Why Not Us?

[JaguarNation99]

That just seems very high to me. For that type of payout, it must have been against a team with a huge arena (with a fan base that will show up to a game regardless of opponent) and high ticket prices. If you sell 10K seats at $20 each, that is only $200K. I know you have to add in concessions and revenue but you also have to add in expenses that the host school will incur to host a game.

The fact that their fans will show up regardless is one of the reasons they can afford those payouts. It's not different from how FBS football teams can afford to shell out 600-700K payouts. They're making far more in return just by being able to host a game. Here's an article on it that came out before this seasons started.

Payout Games

 

[Tigerpride]

The fact that their fans will show up regardless is one of the reasons they can afford those payouts. It's not different from how FBS football teams can afford to shell out 600-700K payouts. They're making far more in return just by being able to host a game. Here's an article on it that came out before this seasons started.

Payout Games

Interesting. Well, I see why we are taking money games... hell can JSU get about 10 of those next year!? :lol:

SWAC schools probably don't make $100K all season at home.

 

[JaguarNation99]

Interesting. Well, I see why we are taking money games... hell can JSU get about 10 of those next year!? :lol:

SWAC schools probably don't make $100K all season at home.

And that's the biggest issue. Schools in that article are using the money to build a program, we're using it just to survive.

 

[Panther88]

The fact that their fans will show up regardless is one of the reasons they can afford those payouts. It's not different from how FBS football teams can afford to shell out 600-700K payouts. They're making far more in return just by being able to host a game. Here's an article on it that came out before this seasons started.

Payout Games

Nice catch 99. :bowdown: I was about to search hi and lo for the article. Didn't realize ESPN jumped it.

If memory serves correct, I think it was Alcorn St who cleaned up that one year and recv'd over 400,000$ (correct me if I'm wrong Alconites) where one of the payers was some squad out NW (Oregon or OreSt?) and they paid out 80,000$ + airfare + some night's stay, which is standard practice for the $$$ games. I happened to be in Westwood one early spring and UL (Louisville) was staying @ the same hotel I was staying @ before they did the deal w/ UCLA and I spoke w/ one of the asst coaches there about it and they told me the setup for them was they were recv'ing 200,000$ + airfare + 2 days lodging + meals to come out and whoop up on UCLA in the nat'lly broadcasted game the following day. That's when UCLA had the O'Bannon bros.

I thought you knew this TP. And, I hope you understand why SWAC schools do it (look JSU's bball budget over and look where the $$$ to support mens and womens bball originates :read: ).

 

[Tigerpride]

(look JSU's bball budget over and look where the $$$ to support mens and womens bball originates :read: ).

uuuuum.............from student fees and football. :lecture: I am sure we did not make 1/2 million on bball payouts.

 

[Panther88]

SWAC schools probably don't make $100K all season at home.

Don't worry. JSU is getting their fair share of $$$$ games. Look your recent sched over and imagine what the setup is for those that are "one-timers." (no home-and-home agreement) :read: Even vs the other FCSers... I'm sure we're not going to their place for "free" just to play a game. lol Chaaaa-chinggggg!!!!! 5-10K$ for reimbursement, please. Also, to those sub-FCSers or even FCSers who come to our place, what do you think your AD is doing to their pocket? That's right. $$$$$$$$$$$$

Also, you're right. All season long, SWAC schools don't come close to making 100,000$ for the entire year @ home. So, where are they to get the much needed $$$$ to support the mens and womens basketball teams? Enrollment activity fees that is allegedly divided up amongst the other 17 or so varsity sports? :read: Where only one of those is actually a revenue generating sport (football) vs the other 15+ or so non-revs? :read:

Oh, it's real. It's very, very real. :read:

 

[Oracle]

That just seems very high to me. For that type of payout, it must have been against a team with a huge arena (with a fan base that will show up to a game regardless of opponent) and high ticket prices. If you sell 10K seats at $20 each, that is only $200K. I know you have to add in concessions and parking revenue but you also have to add in expenses (security, ticket takers, printed material, parking attendants, etc...) that the host school will incur to host a game.

A host team does not necessarily have to make enough money of the game to pay the guarantee. A lot of the money available to host schools for these type of games comes from NCAA tournament revenues. If the host team consistently goes to the tournament, and is in a conference where a number of teams consistently go deep into the tournament, the host team and other conference members will have a steady stream of cash to be used for that purpose. In addition, by playing these money games, the host team can get to the magic number of games (20 wins) that commonly is considered, along with a good record in a tough conference, as the benchmark for getting into the tournament again, which in turn allows the host team to make even more money.

 

[Kendrick]

Alcorn State put together a 2007-08 schedule that would give travel agents fits. The Braves played 10 of their first 12 games on the road, stopping in Oklahoma, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico and Nebraska along the way, and they started the season 1-12. The lone win came against Southern-New Orleans, an NAIA school.

"You just get beat up mentally," guard Troy Jackson said. "You start believing, 'Man, we can't win. We're never going to win a game,' and it carries over into the conference season. The losing, it just eats at you."

The irony at Alcorn is the basketball team sees hardly any of the money it brings in. The guaranteed money is put into a general fund -- not a general athletics fund but a general university fund. The same goes for any money the team might make off the SWAC's TV deal with ESPN and whatever cut of the NCAA Tournament pie the SWAC pays out to its member schools.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=3221302

The immediate question I have is how has playing these money games not only helped our basketball programs, but athletics as a whole be competitive outside of our own little world known as the SWAC? Has it been worth it?

 

[Panther88]

That just seems very high to me. For that type of payout, it must have been against a team with a huge arena (with a fan base that will show up to a game regardless of opponent) and high ticket prices. If you sell 10K seats at $20 each, that is only $200K. I know you have to add in concessions and parking revenue but you also have to add in expenses (security, ticket takers, printed material, parking attendants, etc...) that the host school will incur to host a game.

10K seats? :emlaugh:

Rupp arena seats 23,000. You know it's sold out. lol Allen @ Kansas seats 16,000+. See where I'm going?

I spoke w/ a season ticket holder @ OU and his yearly fee was 300$ for Mens and Womens, if memory serves correct. I swear their whole bottom level of that bowl were strictly for season ticket holders. It was e-z to imagine there being upwards of 5K+ season ticket holders. Lets see.... hmmmmm 300$x5000 is.... hmmmmmmm Not to mention nat'l broadcasting rights, 28,000+ students x activity fee.... hmmmmmmm.... big bank. Real big bank.

 

[JaguarNation99]

10K seats? :emlaugh:

Rupp arena seats 23,000. You know it's sold out. lol Allen @ Kansas seats 16,000+. See where I'm going?

I spoke w/ a season ticket holder @ OU and his yearly fee was 300$ for Mens and Womens, if memory serves correct. I swear their whole bottom level of that bowl were strictly for season ticket holders. It was e-z to imagine there being upwards of 5K+ season ticket holders. Lets see.... hmmmmm 300$x5000 is.... hmmmmmmm Not to mention nat'l broadcasting rights, 28,000+ students x activity fee.... hmmmmmmm.... big bank. Real big bank.

And that's before you get into parking, concessions, sponsorships, licensing deals, etc.

 

[Robber]

Rob, some of those $$$ games pay upwards 25,000$-55,000$. When I found out who the MAJOR players were (the $$$$ FBS folx), I understood why we did (past tense) what we do. (present tense)

I have never heard a number that high but the last time I paid attention was about 10 years ago and then as Robber said, you would be good to get $20K.

I've seen schools get as high as $90,000 for a game.

Maybe I'm behind the times. Of course, everything is negotiable.

 

[jag4life]

I think a couple of years ago TSU was paid $55K to play Connecticut. Ronnie Courtney was on the radio complaining becuase they had been scheduled to play a game on the east coast late one night, then had to play AT UTEP (I think) the next night.

 

[BULL DAWG]

1.) I don't think we play too many money games. Tell me how many Butler played vs JSU or Grambling.

2.) PWCs are not funded the same way we are. We try to live and die by $5 tickets and hook-ups. They live by season tickets, sponsorships, and donations.

3.) The money we get for money games in bball does not go to bball programs. It is used to offset other athletic department costs.

...as for the original question. Honestly, bball programs across the nation have taken a hit so you see a lot more parity. However, just because a 13 seed beat a #3 does not mean that JSU or UAPB could not have done the same. The key to NCAA tourney success (especially in the first round) is seeding. We can't have teams like Alcorn and Grambling with 2 and 6 wins and expect our conference to get anything higher than a 16 seed. The 16 seed does not speak for the quality of our NCAA or NIT representative. It speaks for the conference as a whole. UAPB beat somebody's champion easily so we ain't as bad as we want us to be. :lecture: We just need to improve across the board and maybe we can get a better seed.

Butler plays 0 money games! They played Georgetown, UCLA, Clemson and Minnesota at neutral sites and they played Ohio State at home. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=2086

TP you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say we don't play too many money games, but then you talk how the SWAC is a victim of poor seeding. You're right we get seeded low because out teams have so few D-I wins and the reason we have so few wins is that we would rather have 10 money games instead of 10 winnable games against other mid majors. Each SWAC team could improve their W-L record by about 5 games if we scaled back the money games. Basically, these money games are indentured servitude which will always keep us in this cycle of needing a handout and sub-standard performance.

 

[stroke]

You Also have to understand that the NCAA gives funds yearly also, so we get State Fees, Student Fees, Money Games and Etc... this is nothing but cases of mis Management... Our Basketball Coaches, not the AD makes The Schedules... So as a Coach why the Heck do you schedule So Money Games that you will Never see a Dollar Of?
Why wouldnt you make a schedule that includes 1 or 2 money Games and Games against schools that we Can Beat? I know if im the Coach, I want to Win, recruit Good Players, and move on to a Bigger Program, if I cant make mind a power House.. Our biggest problem is that we dont have a PLAN, we got excuses and plenty of them, but no Plan..

And As A Conference Why do we allow ourselves to Pimp.. I believe (I might be Wrong) that the job of the Conference is to protect and grow the Conference by governing it and making rules and regulation to guide to league..
Heck I believe Shreveport was Perfect for the SWAC (4.5 from Jackson and Alcorn, 3 hrs from the Houston Schools, 4hrs from BR, Casinos and adult entertainment in a City that has nothing else ever going on, that is not 100% sold on White Colleges) yet we miss managed the opportunity..

side note:i Know at Grambling, the Money goes to the Athletic Department, but the genral Funds pays for facilities, etc..

 

[players]

1st question:
Why do we look at these as "money games" instead of just games on the schedule?

I know we getting paid to go there but in D-1 basketball, this is our competition.
One reason we suck is because we see defeat 12 months in advance and start complaining about playing these teams.
If thats the case, let's just drop our B-ball programs down to D2 and not worry about playing money games against our tournament competition.:lecture:


2nd question:
If money games are so bad, they why do we make a big deal out of making March Madness when we will be playing these same "money game" teams that 90% of ya'll act like we should not be playing at all.:noidea:

 

[JaguarNation99]

We can just dropped individual programs down to D-II, we would have to drop the entire athletic departments.

 

[stroke]

Butler plays 0 money games! They played Georgetown, UCLA, Clemson and Minnesota at neutral sites and they played Ohio State at home. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/schedule?teamId=2086

TP you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say we don't play too many money games, but then you talk how the SWAC is a victim of poor seeding. You're right we get seeded low because out teams have so few D-I wins and the reason we have so few wins is that we would rather have 10 money games instead of 10 winnable games against other mid majors. Each SWAC team could improve their W-L record by about 5 games if we scaled back the money games. Basically, these money games are indentured servitude which will always keep us in this cycle of needing a handout and sub-standard performance.

You said a lot in that sentence. i think this Might be the answer to the Question.. basicly money Games are our Food Stamps and Public housing that keep us content, instead of going out working Hard and seeing what can happen..
We Can Give up some of these Money games start playing against the Sunbelt, Southland, southern Confernce, the Conference that has IUPU, Butler and Centinary in it.. We will then get Better and get higher Seeds, that will lead to some tournament Wins.. But it will also expose a lot of our Coaches which might be the real reason that we play so many Money games..

 

[stroke]

1st question:
Why do we look at these as "money games" instead of just games on the schedule?

I know we getting paid to go there but in D-1 basketball, this is our competition.
One reason we suck is because we see defeat 12 months in advance and start complaining about playing these teams.
If thats the case, let's just drop our B-ball programs down to D2 and not worry about playing money games against our tournament competition.:lecture:


2nd question:
If money games are so bad, they why do we make a big deal out of making March Madness when we will be playing these same "money game" teams that 90% of ya'll act like we should not be playing at all.:noidea:

I dont think the Money game is a Problem but the real Problem is Playing so many and not given ourselves a opportunity to learn how to Beat these Schools... Our Programs need to Crawl and not just get up and try to Walk, like we Do.. We will Fall everytime... our players and Coaches have gotten so use to playing from Behind and jaking up crazy shoots that it is now Part of our DNA... All that Bad Play just follows us into the Conference, where we forget that we have Centers and Forward, and we just trying to score we when can... No High percentage shots...

 

[crazylegs]

Honestly,


I think we've got to take a serious look at ourselves (collectively) in terms of the product that's put out on the floor. Facilities and money a part of the equation, but you've got some mid-majors that operate along the same budget constraints we do and still put a quality product on the floor.

Morgan (and to a lesser extent, Coppin & Hampton) is a good example of an institution doing what is necessary to build an infrastructure condusive to a successful basketball program. they're putting an entertaining product on the floor, which in turn draws support from the fanbase, which then makes the whole enviornment attractive to potential talent taking a look at that particular school.

Did Todd Bozeman falling into their laps jumpstart that process? Absolutely. that being said, those guys are giving him the tools necessary to draw and retain talent in that area. Toss AAU in there and there's no reason why ANY of our programs couldn't do the same.


the SWAC is right in the middle of some of the best H.S. basketball talent in the country (savethe D.C./ Metro corridor). Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana all have enough talent for our schools, at the very least, to be competitive. Heck, we're not even getting into Texas. *lol*

That brings us back to coaching and infrastructure. I'll love the SWAC until I'm pushing up daisies, but we are ABSOLUTELY PISS POOR collectively when it comes to the factors listed above. That's gotta reverse itself before we can even think of talking about playing on the same field with the rest of Div 1 right now. That means getting coaches in here that know how to evaluate and develop talent; Coaches that really know their craft.

that's where it's gonna start at. They don't have to be big names; They just need to be enthusiastic about selling these institutions and developing an on-court product that's gonna give them a chance to win.

 

[the band fan]

every president sets aside a money game figure they have to hit in the SWAC..some bring in $200K, some $500K

the teams that could make money for you in the SWAC at home won't play you at your place....we would love to play Texas A&M, Houston, etc. at home but those schools now rather play all home non-conference games and then play other BCS schools at their place or neutral courts...

you put a Duke in a SWAC gym during school....not an easy game for them..

 

[8 to 5]

every president sets aside a money game figure they have to hit in the SWAC..some bring in $200K, some $500K

the teams that could make money for you in the SWAC at home won't play you at your place....we would love to play Texas A&M, Houston, etc. at home but those schools now rather play all home non-conference games and then play other BCS schools at their place or neutral courts...

you put a Duke in a SWAC gym during school....not an easy game for them..

Its more Duke Fans Fans than SWAC Fans in the SWAC. :lol:

Duke is a good team, location doesnt matter...it will be a 30 point blow out in North Carolina or the Backwoods of Mississippi..it doesn't matter...it is still going to happen if the product the SWAC puts on the court is still the same.

 

[chrisd]

Schools should not have to depend on who their opponent is to draw a good crowd at home. Let's say Jackson State, for example (using them because they were the best regular season team this year) gets to the level where they are playing home-and-home series with other schools in the region from the Southland and possibly the Sun Belt, and are competitive in these games and winning a bunch of them, that should draw the fans.

Expecting a Mississippi State or an Auburn to play on the road against a SWAC team is a little bit of wishful thinking. You aren't going to find a lot of BCS league schools willing to play road games against mid-majors or lower, unless it's a home-and-home series between in-state rivals (Northern Iowa plays ISU and Iowa every year, Gonzaga and Washington State do as well).

Bottom line, if fans don't want to watch the home team play, the opposition doesn't matter. And if we really look at the heart of the matter, maybe there's a lot of alums/students/fans of SWAC schools that just don't care about anything but football and the band. Sometimes you just can't change the way people feel. SWAC schools need to make a better effort to get fans out to their games, then perhaps they will generate enough money during home games to knock one or two or three of their "money games" off the schedule.

 

[Kendrick]

Schools should not have to depend on who their opponent is to draw a good crowd at home. Let's say Jackson State, for example (using them because they were the best regular season team this year) gets to the level where they are playing home-and-home series with other schools in the region from the Southland and possibly the Sun Belt, and are competitive in these games and winning a bunch of them, that should draw the fans.

Opponents matter a lot. Schools all over the country charge more for tickets for rivalry games and for marquee OCC matchups. You better believe it would cost more to go to a Wisconsin-Duke regular season game that it would a Wisconsin-Penn State game.

If you can get a middle of the road BCS school to come to your facility or a team that was in the tournament to come to your facility, that might peak the interest of the fans because they are somewhat familiar with the opponent.

Scheduling D2 teams are not going to do it either. First, you have win consistently enough to draw fans to the game. Winning cures a lot.

 

[chrisd]

Sure, it costs more to see Wisconsin/Duke than Wisconsin/Milwaukee. Point is, the arena is still filled to the same level for both games. Their fans will still attend, because they have built a solid program that wins.

 

[the band fan]

basketball fans in most places - especially in Houston - aren't coming unless it's someone worth watching...trust me....I remember Jason Kidd coming to Texas Southern in the 90s...you picked up alot of fans....

UH came to TSU and PV in the early 2000s.....the crowds were good then...Texas A&M came to campus in 2002 and fans came out...

UH fans only show up if they're playing a team such as Arizona, or #1 Memphis, UT, etc.....

it's a regional thing...playing ULL in your own gym won't spike numbers up