From the article with link:
Relief appears on the way for UCF as it deals with lagging Fiesta Bowl ticket sales.
The American Athletic Conference has a contractual provision to help offset a portion of unsold tickets for its bowl-eligible teams, according to two league sources. The AAC can use this provision on the Knights, who stand to use an estimated $2 million for its appearance in the Jan. 1 game against Baylor.
The Knights have had discussions with the American Athletic Conference about the funds, according to a UCF spokesman. UCF returned 10,000 of its 17,500 allotment, according to the Orlando Sentinel. UCF gets a portion of the American's BCS payout for its role in the Fiesta Bowl, as do other member schools. The Knights pay for travel expenses.
The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment. Rutgers sold out its Pinstripe Bowl allotment, Louisville sold most of its Russell Athletic share and Cincinnati hit the 50 percent mark for the Belk Bowl. Houston plays Vanderbilt in the BBVA Compass Bowl on Jan. 4.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...cket-sales
As any conference should....
Pretty much my guess all along. It just makes sense.
They will likely cover the distance to 1/2 of the tix. So we likely still will lose a bit over 1 mil.
(01-01-2014 08:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]They will likely cover the distance to 1/2 of the tix. So we likely still will lose a bit over 1 mil.
Really that's ok. 1mil for the national exposure is cheap imo. I just hope we don't get exposed.
(01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
(01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
These bowl games should be treated as any business venture. All expenses should be paid first---then any leftover money should be split among all members. That's not welfare. Welfare is giving teams a split of bowl income for NOT making a bowl while forcing teams that DO make bowls to bear the entire expense related to generating the bowl income. Welfare is getting bowl money for going 3-9 while a conference member loses 2 million dollars for going 11-1. Basically in business, there is no profit for partners to split until the expenses have been paid. Bowl income should be treated the same way.
(01-01-2014 11:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
These bowl games should be treated as any business venture. All expenses should be paid first---then any leftover money should be split among all members. That's not welfare. Welfare is giving teams a split of bowl income for NOT making a bowl while forcing teams that DO make bowls to bear the entire expense related to generating the bowl income. Welfare is getting bowl money for going 3-9 while a conference member loses 2 million dollars for going 11-1. Basically in business, there is no profit for partners to split until the expenses have been paid. Bowl income should be treated the same way.
I like the idea of pooling all revenue and paying all expenses then splitting whatever is left, but with two caveats:
1) Expenses should vary based on travel distance and the cost of the host city (e.g., USF gets very little for 'traveling' to St Pete for the Beefy Bowl; UConn much more for traveling to high-cost, long-distance Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl).
2) But, Expenses MUST be capped at a certain amount in advance. It can't be "each school spends whatever it wants, then sends the conference the bill" because we can't afford anything like that. Each school that gets a bowl bid is immediately told how much it will get for expenses, and then it has to plan its travel accordingly.
Finally, you are for the most part wrong saying schools that don't make bowls are getting a welfare subsidy when they get a cut of bowl money, because the schools that make the bowl games did not really 'generate' that money. We have tie-ins with those bowls, and so if school X doesn't play in the BBVA Compass Bowl, then school Y will. Yes, you do have to go 6-6 to qualify, but given the nature of the conference schedule, and the limited number of ties we have, that is essentially a sure thing. It just isn't possible for all AAC schools to go 4-8. It's a given that at least 4 or 5 will always win 6 games, especially with the soft OOC scheduling. Maybe the very last 6-6 team that scrapes into a bowl game really did add marginal value to the conference by making a bowl that we otherwise didn't expect to play in, but that is pocket change anyway.
(01-01-2014 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 11:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
These bowl games should be treated as any business venture. All expenses should be paid first---then any leftover money should be split among all members. That's not welfare. Welfare is giving teams a split of bowl income for NOT making a bowl while forcing teams that DO make bowls to bear the entire expense related to generating the bowl income. Welfare is getting bowl money for going 3-9 while a conference member loses 2 million dollars for going 11-1. Basically in business, there is no profit for partners to split until the expenses have been paid. Bowl income should be treated the same way.
I like the idea of pooling all revenue and paying all expenses then splitting whatever is left, but with two caveats:
1) Expenses should vary based on travel distance and the cost of the host city (e.g., USF gets very little for 'traveling' to St Pete for the Beefy Bowl; UConn much more for traveling to high-cost, long-distance Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl).
2) But, Expenses MUST be capped at a certain amount in advance. It can't be "each school spends whatever it wants, then sends the conference the bill" because we can't afford anything like that. Each school that gets a bowl bid is immediately told how much it will get for expenses, and then it has to plan its travel accordingly.
Finally, you are for the most part wrong saying schools that don't make bowls are getting a welfare subsidy when they get a cut of bowl money, because the schools that make the bowl games did not really 'generate' that money. We have tie-ins with those bowls, and so if school X doesn't play in the BBVA Compass Bowl, then school Y will. Yes, you do have to go 6-6 to qualify, but given the nature of the conference schedule, and the limited number of ties we have, that is essentially a sure thing. It just isn't possible for all AAC schools to go 4-8. It's a given that at least 4 or 5 will always win 6 games, especially with the soft OOC scheduling. Maybe the very last 6-6 team that scrapes into a bowl game really did add marginal value to the conference by making a bowl that we otherwise didn't expect to play in, but that is pocket change anyway.
It is welfare in the sense that there are very real and extensive expenses related to the generation of this income. If a team is losing 2 million playing in a game while conference teams that don't play in bowls are profiting (with no expenses) then that is the very definition of welfare. It is effectively a transfer of income from one school to the other schools. Look, I am all for sharing the wealth in an equal manner---I just think that the wealth that is shared should be the net result after the expenses required to generate that wealth have all been paid. I also agree with you that expenses should be limited. We should be covering legitimate reasonable expenses, but the league should not subsidize extravagant expenses.
As a side note--I am hoping that many unreasonable expenses for our future bowl lineup have been reduced. I'm hoping we find that things like ticket allotments and hotel occupancy requirements for our bowls have been reduced beginning in 2014.
(01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
The moral hazard is the Fiesta Bowl selling poor tickets and packages at inflated prices during a sluggest economy.
(01-01-2014 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 11:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 07:17 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]The exact relief amount is uncertain, but a league athletic director says the formula, proposed by USF AD Doug Woolard in the spring, is designed to help all bowl-eligible league teams that don't sell half their ticket allotment.
Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
These bowl games should be treated as any business venture. All expenses should be paid first---then any leftover money should be split among all members. That's not welfare. Welfare is giving teams a split of bowl income for NOT making a bowl while forcing teams that DO make bowls to bear the entire expense related to generating the bowl income. Welfare is getting bowl money for going 3-9 while a conference member loses 2 million dollars for going 11-1. Basically in business, there is no profit for partners to split until the expenses have been paid. Bowl income should be treated the same way.
I like the idea of pooling all revenue and paying all expenses then splitting whatever is left, but with two caveats:
1) Expenses should vary based on travel distance and the cost of the host city (e.g., USF gets very little for 'traveling' to St Pete for the Beefy Bowl; UConn much more for traveling to high-cost, long-distance Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl).
2) But, Expenses MUST be capped at a certain amount in advance. It can't be "each school spends whatever it wants, then sends the conference the bill" because we can't afford anything like that. Each school that gets a bowl bid is immediately told how much it will get for expenses, and then it has to plan its travel accordingly.
Finally, you are for the most part wrong saying schools that don't make bowls are getting a welfare subsidy when they get a cut of bowl money, because the schools that make the bowl games did not really 'generate' that money. We have tie-ins with those bowls, and so if school X doesn't play in the BBVA Compass Bowl, then school Y will. Yes, you do have to go 6-6 to qualify, but given the nature of the conference schedule, and the limited number of ties we have, that is essentially a sure thing. It just isn't possible for all AAC schools to go 4-8. It's a given that at least 4 or 5 will always win 6 games, especially with the soft OOC scheduling. Maybe the very last 6-6 team that scrapes into a bowl game really did add marginal value to the conference by making a bowl that we otherwise didn't expect to play in, but that is pocket change anyway.
It is welfare in the sense that there are very real and extensive expenses related to the generation of this income. If a team is losing 2 million playing in a game while conference teams that don't play in bowls are profiting (with no expenses) then that is the very definition of welfare. It is effectively a transfer of income from one school to the other schools. Look, I am all for sharing the wealth in an equal manner---I just think that the wealth that is shared should be the net result after the expenses required to generate that wealth have all been paid. I also agree with you that expenses should be limited. We should be covering legitimate reasonable expenses, but the league should not subsidize extravagant expenses.
Sounds like we are basically in agreement.
(01-01-2014 07:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 12:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 11:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2014 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Talk about creating a moral hazard: Why push hard to sell half your tickets if you know you can get welfare subsidies from the conference?
And where is this money coming from? It's not like the AAC has millions lying around.
I'm embarrassed that it was our AD that proposed this boondoggle.
These bowl games should be treated as any business venture. All expenses should be paid first---then any leftover money should be split among all members. That's not welfare. Welfare is giving teams a split of bowl income for NOT making a bowl while forcing teams that DO make bowls to bear the entire expense related to generating the bowl income. Welfare is getting bowl money for going 3-9 while a conference member loses 2 million dollars for going 11-1. Basically in business, there is no profit for partners to split until the expenses have been paid. Bowl income should be treated the same way.
I like the idea of pooling all revenue and paying all expenses then splitting whatever is left, but with two caveats:
1) Expenses should vary based on travel distance and the cost of the host city (e.g., USF gets very little for 'traveling' to St Pete for the Beefy Bowl; UConn much more for traveling to high-cost, long-distance Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl).
2) But, Expenses MUST be capped at a certain amount in advance. It can't be "each school spends whatever it wants, then sends the conference the bill" because we can't afford anything like that. Each school that gets a bowl bid is immediately told how much it will get for expenses, and then it has to plan its travel accordingly.
Finally, you are for the most part wrong saying schools that don't make bowls are getting a welfare subsidy when they get a cut of bowl money, because the schools that make the bowl games did not really 'generate' that money. We have tie-ins with those bowls, and so if school X doesn't play in the BBVA Compass Bowl, then school Y will. Yes, you do have to go 6-6 to qualify, but given the nature of the conference schedule, and the limited number of ties we have, that is essentially a sure thing. It just isn't possible for all AAC schools to go 4-8. It's a given that at least 4 or 5 will always win 6 games, especially with the soft OOC scheduling. Maybe the very last 6-6 team that scrapes into a bowl game really did add marginal value to the conference by making a bowl that we otherwise didn't expect to play in, but that is pocket change anyway.
It is welfare in the sense that there are very real and extensive expenses related to the generation of this income. If a team is losing 2 million playing in a game while conference teams that don't play in bowls are profiting (with no expenses) then that is the very definition of welfare. It is effectively a transfer of income from one school to the other schools. Look, I am all for sharing the wealth in an equal manner---I just think that the wealth that is shared should be the net result after the expenses required to generate that wealth have all been paid. I also agree with you that expenses should be limited. We should be covering legitimate reasonable expenses, but the league should not subsidize extravagant expenses.
Sounds like we are basically in agreement.
are you still an LSU fan quo, they had a good win today