(10-24-2013 11:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:49 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I think the one thing that hurts baseball the most is the territory rights.

That doesn't hurt baseball. The local TV revenue is a massive windfall, especially for the richest teams.

On top of that, MLB has national games on Monday nights, Sunday Nights, and TWO Wednesday night games on ESPN, Saturday afternoon on Fox and FS1, and Sunday afternoon on TBS. That is seven national TV windows, more than the NBA has and more than the NFL has. They also show occasional games on other nights. Also, they did once try Saturday Night games. I remember they used to air on F/X, which did not do well. And they tried a regular Thursday game, which did not do as well. They also show some games on MLB Network, or have live cut ins. I am not sure how much more than can do?

(10-25-2013 10:17 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 11:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:49 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I think the one thing that hurts baseball the most is the territory rights.

That doesn't hurt baseball. The local TV revenue is a massive windfall, especially for the richest teams.

On top of that, MLB has national games on Monday nights, Sunday Nights, and TWO Wednesday night games on ESPN, Saturday afternoon on Fox and FS1, and Sunday afternoon on TBS. That is seven national TV windows, more than the NBA has and more than the NFL has. They also show occasional games on other nights. Also, they did once try Saturday Night games. I remember they used to air on F/X, which did not do well. And they tried a regular Thursday game, which did not do as well. They also show some games on MLB Network, or have live cut ins. I am not sure how much more than can do?

Yeah, I think you're right. MLB has so many regular-season games that they can't make single games must-see TV like the NFL has been able to.

This fact just seals the point about how far the NFL is ahead of MLB on TV: The terrible Vikings-Giants MNF game on ESPN had a higher overnight rating than Game 1 of the World Series on FOX. (Vikings-Giants had a 9.5 overnight rating, World Series a 9.4.)

When you consider the teams and markets involved, those ratings are better for baseball than you think.

In terms of the football game, it drew 13.2 million viewers compared to 14.4 million for the baseball game. While we are comparing a regular season dud to the World Series, it was essentially tied for the third highest rated MNF game this year, behind only the first two weeks.

(10-25-2013 11:13 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  When you consider the teams and markets involved, those ratings are better for baseball than you think.

Not sure about that. You have two of the five or six largest fanbases in baseball. The Cardinals are an unusual franchise in terms of how far their fanbase reaches compared to the size of their city. The only bigger name team than the Redsox they could have hoped to have were the Yankees, and the only bigger name team than the Cardinals would have been the Cubs or Dodgers. Maybe the Mets.

It's too regional a game. But you need to build these other brands, like the Nationals and Rangers, who play in big enough markets but lack the fanbase and do not field the biggest superstars. Nationals completely killed all the momentum they had having such an awful year. Until that happens, the ratings will be what they are.

I think some teams need to be contracted. If that's not an option, these other teams need exposure. Get rid of the divisions and go with a double round robin play intraleague, with some interleagure dispersed in there. Interleague has completely lost its luster now that it is every day.

Two 15 team leagues, and if I had it my way, no playoffs and just the World Series. But you could go with 5 teams in that format and justify it, because the schedule would be balanced across the league.

It's not that bad when you consider Boston had three professional teams playing the same night, one of which playing at home.

Mondays have been a traditionally weak night for content, and an especially nebulous one for the male demographics, which was why MNF and professional wrestling traditionally thrived there. Wendesdays and especially Thursdays...if MLB is pulling those numbers, that's not that bad.

The numbers for Thursday night are in, and Game 2 took a chunk out of the usual heavyweights. That's rather respectable.

Oh, the World Series has already started...?

If MLB were smart, they would reduce the number of meaningless regular season games and begin the playoffs in early September, when football is just getting legs. To compete against relevant NFL and College Football is just stupid in my opinion. But MLB is run by old schoolers that still believe it is America's most popular sport, and to actually make significant changes for long term health would be akin to admitting what everyone already knows.

(10-25-2013 03:00 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Oh, the World Series has already started...?

If MLB were smart, they would reduce the number of meaningless regular season games and begin the playoffs in early September, when football is just getting legs. To compete against relevant NFL and College Football is just stupid in my opinion. But MLB is run by old schoolers that still believe it is America's most popular sport, and to actually make significant changes for long term health would be akin to admitting what everyone already knows.

I'm sure the MLB owners are aware of there leagues status versus the NFL. I would say they shackled to their history and that boat anchor is what truly precludes them from bringing the game into the 21st century. The fact that the Cardinals' manager was upset the the umps overturned a blatantly obvious failed double play, is an example of the mindset that has to be overcome.

(10-25-2013 03:00 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Oh, the World Series has already started...?

If MLB were smart, they would reduce the number of meaningless regular season games and begin the playoffs in early September, when football is just getting legs. To compete against relevant NFL and College Football is just stupid in my opinion. But MLB is run by old schoolers that still believe it is America's most popular sport, and to actually make significant changes for long term health would be akin to admitting what everyone already knows.

Again, as someone posted earlier, many here are trying to fix problems with baseball that don't exist. For example, why would a baseball fan want to reduce the number of games?

The long term health of baseball looks fine to me. I think we can be pretty sure that 20-30 years from now, baseball will still be strong.

(10-25-2013 03:31 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-25-2013 03:00 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Oh, the World Series has already started...?

If MLB were smart, they would reduce the number of meaningless regular season games and begin the playoffs in early September, when football is just getting legs. To compete against relevant NFL and College Football is just stupid in my opinion. But MLB is run by old schoolers that still believe it is America's most popular sport, and to actually make significant changes for long term health would be akin to admitting what everyone already knows.

I'm sure the MLB owners are aware of there leagues status versus the NFL. I would say they shackled to their history and that boat anchor is what truly precludes them from bringing the game into the 21st century. The fact that the Cardinals' manager was upset the the umps overturned a blatantly obvious failed double play, is an example of the mindset that has to be overcome.

MLB will be introducing replays on plays like the Kozma error next year actually. Meanwhile, everyone basically agrees that college football needs a 16-team playoff, but that won't happen in the near future.

(10-25-2013 03:00 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Oh, the World Series has already started...?

If MLB were smart, they would reduce the number of meaningless regular season games and begin the playoffs in early September, when football is just getting legs. To compete against relevant NFL and College Football is just stupid in my opinion.

That would be worse. When football is just starting every game is "important." Now that we are a month end, we have marquee games and dud games. The World Series in September would be disasterous.

(10-23-2013 10:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:07 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  everyone ******* about MLB- but when do NBA playoff games start? After 9? MLB games start a good hour before NBA Finals games do.

Who gives a Rats Ass about the NBA? least watched of the big 3 pro sports. Last time it had anything was the Jordan, Magic and Bird Era.

VERY VERY VERY VERY wrong about that. You couldn't be more wrong from a financial and TV ratings perspective. This is totally a "I don't watch it, so it must mean no one else watches it either" statement. You may not personally watch the NBA, but the NBA Finals have been substantially ahead in the TV ratings over the World Series over the past several years outside of 2009 (where the Yankees were involved). In addition, the NBA skews much younger in terms of its audience, which advertisers pay substantially more for. (Viewers over 50 are essentially worthless from a prime time advertising perspective. The only rating that matters for prime time is 18-49, with an even bigger premium if you score higher with 18-34 year olds, which the NBA does.) So, the NBA has an outright viewership advantage over MLB right now, and those viewers also consist of the more valuable younger ones.

If I had a billion dollars laying around, getting an NBA franchise is by far the best long-term investment out of the 3 major sports: the fans are younger, kids are still playing it in increasing numbers (unlike football and baseball), and there are a whole lot more international growth opportunities (people in China and Europe will have no clue who Peyton Manning or A-Rod are, but they absolutely know LeBron/Kobe/Durant).

This.

Just because old white guys in their 50s wax nostalgic about the 80s doesn't mean the sport isn't killing it right now.

(10-23-2013 10:07 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  everyone ******* about MLB- but when do NBA playoff games start? After 9? MLB games start a good hour before NBA Finals games do.

Who gives a Rats Ass about the NBA? least watched of the big 3 pro sports. Last time it had anything was the Jordan, Magic and Bird Era.

I'm not sure you are aware but the whole world is slowly starting to pick up basketball. And I'm 100% sure even someone who does not watch basketball can tell you who the big names are and the teams.

I watch or read about something sports related every single day and I cannot even name half of the MLB teams.

(10-25-2013 08:12 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:07 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  everyone ******* about MLB- but when do NBA playoff games start? After 9? MLB games start a good hour before NBA Finals games do.

Who gives a Rats Ass about the NBA? least watched of the big 3 pro sports. Last time it had anything was the Jordan, Magic and Bird Era.

I'm not sure you are aware but the whole world is slowly starting to pick up basketball. And I'm 100% sure even someone who does not watch basketball can tell you who the big names are and the teams.

I watch or read about something sports related every single day and I cannot even name half of the MLB teams.

For all of us, it makes sense that we tend to favor the sports that are popular in our regions. You might get the feeling that baseball sucks because you have only 1 MLB team within an 8-hour drive (from Huntsville AL), but it's very popular in other areas as the ratings show. Here in New England I don't dismiss college football though it's low on the totem pole up here.

Also, an advantage that baseball has is that players have a longer shelf life health-wise than football players. Bryce Harper and Mike Trout, probably will still be playing in 10-12-14 years, while RGiii because of his knee will struggle to stay in the NFL as long (some exceptions are there of course with Manning and Brady).