Baseball Playoffs: What Fox Wants May Not Be What Many Fans Want

[Joseph_Gallant]

Over these last few days of the regular-season, an exciting race is shaping up in the American League between the Boston Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, and New York Yankees.

Two of these three teams (the East Division winner and the "wild card", the team with the best record of the three second-place finishers in the league) will go on to postseason play next week (playoffs are due to start on October 4th). At this writing (5:30 P.M. September 28th), Boston and the Yankees are tied for first place in the American League East. Cleveland is tied with Boston and the Yankees for the "wild-card" (The Anaheim Angels have clinched the AL West, the Chicago White Sox are in first in the Central, but have not yet clinched).

In the National League, Atlanta (East) and St. Louis (Central) have clinched their divisions. San Diego is leading San Francisco by two games in the West (although the West winner will probably finish with a losing record), while Houston has all but wrapped-up the "wild-card".

However, Fox Sports (which will televise up to six first-round playoff games as well as the League Championship Series and the World Series) doesn't want to see the Cleveland Indians as the American League "wild-card", and is hoping that San Francisco will overtake San Diego (likely, the latter would have to have a complete collapse over the last days of the season to lose the division).

Why does Fox not want either Cleveland or San Diego to go on to the postseason?? Simple. They're small-market teams, which could drag down overall ratings for postseason baseball telecasts.

By contrast, having the AL playoff field being Yankees (market #1), Anaheim (within market #2, although a distant second in fan interest behind the Los Angeles Dodgers), White Sox (market #2, although fan interest is nowhere near that for the Cubs) and Boston (market #5) would feature the four largest TV markets to have AL clubs. Cleveland is market #16.

The likely NL playoff field would have Atlanta (market #9, but the Braves have a huge following regional following through the Southeast), Houston (market #10), St. Louis (market #21, but the Cards also have a huge regional following), and San Diego (market #26, the fourth-smallest TV market with a major-league club). Were San Diego to collapse and San Francisco win the NL west, Fox would get a team in the #6 market instead of the #26 market.

My guess is that assuming they qualify for the postseason, all of the New York Yankees' first-round playoff games will be in prime-time, being that they're in the number-one market. If the Yankees' first-round playoff series has an day off, and Boston (assuming they qualify) is playing that day, the Red Sox will get a prime-time game, given their market size, a huge regional following, and the fact they are defending World Series champs.

After all, the NFL is the only team sport whose postseason TV ratings hold steady regardless of market size of participating teams. In the other three major professional team sports (baseball, hockey, basketball), postseason TV ratings depend greatly on the market sizes of participating clubs.

 

[TampaBil81]

> Over these last few days of the regular-season, an exciting
> race is shaping up in the American League between the Boston
> Red Sox, Cleveland Indians, and New York Yankees.
>
> Two of these three teams (the East Division winner and the
> "wild card", the team with the best record of the three
> second-place finishers in the league) will go on to
> postseason play next week (playoffs are due to start on
> October 4th). At this writing (5:30 P.M. September 28th),
> Boston and the Yankees are tied for first place in the
> American League East. Cleveland is tied with Boston and the
> Yankees for the "wild-card" (The Anaheim Angels have
> clinched the AL West, the Chicago White Sox are in first in
> the Central, but have not yet clinched).
>
> In the National League, Atlanta (East) and St. Louis
> (Central) have clinched their divisions. San Diego is
> leading San Francisco by two games in the West (although the
> West winner will probably finish with a losing record),
> while Houston has all but wrapped-up the "wild-card".
>
> However, Fox Sports (which will televise up to six
> first-round playoff games as well as the League Championship
> Series and the World Series) doesn't want to see the
> Cleveland Indians as the American League "wild-card", and is
> hoping that San Francisco will overtake San Diego (likely,
> the latter would have to have a complete collapse over the
> last days of the season to lose the division).
>
> Why does Fox not want either Cleveland or San Diego to go on
> to the postseason?? Simple. They're small-market teams,
> which could drag down overall ratings for postseason
> baseball telecasts.
>
> By contrast, having the AL playoff field being Yankees
> (market #1), Anaheim (within market #2, although a distant
> second in fan interest behind the Los Angeles Dodgers),
> White Sox (market #2, although fan interest is nowhere near
> that for the Cubs) and Boston (market #5) would feature the
> four largest TV markets to have AL clubs. Cleveland is
> market #16.
>
> The likely NL playoff field would have Atlanta (market #9,
> but the Braves have a huge following regional following
> through the Southeast), Houston (market #10), St. Louis
> (market #21, but the Cards also have a huge regional
> following), and San Diego (market #26, the fourth-smallest
> TV market with a major-league club). Were San Diego to
> collapse and San Francisco win the NL west, Fox would get a
> team in the #6 market instead of the #26 market.
>
> My guess is that assuming they qualify for the postseason,
> all of the New York Yankees' first-round playoff games will
> be in prime-time, being that they're in the number-one
> market. If the Yankees' first-round playoff series has an
> day off, and Boston (assuming they qualify) is playing that
> day, the Red Sox will get a prime-time game, given their
> market size, a huge regional following, and the fact they
> are defending World Series champs.
>
> After all, the NFL is the only team sport whose postseason
> TV ratings hold steady regardless of market size of
> participating teams. In the other three major professional
> team sports (baseball, hockey, basketball), postseason TV
> ratings depend greatly on the market sizes of participating
> clubs.
>

I hate this crap of how networks want the higher market teams to win big in the postseason, but it's really the truth except for actual true sports fans who don't care where the team is from, but how well each team plays and if it's an exciting series or game. If anyone has followed the Cleveland Indians they have gone a long way with a lot of young players who kept chipping away at the Chicago White Sox' AL Central lead, so to me it would be real interesting if the Indians advance to the playoffs.

 

[KeithE]

> I hate this crap of how networks want the higher market
> teams to win big in the postseason, but it's really the
> truth except for actual true sports fans who don't care
> where the team is from, but how well each team plays and if
> it's an exciting series or game. If anyone has followed the
> Cleveland Indians they have gone a long way with a lot of
> young players who kept chipping away at the Chicago White
> Sox' AL Central lead, so to me it would be real interesting
> if the Indians advance to the playoffs.

The NBA is the worst but MLB is almost as bad. The NFL doesn't depend on market size to get ratings. They depend on rivalries and a Steelers-Browns game will do just as well on MNF as a Giants-Eagles game. College sports is market-irrelevent since many of the best teams are in smaller markets. Especially college football, which has almost no Division 1A presence in the Northeast (5 schools in NY, NJ, and New England combined - only Boston College has anything close to a national following - and none in NYC).

The real baseball fans will watch regardless of who's playing. It's the casual fan that they want to grab, and yes, they'll want the Yankees and Red Sox in before anyone else. The Angels, White Sox and Indians are good baseball stories (OK, the Sox are a bad baseball story right now), and none of those teams has a huge following outside of Orange County CA, the south side of Chicago & adjoining suburbs, and NE Ohio, respectively. The Angels have had their moments in the national spotlight in recent years, but the Sox and Indians have not had a real national presence since the 1950s.

If the Yankees don't make it to the post-season (a real possibility), then kiss the playoff ratings and ad revenue goodbye. They'll need NY since these are the 2nd teams in Chicago and LA and the ratings won't be as high in those cities as they would have if the Cubs and Dodgers were playing.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Keith El;ster wrote:

> The NFL doesn't depend on market size to get ratings. They depend
> on rivalries and a Steelers-Browns game will do just as well
> on MNF as a Giants-Eagles game.

The Green Bay Packers are based in television market #69 (the smallest TV market with a team in any of the "big four" professional team sports). However, the Packers do have the advantage of: (1) Playing in a sport where all regular-season TV revenues are equally split (thanks to the fact that there is no such thing as locally-originated TV coverage for NFL regular-season games), and, (2) Having a huge regional following throughout Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan (and prior to Minneapolis/St. Paul getting the Minnesota Vikings, I suspect the Pack had a huge following in Minnesota, too).

Keith also wrote:

> College sports is market-irrelevent since many of the best teams are in
> smaller markets. Especially college football...

In Division 1-A college football, the defending national champion (and the current top-ranked team) is the University of Southern California, which is based in Los Angeles, the nation's number-two TV market----and oddly enough, a market that does not have an NFL team at the moment.

> (College football) has almost no Division 1A presence
> in the Northeast (5 schools in NY, NJ, and New England
> combined - only Boston College has anything close to
> a national following - and none in NYC).

Boston College has somewhat of a following in metropolitan Boston. In college football, BC is the only Boston-area team that gets any sort of media attention with the exception of the weekend before Thanksgiving. That weekend, Harvard gets lots of attention (often as much or more than BC) because they play arch-rival Yale in the oldest college football rivalry there is (in fact, from the late 1940's until the mid 1960's, the annual Harvard/Yale game was a staple of network coverage of college football). However, Boston College has very little fan following through the rest of New England and no "national" following to speak of.

As regards the rest of New England: In Connecticut, the big college sports are U/Conn's men's and women's basketball teams; in New Hampshire and Maine, the big college sport is men's hockey (at the University of New Hampshire and the University Of Maine, respectively), and in Rhode Island, the big college sport is Providence College men's basketball.

> If the Yankees don't make it to the post-season (a real
> possibility), then kiss the playoff ratings and ad revenue
> goodbye. They'll need NY since these are the 2nd teams in
> Chicago (White Sox) and LA (Anaheim Angels) and the ratings
> won't be as high in those cities as they would have if the
> Cubs and Dodgers were playing.

If the Yankees don't make the American League playoffs, the Boston Red Sox will (Cleveland also will get in as a "wild-card"). And if that's the case, look for Boston's first-round series to get the prime-time Fox exposure since the Red Sox are in the number-five TV market, and have a huge regional following through the rest of New England. And some New York viewers will tune-in to root against the Red Sox.

From Fox's point of view, the Boston Red Sox will become "America's Team" for their postseason coverage if the New York Yankees don't qualify.

 

[KeithE]

> The Green Bay Packers are based in television market #69
> (the smallest TV market with a team in any of the "big four"
> professional team sports). However, the Packers do have the
> advantage of: (1) Playing in a sport where all
> regular-season TV revenues are equally split (thanks to the
> fact that there is no such thing as locally-originated TV
> coverage for NFL regular-season games), and, (2) Having a
> huge regional following throughout Wisconsin and the upper
> peninsula of Michigan (and prior to Minneapolis/St. Paul
> getting the Minnesota Vikings, I suspect the Pack had a huge
> following in Minnesota, too).

They also have older fans on the south side of Chicago. Since the Cards left for St. Louis in 1960, many south-siders adopted the Packers since they hated the Bears (my family included).

> In Division 1-A college football, the defending national
> champion (and the current top-ranked team) is the University
> of Southern California, which is based in Los Angeles, the
> nation's number-two TV market----and oddly enough, a market
> that does not have an NFL team at the moment.

Absolutely true, but they're an exception to the rule. NYC has no Division 1A team. Chicago has Northwestern (big deal!) and basks off Notre Dame's glory. SF/Oakland has Stanford and Cal-Berkeley, only Cal being decent. Philly has Temple. Big whoop.

Of this weeks AP Top 10, only USC, Miami, and Georgia are in Top-20 TV markets. But like I said, it doesn't matter what size TV market Ohio State, Florida State, or Notre Dame are in.

> Boston College has somewhat of a following in metropolitan
> Boston. In college football, BC is the only Boston-area team
> that gets any sort of media attention with the exception of
> the weekend before Thanksgiving. That weekend, Harvard gets
> lots of attention (often as much or more than BC) because
> they play arch-rival Yale in the oldest college football
> rivalry there is (in fact, from the late 1940's until the
> mid 1960's, the annual Harvard/Yale game was a staple of
> network coverage of college football). However, Boston
> College has very little fan following through the rest of
> New England and no "national" following to speak of.

I'm surprised at that. We have a lot of folks from Boston moving into Phoenix nowadays. A lot of them are BC fans.

> As regards the rest of New England: In Connecticut, the big
> college sports are U/Conn's men's and women's basketball
> teams; in New Hampshire and Maine, the big college sport is
> men's hockey (at the University of New Hampshire and the
> University Of Maine, respectively), and in Rhode Island, the
> big college sport is Providence College men's basketball.

Of those, only UConn is 1A in football, and they're not very good. The rest are 1AA.

> If the Yankees don't make the American League playoffs, the
> Boston Red Sox will (Cleveland also will get in as a
> "wild-card"). And if that's the case, look for Boston's
> first-round series to get the prime-time Fox exposure since
> the Red Sox are in the number-five TV market, and have a
> huge regional following through the rest of New England. And
> some New York viewers will tune-in to root against the Red
> Sox.
>
> From Fox's point of view, the Boston Red Sox will become
> "America's Team" for their postseason coverage if the New
> York Yankees don't qualify.

Right now, the Yankees are in the drivers seat in the AL East. They and the White Sox won, Cleveland and the Red Sox lost.

 

[KML0224]

> Right now, the Yankees are in the drivers seat in the AL
> East. They and the White Sox won, Cleveland and the Red Sox
> lost.
>

YAY! Anyway, I also expect that the Yankees would be in prime time (please win the division!). As for radio, WTIC-AM 1080 of Hartford would still likely carry and of the Red Sox games (they have so since the 1950s). 5,000 watt WPOP-AM 1410 of Hartford carries the Yankees here. The latter is an ESPN Radio affiliate. It was quite unusual radio dial during the World Series last year, to say the least.

 

[fybush]

> YAY! Anyway, I also expect that the Yankees would be in
> prime time (please win the division!). As for radio, WTIC-AM
> 1080 of Hartford would still likely carry and of the Red Sox
> games (they have so since the 1950s). 5,000 watt WPOP-AM
> 1410 of Hartford carries the Yankees here. The latter is an
> ESPN Radio affiliate. It was quite unusual radio dial during
> the World Series last year, to say the least.

How so?

The radio rights for the World Series are well-defined: only the flagship station (WEEI, in the Sox' case) gets to carry the home-team broadcast. The rest of the team's network does not, and has to negotiate separately for carriage of the network (ESPN Radio, last year and this year) broadcast. Which stinks, if you're a Sox fan living west of 495 where the WEEI signal doesn't go.

On another matter, and getting back to Joseph's original post, one would think Fox has at least some reason not to worry too much about the prospect of the Indians making a postseason run: they'd reap a revenue bonanza from local sales at Fox-owned WJW in Cleveland.

The Fox Station Group is pretty well positioned, really - they've got stations in every AL city that has a playoff shot (Boston, NY, Cleveland, Chicago, Los A-cough-Anaheim) and in every NL contender city except San Diego. Local station revenue is always a big profit center for the networks, so Fox should do OK this postseason.<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[KeithE]

> > YAY! Anyway, I also expect that the Yankees would be in
> > prime time (please win the division!). As for radio, WTIC-AM
> > 1080 of Hartford would still likely carry and of the Red Sox
> > games (they have so since the 1950s). 5,000 watt WPOP-AM
> > 1410 of Hartford carries the Yankees here. The latter is an
> > ESPN Radio affiliate. It was quite unusual radio dial during
> > the World Series last year, to say the least.
>
> How so?
>
> The radio rights for the World Series are well-defined: only
> the flagship station (WEEI, in the Sox' case) gets to carry
> the home-team broadcast. The rest of the team's network does
> not, and has to negotiate separately for carriage of the
> network (ESPN Radio, last year and this year) broadcast.
> Which stinks, if you're a Sox fan living west of 495 where
> the WEEI signal doesn't go.

Wouldn't WPOP carry the ESPN feed for the Hartford area regardless of who's playing?

> On another matter, and getting back to Joseph's original
> post, one would think Fox has at least some reason not to
> worry too much about the prospect of the Indians making a
> postseason run: they'd reap a revenue bonanza from local
> sales at Fox-owned WJW in Cleveland.

They'll get more of a revenue bonanza from local sales at Fox-owned WNYW in New York or WFXT in Boston. Since the White Sox clinched the AL Central today, they'll do very well on WFLD (the home of the Sox during the late '60s and most of the '80s) but not as well as if the Cubs were playing.

> The Fox Station Group is pretty well positioned, really -
> they've got stations in every AL city that has a playoff
> shot (Boston, NY, Cleveland, Chicago, Los A-cough-Anaheim)
> and in every NL contender city except San Diego. Local
> station revenue is always a big profit center for the
> networks, so Fox should do OK this postseason.

They own stations in every AL city other than SF/Oakland, Toronto, Baltimore (they own the UPN station there but not the Fox affiliate), & Seattle. They also own stations in every NL city other than SF/Oakland again, Miami, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. They're pretty well-positioned across the board in MLB cities.

 

[bhayes1016]

> The Green Bay Packers are based in television market #69
> (the smallest TV market with a team in any of the "big four"
> professional team sports).

I think Milwaukee is officially the Packers' "home" market.

 

[radiolives]

> > YAY! Anyway, I also expect that the Yankees would be in
> > prime time (please win the division!). As for radio,
> WTIC-AM
> > 1080 of Hartford would still likely carry and of the Red
> Sox
> > games (they have so since the 1950s). 5,000 watt WPOP-AM
> > 1410 of Hartford carries the Yankees here. The latter is
> an
> > ESPN Radio affiliate. It was quite unusual radio dial
> during
> > the World Series last year, to say the least.
>
> How so?
>
> The radio rights for the World Series are well-defined: only
> the flagship station (WEEI, in the Sox' case) gets to carry
> the home-team broadcast. The rest of the team's network does
> not, and has to negotiate separately for carriage of the
> network (ESPN Radio, last year and this year) broadcast.
> Which stinks, if you're a Sox fan living west of 495 where
> the WEEI signal doesn't go.
>
> On another matter, and getting back to Joseph's original
> post, one would think Fox has at least some reason not to
> worry too much about the prospect of the Indians making a
> postseason run: they'd reap a revenue bonanza from local
> sales at Fox-owned WJW in Cleveland.
>
> The Fox Station Group is pretty well positioned, really -
> they've got stations in every AL city that has a playoff
> shot (Boston, NY, Cleveland, Chicago, Los A-cough-Anaheim)
> and in every NL contender city except San Diego. Local
> station revenue is always a big profit center for the
> networks, so Fox should do OK this postseason.
>

Well last year WTIC 1080 had WEEI's feed for the ALDS and ALCS but couldn't for the World Series. So here in Hartford WTIC 1080 had ESPN's coverage which could also be heard on ESPN Radio WPOP 1410. To bad WTIC couldn't pick up WEEI for the World Series which would of been awesome. If you don't mind me asking why couldn't stations that air the Red Sox all year long use WEEI during the World Series?

 

[ixnay]

> The NBA is the worst but MLB is almost as bad. The NFL
> doesn't depend on market size to get ratings. They depend
> on rivalries and a Steelers-Browns game will do just as well
> on MNF as a Giants-Eagles game. College sports is
> market-irrelevent since many of the best teams are in
> smaller markets. Especially college football, which has
> almost no Division 1A presence in the Northeast (5 schools
> in NY, NJ, and New England combined - only Boston College
> has anything close to a national following - and none in
> NYC).
>
> The real baseball fans will watch regardless of who's
> playing. It's the casual fan that they want to grab, and
> yes, they'll want the Yankees and Red Sox in before anyone
> else. The Angels, White Sox and Indians are good baseball
> stories (OK, the Sox are a bad baseball story right now),
> and none of those teams has a huge following outside of
> Orange County CA, the south side of Chicago & adjoining
> suburbs, and NE Ohio, respectively. The Angels have had
> their moments in the national spotlight in recent years, but
> the Sox and Indians have not had a real national presence
> since the 1950s.
>
> If the Yankees don't make it to the post-season (a real
> possibility), then kiss the playoff ratings and ad revenue
> goodbye. They'll need NY since these are the 2nd teams in
> Chicago and LA and the ratings won't be as high in those
> cities as they would have if the Cubs and Dodgers were
> playing.
>

Don't the Yankees have a "mystique" about them that makes them a ratings cow (though not with me)? You know, 26 world titles and a bevy of immortal superstars?

ixnay

 

[KeithE]

> Don't the Yankees have a "mystique" about them that makes
> them a ratings cow (though not with me)? You know, 26 world
> titles and a bevy of immortal superstars?
>
> ixnay

Not as much as they used to. The 2000 Yankees-Mets series was one of, if not the, lowest-rated World Series in history. Few outside of NY cared. The rest of the world knows that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and Mantle are dead, and this Yankee team isn't what it used to be.

Lots of folks nationwide were pulling for the Yankees to beat the Diamondbacks in 2001 (fortunately for us Phoenix folks, the D'backs won. :-D ) and that one was highly-rated AFAIK. Since the Yankees haven't won anything since 2000, their luster is fading a bit. As D'backs first-baseman (now broadcaster) Mark Grace said during the Diamondbacks' WS celebration (I'm paraphrasing here): "The Yankees can have their mystique and aura. I'll take the trophy and ring."

The advertisers want the Yankees in there. They don't want to lose the New York audience. In fact, their ideal WS is Yankees-Dodgers, something that hasn't happened since 1981. They could also live with the Red Sox, but not the White Sox or Angels - the 2nd teams in their cities.

An Indians-Astros or White Sox-Padres series series would be death to Fox. Ads would be worth a whole lot less than, say a Yankees-Braves or Red Sox-Cardinals series. Few would care other than folks in those cities and hard-core baseball fans like me.

 

[ixnay]

> An Indians-Astros or White Sox-Padres series series would be
> death to Fox. Ads would be worth a whole lot less than, say
> a Yankees-Braves or Red Sox-Cardinals series. Few would
> care other than folks in those cities and hard-core baseball
> fans like me.
>
And me, a Phillies fan. But you're lucky, Keith, assuming you live in AZ. At least you'll get to see the end of the WS games at a decent hour, unlike us on the east coast.

ixnay

 

[bhayes1016]

> Not as much as they used to. The 2000 Yankees-Mets series
> was one of, if not the, lowest-rated World Series in
> history. Few outside of NY cared.

IIRC it was the second-lowest rated WS, finishing just ahead of Marlins-Indians in...'96?