PDA

View Full Version : FOX seems pleased with ratings for World Series


Fenway
11-02-2010, 04:18 PM
http://www.fangsbites.com/2010/11/fox-seems-pleased-with-its-world-series.html


of note

This year’s five-game series extends the current streak of World Series without a Game 7 to an unprecedented eight years. Prior to the current streak, 37% of all best-of-seven World Series had gone to a Game 7.

doublem23
11-02-2010, 04:31 PM
This year’s five-game series extends the current streak of World Series without a Game 7 to an unprecedented eight years. Prior to the current streak, 37% of all best-of-seven World Series had gone to a Game 7.

I think this is a direct result of the wildcard system which has diluted the World Series since its existence. No offense to the Rangers or Giants, but neither team was the best in their league over the course of the season and neither likely would have sniffed a postseason berth or pennant under the old rules that governed baseball through its first 69 (or whatever) seasons.

Not having the best teams representing their leagues produces these uneven matchups, and while this one seemed pretty even on paper, there have been numerous mathcups over the past 8 years that were obvious mismatches from the moment the LCS round was over.

Plus, throw in all the travel days and off days and you disrupt the flow of the game even further. Hopefully the reduction in days next year will help even things out a bit.

JermaineDye05
11-02-2010, 04:34 PM
I had a feeling the series would get good enough ratings given the fact that there were no Yankees and Phillies again. Plus the pitching matchups were just amazing.

Fenway
11-02-2010, 05:16 PM
I think that is part of it.

Looking back

03 Marlins caught fire in NLCS and NYY was exhausted from 7 game war with Boston.

04 nothing would stop Boston after comeback vs NYY

05 White Sox were clearly better

06 long layoff doomed Tigers as they waited for NL to finish

07 Colorado just couldn't keep it going.

08 weather in Philly made the Series a farce

09 NYY was simply better.


I think this is a direct result of the wildcard system which has diluted the World Series since its existence. No offense to the Rangers or Giants, but neither team was the best in their league over the course of the season and neither likely would have sniffed a postseason berth or pennant under the old rules that governed baseball through its first 69 (or whatever) seasons.

Not having the best teams representing their leagues produces these uneven matchups, and while this one seemed pretty even on paper, there have been numerous mathcups over the past 8 years that were obvious mismatches from the moment the LCS round was over.

Plus, throw in all the travel days and off days and you disrupt the flow of the game even further. Hopefully the reduction in days next year will help even things out a bit.

Fenway
11-02-2010, 05:35 PM
FOX took a big hit as the local affiliate in the Bay Area is not owned by them so they didn't get the local ad sales into the News Corp ledger. FOX was the first network to figure out how important local sales were and that is how they outbid CBS for the NFL.

MLB should be concerned that the NFL beat them on Sunday. In years past the NFL has ducked the series but this year they didn't

WhiteSoxFTW
11-03-2010, 10:27 AM
FOX took a big hit as the local affiliate in the Bay Area is not owned by them so they didn't get the local ad sales into the News Corp ledger. FOX was the first network to figure out how important local sales were and that is how they outbid CBS for the NFL.

MLB should be concerned that the NFL beat them on Sunday. In years past the NFL has ducked the series but this year they didn't

Game 5 beat Monday Night Football, though.

I am honestly not surprised at the low ratings. In this day and age, there is just far too many entertainment options for the average person to consume. There are something like 500+ reality shows on television, there are hundreds more channels than even 5-10 years ago. We have youtube and internet video games and DVRs. You get my point.

Add that to the fact that when baseball goes this far into the football season, people just lose interest. Fantasy Football is HUGE. Betting on pro and college football is HUGE. Like it or not, a big part of viewership of pro sports are gamblers. There are just not as many baseball gamblers as football.

Fenway
11-03-2010, 10:44 AM
Super Bowl stays strong even with 500 channels and gambling is a huge part of that as it seems like everybody buys a square for the game.

MLB needs to do something drastic such as playing World Series games at 4 PM Eastern on weekends.Games ending at Midnight on the east coast is just killing national interest.

Weeknights start the games at 7 Eastern as well. The west coast is used to early starts so it isn't a big deal.



Game 5 beat Monday Night Football, though.

I am honestly not surprised at the low ratings. In this day and age, there is just far too many entertainment options for the average person to consume. There are something like 500+ reality shows on television, there are hundreds more channels than even 5-10 years ago. We have youtube and internet video games and DVRs. You get my point.

Add that to the fact that when baseball goes this far into the football season, people just lose interest. Fantasy Football is HUGE. Betting on pro and college football is HUGE. Like it or not, a big part of viewership of pro sports are gamblers. There are just not as many baseball gamblers as football.

Sam Spade
11-03-2010, 10:49 AM
The Superbowl being exactly one night is what makes it so popular. People seem to suggest its comparable to the World series because they are both sports.

The Superbowl is a single event. No prior interest is necessary to enjoy it. The same can't be said for game 5 of the world series. And game one of the world series isn't comparable either, because it doesn't matter too much who wins game one.

WhiteSoxFTW
11-03-2010, 11:04 AM
The Superbowl being exactly one night is what makes it so popular. People seem to suggest its comparable to the World series because they are both sports.

The Superbowl is a single event. No prior interest is necessary to enjoy it. The same can't be said for game 5 of the world series. And game one of the world series isn't comparable either, because it doesn't matter too much who wins game one.

Also, the Super Bowl over the years has become WAY more than just about a game. It's about a PARTY. It's about commercials. It's about points squares. It's about gambling.

And you are right, a 1 game championship is much different than a 7-game series. And the quote I highlighted I believe is very true. I haven't heard someone put it quite so simply, but I think you are spot-on with that comment.

ewokpelts
11-03-2010, 11:18 AM
Super Bowl stays strong even with 500 channels and gambling is a huge part of that as it seems like everybody buys a square for the game.

MLB needs to do something drastic such as playing World Series games at 4 PM Eastern on weekends.Games ending at Midnight on the east coast is just killing national interest.

Weeknights start the games at 7 Eastern as well. The west coast is used to early starts so it isn't a big deal.fox WONT break up it's football doubleheader on sunday for world series. you need mlb OFF fox to do that.

WhiteSoxFTW
11-03-2010, 11:36 AM
fox WONT break up it's football doubleheader on sunday for world series. you need mlb OFF fox to do that.

Plus FOX needs to get rid of Tim McCarver first off. I don't like Joe Buck either, but if one has to go, it's McCarver. He's awful.

Fenway
11-03-2010, 01:56 PM
fox WONT break up it's football doubleheader on sunday for world series. you need mlb OFF fox to do that.

NBC used to do it with the NFL with NO problem same as CBS did/does with the US Open in tennis

ewokpelts
11-03-2010, 02:16 PM
NBC used to do it with the NFL with NO problem same as CBS did/does with the US Open in tennisfox is too depenant on football ratings, as they have a weaker overall lineup. hence why they wouldnt schedule game 4 any earlier than 7 central.

nbc would be a better partner for mlb, as they have sunday night football. so a 1 or even 2pm start cebtral time would be mor ethan enough time to steer clear of a SNF game.

saturday would be rough, but an early evening game isnt bad either.

downstairs
11-03-2010, 06:05 PM
fox is too depenant on football ratings, as they have a weaker overall lineup. hence why they wouldnt schedule game 4 any earlier than 7 central.

nbc would be a better partner for mlb, as they have sunday night football. so a 1 or even 2pm start cebtral time would be mor ethan enough time to steer clear of a SNF game.

saturday would be rough, but an early evening game isnt bad either.

Correct, at least in my opinion. The NFL is arguably FOX's biggest program. It means everything to them, and comes above everything else.

AZChiSoxFan
11-03-2010, 07:49 PM
Game 5 beat Monday Night Football, though.

I am honestly not surprised at the low ratings. In this day and age, there is just far too many entertainment options for the average person to consume. There are something like 500+ reality shows on television, there are hundreds more channels than even 5-10 years ago. We have youtube and internet video games and DVRs. You get my point.

Add that to the fact that when baseball goes this far into the football season, people just lose interest. Fantasy Football is HUGE. Betting on pro and college football is HUGE. Like it or not, a big part of viewership of pro sports are gamblers. There are just not as many baseball gamblers as football.

Gee, it's funny that I didn't read this is my local paper. Seems every time that the NFL beats the MLB in ratings, I read it everywhere. Yet, when MLB won, nobody bothered to write about it. What a joke.

Can anyone comment on WS ratings vs. those for the NBA finals?

I realize that WS ratings are down, but it seems that, NFL aside, ratings for all other sports and tv shows are down. Yet, we don't get all the articles about what's wrong with the NHL, NBA, this TV show or that one, like we see about MLB.

AZChiSoxFan
11-03-2010, 07:53 PM
Plus FOX needs to get rid of Tim McCarver first off. I don't like Joe Buck either, but if one has to go, it's McCarver. He's awful.

Totally disagree. I realize it's become quite fashionable to bash McCarver but his analysis is usually spot on. Just like in game 5 the other night when he suggested that the Rangers pitch around Renteria and take their chances with Rowand. The guy knows his stuff.

RadioheadRocks
11-04-2010, 12:21 AM
Totally disagree. I realize it's become quite fashionable to bash McCarver but his analysis is usually spot on. Just like in game 5 the other night when he suggested that the Rangers pitch around Renteria and take their chances with Rowand. The guy knows his stuff.


You mean the "post-season inexperienced" Rowand??? :rolleyes:

Any credibility from his anaylsis flew out the window when he said that. Funny how an integral part of the '05 World Series Championship White Sox is suddenly "post-season inexperienced". Lest we forget McCarver's constant whining about Rowand not advancing to third on that play in Game #2 of the Series (even well after it was all a moot point when Rowand eventually scored).


Sorry but McCarver is a tool and I have a 2005 World Series DVD box set to prove it. Case closed.

PatK
11-04-2010, 12:36 PM
Totally disagree. I realize it's become quite fashionable to bash McCarver but his analysis is usually spot on. Just like in game 5 the other night when he suggested that the Rangers pitch around Renteria and take their chances with Rowand. The guy knows his stuff.

It's pretty easy to be spot on when stating the obvious.

ewokpelts
11-04-2010, 12:40 PM
Gee, it's funny that I didn't read this is my local paper. Seems every time that the NFL beats the MLB in ratings, I read it everywhere. Yet, when MLB won, nobody bothered to write about it. What a joke.

Can anyone comment on WS ratings vs. those for the NBA finals?

I realize that WS ratings are down, but it seems that, NFL aside, ratings for all other sports and tv shows are down. Yet, we don't get all the articles about what's wrong with the NHL, NBA, this TV show or that one, like we see about MLB.the 2005 white sox world series sweep had more viewers than the 2010 blackhawks 6 game win over the flyers in the stanley cup. and the 2010 stanley cup finals was among the highest rated ever.

oh, and the 2005 WS ratings were the worst ever at that point in time.

mrfourni
11-04-2010, 12:50 PM
Can anyone comment on WS ratings vs. those for the NBA finals?

.

I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that a Lakers-Celtics 7 game NBA finals would have better ratings than the World Series.

ewokpelts
11-04-2010, 01:40 PM
I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that a Lakers-Celtics 7 game NBA finals would have better ratings than the World Series.the nba has had ****ty finals ratings since jordan stopped playing in them.

Fenway
11-04-2010, 01:52 PM
A Boston area media blogger rates the MLB national announcers

I think it is a fair list

http://www.fangsbites.com/2010/11/2nd-annual-fangs-bites-mlb-tv-awards.html

AZChiSoxFan
11-07-2010, 12:50 AM
It's pretty easy to be spot on when stating the obvious.

If it was so obvious, why didn't the Rangers do it?

Was it also obvious that the Yankees shouldn't have played the infield in when Gonzo got the WS winning hit in game 7 of the 2001 WS? No, conventional wisdom says to play the infield in in that situation, so that's what Torre did. However, McCarver pointed out that vs. lefties, Rivera gets a lot of bloopers to the back of the infield and that the Yanks might want to consider playing Gonzo straight up. One pitch later, Gonzo hits a floater that lands at the edge of the dirt and the Dbacks win it.

AZChiSoxFan
11-07-2010, 12:51 AM
You mean the "post-season inexperienced" Rowand??? :rolleyes:

Any credibility from his anaylsis flew out the window when he said that. Funny how an integral part of the '05 World Series Championship White Sox is suddenly "post-season inexperienced". Lest we forget McCarver's constant whining about Rowand not advancing to third on that play in Game #2 of the Series (even well after it was all a moot point when Rowand eventually scored).


Sorry but McCarver is a tool and I have a 2005 World Series DVD box set to prove it. Case closed.

So all of the times he's correct are overshadowed by this one point above?

Yeah, case closed for sure. :rolleyes:

TommyJohn
11-07-2010, 02:32 AM
the 2005 white sox world series sweep had more viewers than the 2010 blackhawks 6 game win over the flyers in the stanley cup. and the 2010 stanley cup finals was among the highest rated ever.

oh, and the 2005 WS ratings were the worst ever at that point in time.

And yet we heard in the Chicago media that the Blackhawks title "meant more" because "more people cared" about them than about the White Sox.

RadioheadRocks
11-07-2010, 04:28 AM
So all of the times he's correct are overshadowed by this one point above?

Yeah, case closed for sure. :rolleyes:

Actually I mentioned more than one point in my post, and those are just the tip of the idiot iceberg (feel free to peruse www.shutuptimmccarver.com (http://www.shutuptimmccarver.com) sometime), but hey keep on rocking in the free world...

C-Dawg
11-08-2010, 10:07 AM
oh, and the 2005 WS ratings were the worst ever at that point in time.

There are some in this city who believe that's still the case, even five years later. Too bad the media here does little to prove otherwise.

In NY they made no bones that the ratings would be bad.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/will_anyone_watch_the_world_series_KtImAys5teEwkN5 JfJcvaL

ewokpelts
11-08-2010, 11:59 AM
And yet we heard in the Chicago media that the Blackhawks title "meant more" because "more people cared" about them than about the White Sox.replace "people" with "cubs fans" and that is the shocking truth about the new blackhawks fans.