The Series between TB and Philadelphia was the lowest-rated

[cboy4]

baseball championship in the history of television....down 14 percent from the previous low in 2006. (But it was still some terrific baseball, and Fox Sports coverage was flawless.)

It's official: Lowest-rated World Series ever

The ratings are in, and the pundits were right.

The average TV rating for the World Series was, as many snarky sports columnists predicted, the lowest-rated World Series in history, attracting an average of 13.6-million viewers over five games played in six evenings.

The Tampa Bay Rays/Philadelphia Phillies matchup notched a 14 percent audience decline from the previous historic low: the Detroit Tigers/St. Louis Cardinals game in 2006, which drew an average 15.8-million viewers over five nights.

In the Tampa Bay area, the games scored well, attracting an average 754,000 viewers; more than 830,000 fans watched Wednesday's final innings, or about 45 percent of area viewers with TVs turned on. Nationwide, the games averaged a 8.4 rating and 14 share, meaning 8.4 percent of those with TVs watched the game, or 14 percent of those with their televisions turned on.

Of course, there are explanations for this (or, as the critics might say, excuses). Rain delayed Saturday's game to near 10 p.m.; the contest eventually lasted almost until 2 a.m. Weather also forced the historic suspension of Monday's game -- the first time a World Series game was played over two days' time -- earning low ratings as viewers realized the contest wouldn't resume that night and bailed. And recent history shows the World Series really builds in audience when it goes to six and seven games, so ending at five games also precluded that possibility.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2008/10/its-official-ta.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. Relevance

to the world series? Teams should be selected to play in the series based on projected TV Ratings?? And in my ever so humble opinion Fox was not flawless because Joe Buck talked. The TV ratings hasn't taken the shine off the trophy.

[TZ]

2. Thats the correct answer.

It should be about the baseball NOT the ratings. :thumbsup:
I've always found Championships with teams that aren't always there (ie NY, Boston,) much more interesting.

[cboy4]

4. I always watch the WS no matter who's playing, so I agree

with that.

But it's also interesting to know how many viewers were watching and how it stacks up against other world series.

Just like it's interesting to know what's the all time highest ratings for a TV show, or a Super Bowl or anything else.

[cboy4]

3. Yes, we should start selecting teams based on projected

TV ratings.

That's the exact reason I posted this. :eyes:

I took this off of a broadcasting website BOSS.

[BOSSHOG]

5. That most likely would require some use of a steroid type

substance to boost the TV ratings of some teams. Most likely banned by the league but when did that ever stop "fans" from urging their teams to win whatever the cost? Just win baby!

[cboy4]

7. Fortuntely my team hasn't had any major players that I know

of convicted of steroid use.

Thank goodness.

I do know Philly fans were some of the nastiest assholes whenever the Giants played back there with Bonds!1!!

Shameful.

Boston fans, in comparison, were very classy when we played there in 2007.

[BOSSHOG]

10. "With Bonds."

Fans of an opposing team were nasty when the other team played "With Bonds?"

BUT, Boston fans accepted malfeasance ...

Your editorials are crisp, concise and right on the money Cboy.

My team hasn't had any MAJOR players THAT I KNOW OF - you should be so proud. Its something every sports fan should strive for.

[joeybee12]

6. Work on your grammar, C-boy, Fox and flawless in the same sentence

is one of those thingy-s like military intelligence. :P

[cboy4]

8. I know, but I was cutting and pasting a title from that

broadcasting website.

It wasn't my opinion.

I mean, I use the F-word often when referring to FOX, but it's not "flawless." :P

[joeybee12]

9. Well then, all is forgiven

O8)