The horse ain't dead yet so . . .

[Jacie]

. . . come here and let me beat on ya some more.

In another thread about bowl games I had the nerve to suggest that the teams were the draw, just like the act at a big music show, and should not have to pay to be there. Rather, if the bowls want teams to show up and make them money they should cover the expenses of said teams whilst they are in town.

At least one person who responded to this wild and crazy idea of mine (who shall remain nameless but who seems to harbor an opinion about virtually everything that is posted at SF and is not shy about sharing it with all) proceeded to tell me that the teams are paid a whole lot of money already and don't need their expenses covered.

Well, let's see how things went for a team that went to the biggest bowl game aka the BCS Championship, and won.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/03/auburn_spent_almost_3_million.html

Auburn spent almost $3 million on BCS title game, but winning helps offset $600,000 shortfall


Published: Friday, March 04, 2011, 8:35 AM
By Charles Goldberg/Auburn Bureau, The Birmingham News, Press-Register, and The Huntsville Times


AUBURN -- Winning a BCS national championship can be costly in travel, but the rewards can more than make up the difference.

Just ask Auburn and Alabama, two schools that spent about $3 million each to travel to the title games the last two years, but cashed in when the SEC wrote each a check for playing in college football's biggest game. Winning those games paid off with added revenues down the line.

Auburn announced Thursday that it spent $2,901,706 for a traveling party of 938 that went to Glendale, Ariz., where the Tigers beat Oregon 22-19 on Jan. 10 for the title. Alabama, which had a traveling party of 857, spent $3,039,715 the year before when it beat Texas for the national title in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.

Auburn and Alabama each received a big check from the SEC after the title game.

Auburn's shortfall for its trip was $614,106 after the SEC reimbursed the school $2,287,600.

Auburn spent considerably less -- $1,363,096 -- when it played in the Outback Bowl in Tampa the year before. The location of the two games is one of the reasons why the cost was different.

"Why did it cost so much? The answer is the distance we had to travel," said Scott Carr, Auburn's senior associate athletic director for external affairs. "You're flying the team, you're flying the staff, you're flying the marching band."

Auburn also needed to purchase 2,456 tickets for staff, the families of the players and coaches, and the band, which needed 500 seats.

Approximately 25 percent of Auburn's expenditures -- $781,825 -- involved tickets it had to buy from its own ticket office. That money went to the BCS. Alabama spent about half that much on its own tickets.

"When you have a ticket that is $300 to $325 apiece, that adds up really quickly when you're doing that many complimentary tickets," Carr said.

Auburn sold its allotment of 17,400 tickets, and Carr said the school could have sold many more.

Carr said Auburn can make up the difference in its shortfall two ways: from the extra money the SEC received for having another team qualify for a BCS game, and from the sale of Auburn's BCS merchandise.

"What is not shown is the dollar amount we're going to make off licensing fees and the sale of merchandise for participating in and winning the national championship. Those will be revenue streams that we're going to see in the next few months to a year," Carr said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So the payout from the bowl still didn't cover what they spent to be there. This is not the exception, this is what happens. Someone is getting fat off of bowl games but it is not the participants.

I say again, without the teams there are no bowl games. The schools should take a stand and get their due, not pay for the privilege of making someone else a boatload of money.

[Leroy Lizard]

At least one person who responded to this wild and crazy idea of mine (who shall remain nameless but who seems to harbor an opinion about virtually everything that is posted at SF and is not shy about sharing it with all)

Who is this ***-hole?!?! We want a name!!

BTW, your idea? Well, it's just wild and crazy.

[Jacie]

The numbers in the article do not include what the participating schools were required to spend on tickets.

Auburn and Oregon combined to lose nearly $1 million on their trip to the BCS Championship Game, mostly due to eating costs on unsold tickets: Auburn took a $781,825 hit from 2,456 unsold seats that it was obligated to buy from the game, and Oregon lost $555,575 – this on a game that was reportedly one of the hottest tickets in sports history before kickoff. (Note that "unsold" doesn't mean they were available and people didn't buy them: The school gave them to certain bigwigs and other members of the traveling party.)

[Leroy Lizard]

. . . come here and let me beat on ya some more.


Auburn announced Thursday that it spent $2,901,706 for a traveling party of 938 that went to Glendale, Ariz.

Yeah, its the bowls' fault that these teams lose money playing in their games.

You have got to be ****in' kidding me! You can't see the problem?!?! Seriously?

[OU_Sooners75]

So Leroy, the programs shouldnt be giving tickets to the Bands, cheerleaders, medical staff, Administrative Staff?

I can see them not giving tickets to family members, or even big wigs or celebrities. But I can see giving them to the above staffs and band.

What I don't get is that the Bowls make schools pay money if they do not sell their allotment of tickets. If they are worried about making money, then what is all the sponsors for? Dr. Pepper, Tositos, etc...

The bowls make millions of the teams partcipating...they shouldnt be allowed to charge the schools money for failure to pay a certain amount of tickets.

[Leroy Lizard]

So Leroy, the programs shouldnt be giving tickets to the Bands, cheerleaders, medical staff, Administrative Staff?

938 people? No way. Not even half that. I would like to see a full accounting of who exactly got a free trip to Glendale out of this. How many of those people were essential? Half?

And how do you spend $3,000 per person?

If you want to pay for 938 to go to the bowl game, don't bitch about losing money.

We pay our head coach $5 million a year and fly 938 people out at $3,000 per person because we make soooooo much money. And then we bitch at the bowl because we're losing money on the deal.

How many of you own businesses? Would you fly 938 people on this excursion if it was your business and you were going to lose money on the deal? Or would you reexamine your guest list and see who really needs to be there?

[OU_Sooners75]

938 people? No way. Not even half that. I would like to see a full accounting of who exactly got a free trip to Glendale out of this. How many of those people were essential? Half?

And how do you spend $3,000 per person?

If you want to pay for 938 to go to the bowl game, don't bitch about losing money.

We pay our head coach $5 million a year and fly 938 people out at $3,000 per person because we make soooooo much money. And then we bitch at the bowl because we're losing money on the deal.

How many of you own businesses? Would you fly 938 people on this excursion if it was your business and you were going to lose money on the deal? Or would you reexamine your guest list and see who really needs to be there?

Lets see here...these are only guesses but let me try:
Medical and training Staff: 15-20
Equipment Managers and staff: 10-15
Video Staff: 5-10
Band Members: 100+
Band Support Staff: 5-10
Administrators: 20-30
Cheerleaders: 10-20
Cheerleading Staff: 2-5
Radio Network Staff: 5-10
Media Staff: 3-5
Police Staff: 5-10

That right there on the high end is roughly 235 people.
Now add in 56 football players and the 9 or so coaches.

You are looking at right at 300 people that are essential, and I may be overlooking some.

I personally think it should only be essential staff getting their trips and expenses paid. If the schools wish to allow more than that, then they should not be bitching about losing money. That part I agree with you on.

$3000/person...that is all expenses for at least a week. The team shows up and is there something like a week before the game. And don't forget, they don't exactly stay at the local Super 6 Motel.

[Leroy Lizard]

Lets see here...these are only guesses but let me try:
Medical and training Staff: 15-20
Equipment Managers and staff: 10-15
Video Staff: 5-10
Band Members: 100+
Band Support Staff: 5-10
Administrators: 20-30
Cheerleaders: 10-20
Cheerleading Staff: 2-5
Radio Network Staff: 5-10
Media Staff: 3-5
Police Staff: 5-10

That right there on the high end is roughly 235 people.
Now add in 56 football players and the 9 or so coaches.

You are looking at right at 300 people that are essential, and I may be overlooking some.

You've got just about everyone I can think of, and you're still over 600 away.

The only administrators that should be attending are those who have the perk built into their contracts and whose job responsibilities include bowl functions (such as speaking engagements). Otherwise, working in the athletic department entitles them to no more perks than the rest of the administrators on campus.

If you want to fly 'em all out, don't complain about the costs.


$3000/person...that is all expenses for at least a week. The team shows up and is there something like a week before the game. And don't forget, they don't exactly stay at the local Super 6 Motel

The sound/video people do not need to be out there for a full week. In fact, a lot of your guests could fly in right before the game.

If you want to put them up in nice hotels, don't complain about costs. The bowls didn't force your school to put up the video dude in the Holiday Inn.

[yermom]

but still $300 X however many tickets they have to eat sounds like a lot of cash

i'm thinking the amount of people going to bowls hasn't changed all that much in the past. ticket prices have more than doubled though.

[oudavid1]

All major BCS athletic departments made way more than 600,000$.

So i dont care how much a team loses in a bowl game.

[Leroy Lizard]

All major BCS athletic departments made way more than 600,000$.

Huh? No way. I think only a handful made any money at all.

[OU_Sooners75]

Huh? No way. I think only a handful made any money at all.


I think he is talking about through out the season...not just bowl games.

[oudavid1]

Huh? No way. I think only a handful made any money at all.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

http://i52.tinypic.com/2czu1ac.jpg

Too late to claim sarcasm.

But anyway.

[OU_Sooners75]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html

http://i52.tinypic.com/2czu1ac.jpg

Too late to claim sarcasm.

But anyway.
:pop:

[oudavid1]

I think he is talking about through out the season...not just bowl games.

yeah of course.

Bowl Games are for players and fans. F*** the Athletic Departments.

[SoonerinSouthlake]

""Auburn's shortfall for its trip was $614,106 after the SEC reimbursed the school $2,287,600""

What has Auburn grossed in additional merchandise sales? How has being in the big game affected the demand to attend Auburn? As the school wins national titles, how many dollars come in from donors (this is a biggie). in the big picture they dont have a shortfall

You know all those beautiful new buildings on our campus? and the 2nd deck on our stadium...those are paid for by donors. And they werent being built during the 9 years between Switzer and Stoops..They were paid for and built while we were going to Title games and likely losing half a million plus on that EVENT. But the success in the program has been the driving force behind hundreds of millions in other revenue sources for the School AND the city

so..not that I dont see your point, BUT the schools get thiers.

I seriously doubt smart people, who run these bowls would be willing to front the $ it takes to run these things without negotiating some pretty dang favorable circumstances. FURTHER, I seriously doubt the schools would agree to it contineu to attend them, if the big picture werent MUCH brighter than the loss of money at the event.

[Leroy Lizard]

For some reason that blog doesn't come up. But you did say that BCS athletic departments (not just the football team) made way more than $600,000. No way that is true. They may have grossed over $600,000, but they didn't net it.

Just do a google search using "athletic departments lose money" and read on. Only 16 athletic departments in the country finished in the black two years ago, and bowl revenues were even less this past year.

[OU_Sooners75]

For some reason that blog doesn't come up. But you did say that BCS athletic departments (not just the football team) made way more than $600,000. No way that is true. They may have grossed over $600,000, but they didn't net it.

Just do a google search using "athletic departments lose money" and read on. Only 16 athletic departments in the country finished in the black two years ago, and bowl revenues were even less this past year.


So if football can generate over 10 mil for a new D-1 team, how much you think a BCS team is making throughout the season?

I'll put this way...

Football is the most expensive sport for athletic programs....but it is also the highest grossing revenue sport.

[Leroy Lizard]

""Auburn's shortfall for its trip was $614,106 after the SEC reimbursed the school $2,287,600""

What has Auburn grossed in additional merchandise sales?

Probably quite a bit.


How has being in the big game affected the demand to attend Auburn?

This would only increase revenue if the school had trouble filling its slots. But since the school has to turn away applicants, it's a wash. (Well, you could claim some additional money from scholarships, but I doubt that amounts to much.)


As the school wins national titles, how many dollars come in from donors (this is a biggie).

Probably not much. We'll have to wait and see on that one. But donors typically don't tie their monies to football success.


You know all those beautiful new buildings on our campus? and the 2nd deck on our stadium...those are paid for by donors. And they werent being built during the 9 years between Switzer and Stoops..They were paid for and built while we were going to Title games and likely losing half a million plus on that EVENT.

They coincided with the hiring of David Boren, whose fundraising skills can match anyone in the state.


I seriously doubt smart people, who run these bowls would be willing to front the $ it takes to run these things would do so without negotiating some pretty dang favorable circumstances. FURTHER, I seriously doubt the schools would agree to it contineu to attend them, if the big picture werent MUCH brighter than the loss of money at the event.

That much I will agree with.

[Leroy Lizard]

So if football can generate over 10 mil for a new D-1 team, how much you think a BCS team is making throughout the season?

I'll put this way...

Football is the most expensive sport for athletic programs....but it is also the highest grossing revenue sport.

I won't disagree. But once you factor in all the other sports, you're likely losing money unless you're one of the lucky handful.

[OU_Sooners75]

I won't disagree. But once you factor in all the other sports, you're likely losing money unless you're one of the lucky handful.


Oh, Im sure there are plenty that are in the red...however, most schools, their football teams are self sufficient and then basketball usually helps out to cover the rest...

If they are in the red as a athletic department, then it is time to start dropping leeching programs.

[SoonerinSouthlake]

Probably quite a bit.






They coincided with the hiring of David Boren, whose fundraising skills can match anyone in the state.



That much I will agree with.

COINCIDED being the keyword. DB is a top notch politician (awefully glad to have him running our school)....but he is using the success of the football team to drive his success.. If it werent the case, he would be less likely to continue to pour money into the improvements to the program and pay a coach almost 5MIL a year

No matter how good a salesman he is, the momentum created by football success makes raising money like fish barrel for him.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oh, Im sure there are plenty that are in the red...however, most schools, their football teams are self sufficient and then basketball usually helps out to cover the rest...

If they are in the red as a athletic department, then it is time to start dropping leeching programs.

Here are the facts:


A newly released NCAA report shows that just 14 of the 120 Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money from campus athletics in the 2009 fiscal year, down from 25 the year before.
.
.
.
Sixty-eight FBS schools reported turning a profit on football, with a median value of $8.8 million. The 52 FBS schools that lost money on football reported median losses of $2.7 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686

OUDavid, I don't need to use no stinkin' sarcasm excuse.

[Leroy Lizard]

COINCIDED being the keyword. DB is a top notch politician (awefully glad to have him running our school)....but he is using the success of the football team to drive his success.. If it werent the case, he would be less likely to continue to pour money into the improvements to the program and pay a coach almost 5MIL a year

No matter how good a salesman he is, the momentum created by football success makes raising money like fish barrel for him.

It comes down to this: If OU had continued playing like it did under Blake, would Boren have been just as successful as a fund raiser? My gut feeling is, yes.

We'll never know, of course. But the idea that football greatness at a university increases donations is mostly a myth. Whether it is true at OU is uncertain, but I have my doubts. (Of course there were the Gaylords, but I don't think we can generalize off the habits of one donor.)

[AlbqSooner]

Auburn also needed to purchase 2,456 tickets for staff, the families of the players and coaches, and the band, which needed 500 seats.

Is this a benefit that is generally available to students who are not football players?
If not, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of NCAA regulations regarding benefits to participants in intercollegiate athletics.

[Jacie]

Is this a benefit that is generally available to students who are not football players?
If not, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of NCAA regulations regarding benefits to participants in intercollegiate athletics.

A point with which I do not disagree but it is off the topic.

To reiterate, college football is a commodity that the people who put on bowl games need and should reimburse the schools to the point that it does not cost the schools money.

It was not just this article that got me to thinking about this but one that came out last year about how schools that play in the lesser bowls wind up having to pay to play (yes, I realize their team gets the added but intangible benefit of extra practices). In the case of one school, it was pointed out how they were unable to take the band on the bowl trip due to the expense. All I am arguing for is that in addition to the amount paid to the schools/conferences for a team to play in a bowl, the bowls should have to cover the expenses (travel - cost of coach-class airfare, lodging - and not at some cheap place out on the interstate, and meals) for the team, coaches and support staff (for something like 250 people, the number derived from one of the other posts on this thread).

[texaspokieokie]

some great sacrifice; couldn't take the band.

[Leroy Lizard]

It was not just this article that got me to thinking about this but one that came out last year about how schools that play in the lesser bowls wind up having to pay to play (yes, I realize their team gets the added but intangible benefit of extra practices). In the case of one school, it was pointed out how they were unable to take the band on the bowl trip due to the expense. All I am arguing for is that in addition to the amount paid to the schools/conferences for a team to play in a bowl, the bowls should have to cover the expenses (travel - cost of coach-class airfare, lodging - and not at some cheap place out on the interstate, and meals) for the team, coaches and support staff (for something like 250 people, the number derived from one of the other posts on this thread).

You don't get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate. If the university thinks it should be compensated as such then let them negotiate for it. You would think that a campus full of business doctorates could wrangle a decent deal if the money was truly there.

As for buying tickets for family members, it used to be legal. But I though the NCAA shot that benefit down some years ago. Anyone know?

[cccasooner2]

You would think that a campus full of business doctorates could wrangle a decent deal if the money was truly there.

Unfortunately, the Eddie Murphy business acumen takes over.

[Piware]

It helps to remember the Athletic Department at OU is self-sustaining and actually transfers surplus money to academic programs.

The OU Foundation does a great job of raising donor money for athletics so our kids don't have to travel with a loaf of bread and a ice chest with baloney.

[Leroy Lizard]

It helps to remember the Athletic Department at OU is self-sustaining and actually transfers surplus money to academic programs.

The OU Foundation does a great job of raising donor money for athletics so our kids don't have to travel with a loaf of bread and a ice chest with baloney.

Sure, but this is about the more general issue. You can't hold OU up as the typical example. The fact that OU makes money does a team like Connecticut little good.