PDA

View Full Version : MLB concedes Rockies-DBacks ratings stink


Fenway
10-15-2007, 10:11 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/sports/baseball/15rockies.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/sports/baseball/15rockies.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)


Although DuPuy said ratings for the first round of playoffs were strong, he said the audience size for the first two games of the N.L.C.S. had not been as good.

“So far, they have not measured up,” DuPuy said, adding that accurate figures would not be available until Monday.
Part of the reason for low ratings, he said, was “these are two young teams the nation doesn’t know that much about yet.”

“We’re hoping if this were to be a long series, the ratings would grow with the story line,” he said
DuPuy played down the idea that the games’ being broadcast on cable was an issue, saying, about “93 percent or 94 percent” of the nation had access to cable television.


DuPuy is truly an idiot.

Of course games being on cable is an issue. There is a reason that the most watched telecasts of the year are all on broadcast.

93-94% of US homes have ACCESS to cable but it doesn't mean they have it. Many seniors can only afford "basic" which is just the broadcast channels and local access.


Last season ONE game on cable cracked the Top 100 program list and it was a ESPN Monday Night game ( it doesn't say which one )

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/ViewerTrack/FullSeason/06-07-season-hh.asp (http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/ViewerTrack/FullSeason/06-07-season-hh.asp)

Tonight they are starting Game 4 in Denver after 10 PM in the East. That is insanity....Boston/Cleveland should have started at 4 in the east and then the game in Denver at 8. But Fox doesn't want to lose the money their local stations make running news, Seinfeld and Simpsons reruns.

Saturday night in Boston was ridiculous. The game ended at 1:37 AM and you had thousands desperately looking for a cab because the subway had closed...and even without a ballgame trying to find a cab on a Saturday night in Boston at 2 AM is next to impossible.

palehozenychicty
10-15-2007, 10:17 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/sports/baseball/15rockies.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/sports/baseball/15rockies.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)



DuPuy is truly an idiot.

Of course games being on cable is an issue. There is a reason that the most watched telecasts of the year are all on broadcast.

93-94% of US homes have ACCESS to cable but it doesn't mean they have it. Many seniors can only afford "basic" which is just the broadcast channels and local access.


Last season ONE game on cable cracked the Top 100 program list and it was a ESPN Monday Night game ( it doesn't say which one )

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/ViewerTrack/FullSeason/06-07-season-hh.asp (http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/ViewerTrack/FullSeason/06-07-season-hh.asp)

Tonight they are starting Game 4 in Denver after 10 PM in the East. That is insanity....Boston/Cleveland should have started at 4 in the east and then the game in Denver at 8. But Fox doesn't want to lose the money their local stations make running news, Seinfeld and Simpsons reruns.

Saturday night in Boston was ridiculous. The game ended at 1:37 AM and you had thousands desperately looking for a cab because the subway had closed...and even without a ballgame trying to find a cab on a Saturday night in Boston at 2 AM is next to impossible.


That's just ONE caveat, and then the fact that they made no effort to stop that game in Denver yesterday was embarrassing as well. It was pouring, and the groundscrew were unbelievable. Nevertheless, people had to be soaked to the bone. Shame on MLB, and they wonder why people don't care about baseball anymore.

SBSoxFan
10-15-2007, 10:20 AM
That's just ONE caveat, and then the fact that they made no effort to stop that game in Denver yesterday was embarrassing as well. It was pouring, and the groundscrew were unbelievable. Nevertheless, people had to be soaked to the bone. Shame on MLB, and they wonder why people don't care about baseball anymore.

It's hard to care if you can't see it. As Fenway said, games starting after 10 p.m. eastern? :rolleyes: Only cable broadcasting the NLCS? :rolleyes: Low-scoring, 9-inning games lasting over 3 hours? :rolleyes:

palehozenychicty
10-15-2007, 10:25 AM
It's hard to care if you can't see it. As Fenway said, games starting after 10 p.m. eastern? :rolleyes: Only cable broadcasting the NLCS? :rolleyes: Low-scoring, 9-inning games lasting over 3 hours? :rolleyes:

Exactly. It's just baffling that they can't understand all of these things.

voodoochile
10-15-2007, 10:28 AM
That's just ONE caveat, and then the fact that they made no effort to stop that game in Denver yesterday was embarrassing as well. It was pouring, and the groundscrew were unbelievable. Nevertheless, people had to be soaked to the bone. Shame on MLB, and they wonder why people don't care about baseball anymore.

Hard to make that case when MLB set another attendance record this season.

I agree the times and the horrific coverage given to teams east (edit: whoops, obviously I meant west) of the Mississippi by ESPN are major factors. Until MLB finds a way to promote all of their product nationally, things like this are going to be a factor.

palehozenychicty
10-15-2007, 10:35 AM
Hard to make that case when MLB set another attendance record this season.

I agree the times and the horrific coverage given to teams east of the Mississippi by ESPN are major factors. Until MLB finds a way to promote all of their product nationally, things like this are going to be a factor.

Yes, people are attending. It's the coverage and promotion that is awful.

Jerko
10-15-2007, 10:36 AM
MLB hasn't had the best track record lately, but exactly what time should games in the Western time zone start? If I lived in Arizona I would not want playoff games starting at 5:00 local time. Maybe we should have the entire country under one time zone? ***....... If ratings are the only thing we care about just get rid of every team but Boston and New York. They can play 162 games against each other, than a best of 3, then 2 best of 7s. Everybody can be happy that way then.

Fenway
10-15-2007, 10:40 AM
Exactly. It's just baffling that they can't understand all of these things.

First of all the fact is almost 70% of the US lives in the eastern and central time zones. When you have games ending at close to 2 AM they can't be included in most morning newspapers.

What was MLB thinking yesterday to have the game in Denver start at 8:30 Eastern time on a Sunday. You allow NBC a head start with Sunday Night Football which is folly.

Having a 10:10 PM Eastern start for a NLCS on a weekday night is beyond insanity. People DO have to work the next day and will not stay up to 2 AM for a team they have no rooting interest in.

Last year during the LCS series I was in Seattle and I found I loved the games starting at 5 PM local time. Even if they went 4 hours they were over by 9-9:30.

Yet how many Mets fans fell asleep back in NY.

sox1970
10-15-2007, 10:46 AM
When it comes to the LCS, they need to play at 3pm and 6pm central time. Period.

Nobody is going to stay up and watch tonight in the east or central.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 10:47 AM
I agree the times and the horrific coverage given to teams east of the Mississippi by ESPN are major factors. Until MLB finds a way to promote all of their product nationally, things like this are going to be a factor.

The time zones will always be an issue. Someone will always get the shaft, be it folks on the east coast having games not start until 10:00 or folks on the west coast having games start before they get off work.

chisoxfanatic
10-15-2007, 10:52 AM
“So far, they have not measured up,” DuPuy said, adding that accurate figures would not be available until Monday.
Part of the reason for low ratings, he said, was “these are two young teams the nation doesn’t know that much about yet.”

The nation would know more about these teams if the media actually spent time covering them instead of reserving 90% of its coverage time to their beloved Northeast Coastal teams. If you're constantly shoving Red Sox/Yankees down everyone's throat, how do you expect ratings to be for a Rockies/D-Backs series? If there was any regard toward that, then maybe we'd see much more of a coverage balance to begin with!

Oblong
10-15-2007, 10:54 AM
How many Rockies and Diamondback games were on ESPN and FOx games outside of Denver and Phoenix this year?

One advantage the NBA has over MLB in terms of playoff cable games is the extra round of playoffs. It may be a minor one though.

The networks need to realize that the gains they get during the season by showing off only certain teams nationally can come back to bite them in the postseason.

Do we know for sure though that the low ratings actually translates into lower revenue when it comes to ad rates for the future? Could it be that the ratings are just a number?

nccwsfan
10-15-2007, 10:55 AM
The time zones will always be an issue. Someone will always get the shaft, be it folks on the east coast having games not start until 10:00 or folks on the west coast having games start before they get off work.

How often do we hear stories of people out West complaining about games starting too early? 5pm games are hardly unreasonable to me.

It wasn't too long ago where people complained that games started so late that kids wouldn't be able to watch the ALCS/NLCS/World Series. Now you have a scenario where the Rockies (ironically a great story for MLB) could win their first pennant tonight and very few people will actually be awake to see it. That's a shame.

Fenway
10-15-2007, 10:55 AM
The time zones will always be an issue. Someone will always get the shaft, be it folks on the east coast having games not start until 10:00 or folks on the west coast having games start before they get off work.

As I found out last year it is better to miss the first 3 innings than the last 3 and actually see the game end.

There is NO excuse not having games in the daytime on weekends. NBC used to tell the NFL they would not televise games at 4 PM and the NFL adjusted the schedule.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 11:01 AM
How often do we hear stories of people out West complaining about games starting too early? 5pm games are hardly unreasonable to me.

It wasn't too long ago where people complained that games started so late that kids wouldn't be able to watch the ALCS/NLCS/World Series. Now you have a scenario where the Rockies (ironically a great story for MLB) could win their first pennant tonight and very few people will actually be awake to see it. That's a shame.

As I found out last year it is better to miss the first 3 innings than the last 3 and actually see the game end.

There is NO excuse not having games in the daytime on weekends. NBC used to tell the NFL they would not televise games at 4 PM and the NFL adjusted the schedule.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree there should be more daytime games, especially on weekends. MLB may lose out on some advertising revenue but it will likely do better in the long run, especially with keeping young people interested in the sport. Long-term forecasting by MLB and the owners is a historical problem that is slowly being remedied but has a long way to go.

The simple fact is with a four hour difference between the east and west coasts, someone somewhere will have to "suffer" less than ideal times for games.

DumpJerry
10-15-2007, 11:01 AM
Just fire Bud. That's all which is needed.

Hitmen77
10-15-2007, 11:10 AM
MLB hasn't had the best track record lately, but exactly what time should games in the Western time zone start? If I lived in Arizona I would not want playoff games starting at 5:00 local time. Maybe we should have the entire country under one time zone? ***....... If ratings are the only thing we care about just get rid of every team but Boston and New York. They can play 162 games against each other, than a best of 3, then 2 best of 7s. Everybody can be happy that way then.

If I'm not mistaken, tonight's game starts at 8:10pm Denver time. They certainly can start games like these earlier without making it unreasonable for western viewers. As it is, chances are tonight's game will not end until around 11:30pm Denver time. That's way too late for a work/school night.

The nation would know more about these teams if the media actually spent time covering them instead of reserving 90% of its coverage time to their beloved Northeast Coastal teams. If you're constantly shoving Red Sox/Yankees down everyone's throat, how do you expect ratings to be for a Rockies/D-Backs series? If there was any regard toward that, then maybe we'd see much more of a coverage balance to begin with!

:worship:
I totally agree. We hear the same garbage every year from the networks. During the season, they act like the Yankees and Red Sox are the only teams that matter and also focus coverage on a few of their other favorite teams like the Mets and the Cubs.

Then, if teams like the White Sox, Astros, Indians, Tigers, and Rockies advance to the World Series, they cry about how "no one cares" or "no one knows" about these team. It's their own fault for acting like only 5 or 6 teams matter and the other 25 or so are not newsworthy.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 11:33 AM
I totally agree. We hear the same garbage every year from the networks. During the season, they act like the Yankees and Red Sox are the only teams that matter and also focus coverage on a few of their other favorite teams like the Mets and the Cubs.

Then, if teams like the White Sox, Astros, Indians, Tigers, and Rockies advance to the World Series, they cry about how "no one cares" or "no one knows" about these team. It's their own fault for acting like only 5 or 6 teams matter and the other 25 or so are not newsworthy.

The national outlets are going to devote the bulk of their coverage to the largest national markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. That's the way it has been for years and this trend will continue. Griping about national outlets devoting most of their attention to the largest media markets is pointless.

As for the Yankees-Red Sox, those two teams have finished 1-2 in the AL East every year for the last 10 years (except 2006 when the Red Sox missed second place by a game). The AL Wild Card has been one of those teams for 6 of the last 10 seasons as well. No other division comes even close to being able to make such a claim. Devoting more national coverage to that matchup is certainly justified. Is the AMOUNT of coverage justified? That is what is open to interpretation.

voodoochile
10-15-2007, 11:36 AM
As I found out last year it is better to miss the first 3 innings than the last 3 and actually see the game end.

There is NO excuse not having games in the daytime on weekends. NBC used to tell the NFL they would not televise games at 4 PM and the NFL adjusted the schedule.

Super Bowl doesn't seem to suffer much with it's 6:20 ET start.

Tougher for baseball which is up against the sports rating giant that is the NFL, but there has to be a solution.

Edit: One possibility would be to shorten the playoff series. Best of 3 would heighten the interest in the individual games. I realize that's tough for the teams, but when a series is 7 games long not many people pay attention to the first couple. The ALCS will draw some good ratings for the ending games of what appears to be a close series, but the NLCS is all but over already so game 4 won't draw much of a viewing audience. This in turn begs the question can you make more money on a shorter series where the games draw a higher audience or on a long one where volume makes up for quality?

HomeFish
10-15-2007, 11:39 AM
On the whole Boston thing, let me tell you, if I had to leave a tied playoff game early because the T was my only way of getting home, I would be pissed with a capital P. That sounds like a travesty.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 11:42 AM
On the whole Boston thing, let me tell you, if I had to leave a tied playoff game early because the T was my only way of getting home, I would be pissed with a capital P. That sounds like a travesty.

It happened here in Chicago for Opening Day in 2006. The Red and Blue were running when the game ended but the other lines had stopped for the night (as well as most of the METRA trains and most of the bus routes).

Lots of people had problems getting home that night, especially those that specifically took public transportation as an alternate to the Dan Ryan construction.

Hitmen77
10-15-2007, 12:54 PM
The national outlets are going to devote the bulk of their coverage to the largest national markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. That's the way it has been for years and this trend will continue. Griping about national outlets devoting most of their attention to the largest media markets is pointless.

As for the Yankees-Red Sox, those two teams have finished 1-2 in the AL East every year for the last 10 years (except 2006 when the Red Sox missed second place by a game). The AL Wild Card has been one of those teams for 6 of the last 10 seasons as well. No other division comes even close to being able to make such a claim. Devoting more national coverage to that matchup is certainly justified. Is the AMOUNT of coverage justified? That is what is open to interpretation.

I think you're twisting my statement into a black-and-white comment such that I must be advocating totally equal coverage for all teams. When did I say that the Yankees and Red Sox deserve no recognition? You're just distorting what I'm saying and then restating my actual point as your own in your last two sentences ("Is the AMOUNT of coverage justified? That is what is open to interpretation") as if that is your counter argument.

Why is it "pointless" to discuss how outlets like ESPN cover baseball? It's a legitimate complaint. No, we probably can't change the way ESPN does things. So, in that respect it is pointless. But if our ability to affect change is a pre-requisite for discussing anything here, then we won't have much left to talk about.

The complaint is about coverage being totally over the top for a couple of teams and ignoring other competitive teams and how it affects overall fan interest in the league in the long run and I find it hard to believe it is not a legitimate one.

downstairs
10-15-2007, 01:03 PM
I generally stay up pretty late, and even I fell asleep and missed the 11-inning game. As well, almost fell asleep during the Cleveland 7-run spanking.

I too vote for something like 4pm/7pm Central starts for dual-playoff games, and a 7pm start if the game is solo.

Hendu
10-15-2007, 01:13 PM
Edit: One possibility would be to shorten the playoff series. Best of 3 would heighten the interest in the individual games. I realize that's tough for the teams, but when a series is 7 games long not many people pay attention to the first couple. The ALCS will draw some good ratings for the ending games of what appears to be a close series, but the NLCS is all but over already so game 4 won't draw much of a viewing audience. This in turn begs the question can you make more money on a shorter series where the games draw a higher audience or on a long one where volume makes up for quality?

Good point wrt ratings but as a baseball fan I'd hate a shorter series. The 5-game divisional series is bad enough because a team with 1 or 2 great pitchers and then a bunch of garbage can dominate a team that's more well-rounded.

Games should start no later than 8 ET. Sure, 5 PT isn't ideal, but it's better to miss the first 2 innings than to miss the last few innings.

Jerko
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
as INR said, not everybody is going to be happy. If I lived in AZ I would not want the game to be starting as I was still at, or just leaving, work. If I lived in NY I would not watch a game that started at 10 PM local time. I think you have to appease the people who actually are going to GO to the west coast games over the people who can't stay up so late out east. What other choice do we have? All the games on at the same time on Fox and FX? That sucked too IIRC.

Domeshot17
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
For me, Im a fan, so the hell with the front office, the hell with the east coast, if its too late for your bed time sorry. If Im in Arizona, and my team plays at 4, and I have to miss the start of every game because I have a 9-5 just so people in Boston and New York can see a team they dont care about play, Im pissed. Its not my fault the big guys like ESPN were too ignorant to cover these teams all year. They were too busy talking about how Dice K likes hot dogs to worry about how good Chris Young or Troy Tulowitzki are. They were too busy showing us how many days off Manny takes to worry about a class act, a true ambassador of the game, Todd Helton leading his team on a tear into the playoffs for the first time in his very good career.

The Rockies offense is awesome. Helton Holliday Hawpe Atkins Troy T, this is the best team you have never heard of. After 9 months of not caring you want the mlb to cater to you and your bedtime and screw over the people who have been following their team all year? No freaking way

Fenway
10-15-2007, 01:20 PM
On the whole Boston thing, let me tell you, if I had to leave a tied playoff game early because the T was my only way of getting home, I would be pissed with a capital P. That sounds like a travesty.

It really is a nightmare.

There is SOME parking around Fenway but the garages tend to fill up early.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/ballpark/bos_ballpark_directions_more.jsp?content=parking

The Red Sox tell people to park at stations like Riverside, Wonderland, Alewife, Braintree and Oak Grove but if the trains stop running you are looking at a $40 cab ride..if you can even find one.

http://mbta.com/riding_the_t/redsox/

I know quite a few people who walked back to Cambridge and were freezing by the time they got home.

spiffie
10-15-2007, 01:26 PM
The national outlets are going to devote the bulk of their coverage to the largest national markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. That's the way it has been for years and this trend will continue. Griping about national outlets devoting most of their attention to the largest media markets is pointless.

As for the Yankees-Red Sox, those two teams have finished 1-2 in the AL East every year for the last 10 years (except 2006 when the Red Sox missed second place by a game). The AL Wild Card has been one of those teams for 6 of the last 10 seasons as well. No other division comes even close to being able to make such a claim. Devoting more national coverage to that matchup is certainly justified. Is the AMOUNT of coverage justified? That is what is open to interpretation.
One thing about sports has always been that it isn't always the biggest cities that create the teams that captivate the public the most. Just look at the NFL. Some of their biggest draws over the last few decades have been teams from cities not in those biggest urban centers. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Denver. Hell, they don't even have a team in Los Angeles and outside of the NYC metro area how many people really feel a compulsion to follow the Jets.

Look at baseball before the late 90's-early 2000's. There was still major national interest in teams from places like Oakland, Cincy, Atlanta, Cleveland, St. Louis etc. It was only in the early part of this decade when ESPN and Fox decided to start heavily pushing the narrative of the Yankees and Red Sox, and when everywhere on tv started pushing the Red Sox as though they were "America's Team" that things got really out of hand. And sure, they might draw better ratings for a midseason game with the Red Sox v. Yankees, but the blowback is that when you get a series like COL/ARI, or a World Series like the White Sox vs. Houston, you've conditioned the public to believe that without the Yankees or Boston involved that it isn't as big a deal. In the end it is a strategy that relies on those two teams, and to a lesser extent the Cubs and the Mets, making the playoffs and hopefully the World Series every year. Otherwise you get apathy and low ratings.

MLB is suffering the same problem that the NBA and boxing have been dealing with. They've marketed parts of their brand so heavily that they are more important than the brand itself in the public eye. As opposed to something like the NFL, or more recently UFC, where it is the brand that sells the ticket. UFC cards sell out without much of the card announced because people are looking for the UFC brand. As opposed to the NBA where ratings have never recovered from Magic, Larry and Michael retiring.

Obviously the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry is important. They are two very good teams who are always in contention. But when it is promoted as basically the only rivalry that matters, as if they were Frazier and Ali fighting for the championship of each other in Manila, you turn off a lot more people than you turn on.

spiffie
10-15-2007, 01:27 PM
They were too busy talking about how Dice K likes hot dogs to worry about how good Chris Young or Troy Tulowitzki are.
Chris Young sucks. He'll never be any good. I've learned that here on WSI.

wealz07
10-15-2007, 01:28 PM
When it comes to TV MLB is local. The days of big ratings for the post-season are over and have been for some time and it's ok. Despite this, it was predicted by an MLB official that in two or three years MLB will surpass the NFL in revenues. They are light years ahead of every other league in generating revenue from the internet for example.

Fenway
10-15-2007, 01:30 PM
On Saturday, FOX's coverage of the American League Championship Series won the night with a 5.4/10. CBS finished second at 4.3/8, followed by ABC, 4.1/8, and NBC, 2.5/5.

On Sunday

CBS' coverage of the week's marquee NFL game, New England at Dallas, scored a 16.6/28 at 7 p.m., easily beating the combined totals for the other four networks. ABC's "America's Funniest Home Videos," 4.9/9, was the best of the rest. "Football Night in America" earned a 3.2/5 for NBC. Reruns of "King of the Hill" and "The Simpsons" averaged 2.7/5 for FOX. The CW aired "CW Now" and "Online Nation."

At 8 p.m., "60 Minutes" (http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCProgram.do?method=getDetail&pgmId=SH000000350000) kept CBS on top with an 11.4/18. ABC held onto second with "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," 7.3/11. "Sunday Night Football" was well below its average on NBC. FOX went "The Simpsons," 5.1/8, and "King of the Hill," 4.3/7, while "Life Is Wild" registered only a 0.7/1 for The CW.

No sign of baseball in the overnights last night

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings101407,0,483972.story?coll=zap-news-headlines

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 01:32 PM
I think you're twisting my statement into a black-and-white comment such that I must be advocating totally equal coverage for all teams. When did I say that the Yankees and Red Sox deserve no recognition? You're just distorting what I'm saying and then restating my actual point as your own in your last two sentences ("Is the AMOUNT of coverage justified? That is what is open to interpretation") as if that is your counter argument.

Why is it "pointless" to discuss how outlets like ESPN cover baseball? It's a legitimate complaint. No, we probably can't change the way ESPN does things. So, in that respect it is pointless. But if our ability to affect change is a pre-requisite for discussing anything here, then we won't have much left to talk about.

The complaint is about coverage being totally over the top for a couple of teams and ignoring other competitive teams and how it affects overall fan interest in the league in the long run and I find it hard to believe it is not a legitimate one.

And I think YOU'RE twisting my statements. I never suggesting you were advocating equal coverage to each team. And I'm not suggesting it is pointless to discuss national television coverage but rather that it was pointless griping about how the Yankees get so much love. The winningest team in the history of the game with the most world championships playing in the largest market with the highest payroll riding a 13-year streak of making it to the postseason, 10 of those as AL East Champ. Hell, I'm surprised they don't get MORE coverage.

When the top three markets reach as many people as the next NINE combined, excessive coverage of teams from those areas is going to happen. Teams like Denver and Arizona have so many things working against them in terms of media coverage; small markets (12th and 18th, respectively), lots of rookies, not many "household names", games starting late for the bulk of the country (not just in the postseason but in the regular season as well), not much of a "historical" fanbase and for the case of Colorado, not really sniffing the playoffs until the last couple weeks of the season all work against them. I can't really fault the national outlets for not devoting much coverage to these teams.

That isn't to suggest they are not worthy of coverage or that there is nothing interesting about them but it is just a fact of media coverage these days. With 30 teams and limited time to cover the teams, they are focusing on the "big boys" that will reach the most people. And it isn't like the teams in the major markets are lousy teams. Aside from the Cubs, the teams in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles on the whole have performed well above the league averages over the last ten years.

Fenway
10-15-2007, 01:36 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/specials/playoffs/2007/10/12/nlcs.ratings.ap/index.html

NEW YORK (AP) -- The NL championship series opener between Colorado and Arizona was easily the least-watched LCS prime-time game ever.
Colorado's 5-1 victory over Arizona on Thursday night received a 3.6 national rating, TBS said Friday.

The previous low for a prime-time LCS game was 4.9, set by Game 4 of the AL championship series between the Chicago White Sox and the Angels on Fox in 2005 and matched by Game 3 of the NLCS between St. Louis and the New York Mets on Fox last year.

Both those games were on Saturday nights, usually the lowest-rated night of the week because fewer people are at home.

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 01:42 PM
One thing about sports has always been that it isn't always the biggest cities that create the teams that captivate the public the most. Just look at the NFL. Some of their biggest draws over the last few decades have been teams from cities not in those biggest urban centers. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Denver. Hell, they don't even have a team in Los Angeles and outside of the NYC metro area how many people really feel a compulsion to follow the Jets.

But those smaller areas you mention all had something going for them besides being in a major market. With the Packers it was Favre, the return of the championship to Title Town, 13 winning seasons in a row. With Dallas it was Aikmen, a couple Super Bowl wins, lots of NFC championships (also, Dallas/Ft. Worth is the 5th largest market in the country). Denver had Elway. And so on.

For these smaller markets, they had to do something to get into the limelight. And for most of them, it was winning. Winning cures a lot of problems. Hell, look at the Sox attendance and TV viewership in 2006. It went through the roof.

Teams like Denver and Arizona have a lot working against them.

Fenway
10-15-2007, 01:50 PM
Teams like Denver and Arizona have a lot working against them.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_wvoLtwni0kc/RhUvZd19-xI/AAAAAAAAHg4/nE8fsbE7hmg/s1600-h/MLBBLACKOUT.jpg

Colorado and Arizona ghave large TV viewing areas but the problem is most of the residents don't have tv sets

http://levsen.org/kenya/wildlife/antelopes/topis_400.jpg

WhiteSox5187
10-15-2007, 02:05 PM
Quickly getting back to the idea of playing more day games in the playoffs, isn't the fear that if you put a World Series game on in the day it could only be on the weekends and then you would have MLB taking on the NFL and NCAA head to head? I think that really it's an ego thing and to see that a Rockies-Indians World Series game was crushed in the ratings by the NFL might do some sort of harm to the league? Am I wrong? Is that the logic there?

itsnotrequired
10-15-2007, 02:07 PM
Quickly getting back to the idea of playing more day games in the playoffs, isn't the fear that if you put a World Series game on in the day it could only be on the weekends and then you would have MLB taking on the NFL and NCAA head to head? I think that really it's an ego thing and to see that a Rockies-Indians World Series game was crushed in the ratings by the NFL might do some sort of harm to the league? Am I wrong? Is that the logic there?

I'm sure that has a lot to do with it but advertising revenue is also a major player. Prime-time slots sell for a lot more than afternoon slots.

nccwsfan
10-15-2007, 04:24 PM
For me, Im a fan, so the hell with the front office, the hell with the east coast, if its too late for your bed time sorry. If Im in Arizona, and my team plays at 4, and I have to miss the start of every game because I have a 9-5 just so people in Boston and New York can see a team they dont care about play, Im pissed. Its not my fault the big guys like ESPN were too ignorant to cover these teams all year. They were too busy talking about how Dice K likes hot dogs to worry about how good Chris Young or Troy Tulowitzki are. They were too busy showing us how many days off Manny takes to worry about a class act, a true ambassador of the game, Todd Helton leading his team on a tear into the playoffs for the first time in his very good career.

The Rockies offense is awesome. Helton Holliday Hawpe Atkins Troy T, this is the best team you have never heard of. After 9 months of not caring you want the mlb to cater to you and your bedtime and screw over the people who have been following their team all year? No freaking way

The Rockies winning the pennant is a great sports story and should be something all baseball fans should get to witness (regardless of how many times we've seen the Rockies play). If they are to win tonight there will be very few people who will have been witness to it. Who does that benefit? Even people on the West Coast will be in bed by that time...others have correctly stated that it is much better to miss the first 3 innings of the game than the last 3 innings- having the game start at 6pm Mountain time is absolutely reasonable.

Whether people like it or not, MLB, the fans, and the networks will get the most out of their investment by catering to the Eastern and Central time zones. Having a large majority of the viewing public in bed if (when) the Rockies win the pennant is poor planning on MLB's part.

Couldn't they just go back to compacting the Divisional Series and alternating days between the NLCS and ALDS? I thought that worked out just fine....

TDog
10-15-2007, 05:19 PM
...
There is NO excuse not having games in the daytime on weekends. NBC used to tell the NFL they would not televise games at 4 PM and the NFL adjusted the schedule.

I agree that there is no excuse for not playing daytime postseason games, but there is a reason. Call it a rationalization if you will. There wouldn't be a problem with games ending late if they were all played during the day. Night games get better ratings than day games. The World Series, before 1971, was played exclusively during the day. Ratings are better at night. In 1971, it was one weekday game at night, with Milt May driving in the deciding run in the 4-3 Pittsburg win in the seventh. Then it was all weekday games. Soon it was all games.

The networks pretty much determine when games are going to be played. I don't believe that is right. The World Series in Chicago in 2005 should have been played during the day, when the weather was less miserable. Instead the games were played at night. In Phoenix and Denver, games should not be started according to when people in New York can watch them on television. Anchoring the World Series to once predetermined city would be downright evil. Scheduling postseason games according to East Coast television viewing habits would be worse.

Phoenix is a huge television market, of course, and it is east of an even bigger one, which during the baseball season, is almost always in the same time zone. But ratings are a national thing. The fact that television pretty much pays for baseball provides the rationalization to make schedule games in a way that violates common sense.

PKalltheway
10-15-2007, 07:14 PM
If I'm not mistaken, won't TBS and Fox switch up series next year? By that I mean TBS gets the ALCS, and Fox gets the NLCS?

ode to veeck
10-15-2007, 07:50 PM
The simple fact is with a four hour difference between the east and west coasts, someone somewhere will have to "suffer" less than ideal times for games.

what coast is that that's four hours away?!?! alaskam panahandle?!

Pacific Time + 3 hours = Eastern Time

voodoochile
10-15-2007, 08:47 PM
http://bp1.blogger.com/_wvoLtwni0kc/RhUvZd19-xI/AAAAAAAAHg4/nE8fsbE7hmg/s1600-h/MLBBLACKOUT.jpg

Colorado and Arizona ghave large TV viewing areas but the problem is most of the residents don't have tv sets

http://levsen.org/kenya/wildlife/antelopes/topis_400.jpg

Are you saying there are too many antelope... er... gnu... er... fish within 20 miles of the ball park and it negatively affects ratings? Now where have I heard this before?

:reinsy
"I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so..."

Would like to point out that Saturday ratings may be lower than other nights, but that doesn't necessarily mean less people watching. I am sure many people who would have stayed in to watch the game on Thursday because of work the next day are watching at a bar on a Saturday or at least making sure the place they go has a TV so they can follow the score and some of the action. In fact the lack of home access to the game may have driven people to a bar to watch and those folks aren't counted toward ratings points. Bars are living large off of TBS covering these games, I am sure.

RadioheadRocks
10-15-2007, 09:07 PM
Booey-hooey... SUCK IT UP!!!!!

captainclutch24
10-16-2007, 02:21 AM
Alaska has its own time zone and northern maine shares one with new brunswick.

TDog
10-16-2007, 02:38 AM
Alaska has its own time zone and northern maine shares one with new brunswick.

Alaska has two time zones, sharing one with Hawaii. There is an Alaskan island close enough to the International Dateline that they say "On a clear day, you can see tomorrow." Alaska used to have three time zones. Some years ago Southeast Alaska, up the coast from Seattle, was on the Pacific Time Zone. Now if you're in the Alaska capital and you're calling the U.S. capital, you have to figure in a four-hour time difference. The days are so long in summer and so short in winter that time would seem arbitrary if the state employees didn't clock out precisely at 4:30 p.m.

If you set your computer clock, you might see that Arizona has its own time zone. Because it doesn't observe Daylight Saving Time, half of the year it is on Mountain Time and half the year it is on Pacific Time.

Soxfanspcu11
10-16-2007, 03:04 AM
The Boston/Cleveland game on Saturday was ridiculous. It ended at 1:30 am for God's sake! What if that game had gone 17, 18 or even 19 innings? I mean, would they have stopped it? If not, that game would have ended as the sun was coming up!!!!! Could you imagine that?!?!?

And as Fenway pointed out, the subways were closed, and I can not imagine the hell that people had to go through to get home.

As far as the ratings go, as other people in this thread have mentioned, baseball has NO ONE to blame about poor ratings other than themselves. Keep forcefeeding people Yankees, Red Sox, Yankees, Red Sox, and of course your going to have those types of ratings.

In 2003, when the final 4 teams were the Yankees, Red Sox, cubs and Marlins, I am surprised that MLB did not find a way to rig the games so that the scrubs and Red Sox met up in the World Series. Obviously, the Yankees and Marlins was the worst possible outcome for MLB ratings wise, but those are the breaks.

And as far as people not caring about baseball, well that could not be any further from the truth!

Soxfanspcu11
10-16-2007, 03:12 AM
It happened here in Chicago for Opening Day in 2006. The Red and Blue were running when the game ended but the other lines had stopped for the night (as well as most of the METRA trains and most of the bus routes).

Lots of people had problems getting home that night, especially those that specifically took public transportation as an alternate to the Dan Ryan construction.

The Green Line was still running after the game.

I know because we stayed until the very end (including the 3 plus hour rain delay) and when we got to the Red Line stop, it was packed. Someone suggested walking a few blocks down to the Green Line, and it was much less packed and we walked right on and ended up getting a car all to ourselves.

itsnotrequired
10-16-2007, 07:37 AM
The Green Line was still running after the game.

I know because we stayed until the very end (including the 3 plus hour rain delay) and when we got to the Red Line stop, it was packed. Someone suggested walking a few blocks down to the Green Line, and it was much less packed and we walked right on and ended up getting a car all to ourselves.

Then you must have caught one of the last trains. Last stop at 35th is about 1:15 AM. A friend of mine got there around 1:30 AM and the doors were closed. She had to take a cab to her car which was parked at the Harlem station.

kittle42
10-16-2007, 07:57 AM
Nobody is going to stay up and watch tonight in the east or central.

I did, and I was in Tampa.

Fenway
10-16-2007, 10:44 AM
TBS ratings are not bad....they are AWFUL

Game 1 3.6
Game 2 2.2
Game 3 3.5

A Fox producer told me MLB has an out clause with TBS if they don't hit a target number which is 4.0 for the NLCS.

PKalltheway
10-16-2007, 10:59 AM
TBS ratings are not bad....they are AWFUL

Game 1 3.6
Game 2 2.2
Game 3 3.5

A Fox producer told me MLB has an out clause with TBS if they don't hit a target number which is 4.0 for the NLCS.
And what will exactly happen if this came to pass? Would they give the NLCS back to Fox? That would mean they would have to actually schedule the games correctly on Fox, instead of playing 2 at the same time like they usually would do, and probably would do.

That would mean one game is on Fox, and the other would be on Fx, which is a cable channel anyway. You'd be right back to square one.

Plus, doesn't TBS have the ALCS next year too?

Fenway
10-16-2007, 11:02 AM
And what will exactly happen if this came to pass? Would they give the NLCS back to Fox? That would mean they would have to actually schedule the games correctly on Fox, instead of playing 2 at the same time like they usually would do, and probably would do.

That would mean one game is on Fox, and the other would be on Fx, which is a cable channel anyway. You'd be right back to square one.

Plus, doesn't TBS have the ALCS next year too?

Right now they do.

TBS took a bath with this. 4 of the 5 series they covered were sweeps.

paciorek1983
10-16-2007, 01:02 PM
The nation would know more about these teams if the media actually spent time covering them instead of reserving 90% of its coverage time to their beloved Northeast Coastal teams. If you're constantly shoving Red Sox/Yankees down everyone's throat, how do you expect ratings to be for a Rockies/D-Backs series? If there was any regard toward that, then maybe we'd see much more of a coverage balance to begin with!


Amen!:gulp:

Soxfanspcu11
10-17-2007, 03:09 AM
Then you must have caught one of the last trains. Last stop at 35th is about 1:15 AM. A friend of mine got there around 1:30 AM and the doors were closed. She had to take a cab to her car which was parked at the Harlem station.

We probably did get one of the last trains. The Red Line stop was packed, but the handful of us that walked over to the Green Line had no trouble getting on.

And like I said in my last post, we were able to get a car all to ourselves. So, it could very well have been the last train.

itsnotrequired
10-17-2007, 08:28 AM
rockies.com reporter Thomas Harding talks about the Rockies and national media coverage on the 10/14 BaseballChannel.TV Daily Audio podcast. He said the Rockies had a chance to be on three Fox Saturday games this season but Fox didn't pick them up. He also said the tiebreaker game was the first national game the Rockies have had in YEARS. The last national game was on ESPN a couple years ago.

http://dds.mlb.com/2007/daily/101407_mlbr.mp3

Media talk starts about 20 minutes in.

Oblong
10-17-2007, 08:38 AM
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/2002allstargame/selig.jpg

"I don't now why nobody watches our world series games"

stl_sox_fan
10-17-2007, 10:57 AM
Homer could have told them the late starts was a bad idea.

Bart: Who's up at 3:17 AM watching TV?
Homer: Alcoholics, the unemployable, angry loners...

Huisj
10-17-2007, 12:27 PM
Here's a question: What would the LCS schedule have looked like if the Phillies and Cubs had won in the first round? That would have put both LCS series' in Eastern or Central time. There's no way they could have done the 7 pm-10:15 pm combo like they've been doing by putting the west game late, because you just can't start a game that stinking late out east. Would they have played day games, or just shown both games at the same time? And if they would have done day games, well then what the heck would have been wrong with doing day games anyway with the way it ended up?

When the Sox played out in Anaheim in '05, those games weren't at 10 eastern time, were they? Honestly, I'm having trouble remembering, because that two week stretch was so crazy that I had no concept of time and sleep at all.

ode to veeck
10-17-2007, 12:55 PM
http://images.usatoday.com/sports/gallery/2002allstargame/selig.jpg

" We know better than America when to schedule things and there's no steroids in baseball "

Fenway
10-17-2007, 01:02 PM
Ouch

NEW YORK (AP) -The National League championship series had all the elements of a low-rated sporting event: a sweep involving two smaller-market, tradition-poor franchises.
The Colorado Rockies' four-game sweep defeat of the Arizona Diamondbacks drew an average 2.8 rating for all households and a 3.3 for homes with TBS. The previous low average LCS rating was a 6.2 for the Mets' five-game victory over the Cardinals in 2000.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/wires/10/16/2010.ap.bbo.playoff.ratings.0260/

itsnotrequired
10-18-2007, 09:09 AM
Ouch

NEW YORK (AP) -The National League championship series had all the elements of a low-rated sporting event: a sweep involving two smaller-market, tradition-poor franchises.
The Colorado Rockies' four-game sweep defeat of the Arizona Diamondbacks drew an average 2.8 rating for all households and a 3.3 for homes with TBS. The previous low average LCS rating was a 6.2 for the Mets' five-game victory over the Cardinals in 2000.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/wires/10/16/2010.ap.bbo.playoff.ratings.0260/

As a point of comparison, the Home Run Derby (ESPN) and Little League WS final (ABC) drew more viewers (4.3 and 3.3, respectively).

Even the draw in Denver and Phoenix was weak. 26.4 in Denver and a paltry 13.6 in Phoenix.

Huisj
10-18-2007, 11:58 PM
I was just remembering back to last year's LCS games and trying to think what time the games were played then, and it occured to me that the Tigers-A's series played day games (or at least late afternoon games) on Friday and Saturday in Detroit for games 3 and 4. I remember this because I was in the car on my way to a Michigan State Volleyball game and driving down Kalamazoo street into campus when Ordonez hit the game winning homer to end the series, and that was obviously at around 8 o'clock, because a volleyball game wouldn't start later than that.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, they played day games. The games out in Oakland started at 5:30 Oakland time too instead of starting them late like the games in Colorado and Arizona.

So, why such late starts this year? Is it just because both teams were from out west?

Soxfanspcu11
10-19-2007, 02:31 AM
I was just remembering back to last year's LCS games and trying to think what time the games were played then, and it occured to me that the Tigers-A's series played day games (or at least late afternoon games) on Friday and Saturday in Detroit for games 3 and 4. I remember this because I was in the car on my way to a Michigan State Volleyball game and driving down Kalamazoo street into campus when Ordonez hit the game winning homer to end the series, and that was obviously at around 8 o'clock, because a volleyball game wouldn't start later than that.

So I looked it up, and sure enough, they played day games. The games out in Oakland started at 5:30 Oakland time too instead of starting them late like the games in Colorado and Arizona.

So, why such late starts this year? Is it just because both teams were from out west?

IIRC, the games in Detoilet were originally going to be night games, but they changed the starting times because it was so extremely cold.

That does not explain the early start time in Oakland though. Unless it is the reason that you mention, about both teams being from out west.

Oblong
10-19-2007, 08:27 AM
Game 3, the Friday game in Detroit was moved to a 4 or 5 o clock start because of the weather but many thought it was really because of they wanted the Mets in prime time. THey changed it a day or two before and it really screwed people up. Parking was hard to find because many of the lots were full for the downtown workers.

But I don't remember game 4 being moved. I think that was the original start time but it was an early game too, 4 I think.