CSNbbs

http://www.dailymail.com/news/Sports/200605258/?pt=15

As always, the devil is in the details.

seems that some of these bowls didn't pay C-USA 750K as we thought the min. is.

See the bit about the N.O. and Hawaii Bowls.

C-USA apparantly handles guarantees and team shares differently then many other conferences.

THIS suggests strongly to me why the MAC is content with 3 bowls. Too many bowls can actually result in NEGATIVE income.

Anyone who is intimately familiar with bowl revenues, expenses, team cut, conference cut, etc. please chime in.

I think the MAC uses a sharing model which distributes the net revenues more evenly across ALL conference teams, not just the bowl participants.

lmfao

I posted the same thing you did at the exact same time. That is weird. Especially considering that that article is a day or so old and could have been posted at any time.

CUSA's problem is that they are sending members outside of the footprint of their league. Central Florida competed in a bowl in Hawaii this past season. Sending a member clean across the continental United States and then the Pacific Ocean is going to cost a crapload of money.

I don't think the problem is having too many bowls, it's having too many bowls in unreasonable geographic configurations to the leagues that have those tie-ins.

Semper Wrote:I don't think the problem is having too many bowls, it's having too many bowls in unreasonable geographic configurations to the leagues that have those tie-ins.

Good point. The same strategy that keep a conference healthy, that is keeping members relatively local, works for the post-season too.

Sure, the Big 10 got a deal w/ the Rose Bowl long ago, but that's the exception, not the rule. (And keep in mind that the other half of that match up was the local conference).