Lowest rated BCS title game ever.

[Turbine]

This had as much to do with ESPN having the game as who was in it. It's pretty comical that a sport that is not supposed to pay its athletes puts its championship game on pay television.

That is ironic, if not iconic, almost moronic.

[SlappyCajun]

Living in another part of the country gives me a little perspective. Everyone here openly recognized that LSU and Bama were the two best teams in the country. And I work with a bunch of football loving guys, but no one talked at all about getting together to watch the game.

[CajunFan3406]

It's still bull____ that they put on a pay station when they won't pay the players who play in it.

Since that's the case, they should have paid every player in every bowl game since they were all on ESPN.
I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have ESPN. You can't seriously think that the game being on there hurt viewing numbers.

[Bandwagon King]

Since that's the case, they should have paid every player in every bowl game since they were all on ESPN.
I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have ESPN. You can't seriously think that the game being on there hurt viewing numbers.

I know it hurt viewing numbers. Believe it or not there are a lot of people in the US who can't afford cable or satellite. Or don't have cable access & can't afford Satellite.

[CajunCherokee]

Since that's the case, they should have paid every player in every bowl game since they were all on ESPN.
I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have ESPN. You can't seriously think that the game being on there hurt viewing numbers.

That's what I thought initially too - then I asked around the office just to amuse myself and identified 10 people who live sort of outside Lafayette that have basic cable - they might not be the ideal demographic that the BCS Championship is looking for, but maybe if it was on ABC, they would have at least tuned in. Don't assume that everyone is a hard-core sports fan and NEEDS to have extended cable, satellite and/or the sports package - like the majority of us here.

[CajunRebel]

If anyone wonders why conferences care so much about market size this is a great example. Two teams from small market areas aren't going to draw as well as teams from big markets. And how many viewers you can draw plays into how much money you'll get for your TV contracts.

[CajunFan3406]

If people want to watch the game they'll watch it somehow. Auburn/Oregon was on ESPN last year and neither team was touted as 2 of the best teams of all time like the two this year. Despite that, that game's numbers were better than this years. IMO, the top two reasons this game was at an all time low in viewership is #1: the majority of casual viewers do not want to watch a field goal fest and #2: the majority of casual viewers do not want to watch two SEC schools play for the title.

[CajunFan3406]

I know it hurt viewing numbers. Believe it or not there are a lot of people in the US who can't afford cable or satellite. Or don't have cable access & can't afford Satellite.

And Kyle, you didn't offer me an explanation as to why Brett Baer isn't getting his ESPN check in the mail. Because after all, his game was on a pay station.

[CajunCherokee]

If people want to watch the game they'll watch it somehow.

Agreed. But they'll go to a bar and watch it with 50 other people, which only counts as one television set. Otherwise, they might've stayed home, which would boost the ratings.

[CajunFan3406]

Agreed. But they'll go to a bar and watch it with 50 other people, which only counts as one television set. Otherwise, they might've stayed home, which would boost the ratings.

How do you explain the 14% dip in viewership from last year then? Both games were on ESPN, and both games were on a Monday night.