menu
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: We're Goin' Bowling!
Page: 2 of 3
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 4:02 PM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
Another hundred grand (or more) down the drain!


That's what the 43-7 money should go for.


That money is long gone.


Kind of like the money from the Xavier game that was supposed to pay for the CBI game?


I'm not sure I follow, Ted.  Hoops added the Xavier game to the schedule after the fact in order to pay for the CBI (a questionable "investment" to be sure).  In football, the OSU money has already been budgeted and likely spent elsewhere.  Perhaps some of that money is being held to pay for a potential bowl invitation, in which case then we probably should accept a bowl game that is effectively already funded.  But if that money hasn't been earmarked for a future bowl game, then we can't just take some of the OSU money to fund a bowl appearance without coming up short elsewhere.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 4:07 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Another hundred grand (or more) down the drain!


That's what the 43-7 money should go for.


That money is long gone.


Kind of like the money from the Xavier game that was supposed to pay for the CBI game?


I'm not sure I follow, Ted.  Hoops added the Xavier game to the schedule after the fact in order to pay for the CBI (a questionable "investment" to be sure).  In football, the OSU money has already been budgeted and likely spent elsewhere.  Perhaps some of that money is being held to pay for a potential bowl invitation, in which case then we probably should accept a bowl game that is effectively already funded.  But if that money hasn't been earmarked for a future bowl game, then we can't just take some of the OSU money to fund a bowl appearance without coming up short elsewhere.


You would think, considering the expectations for this season, some money was set aside for bowl expenses.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,581
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 4:17 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Another hundred grand (or more) down the drain!


What a piss poor attitude.  Pathetic.


Sorry if I offended you.

Wait.  No, I'm not.  I know you get riled up at any statement that dares defy the company line, but the fact that our best seasons cause us to lose significant money is not something to be ignored.  I will keep bringing it up.  This is as much an indictment of the system as it is our program.

Is it worth it to you?  If it is, that's fine.  I won't hold it against you.  But it's a fact worth reminding people.



And I thought you were a fan.  Oh well.....


Slow.  Clap.  Keep it up.  At this rate, I'll be un-American by Thursday.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 4:57 PM
Bobcat Dragon wrote:expand_more
Slow.  Clap.  Keep it up.  At this rate, I'll be un-American by Thursday.


Why wait until Thursday?  Down with Dragon and his un-American views! 
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 5:04 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Another hundred grand (or more) down the drain!


That's what the 43-7 money should go for.


That money is long gone.


Kind of like the money from the Xavier game that was supposed to pay for the CBI game?


I'm not sure I follow, Ted.  Hoops added the Xavier game to the schedule after the fact in order to pay for the CBI (a questionable "investment" to be sure).  In football, the OSU money has already been budgeted and likely spent elsewhere.  Perhaps some of that money is being held to pay for a potential bowl invitation, in which case then we probably should accept a bowl game that is effectively already funded.  But if that money hasn't been earmarked for a future bowl game, then we can't just take some of the OSU money to fund a bowl appearance without coming up short elsewhere.


That money couldn't go back into the previous year's budget no more than the OSU game can go towards last year's budget which included the Bowl game. And that Xavier money was as long gone as the OSU money was. The university has made a commitment to its athletes to support them towards post-season play. I'm sure it's more expensive each day the men's basketball team stays in Cleveland for the MAC Tourney. Or for the lady volleyballers in Toledo or to even, gasp, host NCAA matches. To lament the success of any of Ohio's teams seems is silly.    

Ohio spent $120K on a Bowl game last year. Hopefully, future budgets include that. But Ohio did what it could last year. Played a geographically sensible Bowl and limited practice time. Around $35K of expenses went to the university for lodging and I would doubt there were $40K of variable costs that need to be covered. Never mind that teams get a split of fellow conference team's payouts and from the BCS that would more than offset the $120K. We got a 1-minute commercial at halftime and 3 hours of face time in a game that was viewed by over 3.8 million people.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,376
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 5:24 PM
Ted, I don't think anyone is lamenting the success of any of Ohio's teams.  What they are doing is pointing out the absurdity of paying for some random city's slow season tourist attraction.

If we take our emotional attachment out of our reactions to Flomo's post, the content of his message is the most astute assessment of the current state of affairs that has been presented on this board.  
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 5:37 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Ted, I don't think anyone is lamenting the success of any of Ohio's teams.  What they are doing is pointing out the absurdity of paying for some random city's slow season tourist attraction.

If we take our emotional attachment out of our reactions to Flomo's post, the content of his message is the most astute assessment of the current state of affairs that has been presented on this board.  


That's your opinion. Ohio is part of a Bowl system, that at the end of the day, makes them more money. The conference gets BCS dollars because it's part of the Bowl system. In years you don't go to a Bowl, you do make more than when you don't (we'll call that the Eastern Michigan model). But I find it hard to root for saving money over the success of any of Ohio's sports teams. Because it costs ALL of them more money when they're successful in the post-season. Whether they're supporting the economies of Detroit (football), Cleveland (basketball) or Toledo (volleyball).
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 5:55 PM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
That money couldn't go back into the previous year's budget no more than the OSU game can go towards last year's budget which included the Bowl game. And that Xavier money was as long gone as the OSU money was. The university has made a commitment to its athletes to support them towards post-season play. I'm sure it's more expensive each day the men's basketball team stays in Cleveland for the MAC Tourney. Or for the lady volleyballers in Toledo or to even, gasp, host NCAA matches. To lament the success of any of Ohio's teams seems is silly.   


I don't disagree.  I lament the cost of going to a bowl, but ultimately I think it's a cost you have to bear when you decide to field a FBS team (a position wouldn't necessarily take towards a future CBI bid).

Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
Ohio spent $120K on a Bowl game last year. Hopefully, future budgets include that. But Ohio did what it could last year. Played a geographically sensible Bowl and limited practice time. Around $35K of expenses went to the university for lodging and I would doubt there were $40K of variable costs that need to be covered. Never mind that teams get a split of fellow conference team's payouts and from the BCS that would more than offset the $120K. We got a 1-minute commercial at halftime and 3 hours of face time in a game that was viewed by over 3.8 million people.


The bowl payout amounts that are reported are generally fabricated.  Bowls report a big payout, but in reality rarely pay anything close to that, even before ticket allotments are factored in.  Death to the BCS, the new book by Dan Wetzel et al. (which I'd highly recommend by the way) lays it all out pretty clearly, with the Motor City Bowl one of the prime culprits in fact.  It would be interesting to see exactly how much we do take home from the MAC's 3 bowl tie-ins.  The BCS did give the MAC around $2.1 million last year, which divided 13 ways would net us around $165K, but I assume that the MAC front office took some cut of that itself.  Ultimately the question is how do we budget these revenues.  Are they already relied on for annual expenditures, or do we set some of it aside to cover a bowl bid?  Historically I am assuming it was the former, but given our recent success we may have switched to the latter model.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,581
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 7:08 PM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
Slow.  Clap.  Keep it up.  At this rate, I'll be un-American by Thursday.


Why wait until Thursday?  Down with Dragon and his un-American views! 


I just don't think we should participate in a system in which our players who give blood, sweat, and tears to this great institution are subjugated by an arbitrary system of apartheid.  They're also prostituted out to provide for other sports.  Winning the MAC title a year ago would have made zero difference for the postseason.  That's wrong.  That said, I don't know if I have an answer for it.  But I do know the problem.

Guys like Patrick Tafua, Jordan Thompson, and dozens of others deserve better.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 7:11 PM
Bobcat Dragon wrote:expand_more
Slow.  Clap.  Keep it up.  At this rate, I'll be un-American by Thursday.


Why wait until Thursday?  Down with Dragon and his un-American views! 


I just don't think we should participate in a system in which our players who give blood, sweat, and tears to this great institution are subjugated by an arbitrary system of apartheid.  They're also prostituted out to provide for other sports.  Winning the MAC title a year ago would have made zero difference for the postseason.  That's wrong.  That said, I don't know if I have an answer for it.  But I do know the problem.

Guys like Patrick Tafua, Jordan Thompson, and dozens of others deserve better.


The answer is easy: a 16-team playoff.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,376
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 7:58 PM
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.

Can someone please quantify exactly how much cash we got from the bowl system last year?  It has to be a line item on some budget sheet somewhere.
Last Edited: 11/2/2010 8:00:11 PM by Alan Swank
DublinCat
General User
DC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 236
person
mail
DublinCat
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 8:23 PM
A playoff would mean the elimination of the BCS- which means shared revenue across the qualifying participants.  The further you go the more you make. 
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 8:25 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.

Can someone please quantify exactly how much cash we got from the bowl system last year?  It has to be a line item on some budget sheet somewhere.


Here's what the MAC received from the BCS last year. This is real money. So even if Bowl payouts don't exist, these dollars do.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/64647

Non-Big Six conferences
Mountain West
$9.8 million
Western Athletic
$7.8 million
Conference USA
$2.8 million
Mid-American
$2.1 million
Sun Belt
$1.5 million
Total
$24 million
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 8:28 PM
Bobcat Dragon wrote:expand_more
Slow.  Clap.  Keep it up.  At this rate, I'll be un-American by Thursday.


Why wait until Thursday?  Down with Dragon and his un-American views! 


I just don't think we should participate in a system in which our players who give blood, sweat, and tears to this great institution are subjugated by an arbitrary system of apartheid.  They're also prostituted out to provide for other sports.  Winning the MAC title a year ago would have made zero difference for the postseason.  That's wrong.  That said, I don't know if I have an answer for it.  But I do know the problem.

Guys like Patrick Tafua, Jordan Thompson, and dozens of others deserve better.


I think we all want a playoff system if that's what you're trying to imply here. But that doesn't exist. In the interim, I'm not going to root against Tafua, Jordan or others to not have a chance to play in a Bowl game that they have set as their goal entering the season. Or for Tommy Freeman and Asown Sayles from playing in the NIT if that's how their season turns out.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:06 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.


In a 16 team playoff, I am assuming that every conference champion would be invited, along with five at-large selections.  The Wetzel book Death to the BCS lays out a pretty flawless plan, in which the higher seeded teams would host each round up until the championship game.  The entire 4 week tournament could be held during the current bowl period, and would likely generate around $500-600 million more per year than the current bowl system.  The playoff would actually enhance, rather than detract from the current regular season. 

The only question is what would happen to the bowls under such a scenario.  Some would undoubtedly collapse, others would probably stick around effectively as an NIT equivalent. 
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,581
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:07 PM
Actually, I was referring to the lack of a playoff system.  I'm going off the assumption things will not change in the near future.

To be perfectly clear, I will never root against our guys.  My heart goes out to them for the situation they're in.
Athens Block
General User
AB
Member Since: 7/15/2010
Post Count: 201
person
mail
Athens Block
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:25 PM
We can't get more than a couple thousand fans to make a five hour drive to detroit.... how are we going to get them to make a cross country trip to California?  And then another trip to Texas, and then another one to Florida? That's assuming we don't get our doors blown off in the opening round...



Athens Block
General User
AB
Member Since: 7/15/2010
Post Count: 201
person
mail
Athens Block
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:27 PM
Bobcat Dragon wrote:expand_more
To be perfectly clear, I will never root against our guys.  My heart goes out to them for the situation they're in.


What situation are you talking about?  The situation of getting to spend another week with their friends and teammates on the road?  The situation of getting a chance to do something that's never been done before in school history?  The situation of getting to put the green and white back on one last time for the seniors? 

If you're heart goes out for our budget...then fine, that makes sense... but I'm having a hard time finding the negatives from an athlete's point of view...
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:37 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.


In a 16 team playoff, I am assuming that every conference champion would be invited, along with five at-large selections.  The Wetzel book Death to the BCS lays out a pretty flawless plan, in which the higher seeded teams would host each round up until the championship game.  The entire 4 week tournament could be held during the current bowl period, and would likely generate around $500-600 million more per year than the current bowl system.  The playoff would actually enhance, rather than detract from the current regular season. 

The only question is what would happen to the bowls under such a scenario.  Some would undoubtedly collapse, others would probably stick around effectively as an NIT equivalent. 


Flomo, have you read that book? If so, do you recommend? I was going to add to my Christmas wish list, but I've received differing opinions on it.
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,376
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:43 PM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.


In a 16 team playoff, I am assuming that every conference champion would be invited, along with five at-large selections.  The Wetzel book Death to the BCS lays out a pretty flawless plan, in which the higher seeded teams would host each round up until the championship game.  The entire 4 week tournament could be held during the current bowl period, and would likely generate around $500-600 million more per year than the current bowl system.  The playoff would actually enhance, rather than detract from the current regular season. 

The only question is what would happen to the bowls under such a scenario.  Some would undoubtedly collapse, others would probably stick around effectively as an NIT equivalent. 


Flomo, have you read that book? If so, do you recommend? I was going to add to my Christmas wish list, but I've receiving differing opinions on it.


It never hurts to read both sides of the story Ted.  Tell you what, I'll see if I can find it and then I'll loan it to you and then we can pass it around Bobcatattackers.   Deal?
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 9:46 PM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
Flomo, have you read that book? If so, do you recommend? I was going to add to my Christmas wish list, but I've receiving differing opinions on it.


Yes, I've read it and would highly recommend it.  Some of it won't be news to mid-major fans, and a couple of their conclusions are a little questionable in my mind (such as that the bowl system wouldn't suffer at all from a playoff), but overall it is a blistering attack on the BCS that really doesn't leave much room for debate.  Every single defense of the BCS is thoroughly obliterated.  It was definitely an eye-opener, even for someone predisposed to hate the BCS.

What negatives have you heard about the book?
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 10:19 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
A 16 team playoff.  Now let's think about that a minute.  In the 65 team basketball playoff, if you don't get in you end up 1) in the NIT, 2) in the CBI, 3) done for the year.  Lord knows how many times we've ripped on those tournaments in the past.  So if you don't make the 16 team playoff you get to play in the football NIT, a bowl.  Umm!  16 teams isn't going to do it unless every conference champ is included - then you'd be playing for something legitimate.


In a 16 team playoff, I am assuming that every conference champion would be invited, along with five at-large selections.  The Wetzel book Death to the BCS lays out a pretty flawless plan, in which the higher seeded teams would host each round up until the championship game.  The entire 4 week tournament could be held during the current bowl period, and would likely generate around $500-600 million more per year than the current bowl system.  The playoff would actually enhance, rather than detract from the current regular season. 

The only question is what would happen to the bowls under such a scenario.  Some would undoubtedly collapse, others would probably stick around effectively as an NIT equivalent. 


Flomo, have you read that book? If so, do you recommend? I was going to add to my Christmas wish list, but I've receiving differing opinions on it.


It never hurts to read both sides of the story Ted.  Tell you what, I'll see if I can find it and then I'll loan it to you and then we can pass it around Bobcatattackers.   Deal?


You're preaching to the choir, Alan. I am violently in agreement with the playoff system. If I were king of the MAC, I would think of limiting the number of  Bowl teams to three. Each division winner plus one other team that would deserve to go but might have been pinned behind an exceptional team in one of the divisions (like if CMU would finish behind a 12-0 Ball St. team in the West). If there is a playoff and a subsequent "NIT", then I would support 2 NIT teams.

Any more than three teams in the postseason and I would look for ESPN or game sponsors to offer reasonable (maybe $300K or $400K as schools shouldn't be allowed to go spending crazy) participation revenue so that a school could break even. I don't think most would have a problem with a school playing a Bowl game if it didn't cost anything incremental.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,950
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 10:26 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Flomo, have you read that book? If so, do you recommend? I was going to add to my Christmas wish list, but I've receiving differing opinions on it.


Yes, I've read it and would highly recommend it.  Some of it won't be news to mid-major fans, and a couple of their conclusions are a little questionable in my mind (such as that the bowl system wouldn't suffer at all from a playoff), but overall it is a blistering attack on the BCS that really doesn't leave much room for debate.  Every single defense of the BCS is thoroughly obliterated.  It was definitely an eye-opener, even for someone predisposed to hate the BCS.

What negatives have you heard about the book?


I have heard that it is heavy on why the BCS is a bad system and light on backup of its solution. I'm most interested in solution ideas.
Flomo-genized
General User
F
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574
person
mail
Flomo-genized
mail
Posted: 11/2/2010 10:52 PM
The book is definitely devotes a lot of energy to attacking the BCS, but does to in order to advance its proposed playoff system.  So it does propose a definite plan, one that seems pretty flawless to me, but I can see why some would say it focuses more on attacking the current system rather arguing in favor of its specific playoff proposal.
Last Edited: 11/2/2010 10:55:18 PM by Flomo-genized
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 72
MAC News Links
Tuesday, May 12, 2026



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)