# For Once.....



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

New York is _NOT_ going to be involved in the World Series. It seems like ALL my life I have always heard (The networks need New York or Boston or L.A. in the World Series, Some LARGE market city to get the ratings. I say Bring on The Giants and Rangers in 2010's World Series. I'm _NOT_ even a fan of either of those 2 teams but this year i may just tune in to watch BECAUSE the teams involved are not New York or Boston or L.A. Hallelujah.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

As of 2009 the NY Yankees have won 27 World Series, 40 American League Pennants, 16 American League Division Titles and 4 Wild Card Berths. All other teams pale in comparison. While my hat goes off to the Rangers for making it into the World Series the facts speak for themselves!


----------



## acer505 (Nov 14, 2007)

Go Texas


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

While having New York in the World Series never hurts when it comes to the ratings (and a NY-LA series in some ways is like hitting the ratings jackpot), I don't think Fox is going to cry over a Texas-SF Series. After all we are talking about the #5 and #6 (Dalls-Fort Worth and SF) markets plus the novelty of having one team there for the first time should draw some interest.

FYI, Boston is the 7th largest DMA. 

GO RANGERS!


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

Texas and San Francisco both deserve to be there. I look forward to an exciting World series.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Game Fan said:


> Texas and San Francisco both deserve to be there. I look forward to an exciting World series.


By no means am I a Giants Fan (so I will leave my personal feelings out) and say, You are correct! Both teams had a great year (that final series with the Padres was great!) and deserve to be in the World Series.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

As a long time Giants fan I am very excited to see them in the WS. As was said both markets are not small markets, you're talking about both being in the top 6 DMAs, plus add in Sacramento (Giants territory) which is also in the top 30 FOX could surely do worse. Hopefully makes for a great WS, you have a few big stars and other guys becoming stars. Only issue I can see coming into play is there is a chance of rain Thursday in SF, hopefully won't delay the game.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

This series will generate no interest in too many large markets. Even in DFW the Rangers are second fiddle to the Cowboys (no matter how awful they are).

Congratulations to both teams, but Fox is not happy. And they are paying for this.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

njblackberry said:


> This series will generate no interest in too many large markets. Even in DFW the Rangers are second fiddle to the Cowboys (no matter how awful they are).
> 
> Congratulations to both teams, but Fox is not happy. And they are paying for this.


Bet it gets better ratings nationally than if the Yankees were in it again - plenty of folks are sick of hearing their name, let alone seeing them play.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

njblackberry said:


> This series will generate no interest in too many large markets. Even in DFW the Rangers are second fiddle to the Cowboys (no matter how awful they are).
> 
> Congratulations to both teams, but Fox is not happy. And they are paying for this.


Good


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

njblackberry said:


> This series will generate no interest in too many large markets. *Even in DFW the Rangers are second fiddle to the Cowboys* (no matter how awful they are).


Not this year.... 

Even Troy Aikman was talking about the following in Texas of the Rangers this year during his football color work today...


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

We'll soon see. If Tuesday mornings headlines in Dallas are about the Cowboys, it bodes poorly for the baseball. I think this will be a very low rated series. The casual fan on the East coast (sorry) will not watch. And that's a lot of eyeballs...

BTW - I detest the Yankees and thank the Rangers. I just probably won't watch...


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

njblackberry said:


> This series will generate no interest in too many large markets. Even in DFW the Rangers are second fiddle to the Cowboys (no matter how awful they are).
> 
> Congratulations to both teams, but Fox is not happy. And they are paying for this.


Do you think this may have something to do with the fact that people in Texas have had nothing to cheer about when it comes to baseball? The Rangers have been in existence since 1972 and this is their first trip to the World Series. The Astro's have only made one trip to the World Series and that was 5 years ago.

FYI, with the Cowboys playing on Monday Night and the series not starting to Wednesday, I would expect nothing of the papers to be talking about the Cowboys on Tuesday.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

njblackberry,

As a Yankees fan in DFW, I can assure you that damn near everyone here is watching this Rangers run for the title. It's got a HUGE following here. Countless numbers of non baseball fans here are enveloped in the Claw & Antler following.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The Yankees have been there a lot... but I don't really follow baseball and even I know that until last year they had a dry spell for a while... so I'm not sure "For once" is apt.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> As of 2009 the NY Yankees have won 27 World Series, 40 American League Pennants, 16 American League Division Titles and 4 Wild Card Berths. All other teams pale in comparison. While my hat goes off to the Rangers for making it into the World Series the facts speak for themselves!


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The Yankees have been there a lot... but I don't really follow baseball and even I know that until last year they had a dry spell for a while... so I'm not sure "For once" is apt.


Yeah funny how perceptions are, because I was thinking the same thing that before last year it had been a few years since the Yankees were in it. I remember last year I was talking to someone who told me they wanted the Phillies to win because "the Yankees always win", to which I pointed out that the Phillies had just won the World Series the previous year and the Yankees hadn't won a World Series since 1999 or 2000 I think.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

It's refreshing to see new and competitive teams in the playoffs from time to time.

It's also refreshing to know that despite efforts to "buy championships" - that doesn't work all that often either.

Kudos to the Rangers and Giants. They got to the World Series the old fashioned way - they *earned* it.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's refreshing to see new and competitive teams in the playoffs from time to time.
> 
> It's also refreshing to know that despite efforts to "buy championships" - that doesn't work all that often either.
> 
> Kudos to the Rangers and Giants. They got to the World Series the old fashioned way - they *earned* it.


Right...because the players on teams with higher payrolls don't *earn* a trip to the World Series as well.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Right...because the *players on teams with higher payrolls* don't *earn* a trip to the World Series as well.


Nope...they don't.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I can't stand the buy a championship argument. What should teams who make and have money do with it? Pocket it all? Then, they're labeled tightwads & the team stinks, ie the Pirates. Like Herm Edwards said, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" You must spend money to win...period. The Steinbrenners make a crap load of money & they spend it on fielding a team who's in contention every year...What's wrong with that?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> *I can't stand the buy a championship argument.*


That's OK...but most people do - it led to the concept of a salary cap after years of abuse of the "old way of doing things". 

For many years, George Steinbrenner outspent the rest of the world exponentially to try to win championships. Yes, it gained him some higher-caliber talent that way, but it also led to an unfair advantage that took the "sport" out of sports. At times, that concept also failed miserably, to the delight of plenty of fans from other teams.

Most professional sports today have a budgetary cap as to provide a competitive atmosphere, rather than someone with deep pockets overstepping everyone else with their wallet.

If every participant team doesn't have at least something resembling an even chance to compete, its not sports anymore to many fans. That "parity" formula has now successfully worked in multiple sports for some time, allowing all sorts of "upsets" and "new teams" to win championships. Prior to that...there was more of a "win with your wallet" approach.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's OK...but most people do - it led to the concept of a salary cap after years of abuse of the "old way of doing things".
> 
> For many years, George Steinbrenner outspent the rest of the world exponentially to try to win championships. Yes, it gained him some higher-caliber talent that way, but it also led to an unfair advantage that took the "sport" out of sports. At times, that concept also failed miserably, to the delight of plenty of fans from other teams.
> 
> ...


Salary cap huh? How's that working in the NBA? Lakers payroll is so low!  The Heat payed pennies for James & Bosh. :lol: The Celtics are tightening their wallets!  How can those 3 even compete for a title with the Clippers, Pistons, or Raptors? 

I guess the cap works in football...well, it's weird looking at this years salaries. The Raiders & Cowboys both stink, yet they're #1 & #2, respectively. Yet, the bottom 5 are pretty good this year...GB, Indy, NE, Balt, & KC.
http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Sports/nfl-salaries.php


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Salary cap huh? How's that working in the NBA? Lakers payroll is so low!  The Heat payed pennies for James & Bosh. :lol: The Celtics are tightening their wallets!  How can those 3 even compete for a title with the Clippers, Pistons, or Raptors?
> 
> I guess the cap works in football...well, it's weird looking at this years salaries. The Raiders & Cowboys both stink, yet they're #1 & #2, respectively. Yet, the bottom 5 are pretty good this year...GB, Indy, NE, Balt, & KC.
> http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Sports/nfl-salaries.php


The NBA is much less experienced in tweaking the process - in fact - they have loopholes that allowed the whole LeBron debacle to happen.

Yes - "the cap" works when done without alot of exceptions.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's refreshing to see new and competitive teams in the playoffs from time to time.


I agree. I do have teams in other sports I regularly root for... and it's nice when my favorite teams win... but it would get boring.

I can only imagine mixed feeling in the years when the Yankees were piling them up... or UCLA in college basketball... or the Celtics in the NBA back in the day.

Yeah, it's cool when your team wins... but when they win every year for several years... doesn't the mystery and anticipation go away? IF you feel like they are going to win every year and they actually do... where's the incentive to stay interested all season?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I agree. I do have teams in other sports I regularly root for... and it's nice when my favorite teams win... but it would get boring.
> 
> I can only imagine mixed feeling in the years when the Yankees were piling them up... or UCLA in college basketball... or the Celtics in the NBA back in the day.
> 
> Yeah, it's cool when your team wins... but when they win every year for several years... doesn't the mystery and anticipation go away? IF you feel like they are going to win every year and they actually do... where's the incentive to stay interested all season?


I have to say that as a Yankees fan that started following the team in the late '70's that I didn't get bored of them winning all those series in mid to late 90's because it felt real good after years of taking crap (seems like there's more anti-Yankee fans than any other and they pretty much didn't win a thing from '80 to '95 so people were enjoying giving me grief way too much). So for a few years I got to return the favor. When the '00's came around and the Yanks sort of faded for a while again the only thing that bothered me was the Red Sox were winning and there's nothing worse than that! :lol: So for me it was nice to see a return to glory last year for the Yankees, on the other hand it didn't really break my heart to see Texas beat them and make it to their first World Series ever either. I mean when the playoffs started everyone was debating whether it would be the Yanks or the Rays I don't think anyone was really giving the Rangers a chance, so good for them!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I wonder if its just a coincidence that there are more folks vocal about disliking the Yankees and Cowboys than most other teams in sports...and those happened to have had the most storied ownership / big spending histories....hmmm...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I wonder if its just a coincidence that there are more folks vocal about disliking the Yankees and Cowboys than most other teams in sports...and those happened to have had the most storied ownership / big spending histories....hmmm...


In sports, people love or hate greatness and success. With sports, the victors get the attention. Crappy teams are one that no one cares about. No one hates the Detroit Lions because no one cares enough to hate them & they're never a threat. I don't think a single person hates the Pittsburgh Pirates, but tons hate the Steelers & Penguins.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

I began hating the Yankees in the 70s when they were dreadful..


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> In sports, people love or hate greatness and success. With sports, the victors get the attention. Crappy teams are one that no one cares about. *No one hates the Detroit Lions because no one cares enough to hate them & they're never a threat*. I don't think a single person hates the Pittsburgh Pirates, but tons hate the Steelers & Penguins.


Probably true for the most part...

But...

I can assure you I can find at least 2 people (both originally from Michigan) that *hate* the Lions....if only for their horrendous teams....


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

njblackberry said:


> I began hating the Yankees in the 70s when they were dreadful..


2 World Championships & 3 appearances in dreadful? The 80's on the other hand with a single appearance and loss is a whole different story..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> In sports, people love or hate greatness and success. With sports, the victors get the attention. Crappy teams are one that no one cares about. No one hates the Detroit Lions because no one cares enough to hate them & they're never a threat. I don't think a single person hates the Pittsburgh Pirates, but tons hate the Steelers & Penguins.


Yep... in college basketball Duke has been a team that polarizes fans to love or hate them for a while now. UCLA had a similar love/hate thing back in the 1960s.

I'm not a baseball follower so I have a hard time doing a proper analogy here... but in the NFL where I have more credentials ... there are 32 teams. IF each team were to win just 1 championship it would take 32 years for that to happen for each team. Players don't play anywhere near that long on average, so most players are not going to win during their careers.

Then when you throw in dynasty teams that win 2-3 or more in a 10 year period... and basically it's really hard to win if you're not one of the regularly good teams year-to-year.

So it becomes really easy to hate a team that keeps winning because it means that your team is not likely to be winning anytime soon.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Thank God that the Yankees are Out!!!

They spend way too much money on their organization. There should be Parity as in the NFL.

With that much Payroll they should go to every World Series unless they just get Beat!!!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> Thank God that the Yankees are Out!!!
> 
> They spend way too much money on their organization. There should be Parity as in the NFL.
> 
> With that much Payroll they should go to every World Series unless they just get Beat!!!


I bet they pay as much as FSU payed their players from about 92-02.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> I bet they pay as much as FSU payed their players from about 92-02.


Now Sigma you Must Explain that Remark. The only problem we have had is Free Shoes U which is because a couple of idiots took free merchandise.

Hey all of these kids are poor and susceptible to bribes and freebies and being seduced by bad sports agents.

Let's see a Parity in the Baseball Budget amonst teams and then we will see REAL BASEBALL COMPETITION!!!

Simply by removing the ability to BUY a TEAM!!!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> Now Sigma you Must Explain that Remark. The only problem we have had is Free Shoes U which is because a couple of idiots took free merchandise.
> 
> Hey all of these kids are poor and susceptible to bribes and freebies and being seduced by bad sports agents.
> 
> ...


It's called Felony State University for a reason.

Show me a successful team over time who doesn't have high salaries.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> It's called Felony State University for a reason.
> 
> Show me a successful team over time who doesn't have high salaries.


The 69 Mets?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> It's called Felony State University for a reason.
> 
> Show me a successful team over time who doesn't have high salaries.


Hey now you are hitting below the belt.

That is the University of Florida that you are referrring to. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> Hey now you are hitting below the belt.
> 
> That is the University of Florida that you are referrring to. :lol:


:lol:True as of the last few years.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I have to grudgingly be 'ok' with the Yankees. After all, the Rangers bounced them out of the playoffs with 1/3 the salary.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Now, at 1-5, the conversation will turn to when Wade Phillips will be fired.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

njblackberry said:


> Now, at 1-5, the conversation will turn to when Wade Phillips will be fired.


Or the Cowboys owner changing his career.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Ratings are in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_television_ratings

Game 3 was the second lowest game in terms of TV ratings (source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5749964)

Game 4 (Sunday) lost out to the Sunday Night Football game

Game 5 (Monday - final game) beat out Monday Night Football (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/11/tv-ratings-world-series-giants-rangers/1)


----------

