Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="nzm136, post: 465792, member: 2531"]
Schools lose money because the bowl payout is divided 13-16 different ways by the conference, so the school only gets 1/13-1/16th of the payout. If the money wasn't divided, then the schools wouldn't lose money. However, since the schools each get a cut of every other bowl game, everything balances and they come out ahead. If individual schools refused to play bowl games, then all the other schools would refuse, and the system would collapse and all the schools would be worse off. The money wasn't as big a deal in 1960 as it is today. To put things in perspective, the Champions Bowl will pay the SEC 10x the entire conference's 1980 distribution. Taking inflation into account the Champions Bowl payout is about 6x the entire conference's distribution. THAT is how much more important bowls have gotten. So, what was rational then is no longer rational.
 
For example, UCONN lost money going to the sugar bowl, but the game did not cost UCONN more than the total payout ($17 million) plus the value of the tickets that UCONN did sell and the value of UCONN merchandise sold because of the game. I think that it cost them $4-6 million in unsold tickets and another couple hundred thousand in travel fees. However, UCONN's cut of the BCS games where UCONN did not play is far in excess of the "loss" for that one game. H*ll, UCONN's share of the other BIG EAST bowls that year alone probably brought them back into the black.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?