Even with a successful 2012 on the field, the Yankees averaged a 3.92 rating on YES, down 8.3% from 2011 and the network’s lowest Bombers household rating since 2003.

Maybe if they featured more of the game and less of the talk-show at least I'd watch more often. And wasn't 2003 when us cable customers went the whole season without Yankee games?

I really wonder what the TV networks do in the way of market research. These are huge companies presumably with tremendous resources available to them yet they do things; extreme close ups, talk about non-game related items, guests in the booth, etc...that no one seems to like. It seems to me that when I watch old broadcasts the advancements in coverage have been pretty minimal.

If YES experienced this kind of slippage when the team was good, what happens to the ratings if the team goes south?

I believe the league's position on this issue remains, \"#### you, pay me."

It's so that the Yankees can get below the luxury tax long enough so that they can reset the rate, allowing them to freely spend like they have unlimited money with minimal taxes in the 2014-15 offseason when Verlander, King Felix, Chase Headley, Elvis Andrus, etcetra will be on the market.

I really wonder what the TV networks do in the way of market research. These are huge companies presumably with tremendous resources available to them yet they do things; extreme close ups, talk about non-game related items, guests in the booth, etc...that no one seems to like. It seems to me that when I watch old broadcasts the advancements in coverage have been pretty minimal.

I've seen a few of these types of reports, and I can share that the research shows that the vast, vast majority of watchers for the RSNs are die-hard fans - there's little casual viewership. So as long as the RSN is the exclusive broadcaster of the game and does a vaguely decent job at it, they can do features and packages as much as they want without jeopardizing anything.

YES, for instance, would have to do a much, much worse job to drive me away if they're the only Yankees game in town.

Wow if they got those 4 guys for 85 million a year they would have a hell of a team.

I've seen a few of these types of reports, and I can share that the research shows that the vast, vast majority of watchers for the RSNs are die-hard fans - there's little casual viewership.

This is interesting because it's the opposite of what I expected the easy answer to Jose's musings to be - that his 'no one seems to like' statement simply showed a selection bias in the data, because anyone likely to discuss their opinions of an RSN's baseball coverage on bbtf.org is likely to be much more interested in the actual baseball (and as much of it as possible) than in any of the ancillary stuff.

That said,

So as long as the RSN is the exclusive broadcaster of the game and does a vaguely decent job at it, they can do features and packages as much as they want without jeopardizing anything.

..is clearly the case as well.

The bad news about this from the RSN perspective is that there's a predictable ceiling on their viewership. No matter how expensive the productions or innovative the coverage, it's unlikely that many more people will actually watch.