July 16, 200323 yr Author Every team has not been on television for the entire nation to see. That is the bone to pick. Like I said, anyone can check out their teams games in various methods. BUT has EVERY team been on Fox Saturday Baseball with Buck and McCarver or ESPN Sunday Night Baseball with Miller and Morgan. NO. that is the point. You have 30 clubs. They must all be showcased in one of these two methods at least once a season. If MLB doesnt make this a point, they are stupider than I thought.
July 16, 200323 yr You have WGN, TBS, DayGame, Wednesday Night Baseball, Monday Night Baseball, Sunday Night Baseball, FOX GOTW, and the Holiday Games on ESPN. Every team including Montreal has been aired nationwide using one of these programs. WGN, TBS, ESPN, ESPN Alt., ESPN 2, ESPN 2 Alt., and FOX all air baseball. Every team will be feature more than once in a national game. The MArlins were on TBS twice this season, where I watched them because the games were on PAX and I can't get PAX games. WGN had the last game of the Cubs-Marlins series on Wednesday.
July 16, 200323 yr Author TBS and WGN do not count due to the fact that they are NOT a part of the MLB baseball package. Neither does ESPN Alt..because many people do not even recieve this channel. The Marlins have NOT been on Fox or ESPN this season. The Royals have only been on ESPN's day game when the vast majority of this nation is at work. I dont recall seeing the Padres featured neither, nor the Expos, nor a number of teams. There have been a nice big handful or two that have not been 'featured' on national tv... National TV being Fox and ESPN...these are MLB's top two outlets. And again it has absolutely nothing to do with the Marlins.
July 16, 200323 yr TBS and WGN do not count due to the fact that they are NOT a part of the MLB baseball package. Neither does ESPN Alt..because many people do not even recieve this channel. The Marlins have NOT been on Fox or ESPN this season. The Royals have only been on ESPN's day game when the vast majority of this nation is at work. I dont recall seeing the Padres featured neither, nor the Expos, nor a number of teams. There have been a nice big handful or two that have not been 'featured' on national tv... National TV being Fox and ESPN...these are MLB's top two outlets. And again it has absolutely nothing to do with the Marlins. Actually TBS and WGN are part of MLB's national TV package. The Braves, Cubs, and White Sox must pay money to the other clubs because of WGN and TBS. Here is the Official MLB Nationwide Schedule http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official...al_tv_radio.jsp
July 16, 200323 yr That leaves the two national superstation teams, the Braves and Cubs. The undervaluation of the Cubs' rights is especially apparent, as according to MLB, they earned $6.5 million less than the crosstown White Sox, despite a superior radio deal and more games airing on the WGN superstation. An MLB spokesman recently told the Chicago Tribune (another part of the same empire) that the superstation part of the Cubs' TV deal is valued separately from the local broadcast rights. The Cubs keep about 30% of the superstation money, with the rest paid into the common pool, an arrangement that only increases the incentive to undervalue the Cubs' contract. As MLB admits that the Cubs would out-gross the White Sox if the Cubs' portion of the superstation money was added to the local contract, the superstation share of the Cubs' TV package is worth at least $22 million, possibly much more. Then there are the Braves. MLB claims that the inventors of the superstation earned less from radio and TV than the Cleveland Indians. The best way to value the TBS contract is to compare it to the ESPN national baseball package: Both TBS and ESPN air about 90 major league games a year. Both TBS and ESPN are carried on virtually every cable system in America, though some of ESPN's games air on the lower-carriage ESPN2. TBS's ratings are significantly higher than ESPN's: in 2000, TBS averaged a 1.6 for its Braves games, ESPN a 1.0 for all its MLB games. ESPN has higher production costs, because many of its games are regionalized and its crews and announcers don't follow the same team all season. TBS has made the Braves the de facto home team of millions of fans far from Atlanta, creating additional economic benefits for the club. On the other hand: ESPN's contract includes expanded rights to highlights and archival MLB footage, staples of its "Baseball Tonight" coverage even when the network is not airing live games. ESPN is under considerable competitive pressure to pay more than market value for MLB games, since losing baseball would blast a hole in its summer programming schedule and effectively cede the entire baseball market to Fox. Balancing all these factors, I think it's reasonable to conclude that if the TBS package were competitively bid, it would be worth more to Braves owner AOL Time Warner than to anyone else, and would sell for about as much as the ESPN contract. The current ESPN deal is hard to value because it was negotiated to settle a lawsuit. MLB received an up-front payment of $125 million in 2000, then rights fees of $35 million in 2000, $40 million in 2001, and $40 million in 2002 as provided in the previous contract, jumping to $175 million in 2003 and $200 million in 2004-05. Let's call it $115 million for 2001, $35 million of which would go to the Braves.
July 16, 200323 yr Author I do not see WGN on there. What are you talking about? Great TBS is listed as a national partner....great so now they are letting homeristic Braves announcers be national broadcasters. wonderful.
July 16, 200323 yr Like Buck doesn't cheer for the Cards on FOX telecasts or Jon Miller cheers for the Giants on ESPN telecasts? MLB on TBS is the official name for the telecast. WGN/Cubs pay money into a pool for national tv rights. That's why WPIX/Mets and WSBK/Red Sox are no longer superstations on most cable systems, they didn't want to pay since they can't compete with the TBS and WGN ratings.
July 17, 200323 yr First - great posts, Cape. I have a tremendous amount of respect for someone who can bring facts to the table as well as you have. Keep it up! Second - lol @ Rune! I'm sorry that you don't understand how television programming works and feel the need to get truculent about it. However, here's a more simple case study: Monday Night Football Is MNF successfull? During last football season Monday Night Football finished in the Top-10 among all primetime shows on network television for the 13th consecutive season, and finished first in the key male demographics. source: 2003 Schedule So, I would be inclined to say yes. How does the NFL determine the MNF lineup in such a way that they are capable of bringing in such tremendous ratings? Monday Night Football schedules are based on a. the popularity of a team plus b. the success of a team plus c. the likelihood of continued success. Proof of concept? a. the 5-11 Cowboys play week 2 ["America's Team"] plus b. Every playoff team from last season will appear on MNF this year plus c. Falcons and Chiefs will be playing [based on the strength of Michael Vick and Priest Holmes]. Why do you think the Bengals aren't playing on MNF? Is it fair? What about the Texans or the Lions, Saints, Seahawks, Panthers, Jaguars, Cardinals... Now, we don't always get the best matchups in the world on MNF, but you OFTEN get great games. If you follow the link above, you will also see the upcoming 2003 Schedule. Can you tell me with certainty that the Dec 15 matchup between the Eagles and Dolphins will have playoff implications? Of course you can not. However, based on the Eagles and Dolphins recent successes, signings, and acquisitions, it is fair to assume that it has the potential to be a great matchup. Now, if we extrapolate this data and apply it to baseball, you have a better understanding of what schedulers and program managers are forced to deal with. If I'm a station manager in Roanoke Virginia and I have to choose in February between a Braves game and a DRays game that will be played in August - I'm PROBABLY going to show the Braves game... Can you see the logic here?
July 17, 200323 yr The thing with the NFL is, sure the Bengals aren't on Monday Night. But they are going to be on at least once on Sunday Night or a Thursday Night game. Baseball needs exposure, I agree completely with Das. I can't stand Buck or the other fag, and I like Miller and Morgan but I'm not a big fan. Its just the psychological effect of hearing their voice, the number 1 team, announcing the Marlins or the Spos or the Rockies or someone like that. When fans hear that voice of Miller or Buck, they know this team is important somehow. It happens, whether it be conscious or subcnscious. People don't like the Marlins around the country because they haven't seen them play. The only reason people like the Expos is because Sportscenter takes them on as a bit of a charity case. People don't get to see the Expos either. And look, why do the Mets get to be on ESPN and FOX more than the Mariners? Seattle likes their Mariners more than the New Yorkers like the Mets. The Mariners are more sucessful and have a better shot of being successful since they play in a division where they have a whipping boy (Rangers). The Mets are the whipping boys of the East! Its just a shame that the media in this country is a P.O.S.
July 17, 200323 yr Author The thing with the NFL is, sure the Bengals aren't on Monday Night. But they are going to be on at least once on Sunday Night or a Thursday Night game. Baseball needs exposure, I agree completely with Das. I can't stand Buck or the other fag, and I like Miller and Morgan but I'm not a big fan. Its just the psychological effect of hearing their voice, the number 1 team, announcing the Marlins or the Spos or the Rockies or someone like that. When fans hear that voice of Miller or Buck, they know this team is important somehow. It happens, whether it be conscious or subcnscious. People don't like the Marlins around the country because they haven't seen them play. The only reason people like the Expos is because Sportscenter takes them on as a bit of a charity case. People don't get to see the Expos either. And look, why do the Mets get to be on ESPN and FOX more than the Mariners? Seattle likes their Mariners more than the New Yorkers like the Mets. The Mariners are more sucessful and have a better shot of being successful since they play in a division where they have a whipping boy (Rangers). The Mets are the whipping boys of the East! Its just a shame that the media in this country is a P.O.S. And that is a summary of my entire beef. Thank you.
July 17, 200323 yr Baseball has national contracts (that means all 30 teams get money from these broadcasters) with these broadcasters: FOX, ESPN, ESPN Alternate, ESPN 2, ESPN 2 Alternate, TBS, and WGN. ESPN Alternate and ESPN 2 Alternate are a service provided by ESPN for cable systems that are blacked out from the main game. But those with Dishes can choose between the main ESPN/2 channel game and the Alternate channel. Those with cable have the game chosen by the cable system. ABC Family and FOX have exclusive rights to postseason games for Baseball. ABC Family can air all the Divisional Series games unless FOX picks it for a primetime slot. The local FOX station in the markets of all the teams televised must air the games, whether in primetime or on ABC Family. For example, The Oakland A's vs. Minnesota Twins played in the afternoon on ABC Family. So KTVU FOX 2 in Oakland and KMSP FOX 9 in Minnesota had to air the ABC Family telecast on their air.
July 17, 200323 yr the NFL has contracts with ABC/ESPN, CBS, and FOX. ABC has Monday Night Football. ESPN has Sunday Night Football. CBS has games where the visiting team is AFC. FOX has games where the visiting team is NFC. Every team must sell the right to ESPN's games in their market to a local station. For example, the Miami Dolphins sell the rights to Sunday Night Football to WFOR-CBS4. For Preseason Games, the team can sell the rights to the games to a network of TV stations in it's TV territory except for nationally televised Preseason games. Just the facts.
July 17, 200323 yr Cape, you are getting monotonous. Alternate channels don't count! The only two things that count are Buck's voice and Miller's voice. Thats it.
July 17, 200323 yr Cape, you are getting monotonous. Alternate channels don't count! The only two things that count are Buck's voice and Miller's voice. Thats it. Yes, but between ESPN, ESPN2, FOX, WGN, and TBS every one of the 30 teams is aired nationally. The alternates don't even have to count.
July 17, 200323 yr Buck and Miller call a minority of all the national games. Every team in football, at least once a year, gets to have either John Madden and Al Michaels or Joe Theismann and the rest of the Sunday Night Football gang. Why can't baseball be the same way?
July 17, 200323 yr Yes, but the NFL doesn't play 4,860 games a year. I am happy when the Marlins are featured on any national channel. Buck isn't a very good play-by-play guy and Miller, while very good only calls a small amount of games. BTW, the Second Half Sunday Night Baseball Schedule hasn't come out yet and the Marlins may be picked.
July 17, 200323 yr Yes, but the NFL doesn't play 4,860 games a year. I am happy when the Marlins are featured on any national channel. Buck isn't a very good play-by-play guy and Miller, while very good only calls a small amount of games. BTW, the Second Half Sunday Night Baseball Schedule hasn't come out yet and the Marlins may be picked. I never said they were good, its the fact that psychologically when fans from other markets across the country hear their voices its a sign that the teams playing are important somewhat. That is why the rest of the country still pays attention to the crap known as the Mets, because we are forced to. If Buck and Miller called one Mets game a year, the nation would pay less attention to them and they would be shot down back into the place they are supposed to be at.
July 17, 200323 yr I think BBTN has more power in terms of getting us attention than having Jon Miller or Joe Buck call our game. If our game is featured on a channel that people can see nationwide it will get us attention as well. I don't think by having Miller or Buck call the game it would give us anymore attention. Remember Buck calls Cards games on Saturdays when they are being played, even if it is the B or C game. Buck is the Cards' play-by-play. Miller is the Giants' play-by-play. Our play-by-play Len Kasper called the Marlins game last year on FOX. All of the East coast saw it except those that had the Cardinals B game (minority) called by Buck.
July 17, 200323 yr OK, the two sides in this arguement are obviously talking about different things. While Das and I keep referring to having equality in that the #1 announcing teams would call an equal number of games for everyone, you are talking about national coverage as a whole. You are yapping about apples while I'm talking about oranges. Apparently you'll never see my side of the arguement, so its useless. Das, write up that petition!
July 17, 200323 yr Who cares if Jon Miller or Joe Buck call the game? It makes no difference, as long as people can see the team on the field, I don't care if it's in Japanese, the team being aired for the viewer to see the good play is what matters. I don't watch a telecast for who is calling it, but for who is playing.
July 17, 200323 yr Who cares if Jon Miller or Joe Buck call the game? It makes no difference, as long as people can see the team on the field, I don't care if it's in Japanese, the team being aired for the viewer to see the good play is what matters. I don't watch a telecast for who is calling it, but for who is playing. Yes, obviously not. Like I've been saying the whole time, its a subconscious thing. People know Miller -n- Morgan are the #1 broadcast team on ESPN. #1 Broadcasting teams in theory are supposed to be the broadcasters for important teams and important games. Therefore, the mind subconsciously puts 2 and 2 together. Look at it this way, since you are fond of equations: If #1 Broadcasting Team = Morgan -n- Miller, And If #1 Team broadcasts for Important Teams/Games, Therefore Morgan -n- Miller must broadcast Important games! I keep saying Subconsciously because most Americans are too stupid to make this conclusion consciously. But the connection is made, and it needs to be made for all teams.
July 17, 200323 yr Yes, obviously not. Like I've been saying the whole time, its a subconscious thing. People know Miller -n- Morgan are the #1 broadcast team on ESPN. #1 Broadcasting teams in theory are supposed to be the broadcasters for important teams and important games. Therefore, the mind subconsciously puts 2 and 2 together. Look at it this way, since you are fond of equations: People watch for the teams, not the Announcers, why do you think that ESPN has lost ratings? If #1 Broadcasting Team = Morgan -n- Miller, And If #1 Team broadcasts for Important Teams/Games, Therefore Morgan -n- Miller must broadcast Important games! Not really, the ESPN schedule also has to include the schedule of Jon Miller who must call the Giants' games the 6 other days of the week. I keep saying Subconsciously because most Americans are too stupid to make this conclusion consciously. But the connection is made, and it needs to be made for all teams. That is not true, people watch for the teams, not the telecasters. You're wrong. I feel a poll coming, let me put it up.
July 17, 200323 yr :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead You are not understanding what I am trying to say at all.....
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.