PDA

View Full Version : World Series ratings down again.



Cedric
10-23-2006, 03:53 PM
Is there a problem? What is the problem if there is one? Discuss.

I blame ESPN and FOX for shoving nothing but Boston and New York at people for the whole year. If you tell common fans that only two teams matter why should they watch other teams?

Redsland
10-23-2006, 04:22 PM
I blame the absence of Scooter and the presence of Jeanne Zelasko. Eric Byrnes isn't helping, either.

Johnny Footstool
10-23-2006, 04:27 PM
My Cards-fan friend and I wanted to watch Game 1 at a bar on Saturday night. Unfortunately, the bartender wouldn't put it on the big projection screen and wouldn't turn the volume up because college football was on, and it was more important to him and the dozen other patrons to watch Colorado vs. Oklahoma than to watch the World Series. We went to a couple of other places and found pretty much the same attitude. We ended up watching about half the game at another bar -- not on the big-screen projector, but on a crystal-clear LCD -- but had to leave once the band started playing.


I blame the absence of Scooter and the presence of Jeanne Zelasko. Eric Byrnes isn't helping, either.

Eric Byrnes has an enormous, pumpkin-like head, and when he grins his face cracks like a pre-surgery Joan Rivers.

Reds Fanatic
10-23-2006, 04:31 PM
This is an article about the effects of the lower ratings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_weisman/10/23/ws.ratings/index.html

The worst part of this is according to the article MLB has given FOX permission to make the breaks between innings longer next year so they can run more ads during the games. So you already losing viewers and now you are going to make the few of us that still watch suffer with even longer breaks.

Roy Tucker
10-23-2006, 04:51 PM
Fox's productions of the game do drive me crazy.

The way they jump from one extreme closeup of player, fans, manager, etc. to another makes me feel like the jump-cuts are being done by some ADD-stricken child.

And I think I know Jeff Suppan's face better than my wife's after seeing it in nostril-hair closeup detail.

For heaven's sake, pan back out so I can take in what is happening on the field and stay with one shot more than a nanosecond.

BRM
10-23-2006, 04:58 PM
This is an article about the effects of the lower ratings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_weisman/10/23/ws.ratings/index.html

The worst part of this is according to the article MLB has given FOX permission to make the breaks between innings longer next year so they can run more ads during the games. So you already losing viewers and now you are going to make the few of us that still watch suffer with even longer breaks.

Longer breaks may drive away some of the current viewers as well.

Redsland
10-23-2006, 05:09 PM
I've always assumed the extreme close-ups and quick cuts are there to frustrate waving cell phone owners.

To that end, I'm all for 'em.

M2
10-23-2006, 05:09 PM
This is an article about the effects of the lower ratings.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jon_weisman/10/23/ws.ratings/index.html

The worst part of this is according to the article MLB has given FOX permission to make the breaks between innings longer next year so they can run more ads during the games. So you already losing viewers and now you are going to make the few of us that still watch suffer with even longer breaks.

Thanks for posting that. The part about the Neilsen's don't measure is worth a direct mention.


"I'm constantly amazed at how much stock TV execs put into Nielsen ratings," Hoffarth said, "because they weren't created to assess the actual 'viewer attendance,' but to give them some kind of vague measurement that could be used to show advertisers that this is what we think people are doing with their TV sets. Any ratings system that doesn't take into account those watching in sports bars, dorms, hotels and office buildings, and has no accountability for TiVo or DVR players, or who's watching on MLB.com on video streaming, plus has a different measure for those watching over-the-air versus cable, just seems to be very unstable and hard to bank on.

"I'm of the Billy Packer thinking -- gasp -- that it's crazy to assume viewership is down year after year when all you read and hear and feel is that the sport is a very healthy spectator activity."

Though I know that the length of postseason games has begun to wear on me. A low scoring contest can take up to three hours. That's ridiculous. I've found myself going away from the games to watch something else and then coming back for the latter innings. I just don't care to watch that much advertising and I find the added gap between innings leaves me feeling awfully apathetic about what's happening on the field. These aren't teams I root for on a normal basis and when the pace of the game is slowed to this extent I'm left with the existential question of whether I give that much of a damn about the next inning. What I'm finding more often than I'd have ever imagined is that I don't.

Oh, and for anyone who ever thought parity was what brought in viewership for football, time to revisit that theory. Clearly it doesn't turn the trick in baseball. My take has always been that gambling rakes in viewership in football. Parity just makes the betting line more interesting.

Blimpie
10-23-2006, 05:14 PM
I openly acknowledge that if MLB returned to airing the WS games at earlier time slots, they might experience some short term diminishing returns on their overall ratings. However, I feel that by trying to accomodate all market time zones simply for a larger market "share grab" is an extremely myopic way of thinking.

MLB needs to forsake a little in the ratings department and return to a grassroots marketing approach. Nowadays, the young baseball fan is as disenchanted with the game as ever before. By airing WS games so late in the evening, how can MLB hope to secure this vital demographic later on in their lives (when these children grow and actually have discretionary income to spend on the MLB product) if most kids cannot physically witness the event?

The World Series is--and should be--the crown jewel of all sports. Young fans have gravitated away from baseball, in a large part, due to the fact that they simply cannot connect with the most truly marquis moments the sport has to offer. Instead of worrying about how many homes in the Los Angeles or San Francisco markets are tuned in to watch two Midwest teams play in the classic, how about playing a day game or two for the kids? Yes, I know that program ratings drive advertising rates--which, it turn, feed the main network revenue streams. However, at some point, they are going to have WS games with 100% coverage saturation and not a sole who cares about the outcome.

Personally, I have an eight year old son who would give his eye teeth to be allowed to stay up and watch the WS games. I would probably relax my rules if the stinking games actually started and ended during the same day. As it currently stands, my boy has a 6:00am wakeup call every school day and simply needs more quality rest that he can obtain if I allowed him to watch the broadcast.

Oh well, at least he got a nice new radio for his birthday a few weeks ago. Now he can at least go to bed dreaming about the World Series.

westofyou
10-23-2006, 05:16 PM
The way they jump from one extreme closeup of player, fans, manager, etc. to another makes me feel like the jump-cuts are being done by some ADD-stricken child.They perform more jump cuts then Goddard in his prime.

Redsland
10-23-2006, 05:19 PM
They show more angles than MC Escher.

westofyou
10-23-2006, 05:28 PM
They make more cheese then Wisconsin

Redsland
10-23-2006, 05:30 PM
They have more sound effects than a clown convention.

RedFanAlways1966
10-23-2006, 05:34 PM
Thanks for posting that. The part about the Neilsen's don't measure is worth a direct mention.

I agree. I have done the Neilsen thing. I thought it was cool to be asked and thought I'd be a real stickler for marking things down. I hate to sound dishonest, but will be honest here...

For those who have never done Neilsen... you get a little book and you are supposed to manually write down every program you watch. Each TV has it's own book. More than one book to keep! After 1 week you are supposed to mail the books back to them immediately.

The first day or so I was on it like a hawk. By day two or three I was already sick of writing everything down. Flip channels and you are supposed to mark it down. Anyone out there who doesn't utilize that flipper quite often? I do. I started marking things down a day or two after each day. Looked in the TV Guide to make sure I wasn't caught lying and wrote down one program for each hour. I also marked that no TV was on for periods of time when it actually was. And the 12-year-old and his TV... no chance of that being accurate. I just put down some Cartoon Network and Disney stuff and was done with it. Lo and behold... they came back a couple of months later and asked me to do it again. This time I said no thanks. I've got better things to do for the $5 they give you... like flip channels!

Bottom-line... my info. was bogus. Not complete hogwash, but nowhere near accurate. I am sure there are people who enjoy doing it and keep it completely accurate, but I am sure there are a lot like me too. So how accurate are their rankings? It seems that the TV people take it to heart, so it must work for some. Because of personal experience (and dishonesty!) I have to wonder about it's validity. I like to think that I am a fairly normal type (hold the comments, please!) and can see lots of people doing the same as me.

GridironGrace
10-23-2006, 06:11 PM
If you ask me the whole broadcasting system and TV time for MLB is worthless... no vararity, and i never get to see the reds unless thier playing the Cubs on the road or the Braves on the road.(WGN and TBS)

the marketing of MLB SUCKS!!! but that just IMO..

They need a system kinda like the NFL's show more games.... on more channels.. especially afternoon games. Have a few nights a week that a couple channels.. not ust ESPN shows a game..

watching the same teams over and over on ESPN is getting very old!!!!! and im sure it has for alot of ppl and therefore no one cares about watching the games on TV cause they dont get to watch THIER TEAM!!! :(

Strikes Out Looking
10-23-2006, 08:25 PM
Reasons viewership is down:
1. Tim McCarver
2. Tim McCarver
3. Tim McCarver
4. Games last forever and start late
5. Tim McCarver

vaticanplum
10-23-2006, 08:30 PM
I blame football.

I don't mean that as simply as a seven-night thing. Football has very much supplanted baseball as our "country's sport", and the fact that baseball's great championship takes place just when football is heating up is detrimental. Even if they don't directly overlap. You watch football all day Saturday and Sunday, you don't then take over the TV for a long baseball game.

I'll be curious to see if things change for the weekday games. I'm not holding my breath though. Football appeals more to an increasingly instant-gratification, quickly-moving, physical-contact society, both in the structure of the game itself and in the structure of its final championship.

Chip R
10-23-2006, 08:31 PM
I openly acknowledge that if MLB returned to airing the WS games at earlier time slots, they might experience some short term diminishing returns on their overall ratings. However, I feel that by trying to accomodate all market time zones simply for a larger market "share grab" is an extremely myopic way of thinking.

MLB needs to forsake a little in the ratings department and return to a grassroots marketing approach. Nowadays, the young baseball fan is as disenchanted with the game as ever before. By airing WS games so late in the evening, how can MLB hope to secure this vital demographic later on in their lives (when these children grow and actually have discretionary income to spend on the MLB product) if most kids cannot physically witness the event?

The World Series is--and should be--the crown jewel of all sports. Young fans have gravitated away from baseball, in a large part, due to the fact that they simply cannot connect with the most truly marquis moments the sport has to offer. Instead of worrying about how many homes in the Los Angeles or San Francisco markets are tuned in to watch two Midwest teams play in the classic, how about playing a day game or two for the kids? Yes, I know that program ratings drive advertising rates--which, it turn, feed the main network revenue streams. However, at some point, they are going to have WS games with 100% coverage saturation and not a sole who cares about the outcome.

Personally, I have an eight year old son who would give his eye teeth to be allowed to stay up and watch the WS games. I would probably relax my rules if the stinking games actually started and ended during the same day. As it currently stands, my boy has a 6:00am wakeup call every school day and simply needs more quality rest that he can obtain if I allowed him to watch the broadcast.

Oh well, at least he got a nice new radio for his birthday a few weeks ago. Now he can at least go to bed dreaming about the World Series.


One problem with your theory is they are not starting these games any later than they did back in the 70s. Go to the library and look at a newspaper for October 30 years ago and you will see that they are starting games right around the same time as they always have. In fact, the first 2 games of the World Series started just a hair after 8. If you have a 3 hour game, it will be over at 11. Considering that they have the west coast to consider, I'd say it's a very reasonable starting time. Kids watch Monday night football which doesn't get over till midnight and they watch the NBA finals which starts about 8:30. I realize some kids have to get up earlier than others but if you really feel it's important for them to watch it, why not let them stay up a little later? All of us did that when we were kids.

It would be nice if they schedued a day game on a Saturday or Sunday but that would make the ratings problem worse, not better. Let's face it, football is wildly popular. When I was a kid there may be one or two games on every Saturday. Now there are about 10-15 depending on where you are at. If you're an Ohio St. fan and Game 1 of the Series is on when OSU is playing on TV, what are you going to watch? On Sunday if the Bengals are playing and Game 2 is on at the same time, what's the choice?

This may or may not have anything to do with it but I think people are getting tired of the same talking heads doing the Series. McCarver's so full of crap they should call him Walking Eagle. Joe Buck isn't much better. I don't pretend it's an easy job to call a game but, my God, can't they do better than those two? Ernie Harwell is right there for God's sake. Do they actually believe people tune in to hear those two prattle on all night?

Matt700wlw
10-23-2006, 08:32 PM
I blame football.

I don't mean that as simply as a seven-night thing. Football has very much supplanted baseball as our "country's sport", and the fact that baseball's great championship takes place just when football is heating up is detrimental. Even if they don't directly overlap. You watch football all day Saturday and Sunday, you don't then take over the TV for a long baseball game.



I did :D

Maybe I have no life.

gonelong
10-23-2006, 08:35 PM
They (ESPN etc.) plug nothing but the Yankees and Red Sox all year.

<sarcasm>
Its not really a world series without one of them in it.
</sarcasm>

I saw more promotion for an early series between the SOX and Yanks than I do for the World Series.

GL

mbgrayson
10-23-2006, 09:40 PM
Reasons viewership is down:
1. Tim McCarver
2. Tim McCarver
3. Tim McCarver
4. Games last forever and start late
5. Tim McCarver

I agree....mostly. I turn on the game, and as soon as McCarver says something that makes me roll my eyes, I mute the TV.

So I WATCH the game, but the sound is usually muted.

They ought to try broadcasting the game with two different sets of announcers on different channels. I would bet (heavily) that the one w/o McCarver would have higher ratings....

vaticanplum
10-23-2006, 09:47 PM
They (ESPN etc.) plug nothing but the Yankees and Red Sox all year.

<sarcasm>
Its not really a world series without one of them in it.
</sarcasm>

I saw more promotion for an early series between the SOX and Yanks than I do for the World Series.

GL

I thought about bringing this up too when I talked about football -- I do wonder, though, if that is marketing to the fanbase. Even with the Patriots and the Giants, those are still two huge baseball towns. In my observations, baseball still rules there; football (especially with the addition of college football) rules in the midwest.

Perhaps those are big baseball fanbases BECAUSE of the way the get marketed to -- chicken/egg etc. -- but I do think there may be something to that. Turn it over to college football; all you see is Michigan and Ohio State and Notre Dame. If they all failed to make the major championship*, college football might take a dive as well.

(*I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about in the way of "major college championships". I'm sure it has to do with something ending in the word -bowl. But I do know that I can name the big ten schools and that zero of them come from New York or Boston, or even outside of the Midwest for that matter. And I make a conscious effort to ignore football. I can name the big ten purely by osmosis, the same way that somebody who doesn't know baseball might name the Yankees and Red Sox first.)

Cedric
10-23-2006, 10:34 PM
I said in the original thread that I blame ESPN/FOX for it's promotion of Boston/New York.

It's hard for average fans to find a hatred for a certain team or a passion for another one when they don't hear or see about them often. Who really hates the Cardinals or the Tigers enough to care about this game? Who really loves them?

macro
10-23-2006, 11:30 PM
Though I know that the length of postseason games has begun to wear on me. A low scoring contest can take up to three hours. That's ridiculous. I've found myself going away from the games to watch something else and then coming back for the latter innings. I just don't care to watch that much advertising and I find the added gap between innings leaves me feeling awfully apathetic about what's happening on the field. These aren't teams I root for on a normal basis and when the pace of the game is slowed to this extent I'm left with the existential question of whether I give that much of a damn about the next inning. What I'm finding more often than I'd have ever imagined is that I don't.

My sentiments exactly. I find something else to watch and then check out some of the game during commercials. When it gets down to the eighth or ninth inning, I'll stay with it.

Edskin
10-24-2006, 08:29 AM
MLB simply needs to accept the fact that have become a more universal form of hockey-- a core, die-hard fanbase (especially in select cities) that will keep the game alive and well, but will never reach the masses as it once did.

Baseball is now a "pocket" sport. Pockets of MAJOR interest here and there, but on the whole, the country doesn't care too much. I live in Oklahoma and MLB is CLEARLY fifth behind (in order) college football, NFL, college basketball, and the NBA. People here would clearly rather watch game 2 of Mavericks-Heat in the Finals, than they would game 2 of Tigers-Cardinals in the WS.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just stating fact. I believe MLB should worry more about appeasing the die-hards that keep it alive, and less about the people who really don't care.

M2
10-24-2006, 11:46 AM
MLB simply needs to accept the fact that have become a more universal form of hockey-- a core, die-hard fanbase (especially in select cities) that will keep the game alive and well, but will never reach the masses as it once did.

Baseball is now a "pocket" sport. Pockets of MAJOR interest here and there, but on the whole, the country doesn't care too much. I live in Oklahoma and MLB is CLEARLY fifth behind (in order) college football, NFL, college basketball, and the NBA. People here would clearly rather watch game 2 of Mavericks-Heat in the Finals, than they would game 2 of Tigers-Cardinals in the WS.

I'm not arguing right or wrong here, just stating fact. I believe MLB should worry more about appeasing the die-hards that keep it alive, and less about the people who really don't care.

The NBA is far more of a niche market than baseball. Mind you, the NBA has a niche market that's coveted by advertisers (males age 18-34), but that league is suffering far more than MLB.

I'd say every sport outside of the NFL is a "pocket" sport. People don't particularly care about college football in the northeast. BC joined the ACC and it's still only a small segment of folks within the BC community who care about the BC football team. Most of Boston pays it no attention. College football is even less popular in New York and Philly. College basketball team draws more interest in Boston (though I'm guessing most Boston area fans would prefer BC play teams like Syracuse, UConn and Georgetown instead of Duke, UNC and Wake -- all great programs, but they don't inspire much in the way of passion up here).

NBA interest in Boston has been on life support for years. The Celtics don't fill up their building, something that was unthinkable 20 years ago. The Bruins draw better and, I believe, have higher local TV ratings too.

Baseball rules the roost up here. I'd say it does in NYC too. Ask fans down there what one championship they'd like to see a local team win and I'm guessing the majority would say the World Series. Philly and D.C. are pro football towns. Go down to North Carolina and you're in college basketball country. My guess is that if folks in Ohio had to pick one thing, college football would be the winner there. And what do folks in Atlanta like? It's an awful city in terms of pro sports attendance. Georgia and Georgia Tech rarely produced conference champions in either basketball or football let alone national champs. If I had to guess, I'd say Atlanta's probably a NASCAR town, though that would just be a guess on my part.

It's a busy world and "the masses" are hardly a unified mass. I think as long as baseball does a few sensible things like speed the pace of playoff games and make sure the first pitch gets thrown by 7:30 eastern time (maybe even 7:15) then it should be in decent shape.

westofyou
10-24-2006, 11:51 AM
I'd say Atlanta's probably a NASCAR town, though that would just be a guess on my part.College football town.

If baseball is a pocket sport how come they have 2 teams that are in LA pulling in 7.1 million and there is no football team there?

M2
10-24-2006, 12:18 PM
College football town.

I've heard that, but are they week-long college football fans or Saturday fans? Does everyone stop what they're doing to watch the games each week?

NASCAR was born in Dawsonville, GA and I'd hazard a guess that it's got a larger fan base in Atlanta than college football.


If baseball is a pocket sport how come they have 2 teams that are in LA pulling in 7.1 million and there is no football team there?

L.A.'s definitely a baseball town. San Francisco is the one that interests me, though. It's always been a football town, but the 49ers have been awful for a while and the Giants play in a really cool downtown park. If the Giants can ever get over the top and win a few championships I think they could change the city's sporting DNA. You'd know better, you've lived there, but whenever I'm in town I see a lot of Giants caps and jerseys, can't recall seeing someone billboarding for the Niners in the city proper.

westofyou
10-24-2006, 12:32 PM
Does everyone stop what they're doing to watch the games each week?From my experience the fall is a different beast in Atlanta, since it's the hub of the south there is a zillion folks from every college in dixie with little flags on their cars declaring their allegience, I've heard sports talk radio in March about Georgia football instead of the Braves who were in the midst of ST. It's the type of place that televises spring practices.

As for the Bay Area they like the teams that win, pretty simple. So many fans there and so many teams to grab them, including the whole Cal/Stanford college teams. The Giants have never won it all in San Francisco, if they do it will be bigger then when and if again the A's won it, they won the northern part of the state earlier and that's the base that makes them the team in the area, same thing for the Niners who won the region in the 50's, mostly because they predated the Giants arrival, not because the NFL was a better product then MLB. The Niners gave the region pro sports cred when MLB wouldn't.

dabvu2498
10-24-2006, 12:50 PM
NASCAR was born in Dawsonville, GA and I'd hazard a guess that it's got a larger fan base in Atlanta than college football.



Actually, NASCAR was born in Daytona Beach, FL.


On December 14, 1947 France began talks with other influential racers and promoters at the Ebony Bar at the Streamline Hotel at Daytona Beach, Florida that ended with the formation of NASCAR on February 21, 1948.

NASCAR was founded by France on February 21, 1948 with the help of several other drivers at the time. The points system was written on a barroom napkin. The sanctioning body hosted their first event at the Daytona beach on February 15, 1948.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascar

Bill Elliot (who some would argue IS NASCAR) was born in Dawsonville, thus his nickname, Awesome Bill from Dawsonville.

I agree, the ATL is a college football town, but not just UGa or Tech. Lots of Tennessee, Bama, USC expats. Braves are a fairly close second.

M2
10-24-2006, 01:05 PM
Actually, NASCAR was born in Daytona Beach, FL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascar

Bill Elliot (who some would argue IS NASCAR) was born in Dawsonville, thus his nickname, Awesome Bill from Dawsonville.

I think the argument for Dawsonville is that there wouldn't have been a meeting in Daytona in the late 1940s if it hadn't been for the moonshine runners from Dawson County who helped establish stock car racing as a popular past time in the decade leading up to it. Though I guess that would make Dawsonville more of the spiritual home of stock car racing than the birthplace of NASCAR, the Mecca to Daytona's Medina if you will.

vaticanplum
10-24-2006, 01:21 PM
This country is too big! :p:

westofyou
10-24-2006, 01:28 PM
This country is too big! :p:

3 more states for me and I'll have been to all of them

Reds Fanatic
10-24-2006, 02:22 PM
One thing baseball needs to do to get more people interested in watching the game is to get rid of the ridiculous blackout rules during the season. Even the fans that still want to watch many times can't because baseball has a blackout map that makes it so people can't see games from teams even though those teams may be several hours away from where they live. When you make it so people can't see the teams they are interested in people eventually lose interest and move on to other things.

Roy Tucker
10-24-2006, 03:40 PM
Some thoughts...

-- I think I fall in the camp of "playoff games are too slow". Game 7 of the NLCS was one of the very few games where I made it a point to see all of the action. And I think the reason was because the pace of the game zoomed along.

-- I think playoff games suffer from the triple-whammy of Fox plastering promos for all kinds of shows on the broadcast which detract from the "baseball-ness" of the telecast, at-bats tend to be grinded out, and managers will use their bullpens to the utmost extent. Which all means a lot of down time during the game.
-- I should have said quadruple whammy in that you have someone like me with channel changer in hand and 150 channels to go look at in that down time and I can get distracted.

-- Based completely on subjective opinion, but I think Americans are probably watching more sports than ever. But each niche of each sport is fleshed out so there is a wide variety of each sport to watch. So besides MLB, there is a ton of college football (almost every night of the week now), college basketball, motor sports of all kinds, pro wrestling, lots of boxing and whatever the new fight-club like thing is, soccer, hockey, volleyball, blah blah blah. MLB has to fight harder against more competitors just to maintain market share.

-- And I agree with the ESPN/Fox obsession with all things Yankee and Red Sox. I think each game played between them was nationally televised. The first time I saw Detroit play this year was when the Reds played them. And I thought "dang, this team is good". But after that, I never really saw them much.

-- And the aforementioned games are on too late in the East thing. I'm getting old. If I don't get my beauty sleep, I'm a grumpy bear the next day. Unless the game is compelling and moving smartly along, I'll turn off the TV and catch the highlights on the web the next day. Staying up till 1 AM when I get up at 5:30 is just too late.

registerthis
10-24-2006, 04:41 PM
I did :D

Maybe I have no life.


No, you have no WIFE.

Raisor
10-24-2006, 04:58 PM
I agree, the ATL is a college football town, but not just UGa or Tech. Lots of Tennessee, Bama, USC expats. Braves are a fairly close second.

Atlanta is a college football town 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Then the Falcons. Then the Braves, then the Georgia Force (arena league football), then the THRASHERS~! (I heart the Thrashers). Then the Gladiators (minor league hockey). The Hawks tend to bring in about 3 fans a game.

Raisor
10-24-2006, 05:02 PM
I forgot NASCAR. The further south of Atlanta you go, the higher up it goes in the rankings. When you get to, say, Newnan, NASCAR probably takes up the third spot. Bass fishing takes number two.

Blimpie
10-24-2006, 05:19 PM
3 more states for me and I'll have been to all of themOkay, I'll bite. Which three do you lack?

westofyou
10-24-2006, 05:24 PM
Okay, I'll bite. Which three do you lack?

Mississippi, Louisiana and North Dakota

Rojo
10-24-2006, 05:44 PM
Its not the marketing, its the game. Life's gotten faster and baseball's gotten slower. A game of "true outcomes" ain't real baseball and it ain't real entertaining.

M2
10-24-2006, 06:18 PM
Mississippi, Louisiana and North Dakota

Bummer, you missed out of New Orleans.

Got some friends who lived there and they now insist that it's gone. At least it's radically changed from the, literally, antediluvian gem it used to be.

Chip R
10-24-2006, 06:44 PM
Just to clear up the misconception that games started earlier in the "good old days." This is from the Chicago Tribune which is on Central Time.

Edskin
10-24-2006, 06:57 PM
Sort of on-topic: The MNF game between Dallas and the Giants last night? Highest rated cable television event.........EVER.

westofyou
10-24-2006, 08:19 PM
Bummer, you missed out of New Orleans.

Plus it has lots of that humidity that you love.

M2
10-24-2006, 08:27 PM
Plus it has lots of that humidity that you love.

That place is jungle hot. It rules. You have to drink constantly just to keep properly hydrated. I was there during the jazz festival one year and I think my sweat was 80 proof by the end of the night.

Blimpie
10-24-2006, 11:35 PM
Mississippi, Louisiana and North DakotaOf those three, I have only been to Mississippi. I am quite impressed by your other 47 conquests--as I still have about 20 states to go (mostly out in your neck of the woods).

WVRedsFan
10-25-2006, 12:54 AM
I haven't read the whole thread (off-season lazy mode), but I found it interesting that this dropping rating discussion is basically the same discussion some were having in the press box at Martinsville Speedway this weekend. And they were discussing NASCAR, not baseball.

NASCAR is down over 7% in viewers over last year and it's driving Mike Helton and the rest of NASCAR crazy. There's a simple reason for all of this. Folks are so busy they just aren't watching sports as much these days. Only the NFL is staying constant and that's a product of having a network telecast of your home team almost everywhere. The World Series is two teams with loyalties in two cities, both of which are not New York or Los Angeles. The mind wanders and you watch Boston Legal instead. If it were the Reds we'd all be watching, but it's not. The NFL is special because Cincinnati gets the Bengals on game day while New York gets the Giants. And the Super Bowl is a big spectacle that even non-sports fans watch for the commercials.

It's also a little bit of overkill. Baseball now has wild card teams involved inthe mix so the season goes on longer and casual fans get tired of us. Of course, we diehards are always watching. NASCAR now has the Chase which makes 32 drivers insignificant for the last ten races, so people lose interest. And the NFL is immune to all of this for some reason I cannot understand. I haven't watched an entire NFL game in ten years. And I won't in the future either.

redsrule2500
10-25-2006, 01:20 AM
Personally, I have an eight year old son who would give his eye teeth to be allowed to stay up and watch the WS games.




Why wouldn't you let him? Sleep deprivation for kids isn't super terrible, and a good 7 hours would be had. I'd let my kids stay up, like my parents did.

marcshoe
10-25-2006, 01:23 AM
Just to clear up the misconception that games started earlier in the "good old days." This is from the Chicago Tribune which is on Central Time.

Was '75 the year that Bowie Kuhn went to the cold, night WS game in shirtsleaves to show his critics that playing at night in October was just fine, or was that '76? I was thinking '76, but I could be wrong.

Rojo
10-25-2006, 02:02 AM
Seems like I trot this out every year around this discussion but I'd like to see what the ratings are for WS Game 7's vs. Super Bowls. In a sense that's the only apple-apple comparison.

Still, I think what makes baseball great is the layering of contests -- between batter and pitcher, batter and fielder, pitcher and runner and fielder and runner. Today's game is focused solely on the first.

GOOCH
10-25-2006, 04:32 AM
While I'm sure there is some natural fluctation in the ratings and that it does matter what the matchup is...the fact is that the biggest reason that ratings are down (and this goes for MNF as well) is the exponential increase in the number of channels on TV and then number of other entertainment venues (i.e. the internet). This has lead to the decline in ratings. These ratings are continually compared against either an impossible standard (the ratings of the 'just three networks' era) or a ridiculously high standard (the proto-cable era). D.GOOCH

Roy Tucker
10-25-2006, 09:12 AM
Was '75 the year that Bowie Kuhn went to the cold, night WS game in shirtsleaves to show his critics that playing at night in October was just fine, or was that '76? I was thinking '76, but I could be wrong.
It was Game 2 of the 1976 WS.

It was a Sunday night and cold. First WS weekend night game and Bob Howsam was mad about it. Catfish Hunter vs. Jack Billingham. The Reds ran on Mickey Rivers all night. I was there and sat in the last row in CF under the scoreboard. Really lousy seats.

registerthis
10-25-2006, 10:49 AM
Mississippi, Louisiana and North Dakota

One has to wonder, WOY, how you have made it this far without visiting the great state of North Dakota. The tallest manmade structure in the world is there, I believe.

Chip R
10-25-2006, 11:08 AM
Looks like the ratings for game 2 rebounded. And look at the little nugget at the end of the article.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries-ratings&prov=ap&type=lgns

World Series ratings hit record low for opener, rebound for Game 2

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer
October 23, 2006

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Television ratings for the World Series hit a record low for the opener, then rebounded for Game 2.

The St. Louis Cardinals' 7-2 victory over the Detroit Tigers on Saturday night received an 8.0 fast national rating and 15 share, Fox said Monday, down 16 percent from the previous record low for an opener, a 9.5 for last year's 5-3 Chicago White Sox win over the Houston Astros.

Detroit's 3-1 victory in Game 2 on Sunday night got an 11.5/18, up 4 percent from the 11.1 rating for Chicago's 7-6 win in the second game last year.

Overall, that left the first two games averaging a record-low 9.8, down 5 percent from the previous bottom, a 10.3 for the first two games last year.

Fox's 6.5 average rating for the league championship series was down 4 percent from last year's 6.8.

On each of the first two nights of the World Series, Fox won prime time. The Game 1 rating was the highest for Saturday night on any network since the NCAA basketball semifinals on April 1 on CBS. Game 2 was the highest-rated Sunday night on Fox since the NFC Championship on Jan. 22.

Fox finished second in prime time last week for the first time this season, 0.1 behind ABC.

The national rating is the percentage of U.S. television households tuned to a program, and each point represents 1,114,000 homes. The share is the percentage of households watching a broadcast among those homes with televisions in use at the time.

Game 1 got a 41.0 rating in St. Louis and a 32.5 in Detroit, while Game 2 received a 47.5 rating in St. Louis and a 42.9 in Detroit.

Because of perennially low ratings for all Saturday night programming, baseball and Fox are switching the start of the World Series to Tuesday beginning next year.

Johnny Footstool
10-25-2006, 12:16 PM
Because of perennially low ratings for all Saturday night programming, baseball and Fox are switching the start of the World Series to Tuesday beginning next year.

By 2010, Games 1-3 of the World Series will be available via Podcast only.

By 2015, the entire World Series will be played on a remote island and shown at a later date. Teams will sign confidentiality agreements and agree not to reveal the outcome until after the broadcast. "Story editors" will sort through hours of raw footage and add drama, comedy, and a touch of heart to the condensed, 1-hour broadcast versions of the games.

M2
10-25-2006, 12:32 PM
By 2010, Games 1-3 of the World Series will be available via Podcast only.

By 2015, the entire World Series will be played on a remote island and shown at a later date. Teams will sign confidentiality agreements and agree not to reveal the outcome until after the broadcast. "Story editors" will sort through hours of raw footage and add drama, comedy, and a touch of heart to the condensed, 1-hour broadcast versions of the games.

Nah, by 2011, the World Series will be mashed up with the X Games and a Spike TV interactive gaming cartoon called Commander Testosteronie.

Yachtzee
10-25-2006, 03:28 PM
Aside from the aforementioned problem that ESPN and Fox do absolutely nothing during the season to create nationwide interest in Baseball beyond Boston and New York, I have two problems with the MLB playoffs:

1. The added tier of playoffs in the Wildcard era stretches out the season too far into football season. This is the same problem with the NBA and the NHL. You have to wrap that season up before the sports-consuming public consciousness gets too far into the next sport's season. The World Series should be done by mid-October. Whether that means starting the season in March, cutting regular-season games, or scheduling more weekend doubleheaders, I don't know.

2. Cut the length of the games. The easiest, and most unpopular method with advertisers, is cutting commercial time between innings. There is way too much time between each half inning, which means way too much time to change the channel. I propose having breaks of different length between innings. You could shorten the amount of time between most innings, but then lengthen them after the 3rd and 6th innnings, almost like haltime or periods in other sports.

Blimpie
10-26-2006, 12:14 AM
Why wouldn't you let him? Sleep deprivation for kids isn't super terrible, and a good 7 hours would be had. I'd let my kids stay up, like my parents did.It isn't super wonderful either....

oregonred
10-27-2006, 08:04 PM
Outside the two principle cities, this Series is a total yawner other than Kenny-gate and the late innings last night. Little intrigue and the Cards might be the most boring and stale WS team ever for personalities and excitement. The level of baseball being played so far seems more like April then nail riveting October performances.

The cold and lousy weather is another factor. I can't get excited about watching a bunch of bundled up fans/playerrs on a rainy 38 degree night near Nov 1st -- seems to impact the game too much.

I've watched much less of the WS this year than ever before.