MLB Playoffs & TV

[tmwiese55]

Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo.

 

I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.

[Bombers]

 

The NFL also has just a better "NFL" package vs MLB. MLB needs a "Men on base" channel (like the red zone) or a "9th inning close game" channel.

 

Back in 2004, game 7 of the ALCS was on Fox and drew a whopping 11.7 rating. Baseball is missing out on drawing in fans by putting the best of their product on paid TV. To me, I find that disappointing.

 

MLB and NFL are completely different beasts. Also, MLB has too many games to have a red zone like channel. It's just too saturated.

 

Also, if you flip your argument you can say the reason Fox drew an 11.7 rating was because it was on broadcast TV. If people had to pay to watch game 7 of the ALCS now, there is no way it would draw an 11.7 rating.

That is what I meant. They drew 11.7 because it was on broadcast TV and not on cable

[monty57]

NFL playoffs are all on the weekend, and the networks do almost all of their sports programming on the weekends. It works perfectly.

 

MLB by its nature cannot put all of its games on the weekend, and there is no way the networks are going to give up all of their programming for a month to air the MLB playoffs. The only time a network does that is for the Olympics. To a lesser extent, CBS gives up some of a Thursday and Friday for March Madness.

 

Of course, part of the ratings difference is that the NFL has one game, while baseball has five or seven in a series. If we had to watch five games in a week to see an NFL playoff series, even some Packer fans might find that they have something else to do during some of the games.

 

However, when you add up the total viewership of all MLB games in a year vs the viewership of all NFL games in a year, I think MLB still does alright, and I haven't heard anyone associated with MLB complaining about the revenue that MLB is generating.

[tmwiese55]

IDK, a Yankees/Sox Game 7 off with a 3-0 comeback in works would still crazy good ratings even if on ESPN/basic cable. Very tough to say what it would be. Quick search on the Cubs play in game said they drew 9.7 million and averaged 8.3 according to CBS. That game was on TBS. And that's with a small city like Pittsburgh involved.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't think the network it's on makes any difference. The people who want to watch it will watch it. The amount of people who will just haphazardly decide the watch a playoff game is so small it probably doesn't even make a difference in the ratings.

[Bikeage77]

I don't think the network it's on makes any difference. The people who want to watch it will watch it. The amount of people who will just haphazardly decide the watch a playoff game is so small it probably doesn't even make a difference in the ratings.

 

It makes a difference if you don't have cable. I don't, so Im not able to watch games at home, though I would. I also don't wanna have to go to a bar, or find a friends house till 1030-11 pm on a weeknight.

[danzig6767]

I pay for cable simply because so many of the sports i love are on cable from the Brewers, Bucks, college football, college hockey, some NFL games, etc and i also love being able to DVR nearly everything i watch.

 

While i do dislike having to pay for so many channels i never watch in my cable package, with U-Verse, Time Warner, and Dish all fighting so hard to keep or switch over customers, i always use that to my advantage to keep or get a better deal. Whenever my 1 or 2 year promotion with a cable provider ends, i shop for the best deal and switch providers if i'm offered something better.

 

A few months ago i switched from Time Warner when U-Verse not only offered a better price and overall package for broadband/cable, they also threw in a 300 dollar pre-paid Visa card. When that promotion ends, if U-Verse tries over charging me on a new promotion, i'll call other cable providers.

 

Some people for whatever reason allow these cable providers to way over charge them because i'd assume they are simply to lazy to make a few phone calls, make the providers compete for you, and switch if needed to get a better deal. Hell, a few years ago i was only paying 68 a month for 18mb internet and a good cable package through Time Warner and at the same time my mom way paying 130 a month for basically the same package.

[tmwiese55]

I don't think the network it's on makes any difference. The people who want to watch it will watch it. The amount of people who will just haphazardly decide the watch a playoff game is so small it probably doesn't even make a difference in the ratings.

 

It makes a difference if you don't have cable. I don't, so Im not able to watch games at home, though I would. I also don't wanna have to go to a bar, or find a friends house till 1030-11 pm on a weeknight.

 

Of course, but they're betting on this being such a small fraction of people that it doesn't matter in their game of large numbers. This way they don't have to disrupt their normal TV shows on big networks while simultaneously inflating the rating on the secondary channels so they can charge more for them.

[Thurston Fluff]

Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo.

 

I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.

 

My Nephew just got his first apartment and he didn't even consider cable. He has the money for it but just doesn't want to spend it on cable. I think that is more of the norm than just old or poor people.

[jerichoholicninja]

I pay for cable simply because so many of the sports i love are on cable from the Brewers, Bucks, college football, college hockey, some NFL games, etc and i also love being able to DVR nearly everything i watch.

 

While i do dislike having to pay for so many channels i never watch in my cable package, with U-Verse, Time Warner, and Dish all fighting so hard to keep or switch over customers, i always use that to my advantage to keep or get a better deal. Whenever my 1 or 2 year promotion with a cable provider ends, i shop for the best deal and switch providers if i'm offered something better.

 

A few months ago i switched from Time Warner when U-Verse not only offered a better price and overall package for broadband/cable, they also threw in a 300 dollar pre-paid Visa card. When that promotion ends, if U-Verse tries over charging me on a new promotion, i'll call other cable providers.

 

Some people for whatever reason allow these cable providers to way over charge them because i'd assume they are simply to lazy to make a few phone calls, make the providers compete for you, and switch if needed to get a better deal. Hell, a few years ago i was only paying 68 a month for 18mb internet and a good cable package through Time Warner and at the same time my mom way paying 130 a month for basically the same package.

 

Or, like most people, they only have one option. Our only option for cable is Charter. They jacked up my rates and took away channels after the first year. I called to complain and threatened to leave and was pretty much told they couldn't care less about my problems.

[danzig6767]

I pay for cable simply because so many of the sports i love are on cable from the Brewers, Bucks, college football, college hockey, some NFL games, etc and i also love being able to DVR nearly everything i watch.

 

While i do dislike having to pay for so many channels i never watch in my cable package, with U-Verse, Time Warner, and Dish all fighting so hard to keep or switch over customers, i always use that to my advantage to keep or get a better deal. Whenever my 1 or 2 year promotion with a cable provider ends, i shop for the best deal and switch providers if i'm offered something better.

 

A few months ago i switched from Time Warner when U-Verse not only offered a better price and overall package for broadband/cable, they also threw in a 300 dollar pre-paid Visa card. When that promotion ends, if U-Verse tries over charging me on a new promotion, i'll call other cable providers.

 

Some people for whatever reason allow these cable providers to way over charge them because i'd assume they are simply to lazy to make a few phone calls, make the providers compete for you, and switch if needed to get a better deal. Hell, a few years ago i was only paying 68 a month for 18mb internet and a good cable package through Time Warner and at the same time my mom way paying 130 a month for basically the same package.

Or, like most people, they only have one option. Our only option for cable is Charter. They jacked up my rates and took away channels after the first year. I called to complain and threatened to leave and was pretty much told they couldn't care less about my problems.

Hey, i can only go by people i've known over a number of years now who will complain about their cable bill or be surprised when i tell them what i pay in comparison, yet they won't call around or switch because they don't want to spend the time calling and/or don't want to bother switching because they think it will be a big hassle, when in reality it only takes an hour or two for installation by a new provider and if you demand it, installation is free.

 

Obviously for people like you who live in areas with only one provider, that sucks because you don't have the type of competition for customers as is the case in the Milwaukee county area. I get stuff in the mail all of the time and sometimes even phone calls from the various cable providers asking me to switch over, usually including 100-300 dollar gift cards along with competing or better rates.

 

The moronic thing about that is over the years whether it's say Time Warner or U-Verse, a promotion will end that got me to switch to them and then they'll try jacking my rates way up, so i'll switch to someone else and often soon after switching someone will call saying hey switch back to us and we'll do this and that for you vs just offering that initially so i wouldn't have left in the first place. So stupid.

[tmwiese55]

Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo.

 

I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.

 

My Nephew just got his first apartment and he didn't even consider cable. He has the money for it but just doesn't want to spend it on cable. I think that is more of the norm than just old or poor people.

 

Exactly, it's changing now with all the streaming options. My guess is in the past that was their logic on it, now it's way different as so many are cutting the cord and young people are tech savvy enough that they don't even consider it.

[Baldkin]

Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo.

 

I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.

 

My Nephew just got his first apartment and he didn't even consider cable. He has the money for it but just doesn't want to spend it on cable. I think that is more of the norm than just old or poor people.

 

Exactly. There is a HUGE chunk of younger people who don't watch any live TV, just want internet access, and Hulu/Prime/Netflix everything else they want. I haven't had cable in 5 years. I don't miss it one bit.

 

I have a VPN, the MLB Package, the NBA Package and Sling. The one thing I miss a little is the Big Ten network, and if I desperately need to watch a Badger game, I can find a friend or local establishment showing it.

[tmwiese55]

Like those numbers show. It's gone down 4% in the last 5 years and I bet it drops even more drastically in the next 5. The whole model will have to change. Eventually it will likely go to each league having their own subscriptions and streaming it out.

[Bombers]

Also, if you're not using MLB Network a lot they basically do that, flipping from game to game when something is happening. Problem is in between things you have to listen Harold Reynolds babble, it's really well done otherwise imo.

 

I just looked up the numbers and according to the internet, 83% still pay for cable. Down from 87% 5 years ago. IMO, they haven't really been missing out on all that much doing it this way (same reason MNF is on ESPN) as I would assume almost all of that 13% was old folks and very poor people (not exactly key demographics) , but that is going to change as more and more drop cable.

 

My Nephew just got his first apartment and he didn't even consider cable. He has the money for it but just doesn't want to spend it on cable. I think that is more of the norm than just old or poor people.

 

Exactly. There is a HUGE chunk of younger people who don't watch any live TV, just want internet access, and Hulu/Prime/Netflix everything else they want. I haven't had cable in 5 years. I don't miss it one bit.

 

I have a VPN, the MLB Package, the NBA Package and Sling. The one thing I miss a little is the Big Ten network, and if I desperately need to watch a Badger game, I can find a friend or local establishment showing it.

I agree with you Baldkin and Fluff. 10 years ago when Netflix was trading at $1 a share and Blockbuster was still in business, did anyone think that by 2015 Netflix would be trading at $100 a share and Blockbuster would have been long gone? Cable is facing a significant challenge in trying to keep customers with the boom of all the streaming services. And baseball needs to cut it's cord from cable before ratings and revenue dry up. Look at HBO. Why do you think they have moved away from an only cable model? Because they need to set themselves up for the future. And tying yourself to cable is a poor choice.

[danzig6767]

I agree with you Baldkin and Fluff. 10 years ago when Netflix was trading at $1 a share and Blockbuster was still in business, did anyone think that by 2015 Netflix would be trading at $100 a share and Blockbuster would have been long gone? Cable is facing a significant challenge in trying to keep customers with the boom of all the streaming services. And baseball needs to cut it's cord from cable before ratings and revenue dry up. Look at HBO. Why do you think they have moved away from an only cable model? Because they need to set themselves up for the future. And tying yourself to cable is a poor choice.

Clearly a time down the road will come where cable and network stations aren't the sole bidders for the broadcasting rites of professional sports. That time isn't now though.

 

Whether it's the NFL, NBA, MLB, and college football/basketball, nobody currently can come close to paying the huge amount of money which cable and network stations are paying for broadcasting rites, especially given the extra value which sports bring today because most viewers watch sports live vs recording shows on their DVR and zooming right past the commercials as i do with pretty much every show i watch besides sports.

 

Just look at the huge contracts which all of the pro sports leagues have signed in the last few years and that doesn't also include the huge contracts teams in the NBA/MLB have signed in local markets to broadcast nearly all of their teams games. Pro sports overall have never been so well off financially.

 

Come 4-5-6 years down the road once some of these TV contracts start to expire for each league, odds seem likely one or more of the streaming services will try making a plunge into acquiring broadcasting rights to whatever degree for pro sports, but it's going to be very expensive and a cost/benefit model will have to justify that cost.

 

The thing is though with technology advancing so quickly and the potential for sizable shifts in the market among the current main streaming services, it's just so hard to tell multiple years down the road what streaming service could/would bid on pro sports, what the exact model by then would be in place to broadcast those games to the most number of people, and how exactly viewers would pay for the content.

 

It will be interesting to see how this eventually plays out because advances in broadcasting technology will force change, it's just a matter of when and what it will look like.

[tmwiese55]

True very tough to predict. My guess though would be that it won't be streaming services bidding on it, but rather the Leagues themselves providing the streaming with their own subscriptions. As much as people pick on WWE, I think their WWE Network model is the way this will go. We'll see though, who knows what other things will be invented a few years down the line.

[Bombers]

Found it interesting that as we are having this conversation, the NFL broadcasts an online only game on Yahoo. It was very easy to watch the game. Just had to click play on yahoo.com

[1992casey]

"Very easy" for you and me might not be "very easy" for others. There's still a segment of the population that doesn't use the Internet at all and would find it technically daunting to do so. Having said that, the game was on free TV in the Jacksonville and Buffalo areas, meaning that it was online only for out of market viewers. That's not a bad thing.

 

The biggest problem with free TV for the MLB postseason is that there are so many games. There's a potential for 43 games, and this year, there will be at least 35 games. Two or more networks are a requirement. When [cite]Dancing With the Stars[/cite] has a higher rating than baseball and broadcast networks struggle to compete with cable, showing up to 43 baseball games isn't a super-attractive option. It's hugely attractive for the cable networks, though.

 

Back in the olden days, postseason baseball consisted of the World Series only, with all of the games being played during the day. Little or no cable existed. That was very attractive for the broadcast networks. When games started to be played at night in 1971, there was still very little cable competition, and the games were still attractive. When last World Series day game was in 1987, sports on cable was still considered "supplemental." Times have changed, with the addition of the Division Series making cable a necessity.

 

As several of us have mentioned, the big issue with cable is paying humongous cable fees for channels we don't want in order to get postseason baseball. To me, providing the games on both cable and the Internet — with cable subscriptions not being required to stream — would seem to be the best answer.

[Bombers]

I agree having it on regular free TV in the local markets was a good call on the NFL's part.

 

As far as the best option, I guess it goes to what is the goal of MLB. NFL clearly wants complete saturation of their product thus they put it on free TV as often as possible. MLB has built this private market that the average "fan" or "consumer" is unable to consume their product unless they pay. It is two different models and to me, the NFL model is the one that is working.

[1992casey]

It's an apple and orange situation. The NFL has exactly 11 postseason games. They're all on weekends, and they're all scheduled at times that work for a national TV audience and for fans in the stadium. Additionally, NFL games are rarely delayed or postponed by weather.

 

With the potential for 43 games (not counting possible tie-breakers), and with the possibility that many as 17 won't be played, baseball's needs are completely different.

[Bombers]

I agree that MLB has a volume issue and need to figure out a good balance. I would like to see MLB do anything to get their product put on free TV. Maybe put in stipulations when selling their playoff package to someone like Fox to put any game 5 (Divisional series) or game 7 (championship series) on their flagship / standard channel. The rest of their games on FS1 is what it is at this point. I just don't think it is helping their product get into more hands.

 

Baseball, like all sports has the 1 largest advantage today. It is basically the last thing left watched live. Most record and or playback our favorite shows. Even if you are watching a show live like "Dancing with the stars," – many do not start it at its scheduled start time. Most will wait a half hour or longer and then fast forward the commercials. Sports doesn't allow for that. You can try and not watch it live but it is very hard to not walk into highlights or what is currently happening in game. Most news stations have alerts, social media is rampant with coverage of live sporting events.

 

I also think MLB digs its own hole by not having free baseball throughout the year. They pick the worst day (Summer Saturday’s) to offer free baseball. To me, that is not the route I would take.

[jerichoholicninja]

MLB isn't on free TV because it's not going to bring in as much advertising revenue. It's not going to bring in as much advertising revenue because it's not as popular with the general public. It's not as popular because MLB is such a time commitment to be a fan of. NFL is one day a week. NBA is a few days a week. I would assume NHL is the same as the NBA but I don't know. You can put MLB games on free TV as much as you want or stream in online but MLB is always going to be at the disadvantage that it takes quite a time commitment to be a fan of.

 

MLB has 6.5 months straight of regular season games, most teams don't have multiple superstars, the same players don't play every day, you've got rain delays/rain outs, weekday day games, and the season takes place during summer which for over half the country is the only time of the year that there are things to do. The deck is really stacked against MLB in our current ADD culture. I mean I'm as big of a baseball fan as anyone on here but since I've been married I watch only a handful of Brewer games a season and hardly any playoff baseball because I've just been too busy.

[tmwiese55]

Though not on 'free' tv other than Saturday afternoons. Baseball is on nationally Sunday afternoon, Sunday night, Monday night, and Wednesday night on basic cable which up until recently was close to 90% of TVs. Which was more than adequate. It's all changing now and they'll have to adjust.

 

Also, I don't use it much but from what I can tell the "free tv" over the antenna boxes is garbage for quality. Where I'm originally from in rural WI near the Fox Valley it doesn't even work because it's too far from Milwaukee and too far from Green Bay. And the few times I've seen it with people who live in Madison it cuts out and is glitchy. So even putting things on 'free' wouldn't even matter since you need a real provider to give a signal on it. For those that use it regularly, how is the quality?

[Baldkin]

With an actual antenna (outside, up high), I have no problems at all with watching stuff over the air.

 

Trying with a set of rabbit ears, or a cheap "stand alone" antenna doesn't work very well.

 

The Leaf wall mounted antenna has worked well for me as well.