PDA

View Full Version : East Coast Bias



sturg1dj
09-20-2007, 10:07 AM
why oh why is everyone going so crazy over the AL East Race? Sure the Yankees have made a great run, but it doesn't matter since the Tigers and Mariners fell apart.....whoever loses the East gets the Wild Card anyways.

Why would that bother Boston? They won the 2004 series after being the wild card.

People say that Boston needs momentum, yet the exact thing happened last season in the central when the Tigers were out to a huge lead and lost the division on the last day and struggled at the end of the season only to make it to the world series.

To me this shows an East Coast Bias. ESPN and Sports Illustrated do whatever they can to show the Yankees on their cover, which I am getting really sick of.

The NL central race is much more interesting since whoever doesn't win is OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS!

Thoughts?

LouGehrig
09-20-2007, 10:11 AM
As a Yankees fan or just as a baseball fan, you are COMPLETLEY CORRECT. Why isn't Arizona a big story? I mean, I follow the game closely, but I have limited time to read and listen. I don't know more than five players on the entire team, and I am sure many fans are as ignorant as I am about the team.

The New York and East Coast media are biased. One reason is money. The other is ratings.

What a great race the AL East would be if the second place team could not make the playoffs, as in 1978.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/if_the_red_sox_were_eliminated

SHOELESSJOE3
09-20-2007, 10:39 AM
As a Yankees fan or just as a baseball fan, you are COMPLETLEY CORRECT. Why isn't Arizona a big story? I mean, I follow the game closely, but I have limited time to read and listen. I don't know more than five players on the entire team, and I am sure many fans are as ignorant as I am about the team.

The New York and East Coast media are biased. One reason is money. The other is ratings.
What a great race the AL East would be if the second place team could not make the playoffs, as in 1978.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/if_the_red_sox_were_eliminated

Call it unfair, thats the truth.

KCGHOST
09-20-2007, 11:04 AM
The Eastern Sports Programming Network has a lot to do with this problem.

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 11:15 AM
I find it quite funny how ratings have been continually going down each year as so-much emphasis is placed in certain regions of the country. Some can say it's about ratings and money, but the actual reality shows the ends have not justified those means. Is the 2000 WS still the lowest rated on record?

ChrisLDuncan
09-20-2007, 11:20 AM
I find it quite funny how ratings have been continually going down each year as so-much emphasis is placed in certain regions of the country. Some can say it's about ratings and money, but the actual reality shows the ends have not justified those means. Is the 2000 WS still the lowest rated on record?

2006 was lower, and I'm pretty sure 2005 was pretty low too.

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 11:23 AM
2006 was lower, and I'm pretty sure 2005 was pretty low too.

They've all been low of late. The emphasis on certain teams only is going to hurt ratings when those teams aren't involved, which happens more often than not. They push certain teams over others to the point where those who aren't fans of the teams that make it aren't going to recognize them when it actually counts for something. They're all wondering where the hyped teams went.

Ytown Tribe fan
09-20-2007, 11:26 AM
When you have Midwestern teams (that aren't the Cubs) playing in the World Series, as we have the last two seasons, they can always talk about football.

I hope we have two more Midwestern teams (other than the Cubs) playing this year too. Drives 'em nuts in Connecticut. Tribe-Brewers would be just the ticket.

This bias is old as the hills. I well remember how they declared the '85 Classic as "boring", because two teams from Missouri were having at it. Then the '86 Series was "one of the greatest of all time", of course, since the media darlings were squaring off.

digglahhh
09-20-2007, 11:32 AM
I wouldn't call it bias, in this case. The elevating of players to gods is another story.

But here, these outlets have determined that these markets are their hotbeds, the centers of interest and profitability. They are chasing where they think the money and eyes are. They simply don't perceive a national demand for intense coverage of the Arizona Diamondback or Milwaukee Brewers. This is kind of like calling Playboy biased for marketing itself to men - they are catering to what they feel is their most important demographic. If those conclusions are wrong, that's another story. If they are just assuming the conclusions without research, then maybe we have bias involved. If they are contradicting their own research, then even more bias. I assume that national sports networks do intensive research that dictates their coverage patterns.

Leagues themselves feel that certain markets are integral to their success. Ask David Stern if he's happy about the Garnett move and if he wants to strangle Dolan as bad as Knicks fan do. It's economics.

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 11:43 AM
I wouldn't call it bias, in this case. The elevating of players to gods is another story.

But here, these outlets have determined that these markets are their hotbeds, the centers of interest and profitability. They are chasing where they think the money and eyes are. They simply don't perceive a national demand for intense coverage of the Arizona Diamondback or Milwaukee Brewers. This is kind of like calling Playboy biased for marketing itself to men - they are catering to what they feel is their most important demographic. If those conclusions are wrong, that's another story. If they are just assuming the conclusions without research, then maybe we have bias involved. If they are contradicting their own research, then even more bias. I assume that national sports networks do intensive research that dictates their coverage patterns.

Leagues themselves feel that certain markets are integral to their success. Ask David Stern if he's happy about the Garnett move and if he wants to strangle Dolan as bad as Knicks fan do. It's economics.


But doesn't having people like Linda Cohn, an unabashed Mets fans who somehow reverts to a heavy New York accent whenever talking about them, or Michael Kay on the payroll perpetuate the impression of bias? When Stephen A. Smith goes on a diatribe about how the Tigers were lucky to have beaten the Yankees and were simply impostors for the true teams that belonged in their position last year, is that based on research? Or is it just another example of someone in the position to do so perpetuating who deserves the coverage and who doesn't?

Is there only one region in the country that has money? If it is such an economics issue, why has the NFL been so successful without the benefit of New York so much. ESPN can talk abut the Jets and Knicks all they want, but can their lack of ultimate success be blamed if the leagues fall short? Why is college football so successful when there is very little Northeast presence?

PVNICK
09-20-2007, 11:49 AM
I don't think its just baseball, more than media as a whole that feels the nation revolves around the eastern seasboard with maybe LA, Chicago and Florida thrown in.

sturg1dj
09-20-2007, 11:50 AM
But doesn't having people like Linda Cohn, an unabashed Mets fans who somehow reverts to a heavy New York accent whenever talking about them, or Michael Kay on the payroll perpetuate the impression of bias? When Stephen A. Smith goes on a diatribe about how the Tigers were lucky to have beaten the Yankees and were simply impostors for the true teams that belonged in their position last year, is that based on research? Or is it just another example of someone in the position to do so perpetuating who deserves the coverage and who doesn't?

Is there only one region in the country that has money? If it is such an economics issue, why has the NFL been so successful without the benefit of New York so much. ESPN can talk abut the Jets and Knicks all they want, but can their lack of ultimate success be blamed if the leagues fall short? Why is college football so successful when there is very little Northeast presence?

and let me add that if it is just about money and demographic then maybe its time for ESPN to disclose that instead of showing itself off as an unbiased sports 'news' network. Its like saying its ok for foxnews (or any news outlet for that matter) to be biased because their audience supports it....if they say they are fair, then be fair; but if you don't want to be fair then SAY THAT.

and it also comes down to chicken or the egg idea, do the masses like the Yankees and Red Sox more or do they tune in because it is the team they are most familiar with since they are the ones always covered?

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 11:52 AM
I don't think its just baseball, more than media as a whole that feels the nation revolves around the eastern seasboard with maybe LA, Chicago and Florida thrown in.

So why is Payton Manning all over the TV?

No, I'm not really serious. But I do think baseball has done a severe disservice to the great majority of teams while the other pro sports at least have some balance in their coverage.

PVNICK
09-20-2007, 11:56 AM
You mean becuase three out of four saturday games of th eweke seemed to involve the Mets or Yankees this season? It's like, enough already to anyone not from the area, and to those from the NYC metro area I'm sure they would rather see some other teams they don't see every night. Though to be fair I seem to remember a ton of Reds-Dodgers games in the late 70s.

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 12:04 PM
You mean becuase three out of four saturday games of th eweke seemed to involve the Mets or Yankees this season? It's like, enough already to anyone not from the area, and to those from the NYC metro area I'm sure they would rather see some other teams they don't see every night. Though to be fair I seem to remember a ton of Reds-Dodgers games in the late 70s.

Right, two teams that between them took 7 out of ten league pennants in that decade and were both loaded with popular and good players. But you saw plenty of other teams, too. I remember Nolan Ryan pitching for California on TV a lot. And the Orioles got their share of coverage. When teams are going well they should be covered. But that should extend outside of games. When you have x amount of hours per day for programs like SportsCenter, to act like other teams in a tight division race only should get 15 seconds of coverage while spending 6 minutes on Hideki Matsui getting food poisoning (fictional scenario based on reality) is absolutely ridiculous.

Doctor Zizmor
09-20-2007, 12:42 PM
There is a bias when it comes to baseball, but there should be. The Yankees and Red Sox are two big market teams who have fans all over the country. Can the same be said for the Diamondbacks? No, nobody cares about the Diamondbacks.


And dont worry midwest, south and west coast sports fans. College football is here, your teams will flood the air waves with games on 24 hours a day, 4 days a week on 259 channels for the next 5 months

GiambiJuice
09-20-2007, 12:44 PM
There is no East Coast bias on ESPN just as there is no Republican/Conservative bias on FOX News. :grouchy

Captain Cold Nose
09-20-2007, 12:46 PM
There is a bias when it comes to baseball, but there should be. The Yankees and Red Sox are two big market teams who have fans all over the country. Can the same be said for the Diamondbacks? No, nobody cares about the Diamondbacks.

So sayeth the Yankee fan.

By putting so much emphasis on those specific big market teams (and they are hardly the only ones who fit that bill. Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Braves, etc.) they are perpetuating a myth that those are the only teams worth following, wortj paying attention, too. Thus, when other teams succeed, reach the playoffs and world series, not as mnay are tuning in in general because they were ignored all season long and are treated as pretenders even though the actual reality states otherwise. The media has shot themselves in the foot when it comes to rating because they ignore the teams that are playing in the important games.

Doctor Zizmor
09-20-2007, 01:11 PM
So sayeth the Yankee fan.

By putting so much emphasis on those specific big market teams (and they are hardly the only ones who fit that bill. Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Braves, etc.) they are perpetuating a myth that those are the only teams worth following, wortj paying attention, too. Thus, when other teams succeed, reach the playoffs and world series, not as mnay are tuning in in general because they were ignored all season long and are treated as pretenders even though the actual reality states otherwise. The media has shot themselves in the foot when it comes to rating because they ignore the teams that are playing in the important games.Look, I agree with you. But the reality is that nobody really cares about the Diamondbacks and/or other small market teams. So why would a nationally televised show spend more time on the D'Backs, when in reality, not many people care about the D'Backs on the national level. Im sure D'Backs fans can get their fill from their local sports channels. Its just a sad reality.

ChrisLDuncan
09-20-2007, 01:13 PM
I will say this though, IMO, baseball does not get any better than the Yanks and the Sox.

SHOELESSJOE3
09-20-2007, 02:14 PM
I will say this though, IMO, baseball does not get any better than the Yanks and the Sox.

It's a part of it. Lets face it, when these two get together it's a war. They play so many games regular season or post season often going down the late innings, final out. Been going on for years.

538280
09-20-2007, 03:29 PM
But doesn't having people like Linda Cohn, an unabashed Mets fans who somehow reverts to a heavy New York accent whenever talking about them, or Michael Kay on the payroll perpetuate the impression of bias? When Stephen A. Smith goes on a diatribe about how the Tigers were lucky to have beaten the Yankees and were simply impostors for the true teams that belonged in their position last year, is that based on research? Or is it just another example of someone in the position to do so perpetuating who deserves the coverage and who doesn't?

It may be, again, all part of their quest for money. ESPN perceives that the Northeast is their marketing hotbed, where they're going to get their money out of. So they intetionally try to make themselves appealing to Northeastern sports fans, by hiring people like Cohn and Kay and Stephen A. Smith who will give them that Northeastern slant. It may not be as much bias as it is marketing, though the effect is the same.


Is there only one region in the country that has money? If it is such an economics issue, why has the NFL been so successful without the benefit of New York so much. ESPN can talk abut the Jets and Knicks all they want, but can their lack of ultimate success be blamed if the leagues fall short? Why is college football so successful when there is very little Northeast presence?

I can say college football is even very popular in the Northeast, even without a huge marquee team playing here, only really Boston College (though there are many, many very high quality I-AA teams, most notably UMass). Even here lots of people follow Midwest or Western programs and watch the games.

sturg1dj
09-20-2007, 03:38 PM
It may be, again, all part of their quest for money. ESPN perceives that the Northeast is their marketing hotbed, where they're going to get their money out of. So they intetionally try to make themselves appealing to Northeastern sports fans, by hiring people like Cohn and Kay and Stephen A. Smith who will give them that Northeastern slant. It may not be as much bias as it is marketing, though the effect is the same.



I can say college football is even very popular in the Northeast, even without a huge marquee team playing here, only really Boston College (though there are many, many very high quality I-AA teams, most notably UMass). Even here lots of people follow Midwest or Western programs and watch the games.

why separate marketing and bias? it can be both. Even if marketing creates the bias it is still bias.

Captain Cold Nose
09-21-2007, 04:14 AM
I will say this though, IMO, baseball does not get any better than the Yanks and the Sox.

Once again, so sayeth a Yankee fan.

By ignoring the lower market teams, Doctor, they're setting themselves up for ratings failure when those teams do win in October. That is the coldest reality of all, since that seems to be the bottom line, right? The myopic coverage is just one major reason ratings keep dropping. It can try to be justified through whatever tunnel is being looked through, but until those who seem to control the coverage realize the injustice they're doing to the nation of baseball fans and themselves, baseball will continue to get surpassed at a national level via ratings. But, hey, they're happy in Poughkeepsie.

redoct11
09-21-2007, 04:31 AM
Who even watches ESPN anymore? I have stopped watching that network a long time ago. What are they going to show if both the Yankees and Red Sox are having losing seasons? Another thing that makes this bias really bad for baseball is that it makes it seem like either the Yankees or the Red Sox are always going to win it all every single year so people get turned off by it. But as we all know, especially over the last seven years that this is simply not the case.

PVNICK
09-21-2007, 05:09 AM
There is a bias when it comes to baseball, but there should be. The Yankees and Red Sox are two big market teams who have fans all over the country. Can the same be said for the Diamondbacks? No, nobody cares about the Diamondbacks. So it becomes sort of a self-perpetuating thing. The Diamandbacks did manage to win a WS vs. the Yanks.

redoct11
09-21-2007, 08:47 AM
The Angels for example have been just as much of a winner as the Red Sox have been over the last five years, yet they don't get as much national coverage as the Red Sox do.

Elvis
09-21-2007, 09:39 AM
The Angels for example have been just as much of a winner as the Red Sox have been over the last five years, yet they don't get as much national coverage as the Red Sox do.

Well the Angels have no geographic, nor historic rivalries. They're alone in the wilderness. But the E.C. bias doesn't help any.

nolanryan5714
09-21-2007, 10:13 AM
Sorry for my intrusion, but this is one excellent topic, and is very much (sadly) true....

The Yanks could be 15 games out, and I'd bet you my pitching arm that ESPN would still cue up their "awesome" broadcasts with something about them. Same with Boston. I have many friends who live there and are die-hard fans, and they also agree that a bias is very evident.



WHAT IS INTERESTING RIGHT NOW? Well, how 'bout them Cubs trying to steal the pennant from the Brewers - now, that is just as (if not more) exciting than the Sox and Yanks. I can't understand how so many people cannot see that....if they are truly objective.

Ubiquitous
09-21-2007, 10:22 AM
I never really understood the problem of "east coast bias". Something like 60% of America lives within 400 miles of Philadelphia. Think about that for a second. Philly is near the Atlantic ocean and almost half of that circle is empty ocean yet over half of America's population is within 400 miles of Philly. MLB and TV coverage is a major industry they are not some niche company that is created to cater to some small segment of the population.

redoct11
09-21-2007, 10:25 AM
I never really understood the problem of "east coast bias". Something like 60% of America lives within 400 miles of Philadelphia. Think about that for a second. Philly is near the Atlantic ocean and almost half of that circle is empty ocean yet over half of America's population is within 400 miles of Philly. MLB and TV coverage is a major industry they are not some niche company that is created to cater to some small segment of the population.

Yet California has the largest state population in America.

Yankwood
09-21-2007, 10:26 AM
As Ric Flair once said, "Anything west of Manhattan is campin' out!!!"
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:crazy :crazy :crazy

redoct11
09-21-2007, 10:31 AM
And Illinois is #5 in state population.

Ubiquitous
09-21-2007, 10:38 AM
And yet that still doesn't change the fact that most people live on or near the east coast. Nor is the west coast exactly neglected, Along with the east coast bias most people like to complain about the coast bias as well.

Yankees-Red Sox are big but so are Dodger-Giants.

redoct11
09-21-2007, 10:51 AM
And yet that still doesn't change the fact that most people live on or near the east coast. Nor is the west coast exactly neglected, Along with the east coast bias most people like to complain about the coast bias as well.

Yankees-Red Sox are big but so are Dodger-Giants.

The LA and Chicago teams don't get as much coverage as the New York teams and Boston.

Captain Cold Nose
09-21-2007, 11:11 AM
I never really understood the problem of "east coast bias". Something like 60% of America lives within 400 miles of Philadelphia. Think about that for a second. Philly is near the Atlantic ocean and almost half of that circle is empty ocean yet over half of America's population is within 400 miles of Philly. MLB and TV coverage is a major industry they are not some niche company that is created to cater to some small segment of the population.

Ric Flair is from Minnesota originally, I believe. He trained there, at least.

Maybe East Coast bias is too strong, because there are teams on or very near the coast who kind of get ignored, as well, like Baltimore and Philly outside of Ryan Howard homering and Washington. Maybe it should be Northeast Coast bias, or as I like to call it, Mt. Myopia. The world loves us and there is no one else, what's the problem?

538280
09-21-2007, 11:14 AM
why separate marketing and bias? it can be both. Even if marketing creates the bias it is still bias.

It has the same effect, as I said, but it is not the same thing. Bias would indicate that regardless of the marketing effects, ESPN just likes the East Coast teams more and is determined to cover them more. If it is a marketing decision, it's not like they just like the teams more, it's that they have probably done reserach that indicates that this is how they will be most successful economically.

If it's the first, then that's just ridiculous, and I resent it. If it's the second, I may not like it (even though I am from the Northeast), but I can see where they're coming from, and assuming they are correct in their marketing research I would do the same thing.

PVNICK
09-21-2007, 11:25 AM
It has the same effect, as I said, but it is not the same thing. Bias would indicate that regardless of the marketing effects, ESPN just likes the East Coast teams more and is determined to cover them more. If it is a marketing decision, it's not like they just like the teams more, it's that they have probably done reserach that indicates that this is how they will be most successful economically.

If it's the first, then that's just ridiculous, and I resent it. If it's the second, I may not like it (even though I am from the Northeast), but I can see where they're coming from, and assuming they are correct in their marketing research I would do the same thing.
Does the fact that ESPN is in Bristol, CT as opposed to say Gary, Indiana have anything to do with it.

Captain Cold Nose
09-21-2007, 11:28 AM
Does the fact that ESPN is in Bristol, CT as opposed to say Gary, Indiana have anything to do with it.

ESPN was around for a long time while being able to objectively cover baseball. Whent they started showing baseball in the late 80's the games were all over the country. The sort of bias/marketing they use has only been around the last decade or so.

PVNICK
09-21-2007, 11:44 AM
ESPN was around for a long time while being able to objectively cover baseball. Whent they started showing baseball in the late 80's the games were all over the country. The sort of bias/marketing they use has only been around the last decade or so.

Which from my observation what seems to be a consensus of this board is when ESPN really started to take a turn for the worse.

dl4060
09-21-2007, 03:30 PM
Part of the issue is that the Red Sox and the Yankees both have enormous NATIONAL fan bases. They are not just regional icons. My dad always told me that when he lived in the bay area and went to A's Red Sox games there were always lots of Red Sox fans in the stands. I have seen the same phenomenon at many different stadiums. A team like Arizona suffers in terms of coverage because they are very new, and very regional. The diamondbacks are not likely to have a large fan base spread across the country, they have not been around long enough for that.

This is not a justification, just a bit of an explanation.

redoct11
09-21-2007, 03:34 PM
Part of the issue is that the Red Sox and the Yankees both have enormous NATIONAL fan bases. They are not just regional icons. My dad always told me that when he lived in the bay area and went to A's Red Sox games there were always lots of Red Sox fans in the stands. I have seen the same phenomenon at many different stadiums. A team like Arizona suffers in terms of coverage because they are very new, and very regional. The diamondbacks are not likely to have a large fan base spread across the country, they have not been around long enough for that.

This is not a justification, just a bit of an explanation.

Well maybe if they covered the D'Backs right now while they're good that would help to accumulate their national fanbase. This sort of thing doesn't just spawn in the dark.

dl4060
09-21-2007, 03:38 PM
I will say this though, IMO, baseball does not get any better than the Yanks and the Sox.

Agreed. For me there really is nothing else like it. The two most entertaining series I have ever seen were probably the 2003 and 2004 ALCS.

dl4060
09-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Well maybe if they covered the D'Backs right now while they're good that would help to accumulate their national fanbase. This sort of thing doesn't just spawn in the dark.

No, but it is unrealistic to think that the d-backs could spawn the type of fan base in ten years that the Sox and Yankees have developed over the course of more than a century. Part of the reason the Yankees and Sox have national fan bases is that generations have moved west, and brought their loyalties with them. I don't think most Red Sox and Yankees fans from outside of the east are fans by accident, they either grew up in the northeast, or had parents who did who raised them as fans from a very young age. I grew up in New York, but became a Red Sox fan because of my dad, who grew up in New Hampshire. I'm pretty sure red and sox were my first two words. Arizona will first have to build a fanbase at home first, then see generations of those people leave Arizona, but keep their loyalties, in order to have what the yanks and sox have.

More coverage would help, but it would still take alot of time.

mojorisin71
09-22-2007, 04:28 PM
By ignoring the lower market teams, Doctor, they're setting themselves up for ratings failure when those teams do win in October. That is the coldest reality of all, since that seems to be the bottom line, right? The myopic coverage is just one major reason ratings keep dropping. It can try to be justified through whatever tunnel is being looked through, but until those who seem to control the coverage realize the injustice they're doing to the nation of baseball fans and themselves, baseball will continue to get surpassed at a national level via ratings. But, hey, they're happy in Poughkeepsie.

Truer words have never been spoken.

When the Yankees and Red Sox do lose in the postseason, it's regarded as an upset (although the 2006 ALDS between the Tigers and Yankees is hardly an upset; Detroit finished 2 games behind the Yankees in overall standings). By ignoring the other pennant races (only two of which can be decided this weekend), ESPN is contributing to the low ratings.

Side note: Anyone else think that last weekend's "Make or Break" promo was a complete and utter joke? Neither the Yankees nor Red Sox are broken, and the Cards were riding an 8-game losing streak going into the Cubs series. And don't get me started on Notre Dame/Michigan.

bigtime39
09-24-2007, 09:37 AM
Most NFL revenue is national, and shared.
Most MLB revenue is local, and sadly, not shared nearly well enough.
The vast majority of NFL games are on at times when they can be seen on the East Coast.
The vast majority of West Coast MLB games are only seen by insomniacs in the east.
ESPN is biased in favor of the Yankee$ and Red $ox, and this isn't likely to change any time soon. If the Dodgers and Giants were still East Coast teams, they'd probably get more slurp from ESPN than they do now.

digglahhh
09-24-2007, 10:00 AM
We can certainly debate chicken and egg. And, I do agree that more exposure would may small market teams grow. But, watch a Mets game in Florida or Washington, and you'll hear the crowd chant "MVP" when David Wright steps in. ESPN is not going to indulge that dynamic?...

sds416
09-24-2007, 10:11 AM
why oh why is everyone going so crazy over the AL East Race? Sure the Yankees have made a great run, but it doesn't matter since the Tigers and Mariners fell apart.....whoever loses the East gets the Wild Card anyways.

Why would that bother Boston? They won the 2004 series after being the wild card.

People say that Boston needs momentum, yet the exact thing happened last season in the central when the Tigers were out to a huge lead and lost the division on the last day and struggled at the end of the season only to make it to the world series.

To me this shows an East Coast Bias. ESPN and Sports Illustrated do whatever they can to show the Yankees on their cover, which I am getting really sick of.

The NL central race is much more interesting since whoever doesn't win is OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS!

Thoughts?


Yankees or D-Backs. I am betting that the Yankees sell more copies of a magazine by simply appearing on the cover, than the D-Backs would by appearing 3 times. From the print media point of view, its strictly what sells. Like them or not the Yankees sell. The Red Sox sell. People buy the magazine to read about their beloved team or to "read the propoganda" about the enemy. Its the nature of it. Magazines sell, ad rates go up, revenue goes up.

Same with electronic media to some extent. If you look at population centers and media market sizes, the majority of them are on the east coast. Hence they are appealing more to the people within their markets. Also remember, the west coast plays against the clock. A 10pm or 11pm east coast broadcast will have complete coverage of the eastern time zone games and teams, but anything from the west coast will just be underway.

mojorisin71
09-24-2007, 05:08 PM
If that's the case, why even bother having West Coast teams? Baseball is baseball, regardless of where you're from.

Like the Captain said, by only talking about the Yankees and Red Sox, they're setting themselves up for ratings failures come October.

sturg1dj
09-25-2007, 08:13 AM
I never really understood the problem of "east coast bias". Something like 60% of America lives within 400 miles of Philadelphia. Think about that for a second. Philly is near the Atlantic ocean and almost half of that circle is empty ocean yet over half of America's population is within 400 miles of Philly. MLB and TV coverage is a major industry they are not some niche company that is created to cater to some small segment of the population.

first I would like to change the term from east coast bias to new york/boston bias since you don't see as much hype for the Phillies or Pirates or Nationals or Orioles (maybe because they are usually bad)

second here is the US population by region


Northeast - 54,741,353 5 Teams
Midwest - 66,217,736 9 Teams
South - 109,083,752 7 Teams
West - 69,355,643 8 Teams
+1 Canadian team

The Northeast region includes Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., N.J., N.Y., Pa., R.I., and Vt.

The Midwest includes Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kans., Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb., N.D., Ohio, S.D., and Wis.

The South includes Ala., Ark., Del., D.C., Fla., Ga., Ky., La., Md., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Tex., Va., and W.Va..

The West includes Alaska, Ariz., Calif., Colo., Hawaii, Idaho, Mont., Nev., N.M., Ore., Utah, Wash., and Wyo.


So the northeast, which is covered the most, has the fewest people living in it and the fewest teams.

sturg1dj
09-25-2007, 08:17 AM
Yankees or D-Backs. I am betting that the Yankees sell more copies of a magazine by simply appearing on the cover, than the D-Backs would by appearing 3 times. From the print media point of view, its strictly what sells. Like them or not the Yankees sell. The Red Sox sell. People buy the magazine to read about their beloved team or to "read the propoganda" about the enemy. Its the nature of it. Magazines sell, ad rates go up, revenue goes up.

Same with electronic media to some extent. If you look at population centers and media market sizes, the majority of them are on the east coast. Hence they are appealing more to the people within their markets. Also remember, the west coast plays against the clock. A 10pm or 11pm east coast broadcast will have complete coverage of the eastern time zone games and teams, but anything from the west coast will just be underway.

why is that though? Is it because of the media blitz that is created by the Yankees being in the world series? We always here how the ratings are so much worse when the Yankees are not in the Series, but think about it....how is the coverage different? Sure the game is shown on the same channel, but the advertising is more when the Yankees are in it and the coverage on ESPN is much stronger when the Yankees are in it. That shows a bias. If anything, if you think the ratings would suffer without the Yankees then maybe you should advertise more when they are not playing.

sds416
09-25-2007, 09:39 AM
why is that though? Is it because of the media blitz that is created by the Yankees being in the world series? We always here how the ratings are so much worse when the Yankees are not in the Series, but think about it....how is the coverage different? Sure the game is shown on the same channel, but the advertising is more when the Yankees are in it and the coverage on ESPN is much stronger when the Yankees are in it. That shows a bias. If anything, if you think the ratings would suffer without the Yankees then maybe you should advertise more when they are not playing.

Media has little or nothing to do with it. The media reacts to ratings. The ratings tend to be higher when the Yankees or Red Sox are on, hence they provide what a majority of the audience wants to see. If the Diamondbacks had a huge following and people clamoring to see the broadcasts of the games, they'd push them just as hard. Its all bottom line driven. I had a media class professor tell me that the 3 things that sell are sex, blood and the Yankees. He's probably right. Advertisers are anxious to associate their product to the largest possible audience, and that is when the Yankees or Red Sox are on. Because they can command higher rates for larger audiences, the media tends to go where the money is. It is a business decision, not some sort of east coast bias. It really boils down to pure demand side economics.

sturg1dj
09-25-2007, 09:57 AM
Media has little or nothing to do with it. The media reacts to ratings. The ratings tend to be higher when the Yankees or Red Sox are on, hence they provide what a majority of the audience wants to see. If the Diamondbacks had a huge following and people clamoring to see the broadcasts of the games, they'd push them just as hard. Its all bottom line driven. I had a media class professor tell me that the 3 things that sell are sex, blood and the Yankees. He's probably right. Advertisers are anxious to associate their product to the largest possible audience, and that is when the Yankees or Red Sox are on. Because they can command higher rates for larger audiences, the media tends to go where the money is. It is a business decision, not some sort of east coast bias. It really boils down to pure demand side economics.

you truly believe that?

that the media coverage of the two teams themselves have no impact on the ratings? that is a joke, a chicken or the egg argument. You don't think they are in boardrooms before the season discussing how they are going to advertise the Red Sox-Yankees more than other games. Before the season they make the decisions on who to cover and who not to. During the 2006 season the Detroit Tigers had the fewest games televised in the majors yet they made it to the world series. And you cannot say that the Tigers do not have a huge following, since they broke their own attendance records this year.

Demand side economics would mean that ESPN would not set their schedule ahead of time and only televise games in which the two teams would produce the best game. This is not what they do, instead they clamor for as many Yankee games as possible followed by the Red Sox. It would also mean showing highlights based on the most interesting/exciting games, not just starting off every show with Yankees highlights when they have all but clinched a playoff birth.

Rags2Riches
09-25-2007, 10:22 AM
There is a bias when it comes to baseball, but there should be. The Yankees and Red Sox are two big market teams who have fans all over the country. Can the same be said for the Diamondbacks? No, nobody cares about the Diamondbacks.


And dont worry midwest, south and west coast sports fans. College football is here, your teams will flood the air waves with games on 24 hours a day, 4 days a week on 259 channels for the next 5 months

bingo, there are more Yankees Red Sox fans all over the Country then any other team in MLB, just like the Steelers, Raiders etc...in the NFL...more people tune into a Yankees vs. Red Sox game then any other (look at the ratings) so while the OP says he hates it, many are saying (ratings speak for themselves) they LOVE it.......

And to add to it, at least the red Sox and Yankees field a team who competes every season, look at the White Sox, just 2 yrs ago winning the WS, now they are 1 of the worse teams in MLB.

Until some other team/teams can compete with these 2 teams on a yr in yr out basis it's going to be like this for yrs....

sturg1dj
09-25-2007, 10:56 AM
bingo, there are more Yankees Red Sox fans all over the Country then any other team in MLB, just like the Steelers, Raiders etc...in the NFL...more people tune into a Yankees vs. Red Sox game then any other (look at the ratings) so while the OP says he hates it, many are saying (ratings speak for themselves) they LOVE it.......

And to add to it, at least the red Sox and Yankees field a team who competes every season, look at the White Sox, just 2 yrs ago winning the WS, now they are 1 of the worse teams in MLB.

Until some other team/teams can compete with these 2 teams on a yr in yr out basis it's going to be like this for yrs....

if it is based on success then the Braves should be shown more than the Red Sox...and the highlights should have been heavily Braves for the last 15 years. i would also argue, and this could be a separate thread, that more people hate the Yankees than like the Yankees.

SHOELESSJOE3
09-25-2007, 12:42 PM
if it is based on success then the Braves should be shown more than the Red Sox...and the highlights should have been heavily Braves for the last 15 years. i would also argue, and this could be a separate thread, that more people hate the Yankees than like the Yankees.

Like them or not the history of the Yanks goes way much farther than the Braves. Were speaking of Yankee lovers and haters that go back decades. Even people who know nothing or very little about the game are aware of Yankee history, back to the 1920s.

Not trying to boost the Yanks but thats just the way it is, long history, trading Babe Ruth, the curse. Some people will pay the price of admission to a ball game hoping to see a team any team give the Yanks a good beating, they leave the game happy because some team kicked those hated Yankees all over the field.


How many times have we heard those words when the Yanks don't win it all..."what happened to the Yankees", don't hear that about any other team.

The Yanks, the most loved... the most hated team bring out emotion in fans, some who don't know a damn thing about baseball. That sells tickets and picks up viewers on the TV screen.

Westlake
09-25-2007, 12:54 PM
Polarization drives the public's interest, and the Yankees are by far the most polarizing team in American professional sports.

SHOELESSJOE3
09-25-2007, 03:10 PM
Polarization drives the public's interest, and the Yankees are by far the most polarizing team in American professional sports.



I live close to Toronto and attend a number of games. I can tell you even when the Bosox won it all, they were the top dog the folowing year 2005, to the Blue Jay fans beating them was not as satisfying as beating the Yanks. Whole different atmosphere at the games end, carnival athmosphere when they beat the Yanks really whooping it up, they beat the Yanks.


Reputations don't die easily. The Yanks winning ways go back to the 1920s picking up new fans and more Yankee haters.

johnnypapa
09-25-2007, 03:50 PM
Part of the problem is that espn is competing with two teams that have their own station in the east. The YES network (Yankees) and SNY (mets). I'm not sure if the red sox have one too (NESN?). So being that the ratings drive seems to be connected with the east coast...they have to compete for the local (northeast area) ratings. Especially on radio because you have WFAN (NY sports talk radio) that they have to deal with too. YES also simulcasts WFAN's 1 - 6:30 show.


Hey...baseball is big in the northeast and NY area...the Yankees drew 4 million fans again this year. met attendance is up, the red sox sell out every game. Heck the Yankees basically own the east coast from half of Conn to Florida.

mojorisin71
09-25-2007, 07:56 PM
more people tune into a Yankees vs. Red Sox game then any other (look at the ratings) so while the OP says he hates it, many are saying (ratings speak for themselves) they LOVE it.......

If that's all that ESPN is showing, then that's kinda misleading.

maximum jack
10-10-2007, 07:38 AM
How many times have we heard those words when the Yanks don't win it all..."what happened to the Yankees", don't hear that about any other team.

I know it was a slow news cycle but man I thought I was watching Yankee TV this morning. Here's the "top" stories on the SC Rundown this morning when I turned on the TV:

Joe Torre
Steinbrenner
Torre's Record
Keep Torre?
Torre's Future?
Yankee Free Agents
Patriots Cowboys!
[snip]

A little later there were stories on:

A-Rod
Derek Jeter
Mariano Rivera

:crazy

I'll admit, Boston gets a little of the ESPN bias too, but only because we are linked with NY.