Yes, it is always worth reminding ourselves that the coronavirus is the true ruler of the world in 2020. While human beings and various economic or political groups certainly have a responsibility to act as quickly and as effectively as possible (and have largely failed to do so in the United States, up to this point), the progression of the virus is what ultimately dictates what happens. The people who are part of the college football industry know this, given how imperiled the 2020 season currently is.
We might play college football, but that is not guaranteed. We might have a season in 2020, but one big COVID-19 outbreak, one severe illness, or one death will cause these plans to end immediately.
Yes, the virus is the driver of events more than human beings. Always remember that. It’s why our coverage of college football in a pandemic has consistently contained these reminders.
Yet, with that said, isn’t it still a little strange — if not very strange — how quiet ESPN has been in this larger college football process?
I know ESPN wants the schools to lose as little money as possible, which means playing as many regular-season games as possible. I know ESPN realizes the pressure these schools, their presidents, and their athletic directors face in terms of setting up systems which can deliver safety and reassurance to their athletes. ESPN isn’t an educational outlet or a medical resource. It exists to televise the games that fill athletic department and school coffers. Obviously, there is only so much ESPN can do in a pandemic.
However:
We know how much of an imprint ESPN leaves on college football. We know how central college football is to ESPN’s ability to generate advertising revenue for Disney. This excellent report from Sportico dove into some of the bigger details.
We noted at Trojans Wire how central the bowls are in creating ad revenue for Disney through ESPN’s college football clout. Of the $792.6M Disney collected in college football ad sales last season, $343.6M came from just 36 postseason games, nearly $10M per postseason game.
I’m not saying college football should bow to ESPN’s wishes, nor am I saying or suggesting that ESPN or any other entity is behaving improperly in any way.
I am merely noting how conspicuous it is that ESPN has not been a prominent player in college football’s attempts to play games this fall. It shows up most conspicuously in the bowl games.
We have already pointed out that the Pac-12’s adjusted schedule involves multiple idle weeks to facilitate the playing of makeup games due to COVID-19 postponements or disruptions. If there is a need for multiple makeup games, the Pac-12 Championship Game might not be played until December 19.
Given that very real possibility — not just in the Pac-12, but all the Power Five conferences and presumably the Group of Five conferences as well — the bowl season might be pushed back a few weeks.
Surely, ESPN realizes how threatening this is to the bowls themselves, and to their revenue-generating power.
The key reason the bowls fetch so many ad dollars is their proximity to the Christmas shopping season. If no bowls are played in late December, one would presume their advertising values would go down.
So I wonder: Wouldn’t it have made sense for ESPN to push a reduced-length regular season which ended earlier, followed by bowl games played in very early December?
Schools might have wanted the full 12 regular-season games, but let’s realize that the Big Ten and Pac-12 have already committed to reduced-length seasons of 10 games. Given these developments, I am personally surprised ESPN hasn’t intervened to make the bowl games more of a priority.
The forces currently at work in college football are further endangering the bowls; given how much they mean to ESPN, it is surprising as a matter of political and economic analysis that ESPN hasn’t tried to create a different reality for the bowls themselves.
