NLCS on Fox Sports 1

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so let me ask. Is FS1 mainstream enough to be doing these games? I get that Fox has this big investment that they need to push, but wondering how many potential Fox viewers might be missing the Cards and Giants because they don't get FS1. I just thought it a bit odd not to present this series to a potentially larger audience.  
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
No, it's not big enough.  And MLB is doing significant damage allowing Fox to place these games on a network that is only in about 75% of all households. and difficult to find in many of those households.  (As it is the re-branded "Speed Network.")
 
This is their showcase and a big part of the country can't find or even see the games.  It's just an incredibly boneheaded move on the part of MLB.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
For some reason the quote option isn't working for me, but wanted to address part of what Average Reds wrote. You mention that FS1 is in about 75% of households and part of what prompted my starting this thread is that I'm wondering out of that how many of those households don't get FS1 on ALL TVs. I've got a premium box on my 52 inch in the living room, but the rest of the TVs have the standard 70 or so channels of which FS1 is not a part of. Being someone who gets up at 4AM, I watch a lot of evening sports in bed. The fact that I can't get the NLCS in the bedroom doesn't cause me great distress, but just leads me to wonder about the decision making process about airing on FS1 vs. Fox.  
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
When is "can't find the channel" going to stop being an issue, at least for digital cable subscribers?  Most digital boxes these days have a search function.  Short of that, you can isolate sporting events (or movies or kids shows or name your genre) in the guide listings to narrow the manual search field considerably.  I can understand the "can't find it" argument for something like NESNplus which only gets used when needed and often isn't labeled properly in the guide, but for a channel like FS1 that runs 24/7 all the time, people are lazy and/or stupid if they can't find it.
 
Now the argument that it's a channel that doesn't appear on a basic tier so non-digital subscribers can't watch it is a better one.  But that's the point of putting the games on that channel...to force people to go digital and/or buy the sports tier package that will give them the games.  Sucks for the consumers but it's the only way Fox is going to build their cable brand to be a true competitor with ESPN (which has the luxury of always being in the basic packages because of its high demand).  It's a risk for Fox, but a calculated one.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,946
Silver Spring, MD
I was shocked last night to turn on Fox and find Family Guy. I understand the LDS going to MLB or FS1 but really, the League Championship Series?
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,082
loshjott said:
I was shocked last night to turn on Fox and find Family Guy. I understand the LDS going to MLB or FS1 but really, the League Championship Series?
 
I think Fox thought 3 weeks of baseball was having a bad effect on their ability to launch their Fall season.
 
This isn't a cable problem.. it's a FS1 problem for baseball. The NBA has their conference finals on TNT and ESPN and it does pretty well. FS1 isn't going to get a lot of people stumbling on to it. 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
People are always going to complain.  They complained when playoff baseball was on TBS.  They complained when March Madness got spread across a number of different channels.  They complained when MNF moved to ESPN.  The only thing I find really objectionable is that Fox's deal apparently bars MLB from showing games live without a blackout, so the ALCS games are largely available via MLB.tv, but the NLCS games are blocked.  This prevents me from being able to watch the radio broadcast and live game in sync, so I had to live with Jon Miller being ahead of the TV last night. 
 

Greg Blosser

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2001
2,384
Destination Greenpoint
Last night, I flipped over from football to catch the end of Cards/Giants.  First, I hit the usual suspects - Fox, TBS, ESPN, and MLB - nothing.  Then I scrolled through the channel listings but since the game had already gone over its allotted time segment, Extreme Bass Fishing or something was listed in its place.  I then went to Yahoo to get the box score/game info - the channel wasn't listed anywhere on the page.  I then googled "2014 NLCS TV schedule" and found out it was on FS1.  And lastly, I went back to the channel listings and scrolled through until I found out where FS1 was.
 
Regardless of my deficient technological prowess, it shouldn't take that much effort to find out what channel the NLCS is on during the 8th inning of Game 2.
 

LESDL

armed against all shadows
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,596
Hermit's Peak
I was just listening to Mad Dog Radio about an hour ago and Russo was reeling off some numbers. I believe he said last night's game had 3.9 million viewers- the lowest ever for the NLCS.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,266
Manchester, N.H.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
When is "can't find the channel" going to stop being an issue, at least for digital cable subscribers?  Most digital boxes these days have a search function.  Short of that, you can isolate sporting events (or movies or kids shows or name your genre) in the guide listings to narrow the manual search field considerably.  I can understand the "can't find it" argument for something like NESNplus which only gets used when needed and often isn't labeled properly in the guide, but for a channel like FS1 that runs 24/7 all the time, people are lazy and/or stupid if they can't find it.
 
Now the argument that it's a channel that doesn't appear on a basic tier so non-digital subscribers can't watch it is a better one.  But that's the point of putting the games on that channel...to force people to go digital and/or buy the sports tier package that will give them the games.  Sucks for the consumers but it's the only way Fox is going to build their cable brand to be a true competitor with ESPN (which has the luxury of always being in the basic packages because of its high demand).  It's a risk for Fox, but a calculated one.
 
At this point in time, I don't see a dramatic difference between NESN+ and FS1 for local markets, perhaps with the exception of NESN+ having the advantage of NESN scrolling its channel listings when applicable events are on. 
 
You can use a search function, but let's go under the hypothetical that we have no idea where it is...what might it be listed under. MLB makes some sense, and you'll find it there under "MLB Playoff". If you search for NLCS, it'll come up that way too. If you search "Cardinals"...well, not so lucky. "San Francisco" has similar luck. If you search MLB, you go down four pages until you find FS1.
 
I'm figuring if you really want to watch it, you'll find it, but there's the argument that unless you really want to watch it, you won't find it without that focus, and that you won't get people stopping on the network without that visibility. It's hardly an equal comparison (I'd argue the games are harder to find since a DVR won't jump you there), but look at what happened to The League when it moves from FX to FXX? It lost a good chunk of its viewership. It's probably worse for live sports, because you'll have people scroll from channels 1-14 (their big networks) for something to watch and just forget about it...and even if they want to find it late, the guide has already eclipsed it.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
LESDL said:
I was just listening to Mad Dog Radio about an hour ago and Russo was reeling off some numbers. I believe he said last night's game had 3.9 million viewers- the lowest ever for the NLCS.
It's a shame about the rating. Two high profile teams played a memorable playoff game.
Being on FS1 is partly to blame but the sport is declining in popularity at the moment. Burying it on a channel a lot of people don't have isn't exactly helping.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
nattysez said:
People are always going to complain.  They complained when playoff baseball was on TBS.  They complained when March Madness got spread across a number of different channels.  They complained when MNF moved to ESPN.  The only thing I find really objectionable is that Fox's deal apparently bars MLB from showing games live without a blackout, so the ALCS games are largely available via MLB.tv, but the NLCS games are blocked.  This prevents me from being able to watch the radio broadcast and live game in sync, so I had to live with Jon Miller being ahead of the TV last night. 
All of those examples are networks that had close to 100% HH penetration and high awareness. FS1 has neither.

It's a big deal from a media standpoint.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
Baseball is a dying game. Interest is largely regional. Demographics trend old and older. I enjoy the game. Don't believe the game will matter much to my grandchildren.

If the game had any relevance at all, it would be on network television or ESPN.
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
Trautwein's Degree said:
Baseball is a dying game. Interest is largely regional. Demographics trend old and older. I enjoy the game. Don't believe the game will matter much to my grandchildren.

If the game had any relevance at all, it would be on network television or ESPN.
 
That's sad, considering the revelations that are coming to light about football, where dying is more of a player type thing. 
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
glasspusher said:
 
That's sad, considering the revelations that are coming to light about football, where dying is more of a player type thing. 
It's not sad. I still love baseball. But everything, sooner or later, gets reduced to dust. Baseball had its moment and it was a great one. But Selig made the right call trying to squeeze older/wealthier fans of every last penny because the kids weren't ever going to hop on this train.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Trautwein's Degree said:
It's not sad. I still love baseball. But everything, sooner or later, gets reduced to dust. Baseball had its moment and it was a great one. But Selig made the right call trying to squeeze older/wealthier fans of every last penny because the kids weren't ever going to hop on this train.
 
Whether baseball is dying or not, this is a media issue.  And you have the media dynamics precisely backwards.
 
The playoffs are a time to showcase the game.  Hiding it on a channel with poor distribution and little awareness is simply moronic.  To justify this by saying "oh well, the game is dying anyway so it's the right thing" is nonsense. 
 
I should also add that the bolded is simply an unsupported assertion. 
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
Trautwein's Degree said:
It's not sad. I still love baseball. But everything, sooner or later, gets reduced to dust. Baseball had its moment and it was a great one. But Selig made the right call trying to squeeze older/wealthier fans of every last penny because the kids weren't ever going to hop on this train.
Yes, nothing lasts forever, but...
 
Shit, I'd watch soccer sooner than football. Perhaps chronic mismanagement by a bunch of lousy commissioners and owners (players' unions?) didn't help things? What are kids hopping on instead? I got into baseball on my own in my teens, after my dad drove me nuts forcing me to play in little league. He was a great manager for other people's kids but not his own.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
Average Reds said:
 
Whether baseball is dying or not, this is a media issue.  And you have the media dynamics precisely backwards.
 
The playoffs are a time to showcase the game.  Hiding it on a channel with poor distribution and little awareness is simply moronic.  To justify this by saying "oh well, the game is dying anyway so it's the right thing" is nonsense. 
 
I should also add that the bolded is simply an unsupported assertion. 
No you have it wrong, if people cared ESPN would feed us baseball non-stop - I'm talking Lebron James style coverage.  But people don't give a shit about the Royals-Orioles. The ratings reflect that. Having NLCS games on a cable channel no one has heard of isn't a problem - it's reflective of demand and symptomatic of the larger problem that Joe Public doesn't give a fuck about baseball. 
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
Trautwein's Degree said:
No you have it wrong, if people cared ESPN would feed us baseball non-stop - I'm talking Lebron James style coverage.  But people don't give a shit about the Royals-Orioles. The ratings reflect that. Having NLCS games on a cable channel no one has heard of isn't a problem - it's reflective of demand and symptomatic of the larger problem that Joe Public doesn't give a fuck about baseball. 
 
Nonsense, the only reason it's on FS1 is Murdoch is using his tried and true strategy to drive viewers to his latest channel: overbid everyone else for the rights to sports coverage which is the only thing that will drive viewers to his otherwise pretty much contentless new channel. If MLB were capable of intelligent long-term thinking, they would have weighed this agreement against their own best interests and kept coverage on a more accessible vector.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Baseball may be 1) regional 2) has an aging demographic (love those Viagra commercials) 3) dieing, but I think Fox is trying to promote FS1 using the NLCS, much in the same way NBC tried to promote NBC-Sports by putting a lot of the Stanley Cup games on that less than viewer friendly platform.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Trautwein's Degree said:
No you have it wrong, if people cared ESPN would feed us baseball non-stop - I'm talking Lebron James style coverage.  But people don't give a shit about the Royals-Orioles. The ratings reflect that. Having NLCS games on a cable channel no one has heard of isn't a problem - it's reflective of demand and symptomatic of the larger problem that Joe Public doesn't give a fuck about baseball. 
 
The ratings you cite are a reflection of the fact that the games are on marginal networks with poor distribution and awareness.  And if you think that MLB is looking at those ratings and feeling content about them, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
The media decision is exacerbating the very problem you speak of.  It's utterly moronic and a fitting coda to Selig's tenure.
 

Traut

lost his degree
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
12,750
My Desk
Average Reds said:
 
The ratings you cite are a reflection of the fact that the games are on marginal networks with poor distribution and awareness.  And if you think that MLB is looking at those ratings and feeling content about them, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
The media decision is exacerbating the very problem you speak of.  It's utterly moronic and a fitting coda to Selig's tenure.
You sound like hockey guy. You know that guy who thinks hockey is really awesome. That guy who says "if only ESPN covered hockey it would get the attention it deserves. Well you know what, hockey guy? The NLCS is on the network it deserves to be on. You may not like it but if people gave a shit it would be on FOX. FOX would air it on FOX. Why? Because it would make a ton of money. 
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Trautwein's Degree said:
You sound like hockey guy. You know that guy who thinks hockey is really awesome. That guy who says "if only ESPN covered hockey it would get the attention it deserves. Well you know what, hockey guy? The NLCS is on the network it deserves to be on. You may not like it but if people gave a shit it would be on FOX. FOX would air it on FOX. Why? Because it would make a ton of money. 
 
I will ignore the strawman insults because they are so obviously a cover for your ignorance.
 
I've worked in media for a long time, including working with the folks at News Corp. on their sports properties.  Couperin47 has essentially nailed Murdoch's play:  by putting the playoffs on FS1 he's trying to increase penetration and awareness for his new sports network without any concern for what that does to the MLB brand.
 
Your comment about how News Corp makes money as the owner of a cable network is similarly ignorant.  If they can use this to increase the HH penetration of FS1 by 5 or 10%, that change alone is worth billions to Murdoch and dwarfs the potential sponsorship dollars he can make.  The economics only reverse themselves if FS1 were already at 90%+ HH penetration.  If that were the case, he'd make more money placing baseball on Fox.
 
To argue that allowing Murdoch to do this isn't a huge blunder for baseball is willful blindness.  The same sort of willful blindness that encouraged Bob DuPuy, Rob Manfred and Bud Selig to take the short money in the first place
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Average Reds said:
 
 
 
To argue that allowing Murdoch to do this isn't a huge blunder for baseball is willful blindness.  The same sort of willful blindness that encouraged Bob DuPuy, Rob Manfred and Bud Selig to take the short money in the first place
 
 
Yes, MLB needs to have more faith in the desirability of its product. Look how the Masters can exert such control over its broadcast partners and still garner megabuck rights fees.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
FS1 or any other peripheral networks should have only been allowed for the wild card and Division Series games.  MLB should have insisted that the ALCS and NLCS be carried on the flagship networks - Fox and TBS.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,839
Unreal America
The claim that baseball is "dying" is certainly subjective, and can be fairly debated.  But there is no mistaking that baseball is rapidly fading as a national sport.
 
It is a vibrant local sport, which is supported when you look at attendance levels and local TV ratings.
 
But we are talking about a sport that, with Jeter's retirement, now has ZERO active players among the top 40 most popular athletes in the U.S.  That is astonishing.  It is a sport that now has less national appeal than college football, a sport who's calling card for decades was regionalism.
 
I was watching the documentary last night on the 1989 World Series earthquake, and it struck me how as a teenager growing up in Massachusetts that A's team, 3000 miles across the country, had such star power and appeal to me.  I watched every game of that Series.  It's clear that dynamic doesn't exist today, although it does for sports like the NBA.
 
I don't think it's a lost cause though.  A smart, savvy Commissioner in collaboration with thoughtful owners and players could tap into the local health of the sport and rebuild it's national stature.  If a teen or 20-something will watch their local team there's no inherent reason why they won't watch a national game.  MLB just needs to build star power and team interest.  
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
Trautwein's Degree said:
You sound like hockey guy. You know that guy who thinks hockey is really awesome. That guy who says "if only ESPN covered hockey it would get the attention it deserves. Well you know what, hockey guy? The NLCS is on the network it deserves to be on. You may not like it but if people gave a shit it would be on FOX. FOX would air it on FOX. Why? Because it would make a ton of money. 
 
If this is true then why doesn't Fox put it's regular season Sat. games on FS1?  I mean, if people don't give a shit enough about baseball to have the NLCS be on a normal network, why is Fox wasting three hours of prime viewing time showing an even more meaningless game?
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
From the press release in 2012 when the current deal was signed:
 
 
"Throughout this deal, we have flexibility to some degree on distribution of the games," he said. "As many of you have read or heard, we continue to evaluate the potential of a national sports channel. We haven't announced anything yet ... but there will be a lot of things to come in the not too distant future."
 
 
The man speaking was Randy Freer, co-President of Fox Sports Media Group. 
 
Fox appears to have been upfront about the possibility of starting a national sports network and their intention to leverage baseball to build that network.  (It's one of the ways they built Fox in the first place.)  If MLB did not understand what this meant to them at the time, they made a significant error. 
 
The cost has been to assign the NLCS to a fringe audience while Fox uses the content to build distribution and justify increases in carry fees for FS1 on existing cable systems.
 
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/39362362/
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
8slim said:
The claim that baseball is "dying" is certainly subjective, and can be fairly debated.  But there is no mistaking that baseball is rapidly fading as a national sport.
 
It is a vibrant local sport, which is supported when you look at attendance levels and local TV ratings.
 
But we are talking about a sport that, with Jeter's retirement, now has ZERO active players among the top 40 most popular athletes in the U.S.  That is astonishing.  It is a sport that now has less national appeal than college football, a sport who's calling card for decades was regionalism.
 
I was watching the documentary last night on the 1989 World Series earthquake, and it struck me how as a teenager growing up in Massachusetts that A's team, 3000 miles across the country, had such star power and appeal to me.  I watched every game of that Series.  It's clear that dynamic doesn't exist today, although it does for sports like the NBA.
 
I don't think it's a lost cause though.  A smart, savvy Commissioner in collaboration with thoughtful owners and players could tap into the local health of the sport and rebuild it's national stature.  If a teen or 20-something will watch their local team there's no inherent reason why they won't watch a national game.  MLB just needs to build star power and team interest.  
 
I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that, but in the long-term local interest is more important than national interest, and MLB benefits from that.
 
Look at the NBA - tremendous national interest, paper-thin local interest. Result? Entire segments of the country check out when it's not Lebron vs. Kobe or their team isn't good. 
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,839
Unreal America
Spacemans Bong said:
 
I don't think you'll get any disagreement on that, but in the long-term local interest is more important than national interest, and MLB benefits from that.
 
Look at the NBA - tremendous national interest, paper-thin local interest. Result? Entire segments of the country check out when it's not Lebron vs. Kobe or their team isn't good. 
 
That's not true, though.  Aside from a few traditionally weak markets, the NBA performs extremely well locally AND has a national following.  That aspect of the NBA is what MLB should be trying to emulate.
 
I mean, look at it this way, the OKC Thunder are wildly popular both in their tiny market and in nationally televised games.  This is due to them having well-known, marketable stars.  The equivalent is the KC Royals. Popular in KC but far off the radar nationally. 
 

Lars The Wanderer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,833
San Francisco
8slim said:
I mean, look at it this way, the OKC Thunder are wildly popular both in their tiny market and in nationally televised games.  This is due to them having well-known, marketable stars.  The equivalent is the KC Royals. Popular in KC but far off the radar nationally. 
The networks that broadcast baseball nationally during the regular season (even MLB Network!) do a shitty job of promoting stars on small market teams. It would be better for the longterm health of the sport if they stopped shoving the Yankees and Red Sox down the country's throat every weekend and/or primetime game. The fact that FOX and ESPN do this is understandable. They are just chasing tomorrow's ratings. Their gig is selling laundry detergent, beer and boner pills and charging the most money they can for that service. However, it is the fact that MLB Network has fallen into the same trap that is disappointing to me. Their sole purpose should be to promote the sport of baseball; the ENTIRE sport. And yet, there they are modeling their broadcast schedule in the same way.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
Lars The Wanderer said:
The networks that broadcast baseball nationally during the regular season (even MLB Network!) do a shitty job of promoting stars on small market teams. It would be better for the longterm health of the sport if they stopped shoving the Yankees and Red Sox down the country's throat every weekend and/or primetime game. The fact that FOX and ESPN do this is understandable. They are just chasing tomorrow's ratings. Their gig is selling laundry detergent, beer and boner pills and charging the most money they can for that service. However, it is the fact that MLB Network has fallen into the same trap that is disappointing to me. Their sole purpose should be to promote the sport of baseball; the ENTIRE sport. And yet, there they are modeling their broadcast schedule in the same way.
 
The sole purpose of all of those entities is to make as much money as possible.  ESPN is no different than MLB.  I think the real question is whether they're sacrificing long-term revenue growth for short-term gain by ignoring the smaller market stars.  The problem is that the people in charge of making decisions today are trying to maximize value today and aren't worried about what happens ten years from now when they most likely won't be in that position. 
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
glennhoffmania said:
 
The sole purpose of all of those entities is to make as much money as possible.  ESPN is no different than MLB.  I think the real question is whether they're sacrificing long-term revenue growth for short-term gain by ignoring the smaller market stars.  The problem is that the people in charge of making decisions today are trying to maximize value today and aren't worried about what happens ten years from now when they most likely won't be in that position. 
 
Agreed, and the idea that a small market star wouldn't translate or be palatable to the national audience is such an old-media way of approaching things. It's unfathomable to anyone marketing MLB that there is interest in the product outside of the usual suspect major market teams, even though that is demonstrably false vis a vis other leagues, and they have at their disposal this particularly effective 21st century engine of information and concept dispersal. The idea that the Royals could never "play" outside KC is absurd and taking that as self-evident in 2014 is shooting themselves in the foot. The OKC Thunder example above is a great one. Great players, interesting team, market it that way, the interest will follow. The "well this is what the people want so that's just how it is" line of argument is garbage.
 
Stop trying to drastically alter and quicken up the game (ie listening to sponsors) and instead work on selling people--ones that are operating on a 2014 mindset, not a 1962 one--on why your sport is worth watching, no matter where you live or who you root for. Make a case! Sitting back and just jamming your thumb on the Yankees Red Sox button over and over and shrugging your shoulders convincing yourself that's the only way the sport will ever be consumed is not the case to be made, and hiding your game's annual Greatest Moment on some semi-obscure new sports cable hinterland as a cash-grab is just really short-sighted to me.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
How would you promote stars though?  Asking someone who's marginally interested to sit through a 3 hour game to see Mike Trout's 4 at bats might be asking too much at first.  Would it make sense to identify 30 or so of the game's biggest hitters and create a night on MLB network where it cuts to those players' at bats live or on slight delay.  No single game but a series of at bats by the likes of Trout, Harper, Posey, etc.  If anything, it creates a clear focus and promotes those players.  It's not unlike an all-star game, with the big difference that there's something at stake. 
 
The closest model to this might be the NFL's Red Zone where it doesn't focus on one game but cuts live to any game where a team has entered the Red Zone, so it's really a series of big, potentially exciting situations.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
DourDoerr said:
How would you promote stars though?  Asking someone who's marginally interested to sit through a 3 hour game to see Mike Trout's 4 at bats might be asking too much at first.  Would it make sense to identify 30 or so of the game's biggest hitters and create a night on MLB network where it cuts to those players' at bats live or on slight delay.  No single game but a series of at bats by the likes of Trout, Harper, Posey, etc.  If anything, it creates a clear focus and promotes those players.  It's not unlike an all-star game, with the big difference that there's something at stake. 
 
The closest model to this might be the NFL's Red Zone where it doesn't focus on one game but cuts live to any game where a team has entered the Red Zone, so it's really a series of big, potentially exciting situations.
 
Somehow the NBA and NFL figured out how to do it.  If MLB marketing people can't maybe it's time for them to find better marketing people.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
8slim said:
 
That's not true, though.  Aside from a few traditionally weak markets, the NBA performs extremely well locally AND has a national following.  That aspect of the NBA is what MLB should be trying to emulate.
 
I mean, look at it this way, the OKC Thunder are wildly popular both in their tiny market and in nationally televised games.  This is due to them having well-known, marketable stars.  The equivalent is the KC Royals. Popular in KC but far off the radar nationally. 
 
The NBA performs OK locally. They perform great in really small markets where they're the main attraction, but with the exception of LA - admittedly a big exception - they're not a patch on baseball in larger markets.
 
Only three NBA teams averaged more than 6 locally, 7 MLB teams did. In the larger markets:
 
- The Sox drew twice as many per night as the Celtics
- The Knicks barely beat the Mets, and drew about 40% less than the Yankees. Hardly anybody watches the Nets (I don't have their numbers handy but I recall them being really low). 
- The White Sox and Cubs, despite being awful, draw about the same as the Bulls do every night.
- The A's and Giants draw 2x what the Warriors draw.
- The Phils get 100K a night, God only knows what the Sixers get. The Flyers get 56K a night...I can't imagine the Sixers getting close to that.
 
LA is the one exception, the Lakers still do really well though nobody watches the Clippers.
 
But that strength in other large markets really helps MLB, despite having to play more night games than the NBA, playing twice as many games, playing in the summer when there's more things to do, etc.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
DourDoerr said:
The closest model to this might be the NFL's Red Zone where it doesn't focus on one game but cuts live to any game where a team has entered the Red Zone, so it's really a series of big, potentially exciting situations.
 
MLB Network's nightly MLB Tonight show essentially is doing this already.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Yeah they also have a version of this called MLB Strike Zone. Similar to the Red Zone, but it's only on Tuesday and Friday nights. Basically the same thing as the live look ins that MLB runs on the nights they don't broadcast games except more actually coverage and less talking heads.
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
Spacemans Bong said:
 
The NBA performs OK locally. They perform great in really small markets where they're the main attraction, but with the exception of LA - admittedly a big exception - they're not a patch on baseball in larger markets.
 
Only three NBA teams averaged more than 6 locally, 7 MLB teams did. In the larger markets:
 
- The Sox drew twice as many per night as the Celtics
- The Knicks barely beat the Mets, and drew about 40% less than the Yankees. Hardly anybody watches the Nets (I don't have their numbers handy but I recall them being really low). 
- The White Sox and Cubs, despite being awful, draw about the same as the Bulls do every night.
- The A's and Giants draw 2x what the Warriors draw.
- The Phils get 100K a night, God only knows what the Sixers get. The Flyers get 56K a night...I can't imagine the Sixers getting close to that.
 
LA is the one exception, the Lakers still do really well though nobody watches the Clippers.
 
But that strength in other large markets really helps MLB, despite having to play more night games than the NBA, playing twice as many games, playing in the summer when there's more things to do, etc.
I agree 1000% with your overall point, but there's no real sports competition between June 20th and August 31st.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,839
Unreal America
Spacemans Bong said:
 
The NBA performs OK locally. They perform great in really small markets where they're the main attraction, but with the exception of LA - admittedly a big exception - they're not a patch on baseball in larger markets.
 
Only three NBA teams averaged more than 6 locally, 7 MLB teams did. In the larger markets:
 
- The Sox drew twice as many per night as the Celtics
- The Knicks barely beat the Mets, and drew about 40% less than the Yankees. Hardly anybody watches the Nets (I don't have their numbers handy but I recall them being really low). 
- The White Sox and Cubs, despite being awful, draw about the same as the Bulls do every night.
- The A's and Giants draw 2x what the Warriors draw.
- The Phils get 100K a night, God only knows what the Sixers get. The Flyers get 56K a night...I can't imagine the Sixers getting close to that.
 
LA is the one exception, the Lakers still do really well though nobody watches the Clippers.
 
But that strength in other large markets really helps MLB, despite having to play more night games than the NBA, playing twice as many games, playing in the summer when there's more things to do, etc.
 
This past season's local ratings for the NBA aren't a great barometer because of how terribly, or at least well-below expectations, so many major market teams performed on the court, (LAL, NYK, BOS, PHI, CHI).  But you said "paper thin" local interest and that's simply not true.
 
FWIW, an additional factor is that NBA teams have more premium games broadcast exclusively nationally (such as TNT Thursday nights and ABC weekends & holidays) than MLB teams.  So it harms the local ratings for, say, San Antonio when 10-12 of their best games aren't telecast on their regional cable sports network.  Baseball teams have fewer exclusive national games (ESPN Sunday night, FOX weekend) relative to the total amount of games that are telecast. It's a wrinkle that has an impact.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,839
Unreal America
DourDoerr said:
How would you promote stars though?  Asking someone who's marginally interested to sit through a 3 hour game to see Mike Trout's 4 at bats might be asking too much at first.  Would it make sense to identify 30 or so of the game's biggest hitters and create a night on MLB network where it cuts to those players' at bats live or on slight delay.  No single game but a series of at bats by the likes of Trout, Harper, Posey, etc.  If anything, it creates a clear focus and promotes those players.  It's not unlike an all-star game, with the big difference that there's something at stake. 
 
The closest model to this might be the NFL's Red Zone where it doesn't focus on one game but cuts live to any game where a team has entered the Red Zone, so it's really a series of big, potentially exciting situations.
 
This is a real problem, I think.  If I want to catch Durant play I can tune in to an OKC Thunder game on TNT and see him on the floor for ~80% of the game.  if I want to catch Mike Trout play I can tune in to an Angels game on FOX and see him bat 4 or 5 times and maybe catch a handful of fly balls -- probably works out to 5% of the game, if that.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,839
Unreal America
FWIW, after checking TBS and FOX a couple hours ago I *just* remembered the NLCS is on FS1. And I posted in this very thread today.

You may say I'm an idiot, but I'm (probably) not the only one.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
8slim said:
 
This is a real problem, I think.  If I want to catch Durant play I can tune in to an OKC Thunder game on TNT and see him on the floor for ~80% of the game.  if I want to catch Mike Trout play I can tune in to an Angels game on FOX and see him bat 4 or 5 times and maybe catch a handful of fly balls -- probably works out to 5% of the game, if that.
And a pitcher is involved in more of the game than a position player, but all he does it get guys out. Boring. Chicks dig something else.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
8slim said:
 
This is a real problem, I think.  If I want to catch Durant play I can tune in to an OKC Thunder game on TNT and see him on the floor for ~80% of the game.  if I want to catch Mike Trout play I can tune in to an Angels game on FOX and see him bat 4 or 5 times and maybe catch a handful of fly balls -- probably works out to 5% of the game, if that.
 
How often does Durant make a truly amazing play in a typical game, though?  So much of a basketball game can be monotonous to watch.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
YTF said:
Yeah they also have a version of this called MLB Strike Zone. Similar to the Red Zone, but it's only on Tuesday and Friday nights. Basically the same thing as the live look ins that MLB runs on the nights they don't broadcast games except more actually coverage and less talking heads.
 
I adore the Strike Zone channel. I really wish they would do it every night.
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Didn't MLB get an early look into a future of declining relevance as "America's Pastime" when ESPN went full season on Sunday Night Football and moved pennant-stretch Sunday Night Baseball games to ESPN2?  MLB squawked, but the games went to The Deuce.
 
MLB knew FOX was likely to do this when it signed the last contract and is being well compensated for it.  FS1 is a long-term project and MLB playoff games are an important card for News Corp to play in negotiating/renegotiating carriage agreements.  Fox did the same thing with the NFL to gain stronger broadcast affiliates, VHF vs. UHF, particularly in NFC markets.  Given the lackluster performance of FOX's fall lineup, yet again, MLB playoff games not being on is costing the company significant revenue.   It's a calculated loss with the sole goal of growing FS1.  
 
Shot-term this appears to be problem for MLB, but the current model for content distribution is antiquated and is going to evolve into a post-cable/satellite/broadcast model, in spite of the record company like resistance of the corporate giants still profiting from the current system.  With this as a backdrop, FS1 may be too late to the party. As with music, this is going to be a technology driven consumer induced game-change.
 
The dominoes are starting to fall... HBO will be available without a cable/satellite subscription in 2015 and CBS announced its' plan to offer a $6/month digital 'all access' subscription.  The bigger issue for sports programming is that at some point, the revenue model of all subscribers shelling out $10+/month for the ESPN family and regional sports networks, that most don't watch,  is going to break.  The struggles of the Dodgers and Astros are just the beginning.