I am not a fan of sport. I am happy admiting this. I do not like turning on the TV and finding sport on 3 out of the 4 channels (ignoring channel 5 of course), this happens all too often. So I was slightly miffed when I heard BBC were paying to get Formula 1 back, and of course I was glad to hear that the BBC were not bidding for the Cricket. I generally say there are three sports I don't understand televising:
So I am quite glad that the BBC deicded that paying for live Cricket was not good "value for money". As a licence payer I would prefer the BBC improve factual programming, and original comedy and drama programming that putting yet more sport on.
Today I heard Giles Clarke chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board critizing the BBC for not bidding. His statement:
"All these people interested in cricket buy TV licences and surely they should have a right to expect that the public sector broadcasters mount bids for the nation's summer sport as they do in the case of one of them for 12 other sports? 
is quite disengenous. If he were really interested in live cricket being on the BBC why allow Sky to tender? Why not offer it to the BBC for free, or come to an agreement on payment soley with them? The answer to these questions of course is he wants as much money as possible for the ECB. This is a fair expectation, but critizing the BBC for deciding it couldn't afford to pay for the coverage is unfair.
One suspects the reason he is upset has more to do with pushing up the amount of money Sky will pay, than it does with ensuring that the "millions of cricket fans" get to see it without having to pay for Sky Sports.
P.S. I don't understand why the BBC payed for Formula 1 which is something he brought up, but Formula 1 did not end up on my top 3 list.