[BuddyBear]

Just as the BuddyBear predicted:


NEW YORK -- The Chicago White Sox's first world championship in 88 years was also the lowest-rated World Series ever.


Chicago's four-game sweep of the Houston Astros averaged an 11.1 national rating with a 19 share on Fox. That's down about 7 percent from the previous low, an 11.9 with a 20 share for the 2002 World Series between the Anaheim Angels and the San Francisco Giants.

While the 2002 World Series, which went seven games, rated higher overall, it was only averaging an 11.0 through four games.

This year was a drop of almost 30 percent from last year's series, in which the Boston Red Sox swept the St. Louis Cardinals for their first title in 86 years. That had a 15.8 rating with a 25 share.



Wednesday night's 1-0 Chicago win had a 13.0 preliminary national rating with a 21 share. It was the highest-rated prime-time show on Fox since the final of "American Idol" in May, but still not enough to save the series from being the lowest-rated.



Despite rating so low in comparison to other World Series, the four games of this series were each the highest rated prime-time network programs on their respective nights.

[Illusion]

You guys were right. I was shocked when I saw this on tv. Oh well, we still won the damn thing.

[BuddyBear]

I am a little bit shocked too...thought it would draw higher. Kind of suprised LAA/SF outdrew this one. Turned out to be a pretty good one too.

Oh well....I am sure CWS fans could care less.

[Razz]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

[b]It was the highest-rated prime-time show on Fox since the final of "American Idol" in May.

Ha.

[freebie]

If I wasn't betting on the world series, I wouldn't bother with boring @ss Houston.

[SBR_John]

It was a good Series just too bad it didn't end 4-3. Were there any errors? It was well played with great pitching and good hitting once the starters were cracked.

I enjoyed it, extra innings, perfect sacerfices and base running....

[Brick Tamland]

Originally Posted by Illusion

You guys were right. I was shocked when I saw this on tv. Oh well, we still won the damn thing.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it...did it really happen???

[onlòóker]

Im not really surprised.

[pags11]

yeah, too many other TV options nowadays...

[slacker00]

Probably says a lot more about the marginal TV viewer than about the quality of the series.

[OldeTymePlaya]

I watched more than usual.

[Shawn01]

Well, perhaps if the games didn't go well into the night there might have been more viewers. I consider baseball to be only slightly more exciting than watching paint dry, but even if I were interested I wouldn't stay up past midnight when I have to be awake at 4:30am to get ready for work. Screw the West coast.

[smoothsuave]

Ratings are predictable do too the lack of favorites making it too the World Series and the so called boring games.
I personally liked the games, thought they were good, but see were they would be boring. Game 3 was very exciting, but became boring. If it wasnt for betting I would not have watched the games.
As the teams not being favorites do to lack of stars, I don't completely agree with that.

[bigboydan]

Originally Posted by onlòóker

Im not really surprised.

i'm suprised to the fact that a team in the chicago market didn't pull better ratings.

[slacker00]

Originally Posted by bigboydan

i'm suprised to the fact that a team in the chicago market didn't pull better ratings.

Good point. Isn't Houston a fairly large market also?