PDA

View Full Version : Lowest Rated Series...Ever!


IronFisk
10-27-2005, 09:53 PM
WOOO HOOO!!! Another WS record for our Sox!!! (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2005/news/story?id=2206044)

Okay, let me be the first to beat everyone to it...

:whocares

ESPECIALLY when you consider the source!

mrs. hendu
10-27-2005, 09:56 PM
Even the lowest-rated World Series is still World Series. And we won it!!!!!!!! So I agree - who cares?!

Jurr
10-27-2005, 09:58 PM
No ****...who cares? Maybe Fox Sports will drop their World Series coverage and let NBC back in. Costas >>>> Buck

RedFoxSoxFan
10-27-2005, 09:58 PM
boston and ny fans missed out... that was one of the if not the best ws sweep i've ever seen.

then again im kinda young.

chisoxfanatic
10-27-2005, 09:58 PM
WOOO HOOO!!! Another WS record for our Sox!!! (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2005/news/story?id=2206044)

Okay, let me be the first to beat everyone to it...

:whocares

ESPECIALLY when you consider the source!

It may have been higher rated if we had some cowbell Saturday and Sunday. :cool:

IronFisk
10-27-2005, 10:00 PM
It may have been higher rated if we had some cowbell Saturday and Sunday. :cool:

:rolling:

oeo
10-27-2005, 10:03 PM
The casual fan may have not wanted to watch it, but this was one of the best World Series, ever, IMO. I might be biased, but all four games could have went either way and every one of them came down to the last inning. Maybe there wasn't a cute team like the Red Sox, or the infamous Yankees, but there was awesome baseball played.

Flight #24
10-27-2005, 10:05 PM
A) Network ratings are pretty non-comparable from 5-8 years ago to now.

B) Fox coverage is so piss-poor, and they did so little to market the huge positives of this series

C) Media have been bemoaning the fact that this is an uninteresting series because of no "icon" teams for at least 1-2 weeks. Is it therefore surprising that some casual fans didn't come out to watch? Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Regardless, I have yet to come across an intelligent fan, White Sox or other team, who didn't appreciate the beauty and excitement of these 4 games.

whitesoxfan
10-27-2005, 10:09 PM
The casual fan may have not wanted to watch it, but this was one of the best World Series, ever, IMO. I might be biased, but all four games could have went either way and every one of them came down to the last inning. Maybe there wasn't a cute team like the Red Sox, or the infamous Yankees, but there was awesome baseball played.

Game 1 was exciting. Game 2 was awesome. Game 3 was a great game to watch, I could see how it could lose some ratings though since it didn't end until around 2:30 eastern time. Game 4 was also a very close game. I'm trying to be as non-biased as I can, but it was a far more exciting World Series than the last 2 have been.

LongLiveFisk
10-27-2005, 10:13 PM
Well, whoever didn't watch missed out on some exciting baseball and all around great entertainment. Whether they had an interest in either team or not is irrelevant--THEY MISSED OUT.

Screw 'em. The championship is just as valuable regardless of how many people tune in. And it's OURS.

Unregistered
10-27-2005, 10:14 PM
First off, who cares is right. As they were saying on AM1000, why should any of us care how many people were watching in New Mexico or San Francisco?

Meanwhile in Chicago, 3 out of 4 televisions were watching the World Series by Game 4.

Second, it had the lowest national World Series ratings ever, but was the highest rated network program every night it was on, so it's not like people were watching Everyone Loves Raymond instead...

Third, the Sox swept the series, and before people could even notice they were up 2-0. Everyone knows sweeps are death for ratings, because the assumption is that the Series is already over.

Fuller_Schettman
10-27-2005, 10:16 PM
Stickin' it to The Man... cool! :cool:

3rdgensoxfan
10-27-2005, 10:16 PM
I feel bad for the people who missed a great World Series where 6 runs separated the two teams in six games. That sounds like four exciting games to me.

Soxfanspcu11
10-27-2005, 10:21 PM
I have a question here that I hope someone can answer. How do they measure ratings? I know they say it's from Nielson boxes or whatever but I dont know ONE person who has a Nielson box so if that's they case, I don't think they are getting very accurate readings if I know NO ONE who has one??? I've always wondered that, can someone 'splain???


And to address this thread specifically, WHO CARES is the only thing to say about ratings. Does it really matter? I can't even get upset about it, I just don't care about that kind of stuff. The World Series is OURS!!!!

nebraskasox
10-27-2005, 10:39 PM
The media reaps what it sows. Spend half a year questioning a team, saying they're lucky, haven't played anybody yet, etc. and giving them little publicity until they are called "chokers" then predicting their quick demise in the playoffs and it doesn't exactly engender enthusiasm for that team. Constantly play up the immortal Bosox and Yanks and, yah, people will watch.


This was a great series and a great story but nobody wanted to promote it. That's their problem.

TDog
10-27-2005, 10:47 PM
Don't bother to promote the World Series by giving credit to the American League's best team wire to wire and people won't bother to watch. I didn't watch because I don't have television. Other people around the country may have felt that because people in Chicago don't care about the Sox, they shouldn't care either.

People in Chicago watched, though. Three of the games, I think, had higher ratings than the Super Bowl, although I have no idea who played in that.

Hitmen77
10-27-2005, 10:49 PM
This is a misleading story. I believe ratings of events such as the World Series have been trending downward for years (with increases only when NY or Boston plays in the series). How can you compare ratings today - when people have hundreds of channels to choose from - to ratings from 20 or 30 years ago - when there were maybe 4 channels to choose from?

This has nothing to do with the White Sox specifically - even though that's what the media wants to imply. You put LAA and St. Louis in the series and you'd get the same ratings.

HotelWhiteSox
10-27-2005, 10:52 PM
Great points already brought up, but yeah

- It said it averaged more viewers than 02 through 4. The people that don't know baseball orgasm at the sound of "Game 7"

- Again, anyone who knows baseball would've seen that this year's games were better than last years'. Both were sweeps, but these were all close, I was tense on every pitch, could've gone either way. Even if the pitching matchups didn't come exactly as advertised (except for game 4), the late innings depended on bullpens and defense.

- It got more numbers than anything on those nights, so people were watching.

- So one had a great quote in another post in how this is just reflective of how bad a job FOX and ESPN do marketing baseball, focusing only on a couple east coast teams.

- WHO CARES? Everyone in Chicago was either watching or at a local establishment, party, at the games, or the UC, and in the end, no one can take away that the Chicago White Sox are your 2005 CHAMPIONS!

Hendu
10-27-2005, 10:59 PM
Somebody (sorry, can't recall who) said it in another thread: This is MLB's, ESPN's and Fox's fault for focusing so much on the BoSox and Yankees and failing to promote the rest of the league.

They need to realize that Yanks vs Boston match-ups are going to be meaningless when a team like the Jays, O's or...why not...D-Rays put something together and start winning the AL East year after year.

The ratings drop is going to be a trend that continues, as the big national teams are starting to fall off the map talent-wise. I bet they'll love that Brewers-White Sox World Series in '06.

kittle42
10-27-2005, 11:05 PM
Oh, boy. Now Cubs fans have world series ratings *and* attendance figures to hold over our heads.

Man, they'll sting many a Sox fan with those barbs.

ChiSoxRowand
10-27-2005, 11:07 PM
This is a misleading story. I believe ratings of events such as the World Series have been trending downward for years (with increases only when NY or Boston plays in the series). How can you compare ratings today - when people have hundreds of channels to choose from - to ratings from 20 or 30 years ago - when there were maybe 4 channels to choose from?

This has nothing to do with the White Sox specifically - even though that's what the media wants to imply. You put LAA and St. Louis in the series and you'd get the same ratings.

Jesse Rogers was talking about this on the score. Before people barely had any channels to choose from, now look at all the channels. It's tough to compare ratings now to ratings 20 years ago. He also said the 2002 series was the second lowest rated series ever, and that went 7 games and was a great series.

fusillirob1983
10-27-2005, 11:17 PM
My girlfriend is a Cubs fan, and after Game 2, she told me what an exciting game it was, regardless who she wanted to win. I don't think she really had a preference, but she appreciates good baseball when she sees it. She was later giving me a hard time about how low ratings were yesterday. It doesn't matter much to me if she was trying to give me a hard time or not, but I don't think she would disagree that people missed some good baseball games.

Banix12
10-27-2005, 11:38 PM
Increased competition from other channels certainly has something to do with it but as I've been saying the ratings failures just underlie that MLB, FOX and ESPN have just done a poor job of promoting baseball outside of the big money franchises.

I would surmize that the ratings that we saw for this world series is indicitive of the actual amount of real die-hard fans the actual game of baseball has. They realistically can't count on the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, or Dodgers every year so they have to ask themselves, "How can we make Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Houston, White Sox and the other markets interesting enough to reach a Yankee rating level."

I beleive MLB and all the media outlets should start really promoting the game in a positive light. I think a lot of sportswriters and sports networks really concentrate on the negative too much. By which I mean not things like steroids, which are legitimate news stories, but things like declaring the White Sox stink before the playoffs even started.

They see themselves as sports reporters but in reality they are more along the lines of business reporters. Sports is the business the report on and in my opinion they spend far too much time trying to tear it down as opposed to building up the sport. They need to really stop biting the hand that feeds them so much.


Getting the series off FOX would probably help, as I know of nobody who sees their broadcast in a positive light and it is turning baseball into a cartoon, something to think about when the TV deal comes up again.

Deuce
10-27-2005, 11:50 PM
Top two reasons for low ratings:

http://images.zap2it.com/20031020/joebuck_timmccarver_worldseries_240.jpg

Unregistered
10-27-2005, 11:59 PM
The White Sox victory in Game 4 attracted the highest local audience for a television broadcast this year.

An estimated 1,442,000 households in the area saw the Sox make history in Game 4.

The last three games produced three of the top four highest-rated programs in Chicago this year. Only the Super Bowl in February, with a 39.5 rating, did better than Game 3 (38.9) and Game 2 (38.5).

That is really all that matters. :gulp:

spongyfungy
10-28-2005, 01:27 AM
Despite rating so low in comparison to other World Series, the four games of this series were each the highest rated prime-time network programs on their respective nights.

White Sox beat CSI:NY, repeat of Lost, and the "Mommy, you smell different" show.



Next year when we repeat, I guarantee 50% higher ratings

PeteWard
10-28-2005, 02:09 AM
To put ratings in perspective: Britney Spears outsells Mozart.

Popularity does not mean quality. There is no way the Bos-St Lou series was better--it's just that the eastern marketeers went berserk building up the Bos myth--to such an extent that they were celebrating in "Wrigleyville" as if Bos was their own miserable team. I won't beat that dead horse.

Also potential sweeps always hurt ratings. SF_LA, a damn good series too, had similar ratings for the first four games, but ballooned for the last three.

As for the Series being poorly played, with the exception of Game 3, that is bollocks. Houston did not hit well, but why? I think the Sox arms had something to do with that. And there was tons of drama, even in Game 3.

And as someone earlier wrote, if that were Jeter diving into the stands instead of Juan, an ESPN TV movie about it would already be shooting.

MUsoxfan
10-28-2005, 02:28 AM
I bet they'll love that Brewers-White Sox World Series in '06.

I like this better: I bet they'll love that Brewers-White Sox World Series in '06.

:D:

RedHeadPaleHoser
10-28-2005, 07:15 AM
If they're so concerned about their ratings...let the NON East Coast teams handle their own broadcasts...I'd much rather hear Hawk and DJ and Houston's home team do the telecasts than the Fox Assclowns.

1000ml
10-28-2005, 08:49 AM
The media reaps what it sows. Spend half a year questioning a team, saying they're lucky, haven't played anybody yet, etc. and giving them little publicity until they are called "chokers" then predicting their quick demise in the playoffs and it doesn't exactly engender enthusiasm for that team. Constantly play up the immortal Bosox and Yanks and, yah, people will watch.


This was a great series and a great story but nobody wanted to promote it. That's their problem.

Great story in the Herald by Imrem today, basically saying what we all know:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/imrem.asp?id=111671

LuvSox
10-28-2005, 09:48 AM
If the White Sox weren't in the WS I wouldn't have watched either. Why? Because Fox sucks that bad.

MLB needs a divorce from that crappy outfit.

Dick Allen
10-28-2005, 09:58 AM
Even during the World Series, still under the radar.:D: Screw the media.

Railsplitter
10-28-2005, 10:14 AM
A) Network ratings are pretty non-comparable from 5-8 years ago to now.

B) Fox coverage is so piss-poor, and they did so little to market the huge positives of this series

C) Media have been bemoaning the fact that this is an uninteresting series because of no "icon" teams for at least 1-2 weeks. Is it therefore surprising that some casual fans didn't come out to watch? Self-fulfilling prophecy.



Agreed on all three points. As corallaries, I'd like to add
1. All four games still won thier nights, ratingswise.

2. As to the dullard Tim McCarver in the booth. I think I've said it here before, but I didn't realize how dull McCarver was until he stopped working with Al Micheals.
3.) Yeah, more media patronizing of "fly over country"

Fenway
10-28-2005, 10:17 AM
Fox had said all along the one team they feared being in the Series was Houston as the Astros local TV ratings are poor during the season. Throw in the fact that Chicago didn't have a huge rating thanks to Cubs fans not watching and it is what it is.

daveeym
10-28-2005, 10:34 AM
A) Network ratings are pretty non-comparable from 5-8 years ago to now. Not only that I swear I've recently read an article about changes Nielsen has made to their rating calculations. They're supposed to be more accurate but cause the ratings to be lower across the board for everything compared to the old format. The old format would have bumped the series ratings up a couple points I'd imagine.

Fenway
10-28-2005, 10:41 AM
Not only that I swear I've recently read an article about changes Nielsen has made to their rating calculations. They're supposed to be more accurate but cause the ratings to be lower across the board for everything compared to the old format. The old format would have bumped the series ratings up a couple points I'd imagine.


look today we have 200+ cable channels compared to 40-50 10 years ago. When NY is not in it the ratings suffer as that market still close to 10% of the whole pie

hellenicsoxfan
10-28-2005, 01:20 PM
Great story in the Herald by Imrem today, basically saying what we all know:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/imrem.asp?id=111671


This article said almost everything that I wanted to say. With FOX and ESPN shoving the Yankees, Red Sox and Flubs down everyone's throat and pushing the top teams like the Sox and Astros to the last half of Sportcenter and Baseball Tonight, could they really expect high ratings when the Sox and Astros made the World Series. Since the big advertising money is made in the playoffs and World Series, it makes me wonder what kind of idiots are running the asylums there. Seems to me that they'd be much better off giving prime time to the best teams during the season and reap the benefits when the post season arrives rather than blindly promoting their personal favorites.

Fenway
10-28-2005, 03:49 PM
Bill Littlefield from WBUR (NPR Boston ) suggests what the real problem is

Why were the TV ratings for the World Series so awful?

The most popular explanation has been that neither of the two teams
involved captured the imagination of fans outside the areas where those
teams operate. If that's the case, baseball is in trouble, because each
team was intriguing and together they provided all sorts of reasons to
watch the games. Fans should have cared.

My own explanation is that many people who might otherwise have watched the
Series decided not to do so because they have had enough 7th inning
renditions of patriotic songs at a time when singing or even listening to
those songs suggests support for current U.S. foreign policy.

The more likely explanation is that because of late starting times, too
many long commercial interruptions, and too much lallygagging about on the
part of lots of the uniformed personal, the games ran too late for anyone
who has to get up and go to school or work the following day.

Are you listening, baseball?

No, I didn't think so.
http://www.onlyagame.org/


http://www.onlyagame.org/oag_images/oaglogo1.gif (http://www.onlyagame.org/)
http://www.onlyagame.org/oag_images/oaglogo2.gif (http://www.onlyagame.org/)

thepaulbowski
10-28-2005, 04:46 PM
The media has done this to themselves by focusing their coverage on a few teams they like. But, I really don't care. Not only did they get low ratings, but they only got four games...I'm sure this caused Fox to lose money on the deal. Ha....Ha...

cheeses_h_rice
10-28-2005, 05:30 PM
Can't tell you how broken up I am that TV viewers around the nation don't care about the White Sox or Astros. That's just shocking news.

RadioheadRocks
10-28-2005, 08:48 PM
Oh, boy. Now Cubs fans have world series ratings *and* attendance figures to hold over our heads.

Man, they'll sting many a Sox fan with those barbs.


Like someone so eloquently said in another thread, just ask those Cub fans if they'll be raising an attendance banner at Wrigley on Opening Day. That ought to shut them the hell up!!! :bandance:

Hendu
10-28-2005, 10:12 PM
I like this better: I bet they'll love that Brewers-White Sox World Series in '06.

:D:


Yeah, I was torn between using pink or teal. But I figured that the chance of there being a '06 Sox - Brewers World Series was higher than the Fox executives being happy about it....so had to go with teal. :D:

nasox
10-29-2005, 12:03 AM
FOX was terrible. They advertised everything, failed to show views of the field, instead opting for countless, tiring shots of the crowd and fans. Dammit, showcase the actual game. The Scooter thing, Buck sucks, Tim is Dim McCarver, really long commercials and horrible starting times led to this, not the Sox and the Atros.

Honestly, if it were not for the Sox, I couldn't see myself watching every game despite being a huge baseball fan. The commercialization really pisses me off, and the late starting times are the worst. On the East, the game doesn't start until 8:30. Ouch. I know on the west this means it starts at 5:30, but they can live with it. Start the games earlier, dammit.

IowaSox1971
10-29-2005, 03:30 AM
The games start at 8:30 or 8:45 on the East Coast, so when the East Coast doesn't have a team in it, the ratings are going to suffer. People on the East Coast probably aren't going to stay up past midnight almost every night during a work week if the series doesn't involve a team in which they have a rooting interest.

Hendu
10-29-2005, 03:46 AM
FOX was terrible. They advertised everything, failed to show views of the field, instead opting for countless, tiring shots of the crowd and fans. Dammit, showcase the actual game. The Scooter thing, Buck sucks, Tim is Dim McCarver, really long commercials and horrible starting times led to this, not the Sox and the Atros.

Honestly, if it were not for the Sox, I couldn't see myself watching every game despite being a huge baseball fan. The commercialization really pisses me off, and the late starting times are the worst. On the East, the game doesn't start until 8:30. Ouch. I know on the west this means it starts at 5:30, but they can live with it. Start the games earlier, dammit.

Agreed. If it wasn't the Sox, there's no way I would have sat through the 500th promo of House, the (insert any number) promo of Trading Spouses with the screaming "Jesus Warrior," or the 300th promo of Bones.

There's no way I would have been able to stomach Tim McCarver and his buddy Scooter. Or Jeannie Zalasko.

All things considered, I don't blame the rest of the country for tuning out.

Professor
10-29-2005, 07:09 AM
No ****...who cares? Maybe Fox Sports will drop their World Series coverage and let NBC back in. Costas >>>> Buck

I think it should be a law that Costas does the World Series, inless they release some team broadcasters like Rooney, Scully, Uecker. I think Costas is the best non-team affiliated announcer for baseball. Though he admits affinities with the Yankees and Cardinals--but everyone who likes baseball favors a team.

Dancin' Homer
10-29-2005, 07:50 AM
I think it should be a law that Costas does the World Series, inless they release some team broadcasters like Rooney, Scully, Uecker. I think Costas is the best non-team affiliated announcer for baseball. Though he admits affinities with the Yankees and Cardinals--but everyone who likes baseball favors a team.

Are you serious?? That guy is such an arrogant little SOB. He is every bit as patronizing as the GREAT Joe Buck. No thanks. There has to be a new answer out there.

Railsplitter
10-29-2005, 09:20 AM
There's no way I would have been able to stomach Tim McCarver and his buddy Scooter. Or Jeannie Zalasko.



I agree completely!

FarWestChicago
10-29-2005, 12:09 PM
Agreed. If it wasn't the Sox, there's no way I would have sat through the 500th promo of House, the (insert any number) promo of Trading Spouses with the screaming "Jesus Warrior," or the 300th promo of Bones.Doe anybody know when "Prison Break" is on?

itsnotrequired
10-29-2005, 12:10 PM
Doe anybody know when "Prison Break" is on?

I almost remember. If only the series had gone to seven...

Fenway
10-29-2005, 12:13 PM
The games start at 8:30 or 8:45 on the East Coast, so when the East Coast doesn't have a team in it, the ratings are going to suffer. People on the East Coast probably aren't going to stay up past midnight almost every night during a work week if the series doesn't involve a team in which they have a rooting interest.

Boston was still showing a 5.6 rating at 2 AM

MadetoOrta
10-29-2005, 11:40 PM
Isn't MLB in a corner on this issue? If they start games earlier [6 pm CST perhaps] do they lose $ on ad revenue? Is ad revenue based on prime time slots for EST? There must be a reason for the late starts. Of course, the first pitch in Game 4 didn't happen until 7:44 CST. Just start the games on time and leave the pre-game honors to the All-Star game. I'm glad MLB is honoring the Latin American contribution to the game. I didn't need to see A-Rod et al introduced individually before a World Series game. Didn't seem to be the right place.