PDA

View Full Version : FOX exec: We root for the 'national' teams


Fenway
10-24-2007, 04:40 PM
Television executives will tell you publicly that they root for volume (e.g., a seven-game series) when it comes to postseason baseball. Privately, they root for the Cubs, Red Sox and Yankees.

"I don't care what sport it is. There are few national teams in any league and when you get a national team in a championship series, naturally it's going to improve the ratings," says Fox Sports president Ed Goren. "One of the more honest comments that I've heard through the years from a commissioner of a sport came from David Stern. Years ago he was asked who he was rooting for in the NBA Finals. His response? I'd love to see the Lakers against the Lakers."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/richard_deitsch/10/24/fox.worldseriestv/

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 04:49 PM
Execs want to see teams that will generate the highest ratings? Shocking!

thomas35forever
10-24-2007, 05:23 PM
No surprise here. We can complain all we want about it and it's not going to change.

Palehose Pete
10-24-2007, 05:26 PM
This begs the question as to how a team becomes a national one nowadays... sort of a chicken and egg thing.

Fenway
10-24-2007, 06:07 PM
This begs the question as to how a team becomes a national one nowadays... sort of a chicken and egg thing.

Funny how that works. The Yankees have history, Boston as NYY's rival, Cubs and Braves cable. The Mets and White Sox never went national. The west coast teams play too late. St Louis also a huge following because of KMOX which the Cards discarded. Everybody else is regional except Toronto which has 2/3rd of Canada. Quebec and the Maritimes follow Boston now.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 06:36 PM
This looks at some of the issues. Teams become 'national' teams because the networks 'promote' them. If said network wanted the White Sox or Astros or Mariners to become a national team, they have the power to help do it.

The problem is they don't want to...screw them and the horse they road in on.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3016

Lip

Hokiesox
10-24-2007, 06:50 PM
This looks at some of the issues. Teams become 'national' teams because the networks 'promote' them. If said network wanted the White Sox or Astros or Mariners to become a national team, they have the power to help do it.

The problem is they don't want to...screw them and the horse they road in on.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3016

Lip

Yeah, but if the networks wanted to make the White Sox a national team, we'd have to put up with bandwagon fans from around the country. I can think of no other class of fan I don't want massive hordes of, it's a bandwagon fan from Olympia, Washington (or wherever...sorry to the residents of Olympia)

So screw them and their horse, but I wouldn't redirect the horse. We've proved we can win without being a national team.

Lip Man 1
10-24-2007, 07:15 PM
Hokie:

You may not like bandwagon fans but bandwagon fans mean the difference between drawing say 2 million and 3 million a season. That's an incredible difference when you're the front office and have to try to get talent.

I LOVE bandwagon fans, I'm sure the Sox front office loves them too. So should you.

Their money is just as 'green' as a die hard fan who's rooted for the Sox for 47 years.

Lip

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 07:26 PM
This looks at some of the issues. Teams become 'national' teams because the networks 'promote' them. If said network wanted the White Sox or Astros or Mariners to become a national team, they have the power to help do it.

The problem is they don't want to...screw them and the horse they road in on.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3016

Lip

They already have their gravy trains. Why would they promote other teams? There is only so much broadcast time in the day.

MarySwiss
10-24-2007, 07:42 PM
The west coast teams play too late.

Well, that all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Not blaming you, Fens, but that statement illustrates exactly the thing that drives some of us crazy, the idea that everything turns on what the East Coast wants. I think the East Coast teams play too early.

TheOldRoman
10-24-2007, 07:53 PM
This looks at some of the issues. Teams become 'national' teams because the networks 'promote' them. If said network wanted the White Sox or Astros or Mariners to become a national team, they have the power to help do it.

The problem is they don't want to...screw them and the horse they road in on.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3016

Lip
Exactly. The Cubs were a laughingstock of a franchise, and Wrigley was grossly outdated, urine soaked hellhole in a bad neighborhood when the Tribune took over the Cubs. Through marketing (and an obvious conflict of interest) they turned it into a mecca for morons, a tourist attraction that was not just a "jewel" of the midwest, but one that people from all over the country just "had to see". Of course, the games being on WGN, as well as the Cubs historic 84 and 89 seasons, aided their popularity. ESPN jumped on, and the national media that before would have never given the Cubs a second thought were suddenly throwing out the "timeless", "historic", and "best fans in the world" crap.

Sportscenter is probably 40% Red Sox and Patriots as it is. The Patriots were crap years ago. Nobody gave two ****s about them. And ESPN is just dying for the Celtics or Bruins to catch fire so they can devote even more of their time to Boston sports. A few weeks ago, they had a 10 minute interview with Kevin Garnett, Pierce, and Allen about absolutely nothing. That was 1/6 of the show. ESPN can go **** themselves. The more they create superteams, the more I enjoy watching smaller teams win and kill the ratings.

Gregory Pratt
10-24-2007, 07:55 PM
It makes sense that the Red Sox, Yankees and Cubs are the national teams. It doesn't bother me all that much. Sometimes, sure, like when people have no clue who Hunter Pence or Troy Tulowitzski are, but people shouldn't rely on ESPN for their sports news, anyway -- at least exclusively or even mainly.

But really, what other teams should be national teams or have national appeal? The Cubs are cursed and have a beautiful ballpark by many national accounts (never underestimate the power of "lore"); the Red Sox, same, with tradition; the Yankees are the Yankees. I wish St. Louis got more national love.

But the White Sox? I don't think we're a national franchise and never will be. At least not for a long, long time. It's just a sad fact of our history -- we threw the World Series and that's probably the most noteworthy thing in our history. We've been to five World Series. Our ballpark was a monstrosity for almost a decade and a half.

I love my White Sox, but I don't resent anyone across the country for not paying attention to us. They watched (or didn't, according to the ratings) when we put up one of the great WS runs in 2005, but they haven't seen much else from the Southside. Someday, I hope we can be a true powerhouse Franchise but for now, I'm happy with the knowledge that my team won it all in my lifetime. We can always do better, tho.

TDog
10-24-2007, 08:05 PM
This looks at some of the issues. Teams become 'national' teams because the networks 'promote' them. If said network wanted the White Sox or Astros or Mariners to become a national team, they have the power to help do it.

The problem is they don't want to...screw them and the horse they road in on.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3016

Lip

It isn't that easy. The Atlanta Braves had a cable channel with greater coverage than WGN broadcasting all of the Braves games (and showing replays of their games in the middle of the night). WTBS (and its predecessor, WTGC) labeled the Braves "America's Team." The only Braves fans I ever met had some connections with Georgia. I lived in a couple of places where the local cable company carried WTBS but did not carry WGN. And in the West, in the 1980s, when the Cubs were becoming a national team, their games were only on WGN. ESPN didn't do baseball, and NBC televised the Dodgers game every week.

I had the impression that the Dodgers were a national team, along with the Yankees. Certainly they were in the 1950s before they moved across the country. Being on the west cost didn't make them any less glamorous.

DSpivack
10-24-2007, 08:33 PM
It isn't that easy. The Atlanta Braves had a cable channel with greater coverage than WGN broadcasting all of the Braves games (and showing replays of their games in the middle of the night). WTBS (and its predecessor, WTGC) labeled the Braves "America's Team." The only Braves fans I ever met had some connections with Georgia. I lived in a couple of places where the local cable company carried WTBS but did not carry WGN. And in the West, in the 1980s, when the Cubs were becoming a national team, their games were only on WGN. ESPN didn't do baseball, and NBC televised the Dodgers game every week.

I had the impression that the Dodgers were a national team, along with the Yankees. Certainly they were in the 1950s before they moved across the country. Being on the west cost didn't make them any less glamorous.

Much as KMOX allowed the Cardinals to became a big force in the midwest, TBS has allowed the Braves to become the team of the South. Except that, as opposed to the Cards, the Braves literally are the team in the south.

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 09:39 PM
Well, that all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Not blaming you, Fens, but that statement illustrates exactly the thing that drives some of us crazy, the idea that everything turns on what the East Coast wants. I think the East Coast teams play too early.

Nearly half of the US population lives in the Eastern time zone. What do you expect?

MarySwiss
10-24-2007, 09:53 PM
Nearly half of the US population lives in the Eastern time zone. What do you expect?

Well, I guess that means that more than half of the US population doesn't. Again, not everything should turn on what the East Coast wants.

Although, I must admit this has mixed blessings. I hate watching the Bears at 10 a.m. But I remember staggering in to work on Tuesdays following MNF. That no longer happens. :cool:

itsnotrequired
10-24-2007, 09:57 PM
Well, I guess that means that more than half of the US population doesn't. Again, not everything should turn on what the East Coast wants.

Although, I must admit this has mixed blessings. I hate watching the Bears at 10 a.m. But I remember staggering in to work on Tuesdays following MNF. That no longer happens. :cool:

Throw in the Central time zone and we're talking about 75% of the US population. Hell, the Central alone has 25% more people than Mountain and Pacific combined.

The people have spoken.

Max Power
10-25-2007, 09:02 AM
Exactly. The Cubs were a laughingstock of a franchise, and Wrigley was grossly outdated, urine soaked hellhole in a bad neighborhood when the Tribune took over the Cubs. Through marketing (and an obvious conflict of interest) they turned it into a mecca for morons, a tourist attraction that was not just a "jewel" of the midwest, but one that people from all over the country just "had to see". Of course, the games being on WGN, as well as the Cubs historic 84 and 89 seasons, aided their popularity. ESPN jumped on, and the national media that before would have never given the Cubs a second thought were suddenly throwing out the "timeless", "historic", and "best fans in the world" crap.

It also helped that every other historic stadium in the country- except Fenway and Yankee- has been torn down in the last 16 years. That made it a pretty easy sell.

Sportscenter is probably 40% Red Sox and Patriots as it is. The Patriots were crap years ago. Nobody gave two ****s about them. And ESPN is just dying for the Celtics or Bruins to catch fire so they can devote even more of their time to Boston sports. A few weeks ago, they had a 10 minute interview with Kevin Garnett, Pierce, and Allen about absolutely nothing. That was 1/6 of the show. ESPN can go **** themselves. The more they create superteams, the more I enjoy watching smaller teams win and kill the ratings.

I'd be more surprised if I saw an interview about something on ESPN. Then again I stopped watching the show after the "Who's Now" series.

Fenway
10-25-2007, 10:33 AM
Does ESPN bean the Red Sox and Yankees more than any other team? Yes and the reason is simple....PEOPLE WATCH

Keep in mind that when they televise either Boston or the Yankees they are blacked out in the YES and NESN viewing area. The simple fact is when these teams are televised ESPN's ratings increase 3 to 4 times over other teams.

Last summer Boston got Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago often when ESPN would feed the backup game to New England. Outside of sportsbars nobody watched.

Another problem the White Sox have is being in the Central time zone. ESPN wants a game to start at 7 PM Eastern....

The White Sox do on occasion move a game time to 6 PM and fans scream about it.

Television has screwed the Central time zone since day 1. It has always been 9 PM / 8 PM Central.

In 2007 the teams that ESPN televised the most were Yankees, Boston and San Francisco. It is all about ratings.

Nellie_Fox
10-25-2007, 11:55 AM
Does ESPN bean the Red Sox and Yankees more than any other team? Yes and the reason is simple....PEOPLE WATCHAfter every single ESPN show, from BBTN to Around the Horn to PTI, tells us over and over and over that the only teams in baseball that matter are the Yanks and Sawx, they then point to better ratings for Yanks and Sawx as the reason to show more of them.

Chicken or egg? Do casual fans buy into the hype, or is the hype a reaction to the fans' interests? I have my opinion, you have yours.

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 11:58 AM
After every single ESPN show, from BBTN to Around the Horn to PTI, tells us over and over and over that the only teams in baseball that matter are the Yanks and Sawx, they then point to better ratings for Yanks and Sawx as the reason to show more of them.

Chicken or egg? Do casual fans buy into the hype, or is the hype a reaction to the fans' interests? I have my opinion, you have yours.

It isn't like ESPN picked some random teams to devote more attention to. We're not talking about the Marlins or Diamondbacks here.

Fenway
10-25-2007, 11:59 AM
After every single ESPN show, from BBTN to Around the Horn to PTI, tells us over and over and over that the only teams in baseball that matter are the Yanks and Sawx, they then point to better ratings for Yanks and Sawx as the reason to show more of them.

Chicken or egg? Do casual fans buy into the hype, or is the hype a reaction to the fans' interests? I have my opinion, you have yours.

A little of both. Still you have to concede that over the past 5 years the Red Sox and Yankees have played some very memorable games. Something always seems to happen when the 2 teams meet.

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 12:00 PM
A little of both. Still you have to concede that over the past 5 years the Red Sox and Yankees have played some very memorable games. Something always seems to happen when the 2 teams meet.

Memorable games are just a bonus. People would watch anyway.

Hitmen77
10-25-2007, 12:51 PM
I don't have a problem with the idea that Fox execs are privately happy when big-ratings teams make the World Series. That only makes sense given their financial stake in the matter.

What I don't like is when the media goes overboard and twists this logic to the point that they are publicly griping when one of their 5 or so "beloved" teams do not make the playoffs World Series. Yes, the Yankees, Red Sox Cubs, Mets have more total fans. But that does not mean that teams like the Indians or the Rockies aren't great stories or that it should be a bad thing if they had met in the WS.

We heard the gripes and potshots from the media in '05: Nobody cares about the WS because the White Sox and Astros are in it. GMAB - just because our team isn't based at the center of the universe doesn't mean nobody cares or nobody is watching. In '05, as if this wasn't enough, we had to also put up with the fact that ESPN put a complete boob of a Red Sox fan in the booth for the ALDS who was a complete homer for them during the whole series. (ohhh nooooo!!!!!:whiner:) I don't care how popular the Red Sox are, that kind of crap national coverage is inexcusable.

I think Nellie has a point about the chicken and egg coverage. I never heard him say NYY and Bos shouldn't get a good amount of coverage. Of course they should - they're going through an era where they are annual pennant contenders and they have alot of fans. I expect them to be more newsworthy than your average team. In the late 70s, the Royals got alot of coverage because they were perennial contenders. Fine. But the problem is the over-the-top hype that just totally pushes everything NYY-Bos (and to a lesser extent the other media favorites) while ignoring the excitement that goes on around the league all season that isn't related to these handful of teams. IMO, MLB doesn't benefit in the long run from this type of slant. What we end up with each fall is the stories about how "nobody cares about the {fill in the blank here with any team not in the media's top 5} making it to the World Series". Instead of cultivating the interest of fans nationwide who love their local/regional teams and want to follow how they compete against the entire league - we just get bombarded with coverage that is just aimed at the big market fans and casual fans elsewhere who aren't very into the finer points about baseball but just buy into the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs-are-lovable hype.

ode to veeck
10-25-2007, 01:03 PM
It makes sense that the Red Sox, Yankees and Cubs are the national teams. It doesn't bother me all that much. Sometimes, sure, like when people have no clue who Hunter Pence or Troy Tulowitzski are, but people shouldn't rely on ESPN for their sports news, anyway -- at least exclusively or even mainly.

But really, what other teams should be national teams or have national appeal? The Cubs are cursed and have a beautiful ballpark by many national accounts (never underestimate the power of "lore"); the Red Sox, same, with tradition; the Yankees are the Yankees. I wish St. Louis got more national love.

But the White Sox? I don't think we're a national franchise and never will be. At least not for a long, long time. It's just a sad fact of our history -- we threw the World Series and that's probably the most noteworthy thing in our history. We've been to five World Series. Our ballpark was a monstrosity for almost a decade and a half.

I love my White Sox, but I don't resent anyone across the country for not paying attention to us. They watched (or didn't, according to the ratings) when we put up one of the great WS runs in 2005, but they haven't seen much else from the Southside. Someday, I hope we can be a true powerhouse Franchise but for now, I'm happy with the knowledge that my team won it all in my lifetime. We can always do better, tho.

Bull****, the cubs are a national team because of superstation WGN's availability of the games across the US when cable TV took off and nothing else. Tribco helped after they bought the team, but its only a minor issue. Wrigley sucks

Dan Mega
10-25-2007, 01:04 PM
It isn't like ESPN picked some random teams to devote more attention to. We're not talking about the Marlins or Diamondbacks here.

ESPN being based in New England probably had something to do with it.

They call themselves a national network, but they are far from it content-wise.

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 01:30 PM
As I said in my story and in comments, the newtorks CAN HELP make a team 'national' by featuring it, talking about it, driving it down the throats of sports fans.

Chicago and Los Angeles are BIGGER markets then Boston. Fenway talks about ratings... fine. I know all about them having spent 15 years in TV sports.

Then ESPN and Fox should dump to Blow Sox and focus on teams in bigger markets.

They don't...wonder why?

The fact that they are located in Bristol (regarding ESPN) and the fact that the overwhelming majority of their employees are from the East and from schools in the East, tell you EVERYTHING you need to know on this issue.

And then they ***** and moan when the ratings are bad.

LOL :rolleyes:

Lip

PKalltheway
10-25-2007, 01:56 PM
As I said in my story and in comments, the newtorks CAN HELP make a team 'national' by featuring it, talking about it, driving it down the throats of sports fans.

Chicago and Los Angeles are BIGGER markets then Boston. Fenway talks about ratings... fine. I know all about them having spent 15 years in TV sports.

Then ESPN and Fox should dump to Blow Sox and focus on teams in bigger markets.

They don't...wonder why?

The fact that they are located in Bristol (regarding ESPN) and the fact that the overwhelming majority of their employees are from the East and from schools in the East, tell you EVERYTHING you need to know on this issue.

And then they ***** and moan when the ratings are bad.

LOL :rolleyes:

Lip
Exactly. Your article was right on the money. If you're gonna be a national network, be one then. Don't cater to one portion of the country. The sad thing is that you can't just turn to another channel if you want better sports coverage. ESPN knows they have the power to do this because you can't go anywhere else to get better sports coverage. That's why I'm hoping another sports network will come up that won't be nearly as ridiculous as ESPN. Looks that that will be just a dream though...

fquaye149
10-25-2007, 01:58 PM
As I said in my story and in comments, the newtorks CAN HELP make a team 'national' by featuring it, talking about it, driving it down the throats of sports fans.

Chicago and Los Angeles are BIGGER markets then Boston. Fenway talks about ratings... fine. I know all about them having spent 15 years in TV sports.

Then ESPN and Fox should dump to Blow Sox and focus on teams in bigger markets.

They don't...wonder why?

The fact that they are located in Bristol (regarding ESPN) and the fact that the overwhelming majority of their employees are from the East and from schools in the East, tell you EVERYTHING you need to know on this issue.

And then they ***** and moan when the ratings are bad.

LOL :rolleyes:

Lip


a.) The Cubs are a national team. If they were any good they would be so overexposed you would puke. You can argue back and forth why they are and the Sox aren't, but we can't pretend the Bears and the Cubs aren't huge stories when they even hint at being good.

b.) West Coast teams will always be a hard sell because they play their games at ****ed up times.

fquaye149
10-25-2007, 02:00 PM
Furthermore, we can't pretend the Red Sox being overexposed phenomenon begins and ends with ESPN.

It so happens that a lot of prominent media figures (writers, actors, etc) are from the New England region and therefore have been pushing the Red Sox down our throats ad nauseum.

I grew up just before ESPN, and I still remember while reading voraciously about baseball being fed the Red Sox mystique--it's because so many New England slash Harvardites would wax nostalgic about them

Fenway
10-25-2007, 02:03 PM
As I said in my story and in comments, the newtorks CAN HELP make a team 'national' by featuring it, talking about it, driving it down the throats of sports fans.

Chicago and Los Angeles are BIGGER markets then Boston. Fenway talks about ratings... fine. I know all about them having spent 15 years in TV sports.

Then ESPN and Fox should dump to Blow Sox and focus on teams in bigger markets.

They don't...wonder why?

The fact that they are located in Bristol (regarding ESPN) and the fact that the overwhelming majority of their employees are from the East and from schools in the East, tell you EVERYTHING you need to know on this issue.

And then they ***** and moan when the ratings are bad.

LOL :rolleyes:

Lip

Fox feeds Cubs and White Sox into Chicago as much as possible to increase ad sales on WFLD. However they tend to show the Cubs all over the Midwest and the White Sox on fewer stations on Saturday.

ESPN can not ( except for Sunday and select Monday games ) televise into a team's home market. They are trying to reach the casual fan in Idaho.

I admit it is a problem but I don't see a way to fix it either.

ondafarm
10-25-2007, 02:08 PM
Teams that take several pennants over a few years and are always competitive tend to develop greater followings, sometimes even national. Being able to see their games cheaply and easily also helps. If MLB owners were smarter, they would put together a FREE national baseball channel which showed live games when available, showed replays of that days games which hadn't been broadcast live and even showed games from Japan, Korea, Mexico and the Caribbean and maybe even AFL and Winter League games when possible. If they can make more fans, then they will have an ongoing source of revenue for generations to come. I grew up watching the White Sox on their UHF home and going to an occasional game and the White Sox will always get a certain amount of money from me as long as I'm alive. Imagine how many more fans they could make by giving the product away to everyone. A parallel channel or channels with a fee which guarenteed your choice of games and provided more detail or other premiums could keep the whole project a revenue generator.

Hokiesox
10-25-2007, 02:19 PM
Hokie:

You may not like bandwagon fans but bandwagon fans mean the difference between drawing say 2 million and 3 million a season. That's an incredible difference when you're the front office and have to try to get talent.

I LOVE bandwagon fans, I'm sure the Sox front office loves them too. So should you.

Their money is just as 'green' as a die hard fan who's rooted for the Sox for 47 years.

Lip

Yeah, but the vast majority of those boosting the attendance numbers are Chicagoans. I don't count them. The vast majority of Red Sox fans boosting the attendance figures for the Royals when they play each other are not Bostonians. That's the distinction I didn't make very clearly. The out of towners who root for the latest-greatest good team drive me nuts. I don't want them hanging on to our team's glory only because the national networks are hyping the White Sox.

Iwritecode
10-25-2007, 02:25 PM
That's why I'm hoping another sports network will come up that won't be nearly as ridiculous as ESPN. Looks that that will be just a dream though...

I thought CSN was coming up with something this year?

Fenway
10-25-2007, 02:36 PM
I thought CSN was coming up with something this year?

Supposed to launch in the next couple of weeks.

PKalltheway
10-25-2007, 03:04 PM
I thought CSN was coming up with something this year?
If that's true, then that's a damn good thing. Cincinnati is a Time Warner city though, so I won't be seeing it.:(:

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 03:38 PM
Sooner or later the 'precious' Blow Sox and Yankees are going to fail. It has to happen, just ask the Braves...then what does ESPN and Fox do?

It's to late then to try to 'hype' someone else. The time to do it is NOW, protect yourself and your ratings for the rainy day that is sure to come. Build baseball as a sport NOT the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at the expense of all the other teams in baseball.

That's what they should do, but that's to hard, to much of a gamble in the short term.

So when the collapse does happen or a run of bad years at the least, I'm going to sit back and laugh when they complain about how lousy the ratings are and how bad the fans are.

They can help solve this issue before it happens, they have the capability to do so, they choose not to. That's the bottom line.

And one way to do it is to make mandatory what ESPN used to do when they first got the MLB deal in 1990. EVERY team had to be on Sunday Night Baseball at least once a season, from their home stadium and the total number of times a team could be on was limited. The NBA and TNT do that today, that's why fans can identify more players on more NBA teams then in MLB.

ESPN and Fox choose not to do this. After all nobody West of the Allegheny Mountains cares about baseball. Instead we'll get Yankees - Red Sox crammed down our throats ten friggin' times a year!

Brilliant!

:rolleyes:

Lip

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 03:47 PM
Sooner or later the 'precious' Blow Sox and Yankees are going to fail. It has to happen, just ask the Braves...then what does ESPN and Fox do?

It's to late then to try to 'hype' someone else. The time to do it is NOW, protect yourself and your ratings for the rainy day that is sure to come. Build baseball as a sport NOT the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at the expense of all the other teams in baseball.

That's what they should do, but that's to hard, to much of a gamble in the short term.

So when the collapse does happen or a run of bad years at the least, I'm going to sit back and laugh when they complain about how lousy the ratings are and how bad the fans are.

They can help solve this issue before it happens, they have the capability to do so, they choose not to. That's the bottom line.

And one way to do it is to make mandatory what ESPN used to do when they first got the MLB deal in 1990. EVERY team had to be on Sunday Night Baseball at least once a season, from their home stadium and the total number of times a team could be on was limited. The NBA and TNT do that today, that's why fans can identify more players on more NBA teams then in MLB.

ESPN and Fox choose not to do this. After all nobody West of the Allegheny Mountains cares about baseball. Instead we'll get Yankees - Red Sox crammed down our throats ten friggin' times a year!

Brilliant!

:rolleyes:

Lip

Pretty much the only statement in your post I agree with.

You'll be amazed at how fast a team can be hyped-up. FOX and ESPN will be juuuust fine.

fquaye149
10-25-2007, 03:57 PM
Sooner or later the 'precious' Blow Sox and Yankees are going to fail. It has to happen, just ask the Braves...then what does ESPN and Fox do?

It's to late then to try to 'hype' someone else. The time to do it is NOW, protect yourself and your ratings for the rainy day that is sure to come. Build baseball as a sport NOT the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at the expense of all the other teams in baseball.

That's what they should do, but that's to hard, to much of a gamble in the short term.

So when the collapse does happen or a run of bad years at the least, I'm going to sit back and laugh when they complain about how lousy the ratings are and how bad the fans are.

They can help solve this issue before it happens, they have the capability to do so, they choose not to. That's the bottom line.

And one way to do it is to make mandatory what ESPN used to do when they first got the MLB deal in 1990. EVERY team had to be on Sunday Night Baseball at least once a season, from their home stadium and the total number of times a team could be on was limited. The NBA and TNT do that today, that's why fans can identify more players on more NBA teams then in MLB.

ESPN and Fox choose not to do this. After all nobody West of the Allegheny Mountains cares about baseball. Instead we'll get Yankees - Red Sox crammed down our throats ten friggin' times a year!

Brilliant!

:rolleyes:

Lip

And yet the Braves still have a national following, in part due to TBS

Oh well.

WGN is for the Cubs, ESPN is for the Yankees and Red Sox.

It's just the way it is, I guess

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 04:19 PM
It's:

If they are doing so well why all the moaning coming out of baseball about how bad the ratings have been this season?

Well you can help correct that, insulate yourself from it. The networks can do it themselves or Bud and company can demand they change policies.

You (meaning baseball) can't have it both ways, cram the Yankees - Blow Sox down fans throats then ***** when the ratings are poor. (and that goes for the networks on the East Coast as well.)

Lip

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 04:32 PM
It's:

If they are doing so well why all the moaning coming out of baseball about how bad the ratings have been this season?

Well you can help correct that, insulate yourself from it. The networks can do it themselves or Bud and company can demand they change policies.

You (meaning baseball) can't have it both ways, cram the Yankees - Blow Sox down fans throats then ***** when the ratings are poor. (and that goes for the networks on the East Coast as well.)

Lip

The networks are moaning that they aren't making as much money as they could be. These guys aren't going broke. Ratings for the ALCS and the first game of the WS have been great. Only the NLCS sucked due to many factors:

- Cable only
- New network with new hosts
- Games on late
- Teams without "storied" franchises (i.e. have only been around for a few years)
- Smaller media markets
- General fan disinterest (Diamondbacks couldn't sell out their games at home and people in Phoenix weren't really watching on TV).

ondafarm
10-25-2007, 05:11 PM
Sooner or later the 'precious' Blow Sox and Yankees are going to fail. It has to happen, just ask the Braves...then what does ESPN and Fox do?

It's to late then to try to 'hype' someone else. The time to do it is NOW, protect yourself and your ratings for the rainy day that is sure to come. Build baseball as a sport NOT the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox at the expense of all the other teams in baseball.

That's what they should do, but that's to hard, to much of a gamble in the short term.

So when the collapse does happen or a run of bad years at the least, I'm going to sit back and laugh when they complain about how lousy the ratings are and how bad the fans are.

They can help solve this issue before it happens, they have the capability to do so, they choose not to. That's the bottom line.

And one way to do it is to make mandatory what ESPN used to do when they first got the MLB deal in 1990. EVERY team had to be on Sunday Night Baseball at least once a season, from their home stadium and the total number of times a team could be on was limited. The NBA and TNT do that today, that's why fans can identify more players on more NBA teams then in MLB.

ESPN and Fox choose not to do this. After all nobody West of the Allegheny Mountains cares about baseball. Instead we'll get Yankees - Red Sox crammed down our throats ten friggin' times a year!

Brilliant!

:rolleyes:

Lip

Lip,
while I'm not sure I would say it your way, I agree. In ESPN's defense ((can't believe I'm saying that)) the MLB owners seem to think those two teams are preeminent as well because of their unbalanced schedule. Because the Yanks and Red Sox play each other 19 times a year, neither has room for four series against the White Sox and only two are guarenteed, three series come in rotation.
I'd prefer more balance.

PKalltheway
10-25-2007, 05:36 PM
The networks are moaning that they aren't making as much money as they could be. These guys aren't going broke. Ratings for the ALCS and the first game of the WS have been great. Only the NLCS sucked due to many factors:

- Cable only
- New network with new hosts
- Games on late
- Teams without "storied" franchises (i.e. have only been around for a few years)
- Smaller media markets
- General fan disinterest (Diamondbacks couldn't sell out their games at home and people in Phoenix weren't really watching on TV).
What happens when the ALCS is on TBS next year, then? TBS and Fox alternate the LCS every year now. There's no way in hell an ALCS on TBS would get as good of ratings that the NLCS would get on Fox. I don't care if the Red Sox are playing.

TommyJohn
10-25-2007, 06:00 PM
I don't have a problem with the idea that Fox execs are privately happy when big-ratings teams make the World Series. That only makes sense given their financial stake in the matter.

What I don't like is when the media goes overboard and twists this logic to the point that they are publicly griping when one of their 5 or so "beloved" teams do not make the playoffs World Series. Yes, the Yankees, Red Sox Cubs, Mets have more total fans. But that does not mean that teams like the Indians or the Rockies aren't great stories or that it should be a bad thing if they had met in the WS.

We heard the gripes and potshots from the media in '05: Nobody cares about the WS because the White Sox and Astros are in it. GMAB - just because our team isn't based at the center of the universe doesn't mean nobody cares or nobody is watching. In '05, as if this wasn't enough, we had to also put up with the fact that ESPN put a complete boob of a Red Sox fan in the booth for the ALDS who was a complete homer for them during the whole series. (ohhh nooooo!!!!!:whiner:) I don't care how popular the Red Sox are, that kind of crap national coverage is inexcusable.

I think Nellie has a point about the chicken and egg coverage. I never heard him say NYY and Bos shouldn't get a good amount of coverage. Of course they should - they're going through an era where they are annual pennant contenders and they have alot of fans. I expect them to be more newsworthy than your average team. In the late 70s, the Royals got alot of coverage because they were perennial contenders. Fine. But the problem is the over-the-top hype that just totally pushes everything NYY-Bos (and to a lesser extent the other media favorites) while ignoring the excitement that goes on around the league all season that isn't related to these handful of teams. IMO, MLB doesn't benefit in the long run from this type of slant. What we end up with each fall is the stories about how "nobody cares about the {fill in the blank here with any team not in the media's top 5} making it to the World Series". Instead of cultivating the interest of fans nationwide who love their local/regional teams and want to follow how they compete against the entire league - we just get bombarded with coverage that is just aimed at the big market fans and casual fans elsewhere who aren't very into the finer points about baseball but just buy into the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs-are-lovable hype.

Thank you. Very well stated. It is one thing to privately want your "money"
teams to be in the chase. It is another thing to go public with your pissing
and moaning when they don't make it. It shows a lack of respect to those
teams and their fans. ***** in private board meetings about the ratings.
Don't ***** in public about the low ratings. Hype the product. Hyping five
"big" teams, then complaining when they don't make it is counterproductive.

Now of course, one or two people here may sneer "what do you expect, you
stupid peasants? It's all about the money." *sneer* *sneer* I realize that.
To which I say, if it is costing them that much money, don't renew when the
contract runs out. No one at MLB puts a gun to Fox's head and demands
the money to broadcast these games. Cut losses and give the rights back
to NBC, who will put Bob Costas back in the booth. Then those of us who
complain of Buck and McCarver will know the true meaning of insufferable.

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 07:15 PM
What happens when the ALCS is on TBS next year, then? TBS and Fox alternate the LCS every year now. There's no way in hell an ALCS on TBS would get as good of ratings that the NLCS would get on Fox. I don't care if the Red Sox are playing.

TBS is the new kid on the block. This year was the learning experience for them. They should be better next year but will still get lower ratings due to being exclusively cable.

PKalltheway
10-25-2007, 08:01 PM
Another problem the White Sox have is being in the Central time zone. ESPN wants a game to start at 7 PM Eastern....

The White Sox do on occasion move a game time to 6 PM and fans scream about it.
What's wrong with starting a game at 8:00 EST? I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and I have no problem with it. If the game is on the east coast, start it at 7. If it's in the Central, start it at 8 EST. What's so bad about that?

Brian26
10-25-2007, 08:01 PM
This begs the question as to how a team becomes a national one nowadays... sort of a chicken and egg thing.

Haven't the Red Sox and Yankees been national teams since the early 20th century? Let's not get crazy and claim ESPN invented the two teams.

DSpivack
10-25-2007, 08:26 PM
Haven't the Red Sox and Yankees been national teams since the early 20th century? Let's not get crazy and claim ESPN invented the two teams.

The Yankees have, but have the Red Sox? It seems to me just ten years ago they weren't, but I was too young for anything before that.

Brian26
10-25-2007, 08:40 PM
Throw in the Central time zone and we're talking about 75% of the US population. Hell, the Central alone has 25% more people than Mountain and Pacific combined.

The people have spoken.

:hawk
"I luv timezone debates, Fiesty!"

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 09:19 PM
Brian:

For the record the Yankees weren't a 'national' team in the 80's when they weren't winning squat, if fact the Yanks couldn't sell out games in the early 90's (I have video from when the Sox went to N.Y. for example in 1990 and the place was empty!)

Also remember Steinbrenner talking about leaving Yankee Stadium because he couldn't draw people anymore.

The Yankees 'national' status came about starting the mid 90's when they started winning and ESPN and then Fox, when they got the deal, jumped on the bandwagon and started showing games as much as possible including Fox showing EVERY single Yankee post season game in prime time going back to their series with Texas I think around 96 or 97.

I can't recall in the past 12 years Fox NOT showing a Yankee post season game in any other time slot other then national prime. Regardless of whether it was the LDS, LCS or World Series.

That shows the power of the networks. Best example was in 2005. The White Sox were the best team, they had the best record, made national news that season...and played every first round game in the afternoon.

I wonder why?

And the Red Sox (as Fenway can confirm) positively sucked in the 1960's, save for 1967, and for a lot of the 1980's to use two examples. Let's put it this way, Tony and Bob or Vin and Joe didn't camp out in Fenway Park in five years as much as ESPN and Fox do in one.

Lip

itsnotrequired
10-25-2007, 09:31 PM
Brian:

For the record the Yankees weren't a 'national' team in the 80's when they weren't winning squat, if fact the Yanks couldn't sell out games in the early 90's (I have video from when the Sox went to N.Y. for example in 1990 and the place was empty!)

Also remember Steinbrenner talking about leaving Yankee Stadium because he couldn't draw people anymore.

The Yankees 'national' status came about starting the mid 90's when they started winning and ESPN and then Fox, when they got the deal, jumped on the bandwagon and started showing games as much as possible including Fox showing EVERY single Yankee post season game in prime time going back to their series with Texas I think around 96 or 97.

I can't recall in the past 12 years Fox NOT showing a Yankee post season game in any other time slot other then national prime. Regardless of whether it was the LDS, LCS or World Series.

That shows the power of the networks. Best example was in 2005. The White Sox were the best team, they had the best record, made national news that series...and played every first round game in the afternoon.

I wonder why?

Lip

New York is the #1 media market in the country and has been since forever. Why does it surprise you that FOX picks them as their prime-time game?

TheOldRoman
10-25-2007, 09:35 PM
Lip, you are mostly right, but I do remember one afternoon Yankees game. The Pedro-Zimmer game was an afternoon, and the Cubs-Marlins took the nightcap.
But as far as I can remember, that was the only time they weren't in primetime (unless you don't consider starting at 10 ET primetime, like when they played the Angels in the 05 ALDS).

Foultips
10-25-2007, 09:43 PM
Lip the irony is Boston was our first round victim in 05 and they were in the afternoon as well.

MarySwiss
10-25-2007, 10:09 PM
The Yankees 'national' status came about starting the mid 90's when they started winning and ESPN and then Fox, when they got the deal, jumped on the bandwagon and started showing games as much as possible including Fox showing EVERY single Yankee post season game in prime time going back to their series with Texas I think around 96 or 97.


Lip:
I never actually thought about ESPN and Fox as bandwagon jumpers. Good point, as always!

Brian26
10-25-2007, 10:24 PM
Brian:

For the record the Yankees weren't a 'national' team in the 80's when they weren't winning squat, if fact the Yanks couldn't sell out games in the early 90's (I have video from when the Sox went to N.Y. for example in 1990 and the place was empty!)....

I agree. I'll also contend that a strong Yankees baseball team is healthy for major league baseball. If you look at the early 90s, baseball was in a slump with the Blue Jays, Twins and Braves winning pennants left and right without any major competition. It seems as though baseball's resurgence over the past decade has coincided with the Yankees being the strong anti-hero.

Let's put it this way, Tony and Bob or Vin and Joe didn't camp out in Fenway Park in five years as much as ESPN and Fox do in one.

Lip

I appreciate the reference to Costas/Kubek and Scully/Joe G. I grew up with those guys on Saturday afternoons. Oddly, I remember more Games of the Week involving the Cardinals and Dodgers back then than any other teams. It seemed like they were at Busch Stadium every week.

Brian26
10-25-2007, 10:26 PM
Lip, you are mostly right, but I do remember one afternoon Yankees game. The Pedro-Zimmer game was an afternoon, and the Cubs-Marlins took the nightcap.

The only other example I can think of is the Jeffrey Maier game from 96 (Yankees vs. Orioles). I believe that was during the day. Actually, I know it was since it was a big discussion that his father had taken him out of school to go to the game.

TheOldRoman
10-25-2007, 10:38 PM
The only other example I can think of is the Jeffrey Maier game from 96 (Yankees vs. Orioles). I believe that was during the day. Actually, I know it was since it was a big discussion that his father had taken him out of school to go to the game.I believe it was a 4 eastern start. I watched it after getting home from school, so I know it wasn't daytime.

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 10:51 PM
Was that game, Yanks-O's shown on NBC? I don't remember exactly who showed it but for some reason I hear in my memory Bob Costas on the call of that disputed home run.

Which if true, speaks well of NBC that they were trying to put the best games on in prime time, not the one that would get the 'quick fix' biggest ratings.

Brian, I also agree-- a strong Yankees team is good for baseball, but there are other strong teams every season as well.. the Yankees 'deserve' no special considerations in my opinion because they happen to play in New York. And that's the crux of the issue, it's clear they are getting them from Fox and the Eastern Sports Programming Network.

Lip

Brian26
10-25-2007, 10:54 PM
I believe it was a 4 eastern start. I watched it after getting home from school, so I know it wasn't daytime.

Maybe so, but 3pm CST isn't prime time either. There was another game on the schedule later that night.

Lip Man 1
10-25-2007, 10:56 PM
It's:

It doesn't 'surprise' me but it's wrong that a supposedly 'national' network gives them special treatment at the expense of other good teams because they 'happen' to play in New York.

Lip

Brian26
10-25-2007, 10:56 PM
Brian, I also agree-- a strong Yankees team is good for baseball, but there are other strong teams every season as well.. the Yankees 'deserve' no special considerations in my opinion because they happen to play in New York. And that's the crux of the issue, it's clear they are getting them from Fox and the Eastern Sports Programming Network.

Lip

Point taken.

The Sox got ripped off on this policy in 2000 when all three of their ALDS games against Seattle were scheduled as day games, while the Yankees played night games that postseason.

ChiSoxFan35
10-25-2007, 11:42 PM
I hate David Stern, that was dumb for him to say, especially with the questionable officiating, that was all before gambling-gate. Not surprised though, he seemed annoyed after Golden State advanced last year, saying he specifically made the first round 7 games so something like that WOULDNT happen.


Back to baseball, anyone else hate the start times? Besides the unnecessary pregame that always pushes the game back, how about starting an hour earlier? I liked how TBS set it up.

whitesoxfan1986
10-26-2007, 01:07 AM
I personally believe that ESPN has a vendetta against all Chicago teams not named the Cubs. The Bears were running roughshots all over everyone last year for the first 7 games and they were poo-pooing it like it was nothing. They picked the Saints to beat them in a consensus in the NFCC game. If that doesn't scream BS I don't know what does. I'm sure if the Bulls got really good in a couple of years and were clearly better than the Celtics and were playing them in the second round of the playoffs, then the consensus pick would be the Celtics. There is nothing to root for for the national outlets in this city since Jordan retired, so they are set on bashing any team from this city that doesn't play baseball on the north side.

tebman
10-26-2007, 09:32 AM
Which if true, speaks well of NBC that they were trying to put the best games on in prime time, not the one that would get the 'quick fix' biggest ratings.

Brian, I also agree-- a strong Yankees team is good for baseball, but there are other strong teams every season as well.. the Yankees 'deserve' no special considerations in my opinion because they happen to play in New York. And that's the crux of the issue, it's clear they are getting them from Fox and the Eastern Sports Programming Network.

Lip
Lip, I agree that a strong Yankees team is good for baseball because of the Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio/Mantle folklore that served as a common American thread for so many years. The main difference is that when NBC was the dominant baseball network from the 1950s through the 1970s they didn't have the coronation mentality that Fox and ESPN seem to have regarding the Yankees and Red Sox.

I think the main reason for this is not simple fan-preference by the network bosses, but Fox's and ESPN's insatiable thirst for a clash-of-the-titans storyline they can create. Look all around News Corporation's properties (Fox TV, Fox Sports, Fox News, the New York Post, etc.) and the common trait is the BIG STORY and an IN YOUR FACE presentation that comes off like too many people chugging Red Bull and black coffee. Rupert Murdoch has made an absolute fortune selling SIZZLE! and a component of that is making every broadcast the Game Of The Century featuring the Teams Of The Century. It's all hype, and it's easier to hype the Yankees and Red Sox because there's more money to be made there. I think ESPN saw how easy it was to make money that way and copied Fox's style.

NBC, by contrast, is like a civic cultural society. For decades there were people there who took their public-interest obligations as broadcasters seriously and that filtered down to their choice of teams to feature in the Game of the Week. NBC was after good baseball and a long-term relationship with its viewers. Fox and ESPN are about the hustle and the fast buck, and the quickest way to do that is with a garish show.

I just hope Bud Selig doesn't encourage these carnival barkers any more than he already has.

Hitmen77
10-26-2007, 10:26 AM
No one at MLB puts a gun to Fox's head and demands
the money to broadcast these games. Cut losses and give the rights back
to NBC, who will put Bob Costas back in the booth. Then those of us who complain of Buck and McCarver will know the true meaning of insufferable.

I agree. I know Bob Costas is popular, but I'm not a huge fan of his. People like to complain that Buck/McCarver are biased, but they aren't as much big market team boosters as some. They might not be great announcers, but I didn't have a problem with how they covered the '05 World Series. Costas, however, is one of those that has treated and - if NBC ever gets baseball back - will treat the White Sox like they don't even exist because they aren't from NY, Bos, LA, St. L, or the north side of Chicago.

Haven't the Red Sox and Yankees been national teams since the early 20th century? Let's not get crazy and claim ESPN invented the two teams.

I never heard of the Red Sox as a national team before ~ the mid 1990s.

I agree. I'll also contend that a strong Yankees baseball team is healthy for major league baseball. If you look at the early 90s, baseball was in a slump with the Blue Jays, Twins and Braves winning pennants left and right without any major competition. It seems as though baseball's resurgence over the past decade has coincided with the Yankees being the strong anti-hero.


Brian,
While I agree that a strong Yankees franchise is healthy for MLB, I disagree that the Yankees are credited with baseball's slump and resurgence. IIRC, it was the McGwire/Sosa steroid-fueled HR race in '98 that jump started interest in baseball again after the strike. I think alot of credit for increased attendance goes to popular new parks and/or new-found postseason success of certain teams that happend after the early 90s (Indians, Tigers, White Sox, Angels, Mariners, Astros, Giants are examples). I doubt higher attendance in these places has much to do with Yankees dominance.

In fact, I think a Yankees/Red Sox monopoly on pennants can have the opposite effect on the rest of the AL. Attendance would suffer elsewhere as fans lose interest over frustration that their team can never get past the NY/Bos "roadblock". In fact, simply looking at the other teams in the AL East shows that the NY/Bos dominance hasn't helped. Toronto and Baltimore were top draws 10 or 15 years ago due to success and popular new stadiums. Years of mediocre play by the O's has manage to deflate attendance even at "instant classic" Camden Yards. Playing NY and Bos 18 times each every year hasn't helped these teams and they have a tough challenge putting together a team that could get past both NY and Bos in the East.

thedudeabides
10-26-2007, 10:37 AM
Lip, I agree that a strong Yankees team is good for baseball because of the Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio/Mantle folklore that served as a common American thread for so many years. The main difference is that when NBC was the dominant baseball network from the 1950s through the 1970s they didn't have the coronation mentality that Fox and ESPN seem to have regarding the Yankees and Red Sox.

I think the main reason for this is not simple fan-preference by the network bosses, but Fox's and ESPN's insatiable thirst for a clash-of-the-titans storyline they can create. Look all around News Corporation's properties (Fox TV, Fox Sports, Fox News, the New York Post, etc.) and the common trait is the BIG STORY and an IN YOUR FACE presentation that comes off like too many people chugging Red Bull and black coffee. Rupert Murdoch has made an absolute fortune selling SIZZLE! and a component of that is making every broadcast the Game Of The Century featuring the Teams Of The Century. It's all hype, and it's easier to hype the Yankees and Red Sox because there's more money to be made there. I think ESPN saw how easy it was to make money that way and copied Fox's style.

NBC, by contrast, is like a civic cultural society. For decades there were people there who took their public-interest obligations as broadcasters seriously and that filtered down to their choice of teams to feature in the Game of the Week. NBC was after good baseball and a long-term relationship with its viewers. Fox and ESPN are about the hustle and the fast buck, and the quickest way to do that is with a garish show.

I just hope Bud Selig doesn't encourage these carnival barkers any more than he already has.

Great post. You have made some fantastic points. This is why a lot of the time I have a hard time watching a game on ESPN or Fox. They cheer for a story and don't appreciate the game. The bias for ratings, or a story is clearly heard in Joe Buck's voice, or many ESPN announcers. It just seems like it's no longer about the game.

I think the NFL is the only sport who does it right. Pick any of their teams in the Super Bowl and they'll have great ratings. They don't need to have a story. Sure, the networks will have their bias, but in the end it doesn't matter who is playing. I wish baseball would take a page out of their book and promote the game, not a few teams. As long as Bud is at the helm, it won't happen.

Iwritecode
10-26-2007, 10:55 AM
I think the NFL is the only sport who does it right. Pick any of their teams in the Super Bowl and they'll have great ratings. They don't need to have a story. Sure, the networks will have their bias, but in the end it doesn't matter who is playing. I wish baseball would take a page out of their book and promote the game, not a few teams. As long as Bud is at the helm, it won't happen.

I think that's partly to do with the fact that the day of the Super Bowl is planned months in advance and has become one of the biggest party days of the year ranking right up there with New Year's.

Many people that throw parties don't know or really care which teams are in it. It's just a reason to drink and party.

Fenway
10-26-2007, 11:02 AM
The Red Sox have become a national team thanks to the internet. They started to peak in 1995 which is when the internet started to explode as well.

NBC's Game of the Week always looked for the best matchup. I remember in the mid 80's they sent Vin and Joe to County Stadium for a California-Brewers matchup.

NBC did a lot of back-up games from Wrigley and Fenway simply because the 2 parks look good on TV.

The reason the Yankees were usually on prime time on FOX was simple

WNYW-TV FOX 5 in New York rakes in the cash during a Yankees playoff game and Fox milks it further with an hour pre-game. They do the same thing in Boston and Chicago.

Fox takes the same approach as CBS does on the NFL. They make their money back not on national sales but at the local level at the O&O stations they own. That is how CBS got back into the NFL outbidding NBC because they owned stations in most of the top AFC markets.

thedudeabides
10-26-2007, 11:08 AM
The Red Sox have become a national team thanks to the internet. They started to peak in 1995 which is when the internet started to explode as well.

NBC's Game of the Week always looked for the best matchup. I remember in the mid 80's they sent Vin and Joe to County Stadium for a California-Brewers matchup.

NBC did a lot of back-up games from Wrigley and Fenway simply because the 2 parks look good on TV.

The reason the Yankees were usually on prime time on FOX was simple

WNYW-TV FOX 5 in New York rakes in the cash during a Yankees playoff game and Fox milks it further with an hour pre-game. They do the same thing in Boston and Chicago.

Fox takes the same approach as CBS does on the NFL. They make their money back not on national sales but at the local level at the O&O stations they own. That is how CBS got back into the NFL outbidding NBC because they owned stations in most of the top AFC markets.

Does NBC not own stations in those markets?

Fenway
10-26-2007, 11:21 AM
Does NBC not own stations in those markets?
Yes but they didn't take the creative accounting approach that CBS did.

NBC didn't factor local ad sales into their bid.

FOX of course set the table on this back in 1995 when they outbid CBS for the NFC. Everybody thought Murdoch was insane but the reality was that his owned and operated stations doubled in value overnight because of the NFL.

Then CBS stations in Cleveland and Detroit jumped ship and even today CBS is now on UHF in those markets.

Hokiesox
10-26-2007, 12:16 PM
What's wrong with starting a game at 8:00 EST? I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and I have no problem with it. If the game is on the east coast, start it at 7. If it's in the Central, start it at 8 EST. What's so bad about that?

If an ESPN game starts at 8 EST, they can't run an hour of baseball tonight followed by Sportscenter. I love it when teams don't move their starting times to accomodate ESPN.

cws05champ
10-26-2007, 05:35 PM
Exactly. Your article was right on the money. If you're gonna be a national network, be one then. Don't cater to one portion of the country. The sad thing is that you can't just turn to another channel if you want better sports coverage. ESPN knows they have the power to do this because you can't go anywhere else to get better sports coverage. That's why I'm hoping another sports network will come up that won't be nearly as ridiculous as ESPN. Looks that that will be just a dream though...

I'm suprised that ESPN has not capitalized on their own east coast bias and actually started an ESPN West channel. They have to see that Fox Sports bases their shows on the West Coast. Then all we would need is ESPN "The Ocho", and the world would be complete.

Hendu
10-26-2007, 10:10 PM
It's not surprising, and understandable that Fox and ESPN only care about the ratings. It's just kind of sad for MLB that most of its teams get overlooked by the national media. It's also unprofessional when that bias shows up in the broadcasts.

How has the NFL done such a good job at showcasing a variety of teams each year on national TV? Granted, NFL is much more TV-friendly in general, so the games can be more about the event than the actual game. Guess I just answered my own question.

PKalltheway
10-27-2007, 12:09 AM
Lip, you are mostly right, but I do remember one afternoon Yankees game. The Pedro-Zimmer game was an afternoon, and the Cubs-Marlins took the nightcap.
But as far as I can remember, that was the only time they weren't in primetime (unless you don't consider starting at 10 ET primetime, like when they played the Angels in the 05 ALDS).
The Yankees also played their 2003 Division Series opener at Yankee Stadium during the day. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200309300.shtml

You won't see another Yankee Stadium daytime playoff game anytime soon though if MLB and Fox have anything to do with it.

Railsplitter
10-27-2007, 08:35 AM
I suppose it's more economical for Fox execs to hope for "national" teams to win than to pay for compelling broacasters with talent.

itsnotrequired
10-27-2007, 09:40 AM
The Yankees also played their 2003 Division Series opener at Yankee Stadium during the day. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA200309300.shtml

You won't see another Yankee Stadium daytime playoff game anytime soon though if MLB and Fox have anything to do with it.

That game was on ESPN.