Bowl Game in The Bahamas

[CajunRage]

You do not have to sell out your ticket allotment in order to receive money for going to a bowl. When I worked at Arkansas, we did not sell out the 17,500 tickets we were allotted from the Sugar Bowl. We actually came up somewhere around the $340,000 mark short. After you figure in all the expenses and the fact we received 3.9 million, once the conference divided up all the money, for playing in the sugar bowl; we only turned about a $5,000 profit.

Most conferences share the money equally amongst all the teams. So teams like Vanderbilt get roughly the same amount of money as Alabama, even though Alabama is the one playing in the game that generates the most money. Now the Big 12 is different, they do not have equal revenue sharing, so a team like Texas gets a bulk of the money before revenue sharing starts.

I believe that is comparing apples to oranges. Regardless of the teams in a BCS bowl, a large number of tickets are sold outside of the two participating schools and the bowl game itself is tremendously profitable. (Hypothetically) When FIU and La Tech are invited to the "Seattle" Bowl. The bowl will not work at a loss in order to make sure the teams don't lose money. They actually sell the tickets to the school to generate revenue for them to break even or better and put the burden on the school to sell those tickets.

At least this is how I've always understood how it worked.

[Boomer]

My understanding is that UL was given an amount of money$50-$100K for expenses--then they were given a ticket allotment to sell and they could keep all or some of that---meanwhile tickets were also sold through other outlets---So the buying of tickets from UL was very important and I think that after the initial allotment we were actually given more but with less of a take home amount----I like how the SID comes on here maybe we can get Matt Casbon to explain it!!!

[castsdan]

The payout remains the same, it's the other factors that determine how much of that money, if any, you actually see. Travel expenses, ticket sales (again see UCONN and Arkansas), revenue sharing, etc.. All play a part in the total dollar amount each team takes home. For some teams a bowl generates money, for others it does not.

Schools like Notre Dame will always make money off bowl games because they don't have a conference they have to share with; whereas Alabama made the same off the BCS title game as Kentucky did because the sec shares revenue equally

[Cajun90]

I've looked at this issue in depth through the years. BCS bowls have guaranteed payouts because of the TV contracts. Non BCS bowls obviously don't have the lucrative TV contracts and I am 100% positive that the noted payouts for all minor bowls include substantial money based on ticket sales. Depending on the school and how they are required to share revenue with the conference is a totally different subject.

The reference to UConn is in regard to the Fiesta Bowl. The Big East was paid 17 million for UConn making the bowl game but per the revenue sharing plan only received a small portion of that.

The below excerpt is from the school paper. Please note how much they "lost" because of unsold tickets. Keep in mind this is a BCS bowl. So you know good and well if the BCS bowls count ticket sales towards the revenue payout that the small bowls do as well.

The university incurred total expenses of $4,280,998 at the Fiesta Bowl while only receiving a payout of $2,523,200 from the Big East. By far the largest expense the university incurred came from absorbed ticket sales. The university sold only 2,771 out of an allotment of 17,500 tickets, resulting in the university absorbing 14,729 tickets worth $2,924,385.

[castsdan]

That is correct, however the the initial statement was that bowls don't have payouts. The unsold tickets did not affect how much the bowl paid out, as they still paid the $17 million. It's the fans fault the university did not take home more money, due to the unsold tickets.

In my initial post I made it pretty clear that revenue sharing and unsold tickets will result in the university incurring the cost, thus leading to a lower net gain from playing in a bowl.

[CrazyCajun]

That is correct, however the the initial statement was that bowls don't have payouts. The unsold tickets did not affect how much the bowl paid out, as they still paid the $17 million. It's the fans fault the university did not take home more money, due to the unsold tickets.

In my initial post I made it pretty clear that revenue sharing and unsold tickets will result in the university incurring the cost, thus leading to a lower net gain from playing in a bowl.

that's only bcs games... and possible a few of the larger bowls. the majority of bowls..the pay out is directly correlated to ticket sales. you dont sell squat...you dont get squat

[CajunDreDog]

My understanding is that UL was given an amount of money$50-$100K for expenses--then they were given a ticket allotment to sell and they could keep all or some of that---meanwhile tickets were also sold through other outlets---So the buying of tickets from UL was very important and I think that after the initial allotment we were actually given more but with less of a take home amount----I like how the SID comes on here maybe we can get Matt Casbon to explain it!!!

This is how I understood it as well. Now, this is for small bowl games, BCS game games are totally different!!!

Did I just understand Boomer?

[Turbine]

That is correct, however the the initial statement was that bowls don't have payouts. The unsold tickets did not affect how much the bowl paid out, as they still paid the $17 million. It's the fans fault the university did not take home more money, due to the unsold tickets.

In my initial post I made it pretty clear that revenue sharing and unsold tickets will result in the university incurring the cost, thus leading to a lower net gain from playing in a bowl.

BCS payouts and non BCS bowl payouts are accomplished through two different form factors.