WGN No More?

[MrSheps]

So for those of you keeping score at home:

 

When I raised the fact that the Dodgers got a record TV deal one year removed from having terrible ratings (during the endless debate on this over the summer in which this was beat to death to the point that I have no desire to seriously debate this again), the answer was: "yes, but the ratings improved immediately before the deal."

 

When funkster raises that the Phillies' ratings plummeted right before they got their huge TV deal, the answer is: "but just a few years before, the Phillies' ratings were really good."

 

I wish I could find a picture of Xena that fit here.

Fit what?  The Dodgers had very good ratings the year prior to the their new deal.  Did the Cubs?  The Phillies had good ratings 2 seasons prior to their deal and record breaking ratings 3 seasons before. Did the Cubs?  If you want to use one of those teams to make an argument that ratings don't matter, let's at least define what window of time you're looking at.  Say it's a short term deal and we're looking at 5 years of past ratings and ad sales to project the next 5, well the 5 year run up to the Dodgers deal included multiple playoff appearances and multiple seasons of high ratings.  As did the Phillies'.  What has the Cubs' past 5 years looked like?  Nothing like those two teams'.  Both teams would trump the Cubs substantially in average ratings over that period.  It's reasonable to think broadcasters would like to see the Cubs turn a corner and perform well again.  That doesn't mean they don't think the viewers will be there if they win, no one is saying that, the argument is simply they haven't won for some time and nothing has been trending up in terms of sales and ratings. 

 

In a nutshell, the Cubs ability to sell broadcasters on the belief that they will be a highly watched, winning franchise in the near and/or long term (depending on the deal) is key and they can certainly do it without high and/or improving ratings and recent success, but you do see how those things are much stronger arguments and evidence than say, pointing at a baseball prospectus ranking of your farm system, right?  Actual results are going to trump all, particularly your own projections, particularly when you're the Cubs.

 

But Kid, what's so confusing to me about this isn't whether or not you think recent past ratings, be it a year or 3 years or 5 years or 10 years effect tv deals and negotiations, it's that you you seem so dismissive of the concept when it's being sighted as an issue not just here, but seemingly by all those covering and involved in the negotiations, with perhaps the lone exception of Tom Ricketts.  Your Xena pic essentially said to Coldneck, "just because you say it doesn't mean anything" so I post a few articles from different sources (tribune and non for the conspiracy theorists) saying the ratings are an issue and your response is- "Sources" said it in an article.  It is indisputable fact."  Why mock arguments as if they're so out there when honestly, you're now in the minority on this and I don't think you're being mocked for the theory that past ratings aren't impacting this negotiation?  (Which trust me, from a TV standpoint, is a much more mockable argument.)