-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Baseball Is Beating The NBA And NHL Playoffs In Local TV Ratings
- Thread starter richiek
- Start date
- Status
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
So small markets would rather watch their local teams than other cities' teams? You don't say!
Perhaps you'd like to address any of the actual points I made about the article? It's a fluff piece, and a bad one at that.
LQX
Member
But you need a cable subscription to see those. No different from them being on ESPN and TNT.
PeregrinSe7en
Member
what hurts the nhl is having the playoffs on freakin nbcsn. that is total garbage. i love baseball too but its just not as exciting as watching a hockey game.
thats... a particularly terrible stat to trot out as good.
8 games vs 81?
thats almost as pitiful a stat as the article in the OP... and i don't actually believe that baseball is dying
Person A: "Baseball is dying"
Person B: "Actually, no it's not. Here is evidence."
Person A: "Your attempts to show that baseball is not dying are the best evidence that baseball is dying!"
I would be happy to, at least. The point which you sort of casually gloss over:
Plinko said:
This part is the point. People tend to view the success and failure of sports through a single metric: national TV ratings. Specifically, US national TV ratings. That is one metric of success, but not the only one, as there are several other metrics which are also very important to a sports' health.
One example of such a metric would be local TV ratings, which -- as you point out -- are very strong for baseball. That's something worth mentioning, because some people seem to look very narrowly at the national broadcast ratings and draw conclusions exclusively from those, so pointing out that local TV ratings are very strong is worth mentioning. That is the point this article is making.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Tampa has a team in the hockey playoffs, and for all intents and purposes the Capitals are the hockey team for Baltimore. They hold pre-season games here and a large portion of the Capitals season ticket holders have zip codes from the Baltimore area. Those two aren't cases where the people would be watching other cities teams. It means regular season baseball games are beating their local hockey teams playoff games.
but they make a point of it by omitting anything contrary to their point, which makes the entire article bunk. Yes baseball is more local, its still got a healthy local following and local tv broadcast rights bring in tons of money for the teams and sport. Its doing fine, but by cherry picking stats to fit and frame the argument the article was trying to make is just sad. They could have made the same point and not look so pathetic trying to make it.
But people keep telling me baseball is dead.
Even if the evidence is claiming otherwise.
Btw: It's so funny when people say baseball is so booring and takes too long.
Like the NFL is so fun to watch with it's 4567 commercial breaks every 30 seconds..or the last few minutes in a basketball game which take like an hour.
Even if the evidence is claiming otherwise.
Btw: It's so funny when people say baseball is so booring and takes too long.
Like the NFL is so fun to watch with it's 4567 commercial breaks every 30 seconds..or the last few minutes in a basketball game which take like an hour.
It's certainly a pro-baseball slant, no argument there, but it's pretty clearly a rebuttal to anti-baseball articles which tend to focus exclusively on national TV ratings.
Just as a direct, apples-to-apples comparison:
The NFL generated slightly above 9 billion in revenue in 2013:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ague-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/
By comparison, MLB generated about 8 Billion in the same year:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/17/report-mlb-recorded-record-revenues-in-2013/
This suggests that the NFL is the more popular sport, but not by as much as national TV ratings might imply. The NFL is unquestionably strong in that regard, but has weaknesses in other areas (attendance is low because there are so few games, international growth remains weak compared to games like basketball and baseball).
Rather than framing the discussion as two sports with different strengths and weaknesses, it's often framed quite differently, as if one is thriving and the other dying.
The NFL generated slightly above 9 billion in revenue in 2013:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ague-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/
By comparison, MLB generated about 8 Billion in the same year:
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/17/report-mlb-recorded-record-revenues-in-2013/
This suggests that the NFL is the more popular sport, but not by as much as national TV ratings might imply. The NFL is unquestionably strong in that regard, but has weaknesses in other areas (attendance is low because there are so few games, international growth remains weak compared to games like basketball and baseball).
Rather than framing the discussion as two sports with different strengths and weaknesses, it's often framed quite differently, as if one is thriving and the other dying.
and the irony when these same people proceed to shit on hockey because it's the least popular even though it has the highest pace, and least amount of commercials...
entremet
Member
This is not a logical argument.
The only city in the article that has an NHL team in the playoffs is Tampa Bay. Laugh at them. All the rest of the cities have no NHL team period , or none in the playoffs. Cities with big NHL teams have only rivals in the playoffs.
Who wants to watch a rival play in the playoffs?
Who wants to watch a rival play in the playoffs?
thecouncil
Banned
Baseball is like the Nintendo of sports.
Everyone keeps telling them they're dead, but they just won't listen.
Everyone keeps telling them they're dead, but they just won't listen.
The only games not involving Toronto sports team's that I watch are MLB. And due to the Leafs sucking the past 2 years, I won't even watch them. Once the Raps were kicked out of the post season its been an MLB binge for me on weekends. It's just so much more relaxing to watch for me, and for some reason I have more interest in intriguing pitcher match-ups (Kluber vs. Sale yesterday) than I do for the remaining NHL and NBA games.
I also much rather go to Jays games than Leafs and Raps...being outside in the summer is just a whole other experience.
I also much rather go to Jays games than Leafs and Raps...being outside in the summer is just a whole other experience.
Look at the percentage who call the NFL their favorite sport and the average age of each fan of every sport.
Edit: Every year the Harris poll shows the NFL way ahead in first and College football almost ties baseball every year. When surveys on average age of fans are done most of the MLB fan are above 50. More commonly above 65.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Ne... Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1546/Default.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1786/more-americans-fans-pro-football-than-any-other-sport.aspx
Yep, even though I'm not that big of a fan of hockey at least you can enjoy the game with little to no breaks.
And look at how the NFL has no traction outside the US, while baseball does, with a much broader international audience.
Again, strengths and weaknesses.
terrisus
Member
ftfy
SonicXtreme
Member
Uh I live in Cleveland and every bar shows the cavs games on the national channel, not the fso local one...
The topic is about the US.
It's also just about local TV ratings, but you expanded it already to talk about "most popular sport" poll results.
Unless you'd rather not bring up that off-topic variable? You can't have it both ways.
Is it really a surprise that the Pirates are out drawing an out of town NHL series in Pittsburgh?
Road hockey would be the hockey equivalent of those other sports, all you need is sticks(~$20 each) and a ball.
I agree, though, that the cost of putting kids in an organized hockey league is prohibitively expensive for most parents. Even here in hockey crazy Canada, a lot of kids stop playing hockey early because of how expensive it is.
Football and baseball are fairly expensive league sports too(thanks to the equipment), but not as expensive as hockey since it's much cheaper to construct and maintain an outdoor field in the summer(when most people like to go out and play) than it is to maintain a hockey rink.
Road hockey would be the hockey equivalent of those other sports, all you need is sticks(~$20 each) and a ball.
I agree, though, that the cost of putting kids in an organized hockey league is prohibitively expensive for most parents. Even here in hockey crazy Canada, a lot of kids stop playing hockey early because of how expensive it is.
Football and baseball are fairly expensive league sports too(thanks to the equipment), but not as expensive as hockey since it's much cheaper to construct and maintain an outdoor field in the summer(when most people like to go out and play) than it is to maintain a hockey rink.
Well, I am saying as long as the leagues we are talking about are in the US. I care about their popularity in US.
Ah, so you get to decide which variables are allowed and which aren't, whether they're explicitly mentioned in the OP or not.
I'm happy to include or exclude both, as long as you're consistent. Don't want to include international discussion, because it's not immediately mentioned in the OP? Fine, no problem, but then we shouldn't be discussing "favorite sport" polls, either, since those aren't mentioned, either. Or are we okay including "favorite sport" polls? In that case, discussion of international strength is also germane.
Again, you can't have it both ways to suit your argument.
'eh, we used to play it on the street. just needed roller blades, sticks and a ball. don't think there were any rec leagues though, i think there was only one ice rink in the entire county.
Dude, I have seen you post. You will drag on all day. Carry on however you like.
What a childish post.
terrisus
Member
For someone who likes "American Football," one would think that the term "moving the goalposts" would have some meaning >.>
Maximus.
Member
I guess it's just different cultures in different regions. If they don't play the sport or have a good local team(or team in general, I can understand).
In Canada for instance, people enjoy both sports if they are fans. I guess a lot of people enjoy Hockey more because there are many good teams and it's part of the culture.
That's understandable, but the same mentality would apply to all sports, yet other sports have higher viewing rates.
That is a valid theory, but a lot of people play road hockey over ice hockey when it comes to people not in a league or organized team. It is still significantly more work and money to organize just to get a game of road hockey going though.
Lacrosse, and soccer have more kids playing it, but hockey is still bigger where I live.
Ah that makes sense too.
graffix13
Member
This is great:
The sad thing is we have the worst local TV contract in the country:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/ml...V-ratings-for-Royals-but-box-office-lags.html
The sad thing is we have the worst local TV contract in the country:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/ml...V-ratings-for-Royals-but-box-office-lags.html
Buddha Beam
Banned
I live in Cleveland. This just blows my mind. I haven't heard a single person talking about the Indians. It's allllll about the Cavs in this town right now. And the Indians are doing particularly awful this year, too.
Fenderputty
Banned
It's all anecdotal experience coupled with some confirmation bias. Noddy talks baseball around the office AND national TV ratings are down. Must mean baseball is dying.
I love baseball and Its not be dying but the landscape surround it is changing.
because its against an NBA playoff game that didn't include the Cav's. The cav's local rating was 29.9
SonicXtreme
Member
Isn't it giving the fox sports rating when almost all viewers watch them simocast on tnt/ESPN lol?
Exploratory
Banned
He's not winning this year.
entremet
Member
Due to team injuries.
Because baseball is an incredibly powerful regional sport with some teams making literally hundreds of millions off of local/regional cable programming alone.
NESN, YES, etc. are basically money printing machines for their owners. Teams who don't own an affiliated cable network still land monstrous deals. The Dodgers deal with Time Warner's LA SportsNet is the biggest of them all at $8.35B over 25 years, or $334M a year, but many other teams have very lucrative local cable contracts themselves. Most teams who have deals signed in the last 5 years are at least comparable to the Rangers' 2011 deal of $3B for 20 years, $150M per year, with various bonuses like profit sharing for the club, an equity stake in the network, etc..
Compare that to the NBA. They're largely reliant on national broadcasts and got a national deal for $24B over 9 years, or $2.6B a year. MLB's aggregate deal with Fox, Turner, and ESPN was signed two years earlier for $12.4B over 8 years, or $1.55B per year. Those two years of inflation are a big difference, and yet you can see where just a handful of Dodger level deals would see MLB banking far more money on their television rights than the NBA.
Meanwhile MLB's TV deal also gave them far more flexibility in online/streaming distribution of their games and radio is still a major media format for MLB whereas it is completely irrelevant to the other "big three".
As for the NHL, well, their national deal was for $2B over 10 years, signed in 2011, and sees them get $200M a year. That's right, the Dodgers alone gets approximately 60% more money from their local deal than the entire NHL does from a national deal.
Meanwhile the Yankees with YES, the Red Sox with NESN, and several other teams are bypassing the contracts entirely and charging $2-$3 per subscriber to every cable and satellite provider in their region who has basic cable or above and it isn't even just a seasonal thing, it's in the package and part of the payments for 12 months a year. The reported payments to the teams have been in the $85M per year range for these networks, but that number is added to the revenue sharing pool so they have an active interest in taking below market deals. Meanwhile both networks are reportedly turning over $400M in annual revenue when the club is providing 90% of their programming for them. The Yankees recently sold 49% of the YES network to News Corp. for $1.5B and a new contract for the Yankees guaranteeing ever escalating annual payments.
Scott Boras, noted baseball agent, used the metaphor of buying the Dodgers as a clear opportunity to pay $1.5B for a team on the verge of a $3-$4B TV deal, effectively doubling your commitment before selling a ticket as "owning the team is the cherry on top, the network deal is the sundae".
Local and regional market strength is what Baseball has always been about. That has never changed. Our society has been gradually moving to more of a national identity in the last 50 years, a national shared experience, but baseball is still one of the few cornerstones of local/regional culture that isn't just refusing to die, it's flourishing. Local hardware stores fall before Home Depot. Local grocery stores are on the ropes because of super Wal-Marts. National chains push local plumbers, electricians, etc. to the margins, but baseball keeps on winning. So maybe it doesn't win on the national stage over the NFL like it used to, but it's making bank, the stadiums are busy, and the rest of the promise of more globalization only benefits them as they've already got strong ties in Central and South America as well as Asia. The NFL has continually failed to make meaningful inroads overseas, the NBA is not even the same game as international basketball at this point, and the NHL is restricted to the U.S. and Canada with a little interest from the rest of the arctic circle but far more interested in their own local clubs.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Bumped because that excellent last post deserves visibility. Even though it's painful to read right after reading this post:
The Royals make 20m a year on TV coverage while the Dodgers bring in 334m? The Royals really need to stay relevant for four more years and create their own network.
The Royals make 20m a year on TV coverage while the Dodgers bring in 334m? The Royals really need to stay relevant for four more years and create their own network.
bengraven
Member
I have to admit: I miss baseball. Used to be a big Twins fan but after I moved out when I was 19 I never watched it again. My roommates would watch it and I'd walk past and see hints of the "Twinnies" but it just wasn't the same. I miss going to the actual games (smell of the stadium, the hot dogs and nachos) and playing and everything, but it felt like this too has passed.
Now that I have a kid I should try and see if he can like it as much as I did.
Now that I have a kid I should try and see if he can like it as much as I did.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
MLB.TV is the best streaming service of all the major sports if you want to go that route.
Baseball is dying.
Well, that isn't quite true - present day regional ratings aside, it is slowly becoming more like soccer was in the 1980s where all kids played it but never watched it.
this entire post is as shortsighted as the original article.
You do realize both the NBA and NHL have local deals as well?
terrisus
Member
The article is positing that Baseball's local deals are, in general, much higher than other sports.
Do you have figures to indicate otherwise?
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Those local regional deals are clearly unsustainable and baseball will die soon after those deals expire since noone will renew them after the game is dead.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll