Can you actually cover one of the most popular sports?

Darkside · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:11 pm

So what you're saying is that you're complaining that a thread about how College Sports should be covered more is getting outshined by Baseball and Football talk on a message board without an agenda?
Kind of proved your point wrong didn't it?
Thanks.

My_name_1s_MUD · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:35 pm

point taken. i'll crawl back under my rock in the NCAA Football/Basketball forum. but baseball still sucks.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:40 pm

Darkside wrote:

So what you're saying is that you're complaining that a thread about how College Sports should be covered more is getting outshined by Baseball and Football talk on a message board without an agenda?
Kind of proved your point wrong didn't it?
Thanks.

Well, if someone derailed it by saying "God doesn't exist", the thread might have veered off as well.

But, the passioned opinions of God's existence doesn't mean that college sports aren't popular and should be discussed.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:42 pm

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

That's just an opinion and one I'll stick to for all of the reasons I've cited throughout the thread.

Thats fine except for, you know, the many facts that prove your opinion wrong.

reents · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:11 pm

My_name_1s_MUD wrote:

Any chance we can agree to disagree on the popularity of baseball and re-route this discussion back to the popularity of college ball?

There is a clear distinction in major markets that NFL is king, but keep in mind that there are big swaths of the country that consider their local college team as their "pro sports" team. In the South, this is definitely true. Even in bigger markets like Dallas, you can see the Red River Shootout out drawing the Cowboys. As popular as college football is in the South, it's sometimes easy to forget the sport has grown across the country, too. One only has to travel a couple hundred miles to Iowa to see how pro sports fills up large stadiums and attracts eyeballs. Not to mention the fact that college graduates also earn more than non-college graduates, suggesting marketing to these alums is particularly attractive. This is why firms like Disney (ABC and ESPN), NBC Universal, and CBS have invested so heavily in getting quality college sports programming. And why new networks (Big Ten Network, ESNU, and potential networks from the Pac-10 and Big 12) are gaining so many ad dollars. Any way you slice it, college football is a big time sports on a national level (no longer regional) and it is particularly sad that it gets little-to-no airtime on local Chicago radio, a market that is home to the greatest concentration of Big Ten alums in the nation.

Mud you are right, college football is bigger now than it was, this could start another baseball vs football fight, but after the NFL what's the number 2 sport right now, you could ask 50 people and get 10 different answers, I would say college football if you asked me. The problem around here is on Mondays after a football weekend, you talk Bears and NFL, Tuesday is usually the day for college football, but you may get an hour and then it's back to Bears. Also a problem, the big Chicago school, Illinois is not that good right now and I would say the worst team in the Big 10 right now, maybe if Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin are udefeated for awhile, they will get talked about. I would like to hear more college football talk and not at the end of the season, when you hear everybody say the sports needs a playoff, which they don't. You just have to realize your in a pro town and it's Bears number 1.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:42 pm

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

That's just an opinion and one I'll stick to for all of the reasons I've cited throughout the thread.

Thats fine except for, you know, the many facts that prove your opinion wrong.

Well, we've all got various facts to support our opinions. I'm not sure if apples/oranges television ratings are germane or not.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:42 pm

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Frank Coztansa wrote:

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

That's just an opinion and one I'll stick to for all of the reasons I've cited throughout the thread.

Thats fine except for, you know, the many facts that prove your opinion wrong.

Well, we've all got various facts to support our opinions. I'm not sure if apples/oranges television ratings are germane or not.

Everyone but you.

The problem with college football is that a host would need to follow eight or nine programs to have a credible opinion, so as not to fall into the Matt Rotowald (http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=39592) phenomenon of sounding like a bumbling idiot. This leads people to say that "Chicago isn't a college sports town," even though, more accurately, it is a several-college sports town, as bars all over the city are filled with people from the various Big Ten schools, plus Notre Dame. It's ease of communication. Bears talk is cheap, because hosts can half-ass the rest of the NFL and no one will care because the talk can just be KILL AGGRESSIVE FIRE PASSION WIN and that's fine.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:58 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

Everyone but you.

The problem with college football is that a host would need to follow eight or nine programs to have a credible opinion, so as not to fall into the Matt Rotowald (http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=39592) phenomenon of sounding like a bumbling idiot. This leads people to say that "Chicago isn't a college sports town," even though, more accurately, it is a several-college sports town, as bars all over the city are filled with people from the various Big Ten schools, plus Notre Dame. It's ease of communication. Bears talk is cheap, because hosts can half-ass the rest of the NFL and no one will care because the talk can just be KILL AGGRESSIVE FIRE PASSION WIN and that's fine.

Everyone but me what?

I agree with what you're saying about college football and I'm sure there are ways we can measure so that a case can be made that it's the the most popular sport. I know some women- and even a few guys- who don't follow any sports except the football team of their alma mater. I'm sure everyone else does too. You're also correct that they can stick any idiot on the air to grunt about the Bears and running and defense. Some guys have made entire careers out of it.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:59 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

KILL AGGRESSIVE FIRE PASSION WIN

Isn't that that band that Doug Evergreen Park is in?

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:03 pm

Quote:

Well, we've all got various facts to support our opinions.

Once again, everyone but you. You haven't offered one fact in this thread beyond the impression that baseball imparts upon all of as as Americans or something. Whenever people offer facts like "more people watched a meaningless preseason game than a pennant chance matchup between the two biggest rivals in baseball" you obfuscate.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:08 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

Quote:

Well, we've all got various facts to support our opinions.

Once again, everyone but you. You haven't offered one fact in this thread beyond the impression that baseball imparts upon all of as as Americans or something. Whenever people offer facts like "more people watched a meaningless preseason game than a pennant chance matchup between the two biggest rivals in baseball" you obfuscate.

No, I respond with the FACT that far more people watch baseball each year- in person and on television- than watch football. And then someone else responds with the FACT (or excuse) that that is because there are less football games. Then I respond with the FACT that this is why the numbers are not comparable. And on and on and on. There is no tool for measuring the popularity of a sport in any meaningful way. That's another FACT. If it's important for you to believe football is more popular, that's fine.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:12 pm

Quote:

No, I respond with the FACT that far more people watch baseball each year- in person and on television- than watch football. And then someone else responds with the FACT (or excuse) that that is because there are less football games. Then I respond with the FACT that this is why the numbers are not comparable.

OK, then you can compare numbers that are comparable. One football game was on at the same time one baseball game was on. That's a clear of a comparison you will get. Nothing is throwing that off whatsoever, and every single advantage was for baseball. Yet the baseball game was trounced. There's no way to spin that. I'm waiting for your story that explains how that can happen and baseball can be more popular. You need to explain that occurrence to have any credibility.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:24 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

Quote:

No, I respond with the FACT that far more people watch baseball each year- in person and on television- than watch football. And then someone else responds with the FACT (or excuse) that that is because there are less football games. Then I respond with the FACT that this is why the numbers are not comparable.

OK, then you can compare numbers that are comparable. One football game was on at the same time one baseball game was on. That's a clear of a comparison you will get. Nothing is throwing that off whatsoever, and every single advantage was for baseball. Yet the baseball game was trounced. There's no way to spin that. I'm waiting for your story that explains how that can happen and baseball can be more popular. You need to explain that occurrence to have any credibility.

I'll say it again. The baseball game is one of thousands that is played each year. There's not an imperative to see it. The same two teams will play again in a couple weeks.

Also, the NFL is a marketing machine. Baseball doesn't do the job nearly so well. Its marketing seems to be to see what the NFL and NBA are doing and try to mimic it. That's a giant mistake. People watch the respective games for different reasons. That's why so many people talked about how the "Daryl Kile game" was such a great experience. It had the pastoral feel that people have made clear they want from their baseball. But MLB is too dumb to grasp that and so they try to add bells and whistles like the NBA.

The national ESPN game is an example of poor marketing. ESPN has beaten the Yankees-Red Sox into the ground. The fans of the two teams are always going to be interested but everyone else jokes about it. I don't believe the NFL is more popular but I do believe it knows its fans, what they want, and how to reach them better than any other sport.

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:38 pm

Quote:

I'll say it again. The baseball game is one of thousands that is played each year. There's not an imperative to see it. The same two teams will play again in a couple weeks.

As opposed to the imperative to watch a preseason NFL game? :lol:

I would say you are grasping at straws, but I don't think there are even any straws to grasp at anymore. This is turning into parody.

My_name_1s_MUD · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:43 pm

To focus on ESPN and the afternoon saloon for a second. The Mothership invests millions to get the widest broadcasting rights for college football. Wouldn't you think they'd want to protect their investment by essentially getting free advertising through terrestrial radio talk shows.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:43 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

As opposed to the imperative to watch a preseason NFL game? :lol:

I would say you are grasping at straws, but I don't think there are even any straws to grasp at anymore. This is turning into parody.

Let me understand something. A guy can still be a fan of football if he never goes to any games but he can't be a fan of baseball unless he watches two teams he really doesn't give a fuck about on Sunday night?

My_name_1s_MUD · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:47 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

The problem with college football is that a host would need to follow eight or nine programs to have a credible opinion, so as not to fall into the Matt Rotowald (http://score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=39592) phenomenon of sounding like a bumbling idiot. This leads people to say that "Chicago isn't a college sports town," even though, more accurately, it is a several-college sports town, as bars all over the city are filled with people from the various Big Ten schools, plus Notre Dame. It's ease of communication. Bears talk is cheap, because hosts can half-ass the rest of the NFL and no one will care because the talk can just be KILL AGGRESSIVE FIRE PASSION WIN and that's fine.

IB... That is really insightful. You almost have to cover a conference or two instead of just a team or two to sound credible. Its hard work and you have to learn the history o each program. Just goes to my point that I truly believe the afternoon saloon is just being lazy by refusing to cover anything meaningful in college football.

By the way, if you guys are interested, IB is doing some insightful team by team summaries of the state of each of the Big Ten's programs in the NCAA Football forum. They are really well done

Irish Boy · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:49 pm

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:

Irish Boy wrote:

As opposed to the imperative to watch a preseason NFL game? :lol:

I would say you are grasping at straws, but I don't think there are even any straws to grasp at anymore. This is turning into parody.

Let me understand something. A guy can still be a fan of football if he never goes to any games but he can't be a fan of baseball unless he watches two teams he really doesn't give a fuck about on Sunday night?

Once again, obfuscation. Television = television. Sunday night = sunday night. Timeslot = timeslot. Regular season > preseason. New York market > Dallas market. Boston market (not the food chain) > Cincinnati market. History of Red Sawx v. Yankees > History of Cowboys v. Bengals. And over two to one, people chose football over baseball.

You keep trying to change the subject to other things, and then when people point out how those other things aren't comparable, you say "That's my point." BUT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS DIRECTLY COMPARABLE. I quote:

Quote:

Television = television. Sunday night = sunday night. Timeslot = timeslot. Regular season > preseason. New York market > Dallas market. Boston market (not the food chain) > Cincinnati market. History of Red Sawx v. Yankees > History of Cowboys v. Bengals.

That is every single factor. Every factor is even or favors baseball. Baseball lost, handily. That is comparable. This is a comparison. Baseball lost this comparison. Running out of rearranging words to make point in hopes you get it.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:57 pm

Irish Boy wrote:

BUT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS DIRECTLY COMPARABLE.

I guess that's just where we disagree.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:39 pm

You are the only one that disagrees. Everybody else knows you're wrong on this.

Rod · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:44 pm

I've never had a problem with everyone thinking I was wrong, Frank. Everyone thought I was wrong the night I took down the entire pool in the Place Pick 9 at Balmoral too.

Brick · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:21 pm

http://deadspin.com/5667624/goddamnit-it-america

beni hanna · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:24 pm

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

http://deadspin.com/5667624/goddamnit-it-america

W_Z · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:09 pm

is deadspin profitable?

Chris_in_joliet · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:28 pm

"No one disputes that football is by far the more popular sport in this country, but I had always assumed that was a generality"

Well not everyone.

Rod · **Posted:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:31 pm

You're right. Not everyone. And television ratings aren't a definitive statement on the matter either, despite Ronald McDonald's insistence that they are.

C_Howitt_Fealz · **Joined:** Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:03 pm **Posts:** 4944

Boilermaker Rick wrote:

http://deadspin.com/5667624/goddamnit-it-america

The Comments are quite valid. I'm over baseball now and will likely not watch the series.

Rod · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:11 am

C_Howitt_Fealz wrote:

I'm over baseball now and will likely not watch the series.

That's your loss.

Bucky Chris · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:07 am

From a few weeks ago:

NFL blows out baseball in TV ratings

Posted by Michael David Smith on October 11, 2010 2:36 PM ET
The NFL's dominance over the American television landscape continues.

Sunday night's Eagles-49ers game drew an 11.7 overnight rating, easily topping the 3.9 rating for the Phillies-Reds baseball playoff game.

Sunday Night Football has been the top-rated Sunday night show on television all five weeks this season.

As we've mentioned several times before, we encourage the owners and the players to do whatever it takes to make sure a labor stoppage in 2011 doesn't bring the NFL's momentum to a screeching halt.

Permalink 2 Comments Latest stories in: Home, Latest News and Rumors, NFL Mobile Exclusives - Rumors, Philadelphia Eagles, San Francisco 49ers

Rod · **Posted:** Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:14 am

I'm not sure what the point of these posts is. Nobody ever said the NFL doesn't get better television rating than MLB. The disconnect is that most of you consider that irrefutable evidence of football's greater popularity. I don't.

Can you actually cover one of the most popular sports?

Who is online