BCS Teams Expected to Lose Money This Year
Over on Dr. Saturday he runs down some of the expenses for just the bands and it is ridiculous. The current system is broken and it seems few make some cash while the rest just get the "priveledge" of playing in the games at a cost.
Alabama/LSU:
• I guess it really is the "Million Dollar Band." Speaking of the current format: Alabama and LSU are expected to spend close to $1 million between them just to get their marching bands to the BCS Championship Game, a significant chunk of it due to colossal ticket prices. For its band, LSU is ponying up $185,150 to buy 529 tickets for $350 apiece — the highest face-value cost for a BCS ticket, due to the primo location near the field. Alabama's band will need approximately ten more seats, bringing its tab for tickets alone to $188,650.
"We want the band there, but they take up 500 tickets. We have to buy those tickets, and tickets for this game are unbelievably expensive," said LSU athletic director Joe Alleva, who told the Baton Rouge Advocate that the university has budgeted a little over $2 million to cover all expenses related to the game. "If we spend more [than their share of the payout from the SEC], it's our fault. If we spend less, we make money. But in a lot of bowl games, it's a losing deal."
Clemson:
• See also… Clemson, which expects to lose $185,000 on its trip to the Orange Bowl. The two major expenses? Tickets ($390,070) and lodging ($576,696), both purchased at face value as part of the university's contract with the bowl game, whether it's able to sell them or not. (Hint: It's not.) As of late last week, Clemson had sold roughly half of its 17,500 tickets from the Orange Bowl, and will have to pick up the tab for the rest.
"There is a perception problem; it's not a windfall," said athletic director Terry Don Phillips after Clemson cleared a whopping $26,986 from last year's trip to the Meineke Car Care Bwol. "You just want to be able to break even. Sometimes you don't even break even. But there are significant benefits. You get some extra practice time. And anytime you can get on national television, it continues exposure for your program, which is very significant value."
December 26th, 2011 at 5:50 PM ^
expenses include the 6 digit salaries for douchebags in blazers. take that out and they all make money.
December 26th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^
Great response. Except for the avalanche of useless overhead we are a break even. Would you operate your company at a "break even" if you could pay you and your buddies 6 digit salaries to do nothing?
I'd tell my banker with ideas to grow, make capital investments and increase profitibility to jump in a lake if I could run my business like that. No thanks we're fine.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
I would be really interested to hear DB's take on this issue. Given his number one priority ($$$), if Michigan were to lose money on a regular basis I think he would be leading the charge for reforming the system. A previous poster made a great point about the on-line secondary ticket market, basically making the model upon which the bowl system is built obsolete. Any fan for whom money is a consideration will never buy the full-price package from the university (unless it is the NC game) given the availability of tix secondarily at a fraction of the price.
December 26th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
Bowl tickets should be a charitable donation. I paid face for tickest from mgoblue that will have about 1/10th of the value I paid by kickoff. I don't have a problem buying tickets from Michigan because I see it as a donation to the University but would love the writeoff (ehich is not happening)
I'm looking on the seconary market to upgrade my tickets at a fraction of the cost of what I have paid. Since I'm going anyway I'd like decent seats!
December 26th, 2011 at 7:26 PM ^
Are split between the 12 conference teams, shouldn't losses?
December 26th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^
So horrible for all these people. There are children starving all over the world. Boo hoo to all of this. Its pathetic. I feel bad for all these schools and people who eat 3 meals a day, have clothes on their back and a roof over there head.
December 27th, 2011 at 12:03 AM ^
So if a subject doesn't somehow trump world hunger it's "pathetic"? You must lead a very quiet life.
December 26th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^
this conversation is over
December 26th, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^
I have a problem with these Clemson numbers:
This year, Clemson will receive a $1.75 million bowl allowance from the Atlantic Coast Conference, but the program will incur more than $1.91 million in expenses
Why would Clemson receive only $1.75 million? The Orange Bowl pays out $17.5M; the Sugar Bowl does too; and the other ACC bowls combined also pay roughly that much. By my count there's over $4 million to go around among the 12 ACC teams. The paper claims they're receiving less than half that but I'd like to know how their numbers come about because it doesn't add up. What happened to the rest of the money? The ACC doesn't just snarf it all and hide it.
December 26th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
seem reasonable in this Scout.com thread. Clemson is indeed doing much better than $1.75 when you look at the whole pot of money they'll get from all the ACC bowl revenue and the special amount to help cover their BCS bowl expenses (which may be all that the author above looked at). Somewhere in the $6M range for Clemson - I think the band can afford to sit in the stadium.
December 27th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^
Good link. It actually comes down to a little over 4 million per the thread (because I think you're adding the ACC's expense allocation twice.)
I have no idea where the writer of the article got his numbers, but I think it's safe to say they don't include the expense allocation, for one. My theory: an incorrect notion of what the Orange Bowl payout is, plus the rather egregious error of dividing the Orange payout among the 12 ACC teams and assigning Clemson their 1/12th share, subtracting their bowl expenses from their bowl payout, and then forgetting (accidentally or otherwise) that there are other bowls whose payouts go into the money pot that Clemson also gets a share of.
By the way, here is another fact ignored by the article: When ACC teams hit the 8,000 mark of tickets sold, the ACC steps in and eats the cost of the rest. Essentially what happens is the cost of all the unsold tickets is spread among the 12 ACC teams and it comes out of the payout. Clemson is supposedly on the hook for about $400,000 for that but the truth is that it will likely only be a little more than half that.
And for a minute here, let's pretend that the article is 100% correct and Clemson will pay $185,000 to go to the Orange Bowl. Well shit: teams pay $500,000 to play Toledo. $185,000 to go to a nationally televised bowl game sounds like a pretty fricking good investment, in that light.
I hate to conspiracize this up, but it's obvious the media has an agenda to get a playoff going, and therefore it raises the specter of tainted articles in order to change public perception. "Teams lose money going to the bowls" is a popular theme these days.