Price tag for Virginia Tech’s Sugar Bowl trip: $3.18 million
I wrote a story for today’s paper after getting Virginia Tech’s bowl expense report. The final price tag for an eight-day trip to New Orleans for the Sugar Bowl came out to $3.18 million.
(The Virginian-Pilot page has a PDF of the report at the end of the article if you’re interested in looking at it.)
More specifically, the total cost was $3,184,938. Here’s a breakdown of where that money went:
- $951,770 in unsold tickets from its allotment (this cost was absorbed by the ACC, so essentially Tech is responsible for 1/12 of it)
- $924,792 in meals/lodging for a traveling party of 660 (180 team and staff for eight nights, 391 band and cheerleaders for seven nights, 90 faculty and staff for four nights)
- $552,913 in bonuses to the staff
- $325,977 in transportation
- $121,494 in equipment and supplies
- $113,747 in awards
- $83,400 in administrative costs
- $61,758 in insurance, other costs
- $40,000 in entertainment
- $9,078 in promotion
That’s a lot of money. And while the $1.725 million bowl allowance from the ACC makes it seem like Tech lost major money, that’s not the case.
As mentioned earlier, the cost of 7,623 unsold tickets is absorbed by the ACC, meaning it comes out of the bowl revenue the league splits among its 12 members. Subtract out that $951,770 from this expense report and Virginia Tech’s deficit is only $508,168.
But, that’s not counting the remaining bowl revenue that hasn’t been paid out. The ACC earned over $40 million in payouts from bowl games this year. About $10 million of that goes to the eight teams that played in bowl games as an allowance, leaving $30 million in the pot that is split evenly among the schools, whether or not they played in a bowl game.
That figure isn’t quite that high, since the conference covers a large chunk of unsold tickets from the bowl games, but it’s enough to guarantee that every school, including Virginia Tech, comes out in the black.
April 5, 2012 - 11:44 AM
So what you are saying is Tech didn’t lose a lot of money by going bowling?
It would make far more sense if the bill was foot by the Sugar Bowl, not the other way around. That seem to be the argument made by author Dan Wetzel. Tech should be responsible for providing the expense in transportation and meals while traveling, but the rest should be covered by the Sugar Bowl.
If I did the math right, at 3 meals per day the meals cost almost $68 each!
Tech did not lose money, but it did not make as much as it could have.
The ticket arrangement is a racket for the bowls. Schools have to guarantee so many tickets and cover the cost (or the have the league do so) if they fail to sell them out.
You’re talking close to $1 million lost by the ACC just by covering unsold tickets for this one game. That’s not an efficient way of doing things.
Andy, Are you privy to the bowl expenses of all other ACC teams? Sounds like you concluded that the bowl system is net profitable for the ACC as a whole. I would be curious as to the degree of profit per team, on average, as that math would be at the crux of the argument surrounding how the post season/BCS evolves from here.
I only requested Virginia Tech’s expense report. I believe I saw that Clemson spent $1.84 million for its Orange Bowl trip. Not sure about others, but the money the ACC took in from bowls is sure to be more than what schools spent.
The real profit is in not going, though. You have no expenses and collect the check in June. Of course, your fans would hate it and it means you’re not doing well on the field, but financially you are.
The bigger picture issue is that football pays the bills for college athletic departments. So maximizing that profit is key, since it subsidizes lacrosse and soccer and all the other non-revenue sports. Overall, a lot of athletic departments are losing money as a whole, and the inefficient way the bowl games are run and the money is divided is partly to blame for that.
Andy, did Clemson sell out their ticket allotment for the Orange Bowl? I just don’t remember. That would explain why they ‘only’ spent $1.84 million
Duke is the school that always makes out great from bowl revenue. They never play in bowls, yet they get just as much as the teams that always go.
Clemson did not sell about 8,000 tickets. That cost wasn’t included in that figure I listed before.
So yeah, you’re talking another $1 million in unsold ticket costs that the conference will eat. For some reason, that amount shows up on these bowl expense reports, even though it’s not paid for by a single institution.
9K in promotion leaving somewhere between 90K and 900K on the table? Seems like an opportunity missed to me.
There is a value to a Bowl appearance that can be estimated, even calculated, but never appears in budgets. It is called “Good Will” or that intangible value one derives from positive reputation and exposure. Every big bowl appearance gains us something. It might be in recruiting, or future TV and radio or somewhere. Lets not forget that. And even though fans like me tend to say “We suck” after a loss that is not the way the world outside of fans see things.
While $40 million is a ton of money overall I have to think that the ACC share of a playoff series would be more. Not sure I buy the argument that the current bowl scheme generates more money than some sort of playoff would. I do agree that the vested interests of the bowls fight against change.
So, really, we spent a little more than Clemson overall, but considering the cost of airfare to and hotels in New Orleans, it makes sense.
On the bonuses paid to the coaches for appearing in a BCS game, Beamer & staff are paid the same win or lose, so the $552K wouldn’t change on that. Andy, any idea how that rates in terms of bonuses paid to other staffs?
Zman, I agree that a playoff would generate tons more money than this bowl nonsense. It’s a missed opportunity by schools that willingly turn over one of their most profitable enterprises (the postseason) to outside interests (the bowls).
crooked road, all schools are different with their bonuses. Frank has it written into his contract the bonuses for assistants based on what bowl game they get to.
The year Auburn won the BCS national title, Gene Chizk and his staff earned $2.6 million in bonuses. That’s probably a top-end amount.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/12/auburn_coaches_cashed_in_with.html
Schools suffer on the ticket guarantee, in many cases and this one in particular, because TV is not putting these games mid week after New Years, when most people have to work, kids are going back to school and it is very hard for all who would like to to travel at those times. It is all for ESPN; so essentially, the schools are subsidizing ESPN, who does not pay them, but pays the BOWL COMMITTEE (that is who makes the money). There needs to be a real backlash about this. The traditional New Years Day bowls should be played then and not spread out over a week when many people cannot travel to them (but ESPN does not want this….they do not want you to go; they want you to stay home and watch on TV!!) The bowls make you pay for the “honor” of coming to the bowl. If the BCS payout was not in the $17,000,000 range, no one would make a dime on a bowl game. The lesser bowls are almost a guaranteed LOSS to any school who plays in them (and guess who owns over 20 of them….ESPN).
This is why Miami’s self-imposed “punishment” of denying themselves a bowl game last year was not really punishment at all. It should be ignored when the NCAA decides to rule on them. It’s almost a certainty they would’ve lost money considering their fan base is even less pleased with their team than usual after a 6-6 year
“Overall, a lot of athletic departments are losing money as a whole, and the inefficient way the bowl games are run and the money is divided is partly to blame for that.”
Andy, that right there is why the BCS don’t make sense to me. I wish that Weaver, Steger, and Beamer would actually look at the dollars and see how much they “lose” by going bowling versus competing in a play off.
It does seem the plus-one model is gaining tractions. However, as Dan Wetzel noted, the suits are making things complicated than necessary. How will the playoffs be determined? Neutral-site versus home field?
Why not adopt the NFL’s model? It would make CFB more appealing, recruits would be looking hard at who they want to play based on how well a school performed in the playoff, and the money generated from eyeballs could make AD salivate.
Unfortunately, the post season have been “outsourced” from presidents and ADs. That’s a shame, truly.
Andy, any chance you could get the Roanoke times to work on their mobile site format?? I’ve found it pretty difficult to navigate, with HS articles in the vt section and vice versa. Also, it would seem if you have a full time blogger for VT, you would want readers to be able to access the posts in sections other than just “blogs”. Just food for thought. I thoroughly enjoy the tech coverage you provide, keep up the great work! Go hokies!
Why would a losing coaching staff get a bonus for anything? Not much incentive to have a winning team is it? It is what it is. At least this bowl crap is a bright spot in the last 3 years economically wise for the elite few, and for a few months for the fan bases of all schools to temporarily forget the mess this country is in. College football is what a lot of people, at least in this area, cherish although I think this so-called bonus money should be divided amongt the community where it is actually needed, not to pad some losing coaches or conference teams wallets. Personally, I love college football but there is a little hint of something gone wrong since the BCS calls all the shots, the teams deserving or not. Just not the same atmosphere of old, more like a dead mouse in a wall, stinks and can’t get the odor out. The BCS as is is simply a scam, time for the play-off system of some kind, any kind!
a lot of wasted money if you ask me. If Beamer and his crew plan on coaching the next bowl game like that, they might as well stay home for the bowl season. Aside from the money the school spent, think about the hard earned money wasted from the fans to go see the Sugar Bowl(i guess you’d call it a game although i’m embarrased by the coaching–totally amatuer).
Andy, nice article but you really need to see what the other bowl money stats are for the second and third tier bowls. I wonder what Wake Forest’s balance sheet looks like after going to the Music City Bowl. How many tickets did they/ACC have to eat? VT is on the hook for 1/12th of ALL the unsold tickets for ALL the bowls the ACC participated in so what did that add up to? I have to wonder because Jim Weaver said publicly that VT budgets for bowl losses. IMHO, bowls are a glorified regular season game and so I will watch the bowl that VT plays in each year – I sure as heck won’t go to those money-sucking events – but I refused to watch any of the other bowls or the BCS championship game for the fourth year running. It’s been great as I have more time for other things during the holiday season.