Bowl Game In Financial Trouble

MeanGreen61 · September 30, 2009

Post by KajunRaider on the Belt board.

Audit for the year ended 2/29/09 is up on the Louisiana Legislative Auditor's website PDF link

Auditor's opinion states there is still a concern about the I-Bowl Foundation's ability to continue operations. Does it mean an end to the I-Bowl? No. It means trouble for the Foundation running the bowl game.

On to the numbers....

1. Ticket revenue DECREASED approximately $150k from the prior year. Seriously, it went DOWN from the prior year ticket revenue.

2. The Foundation lost approximately $85,000 for the year ended 2/29/09, which is better than the $450,000 lost the prior year. Still not good when you had a "home" team playing in the game. However, part of that decrease in the loss from the prior year can be attributed to #4 below.

3. The Foundation has a note payable with Capital One for the new scoreboad at their stadium. Payments are due each year in the amount of $150k. For the year ended 2/29/09, the Foundation DID NOT pay their $150k!! They were able to extend the length of the note since they were not able to pay it this fiscal year.

4. The Foundation is trying to cut costs in order to become more profitable. While total expenses did decrease approximately $600k for the year, $550k of that decrease was due to LTU and NIU being the schools in the game, therefore the Foundation did not have to pay as much to those schools if say the SEC and Big 12 were able to fill their spots. So basically, they have not reduced any of their expenses. Had the Big 12 or SEC conferences, or both, had enough teams, you could have been looking at approximately $700k in losses for the Foundation this year.

The Foundation has now filed suit against former title sponsor PetroSun for non-payment of their sponsorship fees. No idea how that will turn out in court.

Doesn't look good for the I-Bowl Foundation. Once you start not being able to make your payments on your loans, you're screwed.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 30, 2009

It's tough to feel sorry for any minor bowl that has hitched its cart to BCS conferences. If their attorneys had any brains at all, they'd have made a clause for the bowl to pursue teams closer in the region if they felt the qualifying Big 12 or SEC teams would do the foundation more harm than good, thereby making BCS tie-ins based on records secondary to the finances of the foundation.

Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette, both Sun Belt schools with 6-6 records, would have had fan bases up for a game against Louisiana Tech. With both so close, expenses would have been cut even further. Plus...what a game for the fans! La Tech versus close cross-border school Arkansas State or in-state rival U La-La! That would have been fun to watch.

The whole sham of the bowl system is that it's supposed to be a "reward" for the kids. In reality, it's nothing more than corporate haggling with conferences. As much money as March Madness brings in, there's no telling what a playoff would generate. Plus, I think a playoff - separate from the minor bowls - would allow the minor bowls to contract with more regional teams.

Of course, because it makes sense, it won't happen or even be considered. We're talking about dealing with an entity that ignores rule-breaking by the USCs, OUs, etc. of the world while pretending not to be involved with the post season. It's ridiculous. That's what it argues in order to continually dodge antitrust suits - they don't control the post season in FBS football.

Really? You don't control it? Then why do players have to be academically eligible to participate? That's control. If the NCAA truly doesn't control the off-season, the schools should be able to field any player they choose, regardless of grades, conduct, etc. We could run Booger Kennedy back out there for a bowl game for all you care, NCAA, if you aren't in control, as you claim.

My example is extreme, but it goes to the heart of the NCAA's absurd claim that it is not responsible for the NCAA FBS football championship. There are many other examples, such as the fact that the NCAA requires certain financial criteria be met before a bowl is sanctioned.

It's pure garbage. If you've got nothing to do with FBS post season football, NCAA, then why are you making financial requirements for it? We ought to be able to damn well set up a Safeway Parking Lot Bowl if we want to an invite any-damn-one in the country to play in it...if the NCAA truly has no control over the post season, as it claims.

Such garbage. The non-BCS conferences are such f'ing cowards for letting the BCS conferences and NCAA run roughshod over them all the time. Get some damned attorneys with some rocks and end the thing.

F'ing, F'ing F!

Edited September 30, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

FloMoGrad · September 30, 2009

It's tough to feel sorry for any minor bowl that has hitched its cart to BCS conferences. If their attorneys had any brains at all, they'd have made a clause for the bowl to pursue teams closer in the region if they felt the qualifying Big 12 or SEC teams would do the foundation more harm than good, thereby making BCS tie-ins based on records secondary to the finances of the foundation.
Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette, both Sun Belt schools with 6-6 records, would have had fan bases up for a game against Louisiana Tech. With both so close, expenses would have been cut even further. Plus...what a game for the fans! La Tech versus close cross-border school Arkansas State or in-state rival U La-La! That would have been fun to watch.
The whole sham of the bowl system is that it's supposed to be a "reward" for the kids. In reality, it's nothing more than corporate haggling with conferences. As much money as March Madness brings in, there's no telling what a playoff would generate. Plus, I think a playoff - separate from the minor bowls - would allow the minor bowls to contract with more regional teams.
Of course, because it makes sense, it won't happen or even be considered. We're talking about dealing with an entity that ignores rule-breaking by the USCs, OUs, etc. of the world while pretending not to be involved with the post season. It's ridiculous. That's what it argues in order to continually dodge antitrust suits - they don't control the post season in FBS football.
Really? You don't control it? Then why do players have to be academically eligible to participate? That's control. If the NCAA truly doesn't control the off-season, the schools should be able to field any player they choose, regardless of grades, conduct, etc. We could run Booger Kennedy back out there for a bowl game for all you care, NCAA, if you aren't in control, as you claim.
My example is extreme, but it goes to the heart of the NCAA's absurd claim that it is not responsible for the NCAA FBS football championship. There are many other examples, such as the fact that the NCAA requires certain financial criteria be met before a bowl is sanctioned.
It's pure garbage. If you've got nothing to do with FBS post season football, NCAA, then why are you making financial requirements for it? We ought to be able to damn well set up a Safeway Parking Lot Bowl if we want to an invite any-damn-one in the country to play in it...if the NCAA truly has no control over the post season, as it claims.
Such garbage. The non-BCS conferences are such f'ing cowards for letting the BCS conferences and NCAA run roughshod over them all the time. Get some damned attorneys with some rocks and end the thing.
F'ing, F'ing F!

Absolutely 100% agreed...Corporate greed keeps us from truly answering the one question millions of people ponder every year. Who truly is ther national Champion in Division 1A Football...

Edited September 30, 2009 by FloMoGrad

KAjunRaider · September 30, 2009

+1 Damn good post.

It's tough to feel sorry for any minor bowl that has hitched its cart to BCS conferences. If their attorneys had any brains at all, they'd have made a clause for the bowl to pursue teams closer in the region if they felt the qualifying Big 12 or SEC teams would do the foundation more harm than good, thereby making BCS tie-ins based on records secondary to the finances of the foundation.
Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette, both Sun Belt schools with 6-6 records, would have had fan bases up for a game against Louisiana Tech. With both so close, expenses would have been cut even further. Plus...what a game for the fans! La Tech versus close cross-border school Arkansas State or in-state rival U La-La! That would have been fun to watch.
The whole sham of the bowl system is that it's supposed to be a "reward" for the kids. In reality, it's nothing more than corporate haggling with conferences. As much money as March Madness brings in, there's no telling what a playoff would generate. Plus, I think a playoff - separate from the minor bowls - would allow the minor bowls to contract with more regional teams.
Of course, because it makes sense, it won't happen or even be considered. We're talking about dealing with an entity that ignores rule-breaking by the USCs, OUs, etc. of the world while pretending not to be involved with the post season. It's ridiculous. That's what it argues in order to continually dodge antitrust suits - they don't control the post season in FBS football.
Really? You don't control it? Then why do players have to be academically eligible to participate? That's control. If the NCAA truly doesn't control the off-season, the schools should be able to field any player they choose, regardless of grades, conduct, etc. We could run Booger Kennedy back out there for a bowl game for all you care, NCAA, if you aren't in control, as you claim.
My example is extreme, but it goes to the heart of the NCAA's absurd claim that it is not responsible for the NCAA FBS football championship. There are many other examples, such as the fact that the NCAA requires certain financial criteria be met before a bowl is sanctioned.
It's pure garbage. If you've got nothing to do with FBS post season football, NCAA, then why are you making financial requirements for it? We ought to be able to damn well set up a Safeway Parking Lot Bowl if we want to an invite any-damn-one in the country to play in it...if the NCAA truly has no control over the post season, as it claims.
Such garbage. The non-BCS conferences are such f'ing cowards for letting the BCS conferences and NCAA run roughshod over them all the time. Get some damned attorneys with some rocks and end the thing.
F'ing, F'ing F!