Why Does The NCAA rip off FCS Schools with Playoff Payouts!

[mikebigg]

http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/log/index.php/2009/04/02/fcs-playoffs-netted-prefit-for-jmu?blog=2

For schools to host I-AA playoff games, the NCAA requires that they submit bids or guarantees of how much they will pay for each home date. The organization sets minimum bids that get higher for each round. To enhance their chances of securing home games, however, schools often bid more than twice the minimum, as JMU did last season to get contests at Bridgeforth Stadium against Wofford, Villanova and Montana.

Madison bid $80,002.50 in the first round, $100,003.50 in the second and 120,001.50 in the third - and exceeded the guarantee for each game. The NCAA minimum bids were about $30,000 for the first round, and went up by $10,000 each round thereafter.

After sending off the check to the NCAA for the guarantee, a portion of the profits and a fee for hosting, JMU made $11,061.85 in the first round, $15,153.62 in the second and $21,768.27 in the third.

But this is my main discontent with the existing playoff structure. Too much $$$ spent to make money
for the NCAA... Under this present format, "Thanks but No Thanks"

[Rob Iola]

So JMU bids aggressively and still generates a profit - sounds like a good business strategy based solely on the gate receipts/concessions.

More importantly, home playoff games are great for recruiting and, for small towns in out of the way locations like Harrisonburg, great for the local economy.

And you need an organization like the NCAA to coordinate the whole system, and that ain't free...

[GannonFan]

What's the complaint? JMU made money off the playoffs. Is that a bad thing?

[mikebigg]

So JMU bids aggressively and still generates a profit - sounds like a good business strategy based solely on the gate receipts/concessions.

More importantly, home playoff games are great for recruiting and, for small towns in out of the way locations like Harrisonburg, great for the local economy.

And you need an organization like the NCAA to coordinate the whole system, and that ain't free...

Do you really need the NCAA? I don't know how many teams are selected for the FCS playoffs, but couldn't the seeding be done by a FCS Competition Committee of AD's from FCS schools. Once these seedings are made and pairing done, establish that the visiting team gets a guarantee of $75k (similar to buying a regular season game). The home team would be responsible for game officials and other expenses similar to a regular season game. Any TV money could be given to the NCAA since they have handled negotiations with ESPN or whomever.

Let's say McNeese is the Southland Conference winner and their draw happens to be Grambling or Southern from the SWAC (if the SWAC decides to participate). I would imagine a sellout crowd over in Lake Charles... after paying $75k to those schools, McNeese would make a mint at the gate and via concessions. I can't believe the McNeese supporters would have a problem supporting such a scenario... As it stands now, the benefit of making the playoffs is being greatly diminished from what it could be. Hosting and winning a home playoff game is cool...but I would imagine that hosting, winning, and getting paid for it is even better. Someone help me understand... Surely there's some playoff proponent out there who can tell me why it is better that the NCAA gets the money.

[mikebigg]

What's the complaint? JMU made money off the playoffs. Is that a bad thing?

Isn't making more money for hosting the same game a BETTER thing?

[Jackman]

JMU did well to make a $1 profit, let alone $15k or so per game. Remember that these bids offset the last second travel costs of the opposing team and other expenses, and that there's no TV revenue. From what I've read, ESPN doesn't pay anything for the playoff games they show, which is why they use them as an infomercial for their bowl lineup and the Heisman show.

[mikebigg]

JMU did well to make a $1 profit, let alone $15k or so per game. Remember that these bids offset the last second travel costs of the opposing team and other expenses, and that there's no TV revenue. From what I've read, ESPN doesn't pay anything for the playoff games they show, which is why they use them as an infomercial for their bowl lineup and the Heisman show.

Okay... but answer this for me. In the article, it mentioned that the mininum bid is $30k for the first game and that JMU bid $80k to ensure it's chances. The article said that after paying the guarantee ($80k) and A PORTION OF THE PROFITS PLUS HOSTING FEE... Why did the NCAA get a portion of the profits? Wouldn't the $80k take care of the visiting team's expenses? Who determines what percentage of the profits they keep and what is this "hosting fee"? Apparently that's an "extra" that is above and beyond the minimum bid...apparently even above the huge guarantee of $80k (which exceeds the minimum by $50k). Now if yall don't have a problem with that... cool by me. But man that seems like the NCAA is getting over on some folk... if yall like it, so be it.

[Panther88]

Okay... but answer this for me. In the article, it mentioned that the mininum bid is $30k for the first game and that JMU bid $80k to ensure it's chances. The article said that after paying the guarantee ($80k) and A PORTION OF THE PROFITS PLUS HOSTING FEE... Why did the NCAA get a portion of the profits? Wouldn't the $80k take care of the visiting team's expenses? Who determines what percentage of the profits they keep and what is this "hosting fee"? Apparently that's an "extra" that is above and beyond the minimum bid...apparently even above the huge guarantee of $80k (which exceeds the minimum by $50k). Now if yall don't have a problem with that... cool by me. But man that seems like the NCAA is getting over on some folk... if yall like it, so be it.

I'm interested in this answer.

[Big Al]

I think you're assuming that all schools bid and make money like JMU. That may or may not be the case. When you see attendance for some of the first-round games, I can't imagine anyone (the school or the NCAA) makes some sort of killing on the playoffs.

[Tribe4SF]

First of all, this is an NCAA championship. They run the show, and pay everyone who needs to be paid to make it happen. I believe the traveling party for the visiting team is 125 people. They bus, or fly them...put them up in hotels, and feed them. They pay the officials...transport, house and feed them, as well as the NCAA reps who are on site. The payoff for participating schools goes beyond the dollars for an individual game. Having your school, stadium and campus on ESPN is valuable advertising.

Not every winning bid is as high as what JMU put up. Schools who are seeded have to put up the minimum, and in the case of Villanova last year, had weak attendance. The championship has to be viewed as a whole, not just individual games. While member schools notoriously under report attendance for these games, the NCAA has to account to it's members for every dollar that's part of the championship. Running a championship with twenty teams involved is a year round job, including the functions of the selection committee, and the regional advisory committees.

SWAC schools have made their choice, and the rest of us have made ours. When you read local news coverage of W&M recruits, they invariably mention "the chance to compete for a national championship" as part of their decision making.

[WestCoastAggie]

Okay... but answer this for me. In the article, it mentioned that the mininum bid is $30k for the first game and that JMU bid $80k to ensure it's chances. The article said that after paying the guarantee ($80k) and A PORTION OF THE PROFITS PLUS HOSTING FEE... Why did the NCAA get a portion of the profits? Wouldn't the $80k take care of the visiting team's expenses? Who determines what percentage of the profits they keep and what is this "hosting fee"? Apparently that's an "extra" that is above and beyond the minimum bid...apparently even above the huge guarantee of $80k (which exceeds the minimum by $50k). Now if yall don't have a problem with that... cool by me. But man that seems like the NCAA is getting over on some folk... if yall like it, so be it.

The money from the FCS Playoffs is used to play the travel costs, stipend and hotel costs for visiting school's "traveling party" and other operating expenses as express in the NCAA FCS Handbook.

And according to this document: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25/Copy+of+Copy+of+Div1_2009_MotherSummarySS+%282%29. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25

only Men's Basketball, Ice Hockey and LaX bring in a profit for the NCAA.

The Key in all of this is TV Revenue.

[txstatebobcat]

The last thing I heard was that the NCAA lost $400,000 in holding last year's playoffs so I doubt there will be any money distributed any time soon.

If its really true that ESPN pays nothing for televising the playoffs then its highway robbery. The Montana vs Appalachian St game alone had better ratings than a dozen or more bowls. The Championship game had better tv ratings than 4-5 bowls all of which get money for being televised. The NCAA is wholly responsible for the TV contract and FCS presidents need to weigh in when the next contract negotiations comes around.

[JMUDuke2002]

The last thing I heard was that the NCAA lost $400,000 in holding last year's playoffs so I doubt there will be any money distributed any time soon.

If its really true that ESPN pays nothing for televising the playoffs then its highway robbery. The Montana vs Appalachian St game alone had better ratings than a dozen or more bowls. The Championship game had better tv ratings than 4-5 bowls all of which get money for being televised. The NCAA is wholly responsible for the TV contract and FCS presidents need to weigh in when the next contract negotiations comes around.

I agree that it would be nice if ESPN paid something for these games. But, they are really doing FCS a favor. Most of the games are rated really low. Appy and Montana scored a high at 1.87 and averaged a 1.6, which was better than 9 bowl games but of those 9 only significantly better than three of them. http://media.al.com/solomon/photo/113bcstvjpg-3d3c3517c7fc3bf3.jpg

And the championship game was worse falling off to a 1.3 if I remember correctly.

It's just a cold hard fact that the FCS playoffs just don't draw big ratings. Hell, ESPN showed more of the D2 playoffs last year than they did FCS playoffs. I had to order two of JMU's games back in 2008 but I got to watch some crappy D2 game every saturday.

[txstatebobcat]

The thing is that the championship game at a 1.3 still had more viewers than three bowls. This is with nothing, and I mean nothing in the way of marketing by espn. Also the 1.3 is lower than normal, it is usually higher than that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree that it would be nice if ESPN paid something for these games. But, they are really doing FCS a favor. Most of the games are rated really low. Appy and Montana scored a high at 1.87 and averaged a 1.6, which was better than 9 bowl games but of those 9 only significantly better than three of them. http://media.al.com/solomon/photo/113bcstvjpg-3d3c3517c7fc3bf3.jpg

And the championship game was worse falling off to a 1.3 if I remember correctly.

It's just a cold hard fact that the FCS playoffs just don't draw big ratings. Hell, ESPN showed more of the D2 playoffs last year than they did FCS playoffs. I had to order two of JMU's games back in 2008 but I got to watch some crappy D2 game every saturday.


The thing is that the championship game at a 1.3 still had more viewers than three bowls. This is with nothing, and I mean nothing in the way of marketing by espn. Also the 1.3 is lower than normal, it is usually higher than that.

That's true. Also worthy of mention was the fact that App/Montana benefited from a great time slot: 3:30PM on a Saturday with zero competition. This year, the championship will be (I'm guessing) at 3PM EST before the Cotton Bowl, which will be before the Cotton Bowl and also devoid of competition as well. My guess will be that the championship will get an even better rating than last year.

Timeslots dictated the ratings, really, for the most part. Friday night playoff games and championships meant most people were not watching. I think the new expanded playoffs might actually be a really good thing TV-wise.

I think the trend for TV ratings and FCS - honestly, now - has nowhere to go but up.

[bluedog]

The money from the FCS Playoffs is used to play the travel costs, stipend and hotel costs for visiting school's "traveling party" and other operating expenses as express in the NCAA FCS Handbook.

And according to this document: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25/Copy+of+Copy+of+Div1_2009_MotherSummarySS+%282%29. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25

only Men's Basketball, Ice Hockey and LaX bring in a profit for the NCAA.

The Key in all of this is TV Revenue.


JMU did well to make a $1 profit, let alone $15k or so per game. Remember that these bids offset the last second travel costs of the opposing team and other expenses, and that there's no TV revenue. From what I've read, ESPN doesn't pay anything for the playoff games they show, which is why they use them as an infomercial for their bowl lineup and the Heisman show.


Still making it up as you go I see. xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx

[MplsBison]

http://www.championshipsubdivisionnews.com/log/index.php/2009/04/02/fcs-playoffs-netted-prefit-for-jmu?blog=2

For schools to host I-AA playoff games, the NCAA requires that they submit bids or guarantees of how much they will pay for each home date. The organization sets minimum bids that get higher for each round. To enhance their chances of securing home games, however, schools often bid more than twice the minimum, as JMU did last season to get contests at Bridgeforth Stadium against Wofford, Villanova and Montana.

Madison bid $80,002.50 in the first round, $100,003.50 in the second and 120,001.50 in the third - and exceeded the guarantee for each game. The NCAA minimum bids were about $30,000 for the first round, and went up by $10,000 each round thereafter.

After sending off the check to the NCAA for the guarantee, a portion of the profits and a fee for hosting, JMU made $11,061.85 in the first round, $15,153.62 in the second and $21,768.27 in the third.

But this is my main discontent with the existing playoff structure. Too much $$$ spent to make money
for the NCAA... Under this present format, "Thanks but No Thanks"

Interesting! Seems there is some cash to in FCS football, at least for the most popular programs.

I can see another reason why FBS football appealing, the schools get to keep the football money!

[WestCoastAggie]

Still making it up as you go I see. xlolxxlolxxlolxxlolx

What was made up? xeyebrowx

The key in all of this IS TV Revenue.

ESPN doesn't pay to show the FCS Playoffs games, thus no TV Revenue to offset the expenses of putting on the FCS Playoffs.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

The money from the FCS Playoffs is used to play the travel costs, stipend and hotel costs for visiting school's "traveling party" and other operating expenses as express in the NCAA FCS Handbook.

And according to this document: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25/Copy+of+Copy+of+Div1_2009_MotherSummarySS+%282%29. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=3c9398804e0d53f99debfd1ad6fc8b25

only Men's Basketball, Ice Hockey and LaX bring in a profit for the NCAA.

The Key in all of this is TV Revenue.

TV revenue may be the key with hoop, but not with ice hockey and lacrosse. With the latter two sports, the gate receipts have to be the key item. Having 40-50K at NFL stadiums for LAX the past few years for the semis and finals has to be their key. Having sellout crowds at large NHL arenas for the Frozen Four for a decade now has to be the their key.

[paytonlives]

Be VERY glad that there are still playoffs... With the NCAA losing a half a million each year, how long will it last? Now they have added 4 clown teams that will only make the costs rise.

If it were not for Griz fans and the CAA the NCAA would be losing 2 million a year on the playoffs...

[WestCoastAggie]

TV revenue may be the key with hoop, but not with ice hockey and lacrosse. With the latter two sports, the gate receipts have to be the key item. Having 40-50K at NFL stadiums for LAX the past few years for the semis and finals has to be their key. Having sellout crowds at large NHL arenas for the Frozen Four for a decade now has to be the their key.

The sellouts are apart of it but ESPN/Disney pays to show those games. They don't pay to show the FCS Playoff games, from my understanding. And if ESPN does pay, its not enough to offset the costs of having these games and the travel costs of the road teams, thus the reason why the NCAA has the bidding process.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

The sellouts are apart of it but ESPN/Disney pays to show those games. They don't pay to show the FCS Playoff games, from my understanding. And if ESPN does pay, its not enough to offset the costs of having these games and the travel costs of the road teams, thus the reason why the NCAA has the bidding process.

I don't believe there is a separate contract to televise the ice hockey/lacrosse finals, it's all part of the entire package. ESPN/Disney may well be paying for the entire package so they can televise the hockey and LAX games thus forcing them to televise every other championship.

[Green26]

The ncaa's loss, which I too heard was $400,000, is relatively modest--given the importance of the playoffs to FCS and college football. By comparison, the ncaa women's tournament used to lose alot more money than that.

While I don't know the espn tv contract arrangement, I would think that more of the right match ups and games like App St/Montana would increase tv and espn interest significantly.

The FCS playoff system went to the regional pairing system, and stopped seeding all 16 teams, in order to save money, in 2001 or so. This resulted in more bus travel and less charter travel.

[Jaguar79]

All this information and yet no one other than the Ivy and SWAC seem to have a problem with this?

[TexasTerror]

All this information and yet no one other than the Ivy and SWAC seem to have a problem with this?

I do not believe the Ivy League should be included alongside the SWAC. They do not participate in the postseason for a myriad of reasons that have nowhere near as much tied to the financial side as the SWAC.

[bluedog]

I do not believe the Ivy League should be included alongside the SWAC. They do not participate in the postseason for a myriad of reasons that have nowhere near as much tied to the financial side as the SWAC.

The conference reason as to why it doesn't is nobody's business but the conference involved.

Your claim to why you're always spending your every breathe bashing the SWAC is suppose to be because we simply don't participate. So what difference does it makes why?

Can you make up your mind which it is?

[gram4life]

I do not believe the Ivy League should be included alongside the SWAC. They do not participate in the postseason for a myriad of reasons that have nowhere near as much tied to the financial side as the SWAC.

LOL, Ok.

[UNH Fanboi]

The Ivy League doesn't participate in the playoffs because they don't want to play against teams with black players. The SWAC doesn't participate in the playoffs because they don't want to play against teams with white players. xsmiley_wix

[TexasTerror]

The conference reason as to why it doesn't is nobody's business but the conference involved.

We all know the reason - based on remarks made by SWAC administrators and fans alike. It is not our business to make the judgment calls on behalf of the SWAC, but we all know the answer - so why act like we do not?


Your claim to why you're always spending your every breathe bashing the SWAC is suppose to be because we simply don't participate. So what difference does it makes why?

I do not care that you do not participate in the playoffs. I'll be the first to argue that the league's direction over the last decade (and change) has negatively impacted the quality of your football teams. But, I'll also be the first to argue that the reason the SWAC does not participate is strictly financial (see the Bayou Classic at the forefront and now, this new revenue-generating Legacy Bowl to replace the SCG).

I think you would be hard-pressed to disagree that most of the SWAC schools operate with Div II budgets in most cases. Your league has the smallest budgets of any in the country at the Div I level - hard to disagree there. Valley's $3.1M overall athletic budget is the lowest of a scholarship football team in the country - I ask you to try to find lower, I've already looked and there is none.

In fact, I would say the SWAC would be a middle of the pack, if not slightly above average as far as funding for athletics goes for Div II conferences in this neck of the woods if you cut Texas Southern from factoring in the averages. The Louisiana schools in the SWAC are going to be in a rough spot (and as a friend or two of mine on Fork'em Demons agree, the La. schools aren't talking about it) moving forward. They have already seen 20% of their budget cut in the last 18 months and will have another 20-30% lopped off in the next 18 months as well. Check out our other thread for more discussion there..

[TSUalum05]

TT,

Seriously, how often are you going to mention Jerry Rice's alma mater (Mississippi Valley) budget? You sound like a nagging wife that keeps on repeating herself (women, please do not take offense if you're not a nagging wife - so I'm not warned or banned, I'm not name calling or considering this a personal attack. This is an analogy to highlight his continued constant reiteration of their budget).

[bluedog]

That's just it, you'll be the first to argue anything T T and answer nothing.

[TexasTerror]

Seriously, how often are you going to mention Jerry Rice's alma mater (Mississippi Valley) budget?

If we are going to talk about finances of the conferences, the most obvious example when speaking as it relates to that of Mississippi Valley State. Their budget is $1.3M less than a Div II program in their state - Delta State.


That's just it, you'll be the first to argue anything T T and answer nothing.

Well, it's not like there is a counter-point to argue, is there?

The SWAC is the lowest rung on the NCAA football totem pole as far as budgets are concerned. Raising revenue is important to each of the SWAC schools as duly noted. The SWAC Championship Game gave revenue to each of the schools, something they would not have a chance with as far as NCAA playoffs are concerned. The Bayou Classic and Turkey Day Classic also get in the way and now with the Legacy Bowl providing ample $$$ to the SWAC schools, even more reason to skip the playoffs.

They have no other option. Some of the schools have already stopped playing 11 game schedules, not because of inability to schedule in each case, but finances. It is only getting worse. The forecast is bleak for the Louisiana schools and already is not ideal for the Mississippi ones. Have not read much about the Alabama duo of A&M and State, but even your AD has said they are bare bones right now and based on football and basketball schedules - even loading up on guarantee games is not providing the athletic department what it needs. Most of your schools are playing the minimum allowed contests as is. A few of the schools may soon be teetering, if they are not already (in the case of Grambling when they eliminate four sports) on the minimum sport sponsorship for Div I.

This is a problem...and a big answer to the SWAC's reasoning for skipping the playoffs.

Was there anything wrong in the above post? Would love to hear the arguments about the subject and not attacks on me, if you could.

[bjtheflamesfan]

alright you guys...TT I already talked to you so what I told you shouldnt bear repeating in public

bluedog, the quote function is available for a reason

TSU, thanks for the addendum, just be careful so you dont have to add something onto your post so that mods dont have to consider a suspension, ban or warning. give a little extra thought before you post.

[TSUalum05]

If we are going to talk about finances of the conferences, the most obvious example when speaking as it relates to that of Mississippi Valley State. Their budget is $1.3M less than a Div II program in their state - Delta State.


MVSU also receives less state funding than DSU.

http://www.mississippi.edu/finance/downloads/ihl_operating_budget_summary_2007_2008.pdf

[TexasTerror]

MVSU also receives less state funding than DSU.

http://www.mississippi.edu/finance/downloads/ihl_operating_budget_summary_2007_2008.pdf

State funding is most certainly an issue, but schools need to try to break away from relying on the state for their support, especially seeing as higher education is continually punished in so many states with budget cuts. There's not many self-sufficient athletic departments in the country - ones that break even or make profit without student fees or state money.

As is the case in this discussion, the NCAA playoffs do not generate hard money. The SWAC schools need hard money and they get it from the TDC, Bayou Classic and currently the SCG (and soon the Legacy Bowl)...

Keep an eye on Grambling as Louisiana makes cuts. Grambling as we discussed in the other thread (http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?58721-Louisiana-schools-facing-more-budget-problems&p=1529617&viewfull=1#post1529617) relies more on state funding to run their athletic program than any other in the state. Louisiana's cuts may be amongst the most severe in the country.

[bjtheflamesfan]

Easy TSU And TT...

[TexasTerror]

Easy TSU And TT...

I don't think we're doing anything out of line. We're both discussing the merits of state funding and how that impacts the financial situation pertaining to the SWAC - their primary reason for not doing the playoffs, especially in light of other schools who do not reap hard money benefits from competing in the NCAA postseason.

[bjtheflamesfan]

fair enough. just try to keep it on point like we discussed