New TV Contract - Details
Greg Spira
NBC. I don't think people are going to be happy.
A committee of baseball owners reached agreement with ABC and NBC
on what is, according to Tom Werner, "a very innovative arrangement" that
will serve as the network baseball contract for the next 6 years.
Baseball and its 2 network partners will form a separate venture that "will
be responsible for administering the product and for the marketing
and sales of Major League Baseball." The agreement ensures that
a partnership between baseball and the networks will share the
risks and the profits.
What Will Air:
Network telecasts of regular season games are actually being reduced.
There will be no network aired games before the all-star break.
After the break, ABC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts, and
then NBC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts.
These telecasts will be regionalized like the NFL telecasts on
Sunday afternoons. No other games will be broadcast locally on
those nights on either broadcast or cable tv.
NBC's Dick Ebersol said that the death of the Saturday game of
the week is a result of the fact that "fans voted in overwhelming numbers
by not watching anymore."
Each year, one network will broadcast the All-Star game and the
League Championship Playoffs, while the other network will
broadcast the new divisional playoffs and the World Series.
Both the new divisional playoffs and the League Championship
Series games will occurr simultaneously, so that the network
can regionalize the broadcasts. The starting times of Games 6
and 7 of the League Championship Series will be staggered so that
viewers will see the end of both games.
All World Series weekend games will start no later than 7:20
Eastern time.
Greg
Dave Eisen
In article <1993May9.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> gsp...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Greg Spira) writes:
>
>Both the new divisional playoffs and the League Championship
>Series games will occurr simultaneously, so that the network
>can regionalize the broadcasts.
Gack!
I can deal with fewer televised games --- there are always
Cubs and Braves and local games to watch and ESPN has some
games too. But this? I can't watch the LCS any more? They
were my favorite games of the year.
No sir. I don't like it.
--
Dave Eisen dke...@leland.Stanford.EDU Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
I seem to remember someone telling me, long ago, about another
patently superior sex. I didn't believe that and I don't see
why I should believe this. --- Adair Lara
Steven Thornton
:
: NBC's Dick Ebersol said that the death of the Saturday game of
: the week is a result of the fact that "fans voted in overwhelming numbers
: by not watching anymore."
The fans didn't watch because there were so few games on CBS (Covers
Baseball Sporadically) that you had no reason to expect a game to be on
that week. If you wanted to watch baseball, you turned to ESPN. Not
everybody gets ahold of the TV schedule each week and marks out his or her
life. You used to _know_ that the Game of the Week was on every week; you
didn't have to look it up. CBS, or rather the CBS contract, has apparently
killed network baseball. The networks are apparently too stupid to have
any idea of how to reach their audience, and MLB is too stupid to see what
the problem is. I think it will be advantageous to society when the
networks just give up and go bankrupt. I don't know what anyone can do to
save the s***heads who run MLB. They complain about the public image of
baseball, falling fan interest, and so forth, but it's all due to
astoundingly counterproductive marketing. These guys couldn't market
eternal life. There's not a damn thing wrong with baseball except in the
eyes of MLB's owners and the overly credible media cretins.
--
=============================================================================
Steve Thornton ste...@eskimo.com Seattle, Washington
Douglas Fowler
Think of the plusses for radio, though. We have a CBS station (WWWE)
that does have a radio game of the week (or did have - I haven't had time
to check this season with my studies, but I will soon), and I can pick up
Tigers games (So glad Ernie's back), Indians' games, Pirates & Reds games, & -
on a good night - the White Sox, Braves, Twins, Yankees, or Philles. (Usually
not all on the same night.) I can remember high school nights where I'd
to bed around 10:15-10:30, and flip my radio dial around trying to tune in
a game. It was a great respite from studying, and I could often catch at
least 2 or 3 games.
If you have a good announcer, your team will still be able to get fans,
even if you don't have a local TV deal or cable. Lots of Clevelanders,
for instance, think Herb Score should be in the broadcasters' wing at
Cooperstown. So, my advice is, get a good radio, sit back, and enjoy the
ballpark through your imagination.
(BTW, I think I picked up Expos' games a few times, but the announcers
were talking in French (I think it was French), so I never listened.)
--
Doug Fowler: dx...@po.CWRU.edu Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever
"And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name;
He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game"
--Grantland Rice
Steven Rubio
point: the only remaining sports season that meant anything is being
destroyed.
I am not a dinosaur fan who hates all change. However, I have always felt
that the one most destructive move that baseball could make would be to
allow non-winners into the post-season. And now this will happen. This
sux royally. Of course, they could expand to 32 teams with 8 four-team
divisions and get expanded playoffs, but that won't happen either.
Instead we'll have those thrilling races for second place that make the
NBA and NHL regular seasons so exciting.
As I noted on another service, I don't think the following is all that
exciting:
"THE GIANTS COME IN SECOND! THE GIANTS COME IN SECOND! THE GIANTS COME
IN SECOND! THE GIANTS COME IN SECOND!"
Steven
Sherri Nichols
>There will be no network aired games before the all-star break.
>After the break, ABC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts, and
>then NBC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts.
Sigh. An article in this morning's paper also said it was likely that the
cable deal would be for only 3 games/week, too.
>These telecasts will be regionalized like the NFL telecasts on
>Sunday afternoons. No other games will be broadcast locally on
>those nights on either broadcast or cable tv.
Sigh, again. I don't understand the increasing trend towards
regionalization. With the mobility of people today, you'd think you'd see
a trend *away* from regionalization. According to the paper here, this
means that out here in the Bay Area, we'll see the Giants and the A's. I
see them all the time; I'd rather have the opportunity to see some other
teams.
>NBC's Dick Ebersol said that the death of the Saturday game of
>the week is a result of the fact that "fans voted in overwhelming numbers
>by not watching anymore."
Of course, the last 4 years, we've never known whether there was going to
be a game on or not.
This deal does need the approval of the MLBPA, and Fehr wasn't exactly
thrilled that the MLBPA wasn't consulted at all before the deal was
announced (in light of the owners' professed desire to form a "partnership"
with the players).
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Sherri Nichols
>I am not a dinosaur fan who hates all change. However, I have always felt
>that the one most destructive move that baseball could make would be to
>allow non-winners into the post-season. And now this will happen.
Actually, it's happening now. Yes, there are two divisions, and the
division winners go to the playoffs, but with the balanced schedule, you
can certainly make a strong argument that a team that finishes second in
one division but with a better record than the "winner" in the other
division deserves to go to the playoffs more. They've played the same
teams basically the same number of times, and the second place team has
beaten them more often than the "winner".
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Sherri Nichols
> Think of the plusses for radio, though. We have a CBS station (WWWE)
>that does have a radio game of the week (or did have - I haven't had time
>to check this season with my studies, but I will soon), and I can pick up
>Tigers games (So glad Ernie's back), Indians' games, Pirates & Reds games, & -
>on a good night - the White Sox, Braves, Twins, Yankees, or Philles. (Usually
>not all on the same night.) I can remember high school nights where I'd
>to bed around 10:15-10:30, and flip my radio dial around trying to tune in
>a game. It was a great respite from studying, and I could often catch at
>least 2 or 3 games.
That's great if you're east of the Rockies, but there's not much for me to
pick up on my radio dial out here on the West Coast.
Sherri Nichols
snic...@adobe.com
Greg Spira
Evidently, there will be no realignment. The new playoffs will be
East winner vs. 2nd place West team, and West winner vs. 2nd place
East team.
(Note: I am holding my comments to myself. This is extremely difficult,
but I figured that if I let my opinions slip into these posts, the facts
would be less clear, and anyway, someone else will say what I'm thinking)
If 2 teams from the same locale make the playoffs, local rights for
one of the games each night there is a conflict will be sold to a
local, over-the-air, station.
The networks will use local announcing teams for most games, with
their own lead team (Al Michaels or Bob Costas) doing the game that
will be aired to the greatest number of viewers.
Dennis Swanson of ABC said that "This is a package designed for the fans."
The independent venture which markets the games and sells advertising
will be controlled by a 9 person committee which will include 5
members from MLB, 2 from NBC, and 2 from ABC.
Don Fehr, when asked about the new agreement, was not happy, and said
that he had not been told in advance about the plan, which seems contrary
to the owners' expressed desires to have more of a partnership with the
players. "You'd think they'd let their partners know what they're
doing," said Fehr. "But apparently they want to be partners with the
networks and not the players. I hope they do well together."
Greg
you...@stsci.edu
Now that I think about it, I think Sherri has a valid point. Pandora's
box was opened with the split of the leagues into divisions. This (second
place divisional finishers in the playoffs) is an inevitable result of this
split.
-jwy
King Banaian
>NBC. I don't think people are going to be happy.
No but you did see this coming didn't you? After the basketball deal was
inked (it's very similar to this) I thought "Who thought this one up?
Sounds like what the networks would want out of baseball." This is a very
logical step for the networks who have had just an awful time pricing air
time to baseball.
>
>A committee of baseball owners reached agreement with ABC and NBC
>on what is, according to Tom Werner, "a very innovative arrangement"...
No it's not. It's almost identical to the NBA deal. Hockey will be next.
(I'm scolding Werner here, not the poster.)
>...that will serve as the network baseball contract for the next 6 years.
>Baseball and its 2 network partners will form a separate venture that "will
>be responsible for administering the product and for the marketing
>and sales of Major League Baseball." The agreement ensures that
>a partnership between baseball and the networks will share the
>risks and the profits.
>
>What Will Air:
>
>Network telecasts of regular season games are actually being reduced.
>There will be no network aired games before the all-star break.
>After the break, ABC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts, and
>then NBC will air 6 weekly prime-time telecasts.
Given the dominance of the NBA in May, I actually see the sense of this.
Remember that we r.s.b'ers are more intense about our baseball than most.
We are *expected* to buy cable and get PPV.
>Both the new divisional playoffs and the League Championship
>Series games will occurr simultaneously, so that the network
>can regionalize the broadcasts. The starting times of Games 6
>and 7 of the League Championship Series will be staggered so that
>viewers will see the end of both games.
>
The other thing I heard was that they intend to jump around like ESPN does
with the NCAA regionals. I am going to find that thoroughly annoying (I
have not liked it when ESPN switches game in the middle to show me Robin
Yount's 2700th hit live. The game has a flow that you should not interrupt.)
>All World Series weekend games will start no later than 7:20
>Eastern time.
As a left coaster, I am very unhappy about this.
--King "Sparky" Banaian |"It's almost as though young
kban...@pitzer.claremont.edu |white guys get up in the
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College |morning and have a big smile
Latest 1993 GDP forecast: 2.4% |on their face ... because,
|you know, Homer wrote the
|_Iliad_." -- D'Souza
Eric Roush
the Braves in front of the Rockies...maybe BBDDD shots shouldn't
count in Mile High Stadium, I can't help but think about one
detail of the new TV contract...regionalism.
They say it will be "just like football". AARRRGHHH! Here in
North Carolina, I have at least 12 Redskin games inflicted on
me each year, because they are the local favorites. Meanwhile,
I only see a Falcon game on those rare occasions that they actually
have a chance to make the playoffs. Oh, I guess I could get
a satellite dish and pick and choose among all the broadcasts,
but the networks don't exactly like that either.
Frankly, although I love the Braves, I'd rather watch
contenders play if I could only watch one game a week.
Certainly, if I lived in Seattle, come September I would
probably want to watch somebody other than the Mariners
playing.
On reflection, all this sounds like another step towards pay TV.
Send in your cash, watch the game you want. And if your
spouse/sig. other/parents don't want to watch baseball,
then just how many games will you be able to watch if you
have to pay for each one?
Sounds like another way to alienate the fan base from the game.
Maybe the players will object to this plan, and force a renegotiation.
And then monkeys might fly out of my nether regions.
Disappintedly yours,
Eric Roush
Jason Lee
=> In article <1993May9.1...@adobe.com>, snic...@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
=> > In article <1sj3op$2...@agate.berkeley.edu> sru...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Steven Rubio) writes:
=> >>I am not a dinosaur fan who hates all change. However, I have always felt
=> >>that the one most destructive move that baseball could make would be to
=> >>allow non-winners into the post-season. And now this will happen.
=> > Actually, it's happening now. Yes, there are two divisions, and the
=> > division winners go to the playoffs, but with the balanced schedule, you
=> > can certainly make a strong argument that a team that finishes second in
=> > one division but with a better record than the "winner" in the other
=> > division deserves to go to the playoffs more. They've played the same
=> > teams basically the same number of times, and the second place team has
=> > beaten them more often than the "winner".
=> Now that I think about it, I think Sherri has a valid point. Pandora's
=> box was opened with the split of the leagues into divisions. This (second
=> place divisional finishers in the playoffs) is an inevitable result of this
=> split.
So what is so inherently wrong with not having divisions? Just lump every
team in the league together, duke it out, and winner takes the pennant and
goes to the Series. No playoffs, nothing. Winner takes all.
--
Jason Lee jp...@cymbal.calpoly.edu jl...@cash.busfac.calpoly.edu SF Giants
e ^ i*pi + 1 = 0 The most beautiful equation in mathematics. Magic Number:
For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: 132
"It might have been." John Greenleaf Whittier (19-11 1st)
Chuq Von Rospach
> It makes absolutely no sense for them to say they will cut
>cablecasts to 3-4/week from the current 6/wk. unless they intend to sell
>those additional games elsewhere. It can happen; it will happen. We don't
>leave $10 bills laying on the ground.
There is one alternative theory: that the media simply doesn't WANT those
games. ESPN ratings haven't exactly been stellar, baseball is seen as a
sport in trouble, and six games on ESPN a week *plus* local media *plus*
superstations *Plus* network TV may well simply spell market saturation.
It may simply be that baseball has been told they've oversold, and the
buyers are cutting back. Now baseball may try PPV out of desperation (more
likely is that there will simply be more games on local cable or local
broadcast, but there's only so much you can do there), but I don't see how
it can succeed unless they figure out how to shut down WTBS and WGN and WOR
in the non-local markets, and that's not going to happen without a major
fight.
What I see is simply that baseball sold too muchb aseball for too much
money, and now the golden goose is dead and the market is cutting back to a
more manageable level (for less money, of course). And the owners are going
to cry foul and moan in their beers, but anyone who didn't see this coming
deserves what they get.
>But they recognize that they
>can draw a lot of additional revenue by selling their best seats at $7-$8
>rather than the current $6, and they intend to do that. Look at your local
>ballpark, and ask what has been the increase in the price of the box seat
>versus the bleacher seat? I predict they jacked up the box seat by a
>greater percentage than the bleacher seat.
Funny. the SF Giants raised the "corporate box" sections, and LOWERED
general admission prices. Total coincidence, I guess.
>This is what will now happen in TV. Those of us who really love this sport
>are going to be the ones asked for more bucks. We will buy those satellite
>dishes, that PPV package, so we can watch the game we love.
They may try, but unless they REALLY control the market (and that requires
shutting down the superstations, and NOT just when it's into the market of
the local team), there's too much out there. Setting up the infrastructure
to support this stuff isn't cheap, and to amke a profit, they either need to
get a LOT of subscribers or run up the price. Run up the price, and more
folks start thinking that WGN and WTBS aren't so bad after all. I think it's
an inescapable lose-lose for baseball. You won't see PPV because it can't
pay for itself, because there's too much other product on the systems to
compete with, but that product won't give them the money they desire because
they haven't gotten their financial acts together.
>(Prediction:
>Ted Turner will not be in baseball in five years UNLESS he sells the
>superstation. He is costing the other owners too much.)
I disagree, for one reason: WGN. go take a look at how many of the MLB teams
have sold broadcast rights to the Tribune company at one TV station or
another. The number is amazing. Tribune and WGN outmaneuvered baseball on
this years ago, adn between Tribune and Turner, it's no fight. Baseball
lost. This was one of the fights Vincent was pushing, and look what happened
to him. (not just for this, but....)
--
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= ch...@apple.com
Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms =+= GEnie: MAC.BIGOT =+= ALink:CHUQ
Minor League fans: minors-...@medraut.apple.com (San Jose Giants: A/1/9)
San Francisco Giants fans: giants-...@medraut.apple.com (The Stick?NOT!)
San Jose Sharks fans: sharks-...@medraut.apple.com (New seat: 127/TBD)
King Banaian
>On reflection, all this sounds like another step towards pay TV.
>Send in your cash, watch the game you want. And if your
>spouse/sig. other/parents don't want to watch baseball,
>then just how many games will you be able to watch if you
>have to pay for each one?
>Sounds like another way to alienate the fan base from the game.
>
The owners say this is not going to happen; they are not interested in PPV
at this time. I guess we're supposed to believe that...and believe this
stuff about monkeys and Eric's hindquarters. We don't say "Feh" in New
Hampshire where I grew up, but I suspect it fits here.
I am struck by it all as the other shoe dropping. We have witnessed such an
increase in price discrimination elsewhere that I'm actually surprised they
didn't do this earlier. The owners were threatened by Congress with the
antitrust exemption when the CBS deal went down four years ago. They
responded by throwing us a sop with sporadic extra games on CBS, and one
suspects numerous $$$ to selected congressidiots (pat. pending). Meanwhile
the splitting of fans by PPV/cable/free-air has already begun. This is
another step. It makes absolutely no sense for them to say they will cut
cablecasts to 3-4/week from the current 6/wk. unless they intend to sell
those additional games elsewhere. It can happen; it will happen. We don't
leave $10 bills laying on the ground.
They have cultivated revenues from seats adeptly, by the building of
skyboxes and the increase in seat classifications (thus expanding the menu
of prices). I talked to the GM and ticket manager for a local minor league
team about their pricing of seats, and they insist that they will continue
to sell a $3 seat (and a good one at that). But they recognize that they
can draw a lot of additional revenue by selling their best seats at $7-$8
rather than the current $6, and they intend to do that. Look at your local
ballpark, and ask what has been the increase in the price of the box seat
versus the bleacher seat? I predict they jacked up the box seat by a
greater percentage than the bleacher seat. If they didn't you are probably
a candidate for a new stadium (exhibit #1: Cleveland).
This is what will now happen in TV. Those of us who really love this sport
are going to be the ones asked for more bucks. We will buy those satellite
dishes, that PPV package, so we can watch the game we love. Many of us have
had that subsidized in the past by the game of the week and superstations,
but they've nailed one and they will get the other shortly. (Prediction:
Ted Turner will not be in baseball in five years UNLESS he sells the
superstation. He is costing the other owners too much.) Currently we all
pay about the same for our baseball viewing on the tube. Many of us get far
more value than what we pay. As technology allows us to address signals
better, they will be able to make us pay for that signal. Sic transit
gloria mundi...
--King "Sparky" Banaian |"Bad logicians have
kban...@pitzer.claremont.edu |committed more involuntary
Dept. of Economics, Pitzer College |crimes than bad men have
Claremont, CA 91711 |done intentionally."
Latest 1993 GDP forecast: 2.4% | --Pierre S. du Pont
| (25 September 1790)
Lance Squiddie Smith
>A few more details:
>
>Evidently, there will be no realignment. The new playoffs will be
>East winner vs. 2nd place West team, and West winner vs. 2nd place
>East team.
>
>(Note: I am holding my comments to myself. This is extremely difficult,
>but I figured that if I let my opinions slip into these posts, the facts
>would be less clear, and anyway, someone else will say what I'm thinking)
Gee, I feel a little like The Amazing Kresgee here...
Um, my big problem is that it would be possible to get two teams from the
same division playing for the pennant. That might have the possible effect
of weakening the ratings. For example, if New York plays Boston for the
American League pennant, you might lose a lot of the west coast fans.
I think there are a lot of people who follow the division their favorite team
is in and ignore the rest of baseball. The potential for an East vs. East or
a West vs. West pennant series means you can lose a large chunk of your
audience in the first round of the play-offs. Perhaps it is time to eliminate
the divisions and go with two big leagues again.
>The networks will use local announcing teams for most games, with
>their own lead team (Al Michaels or Bob Costas) doing the game that
>will be aired to the greatest number of viewers.
Ugh. I've heard some of the commentators that they get for the regional
football games. I'd really prefer to see a good game with an excellent
announcing team than something that's a little closer to home. I mean,
if they're not going to start broadcasting until after the All-Star
game, then what do I care about a Twins-Brewers game if both teams are
sitting at the bottom of their division with no signs of life from either
club? Throw in some local crew with their own home town biases and I have
no reason to watch the game.
The reason the games of the week used to be special, was that it was often
two teams I often didn't get a chance to see much (the National League for
example) with announcers who would have a different style (and set of
cliches) than that which I was used to.
>Dennis Swanson of ABC said that "This is a package designed for the fans."
Read, "This is a package designed for the casual fans. There are more of them
than the hardcore baseball fans."
>Don Fehr, when asked about the new agreement, was not happy, and said
>that he had not been told in advance about the plan, which seems contrary
>to the owners' expressed desires to have more of a partnership with the
>players. "You'd think they'd let their partners know what they're
>doing," said Fehr. "But apparently they want to be partners with the
>networks and not the players. I hope they do well together."
Not a swift move. Perhaps this isn't over yet.
Has anyone heard anything from Curt Smith yet? I bet he just hates the new
deal.
-----------------------------
Lance "Cr2O3.2H2O" Smith | "In a surprise move, the A's released Rickey
(lsm...@cs.umn.edu) | Henderson today and replaced him with Mr Peanut.
Special Limited Edition | 'The peanut is a team leader. He'll improve the
r.s.bb .signature | team chemistry. Hell, we weren't going anywhere'"
Emery Ethan Chen
The thing that sets baseball apart from any other sports is the fact that
only the best teams make the playoff and therefore wins the championship.
The 162 game season almost always weeds the contenders from the pretenders
and therefore, having an extra team is unnecessary and idiotic. If your
team was not good enough to win the division, than why should you still
have a chance to win the World Series? Baseball has never stooped to the
level of hockey, basketball, and football in allowing almost or more than
half to three fourths of the teams in the league to win the championship.
Now winning the division isn't important. It's finishing in the top two.
Why doesn't baseball just go to a 26 team playoff? It's much simpler and
would guarantee good advertising money for the networks. I hope the players
association votes to reject the new agreement.
Greg Spira
>kban...@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
>> It makes absolutely no sense for them to say they will cut
>>cablecasts to 3-4/week from the current 6/wk. unless they intend to sell
>>those additional games elsewhere. It can happen; it will happen. We don't
>>leave $10 bills laying on the ground.
>There is one alternative theory: that the media simply doesn't WANT those
>games. ESPN ratings haven't exactly been stellar, baseball is seen as a
>sport in trouble, and six games on ESPN a week *plus* local media *plus*
>superstations *Plus* network TV may well simply spell market saturation.
Well, I think ESPN would want the extra games if they didn't have to
pay much for them. The ratings for baseball weren't as high as they hoped,
but they were higher than what they used to get in the time slots.
I'm skeptical about any owner claims about "overexposure" - they've
been crying wolf about that since telegraph operators started to send
out baseball results.
However, I guess overexposure is possible. But what good will cutting
ESPN broadcasts to 3 do, other than increasing superstation audiences?
>It may simply be that baseball has been told they've oversold, and the
>buyers are cutting back. Now baseball may try PPV out of desperation (more
>likely is that there will simply be more games on local cable or local
>broadcast, but there's only so much you can do there), but I don't see how
>it can succeed unless they figure out how to shut down WTBS and WGN and WOR
>in the non-local markets, and that's not going to happen without a major
>fight.
Agreed. Some teams have already tried pay-per-view, and it hasn't
worked. I really don't think individual baseball games, other
than the postseason and perhaps important games in Sept/Oct., have
the marquee value that it takes to sell pay-per-view. When boxing
promoters tried a regular series of non-championship pay-per-view
boxing nights, the effort failed miserably. I think the same thing
will happen if baseball tries to sell individual, pay-per-view games.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the superstations in the
NBA, because the new contract with NBC for that league effectively
bans superstation broadcasts.
Greg
Chuq Von Rospach
>Well, I think ESPN would want the extra games if they didn't have to
>pay much for them. The ratings for baseball weren't as high as they hoped,
>but they were higher than what they used to get in the time slots.
Higher audiences, but if you don't recoup production costs, you'll take
lower ratings if you make money on it.
Also, if you put on six games a week instead of three, you dilute both your
audience and your advertiser base. If you can raise ratings by cutting
number of games (and how many people can find time for every game?) and
raise rates on the advertising even more (by cutting number of games, you
reduce the size of the "volume discounts" given to the beer and other major
advertisers) while keeping the cost of production stable, it's a much more
profitable product. For ESPN.
Steven Rubio
earlier post: this squabbling over who broadcasts what games when is a
SIDE ISSUE! The powers that be are about to change the regular baseball
season beyond recognition. This is the major point, not how many games
will be on free teevee. There are ways to expand the playoffs while
preserving the integrity of the season, most obviously by expanding to 32
teams. But no ... starting in 1994, the final holdout will fall by the
wayside, and second place will be good enough in baseball, as it already
is in other sports.
Steven
Tom White
>I, being a baseball purist have to disagree with the new playoff system.
>The thing that sets baseball apart from any other sports is the fact that
>only the best teams make the playoff and therefore wins the championship.
>The 162 game season almost always weeds the contenders from the pretenders
>and therefore, having an extra team is unnecessary and idiotic. If your
>team was not good enough to win the division, than why should you still
>have a chance to win the World Series? Baseball has never stooped to the
Because the owners can either admit that they don't have the intelligence
to hire the right people in the front office who know how to build a winning
team that will bring them the championship trophy, or they can increase
everyone's chance at winning it by allowing some second-rate teams into
the postseason. They DO want to win the World Series, in addition to
making money. Nothing satisfies the ego better.
>level of hockey, basketball, and football in allowing almost or more than
>half to three fourths of the teams in the league to win the championship.
>Now winning the division isn't important. It's finishing in the top two.
>Why doesn't baseball just go to a 26 team playoff? It's much simpler and
>would guarantee good advertising money for the networks. I hope the players
>association votes to reject the new agreement.
I expect they'll approve it after some slight modifications or some
financial concessions, like reducing free agency eligibility to four years
from the current six. Fehr might be moaning right now, but I've learned
never to believe his initial reaction to anything.
--
Thomas White |
Austin, Texas | Famous Accountant trading cards!
| Collect all two!
twh...@mozart.amd.com |
Scott Barman
>
>Evidently, there will be no realignment. The new playoffs will be
>East winner vs. 2nd place West team, and West winner vs. 2nd place
>East team.
That has not been decided. The comment was made by an owner as to
what that person would like to see. Bud Selig said no decision has
been made and will not be until it can be discussed with the Players
Union.
>The independent venture which markets the games and sells advertising
>will be controlled by a 9 person committee which will include 5
>members from MLB, 2 from NBC, and 2 from ABC.
Which doesn't, and will not, include cable.
--
scott barman | Mets Mailing List (feed the following into your shell):
sc...@asd.com | mail mets-r...@asd.com <<!
| subscribe
Let's Go Mets! | !
kenton yee
>>Evidently, there will be no realignment. The new playoffs will be
>>East winner vs. 2nd place West team, and West winner vs. 2nd place
>>East team.
Barry Mednick
>NBC. I don't think people are going to be happy.
to last. I have heard that ESPN coverage will be reduced.
>
>Baseball and its 2 network partners will form a separate venture that "will
>be responsible for administering the product and for the marketing
>and sales of Major League Baseball." The agreement ensures that
>a partnership between baseball and the networks will share the
>risks and the profits.
>
gives them more power and makes it more official.
>NBC's Dick Ebersol said that the death of the Saturday game of
>the week is a result of the fact that "fans voted in overwhelming numbers
>by not watching anymore."
>
game every Saturday. People could not count on CBS to be showing a
game. So, they got out of the habit of watching.
>
>Both the new divisional playoffs and the League Championship
>Series games will occurr simultaneously, so that the network
>can regionalize the broadcasts.
truly bad news. This also means that the playoffs will be scheduled
so as not to conflict with football broadcasts.
Good luck.
Barry
Kent Stewart
>and therefore, having an extra team is unnecessary and idiotic. If your
>team was not good enough to win the division, than why should you still
>have a chance to win the World Series?
What if your team has the second best record in baseball by a good margin,
but the team with the best record is in the same division?
Just a few years back (this is from memory, so correct me, don't flame me!)
the A's won the west with 103 wins. The second place team (Chicago, I think)
had about 96 wins. No team in the other 3 divisions got more than 91 or 92,
and I think the AL East winner had less than 90.
So which team is the pretender? The White Sox had a killer year, while
all the contenders in the east were falling over each other seeing how
many of them could finish below .500. The divisional playoffs already
in existance allow for the inferior team having a shot at the playoffs
over the 2nd best team in the major leagues (arguably).
Doc
I dont understand this trend toward regionalization either. One of the
things that always struck me about baseball, as opposed to Basketball
or Hockey especially, was how UN-regional. Example: I am, and have been
since the early 70's, a big red sox fan. I was born and raised in North
Carolina, and have never even VISITED Massachussettes. But I somehow
became interested in the BoSox, and the 1975 World Series galvanized
that support. Please dont take away this unique charm of baseball.
+doc
Dave Eisen
>
>I dont understand this trend toward regionalization either. One of the
>things that always struck me about baseball, as opposed to Basketball
>or Hockey especially, was how UN-regional.
Well, maybe.
I like watching baseball on TV and all that, but I can assure
you I would watch a hell of a lot more games if given the
opportunity to watch all of the Phillies games than I do
with the current mish-mash of Indians games, Cub Games,
and Padres games. I really can't enjoy baseball unless I
care who wins the game and that usually means I can't enjoy
it unless the Phillies or one of their rivals for first
place or last place is playing.
On the other hand, I never get tired of watching football
games; I manage to pick one team to root for even if it
is a Chiefs-Buccaneers game or something equally inconsequential.
Yes, I prefer Eagles games to other games, but I am quite
willing to watch games from all over the country.
I can't be alone in this because the main reason that nationally
televised baseball has such a hard time attracting fans is
that it is facing stiff competition from local broadcasts
of the home team.
Of course, I am, in a sense, a perfect example of the phenomenon
you're mentioning. I am a lifelong Phillies fan, and probably
will be until the day I die, but I have not lived in the
Delaware Valley for over 5 years now and there ain't no way
I'm moving back. A regionalized TV package means that I am
less likely to see my Phillies in action than I would be
with a single nationally distributed game. Just like you are
less likely to see your beloved Sox than to see the Orioles
or the Braves for the 300th time.
But presumably most fans of a given team live near the city
where that team plays. And given this, regionally broadcast
games might just make more sense than a single Game of the
Week.
ISVAX 7750 BULIAVAC 23882
example, Oakland and Chicago play a playoff series while the East
division winner stays home?
In any playoff scheme with a large number of teams, someone has the
misfortune to play and lose to the eventual tournament winner in the first
round. Think of the regular season of the first round, and Chicago had
the misfortune to be in the tough bracket, while the AL East team gets to
advance through the easier bracket. That's life. Nobody ever promised
it would be fair.
Greg
Scott Tyo
>In article <1993May10.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU> eec...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Emery Ethan Chen) writes:
>>The 162 game season almost always weeds the contenders from the pretenders
>>and therefore, having an extra team is unnecessary and idiotic. If your
>>team was not good enough to win the division, than why should you still
>>have a chance to win the World Series?
Sorry to reference that sport of hockey again, but the Penguins didn't
win the division last year. As a matter of fact, they were third.
The Rangers won the President's trophy and didn't make it out of the
divisional playoffs.
>
>What if your team has the second best record in baseball by a good margin,
>but the team with the best record is in the same division?
>
>Just a few years back (this is from memory, so correct me, don't flame me!)
>the A's won the west with 103 wins. The second place team (Chicago, I think)
>had about 96 wins. No team in the other 3 divisions got more than 91 or 92,
>and I think the AL East winner had less than 90.
>
>So which team is the pretender? The White Sox had a killer year, while
>all the contenders in the east were falling over each other seeing how
>many of them could finish below .500. The divisional playoffs already
>in existance allow for the inferior team having a shot at the playoffs
>over the 2nd best team in the major leagues (arguably).
Just for argument's sake- Isn't this possibly saying that the
division isn't as strong top to bottom as the other division? I think
that in the case you're speaking of, the AL West dominated the AL
East, but I'm not sure. However, this possibility is enough to
justify wildcards to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Tyo 4048 Sansom St.
t...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Philadephia, PA 19104
University of Pennsylvania (215) 387-0597/3926
EE '94 "There's infinity, then there's INFINITY"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Thornton
:
: What if your team has the second best record in baseball by a good margin,
: but the team with the best record is in the same division?
:
: Just a few years back (this is from memory, so correct me, don't flame me!)
: the A's won the west with 103 wins. The second place team (Chicago, I think)
: had about 96 wins. No team in the other 3 divisions got more than 91 or 92,
: and I think the AL East winner had less than 90.
Once again I thought it would make sense to look it up, and bore you all
to tears with my findings. The following is a list of all teams since
divisional play (1969-1992) who finished second in their division with a
better record than the winner of the other division.
I included ties in "screwed teams" just to make it interesting. An
asterisk (*) indicates the "lucky" team. A hash mark (#) indicates the
pennant winner, and an exclamation mark (!) the winner of the World
Series, so a team with both * and #, or * and !, won a major flag without
"deserving" to be in the picture.
Year Lg. West Winner Wins East Winner Wins Screwed Team Wins
==== === =========== ==== =========== ==== ============ ====
1990 AL Athletics # 103 Red Sox * 88 White Sox 94
1990 NL Pirates 95 Reds * ! 91 Mets 91
1989 AL Athletics ! 99 Blue Jays * 89 Royals 92
Angels 91
1988 AL Athletics # 104 Red Sox * 89 Twins 91
1987 AL Twins * ! 85 Tigers 98 Blue Jays 96
Brewers 91
Yankees 89
1987 NL Giants * 90 Cardinals # 95 Mets 92
Expos 91
1985 AL Royals * ! 91 Blue Jays 99 Yankees 97
1985 NL Dodgers * 95 Cardinals # 101 Mets 98
1984 AL Royals * 84 Tigers ! 104 Blue Jays 89
Yankees 87
Red Sox 86
Orioles 85
1982 AL Angels * 93 Brewers # 95 Orioles 94
1982 NL Braves * 89 Cardinals ! 92 Phillies 89
1981 AL Yankees * # 59 Athletics 64 Brewers 62
Orioles 59
1981 NL Dodgers * ! 63 Expos * 60 Reds 66
Cardinals 59
1980 AL Royals * # 97 Yankees 103 Orioles 100
1980 NL Astros 93 Phillies * ! 91 Dodgers 92
1979 AL Angels * 88 Orioles # 102 Brewers 95
Red Sox 91
Yankees 89
1979 NL Reds * 90 Pirates ! 98 Expos 95
1978 AL Royals * 92 Yankees ! 100 Red Sox 98
Brewers 93
1978 NL Dodgers # 95 Phillies * 90 Reds 92
1974 NL Dodgers # 102 Pirates * 88 Reds 98
Braves 88
1973 NL Reds 99 Mets * # 82 Dodgers 95
Giants 88
Astros 82
1972 AL Athletics ! 93 Tigers * 86 White Sox 87
1971 NL Giants * 90 Pirates ! 97 Cardinals 90
Whew. That's a lot -- more than I expected. To break it down, since 1969,
there have been:
96 division winners, 24 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in
the league -- that's 25%, or one-fourth;
48 pennant winners, 8 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in the
league -- that's 17%, or one-sixth; and
24 world champions, 5 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in
their league -- that's 21%, or almost one-fifth.
That doesn't take into account teams that won pennants or World Series
with the second-best record in the league. 22 of 48 pennant winners
haven't had the best record, or 46% -- almost half.
You expect to see this kind of thing with _any_ playoff system, but this
is much more than I seemed to remember. I think this bears up the argument
that the "purity" went out in 1969. It's bound to be worse with expanded
playoffs, but how much worse, really? I know I'm treading dangerously near
revisionism here, but if 1/4 of the time, the second-place team deserves
at least a shot at the title, according to the system now in place, the
expanded playoffs looks a little less unfair.
I still like Derek Katz's system, modeled after the English Football
Association: two divisions in each league, divided not by geography but by
record: an Upper Division and a Lower Division. The top two teams in the
Lower Division get promoted to the Upper after each season, while the
worst two in the Upper get demoted. Schedules are weighted accordingly.
That gives fans of the worser teams in the league something to root for long
after the pennant is lost -- promotion! They don't lose interest that way.
And you still have the best overall team going to the Series.
--
=============================================================================
Steve Thornton ste...@eskimo.com Seattle, Washington
Edward [Ted] Fischer
>
>Whew. That's a lot -- more than I expected. To break it down, since 1969,
>there have been:
>
>96 division winners, 24 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in
>the league -- that's 25%, or one-fourth;
Why is this surprising? Assuming that division placement is
independent of the quality of the team, the second-best team in the
league has a 6/13 (5/11 in NL and old AL) chance of being in the same
division as the best team. Since you were counting ties, I'd expect
this probability to be slightly higher. Therefore the majors should
average about 1 screwed team per year.
>48 pennant winners, 8 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in the
>league -- that's 17%, or one-sixth; and
>
>24 world champions, 5 of whom weren't at least the second-best team in
>their league -- that's 21%, or almost one-fifth.
Naturally, the attrition rate is higher for these weaker teams.
The post-season isn't *all* luck.
>That doesn't take into account teams that won pennants or World Series
>with the second-best record in the league. 22 of 48 pennant winners
>haven't had the best record, or 46% -- almost half.
Again, it is encouraging that this number is below 50%, but hardly
surprising that it isn't *much* below.
>I still like Derek Katz's system, modeled after the English Football
>Association: two divisions in each league, divided not by geography but by
>record: an Upper Division and a Lower Division. The top two teams in the
>Lower Division get promoted to the Upper after each season, while the
>worst two in the Upper get demoted. Schedules are weighted accordingly.
>That gives fans of the worser teams in the league something to root for long
>after the pennant is lost -- promotion! They don't lose interest that way.
>And you still have the best overall team going to the Series.
Interesting. You get more games between contenders, too!
Cheers,
-Valentine
Eric Klinker
> Because the owners can either admit that they don't have the intelligence
>to hire the right people in the front office who know how to build a winning
>team that will bring them the championship trophy, or they can increase
>everyone's chance at winning it by allowing some second-rate teams into
>the postseason. They DO want to win the World Series, in addition to
>making money. Nothing satisfies the ego better.
>
I can't remember where I saw this but some television show on the troubles of
baseball pointed out that an owners profit is maximized if his/her team
contends but never wins. The player salaries stay at a resonable size in
the offseason thereafter but they have huge revenues during the race.
They used the White Sox owner as an example of this.
With the new postseason structure does an owner now want to come in third or
fourth..? This makes it much easier to contend in a division but another
team will get stuck winning.
Note, the thoery behind this is not mine but rather something I picked up.
> Thomas White |
> Austin, Texas | Famous Accountant trading cards!
> | Collect all two!
> twh...@mozart.amd.com |
--
Eric
Ron Newman
(1) Is the new, extra tier of playoff best-of-5 or best-of-7?
(2) Will the NLCS and ALCS remain best-of-7, or return to best-of-5?
(3) How much shorter will the regular season be to make room for
more playoffs? Do we go from 162 to 146 games?
(4) Why do this at all?
--
Ron Newman rne...@bbn.com
Paul Andresen
|>
|> (4) Why do this at all?
Greed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will stretch no farm animal beyond its natural length
pa...@koufax.cv.hp.com Paul Andresen Hewlett-Packard (503)-750-3511
home: 3006 NW McKinley Corvallis, OR 97330 (503)-752-8424
A SABR member since 1979
Scott Barman
>
>You expect to see this kind of thing with _any_ playoff system, but this
>is much more than I seemed to remember. I think this bears up the argument
>that the "purity" went out in 1969. It's bound to be worse with expanded
>playoffs, but how much worse, really? I know I'm treading dangerously near
>revisionism here, but if 1/4 of the time, the second-place team deserves
>at least a shot at the title, according to the system now in place, the
>expanded playoffs looks a little less unfair.
Who the #$%^ said life is fair?!
The "purity" didn't go out of anything. You still have to WIN your
division. If it takes 95 games to win it in one division vs. 90 games
in another, so be it. That's the way it works. If it didn't, think of
all the great memories that would be gone:
1988 - Boston making their charge the last weekend of the season,
probably playing the best baseball of their lives only to have to listen
to a cracking radio broadcast of the Detroit game to see if they will be
in the playoff. By the new rules, there is no excitement as both teams
make it.
1987 - Detroit and Toronto, head to head, last weekend for the season
for all the marbles in the AL East. They even had NBC doing split
screens with football games!
1982 - Milwaukee and ??? (geez... why can't I remember now) how
Milwaukee had to sweep the last series of the season against the first
place team in order to make the playoffs. That drama wouldn't have
happened because both teams would have been in the playoffs.
1978 - The new system would not have produced a Bucky Dent story!
1964 - The Phillies collapse would not be as legendary.
1951 - Russ Hodges would have never screemed "The Giants Won the
Pennant."
1911(?) - Ninteen year old Fred Merkel wouldn't have made such a lasting
story if Johnny Eavers didn't realize that finishing that force out
didn't put the Cubs in a tie for first the second to last game of the
season. It would not have mattered!
We came up with these in a 20 minute conversation. I'm sure we could
come up with more! Baseball lives by its hisotry. Think of how much
would be missing if the owners of the past had the MTV mentality of
today.
BTW: Donald Fehr is threatening to tell the players to veto playoff
changes because the union has not been involved in anything, eventhough
they have promised "partnership" for years!
sand...@stsci.edu
> In article <C6wnq...@eskimo.com> ste...@eskimo.com (Steven Thornton) writes:
>> ... posting about teams getting "screwed" deleted...
>>
>>You expect to see this kind of thing with _any_ playoff system, but this
>>is much more than I seemed to remember. I think this bears up the argument
>>that the "purity" went out in 1969. It's bound to be worse with expanded
>>playoffs, but how much worse, really? I know I'm treading dangerously near
>>revisionism here, but if 1/4 of the time, the second-place team deserves
>>at least a shot at the title, according to the system now in place, the
>>expanded playoffs looks a little less unfair.
>
> Who the #$%^ said life is fair?!
>
> The "purity" didn't go out of anything. You still have to WIN your
> division. If it takes 95 games to win it in one division vs. 90 games
> in another, so be it. That's the way it works. If it didn't, think of
> all the great memories that would be gone:
>
> 1988 - Boston making their charge the last weekend of the season,
> probably playing the best baseball of their lives only to have to listen
> to a cracking radio broadcast of the Detroit game to see if they will be
> in the playoff. By the new rules, there is no excitement as both teams
> make it.
I don't think this in necessarily true. Think of this scenario... The season
comes down to the final weekend with only *1* playoff spot decided. This
would mean that there were at least 4 teams fighting for 3 spots (the other
two division winners + wildcard). And since there is no assurance that these
4 teams are playing each other, you could have *4* weekend series that mean
something, rather than 2 or 1.
It's not that I really LIKE the idea of a wildcard, but it's not going to
kill the game. I can see several instances where it could increase interest.
If a team is running away with the division (84 Tigers), then the other teams
STILL have something to shoot for. So, the fact that a playoff spot might be
clinched early shouldn't have a great effect on things, IMO.
John
<Other examples of close races deleted for bandwidth>
jay rogoff
> 1911(?) - Ninteen year old Fred Merkel wouldn't have made such a lasting
> story if Johnny Eavers didn't realize that finishing that force out
> didn't put the Cubs in a tie for first the second to last game of the
> season. It would not have mattered!
It was 1908, and it was not the next to last game of the season; there
was something like a week to go. The tie game that ump Hank DeBerry
ruled as resulting from Evers' putout of Merkel was replayed at the
end of the season because the Giants & Cubs
finished in a tie for first.
Your point about the elimination of exciting finishes is well-taken,
however. If the players allow themselves to be bullied into approving
a wild-card arrangement, they're bigger chumps than we think.
Compared with what they make, the additional level of playoff money is
not going to be that lucrative, and they can afford to be heros here
and save baseball from the owners.
Jay