be right about the licensing stuff.. I'm not sure. My understanding is that those fees went to the schools and that the NCAA didn't make money off of it. I've read stories similar to what Mavric cited, which indicated that NCAA basketball is where they make their nut (don't get me started on how that has screwed players over who could otherwise being the NBA making their own money).

 

That said, from an economics perspective, you're wrong to think that hte NCAA wouldn't benefit from more volume in advertising. Even if the price per ad went up, and I don't accept that it necessarily would, they would be sacrificing overall revenue. Other than rare art dealers, there's not a seller in the world who would trade revenue for profitability (whether that's purely rational or not).

[Redux]

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

 

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

Don't respond to me then. Way to break your promise to yourself....jerk.

 

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

[cm husker]

 

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

 

 

What drives TV ratings?

 

This is becoming comical.

[Redux]

 

 

 

It's not for the players, it's not for the universities, it's not for the fans. It's for ESPN to make more money off of a live televised game that most fans will not watch anyway, but hey at least there will be some background noise for bars and resturaunts on an idle Tuesday.

And adding more bowls makes more boxl execs. Making more bowl execs makes more corruption etc etc.

 

I swore to myself not to reply to your posts anymore, but can you seriously not see the internal inconsistency in your own post here?

 

If it's only for ESPN, then ESPN would make no money on it and they would stop doing it. So, by the very fact that they profit off of it, we know it is indeed for the fans, who are the consumers in this case.

 

Just because you won't watch doesn't mean no one will watch.

 

As to the rest, if universities don't want to pay for bowl bonuses, write better contracts (i.e., linked to records) and/or contest the existing contracts. Poor administration decision are not a convincing reason to limit games.

 

 

Because like I said, if it's about "profitability" then a lot more than just the bowl games need to be cancelled.

ESPN is making a bunch of money off of it, what do you think I meant by ESPN is doing it for ESPN? What are you even talking about? ESPN isn't making bank off these extra bowls from the fans, they make it from the TV ratings and the advertising. You honestly think they are getting rich from the fans dedication? Lmao

What drives TV ratings?

 

This is becoming comical.

Trying to gift you the ability to see past your own ideals is impossible.

 

Say the 47th bowl on the schedule is played between 4-8 Wyoming and 5-7 Florida International. Sure, fans of both teams are going to watch. Thats. About. It. Plus if the game is on say ESPN2 at 3pm it will be airing for bars etc. to have on.

 

Where do you think the most money comes from in this scenario? Is it the fans of the teams watching on free TV or is it from the advertisers?