IT IS A MONOPLOY AND IT IS ABOUT THE MONEY

by WhoAmISir on Jul 15, 2009 10:29 AM MDT Comment 12 comments

The following is a small sample of an article written by a BYU Economics’ Professor which in my mind clearly certifies that the BcS is a monopoly and it is about the money.

The following numbers put in perspective the degree to which NCAA bowl revenues have been concentrated over the last 10 years. In the 2008 bowl season, the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 had bowl payout revenues of $143.2 million, which was 56% of all 2008 bowl revenue. Compare that to the $36.4 million earned in 2008 by all five non-BCS conferences and the independent teams (including Notre Dame) for a whopping 14.3% of 2008 bowl revenues. Note that 55 non-BCS teams took part in that $36.4 million, while 35 SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 teams took part in the $143 million.

Quick calculations: 55 Non-BcS Teams received $661,818 each average vs. 35 BcS Teams received $4,085,714 each average.

This is the link to the whole story.

http://www.econosseur.com/2009/07/ncaa-bowl-finance-something-changed-in-1995.html

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's capitalism run amok.

Unfortunately, we’re the working poor and are constantly denied a spot at the table.

Why?

Because there isn’t any legal precedence that suggests they need to be fair.

by JazzyUte on Jul 15, 2009 4:08 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like someone's a socialist

;-)

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jul 15, 2009 11:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

Im going to say this first so you don’t think im here to flame…I think the BCS hurts the mid majors in one and one way only….Conference tie in’s. If there wasn’t those tie in’s and only the top 8 or so teams made the BCS bowls…no one could complain.

That said.

There is one huge problem with this analysis. First, it’s “annual bowl revenue” and not "annual BCS bowl revenue.’ ’ The power conferences send more teams to non-BCS bowls than the MWC or any other conference which doesn’t have an automatic bid to the BCS. For example, the MWC has only four conference tie-ins to bowls (Las Vegas, Poinsettia, Armed Forces, and New Mexico). The ACC has nine: (BCS, Chick-fil-A, Gator, Champs Sports, Music City, Meineke, Emerald, Humanitarian (I think this one has been replaced), and the EagleBank bowl)).

So if BCS schools are sending more teams to bowls…of course they would generate a higher bowl revenue. BUT if you add the money that the Mid Major teams, like Utah, have made by making it to a BCS game…then compare that to the amount of money that teams, say like Alabama spend a year just on their football program ( which is about 40 million), then Mid Majors aren’t doing so bad. Sure, non BCS teams aren’t bringing in as much per bowl but they aren’t spending as much…is that fair…i don’t know…but its the truth.

What’s left out of the analysis is that there was a veritable explosion in # of bowls once the BCS took hold (and a tremendous infusion of TV money that in fact, included sponsoring some new bowls to just have mid to late -December D1 football to show.) This has allowed schools, who would have never sniffed a bowl under the old system, make extra money. The (possibly sad) fact is, if it weren’t for the BCS there might not be bowls that would take non BCS-conference teams at all, and certainly the ones that depend upon the BCS-conference teams’ fans to spend lots of money in their towns wouldn’t if the BCS contract didn’t force ’em to.

So if you look at it…the BCS has actually been good for the Mid Majors…Is the system completely fair? Nope. I don’t think the BCS should have conference tie in’s…BUT…those tie ins come from the old system…so…if guys have been getting screwed from the get go..i just wonder…why are you now just seeing it? Im not trying to be a smart ass..Im just pointing out, that i didn’t hear all this complaining 10-15-20-50 years ago…

All conferences deserve a shot at BCS bowls…I just wanted to say that again so you didn’t think i hate Mid Majors.

by bammer on Jul 17, 2009 9:21 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I saw

this post on another site and i wanted to get yalls thoughts…

Go ahead and give Tulane, Air Force, Colorado State, etc huge TV contracts, broadcast their games in prime-time on NBC, CBS, or Fox, and throw big-time money behind the stadium, gifts, advertising, & the whole operation….and then tell me how that worked out for you & how much debt you’re in. If you’re school only has 15,000 or less people, half of which even watch football, half of that half even actually go to home games, and then finally maybe 100 people (friends & family of the team) will actually travel to see a bowl game or even just tune it in on the TV…it just doesn’t work. Look, I’m really sorry that ever once in a blue moon one of these small schools puts together a team that can possibly compete with some of the big 6 schools, but you can’t completely over-haul US capitalism because of it. Geez…

Do you think there is any truth to that? I have heard some people say that mid majors couldn’t handle a playoff. That yall couldn’t sell tickets and it would actually cost money to have a playoff and not make money. Their proof is that Utah sold a lot of its tickets to Alabama cause Utah couldn’t sell them all…is that true? Just wanted yalls thoughts.

by bammer on Jul 17, 2009 9:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

It's a bullshit premise...

Because it suggests the same isn’t the case in the BCS.

Look at Miami, at one point of the most established programs in college football and they rarely sellout their own stadium. Hell, when they played in the national championship earlier this decade, how many actually traveled to Tempe? The fact is, that stadium was dominated by Ohio State fans — even though the Hurricanes were the favorites.

Utah struggled, but much of that had to do with the fact the Sugar Bowl was on the other side of the country and the economy just was not there for travel.

Let’s not forget that Utah packed the Fiesta in 2004, having upwards to 90% of the fans there.

So I don’t buy it’s an issue for just non-BCS teams. There are many BCS teams, like Washington State, Duke, Northwestern and Vanderbilt, who would struggle in that regard.

by JazzyUte on Jul 18, 2009 11:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd also suggest that if there ever were a playoff...

It’d be similar to what they do in the FCS, where the higher seed actually hosts the game and then maybe the final four or championship game is played at a BCS bowl.

Obviously, though, money will continue to be an issue.

That’s going to be the problem with this. If you do a playoff, say goodbye to the bowl games and the bowl games don’t want that.

by JazzyUte on Jul 18, 2009 11:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know why everyone says that...

having a playoff does nothing to the bowls if you structure it right. The BCS bowls would be your semi finals games and would sta on a rotating schedule for the NCG…the teams that don’t make the playoffs would still go to the bowls just like they do now….

"First, there are winners and know they are winners. Then there are the losers who know they are losers. Then there are those who are not winners but don’t know it. They’re the ones for me. They never quit trying. They’re the soul of our game."– Paul "Bear" Bryant

by bammer on Jul 19, 2009 6:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well because of the reason that was hinted above in your above post.

Money.

I agree, the non-playoff teams could play in the bowl games (sorta like the NIT), but could it really be successful forcing teams to travel all around the country?

I mean, the NCAA Tournament works a bit because it’s smaller venues until the Final Four and even that is in a single location.

So I get why there are some people who aren’t sold on that idea. I do think it could create a lot of empty seats in bowl games — as most people would save up just to travel to the NC game.

by JazzyUte on Jul 19, 2009 1:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends

Some teams fill out home games, some don’t. FSU fans didn’t show up until their team started having a chance. Why should Colorado State fans be considered as being different? See, this whole thing presupposes an existing system that wasn’t entirely unbiased or fairly achieved. So we need an overhaul, not a bandaid.

The profitability of college football is vastly oversold, and it’s mostly oversold by BCS teams. They all know that sharing the wealth means lower revenues for themselves, and likely facing economic difficulties all other teams endure. Well, if college football is a product of all teams, not just a few, why do only some get to use the entire system to their advantage?

If they want a separate system, leave the NCAA.

There isn’t any reason that the games could not be played in bowl settings, or at venues which were most likely to sell out to therefore maximize capitalization of the process. No reason whatsoever.

Why not allow teams to choose: “Like to play at home Utah, or accept revenue from filling the Coliseum and we’ll give you a shot at half the tickets?” It’s too hard to choose? Well, teams would have to think ahead and plan for contingencies. Oh my god! What a nightmare!!!!

Not all venues will always be available if there is a playoff, but most venues that handle football? Don’t regularly fill up with other items. There are no Garth Brooks outdoor concerts in Michigan in January. People say they need to plan and blah blah blah. Well, have fewer games total, ten, and factor in playoffs and bowls as your extra games. If two losers want to schedule a battle of the 3-7 dogs, let them have their moment too, and thus their eleventh game and enhanced revenues.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 21, 2009 10:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

March madness move over, its time for september-october-december MADNESS!!!

Complete overhaul engage!
Perfect playoff setup…(drumroll) A 128 team playoff!!! This way, we can “settle it on the field!!!”
There is no disputing this format. And since polls obviously are completely and utterly useless, there will be no seeding, just random matchups all over the board!! It will be great. Everyone will get their well deserved shot and there will be one defining national champion (Utah obviously) that no one can dispute. I’m glad this was taken to congress to fix who by the way has fixed almost everything else they’ve got their hands on these days. Hooray for truth, justice, the American way, the end of communism, the cure for cancer, the defeat of world hunger, and the demise of all that is evil in the universe!

by hotdawgin on Jul 23, 2009 12:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs