Ratings > Playoffs

Both the NBA and NHL playoffs are starting this week and sports media professionals and amateurs alike are set to make predictions. I figured I might as well too, but first I want to tackle the most important issue that faces every sport come playoff time except football: ratings.

Every playoff features a doomsday scenario, a match up of two teams that won’t hold the general interest of the nation. Die hards of a sport will always care, but the casual fans tunes in for big markets. The problem is the worst in baseball. Here are a list of baseball teams ESPN likes to air during the regular season:

New York Yankees
Boston Red Sox
New York Yankees' opponent
Boston Red Sox's opponent

I admit, I am exaggerating a bit . . . just a bit. TBS is the worst at this actually, ever since they secured the rights to air games on Sunday mornings I swear they’ve shown the Red Sox or Yankees 95% of the time.

This is clearly done for ratings. The NBA is not as bad (they have limits on how many times a team can be nationally televised) and it will find a way to get talented players on the airwaves regardless of market (much like Oklahoma City). Since the NBA is a 5 on 5 sport, it is easier to highlight a great individual than it is in baseball or hockey.  But still, these three sports usually rely on certain teams to pull ratings.

The problem: If these teams aren’t advancing far in the playoffs, the league hemorrhages viewers. Take the World Series last year, a very interesting match up featuring new blood in the Texas Rangers and San Francisco Giants. Neither team was anyone’s pre-season pick to reach the World Series, both teams featured marketable stars (Josh Hamilton for the Rangers, Tim Lineccum for the Giants), yet the talk leading up to the World Series was that it might be a ratings disaster. The MLB, a sport dominated by their big East Coast markets, had a worst-case scenario World Series (strictly from a ratings standpoint). The NBA has a similar problem when the Lakers are not in the finals, so much so that many freely subscribe to conspiracy theories that the league is manipulating the games to get them to advance.

Clearly, the leagues rely on these marquee teams a lot. If these leagues keep showing the same, popular teams, this cycle can never be broke. We’ve been inundated with so many Yankees and Red Sox games and talk this past decade that I honestly have no idea how the MLB would survive if they ever had down years. That’s why a salary cap can’t be implemented in baseball. If the Yanks or Sox were forced to restrict spending, the MLB couldn't guarantee they will be good every year and the league has nowhere else to turn.

The best way to brake this model is to show good and interesting teams, regardless of market. A league might lose viewers, but the hope is that these interesting teams would gain enough attention to increase the MLB, NHL and NBA’s stable of marketable teams. The NBA currently does the best job at this, in my opinion, and the MLB the worst.

If I submitted this argument to Colin Cowheard, he would probably say “But youuuuuuuuuuuuuu want to see the Yanks/Sox, yoooouuuuuuuuuuuuu don’t watch if they aren’t on, we are just doing what youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu want”

That’s the same argument that gives us this:

I'm Gary Sinise and my career is in purgatory (aka CSI: [insert city])

And takes away this:

Critical Thinking is Always the Answer

There is a dearth of critical thinking in today's society. Before I explain my reasoning, I want to define the term. According to CriticalThinking.org:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

 Basically, critical thinking is a deeper way of thinking about the world. It is often learned in higher education. It is a skill I am thankful to have learned while obtaining a masters degree.  There are multiple levels to everything. All too often people never think about anything beyond the surface. They don't dig for additional information, they don't think about motivations; acceptance of face value is a national pastime in our country. 

To prove my theory I offer two examples. One serious, one not so serious.

Charlie Sheen

Charlie Sheen conquered the Internet a month ago. Sheen's brand was red hot - in a, literally, crazy way.  Sheen's legendary party habits gained the full attention of the public as, after losing his job, he did several interviews with media outlets that were instant hits on the Internet. He started a Twitter account and obliterated the record for "fastest profile to two million followers" one of those rare records that wouldn't have made any sense as little as four years ago. Sheen decided to capitalize on his evolving stardom by starting a tour he titled  "The Violent Torpedo of Truth Tour." Many thought it was a great idea, those who can think critically knew it would be a disaster.

First, I must say that I do enjoy Sheen. I've always enjoyed his comedic acting and was entertained by his pure insanity a month ago. The problem was it had no lasting value. When his first tour stop, in Detroit, epically bombed, it was hardly a surprise. His evolving stardom was based on the shock value of his rants to media outlets. This shock value was always going to deteriorate, by its vary nature shock value has no lasting value. Shock always wears off. When Sheen's did, all that was left were his goofy terms that he reintroduced into the national lexicon (Warlock, Winning, Tiger's Blood, etc.) Can a few goofy terms really entertain an audience for almost two hours? The answer was no.

Beyond rants with rapidly deteriorating value and a few choice terms, Sheen can't do much else on the stage. He isn't a stand up comedian, he is an actor. Confusing the two is dangerous, see Michael Richards:

I didn't feel bad when people walked out of his first show demanding a refund. Learn to think critically! It seems to me that those who paid good money to see Sheen clearly only saw the face value of what Sheen was doing, and were unable to realize it had no longevity.

For the record, Sheen's show seems to have improved.

Politics


The lack of critical thinking in our country is evident at its highest level - politics. I'm not talking about the politicians themselves, however. I'm talking about the people who put them into office, the people who elect them to represent.

Politics is a game, a game that continues to play because we continue to willingly be the pieces. Politicians stick to talking points because they are successful. Too many people only want a summary of what is going on, they aren't patient enough to peruse all the information (I'm as guilty of this as anyone). Hence, we only care about talking points. We hear "death panels" and "obamacare" but the vast majority of us don't actually have any idea what they mean, we are just listening to the opinion of people whose political beliefs are aligned with ours. That's okay, but it also makes it counterproductive to complain about these people. Tired of negative campaigning? It is widely used because it is extremely effective - that's also our fault.

Fuck you, John Adams

The thing about politics is that it is fairly easy to tell what is going on, it just takes some effort and some critical thinking. Anyone who looked beyond the surface during the 2010 mid-term elections could tell that a lot of politicians were campaigning on balancing the budget without presenting any real ideas on how to do it. However, as a nation we still fall in love with the politician preaching the grand message - even if he or she has no real plan to achieve it. We strive for fluff over substance. Further more, we are moving away from critical thinking. Well-educated candidates get labeled "elitist," turning their most positive qualities into negative ones. My idea of someone running the country isn't this guy:

No offense, dude

 It's this guy:

"Hmm, yes, epistemology and the such"

 The argument against these educated people is that they are disconnected from regular people. Governing millions of people is a very complex problem, it is always going to take a certain level of disconnect to do the job. Disconnect also leads to clearer thinking, when one removes themselves from a situation they are more able to make accurate judgements on what is happening.

fandom and analyze actual reasons the Suns lost - most knowledgeable fans can. The question becomes, would you want someone running the Suns who thinks bad officiating is the reason the Suns always lose close games or would you want someone who realizes that poor defensive rotation (just an example) is the culprit? I guarantee you that the latter, the critical thinker, has better ideas how to improve the Suns.

The same argument is in effect or politics, the only problem is that everyone has a say in electing the people to run the country. If we want to improve this country we need to engage in more critical thinking and not shy away from candidates who do because they "don't get us."

And for the love of God stop listening to this man!