Michael Scarn

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 PM ^

That's a sunk cost though. It's not as if Mattison wouldn't get paid for that month if Michigan didn't go to a bowl. BCS win bonuses, on the other hand, likely greatly outweigh the small profit. I think Hoke's contract included something around 75k or maybe even 6 figures for winning a BCS bowl.

All_In_For_Michigan

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:03 PM ^

I personally think the article's headline is a bit misleading because the "profit" was on Michigan's expense allowance for the game, and does not include Michigan's share of the remaining bowl revenue for the Sugar Bowl and other bowls.  Unless the conference had to pay more in unused tickets than it received for its bowl bids, Michigan should still pocket a nice chunk of change from its share of the remainder.

Noleverine

May 22nd, 2012 at 10:50 PM ^

He didn't say anything about any figures for any other schools. How many tickets did Wisconsin fail to sell? Why not give us a reference point before saying that Michigan cost the Big Ten all of this money.

Doc Brown

May 23rd, 2012 at 6:53 AM ^

Completely agree. Even though I went to the game, it would have been nice to spend one more day in New Orleans and not have to sprint back to Ann Arbor. I know a lot of people who chose to not attend because of school or work.

Tater

May 23rd, 2012 at 8:20 PM ^

They are going to get shares from everyone else's bowl games, too. Also, the band, cheerleaders, and "school officials" all got free trips to a bowl game, including food and lodging.

I think Michigan did just fine here. But I'll bet the Sugar Bowl did a lot better.

MSHOT92

May 23rd, 2012 at 8:37 PM ^

what cannot be managed or made in financials...can be made up in recruiting value. What does a 17-18 year old football player think seeing a return to BCS victory for a historic program like Michigan? I'd guess the current list of commits and the future of sales/bowls/recruits is more than money can buy. I'm good with it.