Fox's worst nightmare: White Sox vs Astros

[Markxxx]

Re: Fox's worst nightmare: White Sox vs Astros (Highest/Lowest Rating?)

> Houston just beat St. Louis 5-1 to win the NLCS in 6.
> They'll play the Sox at Comiskey Park-oops-USCellular Field
> starting Saturday night.
>
> How does Fox promote a World Series between two teams with
> no national presence? OK, the Sox have a bit more presence
> and following than the Astros because of their 30 games on
> WGN, but that's it. My guess is that ad rates will be
> slashed compared to what a Yankees-Cardinals series might
> command.
>
Just out of curiosity does anyone know World Series had the highest ratings and which one had the lowest?<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: It May Not Be Fox's Worst Nightmare

Running down other Chicago pro sports championships since the last time a Windy City team (the White Sox) was in a World Series (1959), Ixnay took me to task:

> That Bears championship was SB XX in Jan. 1986, the
> championship game of the 198*5* season. But Joseph, how
> could you forget Da Bears 1963 NFL championship over the
> Giants, 37 months before Super Bowl I (or the AFL-NFL World
> Championship Game, as it was officially named at the time)?
>
> That 1963 Bears title was the "recognized" pro football
> world championship of that year except in the minds and
> hearts of American Football League types. The football
> "war" was in progress at the time.

I grew up in Boston, home to the New England (formerly Boston) Patriots, who started out life in the American Football League. And in 1963, the Pats went to the AFL Championship Game, only to be blown out by San Diego. So I guess I was "an American Football League type" as a small youngster until the 1966 merger between the two leagues. The American Football League WAS professional football in Boston and New England during the 1960's!

 

[Garrett]

I DISAGREE!

This is a somewhat subjective opinion. Just because you don't care for it, by what logic does that mean nobody else will?

As a Bostonian who spent time in San Diego, and who is now living in Texas, nothing would give me more pleasure than to watch a bunch of former San Diego Padres (say, Jeff Bagwell) beat the living bejeezus out of the lousy stinking no-good rotten Chi-sox!

The other thing you are failing to realize, is that neither of these teams have ever been to or won the World Series.

Really, since when did the baseball world begin and end with the Yankees?

> Houston just beat St. Louis 5-1 to win the NLCS in 6.
> They'll play the Sox at Comiskey Park-oops-USCellular Field
> starting Saturday night.
>
> How does Fox promote a World Series between two teams with
> no national presence? OK, the Sox have a bit more presence
> and following than the Astros because of their 30 games on
> WGN, but that's it. My guess is that ad rates will be
> slashed compared to what a Yankees-Cardinals series might
> command.
>
> Hopefully they'll send Joe Buck back to football and Tim
> McCarver back to wherever it is he goes in the offseason
> since neither one will give a flying crap about this series
> and it'll show on-air. Say what you want about his style
> (and maybe I'm prejudiced since I watch him do games in
> Phoenix), but Thom Brennaman, along with Steve Lyons and Bob
> Brenly, would do a far better job than Buck, McCarver, and
> Lou Piniella.
>
> Brennaman & his partners did an excellent job of calling the
> Astros-Cards series and went out of the way not to play
> favorites. Buck & McCarver (but not Piniella) couldn't hide
> their disappointment about the ALCS not featuring the
> Yankees and Red Sox.
>
> I'd rather see a broadcast combo of Hawk Harrelson and Milo
> Hamilton (each team's local broadcasters) than Buck &
> McCarver. Yeah, they'd both be homers, but it'd be more fun
> to listen to.
>

 

[doc9464]

> Houston just beat St. Louis 5-1 to win the NLCS in 6.
> They'll play the Sox at Comiskey Park-oops-USCellular Field
> starting Saturday night.

I disagree, there is the "fresh" marketing approach to look at. Houston hasn't been the lovable losers the Cubs have been and neither have the White Sox...but there are a lot of people who look at this as a classic in the making.....these teams are HUNGRY!.....hoping to see action action action.....I hope so at least.

From an audience standpoint, Houston and Chicago are large TV markets...right?
Ok it's not NYC..but ive got Yankee Fatigue...and I live in New England but I personally have no love for the Red Sox....so i guess im not troubled to see them miss the big show...this year. Only Clemens and Thomas are really highly highly paid but both seem to be extremely passionate...so we won't see a lot of overpaid stiffs this year.

Neither team has any real experience in the series...although Houston has Clemens and Pettitte who have been enough to coach, encourage, and lead the others. We have the story of Bagwell and Biggio who have been teammates seeking this dream for a long time...thats an interesting story.

Frank thomas has been looking for this for a long time, thats a great story. this battle seems well matched..so i don't think it will be a sweep...hopefully each game will be exciting...

Ive been hurt by Houston taking me to the door and slamming it their own faces for almost 20 years. I had my glove (last night) my dad gave me to wear to the Astrodome back in 1972 when I saw my first baseball game (big-league). I almost cried when my hopes and dreams were finally realized...this is HUGE...baby....

Im very happy to see Houston and the White Sox get there.....finally.....

> How does Fox promote a World Series between two teams with
> no national presence? OK, the Sox have a bit more presence
> and following than the Astros because of their 30 games on
> WGN, but that's it. My guess is that ad rates will be
> slashed compared to what a Yankees-Cardinals series might
> command.
>
> Hopefully they'll send Joe Buck back to football and Tim
> McCarver back to wherever it is he goes in the offseason
> since neither one will give a flying crap about this series
> and it'll show on-air. Say what you want about his style
> (and maybe I'm prejudiced since I watch him do games in
> Phoenix), but Thom Brennaman, along with Steve Lyons and Bob
> Brenly, would do a far better job than Buck, McCarver, and
> Lou Piniella.
>
> Brennaman & his partners did an excellent job of calling the
> Astros-Cards series and went out of the way not to play
> favorites. Buck & McCarver (but not Piniella) couldn't hide
> their disappointment about the ALCS not featuring the
> Yankees and Red Sox.
>
> I'd rather see a broadcast combo of Hawk Harrelson and Milo
> Hamilton (each team's local broadcasters) than Buck &
> McCarver. Yeah, they'd both be homers, but it'd be more fun
> to listen to.
>

 

[AirwaveSurfer]

> I mean WHEN was the last time ANYONE saw the COLORADO
> ROCKIES (you know, RUPERT'S OWN TEAM) on MLB on FOX (either
> home OR away)???
>
> I can't remember the last time.
>
> In fact, they've had more airtime _ON ESPN_ than they have
> on the big FOX network. Perhaps Rupert might consider
> selling the team to Disney. Just a thought...
>
Excuse me, but since when has Rupert Murdoch or his News Corporation owned the Rockies? I know that News Corp. bought the Los Angeles Dodgers from the O'Malley family during the mid '90s and sold the Dodgers to Boston real estate developer Frank McCourt early last year. As for Disney, well, it owned the "Los Angeles" Angels of Anaheim between the Gene and Jackie Autry era and the current Arte Moreno era of that franchise. If either News Corp. or Disney wanted to own an MLB team again, chances are they'd both pass up a small-market club like the Rockies.

> As for announcers, I personally can stand Joe Buck (though I
> too happen to believe he's a better football announcer).
> He's not the problem to me. However FOX *DESPERATELY* needs
> to get Tim McCarver out of the booth. I hear GEORGE
> FRAZIER, the Rockies color analyst, isn't doing anything
> though...
>
> BUT if you're going to replace Joe Buck as well, why not not
> replace him with someone who isn't doing anything this time
> of year? I say this because once baseball is over, Thom
> Brennaman (sp?) is shifted over to do football games. I say
> why not just keep Thom doing football games and bring in
> Rockies announcer DREW GOODMAN??
>
> Back to McCarver for a second, He has a show on Altitude
> (Given his name, I'm thinking it's produced & syndicated by
> someone else). I'd love nothing more than to see them
> cancel his show there as well.
>
While I'm with you in that Buck and McCarver have both worn out their welcomes on national MLB telecasts, I fear the only way they'll lose that "privilege" is if ABC, CBS, and/or NBC replaces Fox in the MLB TV package -- which I hope will happen soon, as even without Buck or McCarver, Fox's MLB coverage overall has become repulsively over-the-top.<P ID="signature">______________
This is AirwaveSurfer, reminding you that portions of this post have been prerecorded.</P>

 

[jojo_collins]

Re: I DISAGREE!

> This is a somewhat subjective opinion. Just because you
> don't care for it, by what logic does that mean nobody else
> will?
>
> As a Bostonian who spent time in San Diego, and who is now
> living in Texas, nothing would give me more pleasure than to
> watch a bunch of former San Diego Padres (say, Jeff Bagwell)
> beat the living bejeezus out of the lousy stinking no-good
> rotten Chi-sox!
>
> The other thing you are failing to realize, is that neither
> of these teams have ever been to or won the World Series.
>
WRONG!!!! The White Sox last was in the World Series in 1959...they lost to the Dodgers-their first year in Los Angeles. The Sox last won the Series was in 1917, when they beat the Cincinnati Reds. I am a native Chicagoan and a die-hard Cubbie, but just like family, we can talk about each other, but when someone from out of the circle talks about us, then IT'S ON!!!!! GO SOX!!!!!

 

[jojo_collins]

Re: It May Not Be Fox's Worst Nightmare

> Running down other Chicago pro sports championships since
> the last time a Windy City team (the White Sox) was in a
> World Series (1959), Ixnay took me to task:
>
> > That Bears championship was SB XX in Jan. 1986, the
> > championship game of the 198*5* season. But Joseph, how
> > could you forget Da Bears 1963 NFL championship over the
> > Giants, 37 months before Super Bowl I (or the AFL-NFL
> World
> > Championship Game, as it was officially named at the
> time)?
> >
> > That 1963 Bears title was the "recognized" pro football
> > world championship of that year except in the minds and
> > hearts of American Football League types. The football
> > "war" was in progress at the time.
>
> I grew up in Boston, home to the New England (formerly
> Boston) Patriots, who started out life in the American
> Football League. And in 1963, the Pats went to the AFL
> Championship Game, only to be blown out by San Diego. So I
> guess I was "an American Football League type" as a small
> youngster until the 1966 merger between the two leagues. The
> American Football League WAS professional football in Boston
> and New England during the 1960's!
>
Joe, the "official" merger didn't happen until 1970, after the Jets beat the Colts in Super Bowl III. Previously, the NFL and the AFL did not play any Interleague games during the regular season.

 

[KeithE]

Re: I DISAGREE!

> WRONG!!!! The White Sox last was in the World Series in
> 1959...they lost to the Dodgers-their first year in Los
> Angeles. The Sox last won the Series was in 1917, when they
> beat the Cincinnati Reds. I am a native Chicagoan and a
> die-hard Cubbie, but just like family, we can talk about
> each other, but when someone from out of the circle talks
> about us, then IT'S ON!!!!! GO SOX!!!!!

Almost but not quite.

1959 was the Dodgers' 2nd year in LA, and the Sox beat the NY Giants, not the Reds, in 1917. The Sox threw the 1919 series to the Reds.

Sheesh! Cub fans! (just kidding) :-D

 

[KeithE]

World Series TV Ratings

> Just out of curiosity does anyone know World Series had the
> highest ratings and which one had the lowest?

This link was posted recently, but here it is again:
<a target="_blank" href=http://baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml>World Series TV Ratings, 1968-2004</a>

Since 1995 (after the strike/lockout), they were:

Year Network Rtg Shr Teams/Results
1995 ABC / NBC 19.5 33 Atlanta over Cleveland 4-2
1996 FOX 17.4 29 NY Yankees over Atlanta 4-2
1997 NBC 16.8 29 Florida over Cleveland 4-3
1998 FOX 14.1 24 NY Yankees over San Diego 4-0
1999 NBC 16.0 26 NY Yankees over Atlanta 4-0
2000 FOX 12.4 21 NY Yankees over NY Mets 4-1
2001 FOX 15.7 25 Arizona over NY Yankees 4-3
2002 FOX 11.9 20 Anaheim over San Francisco 4-3
2003 FOX 13.9 25 Florida over NY Yankees 4-2
2004 FOX 15.8 25 Boston over St. Louis 4-0

A series involving one region doesn't get the ratings as one involving teams from different areas. The Yankees may draw, but the Yankees-Mets series didn't. The All-Bay-Area series of 1989 didn't do well either, even considering the delay that was required due to the earthquake that year.

It'd be more interesting to find out how much the networks took in in ad money during those years. The All-Noo-Yawk series was one of the lowest-rated ever but I'll guess that Fox came away with a much-inflated wallet. Same goes with the All-West-Coast series 2 years later and the Yankees-Dodgers series' of 1977, '78, and '81.

I'ts not about the ratings - it's about the ad $$$$ and the teams the ad-buyers want to see and will buy. That's the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, and maybe the Cardinals.

To the ad buyers and agencies, Houston is in....*sniff*sniff*nose in the air*...Texas (horror of horrors) and Chicago is the near-north-side Rush/State/Division Street bar district, Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, and the ultra-wealthy Lake Shore Drive and North Shore areas, not blue-collar Bridgeport and the rest of the not-exactly-rich south side. I hope I'm wrong here but I go by what I see and read, plus having been a Chicago-area resident for 20 years.

We'll see how Fox handles this series. I'll bet the ex-Yankee angle of Clemens & Pettite being there will be played up. It may do well in the ratings (I hope so since it should be a great series), but can Fox sell the White Sox and Astros to NY-based advertisers?

 

[KeithE]

Re: I DISAGREE!

> This is a somewhat subjective opinion. Just because you
> don't care for it, by what logic does that mean nobody else
> will?

I do like it. My team is there for the first time in 46 years. Astros fans should be absolutely delerious since it's their first time. I'm saying Fox may not be too thrilled about this series.

> As a Bostonian who spent time in San Diego, and who is now
> living in Texas, nothing would give me more pleasure than to
> watch a bunch of former San Diego Padres (say, Jeff Bagwell)
> beat the living bejeezus out of the lousy stinking no-good
> rotten Chi-sox!

Hey, hey, no bitterness now. Just because Bahstun is now in Year One of their second 86-year drought and my White Sox dispatched them in 3 games. :-D

> The other thing you are failing to realize, is that neither
> of these teams have ever been to or won the World Series.

I know that, you know that, and so does every other real baseball fan regardless of their favorite team. It's the non-fans that Fox and their advertisers have to sell, not us.

> Really, since when did the baseball world begin and end with
> the Yankees?

Since Babe Ruth arrived there in 1920, at least as far as the national media is concerned. The National League begins and ends with the Dodgers, followed by the Mets, Giants and Cubs.

 

[KeithE]

> I disagree, there is the "fresh" marketing approach to look
> at. Houston hasn't been the lovable losers the Cubs have
> been and neither have the White Sox...but there are a lot of
> people who look at this as a classic in the making.....these
> teams are HUNGRY!.....hoping to see action action
> action.....I hope so at least.

From a pitching standpoint, it should be the best series in many years. But as far as scoring runs, there won't be much at all. I expect a lot of 3-2 scores.

> From an audience standpoint, Houston and Chicago are large
> TV markets...right?

Yeah, but they're not NY or LA.

> Ok it's not NYC..but ive got Yankee Fatigue...and I live in
> New England but I personally have no love for the Red
> Sox....so i guess im not troubled to see them miss the big
> show...this year. Only Clemens and Thomas are really highly
> highly paid but both seem to be extremely passionate...so we
> won't see a lot of overpaid stiffs this year.

Every ballplayer is overpaid, but neither team has a Steinbrenner-level payroll. But neither team is sitting at home right now either, unlike Darth George's bunch.

> Neither team has any real experience in the
> series...although Houston has Clemens and Pettitte who have
> been enough to coach, encourage, and lead the others. We
> have the story of Bagwell and Biggio who have been teammates
> seeking this dream for a long time...thats an interesting
> story.

I think Fox will play up the ex-Yankee factor with Clemens and Pettite, but the fact that Blagwell and Biggio are getting close to the twilight of their careers and in their first series won't mean that much. Lots of players have only got to the series late in their careers, from Walter Johnson to Barroids.

> Frank thomas has been looking for this for a long time,
> thats a great story. this battle seems well matched..so i
> don't think it will be a sweep...hopefully each game will be
> exciting...

Frank who? He's been out since July and will probably be released once the series is over. He'll get his ring if the Sox win, but his days on the south side are over. He really should retire.

> Ive been hurt by Houston taking me to the door and slamming
> it their own faces for almost 20 years. I had my glove (last
> night) my dad gave me to wear to the Astrodome back in 1972
> when I saw my first baseball game (big-league). I almost
> cried when my hopes and dreams were finally realized...this
> is HUGE...baby....

And as a Sox fan, I want to thank the Astros for keeping the world safe from another series with that whining crybaby (and former Sox manager) Tony LaLoser, the most overrated manager in baseball.

> Im very happy to see Houston and the White Sox get
> there.....finally.....

So am I. May the best team win. But I will say....Sox in 6.

 

[bhayes1016]

> Getting back to TV, imagine what the overnight ratings will
> be for KRIV-TV (FOX) channel 26? From what I've read, during
> the 2000 World Series, when the Yankees destroyed the Mets
> (tee-hee!), WNYW-TV (FOX) channel 5 had a 60 or 61 share.

Channel 2 had a 93 share for the 4th quarter of one of the Rockets' championship clinching games.

 

[KML0224]

> Channel 2 had a 93 share for the 4th quarter of one of the
> Rockets' championship clinching games.
>

That would be KPRC-TV (NBC) channel 2 of Houston and it's the 1994 NBA Finals against the New York Knicks which is being referenced here.

 

[ixnay]

Re: It May Not Be Fox's Worst Nightmare

> Running down other Chicago pro sports championships since
> the last time a Windy City team (the White Sox) was in a
> World Series (1959), Ixnay took me to task:
>
> > That Bears championship was SB XX in Jan. 1986, the
> > championship game of the 198*5* season. But Joseph, how
> > could you forget Da Bears 1963 NFL championship over the
> > Giants, 37 months before Super Bowl I (or the AFL-NFL
> World
> > Championship Game, as it was officially named at the
> time)?
> >
> > That 1963 Bears title was the "recognized" pro football
> > world championship of that year except in the minds and
> > hearts of American Football League types. The football
> > "war" was in progress at the time.
>
> I grew up in Boston, home to the New England (formerly
> Boston) Patriots, who started out life in the American
> Football League. And in 1963, the Pats went to the AFL
> Championship Game, only to be blown out by San Diego. So I
> guess I was "an American Football League type" as a small
> youngster until the 1966 merger between the two leagues. The
> American Football League WAS professional football in Boston
> and New England during the 1960's!
>

Hey Joe, lighten up! Now we see you were thinking AFL. The NFL obviously wasn't on your radar screen (Beantown's been in and out of pro football over the years IIRC). (As for me, I was only 2 years old in '63 so I'm citing the football histories I've read over the years. I grew up in Philly.)

I read (I think it was in a book called "When the Grass Was Real" about 1960s football, I forget the author) where those Chargers of '63 wanted to play the Bears for the world title after pummelling the Pats. The Bears (or the NFL) refused. And I still don't know why they say the merger took place in 1966 rather than in 1970 when the AFL was abolished and the AFC-NFL format took effect. I call that 1966 agreement the "peace treaty" rather than the "merger".

Sorry if I embarrased you, Joseph. (blush)

ixnay

 

[jojo_collins]

Re: I DISAGREE!

> > WRONG!!!! The White Sox last was in the World Series in
> > 1959...they lost to the Dodgers-their first year in Los
> > Angeles. The Sox last won the Series was in 1917, when
> they
> > beat the Cincinnati Reds. I am a native Chicagoan and a
> > die-hard Cubbie, but just like family, we can talk about
> > each other, but when someone from out of the circle talks
> > about us, then IT'S ON!!!!! GO SOX!!!!!
>
> Almost but not quite.
>
> 1959 was the Dodgers' 2nd year in LA, and the Sox beat the
> NY Giants, not the Reds, in 1917. The Sox threw the 1919
> series to the Reds.
>
> Sheesh! Cub fans! (just kidding) :-D
>
Shoot me...I wasn't born around those times...lol.

 

[KeithE]

NFL-AFL Merger

> I read (I think it was in a book called "When the Grass Was
> Real" about 1960s football, I forget the author) where those
> Chargers of '63 wanted to play the Bears for the world title
> after pummelling the Pats. The Bears (or the NFL) refused.

My guess is that the NFL refused. George Halas would have done anything to bring in some more bucks to his team (and his wallet).

> And I still don't know why they say the merger took place in
> 1966 rather than in 1970 when the AFL was abolished and the
> AFC-NFL format took effect. I call that 1966 agreement the
> "peace treaty" rather than the "merger".

IIRC, while the NFL and AFL played separate schedules through 1969, they started holding a common draft starting in 1967. The creation of the Super Bowl was also part of the merger agreement. Also, a player's contract became binding on both leagues, ending situations like Pete Gogolak's, who signed with the Giants in 1964 while under contract to the Bills.

The rest of the merger (interconference play, one commissioner, the Colts, Steelers, and Browns moving to the AFC) took place in 1970.

 

[ixnay]

Re: I DISAGREE!

> Shoot me...I wasn't born around those times...lol.
>
Cheer up, Chicagoans. My father's flunked Chicago Baseball 101 himself.

In 1993 he and I were attending an O's game (against the Pale Hose when they had Bo Jackson ) and at one point I said, "How about the White Sox releasing Carlton Fisk [a couple of days earlier]?". My father: "I thought he was still with the *Red* Sox?" Guess he saw the tape of Pudge's body English in '75 once too often (or his guidance counseling [he's retired now] occupied a too big part of his mind).

Another time he said something like "Have the Cubs ever won a World Series?" "Yes, in 1908," I had to tell him.

-)

ixnay

 

[ixnay]

Re: NFL-AFL Merger

> IIRC, while the NFL and AFL played separate schedules
> through 1969,

I think they started playing interleague *preseason* games in the summer of 1967 (although for some reason the Giants and Jets didn't meet until the 1969 preseason).

ixnay

 

[doc9464]

> From a pitching standpoint, it should be the best series in
> many years. But as far as scoring runs, there won't be much
> at all. I expect a lot of 3-2 scores.

I agree, the best infield is going to be the winner...but if Burke can get off a big rally, Astros might pull one or two out that way.

> Every ballplayer is overpaid, but neither team has a
> Steinbrenner-level payroll. But neither team is sitting at
> home right now either, unlike Darth George's bunch.

I was watching the Newshour last night, even Jim Lerher was agreeing that the new teams would stir interests....i really think its great when these guys are trying to get their first trophy....then the spoilage starts.....then the apathy.....

>> And as a Sox fan, I want to thank the Astros for keeping the
> world safe from another series with that whining crybaby
> (and former Sox manager) Tony LaLoser, the most overrated
> manager in baseball.

Gee, so many peoplehate LaRussa.....i had no idea he was so reviled..you arent the first person to say that.....


> > Im very happy to see Houston and the White Sox get
> > there.....finally.....
>
> So am I. May the best team win. But I will say....Sox in
> 6.

Astros in 7 (my heart says 6)