Fox has apparently issued a statement that it won't match ESPN's offer for the BCS bowls, which means that the games will almost certainly move to the cable network in 2011:

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/200...-espn.html

I also recall an article that in the event that ESPN gains the rights to the other BCS bowls, then ESPN would have the option to move the Rose Bowl (which has a separate TV contract) to the cable network from ABC. At $125 million per year (a 50% increase from the current BCS rights fees of $82.5 million per year), there seems to be even less incentive for the BCS conferences to move to a playoff system (despite our President-elect ending his 60 Minutes interview with another push for a college football playoff).

Frank the Tank Wrote:Fox has apparently issued a statement that it won't match ESPN's offer for the BCS bowls, which means that the games will almost certainly move to the cable network in 2011:

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/200...-espn.html

I also recall an article that in the event that ESPN gains the rights to the other BCS bowls, then ESPN would have the option to move the Rose Bowl (which has a separate TV contract) to the cable network from ABC. At $125 million per year (a 50% increase from the current BCS rights fees of $82.5 million per year), there seems to be even less incentive for the BCS conferences to move to a playoff system (despite our President-elect ending his 60 Minutes interview with another push for a college football playoff).

Only way a playoff will ever happen is when fans stop watching the games and go on a protest. BCS is all about money and nothing else.

Don't bet on it, SF Husky. Fans and politicians who are fans are fed up with the BCS. The new President endorses a playoff. It will happen. It's just a matter of how long will the people making the decision put off what everyone wants, and is in the best interests of college football...

You know I know everyone is clamoring for playoffs but I hope everyone realizes that an 8 team playoff would probably pit the 6 BCS champions and TWO at large. Meaning that those outside of automatic bid conferences would have even a lower shot at a big game.
The SEC, Big12,Big10 and Pac10 will fight it because it will limit to one team most of the time going into the playoffs.
I like it because it would decide it on the field. You can even involve the large bowls in it

I prefer removing the bowls from the playoff picture altogether. The bowls have been THE major impediment to the determination of a true champion since the inception of locked in bowls. Conferences and teams are obligated for certain bowls, which has always prevented some of the best matchups of the post season. Only rarely do things align so that teams that are truly a good match end up pitted against each other...

bitcruncher Wrote:Don't bet on it, SF Husky. Fans and politicians who are fans are fed up with the BCS. The new President endorses a playoff. It will happen. It's just a matter of how long will the people making the decision put off what everyone wants, and is in the best interests of college football...

I think that we'll eventually have a playoff in some form, but as I've said elsewhere, it just won't be forced down on the BCS conferences by the President or anyone else. The University of Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in 1984 protects the autonomy of the conferences, so it is actually illegal for the NCAA to force a playoff. The politicians can complain all they want, but they can't override a Supreme Court decision here. A playoff will occur when the 6 BCS conferences are confident that they will get to keep the lion's share of the revenue and access in the same manner as they do now - I think that it will eventually happen because an 8-team playoff would make that feasible, but it absolutely will not be an open NCAA Tournament-type system (i.e. 16 teams with auto bids for all conferences is a complete non-starter). Simply from a legal standpoint, the BCS conferences cannot be forced to do anything, so any playoff proponents will have to work with them instead of in spite of them.

Cubanbull Wrote:You know I know everyone is clamoring for playoffs but I hope everyone realizes that an 8 team playoff would probably pit the 6 BCS champions and TWO at large. Meaning that those outside of automatic bid conferences would have even a lower shot at a big game.
The SEC, Big12,Big10 and Pac10 will fight it because it will limit to one team most of the time going into the playoffs.
I like it because it would decide it on the field. You can even involve the large bowls in it

But, if it were approved, and the same criteria were in place, then at least the non-BCS school that slips into the BCS has a legitimate shot at a national title, wouldn't just be playing in a BCS bowl game.

sadly, its not the access to a shot at the title, but access to the money that's the first priority.

The main thing BCS conferences want to prevent is the addition of a 2nd conference school getting the big payoff. If a playoff is in vogue, their will only be the check for the conference champions. All others will be left out. That's what winning a conference should do for a school.

If winning your conference isn't all important, what the hell do we have conferences for? :coffee2:

SF Husky Wrote:Only way a playoff will ever happen is when fans stop watching the games and go on a protest. BCS is all about money and nothing else.

I already started my boycott last year of the BCS games. We need a fair playoff system. One that doesn't matter if you're a conference champ. Take the top #16 teams and let them fight it out.

Do you really think that ESPN is going to pay $125 million for the BCS games and not show them on ABC which can be received in any household with a TV not just ones with cable/satellite? I for one expect them to show the games on ABC so they can get more advertising revenue and actually make a handsome profit on the games as opposed to a small one.

Frank the Tank Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:Don't bet on it, SF Husky. Fans and politicians who are fans are fed up with the BCS. The new President endorses a playoff. It will happen. It's just a matter of how long will the people making the decision put off what everyone wants, and is in the best interests of college football...

I think that we'll eventually have a playoff in some form, but as I've said elsewhere, it just won't be forced down on the BCS conferences by the President or anyone else. The University of Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in 1984 protects the autonomy of the conferences, so it is actually illegal for the NCAA to force a playoff. The politicians can complain all they want, but they can't override a Supreme Court decision here. A playoff will occur when the 6 BCS conferences are confident that they will get to keep the lion's share of the revenue and access in the same manner as they do now - I think that it will eventually happen because an 8-team playoff would make that feasible, but it absolutely will not be an open NCAA Tournament-type system (i.e. 16 teams with auto bids for all conferences is a complete non-starter). Simply from a legal standpoint, the BCS conferences cannot be forced to do anything, so any playoff proponents will have to work with them instead of in spite of them.

I don't know what the holding was in the Supreme Court case that you mentioned, but I am pretty sure that if the Congress and the President wanted to take some legislative action forcing a playoff, then we will have a playoff. After all the Congress does control the purse strings for the public universities; the NCAA and in this economic climate, probably the sponsors as well. So exertion on those forces alone, will probably bring about some changes. And I think that Obama said just that, but in a very nice way.

One thing that I do find interesting is that the network that hosts the majority of the TV "Personalities" who are critical of the BCS system, seems to be the one who is looking to fork over the most dough for the Games themselves.

Classic poker stance. ESPN went large and all in and everybody else folded.

And in response to my previous post I stand completely corrected after reading the Wall Street Journal article on this.

I'm gonna get bashed but I actually like the BCS. I think that their could be more games added to the BCS like the cotton bowl. I never want to see a playoff in college football. The bowl games are a reward for a good season,if we start having a playoff what about those guys that are gonna be 1st and 2nd round picks in the nfl draft are the schools going to pay them their contracts value if they get hurt with a long playoff. How about the super star junior who doesn't want to play because he is going pro and will be a top draft pick. It happens every season your team gets to a bowl game and some big time player on your team isn't playing because now he has a mysterous injury.

Frank the Tank Wrote:The politicians can complain all they want, but they can't override a Supreme Court decision here.

There are numerous ways politicians could override the BCS system if they wanted:

1) Revoke tax exemptions for donating to a university's athletic department (see Alabama and the hiring of Saban).

2) Levy taxes on college programs that spend over XX million on athletics while programs that spend below a certain amount remain tax-free. Ohio State, Texas, Florida, and most of the BCS schools would get hit with the majority of non-BCS schools would be uneffected.

3) Pull federal grant money from universities that resist a playoff system. The Big Ten doesn't want a playoff? Then they get zero federal research dollars.

4) Grant tax exemptions only to teams that agree to participate in a fair playoff. BCS schools can stay BCS schools and get taxed or they can join a playoff system and be tax free.

5) Pass a TV contract tax that taxes income earned from conference TV contracts.

etc.

ESPN doesn't have to charge as much for advertising because a majority of their revenue comes from cable subscribers fees. This is why they were able to put in a much larger bid than other networks.

ESPN is in 85% of TV HHs already. ESPN also shows like 20 bowl games. They want to be seen as having THE place to go for them.

In addition, it positions ESPN to be at the front IF (and that's a BIG IF) there is a playoff down the road. Remember that this new TV agreement ends Jan 2014 - same as the Rose Bowl. Bottom line though - as long as the BCS $$ continues to increase - which they did under this new TV contract with ESPN by 50% - what incentive do the presidents have to institute a playoff?

brista21 Wrote:Do you really think that ESPN is going to pay $125 million for the BCS games and not show them on ABC which can be received in any household with a TV not just ones with cable/satellite? I for one expect them to show the games on ABC so they can get more advertising revenue and actually make a handsome profit on the games as opposed to a small one.

EDIT: Didn't see Brista second post.

They'll make a bigger profit on ESPN. They can raise subscriber rates to cover the cost and make money on the advertising.

They've already moved the British Open completely to cable starting in 2010 (ESPN carrying all four rounds, TNT is out). The BCS is next.

Wonder if ABC will move the Capital One Bowl to cable too.

UofL07, You are right on the money. Remember Al Capone was taken down by the IRS. You know, at one time, colleges were all about education.