Bowl Game Bailout Coming Next

[Red]

For some time we have been beaten over the head with the message that bowl games make tons of money for their schools and help fund other sports. That is one of the reason given for having so many. The more schools you include the more schools that make money.

Oops.

Sports economist Andrew Zimbalist said it is very typical for the lower-tier bowl games in college football to lose money.

"The payouts are low and its shared within the conference," he noted. "They can give all the hype to it that they want, but it's not a profit-making opportunity. It's mostly a big Christmas party."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/200...re_than_1.html

Now it seems all we have left for reasoning for these pointless games is the 3rd grade mentality of letting as many people participate and win as possible.

If this is about money, have a play-off. The check teams like Rutgers will get, even if they aren't involved in the play-off will be a heck of a lot bigger than the check from the Papa Johns Bowl.

[IslandRed]

Let's make a distinction here: the bowls make money, or else they cease to exist.

The teams that play in the lower-tier bowls don't necessarily make anything, since what's left over after expenses (if anything) goes to the conference.

Nonetheless, those games aren't hurting anybody. Most people ignore them, but it gives fans of those teams one more game to watch, and coaches love them. It's like an extra spring practice.

[jmcclain19]

ESPN owns something like 10 of the bowl games. You can bet that if Disney is driving the boat, they are making out with a profit or the game would go away.

It's why they do their Bowl Week special every year, gotta pump up those revenue streams. And it's why you'll never hear ESPN analysts clamoring for a College Football Playoff.

[Danny Serafini]

Teams losing money going to bottom-tier bowls isn't news, it's been that way for years. They go for the exposure, not the profit.

[Red]

Sure ESPN is making money. But that isn't the issue, especially not in a crappy economy. The point is the schools, state schools losing money. I didn't make it up, just passing along what I read. I would argue if the state of New Jersey is losing money sending Rutgers to play in Birmingham in front of nobody when folks in the state goverment are being asked to take days off to save the state money then yes, people are being hurt. These games are a waste of money and we can all see where wasting money has put our country. And nobody is being hurt by this wasteful spending? OK. Tell that to New Jersey state worker who lost his job while the Rutgers coach got a big bonus.

You can say these teams go for exposure and not the profit but if nobody is watching, which nobody is then how much exposure is being gained? Exposure comes from playing in the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl, not the GMAC Bowl or the Papa Johns Bowl. What is this so called exposure gaining Rutgers? Marshall used to make these lesser bowls every year. Now they aren't even on the map. Where did that exposure take them? This isn't about exposure it is about money, only problem is, the economy is in the tank and now instead of making money these joke games are actually losing it.

But ESPN made a profit so everything is right in the world. Gotcha!

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Red

Sure ESPN is making money. But that isn't the issue, especially not in a crappy economy. The point is the schools, state schools losing money. I didn't make it up, just passing along what I read. I would argue if the state of New Jersey is losing money sending Rutgers to play in Birmingham in front of nobody when folks in the state goverment are being asked to take days off to save the state money then yes, people are being hurt. These games are a waste of money and we can all see where wasting money has put our country. And nobody is being hurt by this wasteful spending? OK. Tell that to New Jersey state worker who lost his job while the Rutgers coach got a big bonus.

I can't speak specifically to Rutgers, but at most big football-playing schools, the athletic department is expected to support itself. You're inferring that if Rutgers lost money going to a bowl game, the university or the state had to stroke a check to make it up. Possible, but not likely. Odds are, the athletic department will make up the shortfall by cutting something else in its department or dipping into a reserve fund or asking for additional booster help.

[Red]

Additional booster help and reserve funds aren't going to be there in this economy. Then what?

[IslandRed]

If they don't have a reserve fund that can cover a couple hundred grand -- given that annual budgets for major-conference athletic departments are in the eight digits -- they've managed themselves pretty poorly.

For what it's worth, if the Rutgers AD actually goes to the university or state and asks for money to cover coach bonuses because the department is broke, "go away" would be the proper answer. So I agree with you there.

[Boston Red]

Originally Posted by Red

Marshall used to make these lesser bowls every year. Now they aren't even on the map. Where did that exposure take them?

Marshall gained enormously from all that exposure. Unfortunately for them, Bob Pruett retired, and his replacements have sucked.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Boston Red

Marshall gained enormously from all that exposure.

You seem to be just throwing that out there. What proof is there? And what exactly do you mean by "gained enormously"? What specifically was gained?

[Danny Serafini]

A move to a better conference for one.

[Red]

Aargh.

Where is the proof that move to a better conference was made because of exposure gained from playing in the GMAC Bowl? Why is it specifically the result of the bowl game that led to the move?

All you seem to be doing is cherry picking one thing Marshall did (play in some low tiered bowl games) and using that for whatever you want to use it for.

If you are going to pick one thing, and only one thing as a reason for Marshall turning into what it did I would say it was the day the school accepted Randy Moss. But that is just me.

[Boston Red]

Marshall was awesome at the time even without Randy Moss. Their '96 team would have been the best I-AA team ever even without Randy Moss.

[Red]

I agree. Marshall had a great program before anyone knew who they were, includng Randy Moss. I didn't say Moss built their program. I said Moss gave them as much exposure as anything else.

[Boston Red]

Well, they parlayed Moss into tons of exposure (they were on ESPN all the time in the Moss years and shortly thereafter) which they parlayed into some excellent recruiting, which meant more success and exposure, which they probably would have parlayed into more success and excellent recruiting....except that Pruett retired and Snyder sucked.