Ohio still gets 2012 bowl revenue...

Submitted by bigmc6000 on January 13th, 2012 at 12:51 PM

So despite being banned from playing in a bowl game next year Ohio is still going to get their share of the B1G bowl pot.  I guess it's not *THAT* big of a deal but I still think that's stupid. If you're banned from going to a bowl game I think the money should be split amongst the rest of the schools - you shouldn't get a massive financial windfall becasue you broke the rules!

 

View article...

 

Also, where in the world are they coming up with 400k???  As noted by Blue In Seattle just over a month ago the average payout per member school from the bowls is over 2.5M!

 

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/big-ten-bowl-payout

"Total Bowl Payout: $47,200,000 ($47.2M)
Total Travel Expenses borne by Big 10: $15,550,000 ($15.55M)
Big 10 profit after expenses: $31,650,000 ($31.65M)

Big Ten splits revenue equally amongst all its member schools (except new member Nebraska, which is subject to terms of a financial integration plan the conference will not disclose)

Thus:
$31,650,000 divided by 12 = a minimum of $2,637,500 per school (approximate, and best-case-scenario number gleaned from assuming that Nebraska will get an equal cut, which it will not.)"

*Edited for verbiage

Comments

jblaze

January 13th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^

.500 and more likely only lose 3-4 games max, so they will be a top 5 B10 team. This means that other B10 schools will not make it to a bowl game, so all B10 teams get less revenue, since less teams go to Bowl games.

This means that all other B10 teams are punished, except for Ohio.

Also, considering that they get the revenue, but have no expense, they make a much larger profit.

Therefore, cheating = more money, all around.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 13th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^

OSU would likely bring in a healthly amount of money if they went to a bowl.  That would increase the Big Ten pool.  OSU would therefore make more money, as they get a part of that pool.  So OSU is punished from a financial standpoint too - and that doesn't even consider the practices that they lose, which will likely decrease the success of their team and therefore decrease the amount of money that they make (however much) over the long haul. 

I undertand that they'll have bowl expenses, but I don't see how they're making money by cheating. 

 

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^

They wouldn't get a BCS slot for the non champion they aren't actually adding anything to the pot at all. We already have all our partnerships and by them beating teams that will likely end up 5-7 they are just replacing them in the bowl slot but they can't go so they are costing the conference money but still get the benefit.

 

Now, if they got into a BCS game as an at-large then, yes, the conference would benefit but the bowl revenue that Ohio would receive becasue of this is less than the check they are going to get by not going at all.

 

Maybe Brian can chime in on this since he's got all the numbers for bowls and their costs/payouts.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 13th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^

The whole conference  - including OSU - loses money if OSU knocks a bunch teams out of contention for bowls (makes them 5-7) and therefore costs the Big Ten a bowl team.   ThaSo

The whole conference also potentially loses money, as you say, by not having the chance for OSU to go to a BCS bowl as a non-champion (as they did in 2010). 

It could also be, as you say, that OSU neither costs the Big Ten a bowl team nor is good enough to merit an at large bid in the BCS. 

Two of the three above possible scenarios involve OSU losing money.  The other involves them not hurting the conference and instead just being a bowl free-loader for one year like Indiana is most years.  So how are they making money by cheating?

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^

2 of the 3 involve them making money not losing money.

 

You don't actually make any money going to a bowl game until the conference splits up all the revenue (see all the hoopla about Clemson losing money but actually still making money).  If Clemson had lost to VT and declined a bowl game they would have saved all the travel costs and still get the same slice of the pie as they got anyway.

 

But, again, I have no idea how they are sitting on that 400k figure as the bowl payout from the Rose alone amounts to more than that per member school.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 13th, 2012 at 4:01 PM ^

As you say, the ACC still would have lost money by not having a 2nd BCS team, so Clemson would have lost money, and my overall point stands.  OSU loses money two of the three ways...Again, how is OSU making money by not going to a bowl?  It will either be revenue-neutral or it will hurt their revenue.  As noted below, they won't have travel expenses but they also won't be reimbursed for travel expenses.  There is no gain for them.

Doctor Wolverine

January 13th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

They actually will come out ahead financially. There will be a little less going into the pot as noted, but they will also not have the huge expenses associated with traveling to the bowl game (flights, hotels, food, etc for the team, coaches, band and so on). Don't get me wrong, I do not envy them, but financially the bowl ban will not hurt them.

Erik_in_Dayton

January 13th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^

Going to a bowl is about a lot more than the direct monetary payoff.  It raises (or keeps raised) the profile of your school/team and gives you extra practices...It's not like being suspended with pay because (presumably) you don't want to work.  A college football team wants to go to a bowl. 

BigBlue02

January 13th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^

Do you know how many BCS bowl games OSU has been to since it's inception? They definitely aren't upset because they won't get enough exposure.

I also don't think you really get the situation. They aren't going to a bowl game next year because the cheated and lied, not because they aren't good. The only drawback for them is the practices, which aren't as big of a deal when you have a good team full of 5 star talent. You need extra practices when you are not a good team, like Michigan was. When you win 10 games, those 15 extra practices don't really mean much

Erik_in_Dayton

January 13th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

People are seeing this with the tinted glasses of a bunch of homers.  This doesn't completely prove anything, but let me ask you this:  Why do teams want to go to bowls?  If you make out like a bandit not to go to a bowl, why not decline every year?  Because you increase the profile of your school/team, make money, and get the extra practices! 

The practices mean a lot.  You don't think Meyer wants extra practices with Miller to teach him how to run his offense? The bowl game that you go to means a lot every year.  You don't think Meyer wants to talk about how they just played in the Rose Bowl when he's talking to an 18-year old kid who doesn't remember OSU's nationa championship of 2003?  This is absurd.

Two Hearted Ale

January 13th, 2012 at 1:16 PM ^

The punishment was supposed to be against the program but Gene Smith is still getting paid, Orville Reddenbocker is still getting paid, Urban Meyer is still getting paid, I-don't-know-how-many assistant coaches are still getting paid and the program doesn't have to foot the bill for trips to a bowl or possibly the B1G championship game which actually saves them money. Damn, I hate the NCAA.

MSHOT92

January 13th, 2012 at 8:06 PM ^

Minnesota/ et al who are 'non contributors' are still following academic/financial standards...ohio has a list of violations that are EXPOSED which is longer than my arm...if they are banned from a bowl appearance, the TV exposure and extra practices are great, but they should also suffer the financial consequence...if you recall that was part of their self imposed punishment to try and gain leverage against the ncaa...they CHOSE to pay back their bowl share...so they must think it appropriate...right?

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 13th, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^

After seeing how the media figured that Clemson "lost" money on their bowl trip, when really they didn't, I think it throws a lot of those reports in doubt.

I do think that a bowl ban should include ALL aspects of a bowl, though, including not getting a piece of the pie.  It should be mentioned that Ohio did give the Big Ten back its bowl slice from the 2010 season, though.  (I think.)

TTUwolverine

January 13th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^

Since they went to a bowl game this year, they already paid the expenses that this money will help to offset.  Accepting the money helps mitigate their losses, but they probably still won't turn a profit.  Perhaps if they hadn't gone to a bowl game this year that would be the case.  Unless you're talking about Minnesota above, which is entirely possible.

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^

I know the 2012 thing is a bit misleading but it's referencing next years bowl slate when they won't even be allowed to go and, as others have said, they will most likely cost a team a chance to go to a bowl by beating them (hello all you 5-7 teams that lost to Ohio).

triangle_M

January 13th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

Yeah not peeved by this at all.  OSU has been a huge contributor to the B1G bowl cash pool over the past decade.  While I hate Ohio, Minnesota and Indiana have been shamelessly suckling off the B1G largesse for years.  You want to hate on someone under this category, hate on Minny or Indy.

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^

You don't get to 10 wins without beating the Minnesota's and Indiana's of the world.  They may be awful but they serve a purpose.

 

Also, I'd argue they really aren't that big of a contributor.  You don't get the same haul for a second BCS game and the B1G is already guaranteed a spot in the Rose Bowl so at the very most it's the gain of 1 extra BCS game (4.5Mish?) vs the payout of the crappiest bowl we have (400k?)  So, at most, each school saw 300k in yearly benefit of Ohio being a huge contributor.

lhglrkwg

January 13th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^

but then I remembered that the whole conference is just swimming in big piles of money so I think we'll be ok. We're just 12 mcducks swimming in our vault of BTN money

Maize_in_Spartyland

January 13th, 2012 at 1:30 PM ^

I know as much as the next guy that Ohio cheated, we get it.

Unless the rules are changed, Ohio should be able to share in the Big Ten money for bowl games. There are no exceptions for NCAA violations that would prevent that. Don't like the rules? Change them.

Additionally, Ohio's athletic budget is roughly $126 million. Since when is $400,000 a windfall in that size of a budget? Its not even 1% of the budget.

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^

I was pretty certain that each teams bowl money accounted to a few million dollars not 400k.  I mean, the payout for the Rose Bowl split 14 ways (11 for the other teams, 2 shares for the team going and 1 for the conference, right?) is more than 400k.

 

EDIT: I know it says 400k in the article but how is that even possible?  The payout just for the Rose bowl is, what, 17M?  How does that combined with all the other bowl games only end up being 400k?

Maize_in_Spartyland

January 13th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^

I'm not sure how expense money is calculated (whether it is wrapped in the bowl payout or if its separate), so that's a good question.

Teams do make money based on selling bowl apparal as well as selling tickets. Unless you are a top tier team in drawing power, you're selling some tickets, but not enough to turn a substantial profit. Some teams even lose money when selling bowl tickets.

bigmc6000

January 13th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^

This article found by Blue in Seattle just over a month ago says the B1G dishes out 2.6M to each school AFTER they reimburse travel expenses.  How in the world that ends up only being 400k is just confusing...

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/big-ten-bowl-payout

Total Bowl Payout: $47,200,000 ($47.2M)
Total Travel Expenses borne by Big 10: $15,550,000 ($15.55M)
Big 10 profit after expenses: $31,650,000 ($31.65M)

Big Ten splits revenue equally amongst all its member schools (except new member Nebraska, which is subject to terms of a financial integration plan the conference will not disclose)

Thus:
$31,650,000 divided by 12 = a minimum of $2,637,500 per school (approximate, and best-case-scenario number gleaned from assuming that Nebraska will get an equal cut, which it will not.)

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 13th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^

I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Ten mechanism for payout is similar to the ACC.  Here is how the ACC does it:

All the money is pooled together.  The conference then pays an expense allowance to the teams actually going to a bowl.  BCS-bound teams get about 1.7 million, other teams get 1.1 million.  This is to pay for their travel expenses.  (This is also where the Clemson myth began, because it's where the journalist stopped.)  Some of the pool money is then used to offset ticket sales shortfalls for any team that sold 8,000 or more tickets.  After that, the money is divided 12 ways and sent to the schools.

I'm not sure that everything happens exactly in that order on the accounting books, but once you finish the calculations, that's the result.

Reading between the lines in the ESPN article, it sounds like the Big Ten also defrays travel expenses from the payout pool in a similar fashion.

dennisblundon

January 13th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

I think OSU will use next year's bowl money to build a statue of Jim Tressel grabbing his nuts Beatle Juice style. Below the statue the plaque will read "Suck it NCAA,Just Suck it." 

ThWard

January 13th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^

The path to bowl eligibility often leads through tomato cans like IU.  Don't hate on the Hoosiers, they've played an integral role in many B1G teams' bowl eligibility for years now.

BRCE

January 13th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^

MGoBloggers acting butthurt over everything that doesn't harm OSU's program has become very stale. Buckeye fans would surely yuck it up reading this board.

These whiny attitudes were crystalized here the day the sanctions came down. The vast majority of posters in the main thread about it depressingly stated that they expected nothing to happen other than maybe another scholarship or two and some added probation while throwing out conspiracy theories about Mark Emmert and Gordon Gee's relationship. When a bowl ban was announced, there was almost no joy from the crowd that boldly said it had no chance of happening earlier in the day. They were now complaining about it not being enough while still throwing out conspiracy theories about Mark Emmert and Gordon Gee's relationship.

 

 

COB

January 13th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^

besides, all the other B1G teams kept their share of the Sugar Bowl money that OSU made the conference yet that was money gained expressly by playing non-eligible players.  If schools are so uptight about it, they should all give their 2010 BCS 1/2 share back and then cut OSU out of the 2012 bowl money.  Oh right, no one cares.

m1817

January 13th, 2012 at 5:01 PM ^

The only bowl money that the B1G loses by Ohio not going to a bowl is the money from the lowest ranked bowl that a B1G team would normally go to.  All eligible teams move up one slot if Ohio is ineligible.  In most cases, teams going to the lowest ranked bowl, this year being the Little Caesar's Bowl ($750K payout), probably would lose money after expenses.  Since the B1G covers the loss, B1G schools could actually come out ahead financially if Ohio doesn't go to a bowl.