That "disparity" between cable and network TV confounds me a little bit though.

Now, obviously there is a difference between maybe how many people watching at 4pm Sunday vs. 8:30pm Monday.

But, according to the latest information "Cable or satellite service has increased slightly from 88.5 percent to 89.1 percent."

ESPN is a staple of any cable or satellite service, so, lets say, 85% of people with a TV get ESPN.

Here you have basically two "similar" events (Favre returning to Green Bay itself I guess has a bit more "rubber-neck" interest than the first game in Minnesota). Is it DOUBLE the interest though? Maybe, but, seems doubtful.

But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something. Seems odd in this day and age, but, maybe there is a large section of the population that still watches TV like its the 70s.

I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

UNC_Samurai: I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

Grrrr...

/Cards fan

UNC_Samurai: I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

We've secretly swapped Warner and Delhomme for this one game. Lets see if anyone notices.

It was a good game if you are a Vikings fan (I am), otherwise it was really just 2.0 of the game in Minnesota.

GB passed the ball well but couldnt protect Rodgers.

Favre decimated the GB secondary because they played 7 or 8 in the box on almost every play.

Harvin showcased why he is rookie of the year.


/there you just watched the Minny/GB game.

dletter: But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something.


I'd be curious to see the rating differences between current MNF and when MNF was on a 'regular' network a few years back. If there is a drop off in MNF rating when it went to a cable network, then I think there is some validity to your idea that people 'can't find' a cable network. Or something...


-WHO-DEY

dletter:

The Vikes/Packers game at Lambeau was the late game for 90% of all Fox markets.

Hmmm...I did read that somewhere, don't remember where, though.

dletter, don't forget that those who don't have cable only have a few channels to choose from. People with just a passing interest are more inclined to watch when they only have 5 or 6 options compared to 500.

And people wondered if Favre justified the 10 mil price tag at 40. Obviously he gets eyes on the tv set... at the end of the day that's why the NFL exists, so I'd say the answer to that question is a resounding "yes". Those are some impressive tv ratings.

JohnBigBootay: And people wondered if Favre justified the 10 mil price tag at 40. Obviously he gets eyes on the tv set... at the end of the day that's why the NFL exists, so I'd say the answer to that question is a resounding "yes". Those are some impressive tv ratings.

Favre justified the 10 mil at 40 because he can still chunk the punkin. I highly doubt the Vikings considered what the NFL TV ratings were going to be if they signed him.

why all the hate towards peter king

UNC_Samurai: I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

I blame temporary insanity

apacheco: why all the hate towards peter king

cuz he kinda likes to slob the knob of a few players. And its annoying at times.

mikaloyd: UNC_Samurai: I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

I blame temporary insanity

Thats funny I was gonna say divine intervention.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Favre justified the 10 mil at 40 because he can still chunk the punkin. I highly doubt the Vikings considered what the NFL TV ratings were going to be if they signed him.

Sure. The packers are happy because of his performance. But the NFL member teams and their sponsors and the networks are extremely happy about the ratings. More money all around for everyone.

I read earlier today that World Series Game 4 did 25 million...so all those football fans tuned out when the silly baseball game started. I guess football is (Peter) King

vinnydoz007: mikaloyd: UNC_Samurai: I'm sure it was a great game. We were watching Jake Delhomme salvage his career for one more week.

I blame temporary insanity

Thats funny I was gonna say divine intervention.

I was about to correct you, but Warner just tossed my comment to the other team.

I find it funny that a regular season meeting between two small market NFL teams can double the average ratings of the World Series between two large/huge market MLB teams: ~18 million for the first five games.


/baseball sucks

can we PLEASE get sportswriters to lay off of the favre bullshiat now? Every monday morning column led off with this increasingly agitating fellation. New Orleans, Indy and maybe even New England would wipe the field with the Vikings, but we have to hear Favre this, Favre that. Keep farking that chicken.

ViperCTW: dletter, don't forget that those who don't have cable only have a few channels to choose from. People with just a passing interest are more inclined to watch when they only have 5 or 6 options compared to 500.

Actually, I just figured out the guy who wrote this article is an idiot, and compared two completely different numbers:

15 Million HOUSEHOLDS for the ESPN game.
30 Million VIEWERS for the Fox game.

A household can have multiple viewers.

This article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4537559) claims that the ESPN game had 21.8 million viewers. So, while that is still a pretty wide spread when considering their is only a 10% difference in how many people have ESPN vs. FOX for very similar programming.... it is not as pronounced as 15 vs 30 million.

Kygz: dletter: But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something.


I'd be curious to see the rating differences between current MNF and when MNF was on a 'regular' network a few years back. If there is a drop off in MNF rating when it went to a cable network, then I think there is some validity to your idea that people 'can't find' a cable network. Or something...


-WHO-DEY

Monday Night Football ratings are definitely "down" on ESPN.

According to an article I found, ABC's last season of ratings:
"The average audience for "Monday Night Football" fell to 16.4 million viewers last season"

According to data on Wikipedia: "ESPN's 17 MNF telecasts in 2008 averaged a 8.9 rating, representing an average of 8,679,000 households (11,962,000 viewers), increases of 3%, 5% and 7%, respectively, vs. 2007 (8.6; 8,277,000 and 11,230,000)."

So, for the EXACT same timeslot, while ratings for the NFL across the board have stayed basically flat over the past 3-4 years (not having the larger decline of most TV ratings in general), somehow, losing only 10-15% of the households resulted in the program dropping almost 30% of its viewers.

That has to be attributed to some sort of "inability" for a certain percentage of people to find programming on cable channels vs. network channels. Or that people overall tend to leave their TV set "on" network channels more often than cable channels (so, the program might get marked as being "watched", even though nobody in the house is really paying attention to it).

TheSup3rN0va: New Orleans, Indy and maybe even New England would wipe the field with the Vikings

How do you know that?

TheSup3rN0va: can we PLEASE get sportswriters to lay off of the favre bullshiat now? Every monday morning column led off with this increasingly agitating fellation. New Orleans, Indy and maybe even New England would wipe the field with the Vikings, but we have to hear Favre this, Favre that. Keep farking that chicken.

Maybe New England in New England. Indy, I doubt it. New Orleans? Will people feel a little different about them after Jake Delhomme goes 7-0 lifetime in the Super Dome this weekend. That's right, he and Coach Fox have never lost there.

Panthers by 4 over NO, you heard it here first.

dletter:That has to be attributed to some sort of "inability" for a certain percentage of people to find programming on cable channels vs. network channels. Or that people overall tend to leave their TV set "on" network channels more often than cable channels (so, the program might get marked as being "watched", even though nobody in the house is really paying attention to it).

Not necessarily.

A number of things changed when MNF moved to ESPN.

1) The "Game of the Week" was moved from Monday night to Sunday night. So the MNF game isn't even the best game like it used to be.

2) Announcers changed, and not for the better. The ESPN guys suck compared to Al and John. Al is a fantastic announcer. Madden was fun. When ESPN had Cornheiser in the booth, the game was unwatchable with the sound on. I had to turn on the radio announcers while watching the game.

3) The move from free TV to cable. While this might not be a huge deal, I'm sure it stops a good number of people from watching the game at home. Maybe they still watch from a friends house, or from a bar, but I bet there are a lot of people who felt alienated by the move to cable.

So all in all, I'd say there is a real FOOTBALL reason, a TV PRODUCTION reason, and an ACCESS reason for the ratings to drop.

unclejimbo827: TheSup3rN0va: New Orleans, Indy and maybe even New England would wipe the field with the Vikings

How do you know that?

Well with Indy and New England, they just have a proven record of elevating their play during big games, and usually finding a way to come out on top. New Orleans, and Drew Brees, might just be the new kid on the block that will start doing the same.

For the record I think it'd really be a toss-up, all 4 look like solid teams, and it wouldn't surprise me if the conference championships involved NE-Indy and Minn-NO.

TheSup3rN0va: can we PLEASE get sportswriters to lay off of the favre bullshiat now? Every monday morning column led off with this increasingly agitating fellation. New Orleans, Indy and maybe even New England would wipe the field with the Vikings, but we have to hear Favre this, Favre that. Keep farking that chicken.

are you kidding? The Vikings are the most complete team in football. One of the best run games, an excellent pass game, better defense than Indy, NO, and New England, and probably better special teams as well with Harvin playing out of his mind. The Vikings can beat all of the teams you think would wipe the floor with him. You see, this is called irrational favre hate. hate him for his ego, but the guys playing insanely well and his team is a legit contender. Stop being crazy please.

vinnydoz007: You see, this is called irrational favre hate.

I don't think it's irrational when he is so overexposed. Did you know that there are 21 other players on the field when he plays? You wouldn't know it from the coverage.

Scopa: dletter:That has to be attributed to some sort of "inability" for a certain percentage of people to find programming on cable channels vs. network channels. Or that people overall tend to leave their TV set "on" network channels more often than cable channels (so, the program might get marked as being "watched", even though nobody in the house is really paying attention to it).

Not necessarily.

A number of things changed when MNF moved to ESPN.

1) The "Game of the Week" was moved from Monday night to Sunday night. So the MNF game isn't even the best game like it used to be.

2) Announcers changed, and not for the better. The ESPN guys suck compared to Al and John. Al is a fantastic announcer. Madden was fun. When ESPN had Cornheiser in the booth, the game was unwatchable with the sound on. I had to turn on the radio announcers while watching the game.

3) The move from free TV to cable. While this might not be a huge deal, I'm sure it stops a good number of people from watching the game at home. Maybe they still watch from a friends house, or from a bar, but I bet there are a lot of people who felt alienated by the move to cable.

So all in all, I'd say there is a real FOOTBALL reason, a TV PRODUCTION reason, and an ACCESS reason for the ratings to drop.

I can buy 1 and 2.

3 just doesn't make sense, and is the point I am trying to understand. Other than if you do not have cable (which I pointed out, is about 10% now, and for which I would understand a 10% drop)... how are you "alienated" by it being on ESPN vs. ABC?

But, all 3 together, I suppose you could attribute the first 10% to just loss of raw audience, the next 10% to the average quality of a game during the MNF season, and then 5-10% to the announcers (although with Kornheiser gone it is better this year). Tireico is competent as the PBP, and Jaws and Chuckie definitely have the football experience chops.

Accolade: vinnydoz007: You see, this is called irrational favre hate.

I don't think it's irrational when he is so overexposed. Did you know that there are 21 other players on the field when he plays? You wouldn't know it from the coverage.

he is a star QB on a contender, what do you expect? Brady,Paton, Ryan, and Brees get the same love when they are playing.

Accolade: vinnydoz007: You see, this is called irrational favre hate.

I don't think it's irrational when he is so overexposed. Did you know that there are 21 other players on the field when he plays? You wouldn't know it from the coverage.

No you misunderstood me. You can hate favre. Thats fine. But dont tell me the Vikings would get whooped by all those other teams because thats a joke. the Vikings are a sick team. could win it all this year. His irrational hate is what blinds him from seeing this. And thus makes him stupid.

lol'd at PK reference... douchy name dropper...

dletter: That "disparity" between cable and network TV confounds me a little bit though.

Now, obviously there is a difference between maybe how many people watching at 4pm Sunday vs. 8:30pm Monday.

But, according to the latest information "Cable or satellite service has increased slightly from 88.5 percent to 89.1 percent."

ESPN is a staple of any cable or satellite service, so, lets say, 85% of people with a TV get ESPN.

Here you have basically two "similar" events (Favre returning to Green Bay itself I guess has a bit more "rubber-neck" interest than the first game in Minnesota). Is it DOUBLE the interest though? Maybe, but, seems doubtful.

But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something. Seems odd in this day and age, but, maybe there is a large section of the population that still watches TV like its the 70s.

easy I get fox in h/d
I do not get espn in h/d

Nhojwolfe: dletter: That "disparity" between cable and network TV confounds me a little bit though.

Now, obviously there is a difference between maybe how many people watching at 4pm Sunday vs. 8:30pm Monday.

But, according to the latest information "Cable or satellite service has increased slightly from 88.5 percent to 89.1 percent."

ESPN is a staple of any cable or satellite service, so, lets say, 85% of people with a TV get ESPN.

Here you have basically two "similar" events (Favre returning to Green Bay itself I guess has a bit more "rubber-neck" interest than the first game in Minnesota). Is it DOUBLE the interest though? Maybe, but, seems doubtful.

But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something. Seems odd in this day and age, but, maybe there is a large section of the population that still watches TV like its the 70s.

easy I get fox in h/d
I do not get espn in h/d

how do you not get ESPN in HD? Where do you live?

I'm guessing he gets Fox OTA.

He is the Peter King,
He can do anything

JohnBigBootay 2009-11-04 12:51:16 PM And people wondered if Favre justified the 10 mil price tag at 40. Obviously he gets eyes on the tv set... at the end of the day that's why the NFL exists, so I'd say the answer to that question is a resounding "yes". Those are some impressive tv ratings.
============================================

The NFL cares about ratings, the Vikings do not.

Favre is getting paid 20 million this year because he can throw the ball very well. He leads the league in touchdown passes and is, I think, #3 in passer rating. At 40 years old.

When he's healthy... he's DAAAAAAAAAMN good.

10 mil - it's 20 mil over two years last I heard

YonderScott: Panthers by 4 over NO, you heard it here first.

Just because the Saints defense is loose doesn't mean the Panthers offense exists.

jake3988: The NFL cares about ratings, the Vikings do not.

If you want to be pedantic the tv networks and the advertisers care about ratings the most - the NFL has already been paid by the networks for the rights so in the short-term the ratings aren't their concern. But you can be certain the vikings care about them as well - their owners are a member organization of the NFL and the NFL is about to do another tv deal.

unclejimbo827: 10 mil - it's 20 mil over two years last I heard

12.5 first year, 13.5 second. You know, if he doesn't retire...

I miss Madden. End of Era...blah...blah...blah.

Last summer, I watched a couple of games from the 90's when he was still sharp. He was a great analyst in his prime.

vinnydoz007: Nhojwolfe: dletter: That "disparity" between cable and network TV confounds me a little bit though.

Now, obviously there is a difference between maybe how many people watching at 4pm Sunday vs. 8:30pm Monday.

But, according to the latest information "Cable or satellite service has increased slightly from 88.5 percent to 89.1 percent."

ESPN is a staple of any cable or satellite service, so, lets say, 85% of people with a TV get ESPN.

Here you have basically two "similar" events (Favre returning to Green Bay itself I guess has a bit more "rubber-neck" interest than the first game in Minnesota). Is it DOUBLE the interest though? Maybe, but, seems doubtful.

But, to the end... the fact that the FOX game got DOUBLE the audience for the ESPN game, something else is "up" with how the average person is still watching TV it seems, that they cannot "find" cable networks or something. Seems odd in this day and age, but, maybe there is a large section of the population that still watches TV like its the 70s.

easy I get fox in h/d
I do not get espn in h/d

how do you not get ESPN in HD? Where do you live?

I live in Austin and just have basic cable. All the major networks broadcast in H/d espn on my sucky cable does not..So it was an easy choice on where to watch the game.

MNF has the best announcers in football

Icey_M: MNF has the best announcers in football

The current crew is okay, but I don't really see Jon Gruden adding much, he an Jaws are too similar in personality.Maybe they should get rid of Gruden and bring Suzy Kolber into the box. Not like she didn't earn it.

I have no explanation for the Theismann/Kornheiser mix. However, that's the same producers who brought the much loathed inanity of Denni Miller and Rushbo.