User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.5460 seconds
46 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Saturday, May 01, 2010Schulman: I am boycotting ESPN “Sunday Night Baseball” tomorrowI’m sure Zirin will be leading the charg…oh, fluck.
Repoz
Posted: May 01, 2010 at 10:02 PM | 52 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: business, media, mets, red sox, television, yankees |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: Video shows Tony La Russa may have listened to fan in stands before putting pinch runner in
(1 - 12:09pm, Aug 16) Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Newsblog: A’s Promote Shea Langeliers, Release Stephen Piscotty (1 - 12:04pm, Aug 16) Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me Newsblog: Yankees in desperate need of jolt as feeble slide continues to grow concern (9 - 11:58am, Aug 16) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022 (23 - 11:33am, Aug 16) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Sox Therapy: Predictions of Ridiculousness (75 - 11:27am, Aug 16) Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Newsblog: Talking Friars on Twitter: List of Tatis Events (5 - 11:27am, Aug 16) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Newsblog: Eric Hosmer: Fantasy football league back on the rails (4 - 11:02am, Aug 16) Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return (40 - 10:53am, Aug 16) Last: jmurph Newsblog: The AL MVP race is closer than you think (34 - 10:38am, Aug 16) Last: Ithaca2323 Newsblog: Rangers fire manager Chris Woodward in midst of fourth straight losing season (24 - 10:29am, Aug 16) Last: Jaack Hall of Merit: 2023 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (172 - 10:10am, Aug 16) Last: Jaack Newsblog: Fernando Tatis Sr. says 'all of baseball' loses with son suspended 80 games for 'something so insignificant' (1 - 9:38am, Aug 16) Last: ReggieThomasLives Newsblog: Héctor Gómez on Twitter: "The testing on Fernando Tatis Jr. was carried out at the end of March... (1 - 9:35am, Aug 16) Last: ReggieThomasLives Newsblog: Los Angeles Dodgers starter Walker Buehler will have season-ending elbow surgery next week (2 - 9:30am, Aug 16) Last: The Duke Newsblog: Fernando Tatis Jr. offers ridiculous lie as excuse for cheating (17 - 5:37am, Aug 16) Last: John DiFool2 |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.5460 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Crashburn Alley Posted: May 01, 2010 at 10:11 PM (#3519805)Objection
Self-objection to original objection
Original objection anyway
At this point two things are true;
1. Real baseball fans will be annoyed by ESPN's narrowview of MLB
2. ESPN's ratings will be much better because of the same
(Mind you, I like the Phillies. Philly is as close to a hometown as I have in the U.S., and the Phillies are my favorite NL team. I'm just being a devil's advocate on this).
It's funny how irrelevant ESPN has become in the eyes of the non-casual sports fan.
Beyond that, anyone can subscribe to ExtraInnings and watch all the other games they want. Spread out over a season, it's barely a buck a day. Seems to me that this is the ideal solution.
Or is the point only that you want to listen to Miller and Morgan while you're watching the Mariners or the Marlins? Are your own local announcers really that dreadful?
I see no evidence to support this claim.
The problem with this is that for a national game of the week, baseball needs to insist on more than just the Red Sox/Yankees/Mets. Obviously they don't, because IIRC in the last TV contract ESPN wanted fewer restrictions on teams if MLB wanted more money.
Showing the Red Sox/Yankees/Mets so often creates a cycle where people increasingly don't care unless it's those teams and you get a World Series like 2008, which hardly anybody watched despite an incredibly compelling backstory for both teams. 25 years ago that World Series blows the door off Nielsen with its ratings. But it wasn't the Red Sox or Mets so people didn't care.
I hate giving the NFL credit, but they do a little bit of a better job with this. There's still an NFC/AFC East bias towards what is supposed to be relevant according to ESPN, but they seem to do better at featuring good teams no matter where they are.
Right, in South Philly (since I suspect the Phillies are going to be treated as being on par with the Red Sox/Yankees/Mets - East Coast bias and such - at least for this year, and possibly for more, if they keep on being succesful).
Yes.
And it's not just the large home market. The Yankees regular season national broadcasts have better ratings than the local team in many markets, IIRC. Might be true for some other popular teams, too.
This year there has been a few more NL games being shown over here, but the Yankees are in 5 of the next 7 games being shown.
MLB Regular Season 2010 (Live)
FRI 30-Apr 07:00 New York Yankees vs. Baltimore Orioles
SUN 02-May 14:30 Chicago White Sox vs. New York Yankees (Delay)
TUE 04-May 07:00 Baltimore Orioles vs. New York Yankees
FRI 07-May 07:00 Atlanta Braves vs. Washington Nationals
SUN 09-May 10:00 Colorado Rockies vs. Los Angeles Dodgers
MON 10-May 08:00 New York Yankees vs. Boston Red Sox
TUE 11-May 07:00 New York Yankees vs. Detroit Tigers
This sucks.....
Two reasons: (1) The West Coast teams play most of their games when the East Coast is going to bed; the East Coast and Central time zones make up 3/4 of the country, and hence don't know much about those teams. (2) The Chicago teams usually just aren't that good.
I'll bet that as the year goes on, you'll start to see the Rays and the Cardinals on a fairly regular basis, and / or whatever other teams are doing well at the moment. But don't be surprised if more than once or twice their opponents are the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Mets, or the Phillies.
And you're not going to be getting any "affirmative action" teams in there just for the hell of it. This isn't the All-Star game where every team gets represented, and everyone gets to play. They're trying to present the most compelling matchup of the week that the most people will tune into. It's as simple as that.
I'll bet anything that the Nats never would have been scheduled at the start of the season. Teams like that will get on national TV, but they have to earn their way onto it, as the Nats have with their surprising start.
And I'll guarantee that if Strasburg performs as expected when he comes up in June or July, you'll see plenty more of the Nats on ESPN, TBS and Fox.
ESPN has no postseason games.
A-freaking-men. I can understand the business argument, and even concede it. I can also understand the baseball fan's argument and do the same. I just really hate it when people try and justify the former as the latter. The Mets don't disgrace the pixels of my TV twice a week each year because all the other teams in baseball don't have the courage to match their level of play.
I never, EVER watch ESPN or FOX. I buy MLB.tv and watch the games I want to to watch. I refuse to feed the monster if it won't show a team outside of the Yankees/Mets/Sox/Phils quadruplet. ESPN is not entitled to my ratings just because I like to watch baseball, I have options (thankfully) these days.
2000 - Whites Sox win Central
2001 - Both teams have good years, finish 3rd and over .500
2002 - Both teams kinda suck
2003 - Cubs win Central, Sox finish in 2nd place, 4 games back
2004 - Both teams contend till the end of the season, Cubs just miss the Wild Card
2005 - Sox win Central, World Series
2006 - Sox win 90 games, lose tough division
2007 - Cubs win Central
2008 - Cubs win Central, best record in the NL
2009 - Cubs finish 2nd
I'm not seeing "Chicago teams usually not that good."
Is this the same blackout territory as Iowa and Las Vegas?
While I see your point, this is the same kind of thinking that has led to a slew of reality crap on television.
I hate giving the NFL credit, but they do a little bit of a better job with this. There's still an NFC/AFC East bias towards what is supposed to be relevant according to ESPN, but they seem to do better at featuring good teams no matter where they are.
This. I note that no matter who plays in the Super Bowl, the nation essentially treats the day as a holiday.
Then they'll adjust their schedule, which after July 18th is set only 2 or 3 weeks in advance. If the Mets revert to form you won't be seeing much of them after that.
Is it so hard to figure out that that's the same reason for so many nationally televised games involving the teams with the biggest fan bases? Why would ESPN want to carry games that only draw tiny ratings? Do Pirates or Rangers fans spend that much more money than Yankees or Mets fans?
While I see your point, this is the same kind of thinking that has led to a slew of reality crap on television.
Don't blame me, I get my baseball via ExtraInnings and it'd take a hundred bucks an hour to persuade me to watch any "reality" show. I was only defending ESPN's decision from a business POV.
Just as you can see any other team whenever you want, subject only to the 4:00 Saturday blackout rule. If there's ever been a perfect example of the free market offering a solution to a "problem," this is it.
But years ago the Game of The Week was the ONLY non-local game you could watch, and you had to take it or leave it, which is not the case today. Extra Innings on your TV costs $199 a year, which is either $1.10 a day over the course of the season, or 55 cents a day over the course of a year. How much do you spend a year at Starbucks or on junk food?
Agreed, although there is something special about Sunday Night Baseball. It's a great way to start off the work week. Very relaxing and rhythmic in the background, and I love when it's not the Red Sox, so I can half pay attention and enjoy the sounds of the game in the background.
But the Sunday Game of the Week on ESPN is designed to appeal to more than just the hardcore baseball fan who takes advantage of all those packages. It should work to broaden baseball's appeal, not narrow it (with one result of such narrowing being those unappealing matchups in the postseason).
I don't fault ESPN, that much, for thinking about short-term ratings over the bigger picture. But MLB should take the longer term view about the overall health of the sport when it makes a deal with one of its broadcast partners. It should be willing to take less in rights fees for a promise that its partners will do a better job of promoting the league as a whole. The NFL has done that, to a much greater extent. They sell the NFL, not just its marquee teams (and the appeal of those bigger attractions is mostly dependent on their talent, not just where they're located).
Baseball is more likely to remain a local sport than the NFL, a sport where fans follow the hometown nine less extensively than they do the game as a whole. But the league can certainly do a better job than it has at promoting all of baseball, rather than allowing a select few major market clubs to dominate the public consciousness. That has to fall on Bud, and it's been one of his biggest failings as commissioner.
Extra Innings also requires I pay for a box and remote control. I have basic cable wired straight into my TVs. I don't drink coffee and I rarely eat out. I "brown bag" my lunch 99% of the time.
Yes, there are more choices overall. So why should national broadcasts go against that and show the same 2-3 teams the vast majority of the time?
But the Sunday Game of the Week on ESPN is designed to appeal to more than just the hardcore baseball fan who takes advantage of all those packages. It should work to broaden baseball's appeal, not narrow it (with one result of such narrowing being those unappealing matchups in the postseason).
I don't fault ESPN, that much, for thinking about short-term ratings over the bigger picture. But MLB should take the longer term view about the overall health of the sport when it makes a deal with one of its broadcast partners. It should be willing to take less in rights fees for a promise that its partners will do a better job of promoting the league as a whole. The NFL has done that, to a much greater extent. They sell the NFL, not just its marquee teams (and the appeal of those bigger attractions is mostly dependent on their talent, not just where they're located).
That's true, but in the case of the NFL, revenue sharing, free agent restrictions, schedule strength variations based on the prior season's record, and the greater overall importance of the draft make for a far smaller correlation between market size and dynasties. (Hell, the NFL doesn't even need a team in Los Angeles, and who outside of Los Angeles even notices this?) And much of the NFL's appeal is also due to its one game a week schedule and a little thing called gambling.
Baseball is more likely to remain a local sport than the NFL, a sport where fans follow the hometown nine less extensively than they do the game as a whole. But the league can certainly do a better job than it has at promoting all of baseball, rather than allowing a select few major market clubs to dominate the public consciousness. That has to fall on Bud, and it's been one of his biggest failings as commissioner.
That's an entirely different argument, and one I can't really disagree with. But you can might the same argument about late postseason starting times and afternoon World Series games, and the answer always comes back to ratings. As long as the short term beancounters dominate the television discussions, this is pretty much what we're going to get.
------------------
Extra Innings also requires I pay for a box and remote control. I have basic cable wired straight into my TVs. I don't drink coffee and I rarely eat out. I "brown bag" my lunch 99% of the time.
I can't say that I don't admire you for all that, but that does make you part of a small minority among baseball fans.
Yes, there are more choices overall. So why should national broadcasts go against that and show the same 2-3 teams the vast majority of the time?
I'm not saying that they "should" do this, but it does remain the case that the choice is there for anyone who wants to take advantage of it. The fact that you don't choose to exercise this option puts you into the category of the casual fan, and leads us back to the broader question that SoSH raises, that of short term vs. long term thinking.
It's just not as feasible for MLB. The NFL can give a prime time game to Green Bay and Pittsburgh, and football fans will watch to see two good quarterbacks and some other marketable players (Ward, Polamalu, Harrison, Woodson and Harris, Matthews) and maybe even some very good yet not all that marketable players (Aaron Smith, the GB receiving corps) do their thing. (And that's without even getting into the gambling and fantasy football immediacy that will draw passionate eyeballs left and right.) A fan can watch a football game for one player, whether he's a fantasy guy following the third receiver on his team or a hardcore fan watching a very good lineman dominate.
You can market Joe Mauer and Grady Sizemore all you like, nobody's rearranging his weekend schedule to make sure to watch Minnesota and Cleveland. Especially not when there's a fair chance that Sizemore gets a single in four at-bats and Mauer goes 0 for 3 with two walks.
Sure, you can gamble on the NFL. But you can gamble on anything. My understanding is that the sports that really do just exist for gambling (horse racing, greyhounds) are good for that purpose precisely because they are going on all the time. There are baseball games going on every day for half the year - there are NFL games going on once a week for 17 weeks. So if you were looking around for something to gamble on, baseball would seem to make more sense.
"The NFL is popular because you can bet on it" seems a very strange conclusion. Surely "People bet on the NFL because they care about it" makes more sense. Particularly given that the nature of the NFL means that traditional odds-based betting has given way to the spread.
But I admit my ignorance - I don't really approve of gambling, so I don't know much about it.
The ease of non-internet gambling for the past 50 or 60 years has always favored football over baseball. For the very limited time I gambled on both in the mid-70's I could find several bookies to take football bets, but I had to do a lot of asking around to find one who would take any baseball action. The reason was always the same: There just wasn't the interest in baseball compared to football.
Of course if you take it back 80 or 90 years you could find places to bet on baseball and horse racing, and college football pretty much anywhere you looked. Every other bar and pool room had a back room with phone banks and AP ticker tape updates, and you could put down a bet on almost anything you wanted to. Throw in the connections these places always had to the hookers, and it was a great time to be a heterosexual bachelor.
IOW it was sort of like the internet today, plus alcohol.....
Hard-core gamblers will bet on anything, and they like stuff that's going on all the time. But that's not the audience that the NFL appeals to. Dabblers, people who don't follow sports or gamble that often, will gamble on the NFL, because it's easy to follow. They only need to remember to fill out their office pool sheet once a week.
Over the past thirty years or so, gambling has come out of the shadows and become a mainstream industry. It's no coincidence that the popularity of the NFL has risen right alongside that phenomenon.
There was no gambling going on for the NFL draft a couple weeks ago.
The first round had a 5.47 rating for just ESPN. It clobbered the NBA playoffs. It beats MLB cable playoffs numbers.
lolwut
Nice.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main