FSU takes short-term hit, but expects long-term payoff from BCS title game

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20140...title-game


Florida State’s trip to the 2014 BCS National Championship Game wasn’t cheap — it cost the Seminoles $2.82 million and left the athletics department with an initial loss of nearly $500,000 — but the university expects to see a net profit when all is said and done, according to documents released Monday afternoon.

How in the world can teams afford 2 postseason games in the future?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

That crystal ball must be worth a ton of money.

1. Auburn spent more.

2. It's bullsh*t that UVA will make more ACC revenue from football - despite going 2-10 - because they don't have to pay for travel/lodging expenses that bowl teams have to pay for. ACC needs to fix that sh*t.

(04-21-2014 05:53 PM)goofus Wrote:  How in the world can teams afford 2 postseason games in the future?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

According to the article, they were given $2.15 million to cover expenses. That seems reasonable and should be enough for most schools. It's the less prestigious bowls that pay out less money and the lower budget conferences and schools that I would worry about.

(04-25-2014 09:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. Auburn spent more.

2. It's bullsh*t that UVA will make more ACC revenue from football - despite going 2-10 - because they don't have to pay for travel/lodging expenses that bowl teams have to pay for. ACC needs to fix that sh*t.

You keep talking about UVA's football "revenue" being larger than FSU's but I don't think you know what that term means.

If FSU hadn't sent half of Tallahassee on their own dime they would have made money. The athletic department decided it was worth the expense. You seem to be the only one upset by it.

(04-25-2014 11:45 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. Auburn spent more.

2. It's bullsh*t that UVA will make more ACC revenue from football - despite going 2-10 - because they don't have to pay for travel/lodging expenses that bowl teams have to pay for. ACC needs to fix that sh*t.

You keep talking about UVA's football "revenue" being larger than FSU's but I don't think you know what that term means.

If FSU hadn't sent half of Tallahassee on their own dime they would have made money. The athletic department decided it was worth the expense. You seem to be the only one upset by it.

I'd say I'm more amused by it than upset, but he's right.

This is on FBS football, though, doing business with the bowl cartel in any kind of scheme. The bowls make the money, and the programs staying at home who benefit from shares make money...the teams that go get the opportunity to further recruiting endeavors and play their crappy little ad. It's a question of balance, but if it's not one of the majors, I question whether it's worth it at all. Even for the kids.

Of course FSU will net a ton of money.

Donations to both the athletic department and to the university general fund will skyrocket. The increase will be at least an order of magnitude more than their paper loss for the title game.

FSU should have just declined the bowl invitation. Is a national title really worth the debt?

This system is broken, they really need to do something about it but won't. Why? Because the people that actually can change the system are the ones that profit from it.

(04-26-2014 03:10 PM)Guardian Wrote:  This system is broken, they really need to do something about it but won't. Why? Because the people that actually can change the system are the ones that profit from it.

They think they really profit from it. When students have to pay three times into sports (tuition, activities/fees, and tickets) to enjoy them, I question if even the best programs are running a good operation. Profitable, potentially; efficient, not even close.

Sad thing is, they can "afford" to be reckless, because they can fall back on their tax-exempt status as an excuse, as well as other PR shtick. It's on the citizens of the state to really force the change. Take it to the local reps in state legislation to force schools to be better in how they run this stuff. I doubt it's doing any good...I mean, it's not like it's solving tuition rate hikes or other issues.

(04-25-2014 11:45 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. Auburn spent more.

2. It's bullsh*t that UVA will make more ACC revenue from football - despite going 2-10 - because they don't have to pay for travel/lodging expenses that bowl teams have to pay for. ACC needs to fix that sh*t.

You keep talking about UVA's football "revenue" being larger than FSU's but I don't think you know what that term means.

If FSU hadn't sent half of Tallahassee on their own dime they would have made money. The athletic department decided it was worth the expense. You seem to be the only one upset by it.

That's nice and all....BUT:

1. FSU spent less than Auburn by several hundred thousand dollars.

2. Auburn had been to a national title game much more recently and, therefore, had every reason to send less people and spend less money than FSU.

So . You lose.

Because it seems this debate happens every year:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/teams-in-...1494130032