Economic Calendar

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

College Football Gets Four-Team Playoff to Replace BCS System

Share this history on :

By Erik Matuszewski - Jun 27, 2012 5:44 AM GMT+0700

College football’s top division finally has its playoff system.

A four-team, three-game playoff that incorporates the major bowls and may be worth $500 million annually in television revenue was approved today by the 12-member Bowl Championship Series president oversight committee. The proposal was put forward by the commissioners of the 11 conferences at the sport’s top level -- the Football Bowl Subdivision -- and University of Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.


The playoff, which has been in demand for years by many fans, some lawmakers and even President Barack Obama, will be implemented for the 2014-15 season. College football’s national champion since 1998 has been crowned by the BCS, which uses a formula that incorporates rankings and computer polls to decide the two schools that play for the title.

“We can enhance the regular season and, at same time, provide fans with the kind of postseason that will contribute to the regular season and contribute to college football,” Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive said at a news conference after today’s meeting in Washington.

Under the playoff format, which was approved under a 12- year deal, the two national semifinal games would rotate among six major bowls, a group that probably includes the four current BCS games: the Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar bowls.

The national championship game would be played approximately 10 days after the semifinals and the neutral site would be up for bid the same way the National Football League rotates its Super Bowl between bidding cities.

Selection Committee

A selection committee would be formed to determine the four participants in the playoff, with weight placed on conference championship winners and strength of schedule.

Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford called the new system a “milestone” for the sport.

“It gives four teams rather than two the opportunity to play for a national championship and I think it’s good for college football,” Swofford said at the news conference. “Where we arrived is a consensus built on compromise.”

The BCS system has been a source of controversy over the years, leading the format to be modified several times.

“The more we tweaked it, the less confidence we inspired,” Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delaney told reporters after the four-team playoff was proposed.

Negotiations on the next BCS television contract are set to begin later this year. The current broadcast deal, under which Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN and ABC pay $155 annually for the title game and rights to the four BCS bowls, expires after the 2013-14 season.

TV Rights

The next contract may have a price tag that ranges from $400 million to $500 million annually, said Bob Boland of New York University’s Tisch School of Sports Management.

“Because we keep hearing that number repeatedly, that’s probably what’s being asked for,” Boland said in a telephone interview. “This could be exclusive television viewing.”

Last season’s BCS title game, a rematch between SEC rivals Louisiana State and the University of Alabama, drew the lowest television ratings of the BCS era. It marked the sixth straight year that a school from the SEC won the BCS championship.

Former CBS Sports President Neal Pilson said the networks have been asking for a playoff for “a long time” and expects there will be significant competition for the rights, though doubts the rights fee will reach a half-billion dollars a year.

“That seems high if it’s only three games,” said Pilson, who projects ratings for the title game may be about half that for the Super Bowl, which last year drew the biggest audience in U.S. television history. “What you have here is an important television property and sponsorships would probably drive the total values up rather than down, but if you’re talking about a rights fee of $500 million per year, I don’t think that’s the right number.”

Crowning a Champion

College football’s top level, formerly Division I-A, has been searching for a way to help crown its national champion for the past two decades. The Bowl Coalition was formed in 1992 as the SEC, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East, Big 8, Southwest Conference and Notre Dame joined with six bowl games.

The system faced controversy as the Big Ten and Pacific 10 conferences weren’t included, both having contractual ties to the Rose Bowl. The Bowl Coalition was changed to the Bowl Alliance in 1995, when it was restructured to three games, yet the Big Ten and Pac-10 still weren’t a part of the system.

The BCS was formed in 1998 and incorporated the Rose Bowl into the rotation of games and as part of the system that matched the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in a bowl to determine the national champion. The BCS used a formula of rankings and polls for its standings to decide the two highest-ranked teams.

BCS Changes

While the Bowl Championship Series went through its own changes over the years, it still faced controversy. Voters in the Associated Press poll declined to be involved in the BCS formula in 2006, when the Harris Poll was included.

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch in 2009 asked Obama for a probe of the BCS, saying the postseason selections process violated antitrust law. Obama had said at the time he favored a playoff series, as undefeated teams such as the University of Utah, Boise State University and Texas Christian University recently weren’t able to qualify under the BCS system to play for the title.

Slive said the new system will enhance the regular season.

“It keeps the regular season as the focal point of college football whereas in basketball the focal point of the season is the postseason,” Slive said. “All we’ve done is enhance the regular season in a way that fans can enjoy and appreciate it.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Matuszewski in New York at matuszewski@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Sillup at msillup@bloomberg.net



No comments: