Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mojmann

TV ratings

Recommended Posts

I usually go to sleep sometime around 10:30.

Man, you're getting old, Georgia Bird. Do you have a little chamomile tea before you turn in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some interesting articles on the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-10-16-TBS-LCS-ratings_N.htm

There are a couple of things in this interview as well. Only 4-6 percent of kids under 11 watch the World Series.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1594&Itemid=81ll.

One thing that has always bugged me is the claim that kids don't follow baseball as much because the games finish so late. I grew up missing the end of alot of postseason games because I had to go bed and it never stopped me from being a fan. I wish the NLCS games would of started earlier as well but living in a country with three time zones makes things hard. If they would of played the games at 4PM eastern time most of the people in Denver and Phoenix would still be at work, and kids would be in school when the game starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, you're getting old, Georgia Bird. Do you have a little chamomile tea before you turn in?

Perhaps at some point long ago you were a working man of the people instead of the upper-management, big-city Paris/New York/Birmingham type who sits on his big porch at night smoking (undoubtedly) Cuban cigars. Some of us working stiffs are only semi-retired and need a good night sleep if we are to put in a couple of hours of day trading the next day.

Tony, I want this "moj" man (if that is his real name) poster banned permanently for having the audacity to suggest I would drink such a fruity concoction instead of my decaf Earl Grey with a spot of lemon. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Overall TV ratings decline because of an exploding array of entertainment choices. Have you seen the desperate panic of the old networks with regard to prime time programming?

2) Apples-to-Oranges comps to the NFL, which only plays once a week. MLB ratings are fine compared to the NBA or NHL.

3) MLB marketing that emphasizes the Yanks and Sox to the exclusion of all else.

4) Longer/more playoff series that makes each game less important.

5) Baseball is the #3 or #4 sport among many young people for a variety of reasons.

6) Baseball is the #2 or #3 sport among many recent immigrants. Soccer ratings for some important games have been larger than some MLB/NBA/NHL playoff games despite the soccer games being only on Spanish-language networks while the "major" sports have mostly been on broadcast networks and ESPN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some interesting articles on the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-10-16-TBS-LCS-ratings_N.htm

There are a couple of things in this interview as well. Only 4-6 percent of kids under 11 watch the World Series.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1594&Itemid=81ll.

That's good stuff eddie. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The two teams have a lot to do with it, but in general, sports ratings are going down, there's a lot more to watch on tv, and there's just a lot more entertainment options in general these days.

I think this is basically it. Football on Saturdays and Sundays does well because there isn't much else on. But when you try and show a football or baseball game at the same time as ER or CSI or Grey's Anatomy or something, people are going to watch their shows. I love watching a baseball game on TV, but I can understand why some people don't and would rather watch a football game or something else. Baseball is a slow paced game and people like the faster pace of a football or basketball game. Nothing beats going to a baseball game in person though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Overall TV ratings decline because of an exploding array of entertainment choices. Have you seen the desperate panic of the old networks with regard to prime time programming?

2) Apples-to-Oranges comps to the NFL, which only plays once a week. MLB ratings are fine compared to the NBA or NHL.

3) MLB marketing that emphasizes the Yanks and Sox to the exclusion of all else.

4) Longer/more playoff series that makes each game less important.

5) Baseball is the #3 or #4 sport among many young people for a variety of reasons.

6) Baseball is the #2 or #3 sport among many recent immigrants. Soccer ratings for some important games have been larger than some MLB/NBA/NHL playoff games despite the soccer games being only on Spanish-language networks while the "major" sports have mostly been on broadcast networks and ESPN.

Agreed.

But I'd put an asterisk by #3.

It's not just the marketing MLB does.

It's what ESPN does and the networks do to hype the teams they like.

Other teams get ignored, so when it's the Rockies vs. Desertsnakes, people act like it's the AAA playoffs.

If they were smart, there'd be a conspiracy amongst the TV people to hype whoever *might* make the playoffs... for sheer profit reasons, if nothing else.

ps: Not that it would matter in Phoenix. People there didn't watch the playoffs either, even though their own team was in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Overall TV ratings decline because of an exploding array of entertainment choices. Have you seen the desperate panic of the old networks with regard to prime time programming?

2) Apples-to-Oranges comps to the NFL, which only plays once a week. MLB ratings are fine compared to the NBA or NHL.

3) MLB marketing that emphasizes the Yanks and Sox to the exclusion of all else.

4) Longer/more playoff series that makes each game less important.

5) Baseball is the #3 or #4 sport among many young people for a variety of reasons.

6) Baseball is the #2 or #3 sport among many recent immigrants. Soccer ratings for some important games have been larger than some MLB/NBA/NHL playoff games despite the soccer games being only on Spanish-language networks while the "major" sports have mostly been on broadcast networks and ESPN.

TV ratings continue to decline, but sports are more resistant than other TV because 99% of sports is watched live (i.e. it is virtually TiVo-resistant). At least that's what I was taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TV ratings continue to decline, but sports are more resistant than other TV because 99% of sports is watched live (i.e. it is virtually TiVo-resistant). At least that's what I was taught.

I Tivo sports.

If you eliminate the dead time and commercials an NFL game lasts about 10 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Tivo sports.

If you eliminate the dead time and commercials an NFL game lasts about 10 minutes.

Some people do, but it is very, very rare. I think most people (myself included) find it difficult to watch a game on delay when the outcome has already been decided and is readily available after a couple of clicks on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people do, but it is very, very rare. I think most people (myself included) find it difficult to watch a game on delay when the outcome has already been decided and is readily available after a couple of clicks on the internet.

Exactly. I can't do it. And I have to explain that to my girlfriend every time she wants to do something when the Ravens or some other big game is on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • It’s easily Chris Davis for me.  It’s not like we would have developed Schilling or waited long enough for him to become good.
    • I find this hard to answer today.  As we are still living one today, I know there is a bias towards this current Davis blunder.   But both will clearly go down as some of the worst moves around.    
    • Thinking about it a little more: The Orioles were not good when they traded for Glenn Davis.  They were coming off a 76 win 1990 season but there was some reason for optimism.  1989 had been great and with Ben McDonald and Mussina in the wings, there was some young talent to look forward to.  If they don't trade for Davis and keep Schilling, Finley and Harnisch, they might not be as bad in 1991.  And in 1992, they could have won more than the 89 games that they won.  The whole 1990s probably looks a lot different for this franchise, including the playoff years of 1996 and 1997. I'm 50/50 on this one, honestly.  I can see it both ways.
    • There's nothing stopping a team from not offering guaranteed contracts, other than the fact that the only players you would get are the guys no other team will offer a contract to.  Guaranteed contracts are a drop in the bucket to the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers.  They can afford the inevitable losses on some of those deals.  Teams like the Orioles and Rays can't afford those huge losses and have to be much more careful.  There's no way that the Yankees and the other rich teams will ever give up that competitive advantage and stop offering guaranteed contracts..
    • Well, yeah.  But as far as player personnel moves go.
    • That's a tough one.   But I think Glenn Davis
    • Thinking about this in @Sports Guy's choose one thread: There are two absolutely atrocious franchise altering deals that this franchise has made.  I'm probably missing another obvious one like the Eddie Murray deal.  While that deal was bad, I don't think it comes close to the Chris Davis contract and the Glenn Davis trade. The Orioles traded Curt Schilling, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley to the Astros for Glenn Davis before the 1991 season.  Davis was a tremendous flop, could never stay healthy while Curt Schilling went on to a borderline HoF career, Steve Finley hit 300 homers and stole 300 bases, won Gold Gloves and Harnisch ended up being a very solid pitcher. I don't think anyone could have predicted back then that those three would go on to reach the heights that they did.  Now I was 9 when the Orioles traded for Glenn Davis, I remember being excited about it.  I'm not sure what older and more sophisticated fans were thinking. I don't need to re-hash what a disaster the Chris Davis contract has been.  The issue here for me is that we can see what Schilling, Finley and Harnisch did over their careers and while they might not have been able to replicate those careers in Baltimore, it's easier to think that they could have done so. With the Davis contract, the "what if's" become a lot more murkier.  If we let Davis walk, do we re-sign Machado?   What else could that money have been spent on?  What would the roster look like today?  It's a lot harder to say. So Glenn Davis vs. Chris Davis.  Which was the worst in the history of this franchise?
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...