BCS System Attracts TV Viewers

While some seem to enjoy flights of fancy, I much prefer fact-based posts and analysis. Unfortunately, a recent entry here on the BCS system showed once again that there are alot of opinions floating around, but frightfully few facts. So I thought that this article was particularly interesting because we actually get a few facts:

In the debate over whether college football should switch to a playoff system, Goren speculates that such a change would temper the enthusiasm that bubbles from fans and players associated with BCS bowls…

Ratings for the championship and the other BCS games have varied depending on the matchup and the competitiveness of the contest. Last season’s Orange Bowl between Louisville and Wake Forest drew a 7.0; the Rose Bowl between Southern California and Michigan on ABC earned a 13.9. The title game between Ohio State and Florida received a 17.4.

“The reality is the BCS games are as well-received and as popular in viewership as anything out there,” Goren said.

This year’s college basketball championship game drew a 13.2. The World Series averaged a 10.6, and the NBA finals averaged a 6.2. The four NFL playoff games on Fox last season averaged a 19.9.

So what are some of the key positions in the BCS vs playoff debate?

We know that school presidents are against a play-off system in college football for reasons that don’t really stand up to logical analysis. (I’m sure that we’ll see these reasons expounded upon again between now and the championship game.)

I suspect that AD’s (and to some extent the school presidents) are against a play-off system because the BCS system has proven immensely profitable. Any change to a successful system might turn out to be an improvement and might not. But once you institute a play-off system, you can never go back. So I expect that there is a good deal of sentiment to not tinker with a system that is definitely not broken financially.

If the BCS bowls are popular, then you would be silly to think that a college football playoff would not be popular as well….probably even more popular. But now comes for the tough part…increased viewers are great, but will that automatically translate into more money for the schools?

Do the networks want a playoff system to replace the BCS? Maybe…..maybe not. The network that gets to broadcast the games would certainly have increased viewership. But how much would this network have to pay to secure the rights? Would they be able to charge enough for commercial time to recoup the initial purchase price? So once again, we find a scenario where a known financial situation is exchanged for one with alot of unknowns.

Lastly, I suspect that the BCS corporate sponsors pour serious money into the current system. This money goes in at least two different directions….directly to the bowl committees and to the TV stations in the form of commercial time. It would be really, really interesting to see if any of the articles from now through the championship game give any insight into exactly how much money the BCS corporate sponsors pour into the current system.

– My contention is that the money from the BCS corporate sponsors will be mostly (or entirely) lost if a playoff system is started. Getting a feel for exactly how much money we are talking about would give some indication of how easy (or difficult) it would be to improve on the current system from every aspect.

So what’s my purpose for rehashing all of this? I hope that our readers will use the comments to record the URLs for any articles that come up over the next six weeks with real facts concerning finances of the current system, any financial projections for a playoff system, comments from school presidents and/or athletic directors, and any comments from network executives about the BCS or a proposed play-off.

Also please add any points of view that I may have overlooked. As I said in the beginning, I’m much more interested in discussing facts and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Arguing opinions, preferences, and speculation will never lead anywhere….but sometimes facts can lead somewhere useful.

We already have one entry that some have used to expound on flights of fancy. Please keep those types of comments on that entry. Also, please don’t repeat your comments from the original thread.

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

'07 Football Media

45 Responses to BCS System Attracts TV Viewers

  1. RAWFS 12/05/2007 at 10:13 AM #

    All one has to do is look towards the basketball tournament and the NFL playoffs to get an indication of corporate sponsorship and ratings. Are there any holier days in sports nationally than the days than March Madness and the pro football playoffs?

    Ask yourself — how many times have you watched first or second round games in the hoops hoopla between teams you’d not seen but had read good things about? Probably quite a few if you are a big sports fan. This is doubly or triply true if that game might present an opponent to one of your personal favorite teams later on in the bracket. The same is true for the wild-card or first round NFL playoffs. People take days off of work to watch the basketball tourney, and the last two weeks of the NFL season may as well be national holidays.

    The bowls? Not so much. Honestly, only ONE and exactly ONE matter. The rest are beauty contests. They have absolutely zero bearing on the mythical national championship. In essence, they are beauty contests disguised as football exhibitions. That’s why no one watched Wake Forest’s Orange Bowl game last year…because the only not-to-be-missed game had been preset since the beginning of December when Ohio State and Florida were put in the BCS Title Game.

  2. Astral Rain2 12/05/2007 at 10:15 AM #

    So the solution is to boycott watching the bowls on TV until a playoff happens?

  3. BoKnowsNCS71 12/05/2007 at 10:32 AM #

    Never happen — people are to lazy and apathetic to boycott. Second, the bowls and cities have made their money on hotel visits and money spent and third — the tv stations have made their money on the ads being sold. Bowls are less about the fans and more about the Chambers of Commerce getting tourism.

  4. RedTerror29 12/05/2007 at 10:34 AM #

    It’s not the amount of money that is the issue, it’s where that money is going. Any playoff system created will have to keep lining the same pockets and require some serious financial wizardry to make it happen.

    So who are the stakeholders now?

    TV – lots of stations get a piece today. A playoff wouldn’t necessarily doom minor bowls but it would certainly threaten them and the playoff itself wouldn’t be on more than two networks.

    BCS conferences – automatic bids for BCS conference champs would allow the system to maintain their lucrative payouts (IMO NO WAY a playoff happens without this). Conferences get all the cash for football today (unlike basketball) and they’re not going to give that up to the NCAA.

    Bowl Committees/host cities – See above for minor bowls. If for logistics purposes you’re going to have a 8 bowl playoff with the first round at the higher seeded teams stadium, then that only leaves three (four with a consolation game) games to hand out to the current BCS bowls, vs. five today. That’s bid, as is the impact this would likely have on the other major bowls, e.g. Cotton, Peach, Capital One.

    Notre Dame – An 8 team playoff with conference tie-ins can include a similar provision to today to help get ND (or a non-BCS team) in (or they could just suck it up and join a conference).

    Who am I forgetting?

  5. john of sparta 12/05/2007 at 10:38 AM #

    1. is it fair to compare pro and college?
    2. if it is, do we use TV ratings as the yardstick?
    3. do we compare all sports entertainment (NASCAR? WWE?)
    4. since the money “thing” is so complicated with revenue
    sharing (NFL) or not (MLB)….can actual ticket sales count?
    5. finally, IF it is All About TV Ratings…then all TV is in play.
    American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, CSI-Raleigh, etc.

    now i’m off to Walmart to run up my VISA.
    is Tickle Me Elmo still popular?

  6. noah 12/05/2007 at 10:40 AM #

    This is the Cold Fusion topic among sports fans.

    Be warned…I may have to steal this line. 🙂
    VaWolf82

  7. GoldenChain 12/05/2007 at 10:43 AM #

    The sponsorship issue is a straw dog as well.
    There are what 32 bowls? Every year a new one pops up and an old one bites the dust mainly because sponsorship cannot be kept/obtained. With NCAA endorsement of the games I would think that obtaining sponsors for the early games would be much easier than it is for the lesser bowls now.
    If left to the Networks, then they could pay up front then extract that money with advertising dollars. In fact, their power to do so is much greater than any individual bowl.

    Let me ask another question: why doesn’t the NCAA take on sponsorship money for the basketball tourney? The ‘ATT Midwest Regionals’ etc. It looks to me like they could generate more money.
    I think the answer is that the reason the Networks pay so much for the tourney is because they have the power to sell much more advertising with alienating some advertisers with sponsors.

  8. GoldenChain 12/05/2007 at 10:46 AM #

    Obviously WITHOUT alienating some potential advertisers. i.e. Toyota and Ford can both advertise as much as they want on the NCAA tourney.

  9. primacyone 12/05/2007 at 10:47 AM #

    Funny. I rely on feeds to bring me the last SFN title threads. When the feed come across it only shows the title and not the author and when you link directly to it it bypass the front page of SFN and goes straight to the thread and does which does not show the author.

    I read the first paragargraph of this thread and instantly knew who the author was. You know, VAWolf, there are exact facts out there that exist from a qualitatative perspective versus your seemingly extreme infatuation with quantitative facts.

    Why do you put so much weight on quantitative facts? They are only part of the story. The NFL playoffs quantitative facts are soley derived from the qualitative perspective. The NFL playoffs are much butter from a qualitative perspective and thereby produce a much higher quantitative number.

    Thats a fact, not a “contention”. Just because it has numbers, doesn’t make the fact have more relevance than the quality debate. Don’t believe me, just look at your game preview post. A lot of good numbers, but missing the qualitative analysis that determined the game. You delete good qualitative post that ended up being acurate. So please, invite the readership to link/post/look, at all aspects, and not just numbers.

    Just my contention, but that is where you have lead me through this football season.

  10. bTHEredterror 12/05/2007 at 10:49 AM #

    “This is the Cold Fusion topic among sports fans.”

    Brilliant metaphor! Incidentally, I’m on the to-hell-with-the-institution side of that argument, too.

  11. Dan 12/05/2007 at 11:15 AM #

    Dancing with the Stars and American Idol attract TV viewers. Does that mean we should use audience participation to crown a champion? Hell no.

  12. Ismael 12/05/2007 at 11:21 AM #

    VaWolf82, sorry dude, i know the article has numerals in it and $ signs and that you think that makes it “fact-based” but did u not notice that the article is interviewing someone with a vested interest? Tell me who wants to watch Boise St. play Hawaii or some podunk school with NO implications other than who wins the game and they are the Chicken-Tire Bowl Champions. However, who wants to watch Hawaii maybe play OSU or LSU or the Boise State’s of recent past play USC etc..all with implications to something greater?

  13. RAWFS 12/05/2007 at 11:32 AM #

    “Dancing with the Stars and American Idol attract TV viewers. Does that mean we should use audience participation to crown a champion? Hell no.”

    But we do. They’re called sportswriters. Good point, Dan.

  14. noah 12/05/2007 at 11:53 AM #

    “The sponsorship issue is a straw dog as well.”

    (pedant alert) Straw man (/pedant alert)

    “There are what 32 bowls? Every year a new one pops up and an old one bites the dust mainly because sponsorship cannot be kept/obtained. With NCAA endorsement of the games I would think that obtaining sponsors for the early games would be much easier than it is for the lesser bowls now.”

    Bowls often go out of business because of poor management at the local level. A lot of people thought that a bowl like the All-American Bowl (last seen with NCSU and S. Miss playing in 1990) could work with better management. Better management ended up showing up somewhere else in a bowl like the one in Nashville. It doesn’t mean that the tier of the bowl is necessarily poor.

    “Let me ask another question: why doesn’t the NCAA take on sponsorship money for the basketball tourney? The ‘ATT Midwest Regionals’ etc. It looks to me like they could generate more money.”

    How likely would Sprint be to advertise during the AT&T Midwest regionals?

    Which number is greater? The amount of money Company A has to completely sponsor an entire event? Or the amount of money each commercial can be sold for when the market expands to all of the companies?

    I don’t know what a 30-second commercial on the first day of the tournament is worth, but if you take all of the commercial time and multiply it times the value of the commercial, I would imagine you’ve gone past the advertising budget of a single company (even a huge company) by a factor of 10.

    The Masters has chosen not to sell commercial time and has settled on a lower revenue figure in order to maintain a certain amount of control over their event.

  15. noah 12/05/2007 at 12:02 PM #

    “Why do you put so much weight on quantitative facts? They are only part of the story. The NFL playoffs quantitative facts are soley derived from the qualitative perspective. The NFL playoffs are much butter from a qualitative perspective and thereby produce a much higher quantitative number.”

    Because qualitative “facts” lose value at a rate inversely proportional to square of the distance from the skull in which they were formed.

    I think the NFL playoffs are rather boring compared to the month of bowl season. There are…seven games in the NFL playoffs (two wildcard, two divisionals, two conference titles and the Super bowl?). Out of those, you might get three or four really good games. More often than not, the Super Bowl is a complete snooze fest.

    Compare that to the bowl season. You can get three or four really good games in a single day. There will probably 10 to 12 games each year that are CLASSIC games….even in the lower bowls. The aforementioned 1990 All-American game was a wonderful game to watch. The ECU-Marshall game during Byron Leftwich’s last year was superb.

    And the title games are usually really good too. USC and Texas, Miami and OSU…those were two of the best games of all time.

    So your qualitative analysis does little other than to express how YOU feel as an individual. You like the finality and the squared-edges of the NFL scene. Great. I like the chaos and the volume of the college scene.

    Also fine.

    Where are we? Exactly where we started.

  16. VaWolf82 12/05/2007 at 12:41 PM #

    BCS conferences – automatic bids for BCS conference champs would allow the system to maintain their lucrative payouts (IMO NO WAY a playoff happens without this). Conferences get all the cash for football today (unlike basketball) and they’re not going to give that up to the NCAA.

    This is a good point. Also consider that the NCAA currently sets the rules for the number of games that are allowed to be played. So from these two points, we can see the outline for a future battle:

    The BCS schools will probably not accept less money to institute a play-off. This probably means that they will not be wiling to split the money with the mid-majors by allowing automatic entries into the play-off system to the weak sisters of Div 1.

    The mid-majors will fight for inclusion of their conference champion into any play-off scenario to get a bigger piece of the pie. Their only leverage is at the NCAA level where they can vote against increasing the number of games to allow a playoff to happen.

  17. primacyone 12/05/2007 at 12:41 PM #

    “Because qualitative “facts” lose value at a rate inversely proportional to square of the distance from the skull in which they were formed.”

    Barry Bonds

    “So your qualitative analysis does little other than to express how YOU feel as an individual. You like the finality and the squared-edges of the NFL scene. Great. I like the chaos and the volume of the college scene.”

    There is a difference between qualitative facts and opinion. Just becuase Daniel Evans averages 3 picks a game and some other team’s defense only averages 1 pick per game does not mean we will win the game. The other teams qualitative superior performance on the defensive line versus the lack of performance by our offensive line should also be INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION becuase even though it is not a number, it could be important to the outcome of the game.

  18. VaWolf82 12/05/2007 at 12:49 PM #

    VaWolf82, sorry dude, i know the article has numerals in it and $ signs and that you think that makes it “fact-based” but did u not notice that the article is interviewing someone with a vested interest?

    Can you name someone that doesn’t have a vested interest? And if you can, does that group have enough “power” to have any infuence in the BCS vs playoff debate?

    If you want a play-off system, then you are going to have find someone with a vested interest in having a playoff….and that someone is going to have enough clout (political and financial) to make it happen. And to make it happen you have to overcome the opposition from those with a vested interest in the BCS system.

    For interest, did you notice that the WF-Louisville bowl game last year drew more viewers than the NBA finals and slightly less than the World Series? Did you notice that out of all of the sports listed, only the NFL playoffs outdrew the Championship game?

    I didn’t take time to expound on it in the original entry, but these real, live numbers do several things. They point to the popularity of football over other sports, the popularity of college football in relation to other sports, and the popularity of the current bowl system (which is often discounted). As I mentioned earlier, it is logical to suppose that a college play-off will be extremely popular with the viewers….that’s not the issue. The issue is translating that interest into dollars flowing to the BCS conferences.

  19. VaWolf82 12/05/2007 at 12:57 PM #

    The sponsorship issue is a straw dog as well.
    There are what 32 bowls? Every year a new one pops up and an old one bites the dust mainly because sponsorship cannot be kept/obtained.

    Apples, oranges, and speculation.

    I am not talking about the corporate sponsor for the Blue Carpet Bowl. I’m talking about the corporate sponsors for the BCS bowls. The pay-out to the teams involved shows that these are two completely different animals.

    Which feeds more money into the BCS payouts….TV or corporate sponsors? Regardless of which is more, how much does Fed-Ex, Tostitos, etc pay for the BCS bowls? Until you know those numbers, you can not so easily dismiss their importance to the whole financial equation.

  20. GoldenChain 12/05/2007 at 1:05 PM #

    Noah, not sure how to take what you said but to some extent you proved my points (whether knowingly or not).
    Note that implied in my response is the idea of using the bowls in some form or fashion for a playoff system. I didn’t make that clear before.
    The problem of management would be solved if a playoff system were started. I haven’t seen any management issues with the 1AA playoffs or with the NCAA basketball tourney. Management issues come from local Chamber folks trying to put on a football game rather than college sports professionals.
    The point you make about Sprint proves exactly why I say the sponsorship issue is s straw dog. The TV folks would pay big BIG bucks for rights to a playoff games and the ad revenue they could generate would dwarf any sponsorship money (which basically exist to pay the teams for participating in the 1st place; BTW the NCAA pays 1AA teams for the same as does the NCAA in basketball, which I’m sure you know).
    It wouldn’t be easy to just totally trash the bowl system and do a playoff like 1AA has. The sponsors for some of those bowls may very well like to hang onto the naming rights to a specific game. I don’t really see a way around that.
    One way or another, every team would get paid for participation just the same as they do now so I’m not seeing an issue with the school’s getting their money.
    In fact with a playoff system the further you went the more a school would make. So I’m not seeing that side of the argument.
    The idea that lower bowls were poor (money or quality of play) was an inference you made which I did not imply.

    As far as the quantitative approach, I would imagine that a playoff system would collectively produce more viewers than the current bowl system, for one, the big name teams would play more games so therefore more opportunities for they’re fans to watch them. Also, the early (lower or whatever) games would have some meaning thus give a reason for someone who would not otherwise watch such a game to watch it. Why would a tOSU fan ever watch the Muffler bowl with Wake and UNCONN, they wouldn’t unless they might be playing the winner of that game.

  21. bTHEredterror 12/05/2007 at 1:06 PM #

    While there may be more flexible advertising in a larger sense with a tournament setting, as opposed to an overt corporate Bowl namer, this is likely negligible.

    In the AT&T/Sprint example, while Sprint may feel alienated initially, all they have to do is pony up and buy somebody else’s pointless Bowl and rename it, or start a new one. The network will be glad to provide them an equal platform. Don’t wanna do that? No problem, just concede this three hour window to your competition.

    This type of limitation is only focused on a few potential advertisers anyway. What does AT&T care if Sprint doesn’t advertise their bowl game, McDonalds and Budweiser surely will.

    It’s not like the networks don’t play both ends against the middle on a regular basis, staggering commercials from competing companies during any sports broadcast.

    The bottom line, if the football is good quality we will watch in droves, and advertisers will pay handsomely to annoy us with commercials. Whether it is the tried and true chaos of bowls to spark the comparitive intellect, or the more “square” chaos of a playoff.

  22. VaWolf82 12/05/2007 at 1:13 PM #

    The NFL playoffs are much butter from a qualitative perspective and thereby produce a much higher quantitative number.

    Apples and oranges. The money for the NFL comes chiefly from ticket sales, TV revenues, and apparel sales….most of which is evenly divided among a very small group of teams. As the popularity has grown, the viewership has grown, networks increase the bids for the rights, and charge more for the commercials.

    The BCS system (and the entire bowl system to some degree) seeks to divide the majority of the money among slightly more than half of the teams (65/119).

    Many people argue for a play-off for all sorts of good reasons….while completely ignoring the money. In addition, all sorts of assumptions are being made…most of which no fan has any data to support or refute. So which do you want to do:

    1) Try to understand the real reasons why the major schools oppose a play-off?

    2) Just continue to rant and rave about unfair the BCS system is?

    Personally. I’m tired of reading the latest proposals on some fan’s idea of the perfect play-off system. I’m equally tired of listening to BS from school presidents about too much traveling in a play-off system.

    If you really want a play-off, then you are going to have to address the concerns of those with vested interests in the process….and those concerns will take facts…not mindless speculation or optimisitic assumptions. You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the top of your lungs (and keyboard) forever….but I doubt that a temper tantatrum or more editorials/opinions from outsiders (like the media) is going to produce any changes. There are real concerns with instituting a play-off system. Refusing to acknowledge and address those concerns will insure that no changes are ever made.

    You delete good qualitative post that ended up being acurate.

    I don’t normally delete an on-topic post. I have deleted a few posts due to an extreme amount of profantiy, but these have been few and far in-between.

  23. Dr. BadgerPack 12/05/2007 at 1:25 PM #

    The only group with a vested interest in a playoff system is probably Vegas (people won’t bet on the toilet bowl, but they’ll sure as hell bet on playoff games).

    However, the NCAA isn’t going to be listening to Vegas anytime soon.

  24. joe 12/05/2007 at 1:44 PM #

    The Masters has commercials now, they only gave them up for a year or 2. That was mainly due to the protest by Martha Burke.

    They don’t have as many ads as other big sporting events but they do have them.

  25. choppack1 12/05/2007 at 2:39 PM #

    Interesting info VaWolf. I wonder how the regular season for college football stretches out from a ratings perspective. I do know that even at NC State – a school some folks call a “basketball school – more people will have attended b’ball games this year than will likely attend b’ball games.

    A couple items to think about:
    *The BCS did make a change which likely allows for greater viewership. They’ve really split what was once a New Year’s Day of the Biggest Bowl games into several days of big games. Think about it – if 2 Big Bowl games are on at one time, you can only watch one.
    *A college football could generate tons of revenue. However, the question is – how much more revenue could it produce than the current system? Are we at the maximum returns right now? It’s something to consider if it’s ratings are beating the college b’ball tourney people always say it pales in comparison to.
    *As I stated in the earlier post – who does a playoff hurt the most? I think the big losers of a playoff system aren’t necessarilly the Orange, Rose, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls – any playoff system will likely include them as final 8 sites.

    The big loser will not be college football powers. The Buckeyes, Wolverines, Longhorns, Trojans, Sooners and Hokies – will continue to enjoy the exposure and great popularity.

    The ones w/ the most to lose are the cities like Tampa, San Antonio, Atlanta, Jacksonville, Dallas, Charlotte, Orlando and San Diego that host moderately popular bowls. The death of the bowl games at these cities needs to be addressed.

    Another “loser” are the conference championship games. These concerns may not have to be addressed depending on the playoff format. However, how will the potential of 3 additional games (8 game format) impact a championship like the Big 12 where the contestants have to travel long distancees to attend.

    Finally – the other “losers” of a playoff system are the majority of schools in BCS conferences and almost all of the smaller mid-major schools. A small playoff will exclude them 90% of the time. A larger playoff will likely just have their season end on a “low note”.

    When it comes to Division 1AA we need to remember that these games are hosted at the home stadium of one of the participants until the final…which is in Chatanooga.

Leave a Reply