Quote:A common problem with these bowls financially is that the school has to eat the cost of the unpurchased tickets. The bowl payout might offset that cost, but the payout gets distributed equally among all the members of that team\'s conference, so ultimately the school may wind up losing a lot of money by going to the bowl.
Why doesn\'t the conference first use the payout to offset the financial ticket losses that the school sustains and then distribute the remaining amount equally among the other conference schools? Just seems like common sense to not punish a team for earning money for the rest of the conference.
oh, okay. answering my question is this quote--apparently the school is responsible is on the hook for half of its allotment and the pac-10 covers the other half. i guess that\'s reasonable. from http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-contract/
* As of the middle of the week, Stanford had sold approximately 9,000 tickets to the game, which represents more than half its allotment (17,500). Thats important because the school was on the hook financially for 8,750 tickets, with the Pac-10 covering the cost of whatever went unsold from the other half of the allotment.