Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Sports Talk
Reload this Page >

Which will get better ratings, World Series or Monday Night Football?

Sports Talk Discuss all things Sports Related
View Poll Results: Which Will get higher ratings on TV?
World Series will get higher ratings.
9
34.62%
Monday Night Football will get higher ratings.
16
61.54%
I'll be watching Lifetime.
1
3.85%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Which will get better ratings, World Series or Monday Night Football?

Old 10-27-08, 02:17 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
Baseball doesn't have the status it did when you were a kid.

Do you follow the non-Philly stars?
Of course. I watch all the World Series and I know all the major players on those teams. My point is that it's not like the Phils are the Rays and a team of unknowns.
Old 10-27-08, 02:32 PM
  #27  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Back when I was a kid, people actually followed the star players. Especially the homerun champions.
Everyone follows star players and home run champions today too... as long as they're playing in New York or Boston.
Old 10-27-08, 02:38 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
This sums up the ESPN era.

No one cares about MVPs or the homerun champions? Wow.
ESPN is not to blame for All Star teams being made up of Yankees and Red Sox players because they are the only teams that can afford them. That is the fault of the MLB. There is generally a recognizable star on every NBA team, and a fair amount of parity. The NFL has done this best. But the MLB is making baseball something that most people only care about their local team and a few teams that have everyone.

People might care about the home run champion if there were any home runs left in the game. Now that players are off the steroids, we're back to 35 being a fantastic year.
Old 10-27-08, 02:40 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
My point is that it's not like the Phils are the Rays and a team of unknowns.

This statement is true for only 1 out of 50 states.
Old 10-27-08, 02:55 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
ESPN is not to blame for All Star teams being made up of Yankees and Red Sox players because they are the only teams that can afford them. That is the fault of the MLB. There is generally a recognizable star on every NBA team, and a fair amount of parity. The NFL has done this best. But the MLB is making baseball something that most people only care about their local team and a few teams that have everyone.

People might care about the home run champion if there were any home runs left in the game. Now that players are off the steroids, we're back to 35 being a fantastic year.
Ryan Howard (he's on the Phillies in case you didn' know) hit 58, 47 and 48 homeruns his first three years. He won an MVP and will probably win it this year too.

Howard, Utley and Rollins are some pretty big names. Not sure your point.
Old 10-27-08, 02:56 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
There is generally a recognizable star on every NBA team, and a fair amount of parity.

Then why do people care less about basketball than they do about baseball?

I think the main thing about people watching and following the sport is what people rarely mention... the game itself. I think the majority of sports fans out there are just plain bored by baseball. Let's be honest here, if you don't know whats going on and all you're doing is waiting for home runs and big innings then you're probably not going to enjoy the sport all that much.

That's probably big reason why there are only a few casual baseball fans that are willing to watch every team and every game. If it's not their team, they won't bother watching.
Old 10-27-08, 02:58 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are 162 games so watching one team is pretty much a full time gig.
Old 10-27-08, 02:58 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
This statement is true for only 1 out of 50 states.
I'm not sure if you're just kidding but if you don't know who Howard, Utley, Rollins, Hamels and Lidge are you probably don't know a whole lot about baseball. Those guys are certainly perrenial All-Stars.
Old 10-27-08, 03:00 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,443
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Goat3001 View Post
Then why do people care less about basketball than they do about baseball?

Do they?

While the regular season isn't as popular, there is no question that March Madness, simply due to bracket pools, is far more popular nowadays than the MLB playoffs. Also, the final four isn't as dependent on having name teams in there to generate ratings.

I can't speak to the NBA playoffs, but it is clear that the Finals rating is very much matchup/name team driven for the NBA.
Old 10-27-08, 03:00 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
There are 162 games so watching one team is pretty much a full time gig.

Same thing with football. Not everyone has the NFL package and get every game so we're probably only seeing 2 out of market games a week (Sunday Night and Monday). With baseball you're getting one out of market game a week (Sunday Night Baseball) and if you're team's not playing, you're probably not watching. Even if it is two powerhouse teams playing.
Old 10-27-08, 03:02 PM
  #36  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think he was referencing the NBA.
Old 10-27-08, 03:03 PM
  #37  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
Do they?

While the regular season isn't as popular, there is no question that March Madness, simply due to bracket pools, is far more popular nowadays than the MLB playoffs. Also, the final four isn't as dependent on having name teams in there to generate ratings.

I can't speak to the NBA playoffs, but it is clear that the Finals rating is very much matchup/name team driven.
There is no doubt that Final Four is close to MLB ratings but I can't imagine NBA finals even comes close to the World Series in terms of # of people who are paying attention to who wins.
Old 10-27-08, 03:04 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,443
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Goat3001 View Post
I can't imagine NBA finals even comes close to the World Series in terms of # of people who are paying attention to who wins.

You don't think with Celtics vs. Lakers this year it did?
Old 10-27-08, 03:06 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,443
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Lakers/Celtics this year drew a rating of about 10.0. That's going to beat the WS.
Old 10-27-08, 03:10 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,443
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
The NBA is having similar problems to MLB when it comes to Finals ratings. Down from a peak of near 30 ratings in 1998.

Interestingly, however, NBA overall playoff ratings are about what they were 20 years ago and only slightly off from the Jordan period of dominance.
Old 10-27-08, 03:14 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
Lakers/Celtics this year drew a rating of about 10.0. That's going to beat the WS.

Fair enough but let's call a spade a spade here. Lakers/Celtics is an absolutely premiere match up for the NBA. I'm not sure what Philly/TB will draw but if it was Philly/LAAAA or Red Sox/Dodgers (for example) I'm sure the WS would get a big bump.
Old 10-27-08, 03:17 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,443
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Goat3001 View Post
Fair enough but let's call a spade a spade here. Lakers/Celtics is an absolutely premiere match up for the NBA. I'm not sure what Philly/TB will draw but if it was Philly/LAAAA or Red Sox/Dodgers (for example) I'm sure the WS would get a big bump.
Yeah but even the S.A./Cleveland matchup the year before got a 9.3, so it isn't as big a difference as you may think.
Old 10-27-08, 03:22 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,099
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
I guess not. It does surprise me though. Maybe its just the people I talk to about sports. I rarely hear anyone talk about the NBA while everyday I hear people talking baseball even if the Yankees aren't involved. Also if you come on DVDtalk you'll see 1 or 2 NBA threads a season while there is usually a thread everyday for baseball.

But still, if we're sticking to ratings, baseball is still the more popular sport. Just not by as much as I thought.

Last edited by Goat3001; 10-27-08 at 03:25 PM.
Old 10-27-08, 03:41 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago->D.C.
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I may be in the minority here but I enjoy both MLB and the NFL. H
owever I cannot find any desire to watch an Indy and Tenn game with the WS champion on the line. Personally I would rather watch the other Manning than the one playing tonight.
Old 10-27-08, 03:47 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, I'd probably watch baseball even if the Phils weren't it it.

(And I'd be tuning in for Kerry Collins not Manning when flipping during commercials. )
Old 10-27-08, 03:54 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,341
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
I think the NBA is probably more watchable by the average joe then the World Series. I get more opinions on how boring it is to watch baseball then it is other sports, but when it comes to actual fans that follow the sport, baseball is more prevalent.

I think 10 years ago the average person and part time fan recognized and followed other big players in MLB. McGwire and Sosa, and even Bonds made people tune in and were recognizable stars. I don't think very many people could pick out Chase Utley from a line up, or know who Ryan Howard is from Subway commericals.
Old 10-27-08, 04:11 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Ryan Howard (he's on the Phillies in case you didn' know) hit 58, 47 and 48 homeruns his first three years. He won an MVP and will probably win it this year too.

Howard, Utley and Rollins are some pretty big names. Not sure your point.
Yeah, I know, but I also know that the overall number of homeruns hit were the lowest in something like 8 years. You only had 2 guys in the majors hit 40 or more.

Maybe I'm bitter because I'm a Mariners fan. It was nice to see Moyer pitch.

So probably I see my frustration with baseball and put it on the sport as a whole and assume there are many that feel the same as I do. I don't expect that a team could keep Griffey, A Rod, and Randy Johnson (except the Yankees), but the vast majority of teams in the MLB are now just farm teams for about 4-5 teams...Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, and Angels. I still remember that after the Marlins won the WS, the owner traded off the majority of the team. Certainly you could see things like that in any sport, but you won't see 1 player in the NFL making as much as the entire offense of another team. I think the lack of parity in the MLB (in terms of money they are able to spend, not on wins, ie Yankees this year) makes it a league that only baseball purists will enjoy, and most people are casual fans.
Old 10-27-08, 04:18 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
World Series simply because it may be the clinching game for the Phillies...then again, outside of the Philadelphia area, the majority of the viewers (including Tampa) would rather watch MNF.
Old 10-27-08, 04:27 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago->D.C.
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
I think the lack of parity in the MLB (in terms of money they are able to spend, not on wins, ie Yankees this year) makes it a league that only baseball purists will enjoy, and most people are casual fans.
I am just writing off the cuff but there were 7 different WS winners in the last 8 years (and adding another one this year). Is there really that much more parity in football? That I do not know but just asking....
Old 10-27-08, 04:32 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk God
Thread Starter
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Flashback View Post
I am just writing off the cuff but there were 7 different WS winners in the last 8 years (and adding another one this year). Is there really that much more parity in football? That I do not know but just asking....
When I am talking parity, I mean the amount of revenue distribution and how much each team has to spend on players. It allows most teams to have and afford a super star, which brings in interest and viewers. That type of parity doesn't exist at all in baseball. I believe it makes for a healthier league.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.