PDA

View Full Version : Our WS isn't the lowest rated anymore!!!!


Scottiehaswheels
10-25-2006, 09:47 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AviTikSod3iF.J7.CWqBrw0RvLYF?slug=ap-worldseries-ratings&prov=ap&type=lgns Only took a year to drop further.. Hooray

Trav
10-25-2006, 09:53 PM
Surprised? Since 2000 it has dropped further every year with 2004 being the exception.

cheeses_h_rice
10-25-2006, 10:17 PM
B-b-but according to Cub fans, 2005 was the lowest rated ever because the White Sox were in it?

Do you mean to tell me that there might be other, overarching trends concerning increased competition from other sports, video games, the internet, etc. that might factor into it?

:o: <===== teal

oeo
10-25-2006, 10:42 PM
This World Series has been pretty boring. Last year may have not had "big" teams, but there was a lot of drama, and I think a lot of people missed out on some good baseball games. If the Astros could have won a couple, I think it would have changed the whole outlook on it.

This year, there have been two blowouts (one of them a shutout), and one that was almost a shutout. I'm still happy since the Cards are winning, but could we have a comeback or two in the 9th inning, a dramatic grand slam, a walk-off homerun, or a lengthy extra-innings game? I mean, come on. :redneck

C-Dawg
10-25-2006, 10:46 PM
Curses = Big Ratings!

lakeviewsoxfan
10-25-2006, 10:54 PM
Until Fox/ESPN give the casual fan more exposure to the non-media favorites ie. NYY BOS Flubs LAD etc. you will continue to see low ratings. For what its worth I like Mr. Coleman here:whocares

getonbckthr
10-25-2006, 10:58 PM
But Bud said the game is more popular now than ever before?!

23Ventura
10-25-2006, 11:14 PM
Maybe it's just that people have a hard time watching a World Series between a .500 team that made the playoffs only because of their weak division and a team with Kenny Rogers and I-Roid. It sucks that one of these teams is going to win it all.

thomas35forever
10-26-2006, 12:39 AM
I hope it's all small-market teams in the World Series for the next ten years so that Fox can continue to lose ratings and then finally pull the plug on MLB broadcasts.

SOXSINCE'70
10-26-2006, 07:28 AM
According to sCrUBune golf expert Ed Sherman
(this item was in Tuesday's paper,IIRC),
The WS will start on Tuesday night in 2007,not
the customary Saturday night the Series has
started on for the last 21 years.The WS used
to start on Tuesday for many years,but many
of those games were day games.

jdm2662
10-26-2006, 08:46 AM
This is news? Sports across the board have falling ratings, and it has been the entire decade. There are many more options available to people to watch. I've watched about three innings total of the World Series.

Jurr
10-26-2006, 09:07 AM
This is a great barometer as to how low the sports media craze has taken things. I was listening to ESPN Gamenight on the radio, and one of the announcers starts saying, "I don't like this WS because there's no big story lines. No "behind the scenes drama". There's nobody in this series that makes you say, "Can you believe what he did last night? I can't wait to see what he does next game!"

The other guy, God bless him, goes on a rant. "Why does everything have to involve some controversy nowadays? Why do you have to have some numbskull like Terrell Owens running his mouth for you to enjoy watching a well-played sporting event? It's the World Series, for crying out loud. Albert Pujols is one of the best hitters in this generation. If you can't appreciate the game for what it is and not some soap opera, then there's something wrong."

It's true, though. ESPN spends so much time and energy hyping up controversial ballplayers and "their teams" that the causual fan tunes out if they're not being stimulated by those entities on the field. Ridiculous. If Barry Bonds was in the series, everybody would be watching. Why? Not because the guy is one of the best players ever who hasn't won a ring.....No, it would be for the reason that ESPN would be yapping every five minutes about steroid use.

On that note, :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Hitmen77
10-26-2006, 09:57 AM
B-b-but according to Cub fans, 2005 was the lowest rated ever because the White Sox were in it?

Do you mean to tell me that there might be other, overarching trends concerning increased competition from other sports, video games, the internet, etc. that might factor into it?

:o: <===== teal

Yeah, funny how Cub fans cared about World Series ratings only when the team they supposedly don't care about was in it. Losers.

Baby Fisk
10-26-2006, 09:59 AM
The late starts can't be helping. Unless you are a diehard fan of one of the teams, are you really going to stay up until midnight all week?

SoxFan78
10-26-2006, 10:09 AM
"We're going for a World Series title. I'm not worried about the TV ratings," Detroit pitcher Justin Verlander (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7590/) said.

"The ratings are good in Michigan, the ratings are good in St. Louis and they're good in Birmingham, Alabama, that's all I care about."

Even though I hate the tigers, these are some great quotes. Ratings in the home markets are probably through the roof, thats all the Cardinals and Tigers care about.

Maybe if MLB would market their LEAGUE instead of TEAMS, then more people would be watching.

Look at the NFL, they just push their league, they dont play favorites. Their ratings are amazing.

JoeyCora28
10-26-2006, 10:49 AM
If this thing ends up going 6 games (Rogers' "dirt" controversy) or 7 games, the ratings will improve...

palehozenychicty
10-26-2006, 10:55 AM
Look at the NFL, they just push their league, they dont play favorites. Their ratings are amazing.

True, but football is a much easier sell to our society because there are way more players involved in the action. It's a sport tailor-made for television.

MarySwiss
10-26-2006, 11:10 AM
Even though I hate the tigers, these are some great quotes. Ratings in the home markets are probably through the roof, thats all the Cardinals and Tigers care about.

Maybe if MLB would market their LEAGUE instead of TEAMS, then more people would be watching.

Look at the NFL, they just push their league, they dont play favorites. Their ratings are amazing.
You would think so, but according to an article in today's Arizona Republic, a Fox spokesman said that because smaller markets are involved, about 1 million fewer homes from the local teams are tuned in. To me, that makes no sense--why would fewer local homes tune in?--but that's what I read.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/1026wsnb1026.html

SoxFan78
10-26-2006, 11:18 AM
You would think so, but according to an article in today's Arizona Republic, a Fox spokesman said that because smaller markets are involved, about 1 million fewer homes from the local teams are tuned in. To me, that makes no sense--why would fewer local homes tune in?--but that's what I read.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/1026wsnb1026.html

I have read it over and over, and I still don't understand it. 66 and 52 shares in ANY market are great numbers. Maybe he meant that since small markets are playing, then 1 million fewer homes around the nation aren't watching??

nug0hs
10-26-2006, 11:24 AM
I hope it's all small-market teams in the World Series for the next ten years so that Fox can continue to lose ratings and then finally pull the plug on MLB broadcasts.

Why? Do you really want to see the games on ESPN? Imagine how much worse that would be.

thedudeabides
10-26-2006, 11:26 AM
This is a great barometer as to how low the sports media craze has taken things. I was listening to ESPN Gamenight on the radio, and one of the announcers starts saying, "I don't like this WS because there's no big story lines. No "behind the scenes drama". There's nobody in this series that makes you say, "Can you believe what he did last night? I can't wait to see what he does next game!"

The other guy, God bless him, goes on a rant. "Why does everything have to involve some controversy nowadays? Why do you have to have some numbskull like Terrell Owens running his mouth for you to enjoy watching a well-played sporting event? It's the World Series, for crying out loud. Albert Pujols is one of the best hitters in this generation. If you can't appreciate the game for what it is and not some soap opera, then there's something wrong."

It's true, though. ESPN spends so much time and energy hyping up controversial ballplayers and "their teams" that the causual fan tunes out if they're not being stimulated by those entities on the field. Ridiculous. If Barry Bonds was in the series, everybody would be watching. Why? Not because the guy is one of the best players ever who hasn't won a ring.....No, it would be for the reason that ESPN would be yapping every five minutes about steroid use.

On that note, :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

I couldn't agree more. This is also why Fox must love Joe Buck so much. Even if there's no great storyline, he will certainly try to create one.

slavko
10-26-2006, 11:46 AM
I have read it over and over, and I still don't understand it. 66 and 52 shares in ANY market are great numbers. Maybe he meant that since small markets are playing, then 1 million fewer homes around the nation aren't watching??

It's right there. Half of the people in a metro area of 20 million is more than three-fourths of the people in a metro area of 5 million. But, as others smarter than I have said in another thread, the media push the big market teams all year, then act surprised at WS time when there is a lack of interest in all the other teams. MLB needs to hire Columbo to figure this out?

MarySwiss
10-26-2006, 11:51 AM
It's right there. Half of the people in a metro area of 20 million is more than three-fourths of the people in a metro area of 5 million. But, as others smarter than I have said in another thread, the media push the big market teams all year, then act surprised at WS time when there is a lack of interest in all the other teams. MLB needs to hire Columbo to figure this out?

Okay, I get it now. Thanks. But it seemed to read like he was saying that there were 1 million fewer homes watching this World Series in Detroit and St. Louis than would normally be the case. Which would make no sense at all.

Myrtle72
10-26-2006, 11:52 AM
Yeah, funny how Cub fans cared about World Series ratings only when the team they supposedly don't care about was in it. Losers.

Hey, at least we had a World Series to fuss about TV ratings over.

SOXPHILE
10-26-2006, 01:35 PM
So, by Cubs fans logic, this World Series, like 2005, won't count either, because of said low ratings ? Some of the stupidest words I've heard concerning this years World Series, were vomited out of the mouth of somebody who makes a habit of saying dumb/incorrect/arrogant statements- the puss infected sore that is Stephen A. Smith. He let us know that this year's Series isn't interesting or as good, because, "HE'S FROM NEW YOHK ! AND THEY'A AIN'T NO YANKEES OR METS IN IT, SO HE REALLY DON'T CARE !" Then, he asked incredulously "AH ASK YOU ! UNLESS YOU FROM DEE-TROIT OR ST.LOUIS, DO YOU REALLY CARE OR WATCH THIS THANG ?!" Well, brain donor, (and ESPN), yes, I do. Lot of people do. Lots of people don't. But the world doesn't end because (gasp !) there's no New York or Boston in the World Series. Oh, by the way.....

GO CARDINALS

Railsplitter
10-26-2006, 01:35 PM
Why not blame the "talent" Fox puts on the air? The pregame show is twenty minutes longer than it needs to be and has the dull Jeanne Zalaskow on it and is folloed by the dull combination of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

gobears1987
10-26-2006, 01:39 PM
This is news? Sports across the board have falling ratings, and it has been the entire decade. There are many more options available to people to watch. I've watched about three innings total of the World Series.
I'm sure football's ratings are still good.

Iwritecode
10-26-2006, 01:56 PM
I was watching my White Sox DVDs (I don't remember which game but I think it was Game 2 of the World Series) and they were talking about what time the next game would be on.

They kept saying the time in eastern Time and then all of a sudden they said what time it would be on in central time. Paraphrasing (I believe it was Joe Buck) "Central time keeps getting over-looked here but both these teams play in the central time zone."

Duh?!?

MarySwiss
10-26-2006, 02:00 PM
I was watching my White Sox DVDs (I don't remember which game but I think it was Game 2 of the World Series) and they were talking about what time the next game would be on.

They kept saying the time in eastern Time and then all of a sudden they said what time it would be on in central time. Paraphrasing (I believe it was Joe Buck) "Central time keeps getting over-looked here but both these teams play in the central time zone."

Duh?!?
Now there's one of my pet peeves. Would it really kill these guys to say something like "tomorrow's game will be seen at 8 Eastern, 7 Central, 6 Mountain, and 5 Pacific time?" And that would have the added plus of cutting down on the amount of time they'd have to tell one of their boring anecdotes.

mjmcend
10-26-2006, 02:35 PM
I'm sure football's ratings are still good.

Better than baseball, but still not where they used to be. Lost in all of this is the fact that a couple of years ago Neilson changed they way they measured ratings which resulted in a drop across the board in ratings for all TV and not just sports.

mjmcend
10-26-2006, 02:37 PM
Now there's one of my pet peeves. Would it really kill these guys to say something like "tomorrow's game will be seen at 8 Eastern, 7 Central, 6 Mountain, and 5 Pacific time?" And that would have the added plus of cutting down on the amount of time they'd have to tell one of their boring anecdotes.

I think most people have figured out the time zones by now. It would get really annoying hearing that combersome phrase every time they mention the start time.

Chicken Dinner
10-27-2006, 11:02 AM
Why not blame the "talent" Fox puts on the air? The pregame show is twenty minutes longer than it needs to be and has the dull Jeanne Zalaskow on it and is folloed by the dull combination of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

I agree 100%. If the news has bad ratings they change the anchor. FOX just sucks. I hope they lose their asses.

FielderJones
10-27-2006, 11:38 AM
Why? Do you really want to see the games on ESPN? Imagine how much worse that would be.

No, I want to see the games on NBC or ABC or CBS, with some announcers that aren't tools. As mentioned above I'd like to see MLB start marketing their league, instead of letting ESPN and Fox market a few select teams.

I don't know when the current Fox contract expires, but from now until then I'd like to see them lose millions on the playoffs and World Series, and give up the broadcast rights at the end of the contract.

MarySwiss
10-27-2006, 11:52 AM
I think most people have figured out the time zones by now. It would get really annoying hearing that combersome phrase every time they mention the start time.
Point taken. But it gets annoying to always hear the time given as "so-and-so Eastern" as well.

Lip Man 1
10-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Fox and WTBS just got the new deals that run through I think 2011 or 2012.

Lip

kevin57
10-27-2006, 01:02 PM
FOX did start this insanity, but it began with other sports. Basketball was the principal culprit. Games were headlined as "Michael Jordan and the Bulls vs., etc." That can work in basketball, but it is a terrible formula in baseball. So, personalities had to be created. Now, we're left with no excitement except if an A-Rod or some such can be featured.

But I don't think "fans" deserve a complete pass. I've heard radio discussions about the WS ratings and I was amazed/saddened/angered by how many don't care about any other team except their own. I would argue that that person is not a baseball fan.

C-Dawg
10-27-2006, 01:18 PM
I was watching my White Sox DVDs (I don't remember which game but I think it was Game 2 of the World Series) and they were talking about what time the next game would be on.

They kept saying the time in eastern Time and then all of a sudden they said what time it would be on in central time. Paraphrasing (I believe it was Joe Buck) "Central time keeps getting over-looked here but both these teams play in the central time zone."



You're right; I remember him saying that even without going back to the DVDs. I remember being annoyed at the time, thinking "He probably thinks the central time zone is a strange and mythological place, populated by all sorts of bizarre creatures". To him this all just "flyover" territory anyway; it doesn't really count.

Myrtle72
10-27-2006, 01:44 PM
But I don't think "fans" deserve a complete pass. I've heard radio discussions about the WS ratings and I was amazed/saddened/angered by how many don't care about any other team except their own. I would argue that that person is not a baseball fan.

You sound like Tony Lasorda. :cool:

Does anyone know what the highest rated World Series has been in the last 20 years?

jenn2080
10-27-2006, 01:51 PM
You sound like Tony Lasorda. :cool:

Does anyone know what the highest rated World Series has been in the last 20 years?


Yankees. Come on you should know this! :D:

Myrtle72
10-27-2006, 01:55 PM
Yankees. Come on you should know this! :D:

Oh hush, I meant which specific one. :cool:

mrfourni
10-27-2006, 02:54 PM
You're right; I remember him saying that even without going back to the DVDs. I remember being annoyed at the time, thinking "He probably thinks the central time zone is a strange and mythological place, populated by all sorts of bizarre creatures". To him this all just "flyover" territory anyway; it doesn't really count.

Except that Joe Buck was born and raised in ST LOUIS and does pbp for the Cardinals which last time I checked was in the Central time zone

Chicken Dinner
10-27-2006, 02:56 PM
You sound like Tony Lasorda. :cool:

Does anyone know what the highest rated World Series has been in the last 20 years?

You mean Tommy??

PKalltheway
10-28-2006, 02:24 AM
Yankees. Come on you should know this! :D:
Right city, wrong team. The 1986 series was the higest rated in the last 20 years. More info here: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml

PKalltheway
10-28-2006, 02:30 AM
The late starts can't be helping.
IIRC, in Games 3 and 4 of the 1998 World Series in San Diego, the games did not start until 11 pm EST.:o: :o:

Rockman218
10-29-2006, 12:00 PM
It seems like, just because the Yankees and the Red sox aren't in the world series, it's unwatchable now. The world series ratings all depend upon the teams that are in it. Take 2003 for example. The yankees brought all the ratings to the table. The Marlins may have brought 1 million voters at the most.

Myrtle72
10-29-2006, 12:02 PM
You mean Tommy??

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. :redface:

Myrtle72
10-29-2006, 12:03 PM
It seems like, just because the Yankees and the Red sox aren't in the world series, it's unwatchable now. The world series ratings all depend upon the teams that are in it. Take 2003 for example. The yankees brought all the ratings to the table. The Marlins may have brought 1 million voters at the most.

Maybe if the Yankees can stay out of the World Series for a couple of years this will change and people will begin to be interested in other teams, also.

Ol' No. 2
10-29-2006, 12:30 PM
If I didn't care about TV ratings last year, why would I care now? :dunno:

This is like the Cubs fans' attendance argument.

SoxEd
10-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Right city, wrong team. The 1986 series was the higest rated in the last 20 years. More info here: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml

Well, duh!

Of course 1986 got the highest ratings - you got the excitement of a Curse AND the controversy of which team Yankees fans would be following - their traditional-rival Sawx or their crosstown-rival Mets!

It was ESPN's ultimate wet-dream World Series!

EDIT: On reflection, I don't think that that last sentence ought to be in teal.

RadioheadRocks
11-01-2006, 08:24 PM
If I didn't care about TV ratings last year, why would I care now? :dunno:

This is like the Cubs fans' attendance argument.

This is true, but just think of it as one less piece of ammo in their continually evaporating arsenal. :D: