• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

World Series Ratings Way Down

J

Joseph_Gallant

Guest
Although I have yet to see any articles with total and average ratings for the full four games, it appears that this year's World Series between the Chicago White Sox and Houston may go down as one of the lowest-rated (if not the lowest-rated) World Series in television history.

I thought the numbers would be a bit higher, given that Chicago did not have a Series winner since 1917. Last year, Fox got strong ratings from the Series, thanks in large part to Boston winning for the first time since 1918. And I thought Houston's status as a major market would also help.

The fact remains that in the Windy City, the White Sox are still the "second" team. I would not be surprised if the Cubs outdraw the Chisox in 2006, even if the Chisox end up defending their World Series title and the Cubbies plunge to the bottom of the National League Central. If you grow up in Chicago, you love the Cubs.

This is a far cry from the first two decades or so (1947-67) of "widespread" network television, when the World Series was a huge TV event. From the late 1940's until the late 1960's, the two weekend games of each year's Series usually were the two most-watched television programs of the entire year.

I think Fox executives are praying for a New York Yankees/Los Angeles Dodgers World Series in 2006. As a second choice, they'd like the Yankees and Cubs, and as a third choice, the Boston Red Sox against the Cubs. All three of those matchups would deliver huge numbers, certainly more viewers than this year.
 
> Although I have yet to see any articles with total and
> average ratings for the full four games, it appears that
> this year's World Series between the Chicago White Sox and
> Houston may go down as one of the lowest-rated (if not the
> lowest-rated) World Series in television history.
>
> I thought the numbers would be a bit higher, given that
> Chicago did not have a Series winner since 1917. Last year,
> Fox got strong ratings from the Series, thanks in large part
> to Boston winning for the first time since 1918. And I
> thought Houston's status as a major market would also help.
>
> The fact remains that in the Windy City, the White Sox are
> still the "second" team. I would not be surprised if the
> Cubs outdraw the Chisox in 2006, even if the Chisox end up
> defending their World Series title and the Cubbies plunge to
> the bottom of the National League Central. If you grow up in
> Chicago, you love the Cubs.
>
> This is a far cry from the first two decades or so (1947-67)
> of "widespread" network television, when the World Series
> was a huge TV event. From the late 1940's until the late
> 1960's, the two weekend games of each year's Series usually
> were the two most-watched television programs of the entire
> year.
>
> I think Fox executives are praying for a New York
> Yankees/Los Angeles Dodgers World Series in 2006. As a
> second choice, they'd like the Yankees and Cubs, and as a
> third choice, the Boston Red Sox against the Cubs. All three
> of those matchups would deliver huge numbers, certainly more
> viewers than this year.
>

I'm a bit surprised also that the ratings were very low. The last time the Chicago White Sox were in the world series was in 1959, which was 46 years, and like you said, the last time they won was in 1917. Perhaps since Chicago won 4 games and Houston won 0, that viewers didn't tune in since Houston was getting killed.
<P ID="signature">______________
The Place for the Latest Happenings in Radio
www.freewebs.com/radiostuffandnews
</P>
 
Not everyone can stay up till 2:30 am Eastern to see the end of the game. (I can, but am used to it and I work nights). So much for getting the next generation interested in the game.

Agreed on your other points. I think Selig was asked about the fact that the Series always starts on what is the lowest watched night of the week for TV
and he said he'd think about it (what, start it on a Tue. or something instead?)
Personally since I'm off on the weekend--and work nights during weekdays--I'd
prefer to keep the Sat/Sun for game 1 & 2, and 6 & 7 if needed.

Many more channels and choices. Vid games, computers, DVD/VCR, movie theaters,
and various other activities.

Trying to get kids interested in baseball but the games do go on for so long.
But the need to get them in prime time,etc...
 
> I'm a bit surprised also that the ratings were very low. The
> last time the Chicago White Sox were in the world series was
> in 1959, which was 46 years, and like you said, the last
> time they won was in 1917. Perhaps since Chicago won 4 games
> and Houston won 0, that viewers didn't tune in since Houston
> was getting killed.
>

I think part of the reason was the sweep. The Sox started out so strong and after game two I was already hearing reports on our local news that scalpers had lowered their prices from $1,000 a ticket to $150. Then after the Sox won in game three Houston seemed to just give up.

But younger kids don't really follow baseball. When I was a kid baseball was THE big sport. I find it ironic a lot of these kids in their 20s and younger don't realize when I was a kid basketball was nothing. It was on par with hockey. It wasn't till the mid-80s when basketball took off.

Here is another article and viewpoint <a target="_blank" href=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051027/TRUTH27/TPSports/Columnists>From Globe and Mail</a>

I was more surpised at the subdued reaction after the win. I recall in my NW side neighborhood of Chicago, when the Bulls won ten years or so again, they were honking, shooting off guns, riding around in their cars yelling. Last night I heard about 15 minutes of fireworks then it all got quiet.

I do think if it was the Cubs much more excitment would have happened. <P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
I'm not sure I put as much weight on the particular matchup as Joseph does. I certainly disagree with the assertion that "if you grew up in Chicago, you're a Cubs fan." There are just as many Cubs-hatin' White Sox fans as there are White Sox-despisin' Cubs fans. Both teams have pretty solid fan bases, and both are substantial.

But just having one (or better, two) teams in the Series with big-market fan bases can't be enough. Sure, Fox would love to have the Yankees back in the Series, and they'd certainly get huge numbers in the New York market if they did, but you still need to have people watching in the other 209 markets, and for THAT the solution isn't just a Yankees-Dodgers or Yankees-Cubs series.

Raccoonradio's got it right (yes, Bob, we agree on something!) - the Series itself has to be seen as a bigger event, regardless of which team is playing in it. (Do most people watching the Super Bowl really care which teams are playing?)

And that has to mean taking some risks to avoid the whole "eating the seed corn" problem, including earlier starts and a Sunday late-afternoon start to the series. It's too bad MLB hasn't figured that out yet.<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>
 
Everybody loses with McCarver and Fox

> How can baseball grow new generations of fans when The World
> Series – the culmination of the entire season – is televised
> too late for any young kid to watch?

And who would want to watch anyway with Fox's "coverage" and McCarver's blathering?<P ID="signature">______________
WCBS = We're Crazy Buffoons and Schmucks
<a href=http://chuck.spotteddogs.org/tv/>Spotted Dog TV Talk - for all your non-news TV Talk</a></P>
 
To me, the World Series was quite dull. I was actually up when game 3 ended at 2:20 AM ET the other night. (YAWN!) Heck! Even a 7:30 PM start time would be an improvement for us in the east! (Game 3 started at 8:39 PM ET and Game 4 started closer to 8:41 PM ET.)
 
> I'm not sure I put as much weight on the particular matchup
> as Joseph does. I certainly disagree with the assertion that
> "if you grew up in Chicago, you're a Cubs fan." There are
> just as many Cubs-hatin' White Sox fans as there are White
> Sox-despisin' Cubs fans. Both teams have pretty solid fan
> bases, and both are substantial.
>
> But just having one (or better, two) teams in the Series
> with big-market fan bases can't be enough. Sure, Fox would
> love to have the Yankees back in the Series, and they'd
> certainly get huge numbers in the New York market if they
> did, but you still need to have people watching in the other
> 209 markets, and for THAT the solution isn't just a
> Yankees-Dodgers or Yankees-Cubs series.
>
> Raccoonradio's got it right (yes, Bob, we agree on
> something!) - the Series itself has to be seen as a bigger
> event, regardless of which team is playing in it. (Do most
> people watching the Super Bowl really care which teams are
> playing?)
>
> And that has to mean taking some risks to avoid the whole
> "eating the seed corn" problem, including earlier starts and
> a Sunday late-afternoon start to the series. It's too bad
> MLB hasn't figured that out yet.

I agree on Series' start times. It wouldn't hurt FOX or MLB to have an afternoon start time or two. Games 1 and 2 are only the start of the Series, when general interest towards actually crowning a champ is less. Give Games 1 and 2 weekend daytime starts and have games 3-4-5 (plus Game 7 and perhaps Game 6) start in the evening.

It also wouldn't hurt to have earlier night games. I've always been suprised that FOX doesn't start their weeknight Series coverage until 8:00 Eastern, considering that the network has an hour of local time that's usually occupied by sitcom reruns (and rarely by local news as the Big 3 have). I would give the recycled laughs a break and start the broadcast for Games 3 and 4 (and perhaps Game 5 if it's needed) at 7:00 Eastern. The viewers would be less tired the next morning, and the affiliates that have prime time news at 10ET/9CT would be happy to not see those newscasts get pushed back or pre-empted.
 
Re: Boston Herald: Kids lose with late Series

http://bus> iness.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=108990
>
>
> by Greg Gatlin
> excerpt:
> Major League Baseball is eating its seed corn.
>
> How can baseball grow new generations of fans when The World
> Series – the culmination of the entire season – is televised
> too late for any young kid to watch?
>

Yet the NBA Finals games start at 9pm eastern, and end around midnight, and the NBA is huge with young viewers.
Although it is on during the summer...
 
Re: Boston Herald: Kids lose with late Series

> Yet the NBA Finals games start at 9pm eastern, and end
> around midnight, and the NBA is huge with young viewers.
> Although it is on during the summer...
>
Not that the gangsta-rap loving crowd is goin' to bed early for school anyway.
 
I don't think you can really compare the World Series to the Superbowl. The Superbowl is one night, which is much easier to "sacrifice" even if you are not really a football fan. With the World Series you need to reserve at least four nights out of your schedule to watch, and most of those nights are weeknights, whereas the Superbowl is on a Sunday. Most people have more to do during the week.

>
> Raccoonradio's got it right (yes, Bob, we agree on
> something!) - the Series itself has to be seen as a bigger
> event, regardless of which team is playing in it. (Do most
> people watching the Super Bowl really care which teams are
> playing?)
>
>
 
Everyone keeps arguing that since Houston is a large TV market that you should expect bigger world series ratings. I don't think that is necessarily true. People need to be interested in baseball if they are going to watch. Does Houston, and Texas in general, have a big baseball following or fan base? I always thought people in the South and Midwest were bigger football fans. If you think about it, most MLB teams play in the largest TV markets.


>
> I thought the numbers would be a bit higher, given that
> Chicago did not have a Series winner since 1917. Last year,
> Fox got strong ratings from the Series, thanks in large part
> to Boston winning for the first time since 1918. And I
> thought Houston's status as a major market would also help.
>
 
Idea For New Starting Times (Was: Re: World Series Ratings Way Down)

I think the best way to schedule World Series telecasts in the future is this:

Games 1 and (if needed) 6: Both on Saturdays, and Fox's pre-game show should begin at 3:30 P.M. EDT with a 3:50 first-pitch. Fox doesn't have college football during the regular-season and certainly could accomodate Saturday matinees.

Plus Game 1 of the Series may actually get better TV ratings in the afternoon than in prime-time. The reason Saturday-night TV viewing (not just the broadcast networks, but cable as well) has dropped-off alarmingly in the last few years is because fewer people are staying home on Saturday nights now than in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, or even early 1990's.

Games 2 and (if needed) 7: Sunday games which probably can't start any earlier than 7:50 P.M. EDT (with a 7:30 P.M. pre-game show) due to Fox's NFL commitments.

Games 3, 4, and (if needed) 5: Midweek games, which should have a pre-game show starting at 7 P.M. EDT and first-pitch at 7:25.

This way, young fans in the Eastern half of the country will be able to watch two games in full and more of the night games. And children in California should be able to see all the games in full (unless we have a marathon like this year's Game 3), for Saturday games would start at 12:50 P.M. PDT, Sunday games at 4:50, and midweek games at 4:25.
 
Re: Everybody loses with McCarver and Fox

> And who would want to watch anyway with Fox's "coverage" and
> McCarver's blathering?>

SHUT UP!!!

This is not a thread about YOUR DISLIKES of Fox and Tim McCarver. There's already space for that further down on the page.

God, "toby", this act is getting ridiculous with every new post you put up. Unless you can either: 1) present a valid reason behind your bias; and 2) most importantly, STAY WITHIN THE TOPIC, then you should keep your childish statements to yourself.

You're starting to sound like "Robert Anthony" with that off-key tune you keep singing.<P ID="signature">______________
"Know your role and shut your mouth!!" -- The Rock</P>
 
Re: Boston Herald: Kids lose with late Series

> Yet the NBA Finals games start at 9pm eastern, and end
> around midnight, and the NBA is huge with young viewers.
> Although it is on during the summer...
>
Monday Night Football starts at 9pm eastern also. And it isn't on during the summer. How many kids stay up to see that? Better yet, how many kids attend the MNF games in the east with their parents?

ixnay
 
> Everyone keeps arguing that since Houston is a large TV
> market that you should expect bigger world series ratings.
> I don't think that is necessarily true. People need to be
> interested in baseball if they are going to watch. Does
> Houston, and Texas in general, have a big baseball following
> or fan base? I always thought people in the South and
> Midwest were bigger football fans. If you think about it,
> most MLB teams play in the largest TV markets.

I think they are referring to people like myself. I don't follow baseball at all, but I certainly watch whenever the Chicago Teams were in the playoffs. Like the Cubs where 2 years ago. So there will be a bit more interest in hometown sports when home teams are in the playoffs

<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
 
> Everyone keeps arguing that since Houston is a large TV
> market that you should expect bigger world series ratings.
> I don't think that is necessarily true. People need to be
> interested in baseball if they are going to watch. Does
> Houston, and Texas in general, have a big baseball following
> or fan base?

Not really. Houston fans are just front-runners who were Disastros fans this month because it's trendy.
 
Isn't football by far the big sport in Texas??

I always thought that Football dominated the Lone Star State, although hockey in recent years has made major inroads in Dallas/Fort Worth and pro basketball has made major inroads in San Antonio, in both cases because local teams in those two sports had won championships.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom