Pack your lunch 'cause Prove It is blogging again...
How are the Mid-Majors really faring in the FBS Bowl Syetem, and where they can improve.
Number of Bowl Appearances
The other 5 sent 24 teams to the bowls (48%), compared to 42 teams from the majors (65%).
This could have been worse. The other 5 only have 17 bowl tie-ins (34%) but benefited by the majors falling short on bowl eligible teams.
This will likely to drop in the future. Don't expect the majors to have only half their teams above .500 to be the norm.
The majors are scheduling more games against FCS teams.
Majors that typically finish in the bottom 1/3 of their conference have incentive to schedule cream puffs to boost their bowl chances.
The PAC 10 coaches are questioning continuing the 9 conference game schedule (2 PAC 10 teams fell 1 win shy of being bowl eligible).
There is reason to believe the majors moving to 9 conference games will drop their games against the other major conferences and schedule cream puffs.
The other 5 had unusually high success against the majors in 2008. 5 majors can trace their sub-500 record partially to losses to the other 5. There is more to point towards this being an anomaly than a shift in the football powers. If the trend does continue, there is reason to believe teams would respond by scheduling lighter in the future.
Bowl Stature
The discrepancy begins to take form when you look at the stature of the bowls the teams lay in.
If bowl stature is based purely on payouts to the participating teams, the other 5 placed only 2 teams in the upper half of the bowls. (6%), 1 in the BCS and 1 in the 15th ranked Liberty Bowl (their only tie-in to the top 1/2 of the bowls). 15 appeared in the lowest 10 bowls (75%), earning from $375K to $750K for their appearance.
Bowl Revenue
The discrepancy becomes apparent when you compare bowl revenue.
The average bowl pays each team an appearance fee of just under $2 Million per team. The average major receives just over $2.6M, the other 5 average $975K (38%)
Without the BCS, the difference is about the same. The average bowl pays just over $1.5M, the average major receives nearly $2.1M, the other 5 average just over $800K (38%).
It could be worse. The 17 conference tie-ins of the other 5 average $769K per team.
To put it into perspective, the average team from the other 5 can earn more playing a road game against the majors than making a bowl appearance. If you factor in bowl related expenses, the road game against the majors is far more profitable.
Don't Blame the Bowls
They are looking at TV ratings, game attendance, fans making the bowl game the center piece of a week long vacation, and teams that appeal to sponsors. To pay the appearance fee, they need the revenue.
Whether the cause is the size of the colleges (and number of alumni), competition for a fanbase with majors located in the same state, or another factor, the bowls do not have a responsibility to prop up the other 5.
They do have a responsibility to their status and their host city to generate as much revenue as possible.
Don't Blame the Majors
Every major program could use additional revenue in their Athletic Department.
The appearance fees they pay for a single road game can account for over 5% of the AD budget of a program from the financial bottom of the other 5.
The majors do not have a responsibility for the financial viability of the programs of the other 5.
Don't Blame the BCS
The BCS has all the responsibilities of the other bowls, plus the conferences which enjoy an automatic invite.
An invite to the other 5 costs the majors over $4M net loss in appearance fees. It costs the BCS another $4.5M payout to their conference. I do not know what the loss in tourism or TV ratings might be (I couldn't locate Boise, but Hawaii and Utah were last and next to last in BCS ratings the years they played).
This is in addition to the $9M they pay the other 5 for... I guess the same reason they give ND $1M a year (don't ask me).
After setting the criteria, the BCS doesn't determine which (if any) of the other 5 earn the invite or who plays in the title game, or which conferences earn an automatic invite. The same fair criteria which can earn the champ from the other 5 an automatic berth can cause the majors to lose theirs.
So Who is to Blame?
Perhaps it is about time the other 5 quit holding out for a government bailout, filing frivolous lawsuits and investigations which will never show up on a court docket, posturing behind ridiculous proposals to the BCS, and quit begging the master at the table to drop them a few more table scraps.
The title of this blog is wrong. The little 5 are not orphans looking for a 2nd helping from their care takers. They are their own multi-million dollar entities. If they want to improve their revenue stream, perhaps they should follow the example of the majors rather than beg for scraps at the foot of the table.
The 4 member bowls were individually big before they joined and formed the BCS. They became big because they were developed and promoted by the majors. The other 5 can follow suit to improve their lot as well.
The Mid Majors Bowl Series
The other 5 only have 2 bowl tie-in worth more than $1M. They can earn more from filling a slot vacated because a major couldn't provide an 8th or 9th team than they earn contracting their conference's 1st selection.
To put it another way, the bowls would currently prefer the 8th place team from a major than contract for 1st choice among the other 5.
IF you are from the SUN Belt and didn't win your conference, you are the equivalent to Miss America Runner-Up... "Should a major be unable to fulfill their duties providing a 9th bowl eligible team..."
Yes, it is as bad as it sounds.
At present they contract selection on a conference by conference basis - a real shot in the dark with the other 5.
Combining into a single entity, they can contract their top 2 bowl selections from each conference (after the BCS hopefully takes 1) to the 5 most interested bowls. Rather than contracting for the 1st or 2nd, selection from a single conference, the bowls would contract for the 1st, 2nd, etc. selection from any of the top 2 teams of the other 5.
After the formation they can promote and develop the series. If a more lucrative bowls expresses interest, they can be added and the lowest bowl dropped. It will never be close to the BCS, but it will be better than their current bowls.
If they only generate $1M per team appearance fee ($10M total) it will be better than the current top 10 conference tie-ins.
The list of potential 5 bowls is long. Just looking at the series from their highest bowl tie-in thru the bowls currently paying $850K appearance fees:
Liberty Bowl...............$1.7M *!
Music City Bowl...............$1.6M
Insight Bowl...............$1.2M
Texas Bowl...............$1.125M **!
Independence Bowl...............$1.1M **
EagleBank Bowl...............$1M
Las Vegas Bowl...............$1M *!
Meineke Bowl...............$1M
St. Pete Bowl...............$1M **!
Emerald Bowl...............$850K
They only have 4 tie-ins to these bowls (denoted by !) but in 2008 they filled 8 of these slots (denoted by *)
This doesn't include 5 more bowls that pay $750K, or attracting bowls paying more than the $1.7M Liberty payout.
For reference, if they contracted for the top 4 bowls above and the Emerald Bowl, the revenue would be worth more than all of their current 17 conference tie-ins.
Feasibility and Logistics
At present CUSA generates $2.45M from their top 2 selections. If the Liberty Bowl was not interested, to attract CUSA it might be necessary to only have their 2nd team in the selection pool, adding a 3rd team from the other 4 mid-majors on a rotating basis.
With a large difference between the highest and lowest appearance fees, revenue sharing would be necessary. If the above allowance for CUSA was necessary, the next highest conference would be the MWC at $1.75M for their top 2 selections, requiring a flat payout of approx. $875K with the excess revenue shared.
Interest on the part of the bowls would be primarily based on projected TV audience. I could not locate sufficient historical ratings to make an accurate determination.
After implementation, it would be up to the Mid-Majors to promote the series to their fans and alumni.
Wouldn't this be far more productive for the Mid-Majors than holding out for government intervention, filing frivolous lawsuits and investigations which will never show up on a court docket, posturing behind ridiculous proposals to the BCS, and begging the master at the table to drop them a few more table scraps?
References
I estimated the per-team payout for the BCS at $4.5M per team - I believe the actual amount is more. I did not include the shared revenue from the BCS to the conferences since it would be unaffected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_bids_to_non-BCS_bowls
Cheney Larschied
Cintia Dicker
Did You See That?
NFL Fans: Week 11
Comments (8) Add A Comment
The trend of playing more FCS teams is bothersome, nothing against the FCS, certainly they would welcome it.
Interesting that a team from the little five can make a bigger payday by playing on the road against a Major Six opponent compared to the payout from a lesser bowl. Over the years there have been more and more bowls added to a total of 34 bowls last season. It would not surprise me if the number of bowls begins to shrink. I try to watch as many of the bowls as I can but come on already, if more were added then teams with 5-7 records might be included.
The "Mid Majors Bowl Series" has an interesting feel to it. But maybe it could be called the "Coalition" Bowl Series* as some are wont to call the little five. My idea for that would be for the top ranked five or six teams from the little five, (excepting the ugly duckling that gets invited to a BCS bowl) to be matched up against similarly ranked teams from the Major six whenever possible.
*CBS - Coalition Bowl Series and BCS - Bowl Coalition Series would further add to the confusion of college football. I would love it! The last thing I would want to see in college football is a generic NFL style playoff. The Bowl season is my personal utopia.
norka
Bubba Spot, GA
Total Comments (4108)
Seeing any FCS isn't going to excite a fan. Now seeing an FBS team play 2 in a single season isn't uncommon.
The down side is that there isn't a lot discouraging schedulig FBS teams. At the conference level, I am only aware of 1 that makes any effort (the Big 10 has the number of FBS teams played as part of the tie breakers).
The voting polls aren't doing a lot - they would have had no problem elevating Texas Tech into the title game with 2 FCS teams on their schedule. I have a concern they aren't weighing the OOC schedule much any more after 2008 - OU deserves kudos when it turned out Cinci won the East, but I am suspicious they weren't giving USC much for their OOC wins.
The compuer polls actually reward it! Most don't count FCS games and just average the others. Despite taking the OOC part of the season off, TT was ranked as having a harder SOS in the computer polls because they got to average the other wins! (Of course, the downside is that losses are also multiplied, so it is only an issue if you have 3 undefeated teams vying for the NC game) if you want to knock the BCS formula, here is the glaring fault!
Surprisingly, TV broadcasters aren't stepping in, nor are the conferences with concerns for TV ratings.
Unfortunately, factors are encouraging teams to schedule FCS opponents.
-Increased chance of going to a bowl (anyone elgible from a major will get a bowl invite, as well as most from the other 5)
-Some majors going to 9 conference games
-The other 5 ability to demand more for playing an away game
-Budget concerns
I also see FCS opponents becoming more common for teams from the Mid-Majors.
The real losers in this (aside from the fans) will be the Mid-Majors. A lot of the smaller Athletic Departments are dependant on the revenue from road games against the majors.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
I was surprised as well... I had no idea their draw was so low the most any conference could get was less than $2.5M for their top 2 teams
If there isn't a Mid-Major in the BCS, the majors typically have 24 teams that receive $2.5M or more for their apearance - more than the best 2 tie-ins for the other 5.
Heck - 33 major bowl tie-ins earn $1.2M or more in appearance fees - more than the average of the top 2 from the highest paid mid-major.
I think there will be bowls coming and going (certainly some will fail in the current economic environment with sponsorship problems), but the bowls will be there as long as there are teams to play. Dallas is currently looking for another bowl game in their new stadium.
A big part is that they are cheap at the lower end.
-15 bowls pay an appearance fee from $2M all the way down to $600K... total for both teams.
-The teams have to pay for motel rooms - often more than they plan to use because of contract requirements. I think they also have to pay for food, per-diems, etc.
-ESPN is thrilled to carry the games - all but 5 had 2 Million+ viewers... much better than almost all of their other programming.
-They can usually get the cities to kick in some for security, parking, facilities, etc. as they get a lot of exposure.
-That leaves the bowls with some promotions, nominal administration, stadium rental, NCAA fee, and the award packages they give the players (X-Boxes or whatever).
The big part is finding a sponsor and selling tickets. Surprisingly sponsors are getting tough to come by (heck - they even get to name most bowls). The smaller bowls are trying to improve ticket sales by inviting local teams.
The NCAA was asked about what happens if there aren't enough eligible teams to fill all the bowl invites. The NCAA was adament - tough luck - 1 of the bowls won't happen that year - they will NOT allow sub-500 or teams serving a suspension to play in a bowl.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
Initially I was looking at paralleling the BCS - kind of an NIT - until I saw just how bad their revenue and TV ratings were.
When I saw the numbers, I went straight for revenue.
-Rather than trying to set up a bowl series like the BCS or remake the post season, I am envisioning them joining together to market bowl tie-ins for the top 2 teams from each of the 5 conferences (note this is not the top 2 teams, other things factor into what makes a team attractive to the bowls).
-Right now, it is hard to tell what you will get when you contract for 2nd selection from a mid major... they might be ranked, or they might be a scrub.
-By marketing the top 2 from each of the mid majors as a group, the top bowls can have more confidence what they will be getting for their venue. The mid majors should be able to attract tie ins to substantially more lucrative bowls.
-At the lower end of the selection, they will probably still be playing bowls that pay out $750K, maybe $1Million. that's why I look for revenue sharing - the object isn't to elevate every team, just improve the revenue over tat of the current highest mid-major.
To give an idea of how much they can improve, an upper-end match up from last year was Boise...TCU in the Poinsetta Bowl. This drew 5 Million viewers.
This was the 2nd highest for any bowl game featuring at least 1 team from a mid major (2nd only to Utah), but was still only the 15th highest TV ratings for a bowl.
If you ranked bowl payouts, the 15th highest bowl give or take a slot pays out a total of $3.2 to $3.8 Million. Instead the teams combined for a $1.5 Million payout.
If they could realize similar improvement in 2 or 3 bowls, this would be equal to the improvement in gross revenue of landing 1 team in the Cap1, Cotton, or Outback Bowl.
After they had the tie in, they could follow the majors example, promoting and building up the bowl. As the ratings increase, either the bowl can ask for more broadcast revenue, or the other 5 can look for a better bowl.
At least it would give them something to do to improve their lot other than ask for table scraps from the majors.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
Trying to match similarly ranked teams would be fun to watch, but the bowl system is built on conference tie-ins. Like I noted, the bowls would rather take a chance and shoot for the 8th or 9th selection from a major rather than the 3rd from a mid major conference.
The problem is fan base - the mid majors don't compare. To give an extreme comparison:
tOSU is estimated to have approx. 440,000 alumni alone (based on historical graduation numbers and lfe expectancy). This is almost the population of Wyoming.
I don't know the total number of alumni, but for a comparison
tOSU has an enrollment of 53,715, BYU 34,126, Boise 19,540
Ohio has a population of 11.5 Million
Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Montana (added because I am running out of states), North Dakota, and South Dakota have a population of about 11.7 Million.
This is the extreme, but the other 5 just can't put up the same TV ratings or reliably fill the stadiums. There is a limit to how substantial of a bowl they can attract.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
gee... saved me from writing 2 more blogs...
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
<PSUinSTL stands and claps>
This is like sitting through an opera. It was long, I got most of it, missed a few parts because of limited attention span, but walked away impressed.
I'm just waiting for 4th & Long to start singing.
PSUinHolidaySpirit
Total Comments (11024)
Truth is, I only blog these days to access research from work.
Blogging used to be awesome, but died out in the Great FN Format Change of 2008.
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6827)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.