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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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: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.
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.
dletter
2009-11-04 10:21:38 AM
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.
UNC_Samurai
2009-11-04 10:28:58 AM
thompsonius
2009-11-04 11:53:23 AM
Grrrr...
/Cards fan
The Bestest
2009-11-04 12:40:01 PM
We've secretly swapped Warner and Delhomme for this one game. Lets see if anyone notices.
tforbes
2009-11-04 12:41:19 PM
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.
Kygz
2009-11-04 12:42:17 PM
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
joyride75
2009-11-04 12:42:22 PM
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.
ViperCTW
2009-11-04 12:47:26 PM
JohnBigBootay
2009-11-04 12:51:16 PM
Lt. Cheese Weasel
2009-11-04 01:04:09 PM
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.
apacheco
2009-11-04 01:08:49 PM
mikaloyd
2009-11-04 01:11:37 PM
I blame temporary insanity
vinnydoz007
2009-11-04 01:12:29 PM
cuz he kinda likes to slob the knob of a few players. And its annoying at times.
vinnydoz007
2009-11-04 01:13:04 PM
I blame temporary insanity
Thats funny I was gonna say divine intervention.
JohnBigBootay
2009-11-04 01:14:15 PM
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.
gmikes
2009-11-04 01:53:57 PM
newsweek
2009-11-04 02:01:25 PM
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.
Subterfuge1
2009-11-04 02:44:33 PM
/baseball sucks
TheSup3rN0va
2009-11-04 02:52:54 PM
dletter
2009-11-04 02:53:11 PM
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.
dletter
2009-11-04 03:03:18 PM
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).
unclejimbo827
2009-11-04 03:03:26 PM
How do you know that?
YonderScott
2009-11-04 03:15:38 PM
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.
Scopa
2009-11-04 03:15:46 PM
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.
Passive Aggressive Larry
2009-11-04 03:20:19 PM
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.