Welcome to The A Block, Awful Announcing’s daily newsletter where you’ll always find the latest sports media news, commentary, and analysis.

Did someone share this newsletter with you? Sign up for free to make sure you never miss it.

🏈 Antitrust issues. FCC chairman Brendan Carr issued his strongest remarks yet regarding the status of the NFL’s federal antitrust exemption. On Thursday, Carr suggested there was “a point” in which, if the NFL puts too many games on streaming, their “whole exemption collapses.”

💰 New price. One day after a decidedly lackluster MLB debut, Netflix announced it will raise prices across each tier of its subscription offerings. The standard, ad-supported tier will increase by $1 to $8.99 per month, standard, no-ads will be bumped up $2 to $19.99 per month, and premium will increase by $3 to $26.99 per month.

⚖️ Trial delayed. The criminal trial against former Fox Sports NFL analyst Mark Sanchez has been pushed back for a third time. The initial trial was scheduled for December 2025. It was later moved to March 12. Then April 9. Now, the trial is set for May 20.

Read more of today’s top stories at Awful Announcing.

Ahead of tonight's loaded East Regional featuring Duke, St. John's, Michigan State, and UConn, Awful Announcing caught up with CBS Sports' lead sideline reporter Tracy Wolfson about how the network plans to cover the star-studded affair, how she'll approach in-game interviews with the legendary coaches involved, if sideline reporters are having a moment, and whether her partner Bill Raftery has really "slowed down" on his fabled nightcaps.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Awful Announcing: This region is chock-full of heavy hitters. Do you recall ever seeing another regional this loaded with blue bloods?

Tracy Wolfson: I really don't. And sometimes we do get chalk in these regionals and we wind up at those. But honestly when you look even just beyond the names and you see the coaches that are associated with these teams, that's when it really stands out. It's not just one through four, it's the fact that you have Tom Izzo, Rick Pitino, Jon Scheyer, and Dan Hurley. And you put those names all in one bracket, it does make you feel like a Final Four.

AA: How will CBS balance telling the rich histories of these programs and coaches while also highlighting this year's teams?

TW: What I think Mark Grant, our director, and Ken Mack, our producer do such a good job at, and certainly everyone else on our crew that get the film and the features ready, is to try and document all of it, but also balance the fact that these are different teams than we're used to.

But then there's history. The Laettner shot is certainly going to come up if there's the opportunity down the stretch of that game that, you know, Rick Pitino's facing Duke. I think there's a time and place for it. I think establishing the region as a whole and the history of these coaches and these teams is important. Then you're going to get into the game, and you're going to focus on the game. You're going to focus on the players that are playing now and continue to tell their stories, because that's really important.

Certainly you have Ian [Eagle], you have Grant [Hill] who played on that team, you have Raf who has seen it all, and then myself adding the stories in. I'm certain it's going to be weaved throughout but not take away from these teams that are playing right now.

AA: The NCAA Tournament offers the rare opportunity to interview coaches during the game. What's your approach for getting something out of those interviews?

TW: It definitely depends on the coach that you're interviewing, and it depends on the situation. If they are talking to an official, you might respond to their emotions at the time of that interview. If you can see something that you can utilize in those interviews, it might garner something more. If it's a back-and-forth game, sometimes it's tough to come up with a question because it's just a back-and-forth really good game, right? And there's nothing specific to ask that early, especially at an under-12 timeout in the first half.

So you tend to try and leave it a little open-ended and allow them to talk. Don't kind of veer them in a direction that won't allow for that. Certainly if a player is not performing as well as they'd expect early on, or if another player is, you may touch on that. It really goes game-to-game.

Hubert Davis is the perfect example. He's a guy, he cut me off in the middle of my interview because he's a fiery guy. I've had those interviews with him before where he's like, "It's live action, Tracy!"

Tom Izzo's going to give you great stuff. Dan Hurley is going to give you great stuff. Jon Scheyer's just always going to be professional, he's going to give you a good interview. And obviously Rick Pitino's been there forever, and you have to word things the right way to make sure he can give you a right answer. I think the more you know about these coaches, the better it is. And we've got four coaches that are really good and understand the situation when coming to those interviews.

But they are challenging. I mean, sometimes it's just a great game and you don't have something specific to ask, and the best thing to ask at that moment is, "What are you about to tell your team in the huddle?" Let's just get something. You just want to get something that the viewers find interesting.

AA: There have been so many great sideline reporter moments in this tournament so far. What is it about March Madness that makes it so conducive to these memorable interactions?

TW: I think the emotions of the players and coaches in these moments, because there's so much at stake, because it's a one-and-done format, because so much is on the line, you've dreamed of getting to this moment, there's just a lot more emotions. And I think they come out in those moments. And like I said, if you ask the question and just let them talk, you're bound to be in those positions.

You know, Lauren Shehadi's interview with Kevin Willard was just about points in the paint! And he gives you a great response, you know what I mean? You really don't know, and you can't force it either. That's the thing, you can't force those moments. Those moments are natural.

What Jared Greenberg was able to do regarding the mid-majors with that interview, that came from a genuine moment of High Point pulling off that upset and their coach standing up for the mid-majors. Those are the moments you're going to get in March, and I think we're fortunate to be in those positions and help bring that out.

These halftime interviews, I did the interview with (Duke forward) Maliq Brown, who talked about thinking it was going to be a cakewalk during the game when they were tight with Siena. He was really trying to repeat what coach Scheyer was saying in the locker room and it got out of context. But it got a lot of run because those are just those moments, right? He's put in a position that he's not used to being put in, where players have to speak.

So I think it's just the emotions and what's at stake. I think if you just give them that platform, you're going to get some gold. And I think that's the best thing about having sideline reporters there, is to just bring that out. Those postgame interviews, I'm loving the towels on top of the towels on top of our heads. I mean, it doesn't even matter what they're saying, the visual aspect of it is fabulous. And it only represents March.

AA: You're now in Year 3 with Ian Eagle on the lead team. Has your approach changed at all with Ian at the helm?

TW: My approach has not changed at all. Ian and I work very well together. He really enjoys bringing in a reporter and understanding what my role might be in terms of, "Hey, I'd like to do this report. This is a story I'm looking at," and he finds a way to get me there. Or, it's coming up, he'll communicate with Ken, our producers, and say, "Hey, let's bring Tracy in here. Or let's do this now, because Tracy has this report."

There's just a really good relationship between the four of us. It's a four-man team. It's not the three of them and then I chime in. What I also love is when they all react off of the interviews. I think that's really important, that kind of brings it all together.

Ian, as we know, is the consummate professional. He really is. He brings a lot of levity and maybe some current jokes that we can all laugh about. Me and him are the social media guys. And actually Grant's pretty good at it too. But we follow stuff, we know the trends. Ian's using all these terms that the youths are using right now when it comes to announcing. It's fun, we have a really great time together. He's been a really close friend of mine for a long time, and I always wanted to have the opportunity to work with him and feel very lucky that we do.

AA: Bill Raftery came on the Awful Announcing Podcast this week and said he's slowed down on his world-renowned nightcaps recently. Is this something you can confirm?

TW: Unfortunately, I can. But, I will tell you it's really hard the first two weeks (of the tournament). None of us are out for nightcaps. We did sit in the room til about 2:30 in the morning after our final games last week. Afterwards we go back to a room and we have some drinks and food, and he was there til 2:30. He was probably one of the last ones to leave. Actually, Grant made the joke that he left after Raf, and that was a really big deal.

So I guess I can confirm it, right? When was the last time Grant left after Raf!

I think it is just really hard this time of year. I think the Final Four gets to be a little bit, as much as there's a lot going on you've got a lot of extra days there, so maybe we'll see the old Raf there.

I don't know how he does it. I am 30 years his younger and I cannot even, I can't do it! We all look at each other and we're like, "How is he still going?" We'll get the check and he'll order another bottle of wine at the end!

It's also when you have the coaches around that he's close with. Sometimes he winds up out with them, especially in the Final Four when a lot of them aren't coaching and they're around, and there's a huge dinner sometimes with (Jay) Bilas and Raf and a bunch of old coaches, and so he tends to have the ... extra nightcap, let's put it that way.

Awful Announcing ratings guru Manny Soloway took a deep dive into the trendy narrative that MLB has overtaken the NBA in popularity. The verdict? It’s complicated. Here’s Manny.

It is a popular trope on social media these days to argue that Major League Baseball has surpassed the NBA in popularity. But does the actual data agree?

The claims come from all corners of the internet. Some people were simply impressed with the success of the World Baseball Classic. Some are baseball fans who just love their sport. Others are media personalities who don’t like basketball.

Regardless of whether or not these arguments are bad faith, it is worth looking to see what the data actually says.

For many, the World Baseball Classic is the center of these claims. The championship game of the tournament between the United States and Venezuela averaged 10.87 million viewers on Fox and Fox Deportes, more than the average viewership for the 2025 NBA Finals, which was 10.20 million on ABC.

But this alone is not evidence that baseball is more popular than basketball. The do-or-die Game 7 of the 2025 NBA Finals averaged 16.35 million viewers, a healthy bit more than the World Baseball Classic championship.

A reverse argument based on similar numbers could easily be made to argue that basketball is more popular than baseball. The United States-France men’s basketball Olympic championship in 2024 averaged 20.3 million viewers. The last time a full World Series averaged more viewers was in 2016. Though, just like basketball, Game 7 of the 2025 World Series averaged significantly more viewers, drawing 26.88 million on Fox.

These arguments are evidently flawed if they can be used for both sides, and that is before we get to the problems of comparing national team tournaments to club team tournaments. Unlike playoff games, national team tournaments don’t happen every year. A much better apples-to-apples comparison would be NBA Finals and World Series viewership.

So let’s make that comparison.

Between 2010 and 2019, only once did the World Series beat the NBA Finals in viewership. That was the Cubs-Indians World Series in 2016, which delivered over 40 million viewers for Game 7 and saw Chicago end the Curse of the Billy Goat. Otherwise, the comparison isn’t particularly close. The average viewership for the NBA Finals over that span surpassed 15 million each year, something the World Series did only three times.

But things have changed meaningfully after 2019. Since 2020, World Series viewership has topped the NBA in four of six years. Of course, the NBA Finals were pushed back in both 2020 and 2021, which confounds these results.

The starkest differences between World Series and NBA Finals viewership have come in the last two years. The 2024 Celtics-Mavericks NBA Finals averaged 11.11 million and the 2025 Thunder-Pacers NBA Finals averaged 10.20 million. That compares to 15.1 million for Dodgers-Yankees in 2024 and 15.5 million for Dodgers-Blue Jays in 2025.

Markets play a significant role in championship viewership in both the NBA and MLB. It’s one of the reasons why comparisons between them and national team tournaments don’t work. The low Thunder-Pacers viewership, for example, could easily be explained by the small markets the teams play in. Similarly, the Rangers-Diamondbacks 2023 World Series, featuring two smaller baseball markets, averaged 9.1 million viewers. An all-time low.

If MLB continues to dominate the NBA in championship viewership, that would be a clear indication that baseball has surpassed basketball. But such a declaration based on this data is still premature.

Instead, many have pointed to NBA and MLB regular-season viewership, suggesting that the NBA is in decline while MLB is on the rise. Despite what some have argued, both the NBA and MLB have seen viewership increases during recent regular seasons.

At the All-Star break, NBA games on NBC were averaging 2.6 million viewers, up 97% from comparable windows last year on TNT. ESPN and ABC were averaging 2.06 million viewers, up 18%. Prime Video was averaging 1.06 million, down 7% from comparable windows on ESPN last year.

Baseball saw similar increases last year. Sunday Night Baseball on ESPN in 2025 averaged 1.8 million viewers, up 21% from 2024. Baseball Night in America on Fox averaged 2.04 million viewers, up 9%.

But comparing national viewership between the NBA and MLB isn’t exactly an apples-to-apples endeavor. MLB viewership is much more localized compared to the NBA.

In 2025, the Yankees had 26 games nationally televised. That’s about 16% of their games and includes instances when the team appeared on TBS (which blacks out games in the local market) and FS1 (which airs in addition to the local broadcast). In the 2024-25 NBA season, the Knicks appeared on national television 24 times. The fewer games in an NBA season means that 29% of Knicks games were nationally televised.

NBA fans are far more conditioned to watch national TV games of their favorite team because they have far fewer regional-only games.

National MLB games on FS1 averaged just 324,000 viewers last season. TBS averaged 462,000 viewers. These figures show MLB fans are simply accustomed to watching their local broadcast, or fine with skipping a game that isn’t televised locally.

So, while the NBA seemingly has an edge in terms of national viewership, albeit not an especially large one, comparing national TV viewership (or local TV viewership) is not a great way to compare these leagues.

We can also look at survey data to try and parse out which league is more popular.

An S&P Global survey from June 2025 found that 29% of Americans reported watching MLB and 24% reported watching the NBA. That is larger than the 1.9% margin of error for the survey. On the other hand, a 2024 Ampere Analysis survey found that only 9% of people said baseball was their favorite sport, compared to 17% who said basketball.

The dramatically different responses to these questions, framed very differently, suggests that even survey data can’t answer our question perfectly.

So, what was the point of this exercise?

Viewership data is far from infallible, and those using it to make an argument about which league is more popular should use caution. It is very easy to shape the available data whichever way best fits the chosen narrative.

The NBA generally averages more regular season viewers, but that could easily be a product of higher local MLB viewership, and MLB has narrowed and arguably surpassed the NBA in championship viewership.

What the overall data does show is that there is not a dramatic difference. Anyone arguing otherwise is either working from a much narrower slice of data, or is simply looking to push an agenda.