FOX Finally Comments On Loss Of BCS To ESPN
Monday, January 19, 2009
It's been a few weeks since the news broke that ESPN would be taking over the BCS in a few years, and FOX has finally decided to comment on how everything went down. In an interview with Broadcasting & Cable, chairman of entertainment at Fox Broadcasting Peter Liguori, had some strong words for leagues and tournaments that think moving to ESPN is a good move....
Q: What was your reaction to losing the BCS?In a way, Liguori is right. Having a Championship game on broadcast television will always bring more ratings, but a cable network devoted to just Sports will certainly do the game more justice by having more knowledgeable analysts and announcers to do the game. It's a tough choice to make, but with the economy the way it is and money being the driving force, it's certainly an interesting angle to look at. I'm of the mindset that FOX had its chance and failed, but there's nothing wrong in debating the move, is there?
PL: I think it's something that the whole industry should be looking at. At some point, these leagues should be looking at what happens to their ratings when they go to ESPN. The fact that they're promoted on a sports channel that is dedicated to rabid sports fans is ultimately not the best thing, in my opinion, for the leagues. When you have a broadcaster promoting your sport, you're getting exposed to younger people, women. I think that's something that's good for your long-term health.
Peter Liguori's New Year Starts Now (Broadcasting & Cable)
8 Comments:
What percentage of households don't have cable now? I'd imagine this isn't as big an issue as it was 20 years ago. Doesn't pretty much every sports fan have access to ESPN now?
I'll miss the cheerleader shots too, but not the incessant band shots. Fox's presentation of football is an assault on the senses. ESPN will probably be an upgrade.
I don't have cable, but I have a bar around the corner so it's really a win-win when "I have to go to the bar to watch the game."
Why yes I am married. How did you know?
Fox did a wonderful job with the BCS.--Johnny McTrumpetfucker
Fox was awful. ESPN will be a big upgrade.
I don't think having an entire network devoted to sports is the key, or at least only, factor in the quality of a telecast. Just look at NFL Network's games. (And really, people on the Internet are the only ones who care about the "quality of the telecast" as much as AA readers do.)
I think it's more about the level of immersion in the sport. I wouldn't have had a problem with CBS nabbing the BCS, even though there would have been a blatant SEC bias. Of course, ABC would have been the happy medium.
My main beef with Fox was the fact they did not use any of the Fox Sports Net resources for the BCS broadcasts. Using NFL announcers was a major mistake in their coverage. I would rather hear Joel Myers, Barry Tompkins, et al as opposed to Kenny Albert, Matt V or Thom Brenneman.
I'm in the minority here, but I think ESPN's telecasts are too bland. After seeing so many of them, I may be used to them but I find them incredibly boring. I don't know if the HD needs to be beefed up or there are too many on-screen graphics, but I'd much rather watch college football on FSN. Their recent graphics upgrade is well done and brings back the "old school" look, as well as removing the unnecessary lines that stretch out to the left and right. And I tend to like FSN's announcing crews for their national games than anyone other than Nessler/Gresie (this is somewhat off-topic, but just think if Paul McGwire and Tony Kornholer did a game together...)
From the standpoint of someone that will watch the game(s) no matter what, I'd much rather see the BCS on ESPN because as you said, they do the games throughout the year and their coverage does the event justice, unlike Fox, who it seems like just tries to throw something together at the last minute. Although, I must say, the cheerleader shots will be missed...