active network espn

Active Team Sports

Previous Next
8

That groan you heard emanating from the Atlanta offices of TBS, Major League Baseball's new postseason broadcast partner, was another round of disappointing ratings for the National League playoffs. Despite relatively high viewership for playoff series involving the Red Sox and the Yankees, ratings for the National League Championship Series involving the Colorado Rockies and the Arizona Diamondbacks were lower than ESPN's Home Run Derby (4.3 percent) and ABC's Little League World Series final (3.3 percent). Evidence that on the eve of the World Series a decline in baseball's TV viewership that started in the mid-90s is still very much in effect.


Does this mean we need more 12-year-old sluggers clearing the fences in Williamsport? Not quite. Overall ratings for the first round of the playoffs are up 16 percent over last year--much of this attributed to the fact that TBS is carried in many more homes than FOX.

But it does point to the fact that baseball needs more than a semi-funny comedian like Dane Cook doing playoff baseball promos. It needs to connect, at least when the Red Sox and Yankees aren't involved, with viewers on a human level.

Stories about pitch counts and parents losing their jobs while supporting their kid's run in Williamsport helped the Little League World Series resonate with a large audience--or at least a larger audience than the NLCS.

Perhaps it's time for networks to get creative and rethink their broadcast approach. Have sideline reporters do more than just talk about stats: interview the families of players to get their perspective, find out what it's like to sit next to a group of fans booing your husband, give the players a video camera during batting practice and see what they're like when interviewing each other. It's time for Major League Baseball to stop waiting for that metaphorical three-run home run and create interest when there isn't any for the casual fan.

Tell us what you think in the comments below. Is interest in the national pastime eroding? Or is this just a blip on the screen in an otherwise healthy sport?



Add a comment Leave a comment on this blog post.
Oct 25, 2007 4:22 AM Reply Click to view CranberryBlue's profile CranberryBlue

To analyze the reasons for baseball's dismal ratings you have to juxtapose baseball with football. Going into a baseball season, realistically how many teams will even have a whiff of a playoff spot? 6? 8? 10? The Kansas City's of the world have no chance - zero - nada - none. Why would anybody in their right mind waste their hard earned money & time to see that? The NFL has two great teams - the Colts & Pats - but the 2nd tier is full of good teams and the phrase "Any given Sunday" is true. The NFL has a level playing field due to the salary cap. Also, they can cut player that don't perform without a huge financial penalty, minimizing the effect of mistakes. The Red Sox will be stuck paying Edgar Renteria's overblown salary for years. Unfortunately, the financial model for MLB will never change. The NFL is a socialist state and MLB is a series of financially independent fiefdoms. The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers & Cubs will always be able to buy what they want. What you end up with in the NFL is a large number of teams that might be successful on a consistent but in MLB you've only got a few. Instead of dragging in a nation of viewers & fans baseball will only be relevant in those areas where the teams can compete on a regular basis. This translates directly into viewership as people who invest their time in following their teams become hooked on the entire package even when their teams are eliminated.

Oct 25, 2007 9:11 AM Reply Click to view SonyGPS's profile SonyGPS in response to: CranberryBlue

Cranberry,

I enjoyed your analysis of the financial differences between MLB and the NFL, and agree that a hard salary cap drives competitive parity in the NFL. I also agree that the lack of a hard cap allows a handful of MLB teams to be "in the hunt" year after year. However, I am compelled to refute two of your other claims:

1. "The NFL has two great teams - the Colts & Pats - but the 2nd tier is full of good teams"

2. "The Kansas City's of the world have no chance - zero - nada - none."

1. Really? Which teams? I count Dallas, and maaaaybe Pittsburgh, Green Bay and the Giants in the second tier. The list of absolutely terrible teams in the NFL, conversely, is a long one....Arizona (the KC of the NFL), St. Louis, Miami, the Vikings, Niners, Jets, Chiefs, Bills, Broncos, Bengals, Falcons and Philly if they don't turn things around quick.)

2. None of the teams listed above have ANY chance at making the playoffs, let alone winning a game if they were to sneak in. Through 90% of the MLB season this year, how many teams had a chance at a playoff spot? Every single team in the NL West was alive in late September, as were the Cubs, Cards and Brewers in the NL Central. Would you consider Colorado one of MLB's "Kansas City's"? I would, and I think they've done quite alright this year. Likewise, Milwaukee, Arizona and San Diego are hardly "have's."

To end on a positive note, I thought the line: "The NFL is a socialist state and MLB is a series of financially independent fiefdoms" was classic...

Oct 25, 2007 9:18 AM Reply Click to view SonyGPS's profile SonyGPS in response to: SonyGPS

Oops...almost forgot about the Chargers in the second tier.

Oct 25, 2007 11:18 AM Reply Guest BringInRemDawg

I don't think parity is the reason people are tuning baseball out. And to make a comparison between the NFL and MLB is pushing it. A 162-game season with games played everyday to a 16-game, two-day-a-week season. Not to mention a single-elimination playoff format. Kind of an "apples and oranges" situation here.

I say it all comes down to the broadcast. TBS received low marks from critics and fans. Chip Carey made numerous factual mistakes, Frank Thomas was boring and the network went as far as to bring in Charles Barkley to spice things up. Meanwhile, Google-search Tim McCarver and Joe Buck and the majority of sites you'll find are critical. If it weren't for the delay between TV and radio, I don't know a single baseball fan who wouldn't mute their television to listen to the game over the airwaves.

FOX would do well to follow ESPN's style and dispense with the seizure-inducing montages, keeping the broadcast in line with the flow of the actual game. Another alternative would be to bring in an announcer or two from the each team's local TV coverage. Then, rather than listening to McCarver read facts just handed to him, we'd get some insight from someone who's seen the team play all season.

Oct 25, 2007 2:52 PM Reply Click to view CranberryBlue's profile CranberryBlue in response to: SonyGPS

Doing a quick look back to 2000, there have only been 2 repeat teams in the Super Bowl, NE & St Louis but in the WS (not including this year) there have 6 teams from what I would consider 'big markets' represented out of 14 teams. The Yankees (three), Mets, Angels & Red Sox. If you go back just to '05, the fortunes have changed dramatically for the Bears & Eagles. Oakland made it in '03. This all in just a few years. It would be like the Royals or Devil Rays going to the WS in '08. We all know that will not happen, but in the NFL hope springs eternal. Heck, they even rig the schedule so bad teams play bad teams to inflate records. Pete Rozelle would rise from his grave if everybody ever went 8-8. Take last year's Jets. They were evrybody's darlings & finished 10-6 with Man-genius at the helm. Now they're 1-6. Did he take stupid pills over the winter? There's a huge cycle of teams each year. I'm more familiar with the AL so I'll stay there but in the East it's Boston/NY, in the West it's LA and in the Central it's Cleveland/Detroit, and it's that way year after year.

Oct 26, 2007 10:16 AM Reply Click to view SonyGPS's profile SonyGPS in response to: CranberryBlue

I guess I'm confused about what it is you value out of a league in terms of competitive balance. On one hand you seem to say the chance for any team to win on "any given Sunday" is most important...but on the other tout the pro's of having NFL teams be terrible one year and great the next.

So...does every NFL team actually have a chance to win "on any given Sunday"? I'd say no. While the faces of the have's and have not's may change, the gap between good and bad teams remains wide year after year, leading to seasons in which fans often have to endure losses week after week. What fun is that?

This is not the case with MLB teams. In the regular season that just ended, no MLB team finished with a winning percentage above .600 or below .400. That's just the second time that has happened since 1900, and yet iyou mply that competitive balance in baseball is getting worse. Were an MLB team to sport the same winning percentage as the Chargers did last year (14-2; .875), they'd win 142 games!

Of course, I could just still be bitter that the LA Rams left back in 1995 and I haven't had a team to root for since :)

Oct 26, 2007 2:23 PM Reply Click to view CranberryBlue's profile CranberryBlue in response to: SonyGPS

Clear as mud, eh?

What I'm saying is there constant turnover at the top of each NFL division, save the AFC East & South. It keeps fans interested. Why would anybody go see the Royals or Devil Rays? I'll bet you a bright shiny nickle neither one of them will get a sniff of .500 next year - or the forseeable future for that matter and there's nothing they can do about it. The only reason some NFL teams are continually bad has to do with incompetent ownership (AZ Cardinals, anyone?) not the inability to get good players.

Oct 30, 2007 10:41 AM Reply Guest Guest in response to: CranberryBlue

I think you'd win that bet Cranberry :)

Speaking of wagers, what odds can I get that A-Rod ends up signing with the Marlins?

Active Team Sports

The latest hot topics, news and updates from the Team Sports world. We cover topics from various sports, so don't be shocked if you see a basketball related post on the baseball community. In the end, it's all relevant in one way or another. :)

Legend

  • We're Not Worthy We're Not Worthy: 10,000 - 1,000,000,000 pts
  • Legend Legend: 1,000 - 9,999 pts
  • Pro Pro: 300 - 999 pts
  • Expert Expert: 200 - 299 pts
  • Amateur Amateur: 40 - 199 pts
  • Rookie Rookie: 0 - 39 pts
  • Community Moderator Community Moderator
  • Active.com Staff Active.com Staff