It's all so clear now
It's all so clear now
Check out Ohio State's profit from last years $18 million payout at the Rose Bowl.
OSU only pocked 1/11 of that money. After expenses are covered, the rest of the bowl payout is split equally among Big Ten schools.
Very next sentence, albeit on the next page:
So it would have been, if the Buckeyes actually got to keep the money, which they did not. The $18.5 million went to the Big Ten, where it was added to a pool of bowl revenue that was then sliced into 12 shares—one for each team, one for the league office.
If you had read the article, it said osu got 2.2m (don't know how as their math was nowhere near correct) and ended up losing 80k. It said B10 divides bowl receipts 12 ways, 1 share for each school and one for the conference.
It may have changed, but my understanding was it's split 13 ways, one for each team, one for the conference, and two for the team that made the bowl. That way there is some reward to going to the Rose Bowl vs. staying at home.
Fiscally conservative when America and the state needs it since 2008.
is because there's a large payoff sum for the committee chairmen, AD and coaches. Otherwise, the schools are likely to incur losses mostly because they can't sell all of the tickets out. This is why BCS needs to go away. There is a lot more potential revenues for the playoffs, approximately 700-800 millions dollars of revenues.
That's nonsense. Where do you get a figure like that? What a nonsensical paradox: every single member of college football fandom and the media decries and bemoans the NCAA's corporate-whore attitude and never-ending march to grubbing as much money as they possibly can by slapping corporate sponsorships all over everything, in the eternal quest for a couple thousand here and a couple thousand there. Yet supposedly there's this bottomless gold mine to be had, a goose that shits golden eggs the size of boulders, and the corporate-whore attitude of the NCAA is preventing them from going after all that money?
That is the most implausible thing I've ever heard. This is capitalism. If that kind of money were there to be made, they'd find a way to make it. Wetzel would have us believe Delany is this ruthless money-grubbing robber baron who refuses to make even more by finding a way to hold a playoff? This is the same guy who took the BTN plunge with no guarantees and then strong-armed the cable conglomerates into seeing things his way. So being scared to take the playoff leap isn't a problem here.
You get rid of 30-some bowl organizations and all their staff and expenses and have the ncaa run the bowls instead and there would be more money to subsidize all the members of the ncaa. I'm sure there is quite a bit of graft and corruption which could be gotten rid of to the schools' and athletes' benefit.
You don't see the legal issues of a takeover like that? Particularly in light of the insane antitrust lawsuit the state of Utah is filing?
And there certainly isn't $800 million to be found by doing that. There might be 15 or 20. Might. The NCAA is obviously not the picture of streamlined efficiency themselves, and I bet you the conferences and schools like getting their money from the bowls and not through the NCAA middleman, which will surely take its cut before the schools see any.
The ncaa is an organization by and for the colleges. The NFL is a sanctioned monopoly. I could see the ncaa operating as one as well.
to field inept teams in '08 and '09 for financial reasons. In fact, David Brandon is more likely to fire Rich Rodriguez now, since going to the bowl will cost UM an arm and a leg. RR has tried mightily to ensure another losing season, by making Troy blow out his ankle and persuading JT Turner and Vlad to leave and hiring GERG, but he didn't take into account that which cannot be quantified or accounted for: Shoelace.
Yeeess, and it counts!!!!
So in this alternative universe the Three Star Mafia are actually the enemy of all things beneficial to Michigan...in that world "Big Play" Ray Vinopal is actually far greater in value than Devin Garder...
are a genius, a misunderstood, and troubled genius (too be sure)...
But, absolutely a genius.
Maybe he means that Michigan fans were really sad when our QB got sacked.
I assumed it was a facetious statement.
Bowl trips are absurdly expensive, and Michigan had a string of quite pricey ones leading up to RR. The Alamo Bowl was particularly bad, with plane travel costing a fortune at that particular point in time. When you think about the cost of flying a good 100 football players, the coaching staff, their families, athletic department officials, cheerleaders, the MMB, support staff, factor in hotel costs, food costs, etc. etc. etc. it's amazing how much it turns out to be.
That being said, I'd rather lose money on a bowl than not go to one.
Bowl trips are absurdly expensive largely because the schools choose to fly the band and a lot of random folks to the games for extended stays in expensive resorts. Teams could fly in the day before like a normal road trip, leave everyone else at home, and even the lowest payout bowls would probably be profitable. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the expenses are largely of the school's own making.
--Obviously, there are contracts to do certain events, like the Rose Parade with the band, but conferences like the Big 10 have all the power in negotiating those contracts (hence the changed bowl tie-ins.
when a school can't sell out the allocated tickets for the bowl games. They are left with losses already plus they have to pay for travel expenses for the team. Even with lower tier bowl, the payout isn't large and the overall payout for the conference isn't large. You're pretty much left with either a small profit or losses(most likely).
His point is that they could fly down 150 players, coaches, and staff at $200-300 roundtrip (I'm sure they could get some sort of deal flying this many people). Double up on rooms for 2 nights at $100/night. That's about $50,000. Obviously, that is barebone, but it doesn't have to cost you millions to send your team to a bowl game. The schools choose to spend the extra money because they can.
but even with not choosing to extra money, you still lose money or have minimal profits. The biggest thing is the tickets allocated not selling out. That's more of an issue than travel expenses.
The bowl games come with many stipulations, one of which is you must stay in town for at least 5 days.
They do, but the Big 10 or the SEC could basically demand whatever concessions they wanted from bowl games--particularly the mid to lower level games that aren't profitable. Better matchups and name brand teams allow the bowl to make more off of TV and puts lots of butts in seats to satisfy local governments. If the Big 10 said they wouldn't participate in any of the Citrus Bowl festivities or guarantee any ticket sales, the Citrus Bowl would still be thrilled to pay Michigan or OSU to show up and bring their fans to Orlando.
Holy sh*t, they make teams who come for the Motor City bowl stay for five days? That's cruelty.
I would have to imagine it would be cheaper than flying comercially that time of year. Sure it would take a few trips, but it would probably be cheaper than last minute airfare for everyone.
Dunno about the "resort" part. On the three bowl trips I went on, we stayed in normal hotels... And squeezed in 4 people per room. And, yes, there events like parades and pep rallies and such that require the Band's participation.
If you want to get stingy, you could just "negotiate," but would you really want to be the first AD to leave the MMB at home?
Was that as a student? Bowls like the Citrus or Rose came into being as a way to get people to build a family vacation during the holidays. This year, check out the official alumni package through the school, it'll be in a nice hotel with gobs of expensive tours and outings--we went once with my folks.
(the band, that was) we stayed in a very nice resort in st petersburg (i think) 4 to a 2 br suite. It was a nice resort. And we tooK a chartered flight down and back as well. No expense spared kind of thing. At least that was the way I felt. It was definitely more expensive a vacation than I had ever been on. I would guess that if we had paid for it ourselves, it would have been more than $1000, maybe close to 1500 each, for what we did and where we went. And that was 15 years ago.
Often the hotel they stay in isn't as nice as the team, or alumni one. Like the guy who said you could find a hotel room for $100 a night...in theory...but not in the hotels in the towns at the times the team is staying in.
Firefox + Ad Blocker > SI
You're still clicking next 4 times...
The article is pretty good...up until the OSU example.
Referring to how the big conference teams do, they point out that b/c OSU only got 1/12 of the money from their bowl, they lost $79,597. They fail to include, however, the 1/12 share of all the other bowl games Big Ten teams attended! (Or so it seems, I can't make the math add up. 1/12 of $18.5M is $1.5M, SI points out that they have $2.2M, which implies that the TOTAL received from all other bowl bids was $7.9M, which just doesn't sound right.)
The part about the ADs asking for more bowls, even though they know they'll lose money, so that they get their bowl bonuses is pretty galling. It just points out how people, as a rule, will work to maximize their self interest, even at the expense of others.
That totals 36.65 or around $3 million per school. Take away tickets that the schools couldn't sell and that's probably how they got down to 2.2m.
The number they quote already has that removed.
The $3M number sounds about right. But that takes the number from a $80K loss to a $720K profit. Big difference (order of magnitude AND direction!).
Everywhere else I am seeing $17m instead of 18.5 and I forgot the 2 in 4.25 for the capital one bowl. There is $150k from each school. I still don't know where the other 700k or so went.
The article has a side mention of it, but you can't account for losing 11/12th's (or 11/13th's - see above) without taking into account getting 1/12th of every other bowl. Which they kinda gloss over. It's not too hard to lose money, depending on the smaller bowl payout, or extra VIPs for the big games...but it's not losing money hand over foot. You may have no expenses for not going to a bowl, but when you factor in less merchandise sales and stuff for having crappy seasons, Martin's quote makes a good sound-byte, but isn't completely accurate.
It just points out how people, as a rule, will work to maximize their self interest, even at the expense of others.
But this would not happen under a playoff. It would be as pure as the driven snow and NOBODY would seek to expand the playoffs so more teams could get in. A playoff would be held purely for the sake of competition and money wouldn't be a factor.
However, if you ALIGN the interests of the ADs with that of the student athletes and the school as a whole, you'd get a better result. It is also true that you could better align incentives under the current system.
One of the key takeaways from the article is that the biggest reason the system survives is that it is in the interest of bowl presidents. The ADs, and the NCAA as a group, have ceded power, and as a result, lots of money, to the bowls. The bowls have an interest in keeping that power.
I just read Dan Wetzel's book "Kill the BCS" and it tells a pretty damning tale about how the Bowl Championship Series is set up. If you can't purchase the book, then I recommend going to the following website for excerpts, interviews, etc.
There are a couple of mentions of Michigan in the book and one about this blog. Besides Martin talking about how the athletic department made money by not going to a bowl due to the revenue sharing formula in the Big Ten, he also discussed how difficult it was to get an opening day opponent this season. Martin said he spoke with a large number of schools before getting an agreement with Connecticut because the major programs weren't willing to schedule Michigan and chance the early season loss. Wetzel points this out as one of the problems with the current system and advocates a playoff in part because it means teams would be more willing to improve their non-conference schedules.
MGoBlog also gets a mention when Wentzel describes how the coverage of college football has blossomed through the internet. The sport is now followed in one form or another year round rather than just during the regular season.
Wentzel's basic contention is that a playoff system would be extremely lucrative--he cites a couple of sources saying college football would get about $750M through a playoff system that's run separte from the bowls. He advocates a 16-team playoff with the eleven conference winners getting an automatic bid with five at large teams. The first three rounds of the playoff would be played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. The championship game would be held at the Rose Bowl each year. Those teams not part of the playoff system would participate in the bowls.
With the bowls and televison paying a little over $200M per year, why do the conferences continue to stay with the BCS and not take the higher payout that a playoff would present? Simply put, it would mean the conference commisioners would lose control of the college football postseason to the NCAA. Jim Delany comes in for a lot of abuse in this book--Wetzel states that Delany's strategy in protecting the Big Ten's interest is to make sure the conference (and all the BCS conferences) gets the biggest slice of a smaller pie and he's the one holding the knife. It's essentially a strategy of starving an competition from resources in order to keep your entity (the Big Ten) at the top of the heap.
Wentzel points out that most all the bowl games cost the universities more than they pay to the schools. He cited, for example, the most recent Insight Bowl where Minnesota was paid $1.2M by the bowl, but had expenses of $1.8M. Those expenses included tickets the school had to pay for (and weren't able to sell) plus sponsorships that Minnesota had to pay for as part of their bowl participation. The BCS bowls do pay a lot of money (over $17M), but that money goes to the conference and is doled out to all the programs in the Big Ten after an allowance is made for bowl expenses--that's why a school like Michigan would actually make more money not going to a bowl than actually participating.
The reason why there are a lot of bowls is they're money makers and they're lucrative to the organizers. Athletic directors and coaches like them as well because part of their compensation is tied into bowl pariticipation. It's kind of a sweetheart deal for those close to the system, but it's not optimal for the fans (the majority of who probably want a playoff) and it's not a great system for the universities when you consider how much money is being left on the table.
The book is actually called Death to the BCS. I picked it up last night and shot thru half of it. It's a really good read, and will most likely piss you off.
Lots of research done and well presented. Makes the whole bowl system look even more redic than I already knew it was.
Why should I pay Dan Wetzel to piss me off, when the freep clowns will do it for free? I'll take my answer off the air.
You lost me at Wetzel's claim that a playoff would cause better nonconference scheduling. Both pro and anti-BCS people make this claim and it's horseshit both ways. When Boise State finishes their season unbeaten, people will claim that's reason enough to include them in a playoff and reason enough to have one. When Tulane finished its season unbeaten, the same thing happened. A playoff will not encourage better scheduling.
The best programs always fill up their stadiums even by playing the worst games. Therefore there's no incentive to schedule better ones. Period.
Thank you. If the Big 10 goes to nine conference games, I don't even think Notre Dame will get its games or OSU will continue its laudable practice of scheduling one big name a year. Home games are too important to the athletic departments' budgets.
Did you see the shit teams that get into a 16 team playoff? There may be a format that works...but Wetzel's isn't it.
is that if you take the conference champions, and the conference championships are based on conference records, then non-conference games don't matter, and a big non-conference win could help in the quest for a wild card spot -- at any rate, losing out of conference doesn't end your championship hopes, since you can still make the playoff by winning your conference.
Not to say I think an 11+5 playoff is practical, but that's a different issue.
I was just about to post this same exact atricle.I just finished it an hr ago. It is a great read. And yes it will piss you off. It really did a good job of telling exactly what "the cartel" does behind close doors. I recomend anybody who is interested in the politics aspect of the BCS and why there is no playoff in place.
Bowl trips are selling points to players and recruits that's why schools take the loss and go anyway.
The book actually touches on the "selling point" theory for recruits. They used Florida Atlantic as an example in 2008. FAU played at Michigan St that year. MSU's return trip had to be cancelled because FAU lost so much money on their bowl trip that they had to delay construction on their new stadium. MSU didn't have to pay them either, because the contract called for the stadium to be done. And the kicker was FAU finished with around the 120th ranked recruiting class.
+1 to you sir
But I would have gladly spent the money.
The department always makes money from ticket sales as well as memorobilia and gear.
No, the bowls make the money from those items, and if schools don't sell their allotment, they owe the bowl the balance.
Licensing revenue goes up dramatically in bowl seasons vs. non-bowl seasons. It also goes up more for better bowls...
So expenses from traveling to a bowl cause schools to lose money.
Um, how exactly would a playoff solve this? Especially if neutral-site games and "incorporating the bowls" happen, like some people think is feasible? When you have to travel more than once to keep playing in a playoff, wouldn't that make it worse, not better?
They lay out a 16 team playoff plan in the book. I love how they incorporate playing the first couple of rounds on campus with home field advantage. Can you imagine a semifinal playoff game atmosphere at the big house???
Also, travel costs would be irrelevant with the additional money schools would get with a playoff. Delaney supposedly even admitted a playoff would generate around 4 times as much revenue as the current system. The issue is that the "cartel" as Wetzel calls them wouldn't be controlling and keeping it anymore.
It is a pretty good read and you get through it pretty fast. I can see a couple of counterpoints to his arguments, but for the most part he destroys most of the "myths" will well researched arguments.
Fun fact, BCS commish Bill Hancock lives in my neighborhood.
Ok, maybe not so much of a fun fact.
I've read Wetzel's playoff proposal before. Frankly, it's horrible.
Curious as to why you don't like it. I know some don't like that all conference champs get in, but I like the idea that the small conference champs get a shot. What don't you like?
EDIT: Long post below. Cliffnotes version: my general opinion of it is that Wetzel simply took the path of least resistance. He proposed the bracket with the least amount of thought necessary, and then shaped his arguments for it around the plan instead of considering the realities and then shaping something to fit. This is the thought process behind just about every half-assed gumdrop rainbow plan that every fan and their aunt seems to have.
1) He ignores the NCAA bylaw requiring a tournament to be made up of at least half at-large teams. People always say "well you could just change the bylaw" but that requires a large majority and with NCAA inertia the way it is, that's much easier said than done. You know the "BCS conferences" would be pushing hard to keep the bylaw because it means more paths to the playoffs for them. And without their assent, it'll never happen. People ignore this stuff all the time and then claim it'd be so easy to change the bylaw when you present them with that tiny obstacle. When you're given a square peg and a round hole, you don't change the hole, you look for a different peg.
2) "Ignore the bowls" despite the "powerful lobby" he asserts them to have is legal suicide. The bowls' affiliation with the NCAA is, after all, a contract. Contracts are based on certain expectations. Any lawyer would have no problem arguing the NCAA was in breach of contract if it simply - boom - switched to a playoff. There would either be years of wrangling in the courts or years of waiting for the contracts to run out. Not just the contracts between the bowls and the NCAA but the ones the bowls enter into with sponsors and everyone else based on the expectation of continued affiliation. Wetzel's a moron if he thinks these people - whom he presents as uber-powerful money leeches - will just go "damn that sucks" if the NCAA goes all playoff on them. It has to be done gradually and in a way that the NCAA can be lawsuit-proof. Much the same way the NCAA dealt with the NIT: buying it out for extravagant sums of money.
3) His justifications are for the most part witless. For example, he claims it would give meaning to the MAC championship game, because now a playoff berth is at stake. Oh, because the Atlantic Sun basketball championship game gets such astronomical ratings.
4) He makes the dubious simultaneous claims that the regular season would continue to matter because higher-seeded teams would get homefield advantage (fine) and the Cinderella element would be added - that is, we'd all tune in to watch because there might be upsets. OK, if upsets are that likely, then homefield advantage isn't so hot, is it?
5) Personal opinion: Wetzel's presentation is as smug and condescending as it's humanly possible to be.
It is "pie in the sky" I guess, but a doable plan IMO. There are always going to be reasons not to do it and you lay out valid ones, but that doesn't mean no one should try to come up with a better system. He does somewhat present his plan as something that could happen soon, and you are right that it would take years for it to be implemented.
His proposed playoff is a small part of the book. Most of the book is attacking the current system, which I liked.
It would be impossible for any system to be more smug and condescending than the current one is. The Bowl execs are pompous, arrogant, and really should subjugate their egos in the name of a fair system that determines a real champion on the field. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is of Justin Boren climbing Mt Everest.
First off, thanks to the poster for correcting the title of the book--I've gotten so used to the idea of "Kill the BCS" that I think it's the name of Wentzel's book.
1. Two thoughts on this. If there was the political will withing the NCAA to change the rule, then it would be changed. That would be especially true if outside pressure was exerted by the U.S. government concerning the tax exempt status of the bowls or athletic departments. The Congress has already looked into the BCS a couple of times--can you imagine what the lawmakers in Texas and Idaho will be saying if TCU or Boise State are excluded two years in a row?
The second point of this is that if the bylaw can't be changed, then you restructure the playoff format. If at least eight teams have to be at large for a 16-team playoff, then make the Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, SEC, Big East, Mountain West and Pac 12 conference champions auto qualifiers and seed the other nine teams. That's a simple fix right there.
2. I believe the bowl contracts are between those entites and the conferences---not the NCAA. Keep in mind that FBS conferences operate outside the NCAA when it comes to bowls and post-season play.
If the conferences wanted to do this, they could set up an a playoff system down the line as the bowl contracts all expire--this is not a difficult proposition. But as Wentzel points out, the entities who run the bowls make money on the deal and he states that the playoff system would subsidize the bowl system. This allows teams that had good seasons, but don't make the playoffs to have a post-season experience.
For example, if a playoff sytem was in place right now using Wentzel's system and the BCS ratings to seed the teams, then Michigan State wouldn't get into the playoff due to their #12 rating. MSU would instead be headed to play in the Rose Bowl against Arizona (assuming Oregon and Stanford were in the playoff). Other teams that would be in tha major bowls right now would include South Caroliina, Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa--not a bad line up of teams that would normally go to the Outback or Cotton Bowls, for example.
3. I actually think he makes a lot of sense by saying that conference championships would matter. For example, I list South Carolina above as a team that wouldn't get into the playoff with its current record. But as winner of the SEC East, it would have a chance to get into the playoffs if it won the SEC conference championship game. If your program was on the cusp of being in a playoff and a win by the USC Gamecocks was the difference between your school getting into the playoff or not, then you'd pay attention.
Wentzel makes a good point that college football is a truly national game and that a playoff systems would mesh it even tighter than now. Because the playoff possibilities would touch even more schools in October and November than the BCS does right now, it would actually heighten overall interest in college football.
4. One of the reasons it would be called it an upset is because the higher ranked team would be playing at home--think Michigan opening season game in 2007 against Appalachian State. Not to be insulting, but that's actually kind of obvious. Seeing an underdog beat a major program is part of the story behind the NCAA men's basketball tournament, so there's also something to be said about that aspect of any playoff system.
I would agree with you that I wouldn't have a lot of interest in watching the #1 seed play against the Sun Belt champion in the playoff system that Wentzel put forth--unless the ticker showing the scores while I watch another game is showing me that it's actually pretty close. If possible, I'd modify what he lays out in his playoff sytems because its really a de facto 12- or 13-game playoff because the conference champions from the minor conferences really aren't likely to be too competitive in that setting.
Setting aside the bylaw in your first point for a moment, I'd like to see the conference champions from nine-best rated conferences get into the playoff with seven at large bids in place. That would really incentivize teams looking to get the #1 or #2 seed because their opening games would likely be against the winners of the MAC or Conference USA as I suspect the new WAC and the Sun Belt wouldn't be in this type of playoff setup in more cases than not.
5. Wentzel's book is written like there should be exclamation points after every fourth sentence, but I think the larger substance of what he's saying is spot on. If you were to suggest, for example, that the two teams in the Super Bowl would be selected by a NFL committee after regular season play and without the benefit of a playoff, people would think you're crazy. Try applying the system that FBS college football has to MLB or the NBA or the NHL and you'd get the same sort of reaction.
I would imagine that the majority of college football fans out there right now would love to see a college football playoff--and that would include one former Michigan head football coach.
I attended a fantasy football event at Michigan about five years ago--it was a charity fund raiser for prostate cancer research at U-M Hospital. During a Q&A session, Lloyd Carr was asked about what he thought about a college football playoff. Carr said he would support a 16-team playoff with some of the games being played on the home field of the higher seed. He talked about the 1999 Michigan team that beat Alabama in the Orange Bowl and said that it was completly overlooked in the press, etc. by the way the BCS is promoted. Carr also felt that Michigan playing in Ann Arbor in December would give U-M a tremendous advantage when playing a warm weather SEC, Pac 10 or ACC team, for example, in a playoff format.
Counters to your counterpoints:
1. If you eliminate auto-qualifiers for the weak and crappy conferences, you undermine half of Wetzel's argument in the first place. (Not that I think that's a bad idea, but still.) Wetzel claims his idea would preserve the sanctity of the regular season by rewarding the top finishers with a home game against a terrible opponent and it would make things like the MAC championship game relevant. Well, removing the MAC and Sun Belt, etc., from the playoff would submarine everything Wetzel's trying to accomplish there. I do think a desirable playoff is unfeasible with 11 autobids, but under that idea, what's the reward for being the top team of the regular season? A home game with Wisconsin instead of Oregon? (Speaking last season here.) Might as well lose a game or two because it doesn't matter any more.
2. The NCAA certifies the bowls. There's your contract. And the value of bowls would dry up almost entirely with a playoff. That's where all the money would get sucked into. Who sponsors or watches the NIT? The Rose Bowl would just be a glorified NIT - and after a few years, it wouldn't even be glorified.
3. C'mon....you're telling me that South Carolina fans aren't paying extremely close attention to the SEC championship game? There's nothing a playoff could do to increase a team's fans' interest in going to a CCG. Wetzel acts like the nation would suddenly pay super-close attention to the MACCG because it would have some bearing on the playoff. No it wouldn't. Not any more than the Atlantic Sun tournament has on March Madness. Nobody would care which patsy is offered up to Auburn any more than they care which patsy is going to the Motor City Bowl. And take the Big 12 CG. Both teams would go to the playoffs, so what would it matter other than bragging rights? The fans who lost would simply say, "well, that's too bad, but the real deal is up next." That'd be the tragedy of a playoff.
Lastly, and the biggy:
I would imagine that the majority of college football fans out there right now would love to see a college football playoff--and that would include one former Michigan head football coach.
Carr said he would support a 16-team playoff with some of the games being played on the home field of the higher seed.
But would Carr support a playoff that turns out radically different from what he proposes? I do agree that the majority of college football fans want a playoff. But if you sat them down and actually had them argue it out about how it should work, I think you'll find that those who say "I'm happy with any playoff" are in the clear minority. Everyone has their own very special idea of how it should be structured and would be totally in favor of a playoff if that were the idea that was implemented. (Including me, except for the "totally" part. Only mostly.) What if the playoff looked very different from what they wanted? Buyer's remorse galore, that's what I think. You hear a lot of "well I could support a playoff if it were only 4/6/8 teams." What if it were 24? Hmmm, well, that's not so nice-sounding any more. Because there are so many totally divergent ideas, it only stands to reason that a lot of people would be disappointed when the final product didn't look like their special gumdrop rainbowland idea.
I know Central Michigan University always lost money when they went to the Motor City Bowl.
Didn't realize what the buttons in the first post were and hit by mistake. Did not mean to neg..
Hit the plus up arrow and it "unnegs" it, and adds a +1. Gives you back your point too.
This seems to make sense, look at the tradition. Did i buy less tickets or Michigan junk because they had a couple losing seasons.... no, was i disappointed... sure. As long as the ship can be fully 'righted' all will be will. Considering what they make from season tickets, the BTN, and merchandising, i would find it hard to believe that, the juggernaut that is Michigan football would lose money.
Did you buy a conference championship t-shirt? A bowl game cap? A "we beat bowl opponent" sweatshirt? Any of that stuff the last couple of years? No? Then you bought less stuff. That's where bad seasons cost teams money. People buy a lot more Rose Bowl stuff for Christmas than they do Insight Bowl stuff, which is still more than people will buy "staying home for the holidays, year 2" paraphernalia, so yeah, it costs them a lot in merchandising.
wouldn't OSU also have a share from all the other Big Ten teams who went to bowls?
and that would prolly be more than the 80k they lost--right?
so, potato salad.
Even though the Buckeyes spent about $500,000 less in the 2009-10 school year, the Buckeyes are still the nation's biggest spenders. Ohio State had expenses of $31.76 million last year, according to figures FanHouse obtained from the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics.
The 2009-10 school year is the most recent data that is available.
While Ohio State put the most money in its program for a second consecutive year, Alabama moved up to No. 2. The Crimson Tide spent nearly $5 million more than the 2008-09 school year, reporting expenses of $31.11 million.
The analysis they did was shortsighted in it only looked at the immediate costs of the bowl game, neglecting the increased exposure for the school and for the program, whcih tends to translate to donations, tickets, merchandise, etc.
Would none of that be better in a 8 or 16 team playoff?
I'm not saying it wouldn't be, just that the data they're using to prove their point is inherently flawed.
you're kidding about the kittens. Especially after I gave up masturbating on that account.
What about the claim that 109 out of 120 programs lose money, etc.? I remember seeing this same general argument in a lead story by Brian early this off-season. The obligatory seat purchases and so-on sound like a system out of control.
The claim is about of the 120 athletic departments. Without a doubt that many football programs don't lose money since football pays for most other non-revenue sports.
Also, in the case of Michigan, the athletic department making money the last two years... what other effects are there? Bowls are but a small part of the puzzle (regular season tickets, merchandise, TV revenues, donations), it's flawed to immediately connect two things that are mutually exclusive.
I've seen the argument constructed that schools giving ADs $30,000 bonuses to get to a bowl are causing ADs to stand behind a system that is costing the schools, state taxpayers and students millions of dollars subsidizing corrupt bowl management. U presidents are payed well to think about the school's economic welfare; if this is really the case, wouldn't the U presidents wise up and strip the $30,000 bonuses and bank the millions that would immediately start flowing in? Am I reading this wrong, or is a screwed-up status quo really this impossible to correct?