Master Index of Archived Threads


Scott Boras : Best-of-9 Series.

metirish Jun 28 2007 09:11 AM

Don't know why Klapisch turns this into a MFY thing,not like the ratings were throught the roof last time they were in the WS...anyway Boras has an idea... ] Best-of-9 Series? Boras has Selig's ear By BOB KLAPISCH RECORD COLUMNIST If you think Major League Baseball isn't sweating out the possibility of another Yankees-less World Series, you haven't been paying attention to the Fall Classic's TV ratings in the past two years. Worse than bad, they're historically bad, which is one reason Bud Selig already has started a mini-revolution. This year's Series will begin Tuesday, Oct. 24, with the promise of an afternoon start on Saturday (Game 3) and a travel day on Oct. 30 (Monday). That means potentially more viewers on the weekend, and no head-to-head competition with "Monday Night Football,'' even if it pushes the Series into November. But is that enough? Not according to Scott Boras, the super agent who, if nothing else, has proven he can maximize dollar value. With America having gone to sleep on the White Sox and Astros in 2005 and further ignoring the Tigers and Cardinals last October, Boras recently proposed turning the Series into a best-of-nine contest, with the first two games played at a neutral site. That way, the entire industry could turn the Fall Classic into a bustling convention – not unlike the Super Bowl, which has become America's favorite TV sports event. By comparison, the World Series continues to suffer from its hurry-up, hastily thrown-together agenda, a victim of the league championship's unpredictability. "Corporate America can't embrace [the World Series]; they don't know where the games are being played," Boras said by telephone recently. "People can't say, 'I'll see you at the World Series.' This way, we have a plan for it." Under Boras' revamping – explained in a letter sent to MLB's headquarters – Game 1 would be played on a Saturday in a warm-weather city, where there's a low probability of rain or even snow. The night before, he said, would be like "the Oscars" where players from both teams would be introduced and feted before a national TV audience. But the event wouldn't be just for pennant winners; everyone would be there, including the game's biggest stars, along with the networks and the advertisers. "There'd be interaction between players and management, the interaction between players and corporations would increase, the boundaries would be removed," Boras said. "The Super Bowl does that, although it's a terrible event." The agent's proposal apparently has caught the commissioner's attention. Selig wrote back to say he was indeed interested. Boras, whose comments on the matter appear in Commerce magazine, will take the revolution one step further in championing a best-of-nine Series. The extended format might outrage purists, but Boras is quick to point out there's a precedent here: The World Series was indeed a best-of-nine in 1903, the year of its inception, when the Boston Americans defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates, five games to three. To those who say the baseball season is long enough, Boras counters: After so many games, shouldn't the champion be determined by the best possible measuring stick? A best-of-nine would require the excellence of three starting pitchers, not just two, which would favor teams with the deepest staffs. Call it a fool's dream, but Boras nevertheless has hit on the industry's most troubling revenue problem: Fox has Series broadcasting rights through 2013, but how much longer will the network allow itself to bleed if no one's watching the premier event? Thanks to revenue sharing and the luxury tax, baseball has moved closer than ever to NFL-like parity, marginalizing the Yankees. Apparently, that's failed to excite the TV audience. Last year's Series drew the lowest ratings ever – 10.1 with a 17 percent share. The Astros-White Sox matchup in 2005 was only slightly less awful, 11.1 and 19. The last time the Series had more than a 25 percent share was in 1999 when, you guessed it, the Yankees were in the middle of their golden era. The share fell to 21 in 2000 during the Subway Series, but spiked to 25 in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The Yankees got a 25 share in 2003, as did the Red Sox in 2004, ending The Curse in a four-game sweep of the Cardinals. But Fox has taken a huge financial hit as second-tier teams have prevailed the past two years. It's not much of a stretch to assume the network is praying for the Yankees to somehow win the wild card -- or at least hitch a ride through October with the Mets. But it's also true the Yankees' renaissance can't last forever; more and more, it appears Fox won't even get the benefit of one playoff round with the Yankees. Whether the Mets can replace the Bombers as the team America loves to hate -- and watch -- remains to be seen. But Boras says baseball doesn't necessarily have to suffer because of it. "Sports, particularly baseball, is like a four-hour drama with fresh information and outcomes every night. It could be put on TV for 50 times what it's worth now," he said. "The great thing in baseball is, at any moment, the worst team can beat the best team, and that happens at least 30 percent of the time." So why has the postseason become so unwatchable? Put it this way: The problem is serious enough that Selig is listening to a radical idea that, somehow, isn't all that crazy. E-mail: klapisch@northjersey.com

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2007 09:24 AM

They don't seem to be making the connection that as they've been increasing the number of postseason games, the number of postseason viewers has been decreasing. The longer a series, the less important each individual game is. Also, a best of five is more likely to go the distance than a best of 7, which is more likely to go the distance than a best of 9. By expanding the length of the World Series, you'll become less likely to see a final, desperate, winner-take-all game. I don't think they SHOULD do this, but I bet that if they reduced the Division Series to a best-of-one, the LCS to a best-of-three, and the World Series to a best-of-five, there would be less baseball fatigue in October and larger audience numbers for each game. Best of 9 is a step in the wrong direction. And I'm not saying this from a "purist" standpoint. I think it's just simple supply and demand. There's just about no demand for MORE baseball in October.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2007 09:27 AM

Parity isn't an achievement. Every team deserves an equal chance to be good. But the NFL system unmakes the best teams, guaranteeing that some teams will make the playoffs every few years just on dumb luck. I'd like to see them work harder at making the All Star game appealing. They know where and when that will be for years and the showcasing just serves to make it more tedious.

metirish Jun 28 2007 09:40 AM

Agree with above posters,and it's not like the WS doesn't get enough media exposure ,that's hardly the problem. I think what Selig has already done with changing the start date and having a Saturday afternoon game is a good start. It seems like Boras wants to attract non baseball fans with a huge media extravaganza ,instead they should concentrate efforts on getting baseball fans to keep watching in the post-season.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 28 2007 10:32 AM

. "With America having gone to sleep on the White Sox and Astros in 2005 and further ignoring the Tigers and Cardinals last October..." Ahem, somebody compare these ratings to the recent NBA Finals, please. And the Super Bowl isn't about football any more, it's an excuse to have a party. Next year, poll the room a half hour before the game and see how few people even know who is playing. There are certainly some problems with the Series, but adding games to it won't fix them. Throwing the first pitch at 8:30 and having most of the games run past midnight is a problem. FOX is largely responsible for that problem. Having attended Game 1 last year, it was funny watching the players milling around on the field between innings because there was so much time -- because we all know FOX is running the same Simpsons "Tree House of Horror" ads for the hundredth time. As for Klapisch, he and Verducci are just a couple of Yankee hacks who are able to show more self control than Suzyn Waldman. They view everything through a Yankee-centric point of view. Verducci wrote a column last year complaining that the post-season was the most boring ever, and you just know that was because his boys weren't there (long, thank you Tigers).

Edgy DC Jun 28 2007 10:34 AM

Bob Kapisch speaks for America!

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2007 10:53 AM

I only started paying attention at the tail end of it, but during last night's SNY telecast, Keith and Ron were telling some story about Klapisch and it sounded like they were making fun of him. Something about him thinking he was a good enough pitcher to strike out some of the 1986 Mets? Was anyone listening more closely than I was?

Gwreck Jun 28 2007 10:58 AM

I remember them talking about Klapisch and Bonilla in the 92-93 years but wasn't paying much attention either.

A Boy Named Seo Jun 28 2007 11:04 AM

Keith was saying that Klap used to pitch in college and always wanted to pitch against a Met to show how wonderful he was. Keith said he would always tell him no, that he wouldn't waste his time with him, but one day Dykstra took him up on the offer and Dykstra "wore him out". If this warm weather, corporate jerk-off is as successful as Boras wants us to believe, who will give a shit about watching regular, boring games 2-7 baseball after all the fireworks and red carpet are gone?

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2007 11:08 AM

Klapisch was a pitcher in college (Columbia) around the same time that Darling was at Yale. He also has played in his post-college days (and still does I believe) in adult baseball leagues. All of which means that he'd be a much better pitcher than the usual sportswriter or fan off the street type, but that also puts him a long way from being a pro. Keith & Ron were talking about how he, back in their day, was constantly asking to face anyone who was willing. Keith's attitude was always; go away and stop bothering me. He then went on to claim that the only one who took him up on it was Dykstra who, in Keith's words, "wore him out!"

attgig Jun 28 2007 11:16 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: . "With America having gone to sleep on the White Sox and Astros in 2005 and further ignoring the Tigers and Cardinals last October..." Ahem, somebody compare these ratings to the recent NBA Finals, please. And the Super Bowl isn't about football any more, it's an excuse to have a party. Next year, poll the room a half hour before the game and see how few people even know who is playing. but i think that's Boras' point. if you look at the World Series outside of the baseball fan perspective, and strictly as a business venture, what Boras is saying makes tons of sense. make the worldseries like the superbowl - an excuse to have a party because that creates ratings. as a baseball fan, I can't say that I agree with this proposal, but if my job was to bring more people in to watch the world series....I would seriously have to consider it.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2007 11:21 AM

Well, in that case, make it a one-game, winner-take-all. America isn't going to be interested in watching nine World Series games, especially if one team wins the first few games and the series gets lopsided.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2007 11:21 AM

I have a friend who plays in an adult amateur baseball league. I want to join, and am on their version of the waiver wire hoping to get picked up. He invited me out to a game last week. I couldn't make it due to a prior commitment. It turned out the opposing pitcher was former Oriole Ken Dixon. I asked how he did and he said they hit him pretty hard. He had two hits. "He's a 47-year-old man, Edgy." Actually, he's 46. Two years younger than Julio Franco. My friend is a healthy but un-athletic looking 40-ish hospital chaplain.

HahnSolo Jun 28 2007 11:28 AM

Instead of messing with the World Series, how about having a postseason All Star Game, where they could schedule the "bustling convention" as Boras prescribes. They could even create an "Awards Night" where the MVPs, Cy Youngs, etc. are announced. Now, about changing the series to best of nine. If Games 1 & 2 are neutral site games, and 3 and 4 are at one team's home park, it's conceivable a team could be down 4 games to 0 before playing a game in their building. Don't like that.

metirish Jun 28 2007 11:47 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I have a friend who plays in an adult amateur baseball league. I want to join, and am on their version of the waiver wire hoping to get picked up. He invited me out to a game last week. I couldn't make it due to a prior commitment. It turned out the opposing pitcher was former Oriole Ken Dixon. I asked how he did and he said they hit him pretty hard. He had two hits. "He's a 47-year-old man, Edgy." Actually, he's 46. Two years younger than Julio Franco. My friend is a healthy but un-athletic looking 40-ish hospital chaplain. Cool story,must be cool to on a waiver wire...waiting for the phone call and all that..

Edgy DC Jun 28 2007 11:52 AM

That call is never coming. And knowing that is... not cool at all.

metirish Jun 28 2007 11:59 AM

Edgy DC wrote: That call is never coming. And knowing that is... not cool at all. Yeah that would suck,ever dropped it into a conversation that you are on the waiver wire....I mean it sounds impressive.

Sandgnat Jun 28 2007 01:13 PM scratching my head over here.....

]The night before, he said, would be like "the Oscars" where players from both teams would be introduced and feted before a national TV audience. But the event wouldn't be just for pennant winners; everyone would be there, including the game's biggest stars, along with the networks and the advertisers. "There'd be interaction between players and management, the interaction between players and corporations would increase, the boundaries would be removed,"... ]..."The Super Bowl does that, although it's a terrible event." So MLB should emulate what the NFL does to "fix" the world series by copying the NFL's terrible event?

G-Fafif Jun 28 2007 02:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 28 2007 02:03 PM

Has it occurred to Boras, Selig and Klapisch (and others who make up the game's upper-echelon chattering classes) that the issue of who becomes baseball's champion just isn't compelling enough to carry an undivided nation's attention for a week anymore? That the nation never undivides its attention? The assumption seems to be that it's all just there for the taking in terms of viewership, we just have to unlock the golden door. I'm guessing there's not that much behind said entryway. The World Series long ago stopped being a communal concern for the United States as a whole. It's not the American way, but if ratings expectations were lowered and perhaps the network payoffs were adjusted accordingly, the numbers an Astros-White Sox World Series (four highly compelling games, for what it's worth) or its 2007 equivalent generates would be considered pretty good for prime time programming. When baseball was said to be losing ground to basketball, we were told it was because baseball didn't promote its individual stars the way basketball did. So they made a go of that for a while, but Ken Griffey and Frank Thomas and whoever else were considered the Michael Jordans of our sport in the early '90s weren't transcendent or infallible as human beings or their teams didn't win championships or they all went on strike or somebody noticed one man can't carry a team. Now we're supposed to believe baseball's health depends on the adrenaline rush provided to moribund ratings by the Red Sox or Cubs or MFYs. Meanwhile baseball does well at the local level in terms of attendance and cable numbers but once the local team is out, good luck attracting viewers who have become used to being spoon-fed regional Fox telecasts or OD'd on the Yankees and Red Sox and have become immune to the charms of anyone else. Anyway, I don't think a single soul in this country who is not tuned into postseason baseball would be because Scott Boras could schmooze a few extra advertisers the night before Game One. That's an example of the out-of-touch talking to the clueless and deciding "hey, that sounds awesome!"

metsguyinmichigan Jun 28 2007 02:01 PM

If Klapisch had his way, the Yankees would get a by right to the Series and the rest of the teams would compete for the right to play them. And if Fox had its way, the Yankees and Red Sox would BOTH be handed passes right to the Series -- the fact that they are both in the same division much less the same league is just an inconvenice to be worked around. And, of course, the cast of (insert Fox sitcom here) would just happen to be sitting together in the first row, pointed out by Joe Buck to reel the audience back in after a 10-minute Tim McCarver monologue about the rotation of the ball as it leaves the catcher's hand in sub-40-degree wether in cities east of the Mississippi on Thursdays and how Derek Jeter can hit the ball no matter the location or temperature. As you can tell, I'm down on Fox and having a grumpy day.

Willets Point Jun 28 2007 02:06 PM

There's always The Real World Series.

G-Fafif Jun 28 2007 02:21 PM

Now that's funny. And not altogether without precedent, at least in my childhood mind. When I was six, in September 1969, I understood the Mets had to beat out the Cubs to win their division, but I didn't know why we clinched the division when we beat the Cardinals. Then I learned the Cardinals won the pennant the year before, so I assumed there was a connection. Come to think of it, Fox might like that rule.

m.e.t.b.o.t. Jun 28 2007 02:51 PM

]The longer a series, the less important each individual game is. Also, a best of five is more likely to go the distance than a best of 7, which is more likely to go the distance than a best of 9. By expanding the length of the World Series, you'll become less likely to see a final, desperate, winner-take-all game. my spring is winding just reading this...

Rockin' Doc Jun 28 2007 06:07 PM

I was in the midst of a long and thoughtful response (at least for me) regarding Boras' proposal, when I suffered some sort of system failure with my computer which caused it to suddenly restart itself. Needless to say I lost my post and I am far too lazy to write another lenghthy response again. Therefore, I will simply say that I am vehemently opposed to this proposal and hope that it will be dismissed by Selig. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the pursuit of additional revenue through more games will make such a proposal attractive to MLB.