Baseball Toaster The Juice Blog
Help
Societal Critic at Large: Scott Long
Frozen Toast
Search
Google Search
Web
Toaster
The Juice
Archives

2009
02  01 

2008
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2007
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2006
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2005
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2004
12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

2003
12  11  10  09 
E-mail

scott@scottlongonline.com

Personally On the Juice
Scott Takes On Society
Comedy 101
Kick Out the Jams (Music Pieces)
Even Baseball Stories Here
Link to Scott's NSFW Sports Site
Can the MLB Network Kickstart Baseball's National Presence?
2008-03-01 09:36
by Scott Long

I appear on local sports radio on a regular basis and I try to prepare some specific material for each market. One thing I've noticed over the past couple of years is how little baseball is discussed. Outside of strong traditional baseball towns like New York, Boston, St. Louis and Cincinnati, very rarely is MLB the topic, unless the steroids thing is being discussed or the playoffs are happening. Nationally, it is even more this way, as ESPN and Fox Sports radio are driven around the NFL. Their market research shows that outside of NCAA tourney time, when most or their listeners have hoops pools which create a vested interest, football is what drives callers. This is why ESPN radio has former player Mike Golic doing the morning show, Colin "All I Really Like to Talk about is Gridiron" Cowherd following him, and Kirk Herbstreit and Mike Tirico doing afternoons. Fox radio is just as NFL-centric, with football savant Steve Czaban hosting the morninng show and fomer players James Washington and Bryan Cox co-hosting programs later in the day. While MLB is experiencing record attendance, you would hardly know it if you turned on sports radio or cable sports network.

I think the NFL Network's existence has caused the league to find events to promote itself 365 days a year, as last week's Cattle auction, I mean NFL Combine proved. In the past, I have been ripped at the Juice Blog for discussing how certain things happening, like last year's NL Championship, were bad for MLB's growth, but I am concerned that the game is losing its National fanbase. With the increasing popularity of sports like NASCAR and Mixed Martial Arts, baseball is losing traction with younger generations.. Baseball purists like Bob Costas have ripped Inter-league play and the Wild Card playoff teams, but these things have helped create more interest in the game. I can respect the basis for being a traditionalist, but not using forward-thinking is the reason that Costas has spent the past decade covering the NFL, the NBA, and the Olympics, and has had no involvement with MLB. There is very little time devoted for baseball on network television.

Personally, I wouldn't need anything to change in baseball, as I love the game just the way it is...but I grew up in a generation where baseball was as popular, if not more than football. The marketing of the game by NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle started the ball rolling for the incredible growth of professional football, while at the same time, MLB had nitwits like Bowie Kuhn running its game. I'm not a major fan of Bud Selig, but most of the changes in the game that have happened during his tenure have been positive. I don't see where any new revenue growth from the game can come, though, unless the new MLB Network connects and brings new interest in the sport. Selig has kept his job by exploiting every revenue source possible, even if it wasn't good for the long-term success of the game. With the advent of MLB Network, this would have been a great time for a new commissioner to come in. Someone with a sports marketing background who would be a positive face for MLB, instead of the Droopy Dog persona of Selig. I have to believe that if the baseball owners would have hired Roger Goodell a few years back, their sport would be making more strides in gaining traction on the national sports landscape.

When the MLB Network kicks off in 2009, it will be a chance for MLB to redefine itself and bring in new fans. Unlike the NFL, which can be heavy-handed in the way it deals with the cable networks because of its immense popularity and the power of its 16 game schedule, MLB was smart to partner with the cable and satellite companies to get in as many homes as possible. The sport needs to steal some of the great talent at NFL Films to put together clip packages that can show baseball in a compelling way. It needs to hire some dynamic personalities who are allowed to take on the players and owners, as there are too many choices out there on the cable/satellite landscape to have a Network of company men. NBA commissioner David Stern has been smart in not trying to oust a ticking time bomb like outspoken Charles Barkley from TNT and even has torch thrower Peter Vescey on the league's own NBA TV. MLB needs to follow his example. A network filled with Cal Ripken-types might seem initially like a good marketing plan, but it won't hold viewers. I would like to see guys like David Wells and Curt Schilling give their takes on a regular basis. I'm not holding my breath, though, as no ownership group in sports has been more thin-skinned than baseball owners. If MLB wants to connect itself to younger generations, it's new network must be willing to embrace controversy. Otherwise, it will be just another MLB platform that narrowcasts itself to a rabid, but small group of fanatics that I am a part of. I want to see the game I love be something my son can be as excited about as I am.

Comments
2008-03-01 11:44:41
1.   Bob Timmermann
NFL Films does have an easier job in presenting in highlights packages because the sport it covers is more cinematic. All the players colliding and the colors on the field make for a dramatic sight.

Baseball has its players spread out over a wider area so it's hard to figure out just what the camera should focus on.

Also, NFL Films is a nice medium for analyzing Xs and Os for the people who want it.

Baseball on TV often fails to present one of the most crucial parts of the game, i.e., the positioning of the fielders. Not many people appreciate just where a shortstop is standing or where the right fielder is playing.

But I think the Baseball Network will have an advantage over the NFL Network in that it has so much more inventory to work with. 15 games a day for much of the week gives people a lot to talk about. Even if there are going to be about 18 Pittsburgh-Houston games in a season.

2008-03-01 12:30:57
2.   Scott Long
Agreed on some levels, but then look at what sport has made better cinema. Baseball has always been stuck on a traditional level, not exploring the personalities on the field. The nfl gave us hank stram...where was dugout film of earl weaver or billy martin. Don't pretend that football coaches are less profane.

This week in baseball was just a highlight clips presentation, where nfl films prented a story. Their documentary series on the super bowl champs, america's game, needs to be used as an example. It is time to make the game more accessible. I think there is a place for a more sabermetrical approach on 24 hour network....baseballprospetus should get a show, but it is more important to grow the personalities of the game. This singular focus of the media on steroids in the sport needs to have better perspective. The lack of a decent marketing scheme for the game has not helped.

2008-03-01 13:19:02
3.   Bob Timmermann
I agree. I hope that the Baseball Network isn't Billy Sample interviewing Cal Ripken with Harold Reynolds saying something unintelligible.

Perhaps the Baseball Network will have guys working for it who actually like baseball unlike Fox, which just seems to tolerate it as a tool to promote "House."

2008-03-01 15:02:32
4.   joejoejoe
I think part of it is the sheer number of games in baseball. If you are a baseball fan you can just watch games instead of talking about baseball. In NFL football the games are overwhelming focused on Sundays so you have the rest of the week to talk with no action. MLB had 79 million people attend games in '07 vs. 17 million fans at NFL games. MLB plays 2,430 games a year vs. 256 games for the NFL. You can only talk about Jeter going 0-4 with two strikeouts until tomorrow's game. If Farve throws 4 interceptions you can talk about it all week. An individual NFL game is 6% of the season so an individual win or loss has a huge effect on the season. That kind of roller coaster effect lends itself more to hyperanalysis on sports talk radio as opposed to baseball where reactions to individual wins and losses are more muted.
2008-03-01 15:15:37
5.   Scott Long
You make some valid points, Joe, but that still doesn't explain why during its off-season that football still rules attention on most sports media platforms. The NBA is starting to find itself again, with the interesting trades that have happened taking even more attention away from baseball.

The best hitter and the best pitcher of the past 2 decades are being considered criminals, so that is not helping MLB's image. Some serious PR and marketing efforts need to be made, because while the game attendance is good, the TV ratings and overall growth of the game, especially to younger generations is falling flat.

2008-03-01 15:45:52
6.   williamnyy23
4 I think Joe hit the nail on the head for a big reason why MLB isn't as widely discussed on national sports shows. I don't really think that's a big deal anyway...MLB is a local game and I hope it doesn't strive to the more generic (and gambling fueled) appeal of the NFL. Besides, I don't agree with your premise anyway.

Regardless of the talk radio baromoeter, I don't think baseball is losing ground in the media anyway...it's just that the nature of the media is changing, and it is doing so to MLB's advantage.

Ironically, what has always fueled the NFL's economic superiority has been it's limited schedule, which provided more concentrated ratings and therefore higher rights fees. Well, with media moving from an network driven to an internet driven marketplace, MLB looks as if it will have the last laugh. With cable and even more so the internet, content is king and no sport has more than baseball. That's why MLB was able to force the cable company's to include its channel on basic, while the NFL still can't get off pay tier. When the MLB channel launches, it will be the biggest new channel launch in cable history.

The internet, however, is where MLB will leave the NFL in the dust. MLBAM is already the gold standard for sports-related online content, and many financial analysts have pegged its market value at several billion dollars.

MLB has almost caught up to the NFL in terms of revenue, and I predict it will be far ahead within the next 5 years or so. In other words, MLB is still the national pasttime and remains the one sport we care most about (one of the big reasons why steroids in baseball is such a big topic, while the NFL gets off scott free).

2008-03-03 08:08:09
7.   Mike J
I think the year-round NFL talk is a very recent phenomena. Maybe living in Indy has skewed your opinion a bit, but hardly anyone talked about the combine (as it was happening) until the last 3-4 years or so. And free agency talk never seemed that big until the last few years either. There'd be just a blip about signed free agents on SportsCenter. This year's free agency signings seem way bigger news than even last year for some reason.

MLB always seemed to have a far more robust hot stove league than NFL with the postseason awards, GM meetings, free agency, etc. Until a few years ago, the ONLY NFL talk between February and July was the centered around the draft (and that was the only time people actually brought up the combine - 6 weeks after the fact). But draft talk only lasted a week or two and the rest of the offseason was basically dead.

2008-03-03 18:41:53
8.   Scott Long
Many of my baseball pieces discuss things that I think aren't considered by many of the participants at the Toaster. I think there is a mentality among the hardcore baseball fan here that the game is flourishing. Sure the revenues are great, but the place the game holds on a National level continues to decline. The game is not connecting with younger generations and I blame MLB for not doing a better job in appealing to future demographics. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but it reminds me of American car companies who chased higher profits in the short-term by focusing on SUV's, when they knew in the long-term it wasn't going to be a good long-term strategy.
I think MLB has done too many things for the short-term, while not focusing on the long-term.
2008-03-03 18:47:01
9.   Scott Long
I don't think the part of living in Indy has skewed my opinion, as I listed the national radio talk shows and the many other markets I appear on as being the example of how MLB has fallen off the map.

In Indy, the Reds used to be talked about quite a bit, but since their decline and the rise of the Colts, they are almost never discussed.

2008-03-03 19:06:24
10.   Mike J
I was referring specifically to the combine, in regards to living in Indy. It was virtually a non-factor in NFL offseason talk until the last few years. Nobody talked about the combine until the draft. Now it's got its own weekend with dedicated talk shows analyzing the results for weeks.

I agree with you that MLB is not flourishing, despite the attendance records. Well, it's flourishing and making tons of money, but it's clearly becoming the third bananna in the pecking order of national pasttimes.

2008-03-03 19:51:33
11.   chris in illinois
Maybe things are different in my neck of the woods, but kids where I live root for one of three teams: the Cubs, the Cards and the Bears. I don't know how long the Rams have been in St. Louis now, but I've yet to meet a Ram's fan.

Basketball is a non entity in these parts since Jordan retired.

In my little town of 12-13,000 people there are at least 50 youth league teams that play locally and at least half a dozen competitive summer league squads.

I'm not sure that the amount of talk devoted to MLB on talk radio is much of an indicator of how much of the youth market cares for the sports. It seems like baseball is more popular than ever, but that may just be because I live on the mason/dixon line of the Card-Cub 'nations'.

2008-03-04 04:24:09
12.   williamnyy23
8 Again, I don't think you could be any more wrong. Baseball continues to set attendance records, both in the minors and the majors. Also, MLB is way ahead of every other sport in terms of proliferating content on the internet, a medium that clearly skews younger. Finally, MLB is by far the most popular domestic sport among hispanics, which is the fastest growing demographic in the country. What is your basis for saying the game is "in decline"?

The only real evidence that would support your claim are the generic Harris polls that come out each year (although baseball is trending back up in even those). I don't put much weight in those anyway because the poll doesn't seek out a population of sports fan. Instead, it is basically asking the general population what they think is the most popular sport. Judging by the way networks pump up football (for obviosu reasons), it isn't hard to see why many would perceive the NFL is more popular.

Whether its the growing attendance, revenues, online proliferation for even more rabid sentiment over PEDs, I think there are plenty of signs that show why baseball is still at the forefront of national consciousness. Also, if you were to tell the American public that they couldn't place a wager on the NFL, I have a very strong feeling that sport would recede.

9 I think it probably does skew your viewpoint because as a hardcore baseball fan, I would never listen to a national talk show. Baseball is local and fans want to hear about their teams from hosts who know them expertly. I have no interest in listening to an ESPN-type national program that might mention my team for only a few minutes and exhibit a level of knowledge well below mine. By defining a playing field that SHOULD favor the NFL, you are jumping to an erroneous conclusion.

Also, judging by the relative acheivements of the Reds and Colts, I would HOPE that the Colts are getting more play in Indianapolis.

2008-03-04 04:25:19
13.   williamnyy23
10 Third bananna? Even if you wanted to make an argument that NFL is the top bananna, there isn't a second sport close to basbeall.
2008-03-04 04:29:30
14.   williamnyy23
11 In New York, baseball has always been king, so clearly my perspective is going to skew towards baseball. Even while the Giants were making a run to the Super Bowl, Johan Santanna was as prominent a name on local sports talk as Eli Manning. The gulf between MLB and other sports has continued to grow over the past 10 years (the NBA has fallen off the map completely), but, in addition, youth baseball and adult softball are exploding in the metropolitan area. I think that is more a result of the general increasing quality of life in the city since the early 1990s, but still, in New York, baseball is definitely at the top of the heap...king of the hill... A #1.
2008-03-04 12:08:49
15.   jgpyke
One thing you've been saying for years, Scott, and do so again here is that MLB needs to market personalities more. And that could start at the top with a young commish, a Theo Epstein type with new ideas, a marketing whiz. Next, the owners need to let Mark Cuban buy the Cubs. His ascension to MLB owner would change the entire league in many, many ways.

I have noticed how little baseball content makes it to ESPN Radio, et al., and it's unfortunate. The best part of DP's old show was that Dibble was on there, which meant that they talked about baseball a lot.

I think more can be done at the minor league level. MLB teams should pump more money into AA and AAA stadia and marketing. Put these teams in growing cities when possible, and put them downtown (i.e., take advantage of the re-gentrification of downtowns in cities like Birmingham, Charlotte, etc.--the model for this would be Chattanooga). Make the parks beautiful, classy.

2008-03-04 12:15:55
16.   williamnyy23
15 That is already being done. There has been a minor league stadium building boom and corresponding record attendance has followed. Minor league baseball is as popular as it has ever been.

As for ESPN radio having baseball content, well, again, I don't think baseballs turn to ESPN on the radio in the first place (which could be why it doesn't have baseball content). When I want to hear about the Yankees, I turn to WFAN, which has local hosts and local fans. I don't care what Dan Patrick thinks, nor his nationwide audience. That's just how baseball is...it's a local game.

2008-03-04 12:16:41
17.   williamnyy23
16 I don't think baseball fans turn to ESPN on the radio in the first place
2008-03-04 16:26:52
18.   jgpyke
16. That's all fine and dandy if you happen to live in the market where your team plays. I don't, nor do a lot of people.

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but there actually is a world beyond NYC.

2008-03-04 17:44:06
19.   williamnyy23
18 Your sarcasm aside, I am not sure what your point is? In LA, a Dodger fan is more likely to listen to local sports talk. In St. Louis, Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, etc., the same. I am from NY, so that's why I used the specific example. I think my more general point was pretty clear.

As for not living in the market of your team, well, then that might require more of an effort. I am sure one can find local sports talk on the internet and over satellite radio.

2008-03-04 19:57:09
20.   Scott Long
I hear your arguments William, but I think you have a New York bias on the subject. The Yankees rule the city and with the Red Sox are the only teams that consistently get play on the national outlets. I travel all across the country and appear on radio stations in many different cities. Outside of NY, Boston, St. Louis, and Cincy, football dictates most of the local sports talk. Since SoCal doesn't have an NFL team, baseball gets a bigger push, but my experience is that the Lakers are the biggest team there.

Chris happens to live in one of the few smaller city areas that baseball rules. I can't even think of a place in the Midwest or South that has such a strong baseball following as Springfield, IL does. Being such a mix of Cubs/Cardinals fans creates a college football type rivalry for the city. Kind of a rare example. I'm not sure if high school basketball isn't the 3rd most popular sport behind MLB and the NFL in the Springfield area.

The advent of the combine is just another example of how the NFL eats MLB's lunch, as they make their sport a year round focus. Only the Yankees have been able to bring a year-round baseball focus to the general sports fan. Really, if you live in New York or Boston and you don't visit the rest of the country, you really have no understanding of what I'm talking about. There is no sarcasm involved here, it has to do with being outside the Northeast corridor.

Jgpyke and I see eye to eye on his point listed above.
"One thing you've been saying for years, Scott, and do so again here is that MLB needs to market personalities more. And that could start at the top with a young commish, a Theo Epstein type with new ideas, a marketing whiz. Next, the owners need to let Mark Cuban buy the Cubs. His ascension to MLB owner would change the entire league in many, many ways."
Exactly what is needed. And the type of thing that the mostly old boys club which is MLB ownership would fight against.

2008-03-05 03:33:14
21.   chris in illinois
"One thing you've been saying for years, Scott, and do so again here is that MLB needs to market personalities more. And that could start at the top with a young commish, a Theo Epstein type with new ideas, a marketing whiz. Next, the owners need to let Mark Cuban buy the Cubs. His ascension to MLB owner would change the entire league in many, many ways."
Exactly what is needed. And the type of thing that the mostly old boys club which is MLB ownership would fight against.*

Couldn't agree more, especially the Cuban thing...that would be interesting.

Scott, High School basketball would probably be fourth (a close fourth)...high school football has gotten crazy around here. Again my little burg just south of the Capitol has a population of 12-13k, but the last three games versus our biggest rival from Springfield at our place has had attendance figures of 5 to 7 thousand at each game.

To your point though, I had at least ten people ask me about Fukadome on monday alone.

2008-03-05 04:47:01
22.   williamnyy23
20 Again, what is your basis for suggesting that the NFL "eats" MLB's lunch? MLB has always been a year round sport thanks to the hot stove..only now is the NFL also become one thanks to free agency. Events like the MLB Winter Meetings get much more play on national outlets than the NFL combine. Only the NFL draft trumps MLB in terms of the profile of off season content, but that's because of the popularity of college football.

While I agree that in the South particularly, football is likely more popular than baseball, I am not sure why you and others keep dismissing the Northeast (NY, Boston, etc.), Midwest (Chicago, Cincy, St. Louis, etc.) and West (LA, SF, Seattle, etc.). Don't those areas count as well?

Again, however, I think by using talk radio as the barometer, you are making the argument on a battleground that should favor the NFL. It would almost be as if one came the conclusion that the entire country was far right conservative based simply on listening to political talk radio. While I think the country does lean right, simply tuning on the AM dial would give on the impression that Democrats and liberals do not even exist.

While I acknowledge that some of the small towns you have visited might talk more football than baseball, what I am challenging is the general conclusions you are drawing from that. Instead, I would point you toward MLB's growing attendance, revenues and online proliferation as reasons why the sport is not only healthy, but poised to become the most lucrative sports' business in the country. Also, I would point out that MLB rates far ahead of the NFL in terms of popularity among hispanics and asians. All you need to do is look at U.S. census projections to see why that bodes very well for MLB's future.

2008-03-05 04:53:27
23.   williamnyy23
20 Here's more food for thought relevant to the point raised in 22 : According to polls, MLB fans are more likely to be liberal, while NFL fans are more likely to be conservative (which pains me a little ;). Considering that conservatives are more prone to listen to talk radio, that would provide another reason why there is more NFL talk.
2008-03-05 12:13:36
24.   jgpyke
William, can you cite that poll, please? I'd love to take a look at the data.
2008-03-06 10:32:16
25.   williamnyy23
24 It was the most recent Harris Poll. They didn't provide the data in detail...just a quick synopsis. I remember reading a press release last month...I'd imagine it is still on the company website.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.