Category Archives: Big 12
Today, the Big 12 and SEC announced that they have entered into a five-year contract which will allow champion of each conference to play each other in a New Year’s Day bowl game beginning in 2014. The contract is tailored to fit in with the new four-team playoff model, in that if the respective Big 12 and SEC champions are set to play in that game, different schools from each conference will play in the Big 12 and SEC match-up.
In making this announcement, the Big 12 and SEC have kept themselves ahead of the game when it comes to the reorganization of the college football playoff structure resulting from the expiration of the BCS’ current deal. This should come as no surprise to college football fans, as SEC commissioner Mike Slive has been at the forefront of proposing captivating alternatives to the current BCS system. It was Slive who first suggested the four-team playoff system, which will likely be adopted as the new BCS alternative. Today, Slive has once again protected the football notoriety of his conference, and the Big 12 has done the same, by ensuring that one team from each conference is present in a major, New Year’s Day bowl game.
The possibilities for this match-up are nearly endless, and quite fascinating. When considering the conference realignment landscape that took Big 12 programs Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC, this proposal raises the possibility that those two teams could someday face off against former rivals on national television on New Year’s Day. For fans mourning the end of the Texas-Texas A&M rivalry, this agreement presents the opportunity for the rivalry to flourish on a large-scale stage. Understandably, that would require both teams to become the champion of their football-competitive conference–but, at least it’s a possibility.
Questions remain about how the bowl will be orchestrated. For instance, it is unknown whether it will be held in a set location annually, like the Pac-12 and Big Ten’s Rose Bowl, or if it will travel to a new location each year. Given that SEC and Big 12 fans travel more than fans from other conferences, it may be worth each conference’s time to investigate the possibility of rotating the bowl game throughout various sites. This would open up the possibility of attending the game to more of the fans who are diehard supporters of SEC and Big 12 football. Additionally, it would raise the possibility of introducing each conference’s respective teams to new markets.
In the future, issues that will need to be addressed as a result of this bowl marriage relate to the bowls that each conference is currently aligned with. For instance, the Big 12 champion plays in the Fiesta Bowl each year. Will that continue? Is it possible that the agreement will result in the Fiesta Bowl being one of the sites that the bowl rotates through? Furthermore, what will happen to the current Big 12 No. 2-SEC No. 4 or 5 matchup, better known as the Cotton Bowl? Like the possibility just noted about the Fiesta Bowl, could this new bowl also rotate through the Cotton Bowl location? What will become of the SEC champion hosting Sugar Bowl?
My hunch is that the bowls will not agree to a game which rotates amongst them. Such would not be lucrative to the bowls. Thus, what the Big 12 and SEC have done with this move, is to strip the respective bowls of their power and transfer it to themselves. In doing so, they’ve opened up a bidding war of sorts, where the bowls will be expected to woo them with options. If none is suitable to the conferences, my guess is that they will launch a new bowl which will rotate throughout Big 12 and SEC locations.
Overall, this is a great move by the Big 12 and SEC. It is so, because it is a move that keeps them on top of the bowl shuffling/college football playoff landscape.
Last week, the ACC and ESPN reached an agreement which extended the network’s television contract with the conference for 15 years. News of the agreement caused many to speculate that FSU would leave the ACC for the Big 12, under the assumption that the amount of money the school would earn under the ACC’s extended media contract was not sufficient and that FSU would be able to earn more under the Big 12’s yet-to-be-negotiated media contract.
However, in a memorandum released today, FSU president Eric Barron all but squashed any rumors of FSU leaving the ACC for the Big 12.
In the memorandum, Barron provided four reasons why alumni believe FSU should consider joining the Big 12: the Big 12 is more football-oriented than the ACC, the Big 12 would give FSU greater football competition, the ACC provides advantages to North Carolina schools, and FSU would earn more media revenue under the Big 12’s media contract.
In response, Barron nearly doubled the reasons why FSU should not join the Big 12, providing seven explanations. These explanations included his notations that the ACC is an equal share media revenue conference while the Big 12 is not, any additional money FSU would receive under a more lucrative Big 12 media rights deal would in turn be spent by FSU on further travel to play Big 12 schools, ticket revenue would decline as Big 12 fans would be less inclined to travel to FSU games, the sellout FSU-Miami rivalry would be lost, FSU would have to pay $20-$25 million to leave the ACC and the Big 12 is an “academically weaker” conference.
While many FSU fans may be disappointed in Barron’s response, his reaction is perhaps the most level-headed of any made during the past 18 months in which conference realignment has changed the collegiate athletics landscape. Barron’s response provided analysis of three of the key factors driving conference realignment: media contract revenues, travel and academics. However, it appears that for once, the lure of media contract revenues did not outweigh the costs posed by travel and academics resulting from conference realignment.
Over the past 18 months, fans of college athletics have watched as teams have realigned themselves with conferences in far away lands, under the auspices of joining the ranks of more prestigious academic institutions, better competition, and ultimately, earning higher revenues. However, in his memorandum, Barron indirectly called out many of these institutions on their bluff: How can you promote academics and earn more revenue, when you are requiring your student-athletes to travel further distances and expending more money to meet a growing travel budget?
In recent months, I have been given great access into top Division-I athletic department’s budgets. Across the board, the highest expense any athletic department incurs is for travel. Athletic departments that compete in localized geographic areas already shell out millions of dollars per year to pay for travel. Imagine how much the amount spent on travel will increase when schools join conferences with geographic reaches across the nation? Will it double? Triple? Will the possibility of earning $2 million more per year under a media rights agreement balance the additional travel costs incurred by the athletic department, while also negating the time lost to study by student-athletes required to travel further distances for competition? Only time will tell.
Today, many may be chastising Barron for his memorandum and apparent disinterest in moving FSU to the Big 12. However, ten years from now, it will be interesting to see what FSU has gained (and likewise, what it may have lost) by remaining in the ACC.
To conclude this week’s series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will list in order the athletics departments earning the highest net income in 2010-11.
Issue has been raised by some over the classification of revenue minus expenses in this series as “profit,” since athletics departments are nonprofit organizations. It should be noted, that in the disclosures to the Department of Education, the athletics departments do not report either profit or net income. Rather, they report their revenues and expenses. For this series, profit/net income was calculated by subtracting the total expenses reported from the total revenues reported.
As noted above, the data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11. The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect. Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education. Expenses in this instance included: head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses. The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education. For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report. This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions. Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.
In 2010-11, 48 athletics departments in BCS AQ conferences generated a positive net income.
|School||Athletic Department Net Income
|Penn State||$31,619,687.00||Big Ten|
|Kansas State||$23,395,408.00||Big 12|
|Notre Dame||$19,147,710.00||Big East|
|Ohio State||$18,630,964.00||Big Ten|
|Oklahoma State||$14,365,376.00||Big 12|
|Michigan State||$13,512,269.00||Big Ten|
|Texas A&M||$3,224,429.00||Big 12|
|Texas Tech||$3,124,246.00||Big 12|
|North Carolina State||$192,151.00||ACC|
|Iowa State||$121,686.00||Big 12|
In previous posts from this series, you’ll remember that every Big Ten athletics department ranked in the top-50 for revenues and expenses. However, neither Minnesota nor Northwestern achieved a net income above zero.
The conference with the highest percentage of members having a positive net income was the SEC. All but one SEC member (Ole Miss) generated a positive net income in 2010-11. The SEC was also home to the athletics department with the highest net income of any BCS AQ school, Alabama. However, the ten schools generating the greatest net income in 2010-11 are from a mix of conferences. The only conference not represented in the top-10 is the ACC.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments||% of Conference|
This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com showed you the revenues, expenses and net income of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences. To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com is ranking the top-50 athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income. In this installment, we will show you which athletics departments spend the most.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is from 2010-11. While this data is not perfect, it is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.
|School||Athletic Department Expenses||Conference|
|Ohio State||$113,184,855.00||Big Ten|
|Penn State||$84,498,339.00||Big Ten|
|Notre Dame||$75,360,209.00||Big East|
|Texas A&M||$71,719,872.00||Big 12|
|Michigan State||$67,450,913.00||Big Ten|
|Oklahoma State||$55,757,830.00||Big 12|
While 80 percent of the Big 12’s members ranked in the top-50 in terms of revenue generated, only 70 percent ranked in the top-50 for expenditures. Thus, it is expected that at least several Big 12 members should generate a net income in the black. Only four Big East members ranked in the top-50 for revenue generated. However, five Big East members ranked in the top-5o for expenditures (Pittsburgh did not generate enough revenue to make the top-50 list, but is on the top-50 list for expenditures). Again, every Big Ten athletics department made the top-50 list for expenditures.
The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list and the percentage of the conference which made the list.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments||% of Conference|
This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com has shown you the revenues, expenses and net income (profit) of athletics departments in the BCS AQ conferences. To conclude this series, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will rank the top-5o athletics departments with the highest revenues, expenses and net income. First up is athletics department revenues.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is from 2010-11. While this data is not perfect, it is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions.
|School||Athletic Department Revenue||Conference|
|Ohio State||$131,815,819.00||Big Ten|
|Penn State||$116,118,026.00||Big Ten|
|Notre Dame||$94,507,919.00||Big East|
|Michigan State||$80,963,182.00||Big Ten|
|Texas A&M||$74,944,301.00||Big 12|
|Oklahoma State||$70,123,206.00||Big 12|
|Kansas State||$68,875,266.00||Big 12|
Several things stand out in this list. First, every Big Ten team made the list. This is notable, as the SEC is typically viewed as the “power conference” when it comes to all things finance. The SEC had a great showing in the top-50, but only nine of its twelve athletics departments made the list. The conference with the least athletics departments on the list was the Big East, which only placed four of its members on the list.
The chart below depicts how many places each conference held in the list.
|Conference||# of Athletics Departments on List||% of Conference|
This week, BusinessofCollegeSports.com is ranking the athletic departments with the highest net income. First up was the ACC. Next up is the Big 12. Over the course of today and tomorrow, we’ll also look at the Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC. On Wednesday, the top-50 most athletic departments will be ranked.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education and is for 2010-11. The data from the Department of Education is by no means perfect. Throughout this series, net income was calculated by subtracting the “grand total expenses” from the “grand total revenues” that the athletic department reported to the Department of Education. Expenses in this instance included: head and assistant coach salaries, athletically related student aid, recruiting expenses, operating (game-day expenses) and “not allocated” expenses. The expenses faced by athletic departments, however, may be greater than those reported in this snapshot provided by the Department of Education. For example, an athletic department may have capital expenses outside of those expenses included in the report. This all being said, this data is the only data publicly available for both public and private institutions. Thus, it at least provides some insight into athletic department revenues, expenses, and net income before taking into consideration additional expenses, like capital projects.
|School||Total Athletic Department Revenue||Total Athletic Department Expenses||Net Income|
In 2010-11, only two Big 12 athletic departments did not turn a positive net income: Baylor and Kansas. Yet, neither Baylor nor Kansas churned the lowest amount of revenue in the Big 12 in 2010-11. Rather, Iowa State was the athletic department which produced the lowest amount of revenue in 2010-11, at $48,574,989.00.
While six Big 12 athletic departments saw net income in excess of one million dollars (Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech), two departments’ net income stand out. In particular, both Kansas State and Texas earned over twenty million dollars in net income in 2010-11. Kansas State achieved net income of $23,395,408.00, while Texas had net income of $24,317,815.00. Interestingly, though, is the fact that Kansas State’s revenues in that same year were $68,875,266.00, while Texas’ were $150,295,932.00. Texas’ expenditures, on the other hand, were nearly three-times that of Kansas State’s.
Recently, NCAA Division I institutions and their conferences voted on whether to overturn a measure enacted by the NCAA Board of Directors in October 2011 which allowed Division I institutions to offer student-athletes multi-year scholarships. The effort to overturn the measure was narrowly defeated. Of those eligible to vote, 125 voted to uphold the measure, 205 voted to overturn it, 2 abstained and 35 did not cast votes. To overturn the measure, 5/8 of those voting (or, 62.5 percent) were required to vote in favor of overturning the measure. Thus, the vote to overturn the measure was short by 0.38 percent of votes.
Given how close Division I institutions came to overturning the right to offer multi-year scholarships, one may wonder how votes were split on the issue. First, consider those BCS automatic qualifying conferences and schools which voted to continue to allow Division I institutions to offer multi-year scholarships:
|BCS AQ Conferences & Schools Voting to Allow Multi-Year Scholarships|
|Atlantic Coast Conference|
|Big East Conference|
|Big Ten Conference|
|North Carolina State|
Most notably, the only BCS AQ Conference which voted to overturn the multi-year scholarship measure was the Big 12. The ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Pac-12 and SEC conferences, on the other hand, all voted in favor to continue allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships. The only Big 12 member to vote to uphold the multi-year scholarship measure was Missouri. However, it should be noted that Missouri will join the SEC later this year. Many of the SEC’s member institutions voted similarly to continue to allow multi-year scholarships.
Of those 125 conferences and schools voting to allow schools to offer multi-year scholarships, 36.8 percent were BCS automatic qualifying conferences or schools. This is a significant number, especially when considering that the majority of schools casting a vote on the issue were non-BCS AQ schools. It further demonstrates that a majority of BCS AQ institutions are in favor of granting multi-year scholarships. This is important, as whether a school offers multi-year scholarships may greatly affect recruiting and athletic department budgets going forward.
Next, consider which BCS AQ conferences and schools voted to overturn the NCAA’s measure allowing multi-year scholarships:
|BCS Conferences and Schools Voting to Disallow Multi-Year Scholarships|
Of the 205 conferences and schools which voted to override the NCAA’s measure allowing schools to offer multi-year scholarships, only 25 were BCS AQ conferences and schools. Thus, BCS AQ conferences and schools only accounted for 15.6 percent of those wishing to disallow multi-year scholarships. Most interesting, however, is that the Big 12 and its member institutions accounted for 31.25 percent of the BCS AQ schools and conferences voting to disallow multi-year scholarships.
The question to be raised given these numbers is, what competitive disadvantage does the Big 12 believe it faces if multi-year scholarships are allowed to be granted? Opponents of the multi-year scholarship measure have made the reasons as to why they do not support the measure clear. First, granting multi-year scholarships binds schools and athletic departments to student-athletes who may not be able to perform up to required standards either on the field or in the classroom. Additionally, granting multi-year scholarships may impose a greater financial burden on athletic department budgets and may provide those schools offering multi-year scholarships with a recruiting advantage over those which do not offer multi-year scholarships.
These factors may have been relevant in the Big 12 voting in large measure to not support multi-year scholarships. In 2010-11, the Big 12 only had one school (Texas) which broke into the top-10 in terms of its recruitment expenses. Likewise, in terms of the top-50 most profitable NCAA programs, the Big 12 once again only placed one of its teams (Texas football) into the top-10. Given these factors, it is likely that the Big 12’s largest concern with offering multi-year scholarships rested upon a cost-benefit analysis of the measure, and what its teams would be able to offer budgetary-wise in terms of multi-year scholarships.
One thing is certain: because NCAA Division I institutions and conferences voted to uphold allowing multi-year scholarships, it will be interesting to see the recruiting advantages those schools offering them receive going forward.
It seems like almost weekly that a story arises about a coach banning players’ use of social media websites or about student-athletes making controversial remarks on websites like Twitter. Given the commonality of these stories in this social media age, BusinessofCollegeSports.com reached out to numerous Division I athletics departments to learn what type of social media policies their departments have adopted. The following demonstrates how some of the top athletic departments in the nation are allowing their student-athletes to utilize social media.
Athletics Department Allows Use of Social Media
Teams Restricting Social Media Use
|Arizona’s Director of Athletics Greg Byrne said, “Student-athletes must register their accounts with our compliance department. We talk with them regularly about what they post.”|
|Football student-athletes are not allowed to use Twitter and are told to make their Facebook accounts private.||Boise State’s Assistant Athletic Director of Media Relations Max Corbet said, “There is not a department policy. It is pretty much left up to each individual head coach.”|
|FSU’s Assistant Athletic Director/Sports Information Director Elliott Finebloom said, “We try to educate [student-athletes] on the positives and negatives of engaging in various social media platforms.|
|Georgia’s Assistant Sports Communication Director Kate Burkholder said, “Our feeling on this is that we make it as clear as possible that they are accountable for what they share, and they shouldn’t make any comments they wouldn’t make if they were getting interviewed on SportsCenter. This year our media training team (outside company) incorporated a lot of social media etiquette into their lesson. Every team goes through this training regardless of the level of exposure the team receives. Any further policies are left up to the coaches, but generally speaking, our policy is to educate and monitor rather than to ban.|
|While individual coaches are allowed to determine whether their student-athletes can use social media, none have prevented their student-athletes from using social media.||Kansas’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications and Media Relations Jim Marchiony said, “Kansas Athletics has a general student-athlete policy regarding how individuals are expected to present the university. . . Student-athletes’ use of social media falls under our general student-athlete conduct policies.”|
|While the athletics department adopted a “Use of Social Networking Policy” last year, it encourages the use of social media by its student-athletes.||In 2010, football coach Butch Davis banned the use of Twitter when UNC was under NCAA investigation. However, new football coach Larry Fedora is not banning the use of Twitter.As of two weeks ago, women’s basketball coach Sylvia Hatchell banned the use of Twitter so that her team can focus on basketball.||UNC’s Associate Athletic Director for Communications said, “We have a policy that was put into place last year, the Use of Social Networking Policy. There are guidelines and a monitoring component. Each sport has a designated coach or administrator who monitors social media. Each student-athlete who wishes to participate in social media, which we encourage, has to accept the monitor as a friend on Facebook, or the monitor must follow them on Twitter.|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines.||Ohio States’ Associate Athletics Director for Communications Dan Wallenberg said, “Our student-athletes are not restricted from using social media, however each team has the discretion to establish rules and penalties as they see fit.”|
|Oklahoma’s Assistant Director for Communications said, “We allow our student-athletes to participate in social media. Our coaches do not have a ban on them.”|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines.||One Oklahoma State coach (unidentified by the university) doesn’t allow student-athletes to use social media.||Oklahoma State’s Associate Athletic Director for Media Relations Kevin Klintworth said, “Our policies vary between programs. We have one coach that doesn’t allow social media at all. Most of them do as long as coaches are “friends” or “followers.”|
|Certain teams restrict student-athletes’ use of social media. Last season, Coach Spurrier didn’t allow the football team to use Twitter during the season so they could focus on football. Players were allowed to resume use after the season.||South Carolina’s Media Relations Director Steve Fink said, “We aim to educate [student-athletes] with guidelines and tips for using these sites wisely.”|
|TCU’s Assistant Athletics Director for Media Relations Mark Cohen said, “TCU student-athletes are permitted to use Facebook and Twitter. Each sport at TCU sets its own social media guidelines. No sports at TCU have banned the use of Facebook or Twitter.”|
|USC’s Sports Information Director Tim Tessalone said, “We work hard to educate [student-athletes and coaches] on the proper use of social media.”|
|Each sport sets its own social media guidelines. However, no coach has banned the use of social media by student-athletes.||Wisconsin’s Director of Athletic Communications Brian Lucas said, “I know that Coach Bielema [football] deals with his players on a case-by-case basis. If he has an issue with something a student-athlete has posted, he deals with the student-athlete one-on-one as opposed to imposing limitations on the team.|
Over the next few days, BusinessofCollegeSports.com will investigate how much schools spend on recruiting.
Today, recruitment expense data from the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12 and Conference USA will be posted. Tomorrow, data for the MAC, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt, Mountain West and WAC will be posted. On Monday, a spreadsheet listing the top-50 spenders in terms of recruiting will be listed, sorted by total recruitment expense budget, amount spent per team on average and amount spent per player on average.
The data was obtained from the Department of Education. Although this data is not perfect, it is the only data available for both public and private institutions. Furthermore, the data provided is for the 2010-11 school year.
|School||Men’s Sports Recruitment Expenses||Average Per Team||Average Per Athlete|
|School||Women’s Sports Recruitment Expenses||Average Per Team||Average Per Athlete|
In 2010-11, the Big 12 school with the biggest overall recruitment budget for men’s sports was Kansas. Kansas spent $1,033,618.00 in recruiting student-athletes for its men’s teams in 2010-11. Kansas also spent the most, on average, in recruiting for its men’s teams in 2010-11 and the most per each male student-athlete. However, the amount spent to actually recruit individual athletes would be higher than listed in the spreadsheet, as the average calculated took into consideration every male athlete at Kansas, and not solely incoming student-athletes (thus, it took into consideration juniors and seniors in men’s sports programs). The Department of Education does not report how many student-athletes a school recruited in a given year, but rather, provides a lump-sum number of the amount of student-athletes on campus.
The Big 12 school which spent the most on recruiting female student-athletes in 2010-11, was Texas. Texas spent $481,019.00 in recruitment expenses for its women’s sports teams. Subsequently, Texas had the highest average spent in recruiting per team and per student-athlete.
In recent years, there has been much focus upon the amount of money athletic departments whose football teams participate in bowl games must shell out for items like unsold tickets and travel for a large group of people to the respective bowl game. Investigations have been completed at various levels to determine just how much profit an athletic department can turn if it is required to pay a big-ticket price just to participate in a bowl game.
Last year, the bowl game which arguably drew the most scrutiny as a result of the amount of money an athletic department was required to spend for its team to participate in the game, was the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. In 2011, UConn took on Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Given that Storrs, Connecticut is located thousands of miles away from Tempe, Arizona, UConn incurred extensive travel expenses. Additionally, UConn was required to sell 17,500 tickets for the event. Six days before the bowl game, it had only sold 4,600. Reports indicated that the school would incur the cost of the unsold tickets.
This year, Oklahoma State University is taking on Stanford in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. BusinessofCollegeSports.com reached out to both schools to learn more about the bowl’s financial requirements of each athletic program. Because Stanford is a private university, it declined to participate, citing open records request laws.
However, Oklahoma State provided information which gives great insight into the financial responsibilities of athletic departments participating in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.
Oklahoma State was required to purchase and/or sell 17,500 tickets for the game. The price of these tickets ranged from $105.00 to $255.00. Thus, the amount of tickets Oklahoma State was required to sell for the Fiesta Bowl ranged in amount from $1,837,500.00 to $4,462,500.00.
Given the high price of tickets and the associated allotment of tickets Oklahoma State was required to purchase and/or sell, there is arguably need for concern over whether the school would be required to purchase those tickets it was unable to sell. According to Jason Lewis, Oklahoma State’s Associate Athletic Director for Business and Finance, Oklahoma State’s athletic department will not incur the cost of unsold tickets. Although Lewis did not provide information in this regard, it is likely that the Big 12 conference will incur the cost of the unsold tickets which Oklahoma State was responsible for.
Lewis indicate that Oklahoma State did not have a budget set aside for bowl travel. At the time of the interview, it was too early to estimate how much money Oklahoma State planned to spend on travel to the Fiesta Bowl, as well as how many individual’s travel the athletic department would pay for to the Fiesta Bowl.
However, Lewis did note that the Big 12 Conference provided Oklahoma State with a travel allotment for the Fiesta Bowl. The Big 12 Conference gave Oklahoma State $1.8 million for travel purposes to the Fiesta Bowl.
The information provided by Lewis shines a new light on bowl finances. Last year, after hearing that UConn was required to purchase 17,500 tickets and was only able to sell around 5,000 of those tickets, many were quick to cry foul. However, after learning that the Big 12 conference has provided Oklahoma State with a significant amount of money for travel expenses and that the Big 12 Conference will likely incur the cost of unsold tickets, the burden of participating in bowl games on athletic departments appears to be less harsh than commonly reported.
BusinessofCollegeSports.com would like to thank Jason Lewis for his help with this piece.