It's enough that I knew the two teams playing in the Series, that both teams have never won, and that the progress was looking really good for the Brewers all while not being the type that follows baseball at all.

I believe that the answer is licensing. If a channel or network is not licensed to carry Official MLB Footage, then they are reluctant to report on it or even admit that such a thing exists, lest they inadvertently send viewers off to change channels, and go find the licensee.

A contributing factor is the absolute iron grip on the trademarked terms, such as World Series and Super Bowl, where every media outlet is 100% forbidden under pain of waterboarding, lest they utter these two words in proximity, whether for free or to promote a party or product or gathering event.

So ultimately, you wind up with a media environment where nobody but the licensee is willing to admit that these enormous sporting events exist. Of course, the licensees themselves are sending a firehose of coverage by every available medium, and those who are in-the-know, and wealthy enough to subscribe, are hanging on the every word of ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN9 with the play-by-play.

You can be sure that my father was watching every pitch and every out from his armchair, until his beloved Padres got left behind, yet again. San Diego Padres are another franchise that has never won a World Series. They are joined in the record books by the Rockies, the Mariners, and of course, the Tampa Bay Rays.

I don't really understand the "too long" complaint when NFL is the most popular sport. A baseball game is something like 30-45 minutes shorter than an NFL game. And NFL and MLB both have about 10-20 minutes of actual live play each so I don't think "nothing happens" is a particularly good explanation either.

I think the biggest reason is that it's much more difficult to follow as a casual fan due to the number of games. It was fine when baseball was more or less the only popular sport, but now it's competing with too many other things.

I hope it's true that the parity gap due to not having a salary cap is hurting the sport's popularity, but I'm not sure that's true either. The majority of fans root for only a handful of teams who benefit from not having one.

On point 2: in my experience, the tradeoff is that baseball is the most accessible in-person major league sport. The quantity, length, and seasonal timing of games means that tickets are almost always affordable and can fit into my schedule. I go to more and more MLB games every year, whereas a ticket to my NFL team is a serious expenditure, and that's assuming that my schedule works out to where I can attend one of 8 home games for the entire year.

The NFL and MLB seem to have similar numbers of recent dynasties and of different teams that have won a championship.

> I don't know why people in these comments are dragging politics into it.

It dominates news coverage even when we're not coming up on an election, and the high stakes involved makes it an even bigger topic, and one that weighs heavily on people's minds.

> People overall are incredibly ill-informed about so many things despite the wealth of information available.

The wealth of information available (and disinformation avilable) is partly to blame. It's easy to spend your time only on a small number of interests. Most people just let the algorithms of a small number of corporations feed them the vast majority of what they consume, so while technically there's a lot more information out there, they only see what those corporations choose to show them.