Life couldn't be any better: "ABC says network losing money on BCS"...

[NavyCrimson]

here's the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2004-02-03-abc-loses-money_x.htm

READ IT & WEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ABC says network losing money on BCS
By Jack Carey, USA TODAY

ABC TV's senior vice president for programming, Loren Matthews, said Monday that the network has been losing money recently on the Bowl Championship Series but still wants to be involved in college football's title system when the eight-year, $600 million contract expires after the 2005 season.
He would not elaborate on the network's losses.

"We're surprised by (the losses)," said Matthews, who testified before the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics in Washington, D.C.

"The ad-sales marketplace is not now where it was when these deals were made."

Matthews said the BCS was profitable for ABC in the late 1990s, but the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to an economic downturn, marked a change.

yeah - sure slick - you can only blame so much on 911...hey - maybe less & less people are just watching it plain & simple...personally, including myself, more & more people that i have met don't even watch it or turn if off during the game for something else......just another game in a never-ending list of meaningless bowls thru jan 4 or 5 or whatever!!! what a joke!

<small>[ 02-03-2004, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Navy&Crimson ]</small>

[OldPony]

I find that due to the incredible number of bowl games that I watch fewer rather than more. It is no longer a big deal to go to a bowl when about 60 teams go to one. The BCS Bowls have also fallen to their own hype ie the Championship Game is the only one worth watching unless you are from one of the schools involved. The powers that run college football haven't figured out that the excitement in the NCAA basketball tourney for those without a dog in the hunt is first generated by the underdogs getting a chance and then by pulling for the ones who actually win a game or two. By then, you're hooked and have several favorite (or hated)teams to pull for or against. That is why a 6-8 t4eam playoff for the National Championship of college football will never be as popular as the basketball tournament. America loves underdogs. That is why the tourney has to be large enough to get a few underdogs in. The Presidents don't really care about the length of season. That's just BS to obsfuscate the issue.

[Stallion]

exactly-if you got a dog in the hunt you'd be more likely to watch all the games. This simple concept eludes the BCS onferences somehow.

[MizterTea]

it is a double edged sword suckas... if you reduce the number of bowls, the games become interesting again - BUT, because of money issues with the fewer bowls, there is more concern with attendance. When attendance and TV come into play, then the networks and the bowls want teams from "power conferences".

So - if you reduce the number of bowls, then the 6-6 UCLA and 6-6 Kansas teams get bids because of the fan money, name recognition, etc.

then you leave out the Miamis and TCUs

so what do those schools do ? - well, they start their own bowl games (Mobile bowl, Ft. Worth bowl, etc.) - and we are back with 86 bowl games.

the NCAA needs to up the bowl eligibilty requirements and reduce the bowls - PERIOD !

the bowl eligibility requirement were made at a time with the conference champs actaully had a specific bowl to play for (COllon, Rose) - I think that a team need to win at least EIGHT games to get into a bowl - MAYBE seven for hardships

but 6-6 6-5 teams.... I pity them foo's

[EastStang]

Right now I'd settle for the Tidee Bowl if there was such a thing. Just to be Bowl eligible would be a major feat right now. I'd love to complain that we were cheated out of a bowl bid than to wonder if we'll win 3 games next year.

[OldPony]

I repeat my often made suggestion. You really don't have to reduce the number of bowls all that much. Eliminate the conference championship games and go to a 10 game season. Then start with 16 bowls and do a playoff. That brings the top 32 teams into play and would include the conference champs of all meaningful conferences. You are down to 16 teams before they play as many games as they now play in the regular season, 8 teams who play as many as they do with a bowl now (unless they play a conferece championship game), 4 teams who play as many as they do now including a conference championship game. Only 2 teams who play one more game. This could all be easily accomplih3ed before New Years Day. The bowls which get left out could have their own "NIT' tournament. Every bowl would be more successful and the TV revenue would be enormous. The only peope who are against this is the BCS schools because they think in 0 sum terms( ie they get 90% of all bowl revenue now but would get maybe only 65% in a playoff system). They are too shortsighted to figure out that the 65% would be bigger in terms of money. The other reason they don't want it to happen is that (heaven forbid)other schools outside the BCS would make more money too and that would allow them to be more competitive in facilities and recruiting. Thatt would be an anathema to the BCS.

[GoRedGoBlue]

There are only so many people who are FOOTBALL fans regardless of who's playing, so to play all of the bowls across so many days means that only those teams' fans will watch those games.

...because football fans like me who would have normally watched most of the games over 3 days in the OLD system, don't have time to watch ALL of the games over so many days.

Originally posted by OldPony:
I find that due to the incredible number of bowl games that I watch fewer rather than more. It is no longer a big deal to go to a bowl when about 60 teams go to one. The BCS Bowls have also fallen to their own hype ie the Championship Game is the only one worth watching unless you are from one of the schools involved. The powers that run college football haven't figured out that the excitement in the NCAA basketball tourney for those without a dog in the hunt is first generated by the underdogs getting a chance and then by pulling for the ones who actually win a game or two. By then, you're hooked and have several favorite (or hated)teams to pull for or against. That is why a 6-8 t4eam playoff for the National Championship of college football will never be as popular as the basketball tournament. America loves underdogs. That is why the tourney has to be large enough to get a few underdogs in. The Presidents don't really care about the length of season. That's just BS to obsfuscate the issue.

[GoRedGoBlue]

PROBLEM:

That means the every team in america gets 1/2 fewer home games per year (which means LESS MONEY, especially for the big state schools that would have had 6 home games every year (100k game weekend))

Originally posted by OldPony:
I repeat my often made suggestion. You really don't have to reduce the number of bowls all that much. Eliminate the conference championship games and go to a 10 game season. Then start with 16 bowls and do a playoff. That brings the top 32 teams into play and would include the conference champs of all meaningful conferences. You are down to 16 teams before they play as many games as they now play in the regular season, 8 teams who play as many as they do with a bowl now (unless they play a conferece championship game), 4 teams who play as many as they do now including a conference championship game. Only 2 teams who play one more game. This could all be easily accomplih3ed before New Years Day. The bowls which get left out could have their own "NIT' tournament. Every bowl would be more successful and the TV revenue would be enormous. The only peope who are against this is the BCS schools because they think in 0 sum terms( ie they get 90% of all bowl revenue now but would get maybe only 65% in a playoff system). They are too shortsighted to figure out that the 65% would be bigger in terms of money. The other reason they don't want it to happen is that (heaven forbid)other schools outside the BCS would make more money too and that would allow them to be more competitive in facilities and recruiting. Thatt would be an anathema to the BCS.

[GoRedGoBlue]

That's already a problem: 6-6 teams are getting bids over 9-2 N. Illinois teams.

They need to tighten the requirements for bowls.

Originally posted by MizterTea:
it is a double edged sword suckas... if you reduce the number of bowls, the games become interesting again - BUT, because of money issues with the fewer bowls, there is more concern with attendance. When attendance and TV come into play, then the networks and the bowls want teams from "power conferences".

So - if you reduce the number of bowls, then the 6-6 UCLA and 6-6 Kansas teams get bids because of the fan money, name recognition, etc.

then you leave out the Miamis and TCUs

so what do those schools do ? - well, they start their own bowl games (Mobile bowl, Ft. Worth bowl, etc.) - and we are back with 86 bowl games.

the NCAA needs to up the bowl eligibilty requirements and reduce the bowls - PERIOD !

the bowl eligibility requirement were made at a time with the conference champs actaully had a specific bowl to play for (COllon, Rose) - I think that a team need to win at least EIGHT games to get into a bowl - MAYBE seven for hardships

but 6-6 6-5 teams.... I pity them foo's

[GoRedGoBlue]

obsfuscate - missed that

good word.

Originally posted by OldPony:
I find that due to the incredible number of bowl games that I watch fewer rather than more. It is no longer a big deal to go to a bowl when about 60 teams go to one. The BCS Bowls have also fallen to their own hype ie the Championship Game is the only one worth watching unless you are from one of the schools involved. The powers that run college football haven't figured out that the excitement in the NCAA basketball tourney for those without a dog in the hunt is first generated by the underdogs getting a chance and then by pulling for the ones who actually win a game or two. By then, you're hooked and have several favorite (or hated)teams to pull for or against. That is why a 6-8 t4eam playoff for the National Championship of college football will never be as popular as the basketball tournament. America loves underdogs. That is why the tourney has to be large enough to get a few underdogs in. The Presidents don't really care about the length of season. That's just BS to obsfuscate the issue.

[Charleston Pony]

I heard today that the BCS Cartel has been hired to act as consultants to the NFL and upon further review...has declared the Kansas City Chiefs to be the NFL Champions