Village Voice media on the scam of bottomfeeder bowls

Submitted by Chuck Harbaugh on

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2011-12-15/news/how-insiders-use-the-college-bowl-system-to-loot-american-universities/

 

College football is the only sport that gives away its postseason revenues. Its business model is akin to Walmart keeping its profits for the first 10 months of the year, then letting Value World host its holiday sales.

This is an especially hazardous form of capitalism for the nation's universities, which have been bloodied by ever-diving state funding combined with double-digit tuition hikes. And contrary to popular belief, their athletic departments just widen the damage.

BRCE

December 14th, 2011 at 6:58 PM ^

Fascinating piece.

The question of how we got to this bowl system and why the hell universities continue to go along with it is fodder for a book.

Tater

December 14th, 2011 at 10:45 PM ^

The question of how we got to this bowl system and why the hell universities continue to go along with it is fodder for a book.

It's really quite obvious. The people who are making the decisions are the ones having money stuffed in their pockets by the bowls. Why on earth would they demonstrate a shred of integrity when nobody has forced their hand? It's just not the way things are done at the "higher" levels.

BRCE

December 14th, 2011 at 7:14 PM ^

This article is about a lot more than the bottomfeeder bowls, as the OP put in the title. The image of these rich old boys living it up at the "Fiesta Frolic" and the "Orange Bowl Sun Splash" is sickening, as is the author's believable analysis that presidents won't put a stop to it because their trustees and big donors enjoy the free trip.

 

 

M-Dog

December 14th, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^

It really is something straight out of the 1950's.  Backroom good 'ole boys taking care of themselves and their cronies at others' expense. 

You did not think that stuff like this still went on, or at least the stuff like this that does still go on is kept hidden. 

MGlobules

December 14th, 2011 at 7:41 PM ^

They're losing me. 

My wife teaches at FSU. Shortly after we arrived in Tallahassee, a very nice town, she was asked to screw the lightbulb out of her office ceiling to save the school money on electricity. (Later she relinquished her TELEPHONE, too.) The same week Bobby Bowden, who had done nothing but leave a flatulent stream of loserly decrepitude around him for several years, got a 1 million dollar raise, quid pro quo, it turned out, for an eventual departure he couldn't keep his end of the bargain for.

I've just never had the stomach to go to Bryant-Denny for the Seminoles. 

Brian will love this sentence: "For middling squads like the Gophers, it was nothing more than a way for the men in funny yellow blazers who ran the Insight to grab piles of money from a public university."

SalvatoreQuattro

December 14th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^

few had heard of to an institution with a national profile. He made that schools tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. I am not arguing that he should have received the bonus, but merely pointing out that Bowden did do quite a bit for the university.

 

What this article and pretty much everyone who discusses college football ignores, is the fact that the programs are public relations tools. They are vehicles to sell the universities.  Yost understood that which is why he constructed a 85,000 seat stadium in 1927 when college football was still a middling sport in terms of popularity. 

 

Intercollegiate athletics has always been as much about the selling of schools as it is about the spirit of competition. By having teams compete on the field of play wearing the schools colors, universities intended to develop a sense of community among its students, faculty, and alumni. That bond would, they hope, benefit them down the line financially. It is a naive, silly person who thinks that the influence of money  in intercollegiate athletics is a recent phenomenon.

 

 

MGlobules

December 15th, 2011 at 8:35 AM ^

WAS a recent phenomenon. I am THAT naive. Your tone's a little pedantic, no? 

The question is whether FSU might be something more or better if it drew real support for its academic programs from something other than a *****-thumping troglodyte like Bobby. It was time for him to go. FSU is, happily, on a new track--there is no longer a football player in the presidency, either, and that is all to the good.

As the article above (which you might care to read) suggests, this sports-as-p.r. approach happens to work for 20 of the 120-some-odd institutions where it prevails. And when you football factory sputters, the whole institution looks like it's doing the same.

Michigan's the rare institution that can appear to be above all this, but I speak from experience when I tell you it does not. 

The tone of your post suggests we might differ on this, and that's okay. When "PR" is done hollowing out and killing America, let us all know. 

SalvatoreQuattro

December 15th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^

There are plenty of programs that exist simply because they help the school to recruit certain groups to the university. Proponents of said programs will argue the inestimable value of these programs, but one would be hard pressed to find careers that persons with said degrees can fill. This in part explains the difficulty for many college graduates to find jobs. The degrees they have do not offer them the skills they need to succeed in this country.

Sports as a public relations tool works for all schools, regardless if the programs generate a profit. it is not about profit, but about attention. Attention for the school. Who would have heard of a small Catholic school in northern  Indiana if not for Knute Rockne? It just so happens that at 20 schools their PR tools are able to generate a profit as well.

Public relations are not "hollowing out and killing America." That is rubbish. It is a concern for PR that drives companies and universities to embrace diversity policies and which  forces companies to alter unpopular policies. Public relations is an integral part of America.

What is killing America is the inability of people to accept the fact that the problem is not capitalism or socialism, but people. The sooner people realize that it is people(as religion long ago recognized) who need to change and not inanimate economic and political edifices, the sooner we can start to heal what is wrong with our society.

BlueDragon

December 14th, 2011 at 7:40 PM ^

Previously I had believed that bowl executives collected huge paychecks for opening up stadiums for one game a year. Now I see that they also wine and dine coaches, athletic directors, and local politicans, in addition to creating huge guaranteed expenses for teams with gluts of tickets, expensive lodging, and extended stays in the bowl city. This nonsense has to stop especially in an age of belt-tightening and economic weakness. How long can schools afford to keep hemorrhaging money to keep everyone fat and happy?

Mr. Delaney, tear down this facade!

ccdevi

December 14th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^

None of this really bothers me. I have no problem with boosters, coaches, administrators, etc getting a boondoggle that's effectively paid for by the schools, lots of businesses do that. And if you're going to lose so much money, don't go, no one is forcing Minn to play in the Insight bowl, although I'll tell you a trip to Arizona in the winter sounds pretty good to me if I live in Minn or Iowa. I'm certainly thrilled to be going to Nola. I certainly wouldn't call any of this sickening or corrupt, the deal is there for everyone to see, if colleges want to pay the bowls in return for what they get so be it. If they don't then don't.

WolvinLA2

December 14th, 2011 at 8:03 PM ^

I agree with this.  Going to bowls is a big deal for a school.  No player or coach says "Let's strive to be a bowl team this year because of the financial benefit to our athletic department."  Sometimes schools don't make money on bowls.  So what?  It's a great experience for the team and the fans, it adds to the history of the programs and is an opportunity to play an additional game on a national stage.  It's almost like advertising.  UCLA actually requested a waiver to make them bowl eligible even though their record was below .500 after the Pac-12 champ game  If it wasn't worth it, the teams wouldn't accept the invite.  But they almost always do, so I don't see why we should feel so sorry for these teams

Asgardian

December 14th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^

Which it likely may be, but it really is hard to get a concrete sense of it without "showing us the books".

But anyway, if this is true the one person you can expect to be totally in favor of shaking things up will be our new AD overlord, Dave Brandon.

Say what you will about his other shortcomings, but I don't think anyone can dispute that he is well equipped to make sure we are not wasting serious opportunities to generate revenue.

jmblue

December 14th, 2011 at 8:09 PM ^

While I don't necessarily disagree with the author's point, Minnesota is a bizarre example to highlight.  The Gophers won't be making any playoff setup anytime soon.  In the future, middling teams like that will probably still be going to bowls while the top 12 or whatever are in the playoffs.

SFBlue

December 14th, 2011 at 9:10 PM ^

His unstated assumptions are that (1) the playoff system will be independent of the bowls, and (2) the schools will share revenue with their conferences from the playoffs. 

If this is true, the revenue from the television rights (as well as ticket revenues, etc.) will go directly to the schools, rather than to the bowls, which currently give the conferences only a "cut." 

mtlcarcajou

December 14th, 2011 at 10:10 PM ^

if that were proposed by the schools. Those ol boys would be kicking and screaming.

While I am all for the traditional value of the bowls - honestly when we are in Pasadena and all eyes are on us, it has to be doing wonders for the school - I have a real problem with fostering the expenses of things like unsold tickets to students; or the rigged hotel accomodations; or, worst of all, the shameless blathering about being a charity.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere. It'd be interesting to see if the B1G champ makes a profit (w/o the conference 'bailout') on the Rose.

SFBlue

December 15th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^

Right, it's the "in terrorem" impact that would be most helpful: make the bowls think the schools would be willing to jettison the bowls, and do their own playoff.  The schools then could negotiate more favorable terms (like splitting the losses on unsold tickets, fewer mandatory hotel tie-ins, other modest changes).  I'd rather travel to Pasadena, Tempe, New Orleans, or Miami, than to Stillwater, Baton Rouge, or even Ann Arbor, for that matter, to see Michigan in the post-season.  

A play-off system in the context of bowls makes the most sense from a fan's perspective, but the way things are structured, schools lose out on millions in opportunity costs, even if they are technically in the black after BCS money from the conferences is factored in. 

M-Dog

December 14th, 2011 at 11:17 PM ^

Why can't the schools, via the NCAA or not, conduct bowl games themselves and cut out the obese middle-man?  They already do it for March Madness.

The Bowls don't own the stadiums.  Why not just lease stadiums in warm weather locations and hold the bowls directly?  

Why is it necessary to skim millions off the top to give to bowl executives making half a million dollars a year?  What do they do to earn that kind of money?  (BTW, where can I get one of those jobs?)  

mgowill

December 15th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^

I remain blissfully ignorant on many issues, this would be one of them.  I don't feel the urge to watch the burger guy make my sandwich.  I don't want to see the profit that a car dealer makes.  I also do not feel the need to read this article because I enjoy watching Bowl Games.  Do I get my burger spit on?  Possibly.  Did I pay too much for my car?  Certainly.  Is some grease wad taking advantage of a flawed system?  Undoubtedly.

I will cheer for my team on January 3rd and be happy when they win.

mikoyan

December 15th, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^

Now that I've had a chance to read this, I guess it's probably a good thing that EMU didn't make a bowl game.  I can't imagine that the MAC would be able to make up for the losses that EMU would incur by going to a bowl game.  Nor can I imagine that the Regents would be too pleased with making up the shortfall....