Why the BCS-ESPN Deal Is Bad for You, the Fan

Jump from blog to blog and you'll read story after story celebrating the news that Fox will no longer have rights to telecast Bowl Championship Series games after 2010.

But there are voices of reason. Yes, you, the fan, just got hoodwinked.

Neil Best of Newsday, writing on his blog Watchdog, spells it out: "This is a milestone in the relentless march of major sports events from broadcast to pay TV, not long after ESPN announced plans to take over the British Open in 2010.

"Unlike broadcast networks, ESPN has a dual revenue stream — advertising and subscription fees charged to distributors. Those fees only will continue to rise, which in turn will cause your cable bill to rise."

Now for all of you who don't favor a playoff, consider the possibility that the BCS doesn't make enough dollars (or sense). ESPN is paying $500 million for the rights to BCS games from 2011-2014. That's roughly $125 million a year. CBS pays the NCAA $400 million a year to broadcast March Madness, a point raised by blogger Lake The Posts on Darren Rovell's blog.

Then there is the ESPN experience to consider. Husker Locker Fans United says get ready for network's talking heads talking more rot.

"ESPN/ABC analysts are trying to stir the pot every week by staging phony debates just to get football fans riled up and hooked on the banter. It makes for a long, annoying day where the coverage is focused on 'storylines' instead of the game itself. Hence, we'll see the same four highlights of the same four games for four days. And I don't know about you, but Alabama is one boring team for repetitive highlight packages."