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.
- Cardinals acquire Justin Masterson from Indians 48
- There’s a “very good chance” the Red Sox trade Lackey and Lester 52
- Hey, Rube: Phillies pay dearly for Amaro’s misguided loyalty 89
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 57
- Dodgers announce Vin Scully will return for 2015 season 52
- Jon Lester scratched Wednesday amid trade speculation 38
- Rays are “talking and willing” to trade ace lefty David Price; Cardinals and Dodgers interested 41
- Phillies wanted Joc Pederson, Corey Seager, and Julio Urias from Dodgers for Cole Hamels 96
- Expert’s Corner: How to troll fans of all 30 teams (201)
- “Caucasians” t-shirts are hot sellers on Canadian Indian reservations (199)
- Must-click link: sexual depravity — and possibly rape — in the minor leagues (105)
- The Nationals and Orioles dispute over TV money is about to explode (104)
- Rangers’ retirement gifts for Derek Jeter: Yankees cowboy boots, signed George W. Bush photo (99)