Very depressing: World Series viewership fades Topic

 

Postseason Vanishing From Broadcast Networks


TV Sports

By RICHARD SANDOMIR

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
  • Email
  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Save
  • More

The 1980 World Series was notable for at least three things. To start, the Philadelphia Phillies won their first World Series. Second, the Kansas City Royals played in their first one.

And third, together the Phillies and the Royals produced the most-watched game in World Series history: 54.9 million viewers saw Game 6.

Now, as the Royals await their World Series opener against the San Francisco Giants, they should not anticipate 55 million people tuning in, regardless of the interest generated by their 29-year postseason exile and eight consecutive postseason wins this year. Perhaps 15 million will watch. A decade, after all, has passed since the audience topped 20 million.

What has happened in the past 34 years is familiar: Prime-time viewing has eroded on broadcast television for virtually everything but the N.F.L. as the thousand-channel cable universe has lured viewers with options that were unimaginable when the journey around the TV dial involved only three networks and a few local, independent stations.

Other entertainment options — the web, video games, apps and streaming — combined with the aging of baseball’s audience and the crawling pace of the game, have not been kind to the sport.

But in the 1970s and ’80s, viewership was regularly stunning, reflecting the size of broadcast audiences. The 1980 World Series averaged 42.3 million viewers.

Two years later, when the Cardinals played the Milwaukee Brewers in a seven-game series, one game drew 48.9 million viewers and another 49.9 million. In 1985, Game 7 of the Royals-Cardinals series had an audience of 45 million.

The 1980 Series was tightly played through five games, and with the Phillies leading, three games to two, anticipation was high for either the Phillies to clinch or the Royals to survive and force a seventh game.

Three future Hall of Famers were playing: Mike Schmidt, Steve Carlton and George Brett. Pete Rose, who would become baseball’s career leader in hits in 1985, was the Phillies’ first baseman.

And there was still something special about watching the World Series. The glut of local and national games was years away. There were no interleague games or wild-card playoffs.

The league championship series would remain best-of-five affairs until 1985. Division series were still far off.

And all a viewer needed to know was that NBC and ABC were taking turns broadcasting the L.C.S. and the World Series.

This postseason, more than ever, underscores cable’s dominance. From the wild card to the World Series, TBS, Fox Sports 1, ESPN and MLB Network have each had pieces, requiring a navigation at my home from Channel 8 to 400 to 28 to 306. The only broadcaster involved is Fox. In this shifting sports business landscape, the money that Major League Baseball can amass from selling rights to multiple cable networks trumps the convenience of remote-armed fans — or even their ability to have access to some channels. With that in mind, there are a few points worth making:

¦ Fox’s postseason strategy changed this season with the start of its new M.L.B. deal and the availability of Fox Sports 1, its cable network. This year, up to five N.L.C.S. games were scheduled for Fox Sports 1, with two on Fox, whereas in past seasons, Fox routinely broadcast all its L.C.S. games. After Game 4 of the Giants-Cardinals series on Wednesday generated 5.1 million viewers, Fox Sports 1 declared in a news release that it was the most-watched telecast in Fox Sports 1 history, but Fox’s broadcast of Game 4 of the A.L.C.S. last year was seen by 8.1 million. Fox Sports 1 reaches about 85 million TV households, nearly 30 million fewer than Fox the broadcast network does. Do those viewership figures represent greater fan affinity for the Detroit Tigers and the Boston Red Sox, or are they the expected result of a broadcast-to-cable shift?

Fox Sports 1 now labels itself “America’s fastest growing network.” But is what’s good for Fox Sports 1 good for viewers?

¦ As it has since 2012, the MLB Network aired two division series games. Under its new contract, Fox sold the games to M.L.B.’s cable network, which is in about 70 million households — great for a league-owned network but not as widely distributed as TBS or Fox Sports 1. When MLB Network carried Game 2 of the Cardinals-Dodgers division series, it drew 1.77 million viewers; the previous game in the series, on Fox Sports 1, attracted 3.6 million. Similarly, 1.84 million tuned in for Game 3 of the Nationals-Giants series on MLB Network; almost twice as many watched Game 2 on Fox Sports 1.

Cable networks, with revenue streams from advertisers and subscribers, can satisfy themselves with smaller audiences than broadcasters. They covet postseason games, and M.L.B. knows that it would not get the billions of dollars it has received if cable networks were given nothing but regular-season games. But beware of what you ask for. TBS increased its annual payment to baseball to $325 million this season from $150 million and saw sweeps in two division series and the A.L.C.S. That is a formula for substantial losses at a time when its parent company, Time Warner, is laying off employees and cutting costs.

The cabling of baseball’s postseason recalls a kerfuffle in 1996 when Don Ohlmeyer, then NBC’s head of West Coast operations, was irked at the network’s depressing performance in the division series and the L.C.S. Those series, each starring the Yankees, averaged 9.9 million and 11.2 million viewers, not enough for Ohlmeyer when NBC was No. 1 in prime time with programs like “Seinfeld.” Ohlmeyer wanted NBC to get out of the deal.

Back then, Ohlmeyer said, “We started off winning the first 12 of 14 nights of the season; then baseball started.”

His chagrin is long past. Now, thanks to baseball, cable networks issue gleeful news releases about their prime-time and demographic victories against their foes.

10/18/2014 7:20 AM
Basically the high point was one month before you-know-who got elected President. I am just sayin'...
10/18/2014 7:22 AM
There is a stark difference between East Coast and West Coast sports fans, as far as their zealotry is concerned.  A lot of that is attributed to weather; in the West the weather tends to be milder, and there are more recreational options available to people, ergo their live-and-die dedication to their teams is not as evident in their attendance and attention - not to say West Coasters don't love their teams, there are just more recreational options.

If you insist on drawing a causal as opposed to a correlational relationship between the outcome of the 1980 elections and World Series viewership, perhaps it's because the stunning decline in unemployment and historically unprecedented growth spurred by that election gave people other things to do.  I am just sayin' ...
10/18/2014 12:43 PM (edited)
We don't subscribe to Fox Sports1, missed a lot of the championship games, can't wait for the WS. Still the best sport in the world in my opinion.
10/18/2014 8:44 PM
Posted by pinotfan on 10/18/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
There is a stark difference between East Coast and West Coast sports fans, as far as their zealotry is concerned.  A lot of that is attributed to weather; in the West the weather tends to be milder, and there are more recreational options available to people, ergo their live-and-die dedication to their teams is not as evident in their attendance and attention - not to say West Coasters don't love their teams, there are just more recreational options.

If you insist on drawing a causal as opposed to a correlational relationship between the outcome of the 1980 elections and World Series viewership, perhaps it's because the stunning decline in unemployment and historically unprecedented growth spurred by that election gave people other things to do.  I am just sayin' ...
All true Pinot.  We also saw  unprecedented growth in:

A.  Homeless people
B.  Disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest in our Country (which continues unabated to this day---never-mind  our current Pres---the Black Jesus)
   I know, I know VERY politically incorrect and designed to illicit lots of angry responses-----some would call it "baiting".
C.  Conservative Dogma NOT connected to any actual idealogical or real conservative values.
D.  Superficiality at all levels.
E.  Military Madness
F.  National Debt
G.  Ignorance
H.  Callousness of those that have vs. those that have less.
 I.   Mental Illness


Not attempting any disparagement of Pres. Reagan (other than the obvious) as he also did accomplish some good stuff.
Just sayin'   :-)

LB



10/19/2014 2:45 PM
A.  Two factors affecting homelessness in the '80s were population increase and changes in how mentally ill were treated - that's a state, not a federal issue. There were also shifts in employment locations; many traditionally high-employment areas saw jobs move to other parts of the country, and many people chose not to move.  Frankly, there were a myriad of factors affecting homelessness in the 1980s and, despite copious amounts of research, nobody has been able to make a definitive declaration as to the reasons for the incongruity of a booming economy and employment base coupled with an increase in homelessness.  In a booming economy - booming across all sectors - there is no government-based reason for healthy, capable people not to have jobs.

B.  I've never understood why people harp on income or wealth disparity.  I don't care if Joe Blow makes a billion dollars; if I am improving my station in life, I am happy.  With an expanding economy and expanding credit, wealth is not zero-sum: a rising tide floats all boats.

C.  Not sure what you mean by this.  If your saying Reagan's policies were not guided by personally-felt values, I could not disagree more.

D.  Your opinion; frankly, I believe Reagan policies were more morally driven than those of most presidents.

E.  Again, not sure what you mean.  As far as use of military force, the Regan administration used it less than Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt ...  If you mean military spending, yes he spent a lot.  And ended the Cold War.  I'll take that trade-off.  Also, that does not take into consideration secondary and tertiary benefits of military research and development.

F.  I LOVE it when people bring this up!  Let's remember, both houses of Congress were solidly Democrat at the time.  There is no way any spending got done without Democrat approval.  So if you believe the deficit was bad, then blame those who approved the budget and wrote the checks: Democrats.  However, this begs the question, why did the Democrats sign off of the Reagan tax cuts?  Reagan cut a deal with Congress: pass the cuts.  Tax revenue will skyrocket.  You can spend it; it will not be used for deficit reduction.  The Democrats, KNOWING that the policy was sound, jumped at the chance to have all that money to spend.  Reagan was willing to let the Democrats increase the deficit, in order to get the economy booming.

G.  Ignorance of what? 

H.  There are those who are callous, there are those who are not.  No specific era has an exclusive claim.  Also, FYI, statistically Republicans donate more (in terms of both donors and cash) to charities than Democrats.  And just to muddy the issue with facts: Between 1955 and 1980, giving (expressed in constant 1990 dollars) increased at a compound annual rate of 3.3 percent, from $34.5 billion to $77.5 billion. But between 1980 and 1989, giving increased to $121 billion, an annual rate of increase of 5.1 percent, a growth rate 55 percent higher than in the preceding 25 years.

I  I'd like to see how Reagan's administration can be held accountable for mental illness.  Care for the mentally ill transferred mainly from the Federal government to the States.

I am just sayin' ...
10/19/2014 5:10 PM
Statistics, statistics, statistics. (what's the line about damn lies??)  I don't want to argue with you Pinot.  I voted for Reagan (once).

He wasn't all bad.  I won't go thru the litany except to point out that I lived near a mental institution. It closed BECAUSE of the ending of federal support dollars that the state (Washington) could NOT absorb.  The patients were (by and large) turned loose to fend for themselves.  Many of them ended up on the streets of Seattle. A DIRECT result of the Reagan budget cuts---------not that cuts in government weren't warranted or necessary.  The question is/was where to cut.

As for the Conservative dogma bit-------That wasn't a jab at Reagan but rather a jab at the current group of mindless right-wingers who cite Reagan as their icon while pushing anything but conservative values as their ideology.  i.e. (IMO) The current conservatives are anything BUT conservative.

As for the debt increase.  Do a little timeline comparison.
1.  List the Presidents in order by their years of term in office.
2. (Next)  List the national debt by decade since its inception and thru the current debt and notice which party controlled (largely) the National gov't during the explosion in our debt.

The result is unmistakeable.  The HUGE increase in our debt was largely during the Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations.  And many of those years were WITH a republican controlled Congress!!

Those two timelines will reveal that actually the Democrats have been much better at handling the nation's economy. (at least the debt and its growth)

You are correct that the Reagan military buildup ended the cold war and destroyed the Soviet economy, however it didn't come without a price on our nation as well.

Finally, the disparity in wealth between the very wealthy and the masses has led to the downfall of many previous powerful nations/cultures.
I'm quite sure you must be aware of that as smart as you are.

To be blunt............I blame both parties for the shape of this country. After all it is they (Both of them) who have led us to and created the present situation.
This is why I TRY to vote for anyone OTHER than Repubs or Democrats. Sometimes there isn't even an alternative...............hence the REAL problem.

The stranglehold those two parties have instituted on our political system.  VOTE Independent..........or whatever you choose, BUT if you want change---DON'T vote for either of the 2 parties.  Time (decades of it) has proven that THEY don't want and won't bring about any meaningful change.

Back to baseball for me.  Much more logical and fun.
Keep thinking and voting though.  It is all we can do!!

LB

10/19/2014 10:50 PM
Pinot: People harp on the increasing disparity because that rising tide sinks many boats. Forget the stupid rising-tide analogy; cynical politicians and wealth barons have been systematically increasing the disparity. They simply don't care about poor or disadvantaged people, nor the long-term effects on this nation. If they did, they would either reform the tax codes or simply stop making every possible move (including moving overseas) in order to decrease their tax burden and leave others to pull more than their fair share.
10/22/2014 3:59 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
I did not say that the poor or disadvantaged "bears the brunt of the tax burden." Go back and read that more carefully.  The shrinking middle class bears the most disproportionate burden. But don't forget that the poor also pay local taxes with every purchase they make, and some federal taxes on a few things that carry federal taxes. The poor who don't pay income taxes do not do so simply because they don't even make enough money to reach the IRS threshold.

You need only to view our economy without partisan blinders to see that this is true.
10/22/2014 10:19 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Kinda off the subject a bit but an interesting analogy IMO.

Consider toll roads, like in Oklahoma and Kansas (two of the most republican states around).  Just how long do you think the Kansas turnpike (or the Will Rogers in Oklahoma as examples) have been paid off???  Still those two states continue to collect tolls from anyone who has to pass thru the state.  The Kansas turnpike is I-70---kinda hard to avoid!!  Now, the wealthy don't have much of an impact on their budgets from the (seemingly) small (3-5 dollar tolls-----per trip)  BUT what about the poor or rather budget limited folks.  They pay the same amount per trip.  Kinda advantages the better off with their ability to travel vs. the less well off, no???   Yet...........BOTH those states are 70% or more republican voters!!

IMO, the poor in Oklahoma (or Kansas) are so ignorant they don't even comprehend how they're getting abused by the state toll roads and still vote for the same folks that abuse them financially.  And the less advantaged poor are paying a disproportionate amount of the toll roads cost so the rich can use the same toll roads that the masses pay for and the rich pay a much smaller amount proportionally and yet they (obviously) travel those same roads at a greater frequency...............in their much nicer vehicles (generally). 

Now (obviously) this isn't a federal government issue at all.  These are  right-leaning state governments who have road (toll) policies that benefit the wealthy-----------of course they are the same folks who donate to the parties and economically support the politicians passing the toll road statutes..  Not a big surprise there.

The surprising thing (IMO)  is how stupid the average poor voter in Oklahoma (or Kansas) is who continues to vote republican without even comprehending how much more tolls they (and people like them of the same less advantaged economic status) pay on those roads than the wealthier travelers!!  It's completely nuts IMO!!

Certainly once the construction bond has been paid off on that toll road the toll should be gone!!!!   zilch!!!  Yet the Kansas turnpike (for just one example) has been collecting tolls for decades!!!   It's just a boondoggle revenue-wise for the states who do that-----------including out-of state travelers who have to pay the toll just to pass through!!!!   Completely immoral IMO!!   Just sayin'.

Glad we don't have toll roads in Arizona.  We all pay an equal  (or somewhat fair proportionate amount) for our roads!!!   Just like our schools, our local and state gov'ts etc!!! 

I have little sympathy for folks too dumb too understand when they're being ripped off!!   and won't be moving to Oklahoma anytime soon...or EVER!!!!

Now, can we get back to baseball.....it's WS time!!!   Great game tonight. Glad the Royals evened up the series so we get to have more October baseball!!!

LB

10/23/2014 1:02 AM
dahsdebater uses a classic debate tactic: Don't argue against the truth of the other person's statement, but attack the person himself.

You know very well that calling me a liberal has nothing to do with whether what I stated is true.

We should both live long enough to see whether the very rich ruin the country that I love. 
10/23/2014 1:34 AM
LB - does the toll roads being "paid off" mean they no longer need to be maintained?  And does the wear and tear generated the vehicles of the rich cost more to repair than the wear and tear generated by the vehicles of the poor?

Everyone's driving costs the state the same amount, and everyone pays the same amount - proportional to their use of the highway system, which of course is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the cost of maintaining that system.  The real hole here is the fact that people who happen to live near the limited toll road system are disproportionately charged.  It would make far more sense to move towards something like what's done around Dallas and several other major cities - charge to use all of the biggest and best roads.  But I don't see how personal wealth factors in at all.

Frankly, this argument comes down to a personal view of how governments should operate.  Fiscal conservatives, myself included, tend to believe that for the most part we should get what we pay for, and vice versa.  There may be some room (from my perspective, not generally from the far right) for wealth redistribution programs.  Our current entitlement programs are massively flawed, and even their proponents are fully aware of this, but that's not a debate worth getting into.  The real question here is whether everything should be done on a wealth-redistribution basis, or whether we should pay for what we use.  When possible, I'm far more in favor of the latter.  And use of a turnpike system fits that ideal perfectly.  The fact that you think it's inherently "disproportionate" for people to actually pay relative to the amount their activity is costing the state seems frankly ridiculous to me.  It is, in fact, the very definition of proportional payment.
10/23/2014 2:06 AM
123 Next ▸
Very depressing: World Series viewership fades Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.