RipsIt reader Mel Quan sent in this interesting question about bowl revenue: "Could you explain how the Pac-10 distributes the money brought in from the seven teams that played in bowl games?"
For each bowl, teams are allotted a pre-established expense budget from the bowl to cover travel, hotel and other logistical costs associated with the postseason game (interestingly, the school gets to pocket leftover money not spent on expenses, so teams that don't have to travel far for the bowl make more on the game). Then, minus the pre-determined expense budgets, the bowl payouts are given to the Pac-10 and divided equally 10 ways, regardless of what bowl, if any, a school played in. A nearly identical strategy is employed for the revenue gained from the NCAA men's basketball tournament each spring.
It's revenue sharing in the truest sense, allowing programs to be able to count on a similar paycheck from bowls each year. For the 2009 season, the seven Pac-10 bowl participants collectively pulled in roughly $24.6 million prior to expenses, so each of the 10 conference members should receive around $2 million after costs are deducted.
"It creates a steady stream of income year-in and year-out," said senior associate athletic director Steve Lopes, who handles the athletic department's budget.
Because of the conference's equal revenue sharing, USC, a participant in the $850,000-payout Emerald Bowl, will receive a nearly identical check this season as compared to the previous seven, when the Trojans were the conference's breadwinners by going to seven straight big-money BCS games. USC admittedly lost out on revenue associated with decreased merchandise sales, a lower demand for tickets and more travel expenses this year, but the big paycheck remains basically the same as prior seasons.
"Theoretically, there's no financial advantage to attending a bowl, minus the ancillary benefits, of course," Lopes said.
For each bowl, teams are allotted a pre-established expense budget from the bowl to cover travel, hotel and other logistical costs associated with the postseason game (interestingly, the school gets to pocket leftover money not spent on expenses, so teams that don't have to travel far for the bowl make more on the game). Then, minus the pre-determined expense budgets, the bowl payouts are given to the Pac-10 and divided equally 10 ways, regardless of what bowl, if any, a school played in. A nearly identical strategy is employed for the revenue gained from the NCAA men's basketball tournament each spring.
It's revenue sharing in the truest sense, allowing programs to be able to count on a similar paycheck from bowls each year. For the 2009 season, the seven Pac-10 bowl participants collectively pulled in roughly $24.6 million prior to expenses, so each of the 10 conference members should receive around $2 million after costs are deducted.
"It creates a steady stream of income year-in and year-out," said senior associate athletic director Steve Lopes, who handles the athletic department's budget.
Because of the conference's equal revenue sharing, USC, a participant in the $850,000-payout Emerald Bowl, will receive a nearly identical check this season as compared to the previous seven, when the Trojans were the conference's breadwinners by going to seven straight big-money BCS games. USC admittedly lost out on revenue associated with decreased merchandise sales, a lower demand for tickets and more travel expenses this year, but the big paycheck remains basically the same as prior seasons.
"Theoretically, there's no financial advantage to attending a bowl, minus the ancillary benefits, of course," Lopes said.
Leave a comment