Money! These teams make the most money so most likely have contracts for air time. Basically what ever team will make the network the most money in advertisement are those that will be seen. Ad money generation is what pays for the air time so you can watch tv.
2007-05-01 10:57:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by MN Twins Fan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was at a book signing featuring Rob Neyer and Jim Baker last week, and asked them a similar question. Both of these men write for ESPN.com and are not involved with the broadcast side of the company, but they had some insight.
First, obviously, the Yankees are the biggest viewer magnet, and the Red Sox second or third or fourth. ESPN doesn't cast games based upon goodwill and virtue, it's a business, and it needs to attract viewers. Yankees and Red Sox games do that.
Second, ESPN Galactic Headquarters is in Bristol, Connecticut, pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the NY-Boston corridor. You live in those parts and talk baseball in even small amounts (and consider, people at ESPN talk about sports ALL THE TIME) and you hear about (to no end) Da Yanks and The Sawx. (This is true; I grew up in central CT myself.) The producers at ESPN know their business, the terms of their broadcasting contracts, and that they need to follow and cover The Big Story whatever that story is that day. But there's bound to be some small amount of bias or preference; probably can't be helped. It's a geographical, cultural reality.
Third, and this tends to get overlooked, right now (or at least in recent seasons, and the effect carries over) the Yankees and the Sox are really good teams (yes, right now the Yanks are hurting; it makes for lots of dumb soundbites but hasn't yet started eroding the fair-weather fan base; people want to see them). When they play, they play good, exciting baseball. They have lots of Big Name players. When they match up, it can get electric. That all makes for good television, and ESPN would be remiss not to broadcast such games.
These are some primary reasons why ESPN shows a surplus of Yankee or Red Sox games. As for highlights, well, I don't watch BB Tonight or SprotsCenter any more so I couldn't really provide insight, but it's probably much the same -- right now the Big Stories are (a) the Yankees -- why such suckage? and (b) The Barry Show! And those stories are going to continue no matter what.
Neyer and Baker made good points. Now, I don't mind seeing lots of Red Sox games, because ESPN is pretty much my only viable option. But that's me. I also like seeing a variety of games and teams, but I'm not complaining.
2007-05-01 12:49:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everything at ESPN is slanted in favor and toward teams in the northeast and north.
95% of the employees at ESPN were born and raised east of the mississippi which is why they suck. Why the heck do you think they had Ohio state suckeyes and the silly michigan team ranked 1 and 2 by epsn when they weren't anywhere close to the top 1 and 2 teams.
ESPN hated it when the Texas Longhorns destroyed USC in the Rose Bowl. Everyone but Andre Ware and Craig James picked USC to beat Texas. That is is why all yankees suck.
Andre Ware and Craig James also picked Florida over the ohio state suckeyes.
There is even some dumb turd at ESPN who use to work at the Washington Post who thinks West Virginia will be in the national title game in football in 2007. Fat chance of that.
lmgdao.
The only two guys at epsn who know anything about college football are Andre Ware and Craig James. The other idiots (including 4 eyes lou holtz) are total morons and basically baseball yankee ding dongs.
Really Fox Sports owns college football now. The best college football games are played on Fox Sports, and they have the most knowledgeable staff for college football.
2007-05-01 12:44:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by loutx2 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
According to ESPNRadio morning host Colin Cowherd, here's the reason: those teams are more interesting to watch/follow, AND RATINGS! When those two clubs play each other, there is always some kind of conflict going on, either between the clubs themselves, or within each club! And besides, (Colin says), the networks KNOW what teams garner NATIONAL interest: NY Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Dallas Cowboys, Los Angeles Lakers, Duke basketball, Notre Dame football. And when you think about it, he's right. Take a look at the national TV schedules every year & see how many times one of those teams are featured! And especially come playoff time in their respective sports; just last weekend, The Phoenix-LA Lakers games had BOTH prime Sunday TV slots! The FOX Game of the Week the last two Saturdays? Yankees-Red Sox! Those teams have LARGE national followings, people either LOVE them, or HATE them! And the networks know this! And they make their TV schedules accordingly.
2007-05-01 12:42:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Music Maestro 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
1. It is the biggest rivalry in baseball.
2. ESPN is located in the geographical territory of Red Sox nation.
3. ESPN's number one baseball analyst (Peter Gammons) is a Red Sox fan and season ticket holder.
4. The Yankees are the most popular team in U.S. sports.
5. The Yankees are the one of the most hated teams in U.S. sports.
6. The Yankees have the greatest history of winning.
2007-05-01 12:54:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by B 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they are an east coast station. They seem to hire most of their employees out of east coast schools and organizations. Just look at their bios. Since most of their employees and commentators are either Yankee or Red Sox fans (Hell, Peter Gammons - the "expert" is a Red Sox season ticket holder! No bias there), they seem to think the rest of the country is too. I hate ESPN. I watch very little during the week at all anymore. They also are the responsible for over 50% of your cable bill!! That is right - you pay so much so that ESPN will give your Yankee, Red Sox and Lakers games every so often.
Screw ESPN I say.
E astern
S eaboard
P rogramming
N etwork
2007-05-01 12:37:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
They are the best rivalry in MLB right now because:
1.- NYY were eliminated by the Red Sox after they were down 3 games to none and went all the way to win the WS.
2.- The year before, NYY eliminated the red Sox in extra innings with a walk-off HR in the ALCS.
3.- Together (NYY and Red Sox), they probably have the largest fan base in baseball (including overseas and the newly expanded market to Japan).
4.- A-Rod is a NYY after an unsuccessful bid by the Red Sox.
5.- Dice-K is a Red Sox after Boston beat the NYY for their services.
And we can continue on and on and on....
There is so much history between both teams that they simply grasp the largest attention.
2007-05-01 12:40:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by rafzam 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
most sports fans are interested in the high market players/teams or the players/teams that has had some signifant moment(s) in the past and those teams are it. espn usually covers teams that are in contention that current year and the yanks and the sox are pretty much the top of the al east every year. no one really cares to know how like the royals, devil rays, or nationals are doing unless u are a die hard local fan which is only a percentage of national viewers, so they give the majority of the air time to the teams that most ppl have their eyes on.
2007-05-01 12:41:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by jayz 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately for the rest of the country the Market share is located in the Northeastern part of the country and as such ESPN always seems to broadcast the Bosox/Yankee games. Next time you listen to the broadcast note that their broadcasters Joe Buck, Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver hate the Yanks and always find something negative to say.
2007-05-01 13:13:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Oz 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Economics, man. The major-market teams draw tens of thousands more viewers and therefore thier games generate far more advertising revenue than mid- or small- market teams. Since ESPN is not a charity, they are acting to maximize profit by increaseing the airtime of thier best-earning programs.
2007-05-01 13:02:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by TheEconomist 4
·
0⤊
0⤋