Could Tressel Cheating Directly Cost Michigan and the B10 Money?
Since it's a boring Monday at work I've been thinking about the hammer and how it may come down on tOSU. Suppose for a second that they vacate the wins from last year (not an unreasonable assumption) and the BCS win. I think precedent is for them to pay back the BCS money...and here's where it gets sticky.
I cannot find the exact numbers, but the B10 allocates a travel budget to each team for bowl games. The example I found was Iowa got $1.3M back in 2003. The bowl paid out $2.5M, so the difference ($2.5-$1.3=$1.2) was then split amongst the teams of the B10. This is the strength of the B10 conference and one of the reasons we will have Nebraska in the conference now.
If tOSU has to refund the BCS money which as best I can tell paid out ~$17 who would repay the shared revenue? Guessing travel allotment is now $3M that would be $14M split among 11 (or 12?) schools. Tressel could cost each B10 school north of a million dollars!
It is unlikely that they would have to repay the bowl $$, since the allegations against Tressel do not relate to the bowl - they relate to playing ineligable players and covering up the Tat 5 thing during the season. By the time of the Bowl, the whole thing was out in the open, so he actually didn't do anything legally wrong (putting aside morally wrong for a moment) in playing those players.
The NCAA doesn't own the bowls and they already happened. Why would they pay the money back and to which entity would they pay it? The bowl got its ratings and its sold out stadium.
Could Tressel Cheating Directly Cost Michigan and the B10 Money?
Just in legal fee's.
USC wasn't made to do this after vacating all of their wins from the Bush era, nor has any other team as far as I know. OSU will likely get hit with sanctions but I think it will be a far cry from dropping the hammer.
Actually even less qualified teams still get paid just the same.(UConn) The only way this could effect the Big Ten as a whole financially is if our TV contract was being negotiated with the BTN.
Wrong. A bowl ban for OSU hurts the Big 10 financially across the board. The Big 10 has 12 teams. Let's say 7 of them get bowl eligible by the end of the year. If OSU is one of those 6-6 or better teams (and history suggests they will be) suddenly the Big 10 can only send 6 teams to bowl games instead of 7. At the very least the Big 10 as a whole loses the money from the lowest bowl game as each team shifts up one spot to fill the gap. Example finish order (note the bowls each team ties in to are probably wrong, I'm merely using this as an example):
1. Michigan -- Rose Bowl
2. OSU -- Fiesta Bowl
3. Nebraska -- Capital One Bowl
4. Wisconsin -- Gator Bowl
5. Penn State -- Outback Bowl
6. Michigan State -- Insight Bowl
7. Iowa -- Texas Bowl
If OSU is not allowed to go to a bowl game this year, then Nebraska moves up into the Fiesta bowl, Wisconsin into the Capital One bowl, etc. This leaves the Big 10 at a loss for any money the Texas Bowl would've netted as Iowa moves into the Insight bowl because the 8th team in the Big 10 isn't bowl eligible to fill the slot.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a Big 10 team would get moved up. Perhaps the Fiesta bowl liked OSU resume but decides Nebraska's isnt good enough to warrant putting them in as a replacement. Suddenly no teams from the Big 10 move up and instead of losing Texas Bowl money, the conference loses the payout of a BCS bowl game (Fiesta or Sugar or Orange).
The payouts are for participation, not the win.
Teams often lose money when they go to a bowl game, win or lose. And bottom-dwelling bowls, such as those tsio deserves to attend for the next decade, cost conferences money, as well.
http://mgoblog.com/content/subsidizing-st-petersburg
"So that's annoying but I guess tolerable. Not so much on the lower end where getting your terrible bowl bid is a net loss for you and the conference. While the most recent article flurry focuses on the fake losses at the top of the ladder, it's the bottom where the problem is. There's a point on the bowl ladder at which the game turns from a contributor to college football to a parasite on it. I'm not sure where it is but it's well above the Beef O'Brady's Bowl in St. Petersburg."
(What happened to the quotation mark button that enabled blocked quotations?)
I think you mean ABC/ESPN. The conference has an "in" with the BTN people...
Yeah, you are right. I think we have the BTN market cornered.
More likely way of costing B1G money would be by being so hurt by sanactions. That they can't get into a bowl or at least a BCS bowl and no other team from the conference steps up to take their place as a second team in a BCS game. Then the conference would be out the money that secod team would make them. That however is a more indirect way than directly costing us money.
I was thinking of it more like repaying the NCAA money for basketball. Since the NCAA doesn't own the BCS I guess this isn't a concern.
OSU will not be required to pay back money from a past BCS bowl game that it is forced to vacate (see USC). Also, your numbers are too high. The B10, as an AQ conference, automatically receives the "big money" annual payout of roughly $18 million no matter which team goes to the Rose Bowl. That money is guaranteed. In years where the B10 (or any AQ conference) gets a second BCS slot, they receive a supplemental payment in addition to the first. That supplemental payment is much smaller (approximately $4.5 million). If any money were to be refundable, it would be the $4.5 million supplemental payment not the guaranteed $18 million payment.
Nonetheless, OSU's woes could cost the B10 money going forward. If OSU is banned from post-season play for one or more years, it is possible that could cost the B10 an at-large bid to the BCS or some other bowl during those years. This would reduce total bowl revenues earned by the conference. Still, after deducting bowl expenses and dividing the net profit by 12 teams, the loss per team would be relatively small.
I agree. The at-large bid is where it could potentially hurt the B10 the most. The Texas bowl pay out split twelve ways won't be missed all that much. Should the bowl ban come down on OSU, I think we will all be a little more grateful to have Nebraska aboard.
And, frankly, by removing OSU from the mix, some if not all of the B10's bowl-eligible teams will likely have an opportunity to move up to a more prestigious bowl. The PR and other benefits of going to a higher profile bowl would more than offset the small amount of money lost in the eyes of most schools.
You make some good points. But I am not so sure that the "whole thing" was out in the open. We seem to be learning more every day. For example, did the NCAA know the full extent to which Pryor and others were getting money and cars (not just Tats)? Also, what other information is coming down the pike? The NCAA asked for information about Sarniak. Perhaps they wonder what else Tressel was hiding.
I would consider it money well spent.
the image of this guy lawyering up and playing like some corrupt pol who insists on being dragged kicking and screaming will set OSU back decades in the public image dept, give us the bit of a leg up that we need.
Not only past, but future. tosu probably would have gone to a bcs bowl (maybe as a 2nd big ten team) at some point in the next 3 to 5 years. A non big ten team probably will take that spot with the coming post season ban.
No idea but every time you post I convince myself Carvin Johnson is gonna be awesome. Thanks.
going old school ..... WHO CARES !!!
Cheaters gonna cheat ....
Go Blue !