UCONN to lose money at the Fiest Bowl?

[martyconlonontherun]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/b ... aaf-296921

BCS games are supposed to be a big payday, and on paper, they are: The Fiesta Bowl is doling out $17 million to both the Big East and the Big 12. Based on the Big East's revenue-sharing plan, the Huskies are guaranteed somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million of that, with other revenue streams bringing their cut of the conference pie up to about $3 million. Not bad, until you start to add up the expense of traveling to a major bowl game, beginning with ticket obligations:

The Fiesta Bowl distributed 17,500 tickets to UConn, and the school is responsible to sell them all. The cheapest of those tickets cost $111 (in the lower end zone) and can cost as much as $268 for club level.

... and hotel obligations:

[...] a total of 550 rooms at three different hotels ranging in price from $125-225 a night, not including tax, with blocks reserved for either three or seven nights. Additional expenses include a chartered flight and meals for the team, staff and 300-member band, as well as a $100,000 bonus to coach Randy Edsall, and smaller bonuses for assistants, per their contracts, for getting the team to a BCS bowl.

... and obligations to move all that inventory, or eat the cost (emphasis added):

Cost of any tickets or hotel rooms that go unfilled are absorbed by the university, with the exception of the 150 rooms at the Westin Kierland Resort and Spa, where UConn is on the hook for only half of money owed on unsold rooms at the $225-a-night hotel.

As of Monday night, only 4,000 tickets had been sold, meaning UConn was still holding roughly $2.5 million in unsold tickets.

That's par for the course, by the way, whether or not the coach goes out of his way to stump for the destination. When Florida won the BCS championship in 2008, the university's profit from the advertised $17 million payday amounted to $47,000 – and that was with in-state travel, to Miami. The Gators took a loss on their 2006 BCS title trip to Glendale, as did their opponent, Ohio State.

[tower912]

There was a big write up along these lines in Sports Illustrated a few weeks back in an article advocating for a playoff system.   Quoted the Michigan AD saying the athletic department actually made more money the last two years not going to bowl games.   Mentioned that Iowa was on the hook for tickets for the band as well as transportation and lodging, and food.    So 200+ musicians at $100 a ticket.....
And somehow this is the what is driving college athletics.    Sad.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This was covered locally in a Dec. 17 article in The New Haven Register.  Things would have been different had they played in the Orange Bowl instead.  I would assume Stanford is having the same issue going from Northern California to Florida?

http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/12/21/aa1_uconnbowl122110.txt

[TallTitan34]

There was a big write up along these lines in Sports Illustrated a few weeks back in an article advocating for a playoff system. 

I am all for a playoff tournament system but wouldn't it cause schools to lose more money as they would be going to more games?

[martyconlonontherun]

I am all for a playoff tournament system but wouldn't it cause schools to lose more money as they would be going to more games?

Yeah, the logic doesn't translate unless you would assume the school loses obligations to sell 20K tickets to each game. It would be closer to The NCAA Bball tourney where each host city sells most of the tix and a year in advance. (making stuff up as we go so bare with me.)

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am all for a playoff tournament system but wouldn't it cause schools to lose more money as they would be going to more games?

No.   The money pooled for a playoff system would be allocated to each school to cover those costs. 

The problem with the bowls are the guarantees that are required of each school, especially the crap bowls that no one wants to go to. 

If the playoff system was done correctly, the money from the tv deal for the actual playoff system would be used to cover those expenses like the band, etc.  I'm sure the schools would still be on the hook for some tickets (just like MU is on the hook for some tickets for the NCAA tournament), but the cost burden would be much different than the current bowl system.  For one, fans would actually WANT to go to a playoff game because their team is in the tournament to win the national title. With the bowls, that's not the case and we have situations where a mediocre at best UCONN team is going to play in a bowl game where they are likely to be blown out.

[GOMU1104]

Read the book "Death to the BCS" by Dan Wetzel and Jeff Passan.

All questions regarding this topic will be answered.

[TallTitan34]

No.   The money pooled for a playoff system would be allocated to each school to cover those costs. 

The problem with the bowls are the guarantees that are required of each school, especially the crap bowls that no one wants to go to. 

If the playoff system was done correctly, the money from the tv deal for the actual playoff system would be used to cover those expenses like the band, etc.  I'm sure the schools would still be on the hook for some tickets (just like MU is on the hook for some tickets for the NCAA tournament), but the cost burden would be much different than the current bowl system.  For one, fans would actually WANT to go to a playoff game because their team is in the tournament to win the national title. With the bowls, that's not the case and we have situations where a mediocre at best UCONN team is going to play in a bowl game where they are likely to be blown out.

Gotcha.  Thanks.

[brewcity77]

So can someone explain why BCS schools advocate the continuation of the BCS? Is it because most of the schools don't make it to a BCS game, but still reap the rewards for teams in their conference that do (like Michigan the past few years) so it essentially pays off for the bottom half of teams in the BCS conferences? If the benefit is only seen by the Indianas, Rutgers, and Iowa States of the world, why on earth would the top dogs of the successful BCS schools (like Ohio State) be advocating the system? It seems like the better you do, the more the BCS is a drain on your program rather than a boon.

[GGGG]

Because the error that the BCS haters make, is that they view the direct costs in a vacuum.  There are benefits, such as fund-raising, that you don't see on the bottom line.  Back in 1994, after UW went to their first Rose Bowl that Jan. 1, the University of Wisconsin raised more money than any public university in the country.  There was a reason for that.

[Benny B]

So can someone explain why BCS schools advocate the continuation of the BCS? Is it because most of the schools don't make it to a BCS game, but still reap the rewards for teams in their conference that do (like Michigan the past few years) so it essentially pays off for the bottom half of teams in the BCS conferences? If the benefit is only seen by the Indianas, Rutgers, and Iowa States of the world, why on earth would the top dogs of the successful BCS schools (like Ohio State) be advocating the system? It seems like the better you do, the more the BCS is a drain on your program rather than a boon.

The BCS profiteers make so much money that they can afford to buy off the votes they need.

Example: You're the AD of UCONN and you just lost $2.5M going to the Fiesta Bowl... but just when you are finishing preparation on your case to abolish the BCS this coming spring, a rather big feller with a nice black ESPN polo shirt approaches you with a suitcase full of cash and tells you to keep your mouth shut.  You buy your wife a fancy new ring, take a trip to Tahiti, hide the cash in a trust account, and conveniently forget about how the BCS screwed your employer last year.

On a more serious note, my guess is the BCS is hugely unpopular amongst the majority of schools, however, the schools who actually profit from the BCS just so happen to be the ones in control (and/or the influence to keep the thing going).

[martyconlonontherun]

Because the error that the BCS haters make, is that they view the direct costs in a vacuum.  There are benefits, such as fund-raising, that you don't see on the bottom line.  Back in 1994, after UW went to their first Rose Bowl that Jan. 1, the University of Wisconsin raised more money than any public university in the country.  There was a reason for that.

But that begs the same question, wouldn't the support still be there in a playoff system minus the obligations? Wouldn't there be even bigger UW support if they had 3 "bowl-like" and played in the championship game?