Interview with Paulsen of Sports Media Watch

In the last decade, you may have heard as much about television ratings as quarterback ratings. Whether it’s television, print, radio or online, ‘major’ sports media personalities constantly mention them in some way to justify or belittle the viewership of games. However, with the increased public discussion to viewing measurement, few actually provide proper context behind the much ballyhooed numbers. It’s why a site such as Sports Media Watch has become a go-to destination for media and fans alike over the last five years.

Since 2006, Paulsen has maintained the well-regarded and highly-referenced site which takes a deeper look into Nielsen ratings and major movement in the sports media industry. Certainly one with his own opinions and curiosities about sports media, Paulsen was gracious enough to respond to questions about the purpose of SMW, the public conversation about ratings, social media’s role (or lack thereof) in increasing television viewership and his frustration with the sports media world throughout the LeBron James free agency saga.

In advance, many thanks again, Paulsen.

A Sports Scribe: You’ve operated SMW for a few years now. Could you explain why you came up with the site?

Paulsen: I used to write a lot of Wikipedia posts, which in retrospect wasn’t a great idea. One day in ’06, I read a blog post that quoted fairly liberally from one of the Wikipedia articles I edited, and I realized that it made a lot more sense for me to publish that kind of information on my own blog, as opposed to a place like Wikipedia where you really have no ownership of the things you write.


Scribe: SMW is predominantly television ratings analysis, yet over the past year and a half, you’ve added some excellent in-depth interviews with some major players in the sports media business. How did a passionate fan as you manage to talk to the crew from Inside the NBA and Russ Greenberg of HBO Sports?

Paulsen: I can really thank some very good sports PR people out there for helping me get these interviews, such as Jeff Pomeroy and Megan Bondi at Turner Sports, Nate Smeltz and Diane Lamb at ESPN, Mike Giluyi at PromaxBDA, Brandon Bagley with the Ivy Sports Symposium, and others.

I actually went to Turner Sports in December of last year and May of this year, and they couldn’t have been more gracious and accommodating, from the PR officials like Pomeroy, Eric Welch and Tareia Williams to the on-air personalities like Chris Webber, Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith and Ernie Johnson. They showed me an incredible amount of respect, which is amazing considering how bloggers are sometimes viewed by others in the sports media.

In February, I attended the ESPN Wide World of Sports opening, and ESPN’s Mike Soltys and George Bodenheimer were kind enough to take the time to speak with me – especially Mike, who I pelted with sports media questions as we walked through the Disney theme park. Funny story: as Mike and I were talking, a woman came by and just blasted ESPN the Weekend right to our faces. She was the only person I saw who complained.

Also, I should thank Bob Rathbun and Darren Rovell, the first two people I reached out to for interviews.


Scribe: The interviews with former players & coaches turned analysts – NBA’s Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley and Chris Webber from TNT and former NHLer Barry Melrose of ESPN – were especially enjoyable reads. Did they discuss anything about how they educated themselves on the media business during or after their active careers in those leagues?

Paulsen: Not necessarily. Kenny mentioned how he didn’t really see being a TV analyst as a career until Craig Sager told him how much potential he (and Inside the NBA) had.

Set Meters used by Nielsen for ratings measurement (via AgencySpy)

Scribe: Nielsen television ratings have been around since 1950, yet it truly started to enter the sports lexicon over the past decade. Sports media critics and industry insiders have had conversations about the metrics for years, yet it seems that only now, these numbers are talked up on the air in the same breath as yards per catch and ERA. Do you see a rhyme or reason to it all?
 
Paulsen: People like to compare. They like to say that their sport is #1, and someone else’s sport is less popular. From what I can tell, sports fans use television ratings as a sort of value judgment, where sports with higher TV ratings are somehow better than sports with low TV ratings.

Just look at the NHL-NBA and MLB-NFL flame wars that erupt each year. I think a lot of fans take pride in how their sport does on an overall level, and on a team level as well. Just going from what I see on message boards, Laker fans are proud, for whatever reason, that their team is the biggest draw in the NBA. I guess it’s a good reflection on Kobe. Yankee fans like to point out how World Series ratings drop when their team isn’t in it. It’s a badge of honor, another thing to brag about. That said, I don’t necessarily agree that TV ratings information is as commonplace as yards per catch and ERA – but it certainly seems more commonplace than it was a few years ago.

You know what this is (via Los Angeles Times' Showtracker)

 
Scribe: Until this past July, you were once very active on Twitter; using the forum to engage with your readers outside of SMW itself. Yet, shortly after The Decision, you tweeted “underrated aspect of LeBron saga: the unbelievably poor state of American sports media. And I don't just mean ESPN.” Could you elaborate a bit on that statement?
 
Paulsen: I truly believe the coverage of NBA free agency, and of LeBron James in particular, was the nadir of sports journalism – at least since I’ve been following it. Lots of rumor based reporting, the ‘Allan Houston’s house’ story being arguably the worst of it.

The coverage of LeBron post-The Decision has produced, in my opinion, some of the worst sportswriting in recent memory. There’s one writer who has gone after James in such a personal, unprofessional manner over the course of the past several months that it amazes me he is considered one of the better NBA writers out there. He’s just one of many. The number of cheap shots taken at James, whose only crime is being very full of himself, has been frankly disheartening.

I’m not a big fan of moral outrage, especially when it comes to something irrelevant like sports. I can’t muster up the energy to be offended by something like Hanley Ramirez not going hard after a ball. As far as LeBron’s special goes, I really have no respect for anybody who watched it and then complained about it afterwards. Everyone knew what it would be days before it actually aired. Nobody had to watch it; if they wanted to know where he would sign, they could have just checked any sports website that night. I watched it, and then I got on with my life. I didn’t feel the need to complain about it for four months, and I surely didn’t feel the need to judge somebody on the basis of sixty minutes of easily escapable television.

Anyone who has watched LeBron over the years knows he has a big ego. For me, that’s mildly amusing. For others, that is a high crime. I guess it comes down to perspective – or lack of it, in the case of the sports media. If LeBron wants to think of himself as a “winner” when he hasn’t won, that’s his prerogative. I don’t need to write articles sneeringly pointing out the fact that he hasn’t won a championship. A lot of these guys take James’ hubris personally, which tells me that they need to perhaps take some time off and reevaluate their lives.

The defense of the people of Cleveland has been particularly ridiculous, considering that James was a free agent and owed neither the city nor the Cavaliers anything. The fans of Cleveland deserved nothing from James, or any other player, the same way no fan in any city deserves anything from the people providing them optional entertainment. As far as James not informing Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, I just think of the many, many players who are not informed about trades, or about being cut – like Damon Jones, who in 2008 reportedly found out from his limo driver that Gilbert’s Cavs traded him to the Bucks.

Overall, it was a pretty awful summer for anyone who enjoys rational thought, as opposed to screaming outrage, cheap shots, and the ravenous tearing apart of yet another athlete. There’s a lot of people I lost respect for over the summer, not that it would (or should) matter to them.


Scribe: Being that social media has become part of the new normal, how much of a role do you think it plays in attracting eyeballs for sports programming, if at all.

Paulsen: I think the influence of social media is a bit overstated. I may be wrong about this, but I can’t imagine that a tweet or Facebook message from ESPN or Turner is going to get someone who wasn’t going to watch a sporting event to suddenly decide to tune in. Even in the case of dedicated (as opposed to casual) sports fans, I’d imagine the effect of social media on the decision to watch a sporting event would be negligible.


Scribe: Considering how deep in the forest you are when it comes to the sports industry, do you have the same sporting interests today as when you were younger? If not, how do you reconcile such changes?

Paulsen: Probably not. For example, the first couple of times the Spurs made the NBA Finals (’99 and ’03), I wasn’t necessarily thinking about it through the lens of their negative effect on the NBA’s TV ratings. Once I became more aware of the business of the NBA, it was tougher for me to watch their subsequent appearances without thinking about how poorly the games were doing in the ratings. For games that I know will do poorly – for example, Bucks/Hawks Game 7 last year – there is certainly that feeling of ‘nobody’s watching this’. Generally, games and series that do terribly tend to correlate with games and series that aren’t very fun to watch. I can’t think of very many series that have been entertaining and well-played that still had terrible ratings. Maybe Devils/Ducks in ’03, but perhaps a more astute NHL viewer than I can tell me whether or not that series was actually good hockey (I enjoyed it, at least).

At the very least, I can say that the business aspect of sports is very much present in my mind when I’m watching games.

As far as how I reconcile this with my personal sports fandom, sometimes I have to separate myself from the business aspect of sports in order to enjoy it. It’s been a bit more difficult to do that since I started the blog.

The San Francisco Giants and their fans couldn't care less about ratings (via SF Chronicle)

 
Scribe: Much is made about how this past World Series between the new champion San Francisco Giants and the Texas Rangers was tied as the lowest rated series of all time despite the teams being from the 5th and 6th largest media markets in the United States. When both teams defeated the favored Philadelphia Phillies and New York Yankees, immediately there were cries about how the Series would fare poorly because neither team (more so New York) was involved. Do you see some sort of self-fulfilling prophesy when it comes to ratings: if people start predicting doom, doom will happen? If they begin to hype something, ‘everyone will watch’?
 
Paulsen: In a way, yes. It’s kind of a chicken and egg scenario. The Yankees are a big TV draw because they can attract large audiences. Those large audiences watch the Yankees because they’re told the Yankees are popular and important. Here’s my ‘theory’: there’s a base level of popularity these teams bring to the table, which is magnified by media attention. The Yankees are already extremely popular, and media hype just shoots them further into the popularity stratosphere. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Yankees would be the best draw in baseball even without media hype – but if the media gave more equitable attention to the Yankees and other teams, perhaps the gulf between a Yankee World Series (11.7 in 2009) and a non-Yankee World Series (8.4 in 2008 and 2010) would not be as great.

Having said that, one thing that bothers me is when sports fans complain about the Yankees, Red Sox, Heat, Lakers, Penguins, Red Wings, Cowboys, Patriots and others getting lots of nationally televised games. With few exceptions, these teams always get substantially higher ratings than others, and that’s on the fans, not the networks. I’ve heard it suggested that if the Rangers and Giants got more national TV appearances, the ratings would have been higher for the World Series. But the Rangers were on FOX as many times as the Yankees last season (granted, not always as the featured game) and the Giants had two fewer appearances. As another example, just this past week, ESPN aired Suns/Heat on Wednesday and TNT aired Suns/Magic on Thursday. In both games, Phoenix was blown out. The Heat game drew a 1.4, nearly twice the rating of the Magic game (0.8). Why shouldn’t the networks give the Heat more national appearances than the Magic? Say what you want about the Heat hype, but nobody’s forcing anyone to watch.


Scribe: Finally, SMW’s existence is based on a belief that sports fans should care or at least be aware of viewing measurement. As a whole, do you think they do care?

Paulsen: I would say the belief of SMW is not necessarily that sports fans be aware of viewing measurement, but that they have accurate information. There are plenty of newspaper articles that don’t distinguish between a cable rating and U.S. rating, an overnight and a final or even between a rating and a share. Granted, who cares, it’s just TV ratings. But when I see a lot of the incorrect comparisons that go on, it can be a bit frustrating.

As far as whether sports fans care about viewing measurement, I would go back to my answer earlier. Fans want to know how their sport is doing relative to other sports, and from that perspective, I do think they care. They don’t care enough to think about it too frequently, and I don’t think it’s a top of mind concern when they’re watching actual sporting events, but it matters enough for them to want the basic information.

Quit Hating and Start Watching

There’s a tendency for us to rain on each other’s parades when a major sporting event captures the attention of many casual fans. This is no more evident when we are discussing significant events in professional hockey, soccer/football and basketball.

Much has been made about the outstanding viewership numbers for yesterday’s Olympic Men’s Hockey Gold Medal Final between Canada and the United States. And why not? If someone said that this thrilling game would have garnered ratings akin to a regular season game in the NFL, most would have laughed, sneered, snickered and belittled the sport, its fans and its elite league, the NHL.

The very fact that the game captured almost 28 million viewers* should bode well for the sport overall. That people in the know are pondering what can the NHL and its broadcasting partners do to carry this momentum into league action speaks to how compelling of a product the sport presents.

Yet, there are equally as many people who have started their “who cares?” rants, “when’s the next big event to pretend to care about” comments and my favorite quips of nonchalance; “when does football/baseball season start?”

Photo Credit to the Vancouver Sun

I just wonder why we take this route for some sports and not others. Why must we dissect its potential or lack thereof? Why must we ask those sports to fix themselves in order to appeal to non-fans and passersby? Why must we demand more of those leagues than we do the staples that take their fans for granted more often than not?

It’s funny because Super Bowl XLIV – a fantastic game, without a doubt – wiped off the bad taste the 2009 NFL season left in many mouths. This past season in the league was one of the least entertaining campaigns in years and the postseason initially carried some of that poor play in the first two rounds. If not for the Jets’ very game performance in Indianapolis (they did blow the lead, though) and the fumbling follies of the Vikings in New Orleans, this past season could have easily gone down as the worst since the late 90s.

This is a league with a fair share of problems on its own; a potential labor strike looms large, a steady stream of player arrests, the back-and-forth on overtime, Brett Favre fatigue, the overlooked story of PED/steroid use, an ongoing battle with Time Warner Cable over the NFL Network, etc.

Yet, few dare to ask what’s wrong with the almighty, omnipotent National Football League.

Beyond the Yankees winning the World Series last October, this past baseball season wasn’t exactly one for the ages. Once again, the controversies loomed larger than the games themselves. PEDs for Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. Josh Hamilton’s relapse. Milton Bradley’s arrival and dismissal from the Cubs. Allegations of Jim Bowden skimming bonus money from Latin American prospects. Mixed (some scathing) reviews for the new Yankee Stadium. The Mets (via Fred Wilpon) and Bernie Madoff. Mark McGwire, over a decade later.

There had been tremendous action in spurts; great pitching from the game’s young guns like Zack Grienke, Felix Hernandez, Tim Lincecum, the underrated Matt Cain and Jair Jurrjens. The usual great play from players you expect like Joe Mauer, Kevin Youkilis, Derek Jeter, Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols. The strong supporting casts that pushed the Yankees and Phillies into the Fall Classic. The birth of MLB Network (and ratings punch to the gut onto ESPN). All of this is forgotten among casual baseball fans.

Yet, few dare to ask how Major League Baseball can regain its footing on the national stage.

Apparently, the North Carolina Tar Heels’ men’s basketball program is going to need help to get into the NCAA Tournament this year. They’ve lost four starters of last year’s title squad to the NBA – Ty Lawson has been outstanding, by the way – and find themselves clawing to keep pace in the ACC. I say apparently because from friends, family & colleagues, last year’s edition of March Madness was one of the least exciting, most anti-climatic and phenomenally unmemorable in recent memory.

The scandals in the NCAA have been mind-numbing within the last decade. Before, it was about point-shaving and a player having ‘extra’ cash in his pocket. This past decade alone gave us testing scandals, coaches exacting physical punishment on players during practice, more testing scandals, even more money passed under the table, an absurd coaching carousel spun by the coaches themselves. And of course, there’s the worst of them all; Patrick Dennehy.

Yet, few dare to ask what can the NCAA do to capture fan interest before March Madness takes over.

Look, I didn’t write this to hate on those sports. In fact, if you read the Blogger profile, you’d see that baseball and football have been near and dear to my heart much of my life. As a once passionate, now bitter observer of college basketball, I pray for the day that the NCAA rights the ship and does right by ALL student-athletes, regardless of gender or sport. Yet, to see the errors in those sports is to almost be a leper of sorts; people want to move on, overlook these issues and pretend that these issues aren't as big, if not bigger than those in the NBA, NHL or soccer/football in the United States.

I wrote this because when we throw shade on each other’s preferences, we tend to forget how imperfect our own favorites are. We tend to think that being a ratings behemoth exonerates these sports from their issues or that being underwhelming according to Nielsen is an indictment.

You don’t have to become a hockey fan after the great play at the Winter Olympics (though you’d be happy if you did). You don’t have to subscribe to NBA League Pass for the remainder of the season to get your stripes (there are only 6 weeks left anyway). You don’t have to call your cable provider to look into FOX Soccer Plus, which just launched today (just try to master FOX Soccer Channel first). What we do need to do, however, is to be fair in how we observe these games. If we’re going to be as scrutinizing of the sports we dislike, give the same treatment to the ones we love.

Otherwise, quit hating and start watching.

Say What?!?!: By the way, with all due respect to Sidney Crosby and his fantastic goal, can someone else in the world give Jarome Igilna (the guy above Crosby in the photo) love for his assist? It was a fantastic set-up by a player who should get far more attention than he gets in the sports world. Maybe it’s gutsy to say it, but if he played for the New York Rangers instead of the Calgary Flames, he’s not only get more attention, but he could be akin to Mark Messier in terms of being a steady, proven veteran leader that could walk the streets of Manhattan with head nod respect from even the most uninterested of puck fans.

*A note about Nielsen ratings; they don’t include out-of-home viewing, which includes sports bars and other public establishments. Since measurement in this space has been modified over the years, these viewers may or may not be counted into the equation, but hockey is as much of a sports bar kind of game as any in North America. This, my friends, is good.

Post-game

Now that the NBA and NHL postseasons have concluded (successfully for both leagues, according to Nielsen), a question and a thought:

First, is there such a thing as post-Finals depression? For years, we have heard about the post-Super Bowl depression once the victor raises the Vince Lombardi Trophy. It’s as if the entire country – let’s not say world, only North America and its expats care about the NFL – has to take a few billion Prozacs to get by until September. However, this has been a pretty good year; better yet, a great three-year stretch for both leagues.

The momentum has been building to the point that while you still have those complaining about the image problems of some NBA players, length of the seasons and the fighting on the ice, you’re hearing more about what goes on in the games themselves. The fact that people are starting to ask what are they going to watch until the NFL begins says so much about how the NBA (and in a smaller scale, the NHL) have wooed fans back over the last few years.

Secondly, now that baseball monopolizes the major league spotlight for the next twelve weeks, it will be interesting to see how the sport’s television partners fight for a lion’s share of the fans’ attention. It’s a little different this time around thanks to the arrival of MLB Network.

Unlike other league-operated channels, MLBN is available in far more homes because it is partially owned by several major cable carriers such as Time Warner and Comcast. With that wide availability, the channel is going head-to-head with ESPN’s national coverage, even though Nielsen does not track the channel just yet.

The channel has the bandwidth to shine the light on every team. ESPN does not and cannot focus on a handful of sports while TBS and FOX are focused on weekend and playoff broadcasts only instead of wrap-around pre- and post-game analysis.

While relying on social network and message board chatter may not be the best barometer of the network’s early success, it seems that many people are making the switch to the new guys/gals on the block. Yet, as the weather warms up and the intensity of the season grows, we’ll see how the network performs against the established broadcasters.

Thoughts?

Experimental

Will some of the NBA's biggest critics finally get what they want?

For a number of years - mostly, if not all in the post-Jordan era - there have been grumblings of changing the playoff format in order to provide the so-called best matchups involving the largest television markets in the country for the sake of Nielsen ratings. Yet, there is something else at play that critics will pay close attention to that will be taking place in the smallest of cities.

The NBA Developmental League will experiment with a new wrinkle in the playoff format; allowing division titlists to select their first round opponents.

Hmmmmm...

The D-League, which has sixteen teams dispersed in three divisions, has a three-tiered playoff tree for eight teams. The first and second rounds are single-game elimination with their Finals being the best two-of-three series.

Of course, you must compare this to big brother; which has thirty teams split along (mostly) geographic lines into two conferences and three divisions apiece. The postseason is a sixteen-team party with four tiers (Conference Quarters, Conference Semis, Conference Finals and NBA Finals) in which each series is in a best-of-seven format.

If you recall that in recent years, the NBA made two changes in the playoff format; lengthening the first-round/Conference Quarterfinals to that best-of-seven (must win four games) format in 2003 and the 2006 seeding change that assured home-court advantage will be granted to the teams with the best records, regardless if a division winner has a lesser record than the best non-division winners.

Now, we've moved past the controversy of the first-round extension (thank you, 2007 for Golden State and 2008 with Atlanta's near upset), yet the later change proves how much of a struggle it has been to give credence to those division championships.

While there may not be much consternation about the division winners this year as those crowns are either already decided or close to it, we found ourselves in this scenario as recently as 2006 when both San Antonio and Cleveland boasted better records than Utah (Northwest), Toronto (Atlantic) and Miami (Southeast). What the '06 decision did was quell the anger that had existed during the Eastern Conference's downward spiral from the late nineties on. Yet, it was akin to taking care of the symptom as opposed to the illness.

In order for there to be little dispute about playoff seeding and divisional relevance, I'd argue that there needs to be a greater emphasis during the regular season.

As it stands now, each team plays its divisional opponents four times each (16 games), remaining conference teams either three or four times (36) and teams in the other conference twice apiece (30) to make the 82-game schedule. While it's hard to envision a scenario where a team can split their season series with every team in the league, the possibility that they can do so with at least their divisional rivals isn't too far fetched. As divisional record can be a tie-breaker between squads with identical records, shouldn't that portion of the standings serve as the start of eliminating some of this controversy?

From a glance at what the schedule is made of, I ask you to consider this;

• Each team will continue to play teams in the other conference twice in a season, one home and one away game (30 - 15 home and 15 away)
  
  
• Each team plays eight conference opponents three times each and two conference opponents four times each
• For the eight opponents: one home and one away with the third game alternating between teams, depending on home dates needed to be filled (24 - 12 home and 12 away)
• For the two remaining: two home and two away, with the two teams in this bracket alternating every season until all ten non-division teams in the conference have rotated through the schedule (8 - 4 home and 4 away)
  
  
• Each team plays divisional rivals five times each, with the fifth game alternating between each team every season, depending on amount of home dates needed to be filled (20)

Again, there must be other considerations, such as the scheduling logistics between arena operators, their NHL roommates, NCAA indoor sports tournaments and major local events such as San Antonio's Stock Show & Rodeo. Yet, this could bring meaning to the division titles before we even get into the annual debates about playoff seeding. This can also create what the NBA has been missing since the late-ninties; a truly heated rivalry between teams within close proximity.

These are just thoughts, but as I'm currently doing in jury deliberation, I'm open-minded to hear all suggestions and questions.

Falling?

Apparently, this is going to be the lowest-rated World Series in forty years, if you believe some of the media reports out there. According to TV by the Numbers contributor, Bill Gorman:

This year, I’m confident we’ll see the lowest average viewership of any World Series in the last 40 years (as far back as our data goes), lower than 2006 St. Louis Cardinals v. Detriot Tigers matchup which averaged 15.81 million viewers.

More doomsday predictions come from Bloomberg, CNBC (from personal fave, Darren Rovell), the New York Daily News (shocker since a certain AL East team isn't playing) and anyone else Google can conjure up in a search.

Sports, being the last bastion of 'DVR-proof' television content, are more scrutinized than ever before based on these Nielsen numbers. It seems as if not one game can go by without at least a passing mention of how well it fared in the ratings, whether in the national landscape or within a team's market. The rumblings about these statistics grow louder when leagues enter their postseasons as 'the games matter' and championships lie in the horizon of the few teams playing to earn them.

While a longer post has been edited, re-edited, left alone and re-visited, the questions below are begging for an immediate response.

1. This being the most important of them all: Do you even know what ratings are? This isn't to be condescending or funny, but there is this assumed knowledge that the general public really knows what these numbers mean and how they are compiled. Personally, I wonder if some in the media themselves know what they mean, but that's another post for another time.
   
   
2. Do the ratings even matter to you? Will the fact that two teams with far smaller followings compared to the Masters of the Sporting Universe affect how, or even if, you'll watch the Fall Classic?
   
   
3. Is it odd or just plain crazy to say that this might be one of the best Series... ever?

When I caught Gorman's post, I was reminded of another media blog (MediaPost's TV Board) I ran into just a few hours earlier where the writer, Frank S. Foster, found himself in an argument about how these pesky numbers are contrived in the first place.

While not an official polling, this particular conversation is not atypical of those I routinely engage in. My experiences indicate that most reasonably educated people — even industry people — believe Nielsen counts viewers. How is this possible? If you look up the Times article to which my seatmate was referring, you will find the word estimates once, as in "according to Nielsen estimates." At the same time, you will find the number of viewers for a program listed fourteen times, as in "The CW's 'Gossip Girl' earned 3.3 million viewers."

While I can appreciate the sentiments of Bob Molinaro of the Virginian-Pilot, I would love to see responses from your perspective. That's what Scribe is meant to be about, despite relaying my thoughts.

Counting

Here's a challenge for all you golf fans (and those as myself who are paying attention for once):

Count how many times you hear the words "Primetime", "ratings" and "East Coast" during tomorrow's final round of the US Open. Have a separate count when Tiger Woods is on your screen. If you're still watching tonight, get yourself a head start.

By the time you're done, you will be as annoyed as I am about this way-too-obvious schill for the best Nielsen numbers over the weekend.

Rising

On Wednesday, Sports Media Watch posed a very intriguing question: which league had the more impressive rise in ratings between the NBA and the NHL? It’s a question that’s much, much harder to answer if you’ve paid attention to both postseasons than in the initial glance.

Outside of the media darling that is the NFL, every sport has a significantly longer regular season with a greater emphasis placed on game-by-game attendance than what the former would announce (though having 25-year wait lists is an achievement in itself for the gridiron league). When ticket sales slump or are non-existent in other sports, teams will do everything possible to fill them with a barrage of advertisements, sponsorships and giveaway promotions to get the typical television viewer off the couch and into the seats.

Every league has a local blackout policy that essentially cancels TV viewing in order to further along any sales for underperforming teams. Yet, the television product is still a vastly cheaper option on a regular basis: a comfortable couch or bed, a six-pack that costs the equivalent of two drinks at the game (or less) and no transportation needed.

So, while seemingly nothing on television sets Nielsen records anymore, what has helped both leagues capture the attention of a fragmented audience?


NBA:
There are several elements that give the NBA the advantage here. First off, no league has tinkered with its product as often as the NBA over the past decade. Though the NHL made a drastic overhaul since returning from its 2005 lockout, the folks at Olympic Tower (read: Commissioner David Stern) have made tweaks big and small since the mid-nineties. As discussed last year in Antagonist, the offense was augmented and the defense was stripped down some in order to not only bring about new fans, but to recapture much of the audience that only watched the NBA to see Michael Jordan.

In the long run, it has paid off as the rules only helped enhance already-talented offensive players such Gilbert Arenas, Chris Paul and the league’s biggest superstars in Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. Despite the two-way dominance (mostly defensive) from the Detroit Pistons and the San Antonio Spurs, scoring seems to be the honey that attracts the bees.

As for those very stars, the last few seasons have provided player movement unlike any other time in league history. Whether it’s through free agency, trade or the June Draft, the depth of the talent pool in the Association is something to behold. Many of these moves gave fans across the country a reason to come out to the games, especially as some of those moves translated to playoff appearances and championships.

If not for free agency, Phoenix and Washington would have never signed Nash and Arenas, players who not only helped return their respective teams to the postseason over the past four years, but have reshaped the identity of their franchises (along with help from Amare Stoudamire, Caron Butler and others).

Markets such as New Jersey, Miami, Detroit and Boston were some of the league’s biggest benefactors of trades as Jason Kidd, Shaquille O’Neal, Rasheed Wallace and Kevin Garnett were the linchpins of Finals participants and Champions.

Then, of course, there were the 2003 and 2005 Drafts; drafts that gave Cleveland (James), Denver (Carmelo Anthony), Miami (Dwayne Wade), Toronto (Chris Bosh), Utah (Deron Williams), New Orleans (Paul) and other cities franchise cornerstones and postseason contention for years to come.

In other words, New York and Los Angeles don’t have to be at the party for everyone to have a good time.

Finally, for all of the slack that some fans and media have given the A for having the greatest global reach outside of football/soccer, the NBA is still an American product. While basketball was invented by a Canadian, the sport’s growth is a product of the American appetite for competitive timed sports (where baseball’s timelessness gives it a special place in Americana). Much of the reason why some sports fans dismiss and demean other sports such as soccer, hockey and tennis stems from nationalism. That the best players in those sports aren’t American gives the appearance of inferiority, even if that’s far from the truth.

Despite how ignorant it sounds (and really is), for many, it’s an undeniable fact. Sure, we tend to gravitate to something familiar in many aspects of life. Yet in American sports, being from ‘over there’ tends to be the copout some viewers use to not care or blatantly disrespect their efforts.



NHL:
Despite its heavy Canadian and northern US roots, just six of the 30 franchises (Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver) are Canadian. Of the twenty-four American teams, ten play in cities that did not have a NHL franchise before 1990, including the six oft-maligned southern depots [Nashville, Carolina (Raleigh), Tampa Bay, Florida (Miami), Atlanta and Phoenix]. The Dallas Stars have built a contender in Texas over the last decade, yet the NHL has struggled to gain a foothold in the south, despite the allure of larger American media markets (compared to Canadian).

Many have called for the relocation or contraction of those teams, even if means that most of those talented players may not see NHL ice for years, if ever again. Yet, instead of being contracted, five of those southern teams have made the playoffs in the last ten years, with Florida, Carolina (won title) and Tampa Bay (won title) having hosted the Stanley Cup Finals.

The 2005 lockout, though in many ways was necessary, only exacerbated the league’s problems. However, to rebuild itself for dwindling television audiences, the NHL stirred itself a potent drink; increasing offense with rule changes, making players and coaches more media-accessible and a broadcasting deal that for better or worse, has been the league’s safety net after being dropped by ESPN.

The 2005 lockout, though in many ways was necessary, only exacerbated the league’s problems. However, to rebuild itself for dwindling television audiences, the NHL stirred itself a potent drink; increasing offense with rule changes, making players and coaches more media-accessible and a broadcasting deal that for better or worse, has been the league’s safety net after being dropped by ESPN.

Just as their indoor roommates in the NBA, the NHL has benefited greatly from their drafts. While Sidney Crosby is its biggest name (the LeBron James of the sport), there are many other young stars that have helped the league emerge from the darkness of 2005. Alexander Ovechkin (Washington) and Evgeni Malkin (Crosby’s teammate in Pittsburgh) were drafted months before the actual cancellation of the 2004-05 season, but the Russian stars have made a difference in the fortunes for the Capitals and Penguins. Crosby himself was tabbed by the Pens in the first post-lockout Draft and has since carried the mantle of the NHL. Along with other young stars such as Rick Nash (2002 - Columbus), the Staal brothers (Eric, 2003 – Carolina; Mark, 2005 – NY Rangers and Jordan, 2006 – Pittsburgh), Vincent Lecavalier (1998 – Tampa Bay), Henrik Zetterberg (1999 – Detroit) and many others, it seems as if the game has been crafted to exploit their speed, strength and vision towards the goal. And not to mention the goaltending stars challenging future Hall of Famer Martin Brodeur as the best goalie in the league.

Along with the plethora of free agent signings made since the return from the lockout, teams were more poised for the new NHL with a premium placed on younger and faster players on offense. Of course, there are still enforcers and defensive specialists, but in opening up the ice for more puck movement, the game has endeared itself to fans disillusioned from the labor strife and has a growing appeal among those who are being introduced to hockey for the first time.

However, where ugly nationalism actually has helped the NBA in some circles, it continues to harm the NHL and hockey for a vast majority of the States. It has always been a league that has been predominantly Canadian (currently 52%), but there has also been a backlash against the European influence on the league. Even though the percentage has declined a bit (down from about 30% in 2002 to just above 25% this past season), you’d think that they took over the entire league. Just as their basketball counterparts, they have been labeled as soft and dismissed because their names are difficult for some fans and media to pronounce. Yet, when your team is winning, Andrei Kostitsyn can rattle off the tongue with ease.

The principal reason for the rise in ratings points to the US markets that have found steady success in the post-lockout era. This past year was the first season in some time where all of the Original Six teams were competitive at once, with Detroit having won the Cup. San Jose and Anaheim (last year’s champ) have built perennial Cup contenders in California while Philadelphia, Washington and New Jersey help solidify the northeast. Interest has grown steadily over the last three years as casual fans, some old-school purists and die-hard puckheads having embraced the new NHL. On the ice itself, Americans now account for 22% of the league’s talent (up from 14% five years ago). So while Canadians at-large will always love their sport, Americans will remain skeptical about the league’s success until their largest markets continue to host playoff contenders.


When you weigh all of these factors when answering the poll question, you might find that it’s even tougher than when it was first posed. Both have similar reasons for success, though there are stark differences in the audience size and demographics. Both have amazing talented athletes, many who are still in the formative years of what may become great or even Hall of Fame careers. Both have also made major changes to the games themselves in order to garner fan interest. Yet, the answer may still come down to personal preference.

Can you be more impressed by something familiar, even if it’s repackaged or by something you paid little attention to before?

Say What?!?!: The obsession with the nearing Beijing Olympics continues. BusinessWeek profiles various angles companies are taking for the upcoming Games; from the controversies to the catering with marketing sponsorships and video piracy questions in between.