Gator Bowl costs IU a net total of about $44K

It essentially cost Indiana $44,416 to put its football program in the Gator Bowl this past January, according to a summary of revenues and expenses provided by IU.

For matching up with Southeastern Conference foe Tennessee in the Jan. 2 contest, the Big Ten conference provided IU’s athletic department with a $2.125 million payout. The department’s expenses, however, were about $2,169,416.

Nearly $2 million of those costs were for the football team and department personnel specifically, with the most expensive line item being travel. Flights to send the Hoosiers to the Jacksonville, Fla., bowl cost $690,333, plus there was another $145,406 for ground transportation.

Meals were the next biggest expense at $337,236, while hotel costs amounted to $219,240. Uniforms and bowl apparel were a nearly quarter-of-a-million-dollar expense at $249,150.

There was also a $110,930 line item for awards in IU’s report, which would refer to things like commemorative rings that players receive for playing in the game.

IU’s band and cheerleading contingents accounted for a combined $174,262 in expenses, including $156,272 for IU’s Marching Hundred.

The payout from the conference nearly covered all of those expenses, but falling a bit in the red isn’t an uncommon or even upsetting outcome for an athletic department.

Essentially, it cost IU about $44,000 for its football program to play in a nationally televised bowl game against a SEC program. That’s a valuable opportunity.

Of course, the only thing the Hoosiers may regret was the final outcome. After going ahead 22-9 in the fourth quarter, the Vols scored two unanswered touchdowns in a span of 30 seconds to reclaim the lead with 3:51 remaining.

IU ultimately couldn’t recover, falling 23-22.

It was still an historic 2019 season for the Hoosiers, winning eight games for the first time in 26 years. IU had missed the postseason in the previous two seasons, and the program hasn’t won a bowl game since beating Baylor in the 1991 Copper Bowl.

In recent history, it’s been typical for IU’s expenses to outpace its payout. The conference allotted $2.075 million for IU’s appearance in the 2015 Pinstripe Bowl against Duke, helping to cover about $2.3 million in expenses. That year, IU received help from the Big Ten in covering unsold ticket costs of about $345,000.

In 2016, IU received a payout of $2,212,500 for participating in the Foster Farms Bowl versus Utah, which was about $350,000 less than the athletic department’s total expenses. However, the Big Ten again covered the cost of $407,557 in unsold tickets, just about balancing things out.


  1. Hilarious…

    IU Football: it’s the gift that just keeps on giving.

    But you can’t put a price on the great exposure, said five weakling banners above McCracken.

  2. “Nationally televised”….? That’s a laugher. With one hundred sports channels, cable offerings with more viewership choices than galaxies in the universe while digital devices are simultaneously streaming everything under the sun, the impact of claiming something to be “nationally televised” is a bit different than a day there were four networks and four major bowl games.

    With 10,000 choices, a total of 10 people may be watching a nationally televised game for a total of 10 minutes…before they get bored in move to choice 9,999. A feather hitting the floor may have equal “impact.”

  3. Yes, when I mention about lowering college costs for all instead of player pay and high salaries and make the point college sports in reality are not self supporting in most cases…how many times is there the argument otherwise. Goes for pro sports to. Recently, $500,000,000 million dollar prob football q.b. contract for one player. 100 percent reality that’s not what the market will bear. More pathetic manipulation of the market in a time of high uncertainty on the back of the rest of society whatever that is now.

    1. What will the market bear for Mahomes? Why was he signed at terms unbearable in the market? And what do college athletics expenses have to do with lowering the cost of attendance for regular students?

      1. It’s a slow process BD,

        Sometimes it’s hard to get the fantasy world programming out and the real world programming in. I encourage you to keep trying though, it’s always a worthy cause.

  4. Oh, well, these numbers are typical for a lot, if not most, programs. But what I don’t get is one-quarter million dollars for uniforms. Say what? Did they play the first twelve games naked?

  5. Funny,
    I could sworn it was Moe, Curly, and Larry who wrote these prior responses (Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)!!! Then again, it Shemp or Joe could have been in the mix.

    So it cost 44k to get a decent level bowl gig for the program. Every once in a while it is okay for the program which is financially carrying every other athletic program in the school (with the exception of men’s bb which roughly breaks even), to have something nice. Like it or not, the more than lion’s share of athletic department revenues are generated by the tv contracts predicated on football viewership. It’s nice to hang 5 banners, but without football the only athletic programs you would have probably would be men and women’s basketball (to stay title IX compliant) and still likely have to raise student fees to offset the shortfall that men’s bb couldn’t cover.

    As for the straw man argument that the monies spent on athletes and coaching salaries should be spent on lowering college costs, please tell me you don’t still believe that the majority of the money for athletics comes out of the same pot as the costs to attend college. If you can get the donors and tv networks to contribute the money to lower tuition costs without getting recognition or a quasi marketable product in return, please show me how to do it. You could take the entire budget of the athletic department, apply it to lowering tuition and barely put a dent in the bloated costs of an education that most will never get a decent return for on their investment.

    Finally, if my memory is correct, most bowls require the uniform logos meet their marketing specifications for that single game. Which means your standard uniforms for that season will not meet the specifications. The only problem with a second tier bowl is you have similar costs, but not as much revenue to cover them as do the major bowls and playoff games. Call it the price of modest (or mediocre for H4H) success.

  6. Put all revenue regardless where it comes from in one bucket and lower costs for all students in good standing. Government financial programs available for students have the affect since their existence… that causes colleges etc to LICK THIER CHOPS to drive up the cost of college to insane amounts over the last 60 or so years. So, colleges know students have money available to them and colleges suck as much as they can from them to bury them in a ton of crisis debt. Often, job pay doesn’t reasonably match the debt acquired leaving college graduates in dire straights. This is now just another country crisis.

  7. t- You hit the nail on the head again. And that student debt crisis is a steam engine roaring down the track. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    Damn, those SEC wannabees are jealous as hell of our banners. You’d think with all that money they make in successful football, they’d be able to buy themselves some 5-star ballers and win a few.

  8. Well, I think I have identified Moe and Larry,

    “Put all revenue regardless where it comes from in one bucket and lower costs for all students in good standing. ” “t- You hit the nail on the head again.”

    “Put all revenue regardless where it comes from in one bucket?” What revenue??? You think the revenue coming in to the athletic department will continue to come in should what you suggest be done??? . . . and exactly how much will the entire revenue of the athletic department lower the general student population cost? Do the math, but don’t forget to add back in the lost endowments because of the athletic department’s existence (don’t believe that one, ask Northwestern).

  9. My wife and my kid (both working in prominent Indianapolis companies) have been told working from home is likely going to extend beyond fall and winter and well into next year.

    But they’ve also been told, “No worries. You can watch teenagers playing college football while you stay safe pretending to work diligently all hours from home.”

    How in our right minds do we bring kids into locker rooms and contact sports while demanding our adult population working in some of our most prominent companies must minimize contact and stay at home? Our largest companies aren’t willing to take that risk, but a football field full of many these same parents’ kids can be allowed to be a cesspool of Covid spreading?

    1. You might look at the comparative profiles of the work versus sports participants and their relative susceptibility to the virus for a big part of the answer to your question.

      1. I would tell that to the Illinois St. Athletic Director….And the “profile” of both their companies is low risk category (especially my kid).

        You are not going to keep college athletes in a bubble. There are many at higher risk interacting with these athletes. As said by TJ in Texas on another thread(along with many others), there is no method to “bubble” down college football players (especially when considering any travel) in the manner the NBA is locking down their participants (all relatively young and at low risk).

        The cost of continual testing is another factor….Will athletes be allowed to venture home (engaging family, friends, relatives of all “profiles” and “relative susceptibility”) or away from campus without timely and current revolving test? I’ve heard numbers of anywhere between $50.00 and $100.00…Also, how fast of turnaround will these tests have?
        I think all of us now know this virus is spread while many remain asymptomatic.

        1. I’ve heard numbers of anywhere between $50.00 and $100.00 [per test].

        2. The profiles aren’t close to the same. Workplace environments include people from their 20s to 70+, many with co-morbidities galore. That’s not close to the case for college athletes. But there’s no surefire protection here, just as there never has been. A wuick review of all available data, however, places college students among the least susceptible of any group, but I realize some aren’t particularly concerned with facts and data.

          1. You’re wrong. The profile of where my daughter works (especially within her division) is almost all low risk.

            These kids are going to interact and move about various subsets of varying susceptibility.

            Only “Mr. Bubble” lives in a box.

          2. Your daughter works in a prominent Indiana company whose workforce is comprised solely of 18-23 year olds? What’s the name of the firm? Does your wife work in such a low risk environment, too?

          3. You are having real difficulty with comprehension, Squirmy.

            The profile of where my daughter works (especially within her division) is almost all low risk.

            REPEAT: “Especially within her division” is almost all low risk.

            Where did I say comprised “solely” of 18-23 year olds? Something beyond brevity works good for me with regard to her exact line of work or where she works.

            Unless you can ensure all athletes are going to live in a bubble (as the NBA is attempting to sell/do), I’m not sure how merely the extreme unlikelihood of their falling very ill or dying from the virus is the relevant factor. It’s the rate of transmission and their ability to spread the virus. Can you keep that locked down when sizable spikes occur? For 3 months you’re going to keep them away from those with higher risk? And you are fully certain that all on that nearly 90 person roster (not to mention coaches and all others needed to interact very closely in their football bubble) do not have some sort of undetected underlying condition which could make them far more vulnerable?
            Hell, there’s an argument that obesity can be an underlying condition making Covid much more difficult to battle. Not sure if big-bellied coaches and fattened-up linemen are as invulnerable as led to believe.
            Didn’t Rutgers have an incident during a hot practice with a young man?
            Jason Collier (basketball)….? Anyone remember that name?

            And there is also evidence suggesting that even young people who get through the virus may be sustaining very long term health consequences.

            Hey, I’m hoping the Ivy League has this one wrong. Could be the first time Harvard for Hillbillies gets one up on Harvard.

            If Disney can open, I see no reason to not have football. And my daughter actually loves working from home though her anxiousness (and likely most her vibrant and young coworkers as well) concerning contracting the virus or dying from the virus has certainly faded a bit since the beginning of the outbreak and her company’s work from home requirements.
            But I’m still concerned. Helicopter parent ….as her boyfriend once implied/alluded. Maybe I’d be different with a son but I doubt it.

            Good Lord, Harbaugh is an a-hole. Forever grateful don’t have to look at his face behind our basketball bench ever again.

          4. Correction: The poor lad who died from heat stroke was a football player on Maryand (not Rutgers).


            Yes, let’s put full trust in those pulled by the strings of irreplaceable profits to guide our young children through a Covid crisis. Sounds like a plan to me when one major BigTen program couldn’t even identify extreme heat exhaustion. Gosh, if they only would have had those Covid temperature checking machines that young man would been alive.

  10. Gator Bowl costs IU a net total of about $44K

    The ‘gator’ must have devoured it all! Got to learn to dance with the gator.
    Dance with the gator…Dance with the gator (cue the McCartney theme). Or is less, Moore (1:18 mark)?

    1. No difficulty at all with regard to comprehension though I’ll admit to some enjoyment in watching you twist and turn to constantly reshape what you say. Wouldn’t the truth work so much better?

      But thanks for confirming your daughter absolutely isn’t in a work environment as low risk as 18-23 year olds who, by the way, are already co-mingling with all of those people you claim they’ll infect. Make a sound argument and we’re all ears. You’ve once again failed to do that, however.

      And I’m still hoping you’ll learn how profoundly intelligent and utterly appealing brevity can be . . .

      1. Didn’t reshape a thing, Squirmy. You claimed I said something I didn’t. You did it on the last thread as well (when you claimed only football was being discussed in the postponement/altering of seasons). You did it again here by claiming I said “solely.”
        Comprehension, it’s what’s for dinner.
        Why would I reconfirm something you twisted, Squirmy Wormy? You’re the genius still stuck on the hook and, obviously, stuck on yours truly in all of your wondrous brevity.
        Chubbie Checker twisted less than you.

        Two Simple Choices on again:
        Choice A: You prefer to lie
        Choice B: Comprehension challenged

        And stop dreaming. College football players are also not in an environment which will be solely 18-23 year olds.
        The Ivy League is likely getting it right. Only Mr. Bubble lives in a box.

        Solid gold, Squirmy.

        1. Funny watching you twist and spin when you get trapped being untruthful. Remember, brevity is always possible when you’re honest and often impossible when you aren’t.

          1. You are the only one who lied here, Squirmy. You misquoted as you repeatedly do. Your comprehension is the failure and you use the lack thereof to twist and misquote.

          2. Your deflection is both impressive and transparent. Your lack of truthfulness is the issue, however, and it’s it’s a regular occurrence here for you. This was just the latest example of how you twist and spin and fib and embellish. It’s common for you. Remember, it takes few words to be accurate but many when equivocation is your goal.

          3. There was nothing untrue said by me. There was nothing embellished. You took my quote/statement regarding my daughter’s work environment and changed it to fit your narrative.
            I also suggested visiting the comments of the Illinois St. AD , which you ignored…because it doesn’t fit your narrative/argument. Not saying any argument is completely sound, but I thought that’s why we are here.
            It’s been explained. It’s not sinking into the barriers of your arrogance. Solid gold, brother Squirmy.

          4. I asked if she was in a work environment that consisted of 18-23 year olds, given the obvious comparison as well as the relative lack of susceptibility. You dodged and deflected, first claiming she was in a similar group and then trying mightily to change the subject. If you were being truthful you would’ve been willing to share specifics to support what you said. You chose not to, on multiple occasions. And it upsets you when those of us who care about the truth call you on it.

          5. Hell no, they are not 18-23. I never said that. They are young and in a very low risk population. If you are under 35, you are in a low risk population. But most are far younger than 35. College grads not out of college for more than 2-10 years. She workouts with them..They are in her age group. They occasionally have a drink together after work (when they working in office).
            I don’t know specific medical history.
            Their “risk” is not why they are locked down and working from home. But I find the optics beyond strange and contradictory (as our many during this pandemic). My guess is that they are locked down because of potential spread and potential spread rate. We are trying to gain a bit of control, protect other populations, and keep those numbers down. That’s my understanding.
            The optics of those precautions (debate there extreme to your heart’s content…I may agree) at a company/division/office with a very low risk population against the backdrop of a necessity to open sports in a matter of weeks?

            I would also suggest you visit the comments made by the Illinois State athletic director. He is soul searching…He is examining his desires against his conscience. He is confused by the optics and the contradictions within his own desires to get back on the fields/courts and what he wants to keep his own kid and others safe.

          6. Don’t know if you can find a podcast or tape of the interview, but there’s this:

            Ian Fitzsimmons
            I asked Northern Illinois AD, @SeanTFrazier about scheduling @NDFootball
            to replace @HawkeyeFootball on his schedule and he told me “Looking at all options but prefer Spring football the best! Too many issues that are not solved with COVID to risk fall ball.”


  11. Come to think of it..or thinkaboutit?

    The theme for the 2020 college football season should be “Live and Let Die.”

    Enter shark tank scene. Team doctor, Dr. Kananga, ends up on ventilator of sorts.

  12. Questions for the HT crew:

    Have you heard if Indiana or the Big Ten is going to continually test the student athletes?
    Temperature screening is basically fake news with this virus…Are universities going to spend the sort of money it will take to keep athletes/coaches/personnel having any sort of proximity/contact frequently tested?
    And will they be able to get quick turnaround/results on those tests?
    What will be the protocol if many positives come back?

    Or, is it just a shark tank (the illusion of fewer sharks in less tanks with tightened scheduling) and hope for the best?

Comments are closed.