(03-11-2011 01:22 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:19 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I think all of these numbers do not include conference bowl revenue shares. That changes the equation dramatically as it more than makes up for the shortfalls.

We are just talking about revenue and expenses for that bowl game so we are talking apple to apple when it comes to net revenue. OU indeed would have lost just as much as UCONN had B12 not stepped it up. BE simply did not do the same for UCONN.

As the article said, BE commissioner said they will revisit this topic in spring so things could change.

However the biggest revenue item (conference bowl payouts after expenses) are missing from both and when taken into account should put both in the black. Each team only got a travel allowance but thats not what they really get.

Using the Big 12's average allowances + 300 per mile (its the formula that I know and is probably in the ballpark of everyone else) and applying it to the absurd distance of driving Seattle to Miami (you won't get that as I think flying distances are used) and then using that as the travel allowances for each league per game (WAY overstates average allowances as no way multiple teams travel that far) you still end up with the BE distributing 1.5 million each. That almost takes care of the 1.66 million shortfall right there using very high estimates for allowances and using the BE's bowl payouts and this ignores BE bowl money from seasons where UConn stayed home.

If we use the amount I saw for the Big Ten a couple years back (1.56 mil per team) in the same equation the BE shares cover the shortfall due to raking in 1.79 per school.

So the schools come out ahead if they are in a BCS league.

(03-11-2011 01:46 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:22 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:19 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I think all of these numbers do not include conference bowl revenue shares. That changes the equation dramatically as it more than makes up for the shortfalls.

We are just talking about revenue and expenses for that bowl game so we are talking apple to apple when it comes to net revenue. OU indeed would have lost just as much as UCONN had B12 not stepped it up. BE simply did not do the same for UCONN.

As the article said, BE commissioner said they will revisit this topic in spring so things could change.

However the biggest revenue item (conference bowl payouts after expenses) are missing from both and when taken into account should put both in the black. Each team only got a travel allowance but thats not what they really get.

Using the Big 12's average allowances + 300 per mile and applying it to the absurd distance of driving Seattle to Miami (you won't get much longer than that) and then using that as the travel allowances for each league per game (WAY overstates average allowances) you still end up with the BE distributing 1.5 million each. That almost takes care of the 1.66 million shortfall right there using very high estimates for allowances and using the BE's bowl payouts.

If we use the amount I saw for the Big Ten a couple years back (1.56 mil per team) in the same equation the BE shares cover the shortfall due to raking in 1.79 per school.

So the schools come out ahead if they are in a BCS league.

I think the main point of the article is both schools got screwed by the way tickets were distributed and the secondary market. Stubhub tickets going for at 90% off the prices schools were selling is the main reason why tickets sold through both schools suffered. People are not stupid, they will find the best deal if they want to attend the bowl game.

The way things are set up no school gonna make money off those BCS bowls.

(03-11-2011 01:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As the economy worsens, reports of schools not selling their allotments and losing money will become more and more common. This is a big reason why I think the current bowl system will undergo some drastic changes in the near future. It will become a matter of economic necessity...

I agree that the bowl system will undergo changes. However, it could very well end up being even *more* elitist than it is now. Bowl organizers can come to the conclusion that it's not even worth it to provide games for non-AQ conferences and bad-traveling AQ schools. Instead, everything will consolidate around the best traveling conferences like the Big Ten and SEC. Those are the conferences that sell tickets and make the most money for bowls, so why even bother with the "riff raff"?

There's this underlying assumption from fans that "change" means "more equitable". We shouldn't be so sure about that - it could easily go the other way where the system gets smaller and more focused on the biggest moneymakers even more than today.

(03-11-2011 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As the economy worsens, reports of schools not selling their allotments and losing money will become more and more common. This is a big reason why I think the current bowl system will undergo some drastic changes in the near future. It will become a matter of economic necessity...

I agree that the bowl system will undergo changes. However, it could very well end up being even *more* elitist than it is now. Bowl organizers can come to the conclusion that it's not even worth it to provide games for non-AQ conferences and bad-traveling AQ schools. Instead, everything will consolidate around the best traveling conferences like the Big Ten and SEC. Those are the conferences that sell tickets and make the most money for bowls, so why even bother with the "riff raff"?

There's this underlying assumption from fans that "change" means "more equitable". We shouldn't be so sure about that - it could easily go the other way where the system gets smaller and more focused on the biggest moneymakers even more than today.

What you just stated is the main reason this bowl system will blow up. It will not last long the way it is going now.

If Elite teams included OU and they should, then maybe we will have the same 2 teams playing the same BCS bowl every year. What kind of crap is that?

If the bowls want to stick exclusively with the Big Tin and SEC, there is a simple solution for the everyone else. All the rest of the nation has to do is quit playing them, and make their only option to play each other, and nobody else. Then we could setup our own playoff system without the "exclusive club members". I wonder how long they'd last under that...

Before you jump all over this, I realize it will never happen. Very few have the guts and sticktoitiveness for that kind of move. The odds of the entire nation having such intestinal fortitude are electron microscopic...

(03-11-2011 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As the economy worsens, reports of schools not selling their allotments and losing money will become more and more common. This is a big reason why I think the current bowl system will undergo some drastic changes in the near future. It will become a matter of economic necessity...

I agree that the bowl system will undergo changes. However, it could very well end up being even *more* elitist than it is now. Bowl organizers can come to the conclusion that it's not even worth it to provide games for non-AQ conferences and bad-traveling AQ schools. Instead, everything will consolidate around the best traveling conferences like the Big Ten and SEC. Those are the conferences that sell tickets and make the most money for bowls, so why even bother with the "riff raff"?

There's this underlying assumption from fans that "change" means "more equitable". We shouldn't be so sure about that - it could easily go the other way where the system gets smaller and more focused on the biggest moneymakers even more than today.

I've been as outspoken as anybody on here about how unfair the bowl system is to fans of universities. But I honestly believe that there's some creative bookkeeping that's going on here, too. Much like you hear that most movies "lose money" and don't really return any profit, it definitely benefits schools to let the message get out that they didn't make money on bowls. In other words, they'll cry poormouth to their fans to get them (us) to contribute more money, but they still take in more money than they spend. You can bet that they don't count contributions from ticket holders for the right to buy the best seats as part of that income, but schools coming off of a BCS appearance can probably solicit a pretty penny thanks to increased demand for season tickets.

That said, I'm reasonably certain that most bowls make the bulk of their money on TV broadcasting, and that it's still relatively inexpensive for ESPN to foot the bill for the broadcast rights to a game (and its rebroadcast). That's 6-7 hours of programming with advertising in every sports page in America.

USFFan

(03-11-2011 01:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 01:45 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As the economy worsens, reports of schools not selling their allotments and losing money will become more and more common. This is a big reason why I think the current bowl system will undergo some drastic changes in the near future. It will become a matter of economic necessity...

I agree that the bowl system will undergo changes. However, it could very well end up being even *more* elitist than it is now. Bowl organizers can come to the conclusion that it's not even worth it to provide games for non-AQ conferences and bad-traveling AQ schools. Instead, everything will consolidate around the best traveling conferences like the Big Ten and SEC. Those are the conferences that sell tickets and make the most money for bowls, so why even bother with the "riff raff"?

There's this underlying assumption from fans that "change" means "more equitable". We shouldn't be so sure about that - it could easily go the other way where the system gets smaller and more focused on the biggest moneymakers even more than today.

I would think that things would get political if the BCS got more elitist than it is today and locked out an even larger % of 1-A universities from a shot at the national championship. Surely the government would step in and work to amend the problem (or am I being naive?).

(03-11-2011 02:38 PM)uconnbaseball Wrote:  I would think that things would get political if the BCS got more elitist than it is today and locked out an even larger % of 1-A universities from a shot at the national championship. Surely the government would step in and work to amend the problem (or am I being naive?).

The thing with politicians is that the *BCS system* as a monolithic entity is an easy target at a national level. However, it's an entirely different matter to actually punish or start taxing the flagship public universities of their home states at a local level. Oh sure - politicos will publicly moan about wanting a playoff. Those are cheap talking points on TV. It's kind of like saying, "We really need to make this country better for our children!" That's great and all, but how can anyone really disagree with that? The devil is ultimately in the details. For example, if a measure to tax the TV revenue of the BCS conferences comes up to an actual vote, is the Congressional delegation from the state of Alabama seriously going to vote against the interests of the U. of Alabama and Auburn? Are the politicians from West Virginia going to tax WVU so that Marshall can get more money? Are Ohio Senators going to throw tOSU under the bus to help out the MAC schools? We can go through this exercise with every single state with a BCS school (which constitutes a majority of the country).

Now, I agree that the likelihood of the BCS becoming more elitist is unlikely (and why I believe the Big East's BCS bid is always going to be safe as long as they have the only BCS schools located in the Tri-State area) because the AQ schools don't really want to even invite that type of political pressure. I doubt you'll see real changes to the BCS bowls themselves. However, I could certainly see some culling of lower-level bowls (whereby the ones left standing are all geared toward the better traveling schools).

(03-11-2011 02:07 PM)usffan Wrote:  I've been as outspoken as anybody on here about how unfair the bowl system is to fans of universities. But I honestly believe that there's some creative bookkeeping that's going on here, too. Much like you hear that most movies "lose money" and don't really return any profit, it definitely benefits schools to let the message get out that they didn't make money on bowls. In other words, they'll cry poormouth to their fans to get them (us) to contribute more money, but they still take in more money than they spend. You can bet that they don't count contributions from ticket holders for the right to buy the best seats as part of that income, but schools coming off of a BCS appearance can probably solicit a pretty penny thanks to increased demand for season tickets.

That said, I'm reasonably certain that most bowls make the bulk of their money on TV broadcasting, and that it's still relatively inexpensive for ESPN to foot the bill for the broadcast rights to a game (and its rebroadcast). That's 6-7 hours of programming with advertising in every sports page in America.

USFFan

I totally agree. The system overall is making a ton of money for the BCS schools. As I've said, the BCS schools aren't stupid - even with their need for control, they're not going to keep around a system where they're actually losing money at the end of the day. One may use creative accounting to show that there's a technical loss on a particular bowl trip, but rest assured, the BCS schools are better off with the system overall. Remember that UConn got to a collect a bowl check from the BE (including a BCS payout) during those years when it didn't make a bowl at all.

(03-11-2011 03:08 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I totally agree. The system overall is making a ton of money for the BCS schools. As I've said, the BCS schools aren't stupid - even with their need for control, they're not going to keep around a system where they're actually losing money at the end of the day. One may use creative accounting to show that there's a technical loss on a particular bowl trip, but rest assured, the BCS schools are better off with the system overall. Remember that UConn got to a collect a bowl check from the BE (including a BCS payout) during those years when it didn't make a bowl at all.

There was a joke on the UConn board stating that if Paul Pasqualoni finishes 2nd in the conference next year, he should be given a raise...but if we win the conference and go to another BCS Bowl, he should be fired immediately. For example, Temple made a killing during their time in the Big East without devoting much of their welfare towards their football program...I'm glad that none of the current program in the Big East seem to be taking advantage of this aspect of our system and are all attempting to better their programs. With the Big East being in the state that it's in, we need everyone going all out in trying to improve their programs.

For the folks that said Fiesta Bowl between OU and UCONN had low TV ratings.

The truth is it was the 4th HIGHEST RATED overnight TV college game for ESPN in its entire history.

http://blogs.courant.com/uconn_football/...v-rat.html

Quote:The University of Connecticut football game against Oklahoma in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl on New Years' Day generated a 6.7 rating on ESPN, the highest rating of all programs (broadcast or cable) during the night.

The game had the fourth-highest overnight rating for a college football game in the history of ESPN. ESPN's coverage of The Rose Bowl Game Presented by VIZIO, in which future BIG EAST Conference member TCU defeated Wisconsin 21-19, delivered an 11.7, the highest overnight rating (excluding NFL) for ESPN and for all of cable television on record.

For folks like Frank and Quo (USF guy) who like to bash without any clue, those are real TV ratings from UCONN the new comer and future BE member TCU.

BTW, for the folks who actually watched the game, UCONN was in the game until the 4th quarter. Game was a lot closer than the final score.

(03-11-2011 04:42 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  For the folks that said Fiesta Bowl between OU and UCONN had low TV ratings.

The truth is it was the 4th HIGHEST RATED overnight TV college game for ESPN in its entire history.

http://blogs.courant.com/uconn_football/...v-rat.html

Quote:The University of Connecticut football game against Oklahoma in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl on New Years' Day generated a 6.7 rating on ESPN, the highest rating of all programs (broadcast or cable) during the night.

The game had the fourth-highest overnight rating for a college football game in the history of ESPN. ESPN's coverage of The Rose Bowl Game Presented by VIZIO, in which future BIG EAST Conference member TCU defeated Wisconsin 21-19, delivered an 11.7, the highest overnight rating (excluding NFL) for ESPN and for all of cable television on record.

For folks like Frank and Quo (USF guy) who like to bash without any clue, those are real TV ratings from UCONN the new comer and future BE member TCU.

This is also the first year most of the BCS games were on ESPN. You could put Florida Atlantic and Idaho in the Fiesta or Sugar and the game will get better ratings on ESPN than a normal regular season game.

I apologize in advance for throwing a dash of reality into the discussion.