Sep 15, 2011, 9:13 AM EDT
Every time someone talks smack about baseball by bringing up the relatively low ratings for national games of the week, the All-Star Game or the playoffs, I go off on some rant about how that person is ignorant of how baseball works on television. About how baseball is a local game and how you can’t simply look at the ratings for one game and make anything approaching an informed judgment on the health of it as a televised entity.
When I say that, the response is usually “get used to baseball being a second-tier sport!” Bah. And do you know why I say “bah?” Because I’m not the only one ranting like that. Recently the Hollywood Reporter interviewed David Hill, the head of Fox Sports, and he said pretty much the same thing I say:
THR: Fox pays $416 million a year for rights to Major League Baseball, including weekly regular-season games, the All-Star Game and the World Series. Baseball ratings are down; what’s the reason?
Hill: There’s been the rise of the regionalization of the sport, and the decision to play interleague games each year has taken away the luster of the All-Star Game. And if you look at the truly national teams, you quickly start to run out after the Phillies, the Red Sox, the Yankees and, to a certain extent, the Rangers, and you pray the Cubs will show some life. So the ratings are dependent on who we get into the pennant race. Are baseball ratings the same as they were 15 years ago? No. But [the World Series] is still a huge event and is going to dominate the night it’s on. So in terms of importance to the network, for prestige and relevance, it’s important and will remain that way.
The next question was whether Fox loses money on baseball. Hill’s answer: nope. They have up years and down years, but the suggestion that baseball is some tremendous loss-leader Fox uses to promote whatever half-baked show it’s launching in November is simply not true.
Know what I’d like to see? Overall baseball ratings for all teams on a given non-national night. Specifically, how many people across the country on any random Tuesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday night are tuned in to baseball, no matter what network it’s on or what teams playing. No, I still don’t think that matches a football Sunday, but I bet if we saw those numbers people would say something very different about the popularity and health of the game.
Not that such numbers would help any one network seeking a national broadcasting contract as things are currently constructed. But if a network got baseball rights and figured out a way to leverage the increasingly regional nature of baseball fandom via new or radical programming packages, they could probably do pretty well whether the Yankees were playing or not.
- Not so fast! Dodgers-Marlins trade for Mat Latos “could be falling apart” 52
- The Tigers are going to “reboot;” plan to trade Price and Cespedes 48
- Why do managers wear uniforms anyway? 42
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 51
- Astros “making a strong effort” for Phillies ace Cole Hamels 32
- Angels acquire outfielders David Murphy and David DeJesus 24
- Jenrry Mejia gets 162-game ban for second failed PED test 52
- Nationals, Phillies agree to Jonathan Papelbon trade 65
- The MLBPA is considering withholding cooperation with ESPN, Fox over Colin Cowherd’s comments (157)
- The Cubs are in discussions with the Phillies on Cole Hamels (146)
- Colin Cowherd wonders how baseball can be considered “complicated” if Dominicans can understand it (129)
- Major League Baseball rips Colin Cowherd in an official statement (123)
- Settling the Scores: Wednesday’s results (106)