Beyon the general ridiculous of the idea, the issue isn't the favorable big-market matchups in recent NBA finals, or even the relatively higher star power in the sport of basketball, but the fact that the NBA finals air during the deadest TV time of the year and the World Series faces off against the heart of the new broadcast season. Obviously that doesn't matter if I'm a fan of the teams involved, but I'm a heck of a lot less likely to watch a World Series involving outside market teams if it's up against a new episode of a show I like.

You'll never be able to convince the simpletons, that ratings isn't the end all of the conversation.

For the record, it's nice that Craig doesn't fall into the trap and does a good job of explaining why it's not a good idea to look at the ratings etc.

(again the first comment from the link reminds me how much I like it here.....The idiot that thinks that NHL would have surpassed the NBA without the lockouts, is reason enough to have stopped reading the comments)

It's TV ratings for a 7 game series at the end of a long season. That's how little people are based their ill-informed, stupid hysteria/rabble-rousing on.

Local TV ratings are up something like 20%.

I can't tell if that first comment in on Hardball Talk is racist, or just buffoonery.

Baseball has been dying longer than radio has.

Baseball has been dying longer than radio has.

Baseball: Dying since 1846 (give or take).

I can't tell if that first comment in on Hardball Talk is racist, or just buffoonery.

It's all coded, just another version of "those lazy bums don't play defense in the NBA!". Never-mind that watching the Heat or Bulls play team defense is an exercise in iron discipline and unbridled effort and athleticism. Watch how hard guys hedge every screen, contest every shot, rotate in unison, etc. There are NBA defenses that put the synchronicity in other team sports to shame.

Baseball will never ever have the transcendent 99% Q rating stars of the NBA because stars in baseball just don't matter as much as starts in basketball. Yea Mike Trout is awesome, but his impact on his team is nothing compared to Lebron James' or Kevin Durant's. Mike Trout doesn't make anyone else better but an NBA superstar makes everyone's role on the team easier.

I can't tell if that first comment in on Hardball Talk is racist, or just buffoonery.

I'm fairly certain it's both.

I'm fairly certain it's both.

A fair point. I should have specified that I can't tell if its buffoonery, or racist buffoonery.

So I just had to read the comments on that article...

"who cares? as long as American sports networks aren’t showing cricket, does it really matter? I like basketball, baseball, football, hockey and yes even soccer. Just enjoy them all!"

That's hilarious

(again the first comment from the link reminds me how much I like it here.....The idiot that thinks that NHL would have surpassed the NBA without the lockouts, is reason enough to have stopped reading the comments)

I can't tell if that first comment in on Hardball Talk is racist, or just buffoonery.

And the response to that comment is "Thank god Oklahoma City has such a massive black population then," which made me chuckle for a second, but then (like a good suspicious Primate) I did the research and found that Oklahoma City's black population is a not-small 15% of about 600,000 people. It's "blacker" than Sacramento, Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, Portland, or Salt Lake City (not to mention Seattle), and about the same as Minneapolis-St. Paul.

The Hispanic population of OKC is another 17%, though there's some crossover. So Oklahoma City is hardly the lily-white reserve many people associate with the "flyover states." White non-Hispanics made up only 56.7% of the city population in 2011.

So the first commenter was racist, but the second commenter was uninformed.

Hispanic population of OKC is another 17%, though there's some crossover. So Oklahoma City is hardly the lily-white reserve many people associate with the "flyover states."

I think the problem here is with any such association. The cities of the flyover states (except maybe SLC, for obvious reasons) don't tend to be more lily white than those more progressive coastal cities.* Sure, the rural areas are that way, but that's the case everywhere except the Deep South, which may or may not be considered flyover country, but it sure isn't being claimed by the coastal types.

* Spoken as an East Coast-born transplant to the Midwest who's fiercely protective of flyover country living.

Sure, the rural areas are that way, but that's the case everywhere except the Deep South, which may or may not be considered flyover country, but it sure isn't being claimed by the coastal types.

The south west is pretty Hispanic in the country. The parts I've been through, at least (California, Arizon, New Mexico).

It's "blacker" than Sacramento, Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, Portland, or Salt Lake City (not to mention Seattle), and about the same as Minneapolis-St. Paul.

I didn't look this one up originally, but OKC is also "blacker" than the city of Los Angeles (9.6%).

Shorten the damn games. It's really just that simple.

And the response to that comment is "Thank god Oklahoma City has such a massive black population then," which made me chuckle for a second, but then (like a good suspicious Primate) I did the research and found that Oklahoma City's black population is a not-small 15% of about 600,000 people. It's "blacker" than Sacramento, Denver, San Antonio, Phoenix, Portland, or Salt Lake City (not to mention Seattle), and about the same as Minneapolis-St. Paul.

I lived in Oklahoma City for a couple of years (2001-2004); great town. Funny story though, when I was trying to buy a house (and freaking out about spending $65K on a 3 BR with a half acre yard, lol) I found a house that I thought I would really like; when I asked to view it, the massively obese, wheezing realtor turns to me and says "son, you just oughta know, that house is in a MIXED neighborhood".

I don't know, something about the complete sincerity and the blatancy of the racism, coupled with the randomness of it (he'd shown no propensity beforehand) struck me as endearingly anochronistic. I wanted to pat him on the head.

Thats called Steering, and it's illegal of course.

Thats called Steering, and it's illegal of course.

Of course it is, and should be. On the other hand, if it actually impacts the value of the property, that's an interesting ethical dilemma. If the realtor shows you a property that's underpriced because of the racial mix of the nieghborhood, and you say, "I'm interested, but the price is unbelievable. What's wrong with the place?" Is the realtor obligated to or prohibited from answering truthfully?

Is the realtor obligated to or prohibited from answering truthfully?

I don't know, but if you do the research based on publicly available demographic data and decide not to buy the house, the Thought Police will immediately throw you in jail. Unpopular opinions and individual choice are prohibited.

My realtor said up front: I'm not allowed to say that a neighborhood is a "good" neighborhood or a "bad" neighborhood, or anything like that. But Starbucks franchises are very meticulous about what areas and neighborhoods they will open in, and there's nothing wrong with speculating about whether a Starbucks would open nearby. So I will tell you whether I think a certain area is a "Starbucks" neighborhood or not.

So she completely circumvented the issue of steering by using euphemisms for good and bad. Voila! Problem solved and everyone is happy! I found it incredibly hilarious that she considered this acceptable.

My wife and I bought a 4/3 house on a large lot in a great neighborhood in Kensington, MD in 1991 for $229,000, when a comparable house on the other side of the town would have been just under $300,000. We didn't need a realtor to tell us that the fact that the house was two blocks away from the third lowest rated high school in the county was the reason for the great bulk of the $70,000 difference; it's just one of those things that everyone knows and factors into the equation.

It's kind of a tautology, isn't it? When you wonder why a house of a certain size and quality is cheaper or more expensive than elsewhere, it's invariably because houses of all sizes and qualities in that location are cheaper or more expensive than elsewhere. There can be any number of factors at work there. A house in North Dallas is going to be several times cheaper than the same house in Manhasset. A house in Harlem is going to be several times more expensive than a comparable house in Detroit. As Andy says, fill in the factors yourself; there's no need for the Realtor™ to do anything but cite the quite public facts about local property values.

Of course it is, and should be. On the other hand, if it actually impacts the value of the property, that's an interesting ethical dilemma. If the realtor shows you a property that's underpriced because of the racial mix of the nieghborhood, and you say, "I'm interested, but the price is unbelievable. What's wrong with the place?" Is the realtor obligated to or prohibited from answering truthfully?

The ethics of real estate are an interesting question. One of my mother's former co-workers once had a client who had no sense of smell (he'd suffered some kind of head trauma, I believe) who wanted to buy a house downwind from the sewage treatment plant.

She did explain the issue to him, and he got what was I suppose from his perspective a hell of a deal.

If the realtor shows you a property that's underpriced because of the racial mix of the neighborhood, and you say, "I'm interested, but the price is unbelievable. What's wrong with the place?" Is the realtor obligated to or prohibited from answering truthfully?

I can't speak for other markets, but in Pittsburgh most of the neighborhoods where that subject might come up have flaws that are more important and visible, like a high crime rate or really crappy schools or the much-loathed city occupancy tax. So you can talk about that stuff and never even need to get into the issue of what color the neighbors are.

In other cities, are there really neighborhoods with good infrastructure and statistical indicators, but the housing prices are suppressed by the fact that there are middle- or upper-class minorities living there? That's bizarre.

In other cities, are there really neighborhoods with good infrastructure and statistical indicators, but the housing prices are suppressed by the fact that there are middle- or upper-class minorities living there? That's bizarre.

This must be the case during an early stage of "white flight." But all I ever see is gentrification.

In other cities, are there really neighborhoods with good infrastructure and statistical indicators, but the housing prices are suppressed by the fact that there are middle- or upper-class minorities living there? That's bizarre.

This must be the case during an early stage of "white flight." But all I ever see is gentrification.

I think white-flight is rarely caused by middle- or upper-middle class minorities buying houses in a neighborhood. Nobody is Scardsdale freaks out if a black Lawyer buys a house.

I think it's more typical that owners start renting properties (particularly ones that have not been well maintained) to people of a lower demographic than the existing neighborhood.

My real estate agent in Durham did a bit of steering. I forget what euphemism she used. She was African-American.