Is TV good for playoff games?
- Thread starter lc5397
- Start date
I agree, it also picks up a lot of viewers who don't have a team playing that normally would not watch in person. If they see a great game they may attend next time in person.
To televise or not. This was a huge argument among major league baseball owners in the days after WWII. Prior to that, in the 1930's, the same discussions were held about radio coverage. Essentially the same pros and cons. Time has shown that, for baseball, and for all pro sports, radio and television broadcasts have grown the fan base immensely. Weather that will translate to high school football, and basketball, is unclear. But I think it will. I love the STO broadcasts in HD, but there's still nothing like being at the games, live.
Sykotyk
Well-known member
The issue was MLB didn't care about minor leagues getting affected by someone in Akron watching the Indians on TV, for instance. Secondly, as the time moved on, people from way outside markets, even completely disassociated fans, began watching. Someone in Utah could watch a team from Pennsylvania.
The problem with HS is if people stay home to watch Mentor-St. Ignatius, they could not only affecting that crowd, but also the crowds of every other game in the state played at that time.
It's not like Mentor-St. Ignatius is the only game in a 100 mi radius and no one else is affected but them for airing the game. Instead, everyone is affected. It's great because they were great games, but what if it was 34-0. I think the tune might be sung a little different.
Tape-delay should be the only way HS football on a regular GAME NIGHT is shown. Thursday nights or regular season Saturday isn't an issue. But, when there's games state wide (i.e., Friday nights during regular season) or Friday/Saturday nights during playoffs should be protected.
Another topic we seem to cover every year. Eds-Iggy in Week 10 had an announced attendance of 13,300. For those who attended both games, how did the crowd compare? If there was indeed some empty room on either end of the stands on the Mentor side (which is the much larger of the two sides) then the rest of the people on that side also were more spread out than when there is no visible seats available. Even if the Iggy side it completely full, that side only seats 4,000 or so. I don't think it's unrealistic to say there were then 5,000-6,000 on the Mentor side.
Kind of the way I lean on this topic and a lot of the points I was trying to make when I started the thread. I think I lean towards tape delay only for these games. If you can't it make then you can still watch it on delay and is more likely to encourage fans on the fence to actually get to the game.
If all you care about is maximizing live attendance, then you should never show any game on TV or on tape delay.
If all you care about is maximizing revenue and/or profit, there may be a discussion to be had about what games to show and when to show those games. However, I don't believe anyone commenting on this thread knows enough about the financial aspects involved to comment intelligently in such a discussion. Of course, if someone does know the hard numbers involved, I would be interested in hearing them.
I hope that the people involved in making the decisions realize that the decisions shouldn't be made, at least not solely, on either of these factors. So far, thankfully, that appears to be the case.
For me personally, I think it is best for the games, the sport, and the players to provide as much access to the games as possible to everyone.
If all you care about is maximizing revenue and/or profit, there may be a discussion to be had about what games to show and when to show those games. However, I don't believe anyone commenting on this thread knows enough about the financial aspects involved to comment intelligently in such a discussion. Of course, if someone does know the hard numbers involved, I would be interested in hearing them.
I hope that the people involved in making the decisions realize that the decisions shouldn't be made, at least not solely, on either of these factors. So far, thankfully, that appears to be the case.
For me personally, I think it is best for the games, the sport, and the players to provide as much access to the games as possible to everyone.
I have sat at home for 3 straight Saturdays watching great HS games that I would have never attended in person. The Ignatius-Mentor game was incredible. I live 4 hours from the venue. I will admit that I have attended the DI doubleheaders in Cincy in past years but did not this past year. I love the TV aspect. I don't move from the set on the championship weekend. Throw in some good college hoops or football and its a great weekend. JMO.
Agree that it is hard to make a judgement on this without having all the details and financials in front of us.
You do need to first define what the goal is. Is it purely the short-term financial take for the OHSAA? Is the short-term money a positive or negative in the long-run? High schools sports have the most impact from a mission standpoint the more local involvement you have from the community. Are we creating a bottleneck where a couple dozen schools, typically in the bigger divisions, get statewide coverage and following while you see dwindling interest/support for the middle of the road programs or even one of those programs that don't happen to fall into those couple dozen schools?
It is great and convenient for me personally to be able to watch these games live on TV. I'm not so sure it is in the best interest of the membership as a whole, especially in the long-term.
You do need to first define what the goal is. Is it purely the short-term financial take for the OHSAA? Is the short-term money a positive or negative in the long-run? High schools sports have the most impact from a mission standpoint the more local involvement you have from the community. Are we creating a bottleneck where a couple dozen schools, typically in the bigger divisions, get statewide coverage and following while you see dwindling interest/support for the middle of the road programs or even one of those programs that don't happen to fall into those couple dozen schools?
It is great and convenient for me personally to be able to watch these games live on TV. I'm not so sure it is in the best interest of the membership as a whole, especially in the long-term.
kingpin2010 said:
Really?
I was there. You are correct that the Ignatius side was completely full (4000). I sat on the Mentor side in the last section on the scoreboard end. This section was probably 50-60% full. Byers home side...5 sections, roughly 8000 seats. Middle 3 sections very full...outside 2 sections...not.
Given that Byers' capacity is 11,700, the announced attendance sounds about right to me.
Whenever I read the conspiracy theorists, I ask one question...what is the motive to underreport attendance? The only thing that I can come up with is THEFT or FRAUD. But then you consider how tickets are sold (by the teams' athletic directors) and where the money goes and who gets it and 25 years of this conspiracy theory and someone would have to know something and on an on.
It doesn't add up.
Playoff games are frequently perceived to be crowded/full. But then you look around (like Saturday night @ Byers) and you see people spread out, a few occupied seats, a few empty seats, throughout a large section. Well, you don't have a sellout anymore. Byers on Saturday was a perfect example of this "effect". Looks full if taken in quickly, but it really isn't.