The reason for mandatory ticket allotments is to ensure that the participating schools use their absolute best efforts to promote the game. Since schools are often in the best position to market to their fans, placing a heavy burden on them ensure that the game's attendance is as high as it could possible be, the ratings are as high as they could possibly be, and the value of sponsorships, merchandise sales, concessions sales, and so on are as high as they could possibly be. The end result of maximizing all those revenue streams from the participating schools' perspective is that the game is likely to generate more revenue than it would otherwise generate, so there is more money to be split between the two participating teams and the owner of the game. That's important for every P5 school (and every g5 school) because as per arrangements with their conferences, every non-independent team without a conference bowl tie-in surrenders the money to their host conference to be split amongst the conference's members. Therefore, even teams that don't go to the game benefit from the increased revenue.

In a perfect world, the ticket allotment would be set so that schools would be stretched to such an extent that they could not sell a single additional ticket, but they also wouldn't have any unsold tickets and they would break even on the allotment. However, as we all know, the real world is far from perfect.

As many detractors of the system are quick to point out, the system has some problems. If the cost of the mandatory ticket allotments exceeds the schools' ability to fill those seats to such an extent that it costs the schools more than the schools receive from the added revenue, the allotments act as a tax on the schools for the benefit of the bowl owner. Form the schools' perspective, that's counter-productive. Furthermore, since schools pool bowl revenues, but only some of the expenses associated with the bowl (i.e. some of the travel expenses), it is very possible that the participating schools' expenses associated with the game are in excess of their revenues from the game. In such a situation, the school "loses money" by participating in the game, even though the bowl's payout could have been substantially in excess of the costs associated with the bowl. Obviously that further punishes teams for being successful and making bowls.

So, why do conference magnify the imperfections of the allotment system by pooling revenue, but not costs? The answer to that question is fairly simple. Conferences pool revenue because it increases the stability and predictability of school's finances, which helps schools budget for the future. Under the current system, a school does not have to radically rethink their budget because their Heisman hopeful QB broke his arm in week one, causing them to go from an OB shoe-in to a below .500 team. It also keeps smaller schools financially competitive. That's important because the amount of low hanging fruit at smaller schools is greater than the amount of low hanging fruit at bigger schools, so every additional dollar given to smaller schools will have more of an impact than every additional dollar given to bigger schools. Thus, funding smaller schools better benefits the conference as a whole, which even indirectly benefits the bigger schools.

Conferences don't pool marketing expenses because individual schools are in the best position to market to their fans, so the burden should be placed on them, not the conference as a whole. Placing the burden on the conference incentivizes those who are ill-equipped to accomplish the end goal.

Conversely, travel expenses are shared to keep the participating team from losing too much money on the game, but they are only shared to an extent to keep the participating team from wasting money with needlessly plush accommodations.

In the end, on one side of the coin, the teams that lose out on the current system are the teams at the very top of the conference who have large ticket allotments and have to share big payouts. On the other side of the coin, the teams that win under the current system are the cellar dwellers. Not only do they get a cut of bowl revenues, even though they don't go to bowl games, but they get an enhanced cut that is increased by the promotional efforts of the teams that win. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle, with more teams winning than losing.

It is a severe handicap to lower bowl ACC teams. If you are going to Shreveport .... you won't sell that many tickets. If you are going to the Pinstripe and you're not Cuse, Pitt, or BC ... you're not going to sell that many tickets. If you're going to the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl ... you won't sell hardly any tickets. Etc.

NIU got to find out first hand what a scam big bowls can be too with their requirement to take 15,000 Orange Bowl tickets at ABOVE MARKET VALUE.

(08-23-2013 05:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It is a severe handicap to lower bowl ACC teams. If you are going to Shreveport .... you won't sell that many tickets. If you are going to the Pinstripe and you're not Cuse, Pitt, or BC ... you're not going to sell that many tickets. If you're going to the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl ... you won't sell hardly any tickets. Etc.

NIU got to find out first hand what a scam big bowls can be too with their requirement to take 15,000 Orange Bowl tickets at ABOVE MARKET VALUE.

To be fair, I don't think that anyone not named Cuse, BC, or Pitt will be repping the ACC in NYC. The Yankees want those teams, those teams want to be there, and the rest of the ACC wants those teams to be there, so it's a win-win-win. When I say "those teams," I of course mean SU and BC. Pitt will be too busy playing in Birmingham to know or care.

Also, the lower tier teams don't make bowls every year, so although they get screwed some years, they benefit other years.

I appreciate your concern, but I think the current system is so far above the schools ability to sell tickets at most bowls, and the prices are so far above market value, that a significant reduction in ticket allotments is required to get the whole system back in balance.

I thought Swofford said something about lowering required allotments for bowl games with the new contracts.

(08-23-2013 07:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I appreciate your concern, but I think the current system is so far above the schools ability to sell tickets at most bowls, and the prices are so far above market value, that a significant reduction in ticket allotments is required to get the whole system back in balance.

I don't disagree. I do think that they need to tone it down a good amount. I just it was an interesting and somewhat controversial topic. I also wanted to put my opinion out there because a lot of people wrongfully see the system as inherently broken or wrong. I don't think that's the case. I only think the application (where the allotments are set) is wrong/broken, not the system itself (the idea of allotments and/or revenue sharing).

EDIT: It's also worth noting that although teams may lose money on an individual bowl due to revenue sharing, that loss is countered by their cut of other games in which they are not playing. For example, UCONN "lost money" on their BCS bowl (after they surrendered their earnings to the conference), but they got a cut of the BIG EAST's every BCS payout since they joined the conference (as well as a cut of every BIG EAST team's bowl payouts that year). Combined, those payouts are far in excess of UCONN's 2008 "losses." Complaining fans often overlook that.

Schools have no say in who their opponent is. They generate excitement where there is none.

Why should fans pay $100 - $200 for a ticket from their school when they can get better tickets from a 3rd party for $50 or less?

Pooling expenses is fine as long as there are some limitations. I realizing keeping a team in NYC for a week is more expensive that a week in Birmingham. The issue I see is things like one school might take 100 people (basically the team) and another might take 250 (the team, department heads, etc.).