2017 World Baseball Classic

[robert terwilliger]

because more people have espn.

mlb is trying to push their network onto more packages and carriers. having exclusive content that people want to watch is key to that.

 

[John Price]

because more people have espn.

mlb is trying to push their network onto more packages and carriers. having exclusive content that people want to watch is key to that.

By the same logic we should only have the Super Bowl on NFL Network for ratings purposes.

Why don't we only put the World Series on MLB Network? It's a MLB property, sure, but there's a trade-off here. Don't you people realize this. If the WBC was on FS1 or 2 it would explode ratings wise. Instead, nobody saw it because it ain't on most cable packages!!

 

[Tecumseh]

Probably because the WBC doesn't generate as much capital as the World Series or the Super Bowl. It wouldn't make close to zero sense from a business perspective to air those events exclusively on MLB or NFL Network

 

[robert terwilliger]

one of the reasons mlb kept it on their own network is exactly because it's not on most cable packages.

mlb is trying to expand their network. they had exclusive content that people wanted to watch. if they couldn't watch it, some will take it up with their cable company but otherwise this will come up as mlb tries to expand and can now say "we have our own tournament on our network".

 

[IU Hawks fan]

False. The TV business works by ratings and exposure. While MLB network did see an uptick in ratings the exposure would have been higher had it been on fs or ESPN.

one of the reasons mlb kept it on their own network is exactly because it's not on most cable packages.

mlb is trying to expand their network. they had exclusive content that people wanted to watch. if they couldn't watch it, some will take it up with their cable company but otherwise this will come up as mlb tries to expand and can now say "we have our own tournament on our network".

Bingo.

Ix, don't tell anyone they don't understand the TV business. Ratings aren't everything. The rights to this tournament would get very little - comparing it to the World Series and Super Bowl is nonsense.

MLB sees it as good business to keep this for themselves.

 

[cutchemist42]

Bingo.

Ix, don't tell anyone they don't understand the TV business. Ratings aren't everything. The rights to this tournament would get very little - comparing it to the World Series and Super Bowl is nonsense.

MLB sees it as good business to keep this for themselves.

So hard to hind 2009 WBC ratings for ESPN. The best I could find was the Korea/Japn final got about 1.8mil. Those ratings sound a lot higher than what ESPN got for the WCoH, which they paid about $8mil for I heard.

What would a WBC actually be worth?

 

[Winger for Hire]

So hard to hind 2009 WBC ratings for ESPN. The best I could find was the Korea/Japn final got about 1.8mil. Those ratings sound a lot higher than what ESPN got for the WCoH, which they paid about $8mil for I heard.

What would a WBC actually be worth?

Probably not enough to outweigh the exposure to the MLB Network.

 

[bluesfan94]

By the same logic we should only have the Super Bowl on NFL Network for ratings purposes.

Why don't we only put the World Series on MLB Network? It's a MLB property, sure, but there's a trade-off here. Don't you people realize this. If the WBC was on FS1 or 2 it would explode ratings wise. Instead, nobody saw it because it ain't on most cable packages!!

What about Thursday Night Football?

 

[robert terwilliger]

i'm sure any amount wouldn't fit both sides.

espn would probably want to tie it into their deal to air their stupid weekly game where they talk about everything else but the game at hand plus the few games they get to broadcast a week.

mlb would again likely put a high price on it because, again, it is exclusive baseball content that people actually want to watch at a time of year where basically nothing interesting is going on on the field.