http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/sports/baseball/world-series-2014-baseball-is-no-longer-center-of-attention-in-new-landscape.html?_r=0
OK what is your take on this. But if this was in San Francisco or Kansas City more people would care about the world series more than the rest of the country.
Hard to say, maybe next year if the Cubs make it to the World Series as "predicted" in Back to the Future 2, things might change. ;-)
I saw some comments posted by posters about the article then I decided to quote
Quote from Judy Allen
Not "everybody" is watching, folks.
We're not.
But then, we are lifelong lovers of baseball, its history and progress.
Baseball may take a dip right now, what with football games getting more frantic and rougher.
I think that the tide will return to baseball as a safer game for young athletes to pursue, considering how many terrible injuries occur in football.
Baseball may have sports injuries to muscles, joints, etc., but deaths are rare, as is brain damage.
Hang in there, baseball; you'll be back to number 1 one day soon.
QuoteIra Lacher
Des Moines 1 hour ago
When MLB moved all the Series games to prime time in the 70s, there were only three networks to watch, so World Series games competed against only two other alternatives -- usually old movies, since networks didn't want to risk original programs in what was sure to be a ratings loser.
Now you've got a hundred and three networks, many with compelling programming, as well as recorded shows, and baseball is finding the TV forest much denser. The obvious solution is to rely on an old baseball maxim: "Hit it where they ain't." Place the games where there isn't nearly as much choice alternative programming -- in the daytime.
Quote from: bing101 on October 24, 2014, 10:51:10 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/sports/baseball/world-series-2014-baseball-is-no-longer-center-of-attention-in-new-landscape.html?_r=0
OK what is your take on this. But if this was in San Francisco or Kansas City more people would care about the world series more than the rest of the country.
New York needs to understand that 1) it is not the center, nor the heart of the country, and 2) we can do without them.
Unless it's Chicago (good luck with that :-D ), I could care less and go watch NHL lol
People have been reporting on Baseball's death since I was a child.
The NY Times, leaving aside its amateurish and often made up or plagiarized general news reporting, is hardly a major voice in sports reporting.
Yankee fans crying that "nobody" cares if the Yankees (or Sox) are not in it. "Nobody" except for the entire country west of the Hudson.
I'm a Canadian, and I've watched a bunch of playoff games this year. So somebody cares. I think I like the fact that the Yankees or the Cardinals aren't in it more than if they were.
I'm happy the Cardinals are out and awaiting for the Royals to beat the Giants.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 25, 2014, 09:05:01 AM
People have been reporting on Baseball's death since I was a child.
The NY Times, leaving aside its amateurish and often made up or plagiarized general news reporting, is hardly a major voice in sports reporting.
Yankee fans crying that "nobody" cares if the Yankees (or Sox) are not in it. "Nobody" except for the entire country west of the Hudson.
I must have missed the quote from a Yankee fan "crying that 'nobody' cares if the Yankees (or Sox) are not in it." Not only are we Eastern folk lousy reporters, but apparently we can't read, either!
I did read that the TV ratings for the series are among the lowest ever, but you know the Times and its outlandish use of things like ratings to measure viewer interest. They forgot to factor in that in the middle of the country there's only one television for every nineteen people, so the whole block gathers 'round! Ignorant Eastern bias! They probably plagiarized this article from another smug, haughty rag from Boston or Princeton or whatever snooty city it was. Those people are all the same anyway.
Did anybody consider web traffic to the MLB site, or the Giants and Royals twitter profile or Facebook profile during the game? Here in California its being mentioned in local articles.
In the 60s and 70s, teams could barely sell out their stadiums. Nowadays, ticket sales are way up.
I would take ticket sales as a better barometer of baseball's health than TV ratings. Baseball (for some reason) isn't as big of a TV spectacle as football, but people like to take in a ball game.
The money is in TV, but baseball is becoming a regional sport. People follow their teams, but there isn't the national following of the league in general that there used to be.
But many teams have signed ridiculously lucrative TV deals (often where they even own the TV network) for their own regional sports networks in the lat 4-5 years. Baseball has 162 games so it makes sense for them to do so, where it doesn't for football or basketball.
Attendance is up, regional channels are way, way up. Baseball is fine.
Baseball is a harder sport to be a casual fan (meaning either somebody who only cares about baseball during the playoffs or somebody who temporarily switches allegiances after their team was eliminated from the playoffs) of than football or even basketball. There's a lot more games, each individual is more important (in the NFL, you really only need to know a couple of the players to feel like you know what you're talking about- you don't need to know every single linebacker). National broadcasts cater to casual fans, so it's not surprising that baseball is taking a backseat to football on the national stage. On the regional stage though, it's still just as strong, and that's obvious by the long term, near billion dollar contracts individual baseball teams are signing with regional sports networks.
Yeah, it sucks for FOX, and it would certainly be bad for MLB on the whole if the World Series went to ESPN2 or something, but there's no sign that's happening.
The worst we'd see is the World Series on TBS or ESPN.
Quote from: corco on October 25, 2014, 02:06:32 PM
The money is in TV, but baseball is becoming a regional sport. People follow their teams, but there isn't the national following of the league in general that there used to be.
But many teams have signed ridiculously lucrative TV deals (often where they even own the TV network) for their own regional sports networks in the lat 4-5 years. Baseball has 162 games so it makes sense for them to do so, where it doesn't for football or basketball.
Attendance is up, regional channels are way, way up. Baseball is fine.
Baseball is a harder sport to be a casual fan (meaning either somebody who only cares about baseball during the playoffs or somebody who temporarily switches allegiances after their team was eliminated from the playoffs) of than football or even basketball. There's a lot more games, each individual is more important (in the NFL, you really only need to know a couple of the players to feel like you know what you're talking about- you don't need to know every single linebacker). National broadcasts cater to casual fans, so it's not surprising that baseball is taking a backseat to football on the national stage. On the regional stage though, it's still just as strong, and that's obvious by the long term, near billion dollar contracts individual baseball teams are signing with regional sports networks.
Yeah, it sucks for FOX, and it would certainly be bad for MLB on the whole if the World Series went to ESPN2 or something, but there's no sign that's happening.
Given the train wreck that is FOX's ratings this season, I'm pretty sure that they would love a 6 or 7 game series.
Quote from: Brandon on October 25, 2014, 07:28:32 AM
Quote from: bing101 on October 24, 2014, 10:51:10 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/sports/baseball/world-series-2014-baseball-is-no-longer-center-of-attention-in-new-landscape.html?_r=0
OK what is your take on this. But if this was in San Francisco or Kansas City more people would care about the world series more than the rest of the country.
New York needs to understand that 1) it is not the center, nor the heart of the country, and 2) we can do without them.
2) is false. That's like saying we can do without California. Misguided at best, political at worst.
Without addressing politics further, the East Coast has much of the sports market, since it has much of the population. With no teams east of the Mississippi and certainly not in the Eastern time zone, there is much less interest overall. Had the Orioles won instead of the Royals, even though that still wouldn't serve the NY market, the viewership would be correspondingly higher. I'd certainly rather watch the O's than the R's.
If it were the Orioles, Yankee fans would tune in just to root against them. Either way, they're more a known quantity when you see them 18 times a year.
I actually almost prefer the series when my team's not in it. Baseball can be excruciating when things are tense (which is part of the allure, of course). It's a little easier on my nerves when I can appreciate the drama objectively.
Anyhow, go Royals. If you win I'll bake you a quisenberry pie.
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 25, 2014, 08:29:06 PM
Quote from: corco on October 25, 2014, 02:06:32 PM
The money is in TV, but baseball is becoming a regional sport. People follow their teams, but there isn't the national following of the league in general that there used to be.
But many teams have signed ridiculously lucrative TV deals (often where they even own the TV network) for their own regional sports networks in the lat 4-5 years. Baseball has 162 games so it makes sense for them to do so, where it doesn't for football or basketball.
Attendance is up, regional channels are way, way up. Baseball is fine.
Baseball is a harder sport to be a casual fan (meaning either somebody who only cares about baseball during the playoffs or somebody who temporarily switches allegiances after their team was eliminated from the playoffs) of than football or even basketball. There's a lot more games, each individual is more important (in the NFL, you really only need to know a couple of the players to feel like you know what you're talking about- you don't need to know every single linebacker). National broadcasts cater to casual fans, so it's not surprising that baseball is taking a backseat to football on the national stage. On the regional stage though, it's still just as strong, and that's obvious by the long term, near billion dollar contracts individual baseball teams are signing with regional sports networks.
Yeah, it sucks for FOX, and it would certainly be bad for MLB on the whole if the World Series went to ESPN2 or something, but there's no sign that's happening.
Given the train wreck that is FOX's ratings this season, I'm pretty sure that they would love a 6 or 7 game series.
Well, that's nothing compared to the new TV deal the NBA just signed that will continue to have games on ABC/ESPN for the next eleven years. I've heard lots of complaints about the quality of those telecasts, but at least it's better than that of FOX.
As for the Series itself, I'm going with the Royals, if only because I dislike the Giants, stemming from my years as an L.A. resident and converted Dodgers fan.
The problem for the World Series is the playoffs. It used to be that the season would end on a Sunday and the Series would start later that week. There was a continuum of fan interest. Now a large number of teams "make" the playoffs and then continually drop out over the next three weeks. By the time the Series starts fan interest has waned.
Inter-league play also diminishes the "aurar" of an American League team playing a National League team.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 11, 2014, 09:54:21 PM
The problem for the World Series is the playoffs. It used to be that the season would end on a Sunday and the Series would start later that week. There was a continuum of fan interest. Now a large number of teams "make" the playoffs and then continually drop out over the next three weeks. By the time the Series starts fan interest has waned.
Inter-league play also diminishes the "aurar" of an American League team playing a National League team.
The "monetary units of Iceland"?
And I think you're wrong. Interest of fans of the teams in the playoffs is heightened by the continued factor of "will they make it." Fans of other teams have other sports to turn to by October. The lengthening of seasons has a lot to do with it. If your hockey or basketball team isn't in the playoffs in April, why would you watch the Stanley Cup even if it started right then?
When we went right into the Series at the end of the season, fans of the other teams did not turn to other sports. The championship of their favorite sport was at "the center of their attention".
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on November 12, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
When we went right into the Series at the end of the season, fans of the other teams did not turn to other sports. The championship of their favorite sport was at "the center of their attention".
The last time that was the case, there was comparatively less competition by those other sports for fan interest than there is today. The NFL, NBA, and NHL are much larger, more sophisticated marketing operations today than they were in 1969, when baseball was still the undoubted king. The playoff schedule is a small part of the story.