[fullmetal]

I'm not too surprised that Stanford covered all of its bowl trip costs with the fixed $1.5mil budget.  I was surprised to learn that the additional tickets that Stanford sells beyond its initial allotment only fatten the bowl organizers' pockets--Stanford doesn't see that revenue.

For the 2013 Rose Bowl, Stanford fans bought all of the 30,193 tickets allocated to Stanford in less than 24 hours. The athletic department ultimately acquired and sold approximately 8,000 more tickets. However, Stanford did not earn supplemental revenue from selling additional tickets, since all ticket income goes back to the bowl organizers.

“The revenue from those tickets went to the Rose Bowl,” Eubanks said. “We were selling the Rose Bowl’s tickets and providing an additional service to our fans, our alumni and our students by being able to meet their demand and so that they would be able to sit in Stanford’s section.”

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/02/15/...-the-farm/

[fullmetal]

I'm not too surprised that Stanford covered all of its bowl trip costs with the fixed $1.5mil budget.  I was surprised to learn that the additional tickets that Stanford sells beyond its initial allotment only fatten the bowl organizers' pockets--Stanford doesn't see that revenue.

For the 2013 Rose Bowl, Stanford fans bought all of the 30,193 tickets allocated to Stanford in less than 24 hours. The athletic department ultimately acquired and sold approximately 8,000 more tickets. However, Stanford did not earn supplemental revenue from selling additional tickets, since all ticket income goes back to the bowl organizers.

“The revenue from those tickets went to the Rose Bowl,” Eubanks said. “We were selling the Rose Bowl’s tickets and providing an additional service to our fans, our alumni and our students by being able to meet their demand and so that they would be able to sit in Stanford’s section.”

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/02/15/...-the-farm/

[JohnR34231]

Interesting. I knew that minor bowl games were often unprofitable for schools, but I thought BCS ones were definitely money makers.

[JohnR34231]

Interesting. I knew that minor bowl games were often unprofitable for schools, but I thought BCS ones were definitely money makers.

[Roberton3]

Interesting. I knew that minor bowl games were often unprofitable for schools, but I thought BCS ones were definitely money makers.

The payout from a BCS bowl is way more than the expenses of going to the bowl.  But the conference splits the bowl payouts (after giving an allowance to each bowl-bound team to cover expenses).  So having a Pac-12 team go to a BCS bowl makes a lot of money for the conference, but it could be a money-loser for that particular school.

[Roberton3]

Interesting. I knew that minor bowl games were often unprofitable for schools, but I thought BCS ones were definitely money makers.

The payout from a BCS bowl is way more than the expenses of going to the bowl.  But the conference splits the bowl payouts (after giving an allowance to each bowl-bound team to cover expenses).  So having a Pac-12 team go to a BCS bowl makes a lot of money for the conference, but it could be a money-loser for that particular school.

[Bruce Wang]

With the amount of revenues generated by the bowl games, it's completely ridiculous that schools and conferences would only break even or even lose money by participating.  Now that Stanford has won the Rose Bowl in my lifetime, I'm OK with the bowl system going away in favor of a playoff system.  The rampant corruption among bowl organizers makes me glad that the playoffs are coming and inevitably expanding to replace the bowls.

[Bruce Wang]

With the amount of revenues generated by the bowl games, it's completely ridiculous that schools and conferences would only break even or even lose money by participating.  Now that Stanford has won the Rose Bowl in my lifetime, I'm OK with the bowl system going away in favor of a playoff system.  The rampant corruption among bowl organizers makes me glad that the playoffs are coming and inevitably expanding to replace the bowls.

[jayasena]

And for the 38 years of the past 42 that we didn't make the Rose Bowl, I suspect Stanford thought that arrangement was just fine.

I was going to point this out as well. The team making the trip to the Rose may not make much (if any) money in that year, but on average, I'm sure all schools end up in the black from the Rose arragement.

What I would like to see the revenue sharing arrangement do is exclude the freeloaders. Don't share Rose Bowl revenues with schools who haven't been to that bowl game in N years, where N could even be set very generously at, say, 50 years or so  ;)

[jayasena]

And for the 38 years of the past 42 that we didn't make the Rose Bowl, I suspect Stanford thought that arrangement was just fine.

I was going to point this out as well. The team making the trip to the Rose may not make much (if any) money in that year, but on average, I'm sure all schools end up in the black from the Rose arragement.

What I would like to see the revenue sharing arrangement do is exclude the freeloaders. Don't share Rose Bowl revenues with schools who haven't been to that bowl game in N years, where N could even be set very generously at, say, 50 years or so  ;)

[stanfan]

Each member of the conference has an interest in seeing that all members are competitive.  Sharing bowl proceeds helps meet that objective.  I think it would be a mistake to cut the less successful teams out of the revenue stream, weakening them further.

[stanfan]

Each member of the conference has an interest in seeing that all members are competitive.  Sharing bowl proceeds helps meet that objective.  I think it would be a mistake to cut the less successful teams out of the revenue stream, weakening them further.

[jayasena]

Each member of the conference has an interest in seeing that all members are competitive.  Sharing bowl proceeds helps meet that objective.  I think it would be a mistake to cut the less successful teams out of the revenue stream, weakening them further.

Actually, it's pretty easy to argue that "all members are competitive" is probably close to the worst case for overall conference bowl revenues. At the top, that would reduce the likelihood of undefeated or 1-loss teams that will go to the NCG/playoff or get at-large BCS berths. In the middle, multiple teams will beat each other out of bowl eligibility. Both these have happened quite frequently in the Pac-N.

That said, my prior comment was a jab at a very specific team that hasn't made it to the Rose Bowl in over 50 years.

[jayasena]

Each member of the conference has an interest in seeing that all members are competitive.  Sharing bowl proceeds helps meet that objective.  I think it would be a mistake to cut the less successful teams out of the revenue stream, weakening them further.

Actually, it's pretty easy to argue that "all members are competitive" is probably close to the worst case for overall conference bowl revenues. At the top, that would reduce the likelihood of undefeated or 1-loss teams that will go to the NCG/playoff or get at-large BCS berths. In the middle, multiple teams will beat each other out of bowl eligibility. Both these have happened quite frequently in the Pac-N.

That said, my prior comment was a jab at a very specific team that hasn't made it to the Rose Bowl in over 50 years.

[yvonne]

How do Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit into that?

[yvonne]

How do Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit into that?

[stupac2]

Equal revenue sharing is a cornstone of the PAC agreement, so joking aside, that's not going to happen (and is generally a bad idea). As funny as it would be to exclude some teams, it's a bad idea.

Also, I think the SEC demonstrates pretty conclusively that you're much better off having a few really good teams and a bunch of bad teams than you are having parity. Hopefully the playoff will nullify this somewhat, but being able to pencil in 10 wins (4 cupcake OOC, 4 crappy OC) helps immensely for getting the BCS $$$, as well as getting into other high-payout bowls.

That's one thing the PAC could definitely use, better bowl contracts. Of course, burning the whole thing down to the ground would be even better, but we're not there yet.

[stupac2]

Equal revenue sharing is a cornstone of the PAC agreement, so joking aside, that's not going to happen (and is generally a bad idea). As funny as it would be to exclude some teams, it's a bad idea.

Also, I think the SEC demonstrates pretty conclusively that you're much better off having a few really good teams and a bunch of bad teams than you are having parity. Hopefully the playoff will nullify this somewhat, but being able to pencil in 10 wins (4 cupcake OOC, 4 crappy OC) helps immensely for getting the BCS $$$, as well as getting into other high-payout bowls.

That's one thing the PAC could definitely use, better bowl contracts. Of course, burning the whole thing down to the ground would be even better, but we're not there yet.

[stupac2]

I never said there were options out there, I have no real idea if there are. I just know that we're pretty well locked out of a lot of the high-paying, non-BCS ones (for the reasons you mentioned) and it's not ideal.

[stupac2]

I never said there were options out there, I have no real idea if there are. I just know that we're pretty well locked out of a lot of the high-paying, non-BCS ones (for the reasons you mentioned) and it's not ideal.

[Kathy]

How do Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit into that?

Interlopers!

[Kathy]

How do Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fit into that?

Interlopers!

[Extra Point]

"They are the future Idaho and Montana, destined to be swept aside when the conference comes to its senses and reverts to the Holy Eight."

One of the Holy Eight was once swept aside by the Pac 8. That would be WSU. They were only taken back after they agreed to play USC in Spokane.

This year WSU is playing Stanford in Seattle.

[Extra Point]

"They are the future Idaho and Montana, destined to be swept aside when the conference comes to its senses and reverts to the Holy Eight."

One of the Holy Eight was once swept aside by the Pac 8. That would be WSU. They were only taken back after they agreed to play USC in Spokane.

This year WSU is playing Stanford in Seattle.

[Oasis]

Now that Stanford has won the Rose Bowl in my lifetime...

...I'm expecting a balanced federal budget and a flat tax.  That's all that could top our day at the Rose Bowl.

[Oasis]

Now that Stanford has won the Rose Bowl in my lifetime...

...I'm expecting a balanced federal budget and a flat tax.  That's all that could top our day at the Rose Bowl.