OT: Potential to be the lowest rated World Series Ever
by Royal from Queens on Apr 15, 2009 12:06 AM EDT
34 comments
This is off topic and came to me because I was really bored. I know this isn't the type of discussion that takes place in April but I was thinking about what would the potential lowest ratings for a World Series be?
The Phillies and the Rays just finished beating out the White Sox and Astros (2005) World Series as being the lowest rated ever.
Potential to be contenders in the discussion: Royals, Mariners, A's, Rays, in the AL. And the Marlins, Nationals, Padres, and Pirates for the NL.
So the question is, what do you guys think would potentially be the lowest rated World Series ever? I'm thinking boring small market teams as the main contenders. I'll go with the A's and Padres World Series and being FOX's worst nightmare.
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It seems the majority of teams throughout MLB would generate poor World Series ratings, if they played in said series.
It’s the state of economic disparity in baseball, coupled with the extreme spotlight of only a small handful of clubs by most major media outlets. For example, two relatively large markets in Houston and Seattle would probably generate piss poor ratings. The Yankees/Red Sox and Dodgers/Cubs/Mets would need to play eachother – and that’s extremely probable not to happen.
That'll teach ESPN and the networks to ignore the Royals!
If the Royals get to the World Series, the ratings will be lousy. But if the sports media paid more attention to the Royals during the season, then perhaps fans would be more interested. It’s all about marketing!
The immoderate moderator
But the Rays were the Cinderella story last season!
Everyone loves Cinderella!
by Royal from Queens on Apr 15, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Even Cindarella needed hype
Before Disney, Cindarella was just some fairy tale that most people hadn’t ever heard of. Then the Disney corporate machine picked it up, turned it into a movie and now everyone knows the story. Marketing!
The immoderate moderator
Precisely
And, in my opinion, you could even replace “Royals” with “23 other teams.” It’s proof that economic disparity – and the mainstream’s media fixation, excuse me salivation – with but a small handful of “money makers.” It’s unfair to the game, it’s a cheap, obvious marketing tool, and it’s misrepresenting, underrepresenting, and unrepresenting FACTS. It kills postseason ratings virtually every year, especially World Series ratings.
by Royals Nation on Apr 15, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Well the Mariners would have all of Japan watching, just not on FOX
The Royals would probably be the lowest.
the ratings numbers don't mean much really... just more channels now
overall interest in baseball is the same, if not higher, its just manifested in different ways. the attendance today drawfs the figures teams were pulling back in the good ole days.
So basically
the team with the smallest capacity, in the smallest market, with the least marketable players, in the smallest market?
So I’m guessing Royals vs. Pirates
by Royal from Queens on Apr 15, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Lost Rated on the East Coast
Highest Rated in the Midwest.
http://kcsportspodcast.com/
by KCSportsPodcast.com on Apr 15, 2009 1:27 AM EDT reply actions
Guess what the highest rated WS of All-Time is?
Royals-Phillies, 1980
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I assume that is in terms of percentage of TV's in use watching the game
…as opposed to the other element of TV ratings: number of TV’s actually watching the game. As far as market share goes, just about everything on the networks peaked in the period before cable TV exploded.
The immoderate moderator
Most viewers ever, total
54.9 million people, tuned in on average to watch each game of the 1980 World Series, compared to about 15 million last year.
Of course, the fact there were only three channels back then has a lot to do with that. But in comparison to other WS around that time, particularly a bunch of Dodgers/Yankees matchups, that is impressive.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 15, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Well you do have to remember
that the Royals had been good for a while in the 70s, and probably owned Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, along with fairweather fans from all over.
i seriously doubt
that there were any royals fans in arkansas then. STL had a stranglehold on everything from the mississippi to the rockies with their huge ass radio broadcasting area. with the naturals, we might get some splashback, but not until we’re at least challenging for league championships.
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
Not likely...
at least not anytime soon. My future in-laws (and wife) are from central Arkansas (just north of Little Rock). I’ve spent plenty of time down there, and it seems like baseball fans are few and far between. The ones who do follow any baseball are Razorbacks fans first, possibly Travelers fans, then maybe Cards or Rangers fans (or semi-followers) a distant third. The Royals aren’t even on their radar screens, Naturals notwithstanding. Northwest Arkansas might be a different story, but most people outside the Bentonville/Springdale/Rogers/Fayetteville area could seem to care less.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 15, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Two superstars
Brett and Schmidt had to be two of the biggest draws in baseball in those days. Brett was national celebrity at that point.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 15, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
i know i would be more interested
in these WS games if we didn’t have interleague play. as much as i love beating STL, when we take away the mystery of NL vs. AL, we no longer have the ‘huh, i wonder how my division rival stacks up against those stupid hitting pitchers’ that used to go on.
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
I think the multiple level of playoffs hurts too
Long playoffs means a lot of momentum is lost. I’d eventually like to see MLB expand by two and go with four eight team divisions, no wildcard.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 15, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
They should stop inter-conference play in the NFL too
It takes away from the mystery of NFC vs. AFC and makes the Superbowl much less interesting.
The immoderate moderator
Baseball is unique
with the DH rule in the AL, so it really does make a difference, as roster construction is slightly different. The difference between the NFC and AFC? How about zero?
The existence of the the DH doesn't exactly make the two leagues apples and oranges.
As you put it, “slightly different” roster construction. That’s all. Regardless, you either have the “mystery” of inter-league/inter-conference play or you don’t. If inter-conference play doesn’t hurt the Superbowl, then it shouldn’t hurt the World Series either. The World Series is the championship of the sport. THAT is why people watch it (which is why people watch the Superbowl or NBA final). It isn’t because people are itching to finally see some AL team play a NL team. Having a schedule where half of the teams don’t play the other half is simply ludicrous.
The immoderate moderator
right, well
the vast majority of people who watch television don’t have an iota of the depth you have in terms of sports knowledge. Interleague play is cute, but since we don’t play everyone in the NL, it doesn’t make sense. football draws more people for a variety of reasons, one of which is the ridiculously small number of games.
If we’re going to play stl, we should get to play san diego. the ‘mystery’ i referred to is more in the mind of the completely casual fan, i.e. someone who doesn’t watch baseball when their team isn’t playing.
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
Don't you think casual fans like watching their team play the teams in the other league?
If there is value in revealing this “mystery,” then why is it only good to experience this revelation in the World Series? Shouldn’t every team and their fans get to experience some of this during the course of the season? I think that most casual fans and more intense fans like seeing teams from the two leagues play each other. I like the Yankees-Mets games a lot, as well as the Chisox-Cubs games, Royals-Cards gams and A’s-Giants games. Those rivalries are enjoyable. And, for more serious fans, it’s good to see your team play multiple teams from the other league, where you get to see your team face a lot of the good and interesting players from the other league. Now sure many of the interleague matchups are boring, but the exact same thing is true of intra-league play. Does interleague play add value to the schedule? Definitely.
The immoderate moderator
sure
but that’s not the same as the NFL where they play everyone. if we’re comparing the two….
as i said, i like beating stl at every opportunity. i would also like to play other shitty NL teams, and would especially like to beat them frequently enough to prove that NL baseball is silly. i suppose i just don’t like the half measure of it. average fans may like it, but not enough to watch two teams they don’t root for play in the world series. Definitely.
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
I think what does make the two leagues apples and oranges
-Football is a one-time event
-Football is much easier to gamble on
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Apr 15, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Those are definitely a couple of the biggest factors
It’s easy to be a casual football fan. You know you can set aside three hours on (usually) a Sunday afternoon to follow your team/the rest of the league. And that’s a time of the week when most people aren’t doing a whole lot anyway. There aren’t nearly as many games, so the season seems shorter.
Being even a casual baseball fan generally takes a lot more commitment and patience than watching and enjoying random NFL or college games. Those are two things that most people don’t have much of these days when there is so much competing for their leisure time.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
by Sweep_the_Leg on Apr 15, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well I wasn't disagreeing with you
just pointing out that baseball is really the only sport where there is a difference within the league. No other sport really has that do they? And for the record, I don’t mind interleague. I think KC vs. StL is great. But when we get teams like Arizona, no one shows up for it.
Well the DBacks play on a T-shirt Tuesday
so i think we’ll be having a sold out crowd on our hands
by Royal from Queens on Apr 15, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
But when we get teams like Arizona, no one shows up for it.
And when we play Baltimore, no one shows up for it either. Both interleague and intraleague play have some uninteresting games, but at least adding some interleague games increases the variety in the schedule.
The immoderate moderator
Interleague is fine
But only if the schedule is balanced, otherwise it is joke and demeans competitive balance. Why should the Cards get to play 6 games against the crappy (historically) Royals, while the Cubs have to play 6 against the competitive (historically) White Sox?
It isn’t just an an interleague thing either. We play 4 games at home to Toronto this year, and only 3 away. Small, but it doesn’t sit right with me.
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
by kcbottom9th on Apr 16, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Interleague is fine
But only if the schedule is balanced, otherwise it is joke and demeans competitive balance.
Ok, I don’t have a problem with a more balanced schedule. But do you think that the unequal strength of schedule based on different inter-conference opponents is a problem in the NFL? They have the same issue with teams in different divisions competing for the wildcard, but having played different inter-conference teams. I ask you in all seriousness, is the NFL schedule also a “joke which demeans competitive balance?”
The immoderate moderator
i find
the NFL to be a joke, but that’s because i hate football. i’m stretched pretty thin on my knowledge of that particular orange. i also don’ t think the difference is as great in football as in baseball.
"red bull is amaZing" -Coco Crisp
Absolutely
I don’t need to qualify that at all
The Allard Baird of incisive internet discourse.
by kcbottom9th on Apr 16, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
