Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

Posted on: February 27, 2012 12:17 pm
 

The BCS is interested in bringing in two high-profile television consultants as they move to the next level of reconfiguring college football’s postseason beginning in 2014.

CBSSports.com has learned that respected industry consultant Chuck Gerber is expected to be consulting with the BCS. Sports Business Journal reported separately on Monday that Gerber and Dean Jordan of Wasserman Media Group “were finalizing negotiations” to work with the BCS

Bringing in TV consultants is the next step in the reshaping of that postseason. The moves would suggest the BCS commissioners are ready to begin pricing postseason models. CBSSports.com reported last week that a four-team plus-one could be worth as much as $500 million per season in the new contract. The current ESPN contract pays the BCS $125 million per year through the 2013 season (2014 bowls). The BCS distributed approximately $180 million to its members in 2011.

Both men are considered at, or near, the top of the profession. Gerber was hired four years ago by the SEC as a consultant after working at ESPN for 15 years. His work helped land the conference a 15-year, $3 billion deal with ESPN and CBS. The deal was finalized in July 2009. Jordan most recently worked with Conference USA and the Mountain West on the merging of those conferences beginning in 2013.

Sports Business Journal reported that Gerber is currently an independent consultant. Per its website Wasserman Media Group is a “sports and entertainment marketing company with expertise in, among other areas, media rights. The company has six worldwide offices including (in the U.S.) Raleigh, N.C. New York, Los Angeles and Carlsbad, Calif.

While the commissioners could stay with the current model, but it is widely assumed that the postseason will be expanded in 2014. Three plus-one models appear to be most attractive:

--Semifinals on campus sites with the championship game at a neutral site. This model is now supported by both Jim Delany of the Big Ten and Larry Scott of the Pac-12.

 --The entire plus-one played at neutral sites. In both cases those sites would be bid out. Likely interested cities would include Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit and Indianapolis.

--A plus-one within the bowl system. Current BCS bowls – perhaps with additions – would rotate semifinals and championship games.

The games are expected to be played after Dec. 21 with the championship game to be played as close to Jan. 1 as possible. Last week’s BCS meetings in Dallas did not include TV consultants. 

Comments

Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: February 27, 2012 4:11 pm
 

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

I agree with mattlaski, stop calling it a plus-one. "Plus One" as proposed by Dennis Dodd (I believe) is when you play the regular bowls, have one last round of BCS rankings, then match the ranked #1 and #2 teams in one extra game. This is not a playoff, it is entirely possible the voters could promote someone to 1 or 2 that did not play any top-ranked team in their bowl. This is just a continuation of the same beauty pageant we have now, who impresses the voters most, not who won on the field. Use the BCS rankings to match the top 3 or 4 conference champions in a seeded playoff. Who cares where they play, as long as the play each other. I think it would be cool to allow one wildcard non-conference winner in if ranked in top 4, but I can live without that too, as long as preference is given to conference champions over blindly accepting the top 4 voter choices.



Since: Nov 17, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 3:07 pm
 

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

Plus-One within the current Bowl system would be interesting.  It would severly limit the ability of a non-AQ conference member to get into the NYD bowls, since one game would basically have to kept "open". It may also have the benefit of keeping out 2 sub-par teams out of bowls entirely (e.g. teams with 6-7 records).  Campus sites would benefit usually dead-empty college towns during Christmas break by bringing revenue (though I wouldnt be surprised if the future campus sites included Farmers Field, new 49ers stadium, and new Vikings field). 



Since: Jan 20, 2007
Posted on: February 27, 2012 2:31 pm
 

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

Good grief, can we stop calling it a "plus-one"?

If you have 4 seeded teams with semi-finals and a final, that's a 4-team playoff.  A playoff.  CFB fans aren't stupid.  They can avoid calling it a playoff all they want, but the obvious attempt to mislead everyone is pathetic.



Since: Nov 19, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 2:30 pm
 

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

The only real potential problem that I see is the championship game being played as close to 1/1 as possible.  If the semi's are played on campus sites, as the Big 10 and Pac 12 are now in favor of, the problem then becomes when are they played.  If they are played the week after the Conference championship games are finished, then the BCS Bowls can wait an additional week before picking the teams to play in their games.  This way, the BCS Bowls will still have their tie-ins in place.  This means that 4 teams will play one extra game a year.  I think that is certainly doable.  I would accept the Big 10/Pac 12 idea, play the games the week after the season ends, and then allow the BCS Bowls to select their teams as they would normally do.



Since: Jan 20, 2007
Posted on: February 27, 2012 2:29 pm
 

Two high-profile TV consultants considered by BCS

Good grief, can we stop calling it a "plus-one"?

If you have 4 seeded teams with semi-finals and a final, that's a 4-team playoff.  A playoff.  CFB fans aren't stupid.  They can avoid calling it a playoff all they want, but the obvious attempt to mislead everyone is pathetic.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com