Show me the money...

Ok, it's taken a while for me to get back to this (get off me, I've got other things happening), but here goes.

Welcome to part two of the "National Championship/Bowl System" review. In part one, we talked about where the bowls came from (not the stork), and how the idea of a National Championship has changed in the past one hundred years.

We've said for awhile that the key to the Bowls and the BCS is the amount of money that the system creates for advertisers and Bowl committees, and for the schools and athletic departments involved. In looking deeper, though, it turns out that I was wrong.

Well, kinda. Let's take a look at each part of that statement- First, the bowl committees.

The Orange County Register did an amazing job researching the money trail, and points to several aspects that reinforce the current systems:

• Bowl committees rake in all of their money tax free. Because they are "affiliated" with "educational endeavors", they experience the same benefit as the NCAA (again, in spite of the fact that the NCAA doesn't have any oversight for these games). This is thanks to a 1991 ruling by the federal government holding that the Cotton Bowl could have a corporate sponsor without jeopardizing their exempt status.
  
• The BCS has donated over $500,ooo to Washington connections, and seven bowl organizations have received at least 21 million dollars from the government since 2001.
• Bowl committee chairs' salaries often exceed $100,000 a year; with some chair's salaries equaling 10% of total revenues.

Add this to the fact that these things were designed to increase revenue for the cities and areas that host them and it's easy to realize that the financial motivation to continue the current system is quite significant.

People often point to the NCAA basketball tournament as a counter example to this argument- "March Madness" brings in a lot of money (particularly in advertising); wouldn't a football tournament do the same? Yes, and no.

First, the revenue for the tournament starts at the NCAA, not in the hands of the special interests listed above. And, as CBS showed, in the hands of the networks that have the chance to air the programming. After all, why would CBS spend 6 billion to keep the tourney, or why would ESPN work to own five of the games (seriously)? However, the revenue might not come pouring in- ratings continue to decline for the current holiday games.

The second reality, though is that March Madness offers a very different product than would an NCAA football tournament, and that there are too many variables that would keep the same amounts of money in play. Remember, MM only takes three weekends for a team to play six games, and that there are numerous teams at one location (thus boosting the local revenue). A ticket to the early regionals allows fans to watch several great games; something that I can't see bowl sponsors being excited about.

The other factor here is what I call the "Travel budget" factor. Remember, many bowls are vacation opportunities for teams from snowier climes- there's a reason why Buckeye fans and Husker Nation travel so well. The idea of a tournament presupposes that these fans will go to the first and second and third rounds at the same rate that the currently flock to Pasadena or Miami. However, realistically this is pretty unlikely. Where money will be lost is when a group of fans waits to go to the second or third round, and their team is upset in the first game- Those vacations won't be happening, and that revenue won't be realized. It's much more profitable for 64 teams and fanbases to go to 32 games than to hope that these same ones travel to multiple games.

On this latter point, I would also point to the fact that bowls continue to struggle to be profitable for the institutions involved. Schools continue to foot the bill for unsold tickets, which eats into their ability to justify this process. One of the ESPN Bowls even gave free tickets to area residents, and then required everyone to sit on the side opposite of the camera for the illusion of a full house.

And this is where, as earlier stated, I was wrong. Bowl games are not a cash cow for teams involved; instead they end up costing these institutions incredible amounts of money. Over half of the teams involved in "Bowl Season" actually lost money for their participation. Again, the OC Register report highlights this best, and points to the fact that their national championship actually cost the Florida Gators $3.7 million dollars- and they only received $2.24 million for expenses. The SEC got a total of $17 million to be split among the teams in the conference; so in effect it would have been more profitable to have been Vanderbilt and not have been bowl eligible. And you wonder why Notre Dame fans can actually point to last year as a success.

For a playoff, multiply these expenses for every round and the magnitude of the problem shines brightly. Especially in an era where opportunities for student athletes are cut to comply with Title IX and budgetary concerns, the excess of the current system and the impact on athletic departments becomes all the more damaging.

While it appears that there are more than enough cause for reform, the money involved is way too significant for any significant change to be attempted. Bowls are about profit, and not for the schools. College football (well, and basketball too) should be recognized for what it is- an apprenticeship for young adults who may make a career out of professional sports. An apprenticeship that has an immediate benefit for the institutions who are "hosting" the student athletes (although, some have used words like "sweatshop" and "plantation" and "exploit" instead of "apprentice" and "host").

We'll address this more in the final post of this four part series (at this rate, look for it in August) when we think through ways to correct some of the issues that we've brought up. Next time, though, we'll ask the question- "Do we need a national champion?"