Selection Sunday 2022

[Winterborn]

On one hand I agree that the inconsistent decision making process that allowed BBQ State to host when UND put in a higher bid is going to set a bad precedent and cause trouble down the road (and UND has a legitimate grip over the situation).

On the other hand I find it funny because it happened to UND.

[MSUBobcat]

Yes the tweet is from the Montana beat writer, but he says in one of the replies this is a direct quote from Truax. I would hope he's 100% wrong here also, so this thought even being floated out there was pretty shocking to me.

Yes, he claims it was a direct quote. And if Truax actually said that, he should have resigned his post because he clearly didn't read the manual that he was supposed to be following. There's no ambiguity in, 'if the minimum is met, the higher seed hosts.'

[F'N Hawks]

Lucas Semb is a Griz beat writer, not the committee chairman. And I'm quite certain he is DEAD WRONG about a seeded team who bid the minimum being able to be outbid. That would render seeds irrelevant and schools like MSU, UM, NDSU, et al would have home field throughout the playoffs with as little as a 7-4 record. Per the NCAA manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf), in Section 2.4 Site Selection, Item 3 (P. 18-19). "If the minimum financial guarantees are met, the committee will award the playoff sites to the higher-seeded team." The five criteria for site selection that have been discussed ad nauseam apply when both teams are unseeded (Item 4 of same section).

Interestingly, the lightly floated theory about the Sioux logos in the crowd may, in fact, have had more to do with UND not hosting even with the higher bid than initially thought. In Item 1, "The committee will consider previous crowd-control measures and crowd behavior of the prospective host institution(regardless of seeding). To be clear, I think the logo worn by fans would be quite a stretch when evaluating "crowd behavior", but... could it have actually been a factor??

Wrong arena

[uofmman1122]

WTF happened to the committee this year? Is this chairman new? This is getting ridiculous.

[MSUBobcat]

On one hand I agree that the inconsistent decision making process that allowed BBQ State to host when UND put in a higher bid is going to set a bad precedent and cause trouble down the road (and UND has a legitimate grip over the situation).

On the other hand I find it funny because it happened to UND.

No disagreement that it's a bad precedent. Terrible move to go away from what has been understood as the rule for many years. My personal belief is there was a lot of disagreement over the 8 seed, so to appease the losing side (the pro-Weber faction), they said, "no bye week, but they WILL host". I know the bids aren't supposed to be opened until the field is set, but once they opened it and realized Weber didn't bid much, perhaps in another backroom dealing, they should have moved SEMO to Weber's pod (assuming SEMO didn't outbid them). No one would be the wiser and this mammoth controversy would have been averted. (I freely admit that I have no idea what SEMO has bid in the past, so Weber may have been outbid anyway.)

[Chalupa Batman]

Yes, he claims it was a direct quote. And if Truax actually said that, he should have resigned his post because he clearly didn't read the manual that he was supposed to be following. There's no ambiguity in, 'if the minimum is met, the higher seed hosts.'

No disagreement there

[MSUBobcat]

Wrong arena

I didn't say anything about the arena, only "crowd" and "logo worn by fans". I'm fully aware of the difference between the Ralph and Alerus, as I try to make it to GF at least every 2-3 years. Are Bison fans wrong about UND fans wearing old Sioux gear to football games?

[Winterborn]

No disagreement that it's a bad precedent. Terrible move to go away from what has been understood as the rule for many years. My personal belief is there was a lot of disagreement over the 8 seed, so to appease the losing side (the pro-Weber faction), they said, "no bye week, but they WILL host". I know the bids aren't supposed to be opened until the field is set, but once they opened it and realized Weber didn't bid much, perhaps in another backroom dealing, they should have moved SEMO to Weber's pod (assuming SEMO didn't outbid them). No one would be the wiser and this mammoth controversy would have been averted. (I freely admit that I have no idea what SEMO has bid in the past, so Weber may have been outbid anyway.)

That scenario is logical.

There was a bunch of horse trading going on, bids were open and then in a typical committee fashion (not just talking selection committee but committees in general) they did not go back and fix the mistake but will instead rely on the old tried and true method of spreading the blame.

[MSUBobcat]

That scenario is logical.

There was a bunch of horse trading going on, bids were open and then in a typical committee fashion (not just talking selection committee but committees in general) they did not go back and fix the mistake but will instead rely on the old tried and true method of spreading the blame.

Crazily... UM only bid $126,281, per Lucas Semb (https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598020771263447041?s=20&t=Jm4a8GY6DHiQ-2btgHLomg). (I take that with a grain of salt after his claim of what Truax said). That means while the controversy would have been much, much less... UM most definitely would have been the host even after UND outbid them by $1,219, so it wouldn't have been zero controversy. The 1st and 2nd criteria in Item 4 of the Site Selection section of the manual are quality of facility (UM for sure, much as I hate to admit) and revenue potential plus estimated net receipts and clearly UM was going to garner the NCAA well over their bid.

On another note, I don't understand why schools try to lowball their bid when the NCAA take the GREATER of your bid or 75% of the net receipts. Put out your best estimate of what attendance will be, because they're taking their cut either way, so you might as well ensure you win the home game.

Edit: the more I read Lucas' tweets, the more I think he doesn't have a ****ing clue about the process. In this tweet (https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598028623206060032?s=20&t=C2s5sgLihrpuf6PbRZSQ0Q), he says tickets were selling for $35 from the school, but can be bought cheaper elsewhere. Secondary market is irrelevant, for one. Revenue = tickets (sold by the school) x price (charged by the school). Next, a UND guy had to remind him that student tickets are cheaper, so the average cost is less than that. Finally, he says there were roughly 14k in the stands so that's $490k revenue split with the NCAA. $490k (let's omit the student tickets part) is the GROSS revenue. The school, reasonably, gets to deduct the operating costs of hosting from the ticket sales before the NCAA gets it's cut.https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598028623206060032?s=20&t=C2s5sgLihrpuf6PbRZSQ0Q

[F'N Hawks]

I didn't say anything about the arena, only "crowd" and "logo worn by fans". I'm fully aware of the difference between the Ralph and Alerus, as I try to make it to GF at least every 2-3 years. Are Bison fans wrong about UND fans wearing old Sioux gear to football games?

They exaggerate quite a bit of everything. Yes of course some do, they own the gear and it's very nice looking, why wouldn't some wear it. Not like it's hundreds or thousands.

[MSUBobcat]

They exaggerate quite a bit of everything. Yes of course some do, they own the gear and it's very nice looking, why wouldn't some wear it. Not like it's hundreds or thousands.

It's fantastic gear! That's why I have white, green and black Sioux hockey jerseys. Gotta have one of each so you have all situations covered. I also have some hats, though they are getting pretty haggard unfortunately. And then I have a couple hats, blanket, puck, etc. on ice.

I really doubt (hope) that it wasn't a factor. But with how this committee did this year... who F'N knows!

[Winterborn]

They exaggerate quite a bit of everything. Yes of course some do, they own the gear and it's very nice looking, why wouldn't some wear it. Not like it's hundreds or thousands.

At the games (NDSU/UND) I have been at it is close to a 50/50 split. Me and a buddy have kept a running tally in the past of hockey vs normal gear at the NDSU/UND games (it is just a fun drinking exercise we do while tailgating, especially since his wife went to UND :D). At the Alerus it is less though I would agree.

That said, I do agree that if you got it, why not wear it. Though it doesn't make it any less strange. ;)

[POD Knows]

I didn't say anything about the arena, only "crowd" and "logo worn by fans". I'm fully aware of the difference between the Ralph and Alerus, as I try to make it to GF at least every 2-3 years. Are Bison fans wrong about UND fans wearing old Sioux gear to football games?
Well. They wear Sioux hockey jerseys to games in Fargo. Had some in our section and saw a bunch of them in the concessions area. Never been to a game in the Alerus but I bet the place is full of them in Sioux apparel. I brought up the subject of the logo as a reason the NCAA passed on UND. my post was a dig at the **** sticks with the NCAA and their sensibilities.

[NDSU1980]

Wrong arena

I was at the NDSU-und game in 2019 at the Fargodome and there were numerous und fans there wearing Sioux jerseys and yelling Sioux whenever they could. No matter how you try and spin this as not happening at football games but we all saw it. I can only imagine how much Sioux gear is worn when the game is played in GF.

Edit to add: I see POD beat me and said basically the same thing.

[nodak651]

Well. They wear Sioux hockey jerseys to games in Fargo. Had some in our section and saw a bunch of them in the concessions area. Never been to a game in the Alerus but I bet the place is full of them in Sioux apparel. I brought up the subject of the logo as a reason the NCAA passed on UND. my post was a dig at the **** sticks with the NCAA and their sensibilities.

That would be funny, because UND is required by the NCAA to keep selling Sioux merchandise in order to maintain the rights to the Sioux nickname/logo.
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/fighting-sioux-merchandise/

I don't think the logo had any bearing whatsoever on the committee's decision this year, but this is an older article (below) that is somewhat relevant. However, UND has since come to an agreement with the NCAA and fans are allowed to wear Sioux stuff.
""BISMARCK, N.D.—University of North Dakota teams risk forfeiting any post-season games if their athletes, cheerleaders or band wear or display the school's Fighting Sioux nickname and American Indian head logo, an NCAA official said Wednesday.Bernard Franklin, an NCAA executive vice president, said in a letter to university provost Paul LeBel that the university "must forfeit competition" if "it has not adhered to this requirement" in any post-season games that UND teams have been invited to play in.
"We ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname brought to an NCAA championship venue," Franklin's letter says.""
http://archive.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2012/03/01/ncaa_dont_bring_fighting_sioux_name_to_playoffs/

[clenz]

That would be funny, because UND is required by the NCAA to keep selling Sioux merchandise in order to maintain the rights to the Sioux nickname/logo.
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/fighting-sioux-merchandise/

I don't think the logo had any bearing whatsoever on the committee's decision this year, but this is an older article (below) that is somewhat relevant. However, UND has since come to an agreement with the NCAA and fans are allowed to wear Sioux stuff.
""BISMARCK, N.D.—University of North Dakota teams risk forfeiting any post-season games if their athletes, cheerleaders or band wear or display the school's Fighting Sioux nickname and American Indian head logo, an NCAA official said Wednesday.Bernard Franklin, an NCAA executive vice president, said in a letter to university provost Paul LeBel that the university "must forfeit competition" if "it has not adhered to this requirement" in any post-season games that UND teams have been invited to play in.
"We ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname brought to an NCAA championship venue," Franklin's letter says.""
http://archive.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2012/03/01/ncaa_dont_bring_fighting_sioux_name_to_playoffs/
It's the same with every university (or franchise). If they don't they give up control of the trademark and then anyone and their dog can use it however they want.

It's why you'll see the "vintage" collection from every school. I can go buy a sweatshirt with a logo that was last used about 1985 by UNI right now if I wanted too. I'd bet 90% of UNI fans wouldn't even know it was a logo UNI had ever used, but they still put it on merch so they can keep the trademark on it.

[taper]

That would be funny, because UND is required by the NCAA to keep selling Sioux merchandise in order to maintain the rights to the Sioux nickname/logo.
https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/fighting-sioux-merchandise/

I don't think the logo had any bearing whatsoever on the committee's decision this year, but this is an older article (below) that is somewhat relevant. However, UND has since come to an agreement with the NCAA and fans are allowed to wear Sioux stuff.
""BISMARCK, N.D.—University of North Dakota teams risk forfeiting any post-season games if their athletes, cheerleaders or band wear or display the school's Fighting Sioux nickname and American Indian head logo, an NCAA official said Wednesday.Bernard Franklin, an NCAA executive vice president, said in a letter to university provost Paul LeBel that the university "must forfeit competition" if "it has not adhered to this requirement" in any post-season games that UND teams have been invited to play in.
"We ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname brought to an NCAA championship venue," Franklin's letter says.""
http://archive.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2012/03/01/ncaa_dont_bring_fighting_sioux_name_to_playoffs/
For those not familiar with ND, the sayanything blog is run by a D tier "journalist" with a DUI conviction. He's a total hack. One could make an argument that UND is not in compliance with their settlement with the NCAA and is ineligible for all post season competition due to the continued presence of "hostile and abusive" imagery among the fans.

[nodak651]

For those not familiar with ND, the sayanything blog is run by a D tier "journalist" with a DUI conviction. He's a total hack. One could make an argument that UND is not in compliance with their settlement with the NCAA and is ineligible for all post season competition due to the continued presence of "hostile and abusive" imagery among the fans.
Omg you're insufferable.. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com/.amp/college/2016/02/18/ap-us-fighting-sioux-nickname-3rd-ld-writethru

[Winterborn]

For those not familiar with ND, the sayanything blog is run by a D tier "journalist" with a DUI conviction. He's a total hack. One could make an argument that UND is not in compliance with their settlement with the NCAA and is ineligible for all post season competition due to the continued presence of "hostile and abusive" imagery among the fans.

And D-tier is being generous.

[crusader11]

Did someone say college hockey?

You're welcome, UND.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRfpcc3LZA

[abc123]

Well. They wear Sioux hockey jerseys to games in Fargo. Had some in our section and saw a bunch of them in the concessions area. Never been to a game in the Alerus but I bet the place is full of them in Sioux apparel. I brought up the subject of the logo as a reason the NCAA passed on UND. my post was a dig at the **** sticks with the NCAA and their sensibilities.

And NDSU fans wear football jerseys and shirts to basketball games in Grand Forks. It is what it is?


One could make an argument that UND is not in compliance with their settlement with the NCAA and is ineligible for all post season competition due to the continued presence of "hostile and abusive" imagery among the fans.
One can make any argument they want. But making an argument like that does nothing other than prove you are completely clueless.
UND is in complete compliance with the NCAA in terms of displaying historical items. There were addendums to the settlement agreement that made adjustments for keeping items that would have caused a significant financial burden to change out.

[nodak651]

Did someone say college hockey?

You're welcome, UND.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRfpcc3LZA

Love it. If we wanna talk about seeded teams getting screwed in a playoff bracket, the Gophers sure were that weekend as the #1 overall seed haha. Here's a little background on that game - kind of a mini documentary.


https://youtu.be/3EZjJidYUA0

[MSUBobcat]

Did someone say college hockey?

You're welcome, UND.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRfpcc3LZA

One hell of an upset. One could also say, "you're welcome, Holy Cross" as that was one hostile and abusive crowd to the hated Goofers. xsmiley_wix

[POD Knows]

And NDSU fans wear football jerseys and shirts to basketball games in Grand Forks. It is what it is?


One can make any argument they want. But making an argument like that does nothing other than prove you are completely clueless.
UND is in complete compliance with the NCAA in terms of displaying historical items. There were addendums to the settlement agreement that made adjustments for keeping items that would have caused a significant financial burden to change out.
Really, you mean somebody is wearing an old football jersey with the Aggies on it, what are you talking about? The discussion was about the rube fan base and their inability to adopt to the new logo. Hell, NDSU sells "hockey" style shirts with the Bison logo on them. Try and keep up moron.

[abc123]

Really, you mean somebody is wearing an old football jersey with the Aggies on it, what are you talking about? The discussion was about the rube fan base and their inability to adopt to the new logo. Hell, NDSU sells "hockey" style shirts with the Bison logo on them. Try and keep up moron.
It is tough to figure out if you're offended by an old throwback logo or the hockey jersey.

[POD Knows]

It is tough to figure out if you're offended by an old throwback logo or the hockey jersey.I like the old logo, the NCAA can stick it up their asses as far as I am concerned. But hockey jerseys just look weird at a football game, and you have to admit that the hockey rubes at UND are a piece of work. If they don't like the new Fighting Hawks logo (I don't blame them, it is lame as ****) then wear something that looks like it belongs at a football game. I don't like basketball jerseys at football games either, to each his own I guess. I don't own an NDSU jersey, I wear the stuff that is acceptable at all events, I am cheap that way. :D

[abc123]

I like the old logo, the NCAA can stick it up their asses as far as I am concerned. But hockey jerseys just look weird at a football game, and you have to admit that the hockey rubes at UND are a piece of work. If they don't like the new Fighting Hawks logo (I don't blame them, it is lame as ****) then wear something that looks like it belongs at a football game. I don't like basketball jerseys at football games either, to each his own I guess. I don't own an NDSU jersey, I wear the stuff that is acceptable at all events, I am cheap that way. :D

I actually agree almost across the board, though I don't mind the new logo. Tough to come up with something great when you are dealt a generic nickname.
No argument at all on the hockey only fans. Just get a chuckle when NDSU fans get riled up about hockey apparel at a football game and then half their crowd is wearing some sort of football jersey or shirt at a basketball game. I know its hard to pick from the which championship shirt to wear, but find something generic or basketball related if that's the team you're going to watch.

[SCPALADIN]

The selection and bracketing process is flawed....and we (AGS members) aren't the only ones who notice. Whether anything changes is anyone's guess.

https://herosports.com/fcs-football-pus ... nges-bzbz/ (https://herosports.com/fcs-football-push-playoff-structure-changes-bzbz/)


https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-s ... -overhaul/ (https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-state/2022/nov/29/bid-bewilderment-fcs-football-playoff-selection-hosting-process-needs-an-overhaul/)

[Chalupa Batman]

I like the old logo, the NCAA can stick it up their asses as far as I am concerned. But hockey jerseys just look weird at a football game, and you have to admit that the hockey rubes at UND are a piece of work. If they don't like the new Fighting Hawks logo (I don't blame them, it is lame as ****) then wear something that looks like it belongs at a football game. I don't like basketball jerseys at football games either, to each his own I guess. I don't own an NDSU jersey, I wear the stuff that is acceptable at all events, I am cheap that way. :D

The Kingpin would like to have a word with you

[FUBeAR]

The entire FCS Playoffs structure and the Selection Committee, which conducts such activities as seeding, selection, bracketing, and pairing, are deeply flawed....and we (AGS members) aren't the only ones who notice. Whether anything changes is anyone's guess.

https://herosports.com/fcs-football-pus ... nges-bzbz/ (https://herosports.com/fcs-football-push-playoff-structure-changes-bzbz/)


https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-s ... -overhaul/ (https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-state/2022/nov/29/bid-bewilderment-fcs-football-playoff-selection-hosting-process-needs-an-overhaul/)
fyp

#DefundTheCommittee

[Hammersmith]

Crazily... UM only bid $126,281, per Lucas Semb (https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598020771263447041?s=20&t=Jm4a8GY6DHiQ-2btgHLomg). (I take that with a grain of salt after his claim of what Truax said). That means while the controversy would have been much, much less... UM most definitely would have been the host even after UND outbid them by $1,219, so it wouldn't have been zero controversy. The 1st and 2nd criteria in Item 4 of the Site Selection section of the manual are quality of facility (UM for sure, much as I hate to admit) and revenue potential plus estimated net receipts and clearly UM was going to garner the NCAA well over their bid.

On another note, I don't understand why schools try to lowball their bid when the NCAA take the GREATER of your bid or 75% of the net receipts. Put out your best estimate of what attendance will be, because they're taking their cut either way, so you might as well ensure you win the home game.

Edit: the more I read Lucas' tweets, the more I think he doesn't have a ****ing clue about the process. In this tweet (https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598028623206060032?s=20&t=C2s5sgLihrpuf6PbRZSQ0Q), he says tickets were selling for $35 from the school, but can be bought cheaper elsewhere. Secondary market is irrelevant, for one. Revenue = tickets (sold by the school) x price (charged by the school). Next, a UND guy had to remind him that student tickets are cheaper, so the average cost is less than that. Finally, he says there were roughly 14k in the stands so that's $490k revenue split with the NCAA. $490k (let's omit the student tickets part) is the GROSS revenue. The school, reasonably, gets to deduct the operating costs of hosting from the ticket sales before the NCAA gets it's cut.https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1598028623206060032?s=20&t=C2s5sgLihrpuf6PbRZSQ0Q

I really wish all these beat writers would give all the figures in the bids and not just the guarantee. Semb only gave the guarantee and so did Tom Miller in Grand Forks.

The first line in a school's bid is the projected revenue, and the second line is the projected expenses. A quick subtraction gives you a projected net revenue. Multiply that by 0.85(or 0.90 for an off campus facility) and you get the projected NCAA cut. The guarantee is listed on the fourth page, line 7(or at least it was a few years ago).

So the committee can look at both numbers, projected and guaranteed. There are a bunch of UND fans that think that only the guaranteed amount should be considered, and I think that's absolutely idiotic. When considering bids, you look at the whole bid, not just one number.

A hypothetical example that's pretty close to the truth:

NDSU
Projected 1st round attendance: 12,000
Average ticket price: $40
Projected gross revenue: $500,000
Projected expenses: $75,000
Projected net revenue: $425,000
Projected NCAA cut: $400,000
Guarantee: $100,000

UND
Projected 1st round attendance: 7,500
Average ticket price: $25
Projected gross revenue: $190,000
Projected expenses: $50,000
Projected net revenue: $140,000
Projected NCAA cut: $115,000
Guarantee: $125,000

Which way do you think the committee would/should go? Take UND's guaranteed $125k just because it's higher than NDSU's $100k, or take NDSU's likely final amount of $400k? And even if NDSU misses the projection, it will still be far more than UND's $125k?

To me, this is a no brainer. The purpose of the bids is to let the NCAA know how much they can get to offset the money they spend on travel costs, Frisco rental, and other playoff expenses. Leaving significant amounts of nearly certain money on the table goes completely against the purpose of the bid process.


(BTW, I'm not pulling most of those figures out of my ass. 1st round attendance is often 40-60% of average attendance. I think I was pretty generous with UND. NDSU's attendance is roughly what they got during their first round game several years back before the championship run. The UND ticket price and expenses come from their 2019 first round bid. NDSU ticket price is around what is being asked for this week's game. I bumped up expenses compared to UND, but that number is the only flat-out guess in the hypothetical. Both guarantees are rounded versions of what has been reported. NDSU's projected number might be a touch high, but not outrageous. I've heard that the NCAA typically made $350k-$425k per game during the five-peat back in 2011-15. I think ticket prices have gone up since that time, so $400k for a first round game today might be high, but it would still likely be at least $325k-$375k. So the point still stands.)


Hypothetical #2 (these numbers actually are completely fictional to make a point)

School A
Projected 1st round attendance: 7,000
Average ticket price: $20
Projected gross revenue: $140,000
Projected expenses: $40,000
Projected net revenue: $100,000
Projected NCAA cut: $85,000
Guarantee: $100,000

School B
Projected 1st round attendance: 10,000
Average ticket price: $20
Projected gross revenue: $200,000
Projected expenses: $50,000
Projected net revenue: $150,000
Projected NCAA cut: $125,000
Guarantee: $50,000

How about this? Same rules apply as the last situation but the numbers are much closer. School A has the bigger guarantee, but School B has a higher projected cut. But it's not by that much. In this case, I could see giving the bid to School B, but I would personally argue for School A. That $125k projected cut could easily become $100k or less. If that happens, the bids are a wash and it should go to School A that clearly wants it more(they're willing to take a loss). At the very least, I would take the time to dig into School B's bid to make sure nothing is fluffed up.


My drawn out point here is that bids are more than just a single number, and the beat writers(and us) are doing the discussion a disservice by boiling it down to just the one.


(This should not be construed into me saying Weber should have gotten the bid. They shouldn't have. The game should have been in Grand Forks. This is just against the argument that the guarantee is the only thing that matters.)

[MSUBobcat]

The selection and bracketing process is flawed....and we (AGS members) aren't the only ones who notice. Whether anything changes is anyone's guess.

https://herosports.com/fcs-football-pus ... nges-bzbz/ (https://herosports.com/fcs-football-push-playoff-structure-changes-bzbz/)


https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-s ... -overhaul/ (https://www.standard.net/sports/weber-state/2022/nov/29/bid-bewilderment-fcs-football-playoff-selection-hosting-process-needs-an-overhaul/)

Some good articles mainly repeating what has been discussed here. One thing I've noticed from Sam Herder earlier, now similarly espoused by Lucas Semb (who I don't think is very knowledgeable about this process, as according to the S-E article, he reported the minimum bid for the second round "is around $48,000" when it is clearly $40,000 in the manual) and then regurgitated in the Standard-Examiner article is this notion that 85% of ticket sales goes straight to the NCAA. From what I recall always being discussed here is that they take 75% of the NET RECEIPTS. This is stated in the NCAA Football Manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf) on Page 18, Section 2.4, Item 2, "Prospective host institutions must submit the following minimum financial guarantees, which shall be 75% of theestimated net receipts as submitted on the proposed budget. This was confirmed on the bid UND submitted in 2019 (https://drive.proton.me/urls/YJKEXGYYGG#StPrkiJyCP1e) (Gross receipts - $149,805 with budgeted distributions of $49,800 for net receipts of $100,005, 75% of which is $75,003.75, exactly matching their bid). It would make no sense to submit a bid on a different methodology than the one used to pay the NC$$ their pound of flesh. Indeed, if it is, in fact, 85% of ticket sales, and UND perfectly hit their budgeted ticket sales of $149,805, after the NCAA took 85%, that would leave UND only $22,470.75. Per their bid, to rent the Alerus Center costs them $32,000 alone. For UND to cover their budgeted expenditures of $49,800 using only 15% of ticket sales, they would have actually needed to sell $332,000 worth of tickets just to break even, over 120% more than they expected per their bid (and presumably a crowd of more than 13,500 using the ratio provided for the various ticket prices).

So... can anyone point me to an authoritative source confirming if it is 85% of ticket sales or 75% of net receipts (or some other method)? I just find it hard to believe schools are expected to facilitate a football game on 15% of total revenue.

[abc123]

Leaving significant amounts of nearly certain money on the table goes completely against the purpose of the bid process.

So at what amount is the money considered "significant"?
Because Weber's "projected net revenue" for Round 1 was $56,578, meaning the NCAA's cut would have been $47,241 or a whopping $5,560 more than their guarantee. I know you said that wasn't the reason why they picked Weber to host the game, but I just wanted to make sure that people didn't assume Weber had lowballed their bid and had a bunch of extra possible income laying out there.

[MSUBobcat]

I really wish all these beat writers would give all the figures in the bids and not just the guarantee. Semb only gave the guarantee and so did Tom Miller in Grand Forks.

The first line in a school's bid is the projected revenue, and the second line is the projected expenses. A quick subtraction gives you a projected net revenue. Multiply that by 0.85(or 0.90 for an off campus facility) and you get the projected NCAA cut. The guarantee is listed on the fourth page, line 7(or at least it was a few years ago).

So the committee can look at both numbers, projected and guaranteed. There are a bunch of UND fans that think that only the guaranteed amount should be considered, and I think that's absolutely idiotic. When considering bids, you look at the whole bid, not just one number.

A hypothetical example that's pretty close to the truth:

NDSU
Projected 1st round attendance: 12,000
Average ticket price: $40
Projected gross revenue: $500,000
Projected expenses: $75,000
Projected net revenue: $425,000
Projected NCAA cut: $400,000
Guarantee: $100,000

UND
Projected 1st round attendance: 7,500
Average ticket price: $25
Projected gross revenue: $190,000
Projected expenses: $50,000
Projected net revenue: $140,000
Projected NCAA cut: $115,000
Guarantee: $125,000

Which way do you think the committee would/should go? Take UND's guaranteed $125k just because it's higher than NDSU's $100k, or take NDSU's likely final amount of $400k? And even if NDSU misses the projection, it will still be far more than UND's $125k?

To me, this is a no brainer. The purpose of the bids is to let the NCAA know how much they can get to offset the money they spend on travel costs, Frisco rental, and other playoff expenses. Leaving significant amounts of nearly certain money on the table goes completely against the purpose of the bid process.


(BTW, I'm not pulling most of those figures out of my ass. 1st round attendance is often 40-60% of average attendance. I think I was pretty generous with UND. NDSU's attendance is roughly what they got during their first round game several years back before the championship run. The UND ticket price and expenses come from their 2019 first round bid. NDSU ticket price is around what is being asked for this week's game. I bumped up expenses compared to UND, but that number is the only flat-out guess in the hypothetical. Both guarantees are rounded versions of what has been reported. NDSU's projected number might be a touch high, but not outrageous. I've heard that the NCAA typically made $350k-$425k per game during the five-peat back in 2011-15. I think ticket prices have gone up since that time, so $400k for a first round game today might be high, but it would still likely be at least $325k-$375k. So the point still stands.)


Hypothetical #2 (these numbers actually are completely fictional to make a point)

School A
Projected 1st round attendance: 7,000
Average ticket price: $20
Projected gross revenue: $140,000
Projected expenses: $40,000
Projected net revenue: $100,000
Projected NCAA cut: $85,000
Guarantee: $100,000

School B
Projected 1st round attendance: 10,000
Average ticket price: $20
Projected gross revenue: $200,000
Projected expenses: $50,000
Projected net revenue: $150,000
Projected NCAA cut: $125,000
Guarantee: $50,000

How about this? Same rules apply as the last situation but the numbers are much closer. School A has the bigger guarantee, but School B has a higher projected cut. But it's not by that much. In this case, I could see giving the bid to School B, but I would personally argue for School A. That $125k projected cut could easily become $100k or less. If that happens, the bids are a wash and it should go to School A that clearly wants it more(they're willing to take a loss). At the very least, I would take the time to dig into School B's bid to make sure nothing is fluffed up.


My drawn out point here is that bids are more than just a single number, and the beat writers(and us) are doing the discussion a disservice by boiling it down to just the one.


(This should not be construed into me saying Weber should have gotten the bid. They shouldn't have. The game should have been in Grand Forks. This is just against the argument that the guarantee is the only thing that matters.)

I agree 100% and that is actually how I read criteria 2 for determining the host site for unseeded teams in the manual, "revenue potential plus estimated net receipts". To me that says they have flexibility in determining if one school is clearly going to generate more money, even if the bids don't say so. If UND and UM had been paired together, even though UND outbid UM by $1,219, I would bet UM would have been hosting that game, as they know from previous playoffs that the Griz will draw over 10k easily (and in fact had over 13k).

[Hammersmith]

Some good articles mainly repeating what has been discussed here. One thing I've noticed from Sam Herder earlier, now similarly espoused by Lucas Semb (who I don't think is very knowledgeable about this process, as according to the S-E article, he reported the minimum bid for the second round "is around $48,000" when it is clearly $40,000 in the manual) and then regurgitated in the Standard-Examiner article is this notion that 85% of ticket sales goes straight to the NCAA. From what I recall always being discussed here is that they take 75% of the NET RECEIPTS. This is stated in the NCAA Football Manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf) on Page 18, Section 2.4, Item 2, "Prospective host institutions must submit the following minimum financial guarantees, which shall be 75% of theestimated net receipts as submitted on the proposed budget. This was confirmed on the bid UND submitted in 2019 (https://drive.proton.me/urls/YJKEXGYYGG#StPrkiJyCP1e) (Gross receipts - $149,805 with budgeted distributions of $49,800 for net receipts of $100,005, 75% of which is $75,003.75, exactly matching their bid). It would make no sense to submit a bid on a different methodology than the one used to pay the NC$$ their pound of flesh. Indeed, if it is, in fact, 85% of ticket sales, and UND perfectly hit their budgeted ticket sales of $149,805, after the NCAA took 85%, that would leave UND only $22,470.75. Per their bid, to rent the Alerus Center costs them $32,000 alone. For UND to cover their budgeted expenditures of $49,800 using only 15% of ticket sales, they would have actually needed to sell $332,000 worth of tickets just to break even, over 120% more than they expected per their bid (and presumably a crowd of more than 13,500 using the ratio provided for the various ticket prices).

So... can anyone point me to an authoritative source confirming if it is 85% of ticket sales or 75% of net receipts (or some other method)? I just find it hard to believe schools are expected to facilitate a football game on 15% of total revenue.

The 85% comes from the bid document itself. This quote is from a 2019 bid from UND.


10. Honorarium (Highest amount from a or b)
a. Minimum -- Enter the appropriate amount depending on length of competition and type of championship
TEAM INDIVIDUAL-TEAM
Preliminary Final Preliminary Final
1 day 575 1150 700 1725
2 day 750 1450 870 2000
3 day 920 1725 1150 2300
b. 15 percent of net receipts (10 percent if event held in off-campus facility).

So for an FCS playoff game, the honorarium to the school would fall into the 15% net receipts option. I think that's where we all are getting the 85% NCAA cut from. So we've got conflicting info. The FCS playoff handbook says 75% and the bid document says 85%. I don't think it's a huge problem, but I can see why the reporters are using the 85% figure since they're writing their stories using the bid documents as their primary sources.

[MSUBobcat]

So at what amount is the money considered "significant"?
Because Weber's "projected net revenue" was $56,578, meaning the NCAA's cut would have been $47,241 or a whopping $5,560 more than their guarantee.

Money was CLEARLY not the deciding factor with BBQ and UND. My guess is slightly less than half of the committee members thought Weebs deserved the 8 seed and they negotiated that while Weber would NOT get the seed, they would somewhat atone for it by giving them a home game.

[Hammersmith]

So at what amount is the money considered "significant"?
Because Weber's "projected net revenue" for Round 1 was $56,578, meaning the NCAA's cut would have been $47,241 or a whopping $5,560 more than their guarantee. I know you said that wasn't the reason why they picked Weber to host the game, but I just wanted to make sure that people didn't assume Weber had lowballed their bid and had a bunch of extra possible income laying out there.

It's almost like you only read the portions of my post that you wanted to be mad at. You quoted that line, but completely ignored the final section:


This should not be construed into me saying Weber should have gotten the bid. They shouldn't have. The game should have been in Grand Forks. This is just against the argument that the guarantee is the only thing that matters.

[abc123]

It's almost like you only read the portions of my post that you wanted to be mad at. You quoted that line, but completely ignored the final section:
It's almost like you did the same


I know you said that wasn't the reason why they picked Weber to host the game, but I just wanted to make sure that people didn't assume Weber had lowballed their bid and had a bunch of extra possible income laying out there.

I was just adding to your information on what Weber's projected net revenue was because I have seen it so people didn't run with that idea that Weber projected a bunch more revenue.
They hosted because a deal was clearly made to give them a home game in return for Holy Cross getting the #8 seed. That isn't speculation, it is exactly what happened.

[MSUBobcat]

The 85% comes from the bid document itself. This quote is from a 2019 bid from UND.


So for an FCS playoff game, the honorarium to the school would fall into the 15% net receipts option. I think that's where we all are getting the 85% NCAA cut from. So we've got conflicting info. The FCS playoff handbook says 75% and the bid document says 85%. I don't think it's a huge problem, but I can see why the reporters are using the 85% figure since they're writing their stories using the bid documents as their primary sources.

The beat writers are still claiming it is 85% of the GROSS receipts, which is a BIG difference from NET receipts. Trying to pay your operating costs, many of which are fixed costs, out of 15% of sales is going to require a TON of sales. (Forgive me. As a CPA/Controller, digging into bottom lines is probably more interesting to me than most).

[Hammersmith]

The beat writers are still claiming it is 85% of the GROSS receipts, which is a BIG difference from NET receipts. Trying to pay your operating costs, many of which are fixed costs, out of 15% of sales is going to require a TON of sales. (Forgive me. As a CPA/Controller, digging into bottom lines is probably more interesting to me than most).

Oh yeah, gross versus net is a huge difference. If a reporter uses gross receipts in an article at any %, then they're an idiot. I was just trying to show where the 85/75 confusion was coming from.

[MSUBobcat]

Oh yeah, gross versus net is a huge difference. If a reporter uses gross receipts in an article at any %, then they're an idiot. I was just trying to show where the 85/75 confusion was coming from.

I appreciate you pointing out line 10 on Page 4 of UND's bid. I only went as far as the guarantee (line 9) on their bid as it mathed out to the 75% mentioned in the manual also. I did take brief note of the reduction percentages for being past-due in reporting but somehow breezed right by subsection b of line 10, so thank you for setting me straight.

Sam Herder has stated this 85% of ticket revenue throughout the year, including in the article posted by SCPALADIN, "And the NCAA takes 85% of the ticket revenue for all of these games." This is then used by Lucas Semb, and then also by the writer in the Standard-Examiner article. It's somewhat mind boggling where he keeps getting that, and now it's floating around the Twitterverse as fact. If a school only got 15% of the gate, with expenses reasonably estimated at $40-50k, only the few schools with very strong attendances (especially for Round 1/Thanksgiving weekend) could ever hope to even break even, let alone turn a profit. At $40k, you would need ticket revenue of $266,667 to cover costs. Assuming $30 AVERAGE ticket price, which is high when it would weighed down by free or nearly-free student tickets, you'd need nearly 9k tickets sold just to not lose money. And that's with an average ticket price that is 50% higher than your hypotheticals. Common sense alone should be telling these reporters that it's not the gross amount that is used in the calculation.

[F'N Hawks]

The only issue with dissecting these bids is I have never heard of the higher bid losing. Regardless of the rest of the guarantee verbiage, numbers.

[nodak651]

You guys are confusing. It's 15 percent of revenue but 100% goes towards costs before anyone gets a cut, no?

[SCPALADIN]

What gets me, according to one of the articles, is the idea that a seeded team could be outbid for their first playoff game. This is news to me and got me thinking about the Furman-UIW game.
Both Furman's facilities and average attendance are miles above UIW. IF it's true that a seeded team can end up with an away game I'd be curios what their bid to the NCAA was.

[Winterborn]

The Kingpin would like to have a word with you

He doesn't listen very well. ;)

[Winterborn]

The beat writers are still claiming it is 85% of the GROSS receipts, which is a BIG difference from NET receipts. Trying to pay your operating costs, many of which are fixed costs, out of 15% of sales is going to require a TON of sales. (Forgive me. As a CPA/Controller, digging into bottom lines is probably more interesting to me than most).

No. ;)

This discussion is highly interesting to me as an engineer. And the devil is always in the details. What is omitted or how something is phrased in an official document or story is often more interesting than what is stated (I deal with product liability and word games are half of what my job entails).

[TribeNomad1]

No. ;)

This discussion is highly interesting to me as an engineer. And the devil is always in the details. What is omitted or how something is phrased in an official document or story is often more interesting than what is stated (I deal with product liability and word games are half of what my job entails).

Spoliation.

[MSUBobcat]

What gets me, according to one of the articles, is the idea that a seeded team could be outbid for their first playoff game. This is news to me and got me thinking about the Furman-UIW game.
Both Furman's facilities and average attendance are miles above UIW. IF it's true that a seeded team can end up with an away game I'd be curios what their bid to the NCAA was.

It is not true and either Lucas Semb, beat writer for the Griz, misheard Truax or Truax is woefully uninformed on the manual he is supposed to follow. The manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf) is very clear on this and the committee would lose whatever semblance of credibility that remains after this year's debacle if they awarded a non-seed a home game against a seed. Page 19, under Section 2.4 Site Selection, Item 3. "If the minimum financial guarantees are met, the committee will award the playoff sites to the higher-seeded teams." Simple If-then scenario. If a seeded team for some crazy reason didn't submit a bid, it would be interesting if they would actually take away the seed's home game. Easy solution, if your team is ranked in the top 12 or so going into the end of the season, even if you can't bid big, you MUST bid the round minimums in case there's upsets in the teams ranked higher in the last weekend (or 2, can't remember the due date for bids) and you back into a seed. It is also prudent to bid the minimums for all rounds, even if you know a top 2 or 4 seed is out of the question, as SDSU proved last year by knocking off Villanova in the quarterfinals, allowing MSU to HOST a semifinal game as the 8 seed.

[Winterborn]

Spoliation.

I either love or hate that word, depending on whose fault it is. xlolx

[MSUBobcat]

No. ;)

This discussion is highly interesting to me as an engineer. And the devil is always in the details. What is omitted or how something is phrased in an official document or story is often more interesting than what is stated (I deal with product liability and word games are half of what my job entails).

I wish I had stayed with mechanical engineering. I went a bit wild my freshman year, and went from breezing through school to actually getting ****ty grades. Decided after that year to switch majors cuz it definitely was NOT because I partied and never went to class, it was the choice of major. xrolleyesx My aunt was a CPA and did well and I thought the math would be complex. It is not and now I'm in a field that really doesn't interest me (even took a 6 year sabbatical to work on a drilling rig in the Bakken to get away from accounting). But I'm too old (43) to go back and start at the bottom in a brand new field so the solution is to squirrel away as much money as I can as fast as I can and retire hopefully by late 50's. I do have the stereotypical accountant spending mentality, which is what some call "cheap" but I call "frugal". xlolx

[TribeNomad1]

I either love or hate that word, depending on whose fault it is. xlolx

For sure.....

[Winterborn]

I wish I had stayed with mechanical engineering. I went a bit wild my freshman year, and went from breezing through school to actually getting ****ty grades. Decided after that year to switch majors cuz it definitely was NOT because I partied and never went to class, it was the choice of major. xrolleyesx My aunt was a CPA and did well and I thought the math would be complex. It is not and now I'm in a field that really doesn't interest me (even took a 6 year sabbatical to work on a drilling rig in the Bakken to get away from accounting). But I'm too old (43) to go back and start at the bottom in a brand new field so the solution is to squirrel away as much money as I can as fast as I can and retire hopefully by late 50's. I do have the stereotypical accountant spending mentality, which is what some call "cheap" but I call "frugal". xlolx

If you spent 6 years in the Bakken, you might have ran across some of my family, as they worked out there trucking and met quite alot of folks in their travels. Some of the stories they tell are a bit eye-opening. xlolx

Even though I do not really use my degree anymore, I am happy I stuck it out. My career has been pretty interesting for a guy who graduated and just wanted to work on old equipment.

(Started out as a test engineer and now am a Product Safety & Compliance Engineer)

[MSUBobcat]

If you spent 6 years in the Bakken, you might have ran across some of my family, as they worked out there trucking and met quite alot of folks in their travels. Some of the stories they tell are a bit eye-opening. xlolx

Even though I do not really use my degree anymore, I am happy I stuck it out. My career has been pretty interesting for a guy who graduated and just wanted to work on old equipment.

(Started out as a test engineer and now am a Product Safety & Compliance Engineer)

Very possible. We had trucks showing up all the time, from diesel for the generators, to downhole tools, to miles of casing. I worked for Helmerich & Payne (H&P). Some really good times with GREAT dudes (mostly). And we earned a pretty good wage, so I put a big chunk down on my home, so I pay about $1400/mo and only about 13 years left (ladyfriend pays a nominal amount for rent also). She's also a CPA and controller and we're DINK's. That's how I'm going to retire early. She's 36 and a bit behind me on the savings, so she better pick it up or I'll be in Costa Rica, and she'll be in Billings xnodx:D