|
Replies: 20
| visibility 2,043
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
So NOT going to a bowl is financially better for Clemson?
Dec 11, 2012, 12:43 PM
|
|
If all conference teams share bowl payouts, and we go in the red for every bowl we go to... then.... um.... it's bad financially to earn a post season?
Can someone explain this to me?!
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Well of course it is
Dec 11, 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|
But of you aren't successful you lose more money in other ways.
Also realize that by "going into the red" we are just spending more money than we budgeted not necessarily losing money overall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
We are losing money by being in a bowl vs. NOT going.***
Dec 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
hmmm, I've never used in the red the way you do, and I work
Dec 11, 2012, 12:47 PM
[ in reply to Well of course it is ] |
|
in finance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 22551
Joined: 5/14/03
|
i thought you get a bowl allowance for expenses out of
Dec 11, 2012, 12:46 PM
|
|
the money before the remaining money goes to the conference to get divided up. No?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Our allowance will not meet our expenses again. So like last
Dec 11, 2012, 12:48 PM
|
|
year our AD will lose money because we are in a bowl. Schools who are not in a bowl do not have this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15075
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Seems odd to me that expenses aren't paid by the Bowl
Dec 11, 2012, 12:58 PM
|
|
before the revenue sharing kicks in. But... the conferences are rackets, so I don't doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: We are losing money by being in a bowl vs. NOT going.***
Dec 11, 2012, 12:48 PM
|
|
Well obviously it costs money to go places. That shouldn't be new news to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Lame response. My comment isn't that I'm shocked b/c we
Dec 11, 2012, 12:50 PM
|
|
have expenses. My comment, which you didn't address, was that we actually lose money by going to bowls and teams who don't go to bowls gain money.
Comment on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [439]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 791
Joined: 11/6/07
|
There are ancillary benefits
Dec 11, 2012, 12:51 PM
|
|
Try selling season tickets and being nationally relevant without going to a bowl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
I know what you are saying... but we should gain money too.
Dec 11, 2012, 12:52 PM
|
|
It is an injustice to lose money from being a team that earns the conference money, while teams that did nothing for the conference gain OUR earned money.
The system should be re-worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [439]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 791
Joined: 11/6/07
|
Somebody fax Swofford.
Dec 11, 2012, 12:55 PM
|
|
7 years without a bowl apperance you are out of the bowl money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Or that if you actually earn bowl money you are guaranteed
Dec 11, 2012, 12:56 PM
|
|
10% more of the bowl money than teams who did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96875]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29216
Joined: 9/14/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119767]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54506
Joined: 6/24/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [13]
TigerPulse: 24%
Posts: 60
Joined: 7/1/11
|
Re: Nail hit on head! ^^^^^***
Dec 11, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
You get an ALLOWANCE to spend on the bowl game. Just like the FED. It is no ones fault but your own if you spend more than the budget allows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1895]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 3258
Joined: 7/24/10
|
Re: hmmm, I've never used in the red the way you do, and I work
Dec 11, 2012, 12:53 PM
|
|
"As we look at this season's game, it is likely that we will at this season's game, it is likely that we will spend more than the allocation given to us by the spend more than the allocation given to us by the ACC. We will then dip into the June conference ACC. We will then dip into the June conference revenue share to zero out this event."
We lose money going to a bowl but that doesn't mean it is sinking the AD. We just wont bring in as much as we thought we would.
If we were really worried about the money, we wouldn't spend so much
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23420
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Your last sentence is a good point. We could spend less.
Dec 11, 2012, 12:54 PM
|
|
It still seems effed up though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3788]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 9880
Joined: 11/2/08
|
The way the conference divides up bowl money is a joke
Dec 11, 2012, 1:07 PM
|
|
but I think overall we'll make a profit due to ancillary benefits. Going to a bowl should increase next year's ticket sales (especially if we win), as well as increase revenues from merchandising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6516
Joined: 6/1/99
|
Its all in the allocations
Dec 11, 2012, 3:02 PM
|
|
We book the coaches' bonsuses in to the bowl payout. Thats typically salary in any other business. The tickets used to for the band to sit during the games aren't a true cost. Its a reduction in the potential revenue we earn from the sale of tickets.
And this doesn't account for the bowl money that is sent to the conference first and then comes back to the schools.
If teams really lost money on bowls we wouldn't have 35 bowls and teams like GT and UCLA asking for a waiver to go to them. In general the total revenue from the bowl is more than the costs of going to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 2,043
|
|
|
50
