Is a Rangers-Giants World Series "bad for baseball?"

[ChaosLex]

Perhaps it's just sour grapes on his part but Tony Kornheiser said yesterday on Around the Horn that while the Rangers are a nice story, no one's going to watch the World Series because the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, the Phillies) aren't involved. I've seen similar sentiments from a few other commentators.

What say you?

[Sports Guy]

Its bad for Fox...not bad for baseball.

[Dwight Schrute]

Perhaps it's just sour grapes on his part but Tony Kornheiser said yesterday on Around the Horn that while the Rangers are a nice story, no one's going to watch the World Series because the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, the Phillies) aren't involved. I've seen similar sentiments from a few other commentators.

What say you?

I think he's more referring to casual fans. Casual fans won't watch unless Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, etc. are in the World Series. Hardcore fans will watch regardless. And he is most likely correct that the ratings will reflect this and be horrible.

[Frobby]

In my opinion, you can't equate "high TV ratings for a week" with "good for baseball." Yes, I expect a Series involving the Yankees would get higher ratings than one that doesn't. But for the long-run good of the sport, it is much better for every team's fans to feel like they have a chance. So, this Series is very good for baseball IMO.

[charliec107]

Maybe it is bad for MLB revenue, FOX ratings, etc. But for the sport of baseball, this series is great. Maybe some 7 year olds in Texas decide to pick up a baseball glove instead of football pads. I know when people say bad for baseball, it generally refers to MLB; however, MLB has to be less than 0.1% of baseball played in the USA. Anything that brings the sports more exposure in a smaller market is good for the game in general.

[incubus]

Whoops meant to vote no.

[ShaneDawg85]

Ratings are just one way of looking at the overall image and health of the game. Baseball, from a competitive and image standpoint, needs another Yankees-Phillies World Series like a dental patient needs a root canal. The causal fan is not going to watch, to which I say, have fun watching something else. Baseball needs the diversity of teams competing for a championship to open up real fans to other teams, their players, and different kinds of baseball that they otherwise wouldn't hear about. Everyone knows about the Yankees. But not a whole lot of people know about the Rangers, and probably nobody outside of the really hardcore baseball fans knows about the Giants.

Ratings will suffer, and talk show pundits will drone on about how bad the World Series is this year when they probably won't even watch. But diversifying the championship series and having something different on the biggest scale can only be good for baseball.

[NewMarketSean]

Its bad for Fox...not bad for baseball.

Fox will get higher ratings than they would have for any show they have in their schedule. They win either way.

[cliff]

In my opinion, you can't equate "high TV ratings for a week" with "good for baseball." Yes, I expect a Series involving the Yankees would get higher ratings than one that doesn't. But for the long-run good of the sport, it is much better for every team's fans to feel like they have a chance. So, this Series is very good for baseball IMO.

Couldn't agree more...was it bad for the NCAA when George Mason made it to the 2006 final four and not UNC or UConn? Or when the Saints made it to the Super Bowl? Isn't PARODYwhy we love the NFL so much?

It gets a little disheartening for the smaller market teams to see the same big market teams in the WS year in and year out.

[SrMeowMeow]

I voted no, but in retrospect, I think it is bad for baseball. Any potential reforms to improve parity just took a big hit.

[LookinUp]

Fox will get higher ratings than they would have for any show they have in their schedule. They win either way.

Yeah, and I'd win a lot of money if I only hit the first 5 numers in Mega Millions. Still, it's a lot better if I hit the mega ball.

[NewMarketSean]

I voted no, but in retrospect, I think it is bad for baseball. Any potential reforms to improve parity just took a big hit.

It wouldn't matter anyway. Look at the teams who have been in the WS the last 10-12 years. There is a difference in those teams and that's all any one will point to anyway to prove that baseball doesn't need to be majorly fixed.

[OK_Os_Fan]

Two teams in the middle market range. One that whopped the skanks. How can that be bad for baseball :clap3:

Living 3 1/2 hours north of Dallas I see many folks here that are Rangers fans and will be tuning in. , but hey who cares? :2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb: Skanks lose!!!!!:2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb::2yay-thumb:

[e16bball]

In my opinion, you can't equate "high TV ratings for a week" with "good for baseball." Yes, I expect a Series involving the Yankees would get higher ratings than one that doesn't. But for the long-run good of the sport, it is much better for every team's fans to feel like they have a chance. So, this Series is very good for baseball IMO.

But what if you take that analysis one step further?

I'm actually not totally convinced that ratings WILL be an absolute bust for this World Series. But assuming that they are terrible, and MLB takes a real hit in revenue compared to what they would have expected with Yankees-Phillies, won't that provide another disincentive for the powers that be to fix the financial travesty plaguing the game?

I admit, my idea of "good for the game" currently focuses almost entirely on the goal of shrinking the payroll disparity. But I have a hard time thinking anything is "good" when it will probably serve to reinforce the prevailing belief among the MLB power structure that payroll disparity is good for business, because it keeps the big-market teams (that most fans want to watch) in position to compete every year.

I guess it's a no-win situation. If Philly and New York had been there again, the powers that be probably would have been thrilled with the revenue generated, and that would have reinforced their belief. But maybe, just maybe, in that situation other owners around the league would have sat up and finally realized the ridiculousness of the situation.

NOTE: As a fan of watching baseball (and unconcerned with the financial/economic side of the game), I love this Series. I'm really going to enjoy watching these two clubs and seeing some fresh and extremely talented faces on the field.

[DrungoHazewood]

In my opinion, you can't equate "high TV ratings for a week" with "good for baseball." Yes, I expect a Series involving the Yankees would get higher ratings than one that doesn't. But for the long-run good of the sport, it is much better for every team's fans to feel like they have a chance. So, this Series is very good for baseball IMO.

Exactly right. The sport will probably suffer a short-term dip in ratings that may result in slightly lower TV revenues at some point. But it should more than make up for that with the increased interest in the sport in California and Texas, and among those who think the game is rigged for the Yanks and Sox.

Baseball needs to market this positively, as an opportunity for fans outside of New York and Boston to get a chance to be part of something great. Too often MLB has acted acted like their only goal is maximizing revenues right now, even at the expense of maintaining a fan base long-term.