Are We Losing Interest in the BCS?
I'll admit, I greeted the slate of BCS game this year with more of yawn than anything else. I know I'll be sick of the Alabama-Texas hype by the second week in January, and none of the other games really piqued by interest. It's been that way for a couple of years, actually, ever since I started agitating for a layoff in earnest. But am I alone in this, or is interest in the BCS sloughing off everywhere? I dug up the television rating shares for the BCS era, and spent some time staring at the numbers to see.
Overall, the viewership has been pretty stagnant since about 2002, with the exception of the 2006 Texas-Southern Cal game that was incredibly popular. Interest in the championship game now is about where it was at the turn of the century, when Florida State went to three straight title games. What the viewers have really abandoned is the less popular BCS bowls. When Boise State played Oklahoma in 2007, the game was the least-watched BCS bowl of all time; since then six other bowls performed worse. Of the top fifteen watched bowl games, five were played after 2005 – the four championship games and the Southern Cal-Michigan Rose Bowl. Meanwhile seven of the bottom ten were played in the last three years.
The blame for this shouldn't fall on the non-BCS teams that squeezed their way in to the BCS. Although all five games involving them are in the bottom ten, they barely moved the averages. No, you can lay most of the blame at the feet of the ACC and Big East:
The television ratings for the two conferences peaked with FSU's dominance of 1999-2001 and Miami's championship appearances of '02 and '03; since then both conferences have been well below average. (The ACC's temporary spike in 2006 was again Florida State, playing Penn State in the battle for the retirement home.) Unlike the other conferences who bring in fans year in and year out, when the ACC and Big East submit their two, three, and four loss teams, no one cares.
I don't think the BCS is particularly worried about their ratings. After all, they just got buckets of money from ESPN to air the next three years. They might want to start considering it, however. The least-watched bowl in 2009 pulled almost half the ratings of the worst of 2001; if that sort of trend continues there might not be big sacks of cash waiting around at the next renewal.
(An interesting bit about the Rose Bowl, whose raitings always beat the BCS averages – they might be the ones hurt the most by the state of college football. That first drop in their ratings correspond to the first year the bowl was neither Pac-10 vs. Big 10 or the national championship. Oklahoma played Washington State and drew an 11.3 share. They rebounded the next year with USC-Michigan, but the last two years have been Pac-10 vs. Big 10, (USC and Illinois and Penn State, respectively) and both games pulled the same sort of dismal ratings. The tradition is beginning to dim.)
0 recs |
3 comments
|
Comments
Thats Right
TH,
I’m glad you pulled this up. The bad ACC-Big East match ups have hurt and the non-BCS teams haven’t helped at all. This Boise St-TCU match up might “sound cool” to the Fiesta but they’re losing gobs of cash in terms of hotels, tickets and restaurants. The bowl itself may not care but if I’m a business owner in the greater Tempe area I’m livid.
The ACC needs Miami to win next year. That’s how we right this ship. Put VT, CU, FSU or Miami in as an at large and we just might restore some order.
ItsFELDER
by MichaelFelder on Dec 8, 2009 3:14 PM EST via mobile reply actions
About the Fiesta
I’m becoming more and more curious about the BCS selection process this season that drove the Fiesta to take TCU and Boise State. As I understand it, the Fiesta had first choice of teams after the tie-ins with the BCS Championship game (1 and 2), Rose Bowl (Pac-10 and Big 10), and Orange (ACC) were taken care of. (Although the Sugar may got to select a team ahead of them to compensate for Alabama playing in the championship. If they did they almost certainly took Florida.) Did they think a TCU-Boise State matchup was the best choice among the remaining available teams? True, I don’t see Cincinnati fans traveling, but Iowa (or Penn State) ? Did they just take the westernmost teams, or was there internal pressure to make sure two mid-majors got selected, and pitted against one another?
The ACC doesn’t need Miami to win so much as they need one of their teams with a strong fan base or football tradition to really contend for the national championship. Any of FSU, Clemson, or Miami would qualify; Georgia Tech, UNC and Virginia Tech 1 might also do. They’ll have to go undefeated and beat someone impressive before the conference season though, otherwise they’ll draw the same ratings that Cincinnati does.
1 I think Virginia Tech just elicits a collective yawn from anyone who’s not a Virginia Tech fan. That may just be my anti-Hokie bias however.
Selection Process
TH
The selection process worked as you stated but both the Fiesta and Sugar got to pick their teams before the Orange selected the first “at-large” team then Fiesta and then Sugar. Meaning Boise State was Texas’ replacement just like Florida was Alabama’s replacement.
Obviously Okie State screwed themselves by losing the Bedlam game. Then the refs screwed Nebraska by using a basketball clock to time a football game. If either of those works out Ok St or Neb is in the Fiesta, Texas is in the NCG or Sugar respectively.
VT reminds me of a poor man’s Alabama or Ohio State. Very loyal fans, “boring” style of football and not the flash of other programs such as USC, Fla, Texas etc. They travel well and they’re more respected within the sport for what they do than people on the outliers would ever guess.
I think we do need The U to come back. No their fans don’t travel like Clemson, VT, FSU or others but they are a national draw. When Miami is a top 10-15 ranked team they do TV numbers, they pull fans and they make bank. People still love to hate them even though they aren’t the boisterous Irvin, Sapp, Armstead version.
ItsFELDER
by MichaelFelder on Dec 9, 2009 9:22 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

by 








