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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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.