Texsox

Another idea, and maybe we have this also, except I'm not invited How about adding a chat room for the games? Since our game threads seem to go on forever a chat room might be even more fun.

From my wallet it does. I have two teenagers.

Just one year after baseball looked like one of the worst programming investments a television network had ever made, postseason ballgames are transforming the competitive landscape of the fall prime-time television season. Executives at every network agree that an irresistable baseball storyline - with the presence of the long-suffering Chicago Cubs and the legendarily cursed Boston Red Sox - has captivated millions of viewers, who are apparently finding many of the regular offerings on other networks decidedly tepid by comparison. Indeed, a long list of television's most-popular shows, including "Everybody Loves Raymond" on CBS, "ER" and "Law and Order: SVU" on NBC and even "Monday Night Football" on ABC, have shown ratings declines compared with the same period last season on nights when they competed directly with baseball playoffs. The beneficiary of this ratings turnaround is Fox, a network whose entertainment executives were at this very time last October lamenting how postseason baseball was driving down the network's overall prime-time ratings while interrupting the premieres of its fall lineup. "You haven't been able to get any sense of the lay of the land of anybody's schedule this season because baseball is so skewing the numbers," Lloyd Braun, the chairman of ABC Entertainment, which is a unit of the Walt Disney Company. David F. Poltrack, the executive vice president for research at CBS, which is owned by Viacom Inc., added that the already potent impact baseball has had on Fox's competitors may only be heightened if the Cubs were to face the Red Sox in the World Series. With a possible matchup of two teams that have not won a title in nearly a century (95 years for the Cubs, 86 for the Red Sox), Fox might be able to threaten NBC's long hold on the competition among 18-to-49-year-old viewers that those networks consider the definition of leadership in television. "I would think NBC has to be nervous," Mr. Poltrack said. "Baseball could wind up being huge." And this is a sport that was all but written off as a TV attraction after record-low ratings last season. Baseball had performed so badly that Fox's parent, the News Corporation, took a $227 million write-down on its more than $2 billion baseball contract last year. Sandy Grushow, the chairman of Fox Entertainment, acknowledged that baseball has pulled off an astonishing turnaround. "The corporation has obviously taken quite a licking on Major League Baseball in the past," he said. "Now it's time to enjoy the benefits - and enjoying them we are." The first three games of the two League Championship Series brought in almost 50 percent more viewers than last year, 15.7 million to 10.7 million. The other three networks are down on those nights, to an average of 12.4 million from an average of 13.6 million viewers. This flight of viewers comes at an inopportune time. The networks, which have begun their fall seasons, desperately want to seize the attention of viewers, especially for their new shows. But so far, no new series has given any sign of breaking out as a hit. And executives at the competing networks say baseball is at least partly responsible. "Who knows if one of the new shows might have popped a number if baseball hadn't been in there?" Mr. Braun of ABC said. The show most directly affected so far is probably the NBC drama "Boomtown," which was removed from the network's schedule on Friday nights for at least two weeks. Some decisions about struggling shows are clearly being put off, until more normal competition resumes. That means some new shows may actually have gotten a reprieve from an early termination. One new ABC drama in that category is probably "Karen Sisco," which was pummeled in the ratings last Wednesday night. But ABC does not know whether viewers abandoned the show because they did not like it or because all four teams in the playoffs were in action. "We're getting killed in Chicago and Boston," Mr. Braun said. "And New York and Miami are involved too. That's four big markets where millions of people are watching baseball." The baseball bonanza is not all good news for Fox, according to Mr. Grushow. He said that baseball is not ideally suited to Fox, because its fans tend to be older than Fox's audience. And the disruption in Fox's schedule presents a challenge, he said. Fox had a disastrous fall last year, starting new shows like "Fastlane" and "John Doe" in mid-September only to have to pull them two weeks later, just as viewers were establishing loyalties. The shows never recovered. As a result, Mr. Grushow and the other top Fox entertainment executive, Gail Berman, decided to skip the fall start-up this year. Instead they inserted a new show they had especially high hopes for, "The O.C.," in the summer, to get it sampled by viewers. It fared well - and will now be back after baseball ends.Now that Fox has skipped the fall madness, it will never go back, he said. Will other promising shows be started in summer, and then be held out until after baseball? "You bet," Mr. Grushow said. He added, "We've seen our future." Starting the season later for most of its series - like the returning "24" and new shows like "Skin" - will allow Fox to show four or five original episodes of its shows when the other networks will have exhausted their supply. And with the return of two reality shows that helped the network dominate the second half of the season - "Joe Millionaire" and "American Idol" - Fox has a chance to pass NBC, which is owned by the General Electric Company, for the first time. Mr. Grushow dismisses talk of a potential season win. "NBC will have the finales of 'Friends' and 'Frasier.' That's going to make it extremely challenging," he said. And he emphasized the downside of starting a season in November. That means Fox will face the usual programming stunts from the other networks in a ratings sweep month. But it will be a lot easier for Fox to play out the rest of season after hitting a grand slam in the first inning.

I didn't know they had troughs at Wrigley, have you been *hanging* out there?

I guess since I'm rarely here, I wouldn't have found it. Me thanks for the help

...I thought the playoffs were on FOX.... I was trying to think of a Scrubs joke, I knew there was one out there.

Riddlin Kids!!

I'm so old I'm reliving my youth and waiting for Pong to be invented. Damn it seems to take longer the second time for something to be invented. I'm going to go play my Beatles 45s

Bring back roman but program a macro that everytime he tries to post, the same post appears. Something like: I respect everyones opinion. I'm an idiot, ignore me, etc.

yuz guyzz mean he'z naught? forgettaboughtit

That was cold.

cdl.panam.edu for me. I need the reminder to go online and work on my Music Appreciation course.

I've been down that road with both my grandfather and grandmother. As hard as it is on you, imagine your parents and try and be there for them. Prayers to you, your family, and especially your grandmother.

Great catch. Interesting you brought up that Natiopnal Geographic report. I read it also and it sparked a little research. It is very fascinating. There is some dispute on how to determined the number and who is considered a slave. Other theorist look at some kingdoms and old societies and claim a higher percentage of people were slaves back then. The problem is definition. If you lived under the rule of a king. The king demanded your labor, and in return provided shelter, etc. where you a slave? You were most definately not able to freely move about. If everyone is a slave except the king, and everyone has the same degree of freedom (zero) are there slaves? Some were slaves of technology and poverty. Where else to go? and if you could go somewhere else, how would you get there. The analysis was that people today have a much greater choice and freedom in careers, where to live, etc. They are not locked in by legal, social, ethical, or any other factors. THe level of slavery is less today than before. However, I will agree that perhaps more slaves, as a number, are indebtured today. Just like there are more scientists, lawyers, doctors, and college students. The population has grown. As a percentage it is less. And during other times slavery was looked upon as good business. Today there is a chance of ending the practice because the world condems the practice. So once again, IMHO we are better off today not worse off.

Its a f***ing nightmare

Even if they tried for a suspension today, automatic appeals would hold it off until next season. Do you think they were feeling the pressure? A little high strung?

It's a f***ing nightmare.

In another thread BMR proposes that the world is worse off and wonders if it's because we are becoming more liberal. I don't think we are worse off and repeat my comments to spark a different debate. Not liveral vs. conservative but are we worse off today than 50 or 100 years ago. Lifespan is longer that it ever has been. Including factors like Aids. The quality of that lifespan is longer with people much more active and healthy into their 80's. Two generations ago, mid 60's was old. Most major childhood diseases are at an all-time low. The flu use to kill tens of thousand every year. Look at TB, measles, polio, small pox, shall I go on? Worldwide, children are being immunizated at a rate greater than ever before. Is the world worse off? Would you like to go to the barber and be bled for your ailment? Perhaps have leeches applied? How about a frontal labotomy? Socially women and minorities have more rights than ever before. Shall we start counting blacks as 3/5? Stop women from voting? Bring back prohibition? Are we worse off today? When was the last time you heard a PSA about what to do when the Russians drop the A-bomb. You are probably too young to remember the Cold War. Speaking of wars what we have today does not compare with WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Are we worse off? Worldwide, slavery is at an all-time low and as manufacturing spreads to every corner of the globe, it may be extint in another 50 years. With advances in food technology, distribution, and farming practices we are steadily making improvements in famine. Are we worse off? We have upgraded sanitation practices all over the globe helping to stop potentialy deadly disease before it starts. Can you believe that diahrea kills tens of thousands around the world. It use to be much higher. We're spending a lot of time, effort, and money to upgrade sanitation in developing countries. Why? That's where our strawberries in February come from. Twenty years ago laborers use to squat in the fields while picking your fruit, now toilets are provided. Human dignity for the workers, not a conservative idea. Are we worse off? I know very responsible humans on both ends and in the middle of the political spectrum. Most of the issues you discribe as being worse are personal choice issues that are politically neutral. Cheating on your wife is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Being addicted to drugs is not a conservative or liberal issue. Technology today is speeding communications, making life easier. Would you like to wash clothes with a ringer? How about the environment? It was wacko tree huggers in the 60s that pushed industry to clean up their act. The Chicago river is thousands of times healthier today then 30 or 40 years ago. How about lead paint? Lead in our automotive fuel. The world is a much better place today than 50, 100, 200 years ago. I'm not sure what the difference is between an agenda and an opinion. Perhaps people who discredit other's comments by calling them an agenda will explain.

The world is worse off, and the question was asked of people without agendas. If you cant answer objectively, dont respond. I don't have an agenda. Your agenda is the world is worse off. You mention being objective yet start off by saying the world is worse off. Sounds like an agenda to me. You are looking for an overly simple answer to a very complex question. Further you bait the question and set up a premise that might not be true. You start from the premise that the world is worse off. That possibly isn't true and let me tell you why. Lifespan is longer that it ever has been. Including factors like Aids. The quality of that lifespan is longer with people much more active and healthy into their 80's. Two generations ago, mid 60's was old. Most major childhood diseases are at an all-time low. The flu use to kill tens of thousand every year. Look at TB, measles, polio, small pox, shall I go on? Worldwide, children are being immunizated at a rate greater than ever before. Is the world worse off? Would you like to go to the barber and be bled for your ailment? Perhaps have leeches applied? How about a frontal labotomy? Socially women and minorities have more rights than ever before. Shall we start counting blacks as 3/5? Stop women from voting? Bring back prohibition? Are we worse off today? When was the last time you heard a PSA about what to do when the Russians drop the A-bomb. You are probably too young to remember the Cold War. Speaking of wars what we have today does not compare with WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Are we worse off? Worldwide, slavery is at an all-time low and as manufacturing spreads to every corner of the globe, it may be extint in another 50 years. With advances in food technology, distribution, and farming practices we are steadily making improvements in famine. Are we worse off? We have upgraded sanitation practices all over the globe helping to stop potentialy deadly disease before it starts. Can you believe that diahrea kills tens of thousands around the world. We're spending a lot of time, effort, and money to upgrade sanitation in developing countries. Why? That's where our strawberries in February come from. Twenty years ago laborers use to squat in the fields while picking your fruit, now toilets are provided. Human dignity for the workers, not a conservative idea. Are we worse off? I know very responsible humans on both ends and in the middle of the political spectrum. Most of the issues you discribe as being worse are personal choice issues that are politically neutral. Cheating on your wife is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Being addicted to drugs is not a conservative or liberal issue. The world is a much better place today than 50, 100, 200 years ago. Please prove to me the *world* is worse off today.

As I recall that idiot did not know he carried a disease.

Are you talking the world or the US? By all accounts Sadamm was a conservative ruler, do you want him back? Aids came to prominence during the Reagan-Bush years, shall we call that a conservative problem? Families stayed together because women had no choices.

Have they dusted him off and paraded him around the dugout yet? I'm waiting for that big moment. I forgot to add the green.

Sad, very sad. I wish Ron all the best. As a very young kid I enjoyed weatching him play and clicking his heels after a Cubs win. As an announcer I enjoyed watching him play.

Actually since Kenny took his keys his kids can help him get back into his locked office