The understanding is important for most any game that doesn't have an obvious appeal - this goes for soccer too, and for my favorite sport; Formula One racing. I once shared an apartment with a guy who was utterly bored by it, until he sat down with me one day and let me chatter all the way through it about what goes on, about pit strategies, about enmities between drivers, about the histories of the different teams...
He's now a huge F1 fan.
It's all about the understanding.
My guess is that, however unlikely it seems to _me_, that the same is true for Golf too.
On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:39:50 -0700, [email] (Ian J. Ball) wrote:
I'd say its more Angel against Party of Five - I think its a great idea, Party of Five doesn't skew as young as Angel will. That 70s Show has a great shot there- but its the Ally lead-in I don't like.
That's my guess - it will run through December and end there. Plese say it will!
"Irreverent family drama from the creator of Suddenly Susan" - that's all the info I have.
Yea, but mainly because it not only fights NBC 8-9pm, which skews young and female- the problem is FOX and WB are fighting for a similar audience with Manchester and Popular.
No reason to stop now, the competition isn't doing anything interesting. Maybe this Carter show will work...
Honestly, it doesn't matter what any network does - people will find a way to say it sucks.
I'd like to see Family Guy on Sunday, too, with the other 'toons. It might be a little dangerous putting it on Thurs at 9:00, as NBC dominates that slot.
On Wed, 19 May 1999 10:34:49 -0400, "Jon Burk" wrote:
The problem with Sunday, and King of the Hill will run into this - is that due to football September through December, the 7-8pm time block is often preempted. My guess is that FOX will slide prime, but that's going to cause some problems with the affiliates.
With World's Funniest in there, at least they could join that in progress with no worries. Maybe once the football season is over there will be some changes.
Viewers may not be too happy either (being on the West Coast, we fortunately don't have that problem - only the unacknowledged Simpsons early start and late finish tocontend with)
On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:53:42 -0400, John Stone wrote:
Agreed. The football audience makes for a strong lead-in to the shows that follow (60 Minutes benefitted from it for years and there's a reason why FOX outbid CBS to join the NFL ranks a few years back), and a network doesn't want to piss off those folks.
(Ironically, I _did_ watch the famous "Heidi" game, when NBC cut off the last two minutes of a game between the Raiders and the Jets to show "Heidi" on the East Coast--and Oakland scored 20 points in those last two minutes to win the game. But, since I live in Oregon, we got to see the whole game. But that incident is why the NFL now has a rule requiring networks to show an _entire_ game before cutting away to something else.)
Well, I wish they had a rule keeping the local affiliates from doing so. I will never forget my local affiliate breaking away just before the snap of a 4th and inches play in a Houston Oilers/San Francisco 49ers late-season game. The Oilers were down by less than a touchdown and their new "stud" quarterback was in the game with just over 1 minute remaining to play. Winning the game could've been the difference between going to the playoffs, and my local affiliate cuts away just before the 4th down snap to show the COIN TOSS of the Dallas Cowboys game, a team who had already secured their playoff berth and weren't even starting some of their "star" players.
On Thu, 20 May 1999 16:26:28 -0500, Ryan Paige wrote:
Question - do you live in the Dallas TV market? If so, they had no choice but to cut over. NFL rules require that a station air the home team game in its entirety (unless the game wasn't sold out, then its blacked out). So, regardless of where the earlier game is, they have to show the enitre Dallas (or whatever team they were playing).
If neither team was in your home market - than that was a stupid decision, I agree.
I live in the Dallas market now, but I didn't at the time. I lived in a neutral market at the time (no home team, actually over 350 miles from any NFL team.)
I think an excellent idea similar to yours would be only to continue airing the game in the markets where the teams come from. For example a Washington/Dallas game at 7:30 only continue airing the game in Washington and Dallas. The rest of the nation would get Fox's regularly scheduled programs. Although i would bump it up to 7pm since that is when the Fox primetime begins.
The only exception would be playoff games. Although starting the games earlier would be better.
BTW why don't the networks air football from 12 - 3 and 3 - 6. This way the confusion with primetime wouldn't occur except rarely with overtime.
I may not live in the area of the fan base of a game but I don't want to have a game cut off for that reason.
As far as 12-3 and 3-6 I think there are a number of factors that possibly fit into why the networks likes 1-4 and 4-7 better.
Some people go to church on Sunday and don't get out until 12 noon or a little later and would miss the start of the game, you also have the pre-game shows some of which are starting as early as 11:30 and run until 1:00, if you moved the starting time of the game up earlier the pregame shows would have to start earlier on Sunday morning with most likely lower ratings.
With the games starting 1-4 and 4-7 you have the chance of a really good matchup leading into the 7:00 hour and the network would hope to carry that audience into prime time, if the game ended around 6:00 you would probably lose much of that audience in the later 7:00 prime time spot.
As inconvenient as it is for the regular shows to get delayed with the current starting times its probably in the networks best interest to keep the current system.
I agree most heartily. I'm live in Bloomington IN, and watch the Colts WHEN they don't interfere with a broadcast of the Chicago Bears. Yeah, I know the Bears are really rotten, but growing up in the Chicago region, I still have my Chicago team loyalties. I also like to watch any good close football game, and don't forget the Heidi game, anything can happen in football (or probably about any other sport) that could change the outcome of the game. Fox and other stations would have a riot on their hands it that happened again. I think it was NBC that broadcast that infamous game, They never did live it down (or was it CBS)
In the Chicago area. The footbal games do air at 12noon and 3PM (or whenever the first game is done) In Indianapolis area, it's 1 and 4PM. Who knows what it is on pacific coast. probably about 10 AM. Unlike things that can get delayed. Sports are usually broadcast live in real time, so the whole nation is seeing the national broadcast at the same time.
This is most certainly true, though there is 8AM service, 6 AM golfers service, not to mention several Catholic Mass hours.
You betcha, 2 hours before such and such program. Wow! I have time to go out and eat, or get a little swimming in, or....
Sometimes it actually helps the network, if the alternative is switching to something that is already in progress when you finally see the end of your game, might as well keep it right here and watch whatever comes on next. On CBS many times that happens to be 60 minutes, which isn't too shabby anyway.
Nancy, if you want to swimming of something else that is fine, they are only thinking of what is best for their ratings on Sunday night and having a hot matchup leading into prime time is in their best interest to carry the football audience into primetime. Ending a game at 6:00 and then having local news or something else you would lose a good part of that audience.
The last time i checked CNN, HN and local news give highlights of football games. If something happens big in the last few minutes they will show it. So you still get to see the big play if thats what you are waiting for. If you just want to find out who wins Headline News has a sportticker all weekend long and every night.
Worse comes to worse you can read what happens online or in your next mornings newspaper.
I am sorry but i cannot believe that people would rather watch 22 men pushing/blocking just to get a ball over a line then to watch a drama or comedy. Lets face it you miss a first five minutes or a comedy or drama and you will miss character setup and situation setups along with good interesting lines - well potentially. Sports you can always catch the highlights or read it later. TV drama or comedy you need to wait a while for the repeat.
On Fri, 21 May 1999 08:28:39 -0400, Dan Tropea wrote:
Now look what you did, you made me snort my mineral water out my nose and all over the keyboard ;-) This is the funniest thing yet you've said in your illustrious USENET career.
In a word, yes we'd rather watch 22 men pushing/blocking just to get a ball over the line <g>...
Well you better believe it because its true, I would rather watch 22 men push and shove on a field than have it cut short for some comedy or drama. As to the other part of your point you can always watch the comedy or drama you missed in reruns.
On Fri, 21 May 1999 08:28:39 -0400, Dan Tropea wrote:
I never really know sometimes if you deal in the real world or not. YOU may not like it, but check out American culture sometime - it may be scary - but sports are everywhere. Part of the excitement of sports is being there when it happened - not watching a highlight. Its like the Mark McGwire home run race that peeved all the KOTH fans who had to wait a whole week for the premiere. Believe me, any network would have jumped at the chance to air that game.
Still it's like watching a whole movie and then not seeing the end. Someone might tell you what happens but it's not the same as seeing it happen.What if it's a close game and you like millions of others have a bet on it(and don't tell me that gambling isn't a huge factor in the popularity of the N.F.L.)You would go crazy.As far as your comedy or drama comment sports has often been called the greatest of all dramas because it is unscripted and you never know what will happen next. Not to mention the fact that your statement makes you seem out of touch with American popular culture.We are a professional sports minded culture here in the 20th century besides if the 7:00 programming was something truly good then the network would either schedule at another time or show it in it's entirety after (like CBS did for years with 60 minutes). Besides if you want to see how wrong you are just look at the HEIDI GAME. That was 30 years ago so magnify that response 50 times to see what would happen if it happened now.
Gambling as in a wager between friends or via bookies? I realize that sports betting via bookies are a big underground business (saw it on 60 Minutes) but its illegal. Also isn't all sports gambling illegal.
I could be wrong though.
You are forgetting that there would be a few posting defending the network. Concerning the Heidi event though i wonder if it really wasn't a vocal minority that complained and was not really representative of all Americans.
the NBC switchboard litterally exploded. The phone company in N.Y. reported it was the most calls ever placed to one place at one time up until that point.I highly doubt any minority no matter how vocal could cause that.
As a 10+ year resident of Las Vegas I can confidently answer this with a resounding "Heck, no!" All the major (and most minor) casinos have sports books. They range from ones which are little more than a counter with a board listing the games behind it to truly impressive facilities (like the Las Vegas Hilton) with multiple satellite feeds and video displays that would do NORAD headquarters or Mission Control in Houston proud.
The books traditionally do their biggest business for heavyweight title fights, NCAA Final Four basketball and football, culminating in the Super Bowl. There have been various moves to ban legal betting on college sports at least and even now you can't place a bet on Nevada college teams. This mostly affects UNLV men's basketball. When they won the NCAA title back in 1990 it was said that the state's sport lost out on several million dollars of betting action that they legally couldn't take.
I think Dan has a valid point in that a missed TV show is easily much harder to catch up on than a sports game. He's right about being able to catch an important replay on CNN, HN, Sportsline, etc. for sometimes several days after the game has already ended whereas it means waiting as long as 3 months to catch a rerun (which is sometimes a crap shoot... I've seen original episodes of something preempted by a game as well as its later rerun). There's also something else to consider: I've heard it remarked that seeing the game is not always the real draw of sports, but rather it's the stats. To paraphrase a character from a Star Trek episode on baseball, "The allure isn't the that I see it in real life. It's the *numbers* that tell me what happened. With stats and figures I can actually *see* the game in here, my head. That's where the real mystery of baseball comes from... all the records and laws of probability broken one by one. And I get to see it all happen whenever I look at those numbers."
I guess, but I don't see it. And I certainly don' know why a network would want to alienate its largest audience to please a much smaller group of viewers. NFL ratings are huge compared to the ratings of King of The Hill. Twice as many viewers watch Monday Night Football than watch ANY show on FOX at any given time. Personally, I want to watch what happens in the game. Watching the highlights isn't the same and reading about it in the paper isn't anywhere near the same. Heck, watching the replay of a play during the game isn't the same as watching it as it happens. There is a flow to the game that peolpe get into. Once the flow is gone, then I don't care what happened. If I am not watching the game, I don't care how a team won it or what happened during the game, I am only interested in the results at that point. Just like if I told you exactly what happened in a particular episode of a TV show, it wouldn't be the same as watching the show yourself. Perhaps the solution is to just print the script to the TV show that is preempted in the newspaper and show some highlights of the show later in the evening. I think that would work just as well as cutting off the ends of football games to please the relatively small viewership of King of the Hill. (Of course, the solution could be to just play the stupid shows in their entirity after the game is over, or give people new shows during the usual re-run periods. OR just keep shows like World's Funniest or 60 Minutes, shows that can be edited to fill the space that needs to be filled, during the sports after games.)
On Fri, 21 May 1999 16:04:24 -0500 when Ryan Paige 's computer became self aware it wrote:
I agree their is definetly a flow involved in sports (especially football). sure you can catch the highlights, but that won't get you involved. I don't know maybe its me but when I'm watching a good football game I'm thinking of what play I'd call next, how I'd run it, who I'd throw to. Thats probably just because I used to play ball and now I miss it *sigh*. ---------------------------- "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." Homer J. Simpson
Craig Winckler Icq #21456614
Proud to attend The University of Minnesota, home of the Spankalogical Protocol
On Sun, 23 May 1999 06:41:16 -0400 when "CountV" 's computer became self aware it wrote:
To non followers of football it doesn't appear to have a flow, but it really does. You just have to know a little about the sport to get into the flow. ---------------------------- "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." Homer J. Simpson
Craig Winckler Icq #21456614
Proud to attend The University of Minnesota, home of the Spankalogical Protocol
This a _very_ American trait - a peculiarity that is not shared by Europeans (at least not to such extremes).
Since you can't compare Baseball (Wrold Series, indeed :P) and AmFootball to any of the real sports [1] out there, you have to go to motor sports to see how very differently they are handled. NASCAR and CART are _much_ more obsessed with things like average speed, number of lead changes, etc. than Formula 1 or the Touring Car series.
CountV
[1] I know, I know - flame away, but it's rather sad that the most popular sport in the world, bar none (football aka soccer) gets such short shrift in the US, not to mention the fate that befalls the world's most popular motor sport in lieu of drivers turning left, turning left, turning left, turning left, turning left, turning left, etc....
You may - I will take the role of Indignant European.
I think you Americans know 'too much going on for my attention span' when you see it.
I'll give you that, any day of the week.
Not that that sentence is in any way indicatory of any reality. A 1-0 lead is always precarious, even if you are Juventus playing some kids off the street.
FWIW, I used to defend AmFootball to friends back in Europe who thought it was boring and pointless. It has its own charm, and I won't deny that.
My _main_ gripe about the American sports is; Football - too few games per team/season, Baseball - far too many.
Pardon me whilst I swoop down from my lurk perch to mention NBA Basketball, where the San Antonio Spurs have just SWEPT the Los Angeles Lakers in the Semis. Believe me CountV, if you watch the Spurs in action on the court you will be a changed man. The talent, the grace, the sportsmanship, the TEAMWORK, the modesty and class of the San Antonio Spurs will open your eyes and your heart.
American Football is an extremely physical game, about 1 game a week is probably about all most people can take. Baseball there is far far too many games in the season.
Why do you think there are "too many" games (one hundred sixty-two) in major league baseball's regular season? If you mean that you get sick and tired of seeing and hearing about baseball from April through mid-October, okay, you're not a fan and I get the same way about basketball so I can understand, but if you think that the number of games is bad from a sporting viewpoint I'm curious as to why.
Since I first stated this, I will answer why _I_ feel this way.
It has to do with the fact that when the series runs so long, each individual game becomes almost insignificant in the big picture (until such time as the pretentiosuly named World Series comes along, that is). One could argue that, yes, it will more honestly show each team's actual skill in relation to the others, there being a greater statistical basis for it.
The fact remains, that once you go over 40 or so games per season in a given sport, each individual game becomes rather ho-hum - it is yet another game, and not until such time as something is actually riding on it (usually some statistical fact, like most RBI's or home runs or somesuch) does it become in any way pivotal.
Whereas, in AmFootball, _each_ game is pivotal, and a bad run in the first three games is almost guaranteed to make a team's chances to reach the top of the charts close to nil.
Both of these systems detract markedly from any interest I might have in the games myself, since they kill some of the excitement of watching it, regaining it only once the playoffs roll around.
Ah, but if you're a fan, the individual game itself is why enough. That's why people will still be at Marlins/Expos games in September (provided, of course, that there are any games in September where Florida and Montreal play each other) - they love the game and they love their team.
Yeah, what he said. Pretty much sums it up -- either you're a fan of the game or you aren't.
-- William December Starr
It may be that baseball is, under close analysis, pointless. What seems apparent to me is that close analysis is pointless. The game is there. It is the best game there is. That's all I need to know.
Baseball might not be the '100% in your face, constant motion, non-stop action from start to finish' sport that, say, hockey is, but that doesn't mean it's boring by any stretch.
Unless you either don't like (or don't understand) the game, you can recognize the games within 'the game', and you see more than just a a guy throwing a ball to another guy. *That*, I agree, would be boring.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
I understand the game quite well and still find it a bore. There is all kinds of "game within a game" strategy but it still comes down to most of the game being people standing around waiting for something to happen. If you find that fun to watch you can have it.
That reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer was at the baseball game after giving up beer and he says to himself, "I never realized how boring this game is." or something to that effect. (And I do enjoy baseball, despite its slow pace, but that is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.)
One thing that might be missed in all of this is the importance of the local newscasts on major Fox affiliates.
The Fox affiliates with local news would much rather have the 7 PM (Eastern) show be pre-empted rather than see the whole line-up start late. If their news is pushed back, they lose the advantage many of them have: being the earlier news in the market.
If I might use Philadlephia as an example: when WTXF starts their news at or around 10:30, there's a big drop off from their normal ratings. And when they start it at 11:00? Forget about it. They are demolished by the market leader.
In fact, Fox specifically scheduled their sports coverage to run until 7:30 partway through last season for weeks with double header games. (Trust me, working for TV Guide, I had to deal with lots of these scenarios.)
Eastern and Central affiliates do have problems associated with the overrun of football coverage. And scheduling sitcoms instead of the utterly expendable "World's (UN)Funniest" will make it harder to collapse the schedule. The trade off comes in the form of higher ratings, and thus more $$.
Once you get to Mountain & Pacific affiliates, the overrun doesn't matter as much to Fox--the ffiliates will usually be cutting into a lower-cost syndie show scheduled specifically to be cut down if needed. The network schedule starts on time, so there's no loss.
And, for amusement sake, there's Hawaii, where football begins in the early hours of the morning, and ends at about 1 PM. The Fox affiliate there has no problem with a schedule shift, that's for sure. (What a strange feeling it was turing on the TV on a Sunday morning at 8 AM and seeing live football coverage.)
THIS IS A FUTURAMA NEWS GROUP!! IF YOUR THREAD GETS THIS BIG, GO HOME AND EMAIL EACH OTHER TILL YOU TURN BLUE! WE DO NOT WANNA READ YOUR CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WATCHED I LOVE LUCY. .. . . SHE'S DEAD! GO BENDER!!! WHOOOOO HOOOOOOO!!! "SMACK "
Bad example. Since the "Purge of 98", the Marlins are having serious trouble putting fans' butts in the seats. By September, they will have lost 100 games already, and Joe Robbie Stadium will be virtually empty for the last few games of the season.
The Dodgers, on the other hand, draw 35,000+ 81 times a year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[email]
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
Considering how many teams threatened a move to Tampa before they landed the Devil Rays, I would've thought Tampa would be a baseball mecca. I wonder how long it'll be before the D-Rays start saying they need a new stadium to compete.
That statement makes you appear clueless.It is common mathematical logic that the more games are played the more likely the best teams will come out on top.Thats the reason for the long season.Also baseball is different from say football in that football is compared to a 16 part miniseries while baseball is a long novel in which each days game is like one page in a long continuous story.They are very different yet very complimentary which is why it is the most popular combination among American sports fans.
As far as the sarcastic comment about the name of the "world series",baseball is an American sport therefore it is only logical to assume that the American champion is the best team in the world. Especially when you consider that when the name was created in 1903 very very few other countries even played baseball.
Which was exactly what I said. That was not my complaint at all. Reread this; "One could argue that, yes, it will more honestly show each team's actual skill in relation to the others, there being a greater statistical basis for it."
I am saying that each individual game then becomes an insiginficant part of a greater whole, even if it is more 'honest', or whatever you wish to call it.
True enough - it is still presumption of the highest order, since it assumes that no other country will at any point rise to the level of ebing able to compete with the US.
Now that both Cuba and Japan are playing the game on a regular basis, should they be invited to join in in the World Series?
Actually, "American" Major League Baseball includes two Canadian teams, the Toronto Bluejays and the Montreal Expos. Montreal has never been very good, but Toronto won a World Series, truly one with international flavor.
How could you expect U.S. military men to put the flag on right side up? That was not one of our nation's proudest moments. Of course, in my hometown of Amarillo, Texas, the Potter County Courthouse flew the Chilean flag for an entire day with few people noticing (the Chilean flag is similar to the Texas flag). Also, the college I went to had many signs with the name of a building misspelled and no one apparently noticed for almost two years (The building is called "Northen Hall", but the signs pointed the way to "Northern Hall".)
Having that many games makes the regular season less important (same with the NBA) and drags out the playoffs till close to Halloween when the football season is well underway. With the NBA it will probably be mid June before a final champion is determined, basketball used to be a winter sport but not anymore, seems it stretches close to the start of summer. (same problem with the NHL).
In a nutshell I don't like the very long seasons that some sports have. The NFL while they have expanded the playoffs somewhat does seem to have a more compact season than the others.
Since baseball still allows "only" eight of its thirty teams into the post-season, I'd say that the regular season is more important there than it is in an "everybody except the absolute dregs gets into the playoffs" sport like the NBA or, to a lesser degree (I think) the NHL.
I _can_ see the argument for tightening up the season a bit -- AND doing away with the first round of the playoffs and flushing that godawful wild card concept -- so as to get the World Series done before the first frost. (Note also that the NFL has in recent years moved up the date on which it kicks off its regular season. I may be misremembering, but I _think_ I recall days when the only pro football that conflicted with baseball were exhibition games.)
Because, as I said earlier, the lords of those sports seem to think that the playoffs should be an entire season of their own. Bleah.
How does having many games make the regular season less important? The 162-game schedule is what allows baseball to have a fairly compact (compared to other sports) postseason, although if you ask many baseball fans, the playoffs are too open (8 teams out of 30 is a little much after a 162-game season).
It's having too many playoffs that makes the regular season less important - playing for the wild card is a disgusting concept. Interleauge play (whether you're talking baseball, basketball, football, whatever) doesn't help, either - a Red Sox/Braves World Series (hey, Boston will be in 1st till at least Friday) isn't quite as exciting if they've already met during the regular season.
On Tue, 25 May 1999 22:41:01 -0500, "Bael Zar" wrote:
Well, everyone deserves a vacation once in a while. Last night was the Blazers. :)
Tomorrow night, back in Portland, it'll be time to go back to work.
(OTOH, I've been saying for the last month that, if Portland didn't win it, I'm rooting for the Spurs. Especially with all those formar Blazers playing for them.)
I have tried to give Soccer a fair shake but the game bores me a lot. Its just too chaotic to try and follow it, I have the same problem with hockey but I understand that just a little bit better.
I guess I like games that a least look organized and not just a bunch of people running helter skelter on a field.
Soccer in other countries takes on nationalistic and political overtones that causes the fans to get so out of hand.
Well, professional sports in the US (i.e., baseball and football) take on regionalistic overtones that cause the fans to ... boil their blood and say stupid things. I heard about a Dallas Cowboys fan who says his blood is colored blue and silver (Dallas' colors).
Still, you can take your kids out to the ball game without having to worry about roving packs of skinheads or other hooligans whose _only_ aim is to get into fights.
Since The US is such a violent society on the whole, this discrepancy between US and Europe surprises me, but it _is_ nice to see that sports can be enjoyed in a _fairly_ civilized way.
Speaking of the Cowboys and colors. I noticed that Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys owner) production company (that produces pre-season games and the coach's and owner's shows) is called the "Silver Star Network", but the Star on the Cowboys helmet is blue. I think I am going to write (another) nasty letter to Mr. Jones. (But yes, there are many regional rivalries that are brought on by sports. But there are a number of fans of U.S. Sports who are fans of teams from other areas. For example, I live in Dallas and despise the Dallas Cowboys and Dallas Mavericks since I am (was) a fan of the HOUSTON Oilers and San Antonio Spurs. So, where I live doesn't dictate my choice of teams necessarily. But if I am watching a nation vs. nation sporting event, I am always going to root for the U.S.)
But for many people who've moved, where they USED to live can dictate choice of teams. I live in the San Francisco/ Oakland market, so our local baseball teams are the San Francisco Giants and Oakland A's. But my father grew up near Pittsburgh, so he's a major Pittsburgh Pirates fan and usually roots for them over the Giants when they play each other. I think this is similar to your story of liking Houston despite being in the Dallas market.
I think that is true, though, in my case with the Oilers, there was a different reason I chose them to follow when I was a child since I never have actually lived in Houston (Earl Campbell, for the most part, though wanting to root for a team in Texas that wasn't the Dallas Cowboys who EVERYBODY rooted for was a big factor, too). People have different reasons for choosing teams to root for, though I would say that more often than not people pick the team in their region or city to root for. (I had a freind who became a Chiefs fan as a kid because he had bought a bunch of football cards and by chance happened to get more Chiefs cards than any other team's.)
Big Big difference is that it rarely if ever turns into violent confrontations like with soccer. I can't remember the last time I heard of someone getting killed at a football or baseball game by rival gangs of fans like with soccer.
Now, while football is most assuredly not my game (the only sports I have much real interest in are Red Sox baseball and my younger brother's HS/college basketball), and I will tease my friends who do follow the game relentlessly...
Watching the highlights or reading a box score isn't _close_ to watching sports live. While non-fans may find it hard to understand, that game is a drama, with highs and lows and occaisionally spectacular payoffs.
As an example: Last year, my brother and I went to the Red Sox home opener. The pitching matchup was Randy Johnson for the Mariners vs. Tim Wakefiled for the hometeam, so already you're looking at this nifty contrast. The M's are leading, 7-2, going into the bottom of the ninth, when the Sox completely destroy Lou Pinella's bullpen, ending with a walk-off grand slam by Mo Vaughn. I talked with some folks who gave up on the game, only to read about it in the paper later, and they cursed their impatience.
Similarly, a couple of years ago, when Roger Clemens returned to Fenway for the first time as a Blue Jay, he was opposed by Aaron Sele. It was a great mentor/student matchup, and Sele matched the Rocket out for out until late in the game - it was incredible to watch, even on TV.
What's the point here? A ticker, or a highlight, or SportsCenter, can only show you _facts_. It cannot capture what that moment means to the players, the fans, etc. And for a sports fan, there's little more exciting, or horrifying, than a late-in-the-game change of fortunes or the finale of a game that's gone down to the wire. What you miss in a staged program with make-believe people doesn't come close.
And _that_ is why I don't complain when sports mess up my favorite programs, even if it is something as obnoxious as football or NBA basketball, because someone out there is getting a whole lot more out of the game than I'd be getting out of the alternative.
because a 12:00 football game would air at 9:00 on the west coast and the NFL wouldn't want to risk losing more of its west coast viewers with an earlier time slot. Witness MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL.
Beginning last year, the network showing the doubleheader that day starts its second game at 4:15 Eastern, so the second game should end by 7:30 (overtime notwithstanding). The 7 PM show is usually pre-empted rather than shifting the entire Sunday night by 30 minutes. (Usually, if the time shift is 30 minutes or more anyway, one of the half-hour shows is pre-empted. In one rare case, they moved a 7:30 show to 10:00.)
On the west coast, shows are shown at their normal time, and any show pre-empted in the east is not shown in the west - the affiliates are told to show a syndicated show.
Has it been 30 years since the Heidi Bowl? (In the late 1960s, NBC cut away from a New York Jets - Oakland Raiders game to start the movie "Heidi" on time, only for the Raiders to score two touchdowns in the final two minutes to win.) CBS had a similar problem with a golf tournament a few years ago, when they stopped showing a sudden-death playoff to start "60 Minutes".
Also realize one thing: football games usually get higher ratings than the usual 7:00 shows, and if a football game runs into prime time, it does count as a show for prime-time ratings purposes.
Two reasons. One, 12-3 in the east means starting games at 9 AM in the west (and "the west" includes Las Vegas - and despite the NFL (supposedly) trying to cut the link between the league and gambling, the TV networks know better). Two, quite a bit of the country still considers Sunday morning "God's time", and then by the time you eat lunch, it's close to 1 PM...
On Fri, 21 May 1999 04:09:35 GMT, [email] (Don Del Grande) wrote:
Right, but the problem is, that before it was World's Funniest, which was an easy show to join in progress. Now you have 2 sitcoms which you can't join in progress. The 7pm program will probably just be preempted and FOX Sports will fill to 730pm. However, if it runs past 7:30pm - I wonder what they'll do with King of the Hill - they can't join it in progress - they will most likely slide prime.
Silly goose, that's standard operating procedure for all network Sunday games. CBS does it, Fox does it and NBC did when they had football. Why? So that every East Coast market is on the same schedule for primetime -- there's only one network feed for the East Coast...
I've heard it supposed to be a condensed, half-hour version of the show. Will this just be short versions of the hour-long episodes, or totally original episodes? I'm curious about that.
Apparently, it will be a half hour of series outtakes. Which can get old rather quick, and therefore, appears to be nothing but filler.
Ondre J. Lombard * [email] *
S1.2 OFF+++ LIS++> BOB++ TEE++ f+++ - Always remember that you're never
n+ w ; 7G11, 7F07, 7F12, 8F06, 8F08 - alone when you're a schizophrenic.
9F11, 2F15, 3F22, 5F17, 5F18 ; M17 - "Poughkeepsie."
"Sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making
someone else feel bad. And I'm tired of making other people feel
good about themselves."
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I hope it has the same fate the condensed half-hour version of Knight Rider suffered in syndication.
On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:19:46 GMT, [email] (Dancer) wrote:
First off, BIG kudos goes out to fox for their Sunday line up. If Bravo keeps the awful truth at 9pm sundays, thats two straight hours of TV goodness. Haven't watched 2 straight hours of TV in years.
I am sad to see PJs pass on but maybe it will come back...
What? Futurama, King of the Hill, and The Simpsons, all on Sunday night? You mean somebody at Fox actually has a modicum of common sense?
Someone has to explain this "re-packaged Ally" concept, because the one description I read didn't explain it very well.
Well, well... and they said Seth MacFarlane was the "golden boy", and Matt Groening was the "difficult child"... But Groening gets his Sunday night timeslot, and Macfarlane is relegated to Thursdays. It might not be so bad, since NBC's Thursday night competition isn't nearly as strong... "Frasier" people and "Family Guy" people don't exactly mix.
I hope it's real... mostly. Where are the P.J.s? WHERE are those P.J.s? In the middle of the end of a dead-end one-way street?
"Malcolm" seems to be the obligatory sacriface to NFL runovers. Since, unlike "World's Funniest", Fox can't just chop half the program without harming the episode, will this show be preempted every other week, or will the entire Sunday scheudle start late, as it did in '94 and '95? I'm assuming that "Malcolm" isn't very good, or Fox wouldn't have put it in that position.
Otherwise, I'm delighted that KOTH and Futurama are back on Sundays.
This has to be the first time ever that a network has scheudled two episodes of the same series per week, one an hour long and one a half hour long. If it clicks (which I doubt), expect the half hour "Ally" to get local syndication, while the hour version is on cable only (probably FX or Fox Family).
"Action" is supposed to toe the profanity line even more than "NYPD Blue". This isn't the first time Fox has done something like this. A few years back, they had a short lived show called "DEA" (I think), where the characters actually said the F and S words. Fox bleeped them out. Fox is either disappointed with "Family Guy"'s ratings, concerned with the increasing number of tasteless jokes, or both.
It's a good scheudle, though they will probably stay mired in fourth next season. The biggest suprise was the lack of "PJ's", espically since I thought it had already been renewed. Fox will probably bring it back as a midseason replacement.
Mark Richey
**************************************************************************
Coming very soon--The all-new and improved Mark Richey Homepage!
Check out the reconstruction
http://web2.airmail.net/~mrichey
On Thu, 20 May 1999 06:51:51 GMT, [email] (Mark Aaron Richey) wrote:
Mired in 4th? Total viewers, maybe, but FOX could give a rat's ass about total viewers. They want A18-49 - which they go back and forth with ABC for #2. Until this May, they were closing in on NBC for #1.
FOX has no thought to be #1 in total viewers - since a majority of those viewers are 50+ - CBS can have them.
In all honesty, I can't fathom why no network wouldn't want to be #1 in total viewers. And the advertisers view that no one under 40 counts is shockingly shortsighted. Do advertisers really think that, once someone hits 50, he/she no longer goes out and buy stuff?
The argument for that is that older Americans have already developed brand loyality, and can no longer be influenced. Poppycock! I know several older people (parents, grandparents, family friends) who don't really have loyality to any one brand at all. In addition, many older Americans have more disposable income than 18-49's.
With the Baby Boomers beginning to move into retirement age, I fully expect that advertisers and networks will soon wake up and realize that simply focusing on 18-49 results in increasingly smaller ratings and smaller revenues.
Cable channels can afford to focus on niche groups because they are supplimited by access rates and advertisers expect smaller audiences. Networks don't have that luxury. They need to go after the widest possible audience possible.
If Fox has no problems staying number 4 in total viewers, that's their problem. But with five networks going after the same small audience, CBS, which actually tries to program for everybody, from kids to adults, will emerge as the overall winner year after year. It won't be long before the advertisers wake up as well.
Mark Richey, 28 years away from turning 50. ************************************************************************** Coming very soon--The all-new and improved Mark Richey Homepage! Check out the reconstruction http://web2.airmail.net/~mrichey
I believe the advertisers feel that ad bucks spent on people 50+ are mostly wasted cause they aren't as receptive to ads.
Are those disloyal customers primarily price-conscious? It's not like big companies /want/ to see their products viewed as commodities differentiated only by price.
grumble grumble baby boomers pulling the whole mainstream culture around by the nose grumble.
It would not surprise me to find out that advertisers /do/ market research and find that advertising to who they target is most effective...
On Thu, 20 May 1999 19:57:48 GMT, [email] (Mark Aaron Richey) wrote:
Its not that they don't want to, its just that Adults over 50 watch a lot more TV than anyone else and skew total viewer averages. FOX doesn't appeal to that demo group - even if they had Touched By An Angel - it wouldn't do the same total viewers that it does on CBS, due to station history market by market, image of the network itself, etc. etc.
No one thinks they can no longer be influenced - but it is true, despite your best intentions, that advertising works more on younger people. Plus, advertisers have a much easier time reaching 50+, while a much more difficult time reaching 18-49, and will pay more to reach them.
18-49 is not a niche, I'm afraid to tell you -that covers 31 years of age. A niche is Sci-Fi, home gardening. Sure, programming to demos can be dangerous - but FOX has to build from what it has. It didn't get to where it is by simply programming to the lowest common demoninator - it found an unserved audience and built from there.
CBS tries to program to everyone? News to me, why is their average age over 50 years old? You think because they have Kids Say the Darndest things they want kids - that show is mostly watched by old adults - not kids. Their movies are old skewing - I would say the network that covers the most age groups is ABC. With 20/20, TGIF, Spin City, Drew Carey, Disney Movies, Football, etc. - they have the best mix of ages - that shows in that the reach a higher percentage of viewers than anyone else.
If the advertisers wake up, that will guide the networks - but that doesn't change FOX - they are going after a broad audience, but not everyone - that's just not possible anymore.
Because in an age of 50+ channels, you simply aren't going to hook something even approaching everyone. Even back in the late Seventies (when I was last living in the US), when most people had ten or twelve channels, there were precious few things that _everyone_ watched. Coming from Sweden, where we had only two channels, and where a particualr show was often fodder for school/work discussions, I found it verydisorienting at first to not have this commonality to fall back on.
Even major events like the Superbowl don't draw the numbers they used to, because there is simply toomuch to choose from for one show to have the kind of saturation that things like I Love Lucy or the game shows of the Fifties did.
Again why not? The "age of 100 channels" is just a buzz word that stations use to justify what they're doing. There is NO reason not to have broad appeal shows. Not trying is the best way of not having one (just as NBC's lack of trials for dramas meant that a show with less than stellar ratings like Providence appears like the best drama they've had in years).
"everyone" has never watched anything. What I'm talking about is broad-appeal shows like ER.
Hey, I'm sure they _would_ have 'broad appeal' shows if they _could_. Do you seriously think they _choose_ to market to a niche, if there was any possibility that they could snag, say, 75% of all viewers during a given hour?
I know that I watch a lot of basic cable instead of network shows, and since there are channels that cater to most any specific taste (my fianc�e, for instance, watches amost exclusively X-Files on FX and Law and Order on A&E), this breaks up the viewing public into smaller groups. Hell, I watch more Comedy Central than any of the networks.
Niche marketing is simply the solution to the thinning market - by targeting specific groups, they can show the demographics to advertisers who want exposure in specific subsets of the population. Since a company like Levis, say, appeals _mostly_ to the 15-35's, it is _better_ for them to pay for less viewers, but more of the _right_ viewers (hence the relative financial success of shows like Dawson's and Buffy, which make a _lot_ more for WB than their actual share would indicate).
The moon landing? I Love Lucy? There was definitely a time when I'd say that 80% of all viewers at a given time were tuned into one specific show.
Yes, I actually seriously think they do choose (wrongly) to market to a niche. They are so convinced that because of the "100 channel universe" they have to appeal to niches, that they do not even try anymore. That's the same type of reasoning that made NBC "give up" on dramas a few years back (when Jag was their only new drama) and now bulk up on dramas. There is what I would call "hip thinking" for lack of a better term where buzzwords are more important than actual reality.
The rush to put logo bugs on-screen is also a result of that buzzword thinking. MArketing theory teaches that it is a good thing to construct a POSITIVE association between brand and product called "branding". Stripped to just the buzzword, the networks put their brands on everything regardless of the NEGATIVE effect it has.
That's not what networks are about. It is a clever marketing plan on the part of wanna-bes. If the networks (as they are doing right now) "stoop" to that level, they will become irrelevent.
As I posted before Madison Avenue is run by people who put network execs to shame as far as being blided by hype is concerned. It's too bad they have so much influence on television.
Not really. I think the highest (or one of the highest at any rate) rated show was the series finale of Mash that had about a 50 rating if I remember correctly.
You are forgetting that in the days of "I Love Lucy" there were only three networks - NBC, ABC and CBS. Unless you lived in a big city, you'd be lucky to have two out of three of those channels. That means that what was on, you watched. Shows like "I Love Lucy" probably often snagged upwards to ninety percent of viewers.
Neither do I,and that mindset is shifting - but I constantly reminded by viewer calls and ratings about how the majority of TV viewer's minds work. If you look market by market - there is a definite relation to the history of that station in the market and its strength in the ratings. WPVI in Philadelphia, an ABC affiliate, has been killing the competition for years in all dayparts.
However, this mindset is shifting to more program oriented viewing. However, every station/network has a certain image and certain brand - viewers know generally what type of show they will get when they turn to a particular station.
On Fri, 21 May 1999 11:56:41 GMT, [email] (Dancer) wrote:
The same may hold true with ABC's WLS-TV in Chicago. When I last visited in '96, their newscast was the worst of all the network O&O's in Chicago (this was before the Jerry Springer/WMAQ fiasco). But, the station is #1 in the market and has been for years.
I disagree with you on one term: aren't the average viewers of "Late Show with David Letterman" somewhat younger than those of "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" or "Nightline?" I believe that Letterman would do better on ABC or FOX than he is on CBS because of the net's "geriatric" reputation.
Just 'cause CBS is the only network that really seems to be preserving inoffensive programming doesn't mean it caters only to old people anymore. Their successful comedies appeal probably to 30 year olds (Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens... though Cosby and Becker probably appeal to old coots like Grampa Simpson who have a constant problem with the world.) Though Diagnosis: Murder does seem to be the latest "Matlock," in that it appeals to old people.
I can't really stand any of the broadcast networks besides Fox (which is ironic considering how many deplorable politics surround the network). The only show I watch on ABC is "The Practice"; the only show I watch on NBC is "Frasier" and the only show I watch on WB is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I could combine all these shows on one network and let the rest of them drop off the face of the Earth. :) (Especially UPN. I would like something to assassinate that reluctant dare called a network.)
Ondre J. Lombard * [email] *
S1.2 OFF+++ LIS++> BOB++ TEE++ f+++ - Always remember that you're never
n+ w ; 7G11, 7F07, 7F12, 8F06, 8F08 - alone when you're a schizophrenic.
9F11, 2F15, 3F22, 5F17, 5F18 ; M17 - "Poughkeepsie."
"Sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making
someone else feel bad. And I'm tired of making other people feel
good about themselves."
On Sat, 22 May 1999 07:00:37 GMT, Ondre Lombard wrote:
"Raymond" and "King of Queens" might be bringing some younger viewers to CBS, but not a whole lot (their a distant number 4 in 18-49). CBS's promotional machine has as much to do with it as well - they're not as bold or dynamic as NBC, FOX, ABC, and even The WB when it comes to promoting their programs.
I also watch FOX more than the other broadcast nets (and yes, the "When Trains Collide with Ford Pintos" specials that cause controversy), but I do watch CBS for Letterman and occasionally Craig Kilborn, NBC for Conan O'Brien, and The WB for "Dawson's Creek" sometimes. I can't stand anything on ABC or the dreadful UPN (may this be their final season).
Maybe that's why he's on CBS. Letterman always pokes fun at his network as the worst one out there, and CBS is naturally the worst for his youthful audience.
On Sat, 22 May 1999 05:23:43 GMT, [email] (Eric Stein) wrote:
We're talking about prime time, however. The average age of the late night viewer in general is lower than it is in prime time- that's a little skewed.
On Mon, 24 May 1999 12:19:23 GMT, [email] (Dancer) wrote:
But, doesn't the older CBS lead-ins bring viewers to each CBS affiliate's newscast, which leads to Letterman, and the same for NBC/Leno and ABC/Nightline? I know the average CBS viewer doesn't stay up late enough for Letterman or Kilborn - my point was to say that the younger-skewing late-night shows on CBS would perform much better on ABC or FOX (NBC is committed to Leno and Conan, so I count them out).
Huh? on what grounds would that be? Plus, you're talking about 2 different things here. One is the Prime Time network - which is entertainment driven, that historically appeals to persons between the ages of 18 and 49 mainly. The licence, I assume refers to TV stations ability to air product. Then you're in a different scheme - FOX only owns 22 stations, there are about 180 FOX stations around the country. FOX only programs 49 hours a week (including kids, not including sports) - what about the other 119 hours?
Local stations makeup varies market to market -exactly what are you talking about?
Why is it insulting? The shows that do the best in total viewers are so dumb-downed they're hard to watch. Those are insulting to anyone with a brain (like Touched By An Angel - which I find offensive on many levels, the goofy mini-series like Noah's Ark and Atomic Train as well)
FOX, has grown its average age of viewer year after year. Its somwhere around 33 or 34 years old. CBS has tried year after year to bring theirs down, but its still around 50 years old.
I'm not saying FOX is sitting there developing shows making sure they completely avoid the 50+ group. If there were #1 in total viewers, they would be extremely happy. However, even if FOX put on programmed that appealed to the lowest common demoniator, as you seem to want (and I find highly offensive) - it would get the draw that it would on CBS.
If you put Ally McBeal on CBS and Walker, TX Ranger on FOX - neither show would do as well as they do on their real networks.
Every network tries to fill a need every night, the hope is that when all is said and done, there is programming for every age group - and for the most part there is night after night.
You haven't really made your point clear or what it is that offends you. That's my difficulty understanding what you're talking about.
According to your posts, the WB should be banned everywhere- next fall they'll be the teen network every single night (except Monday).
On Thu, 20 May 1999 06:51:51 GMT, [email] (Mark Aaron Richey) wrote:
One of the reasons why FOX chose to keep "KOTH," "Futurama," and "Family Guy" on their schedule was because FOX actually owns a part of every one of those shows, and therefore gets a larger percentage of the profits from each show - "The PJ's" are owned by Disney/Touchstone. IMHO, I won't miss The PJ's that much - it's a waste of Eddie Murphy's talent.