Sports Media Watch notes that the Fighting Irish were the big winners. The Duke-Notre Dame game scored a 2.4 rating, 140% higher from NBC’s first ND telecast last season. But most other college games posted significantly lower television ratings.
TV numbers
- Thread starter WoadBlue
- Start date
First time in television history that all four major sports plus college football are being played at the same time.
I can't believe we were the #1 NCAAF game with a 2.4 on NBC. That couldn't have been true in 15 years. The Bush-Push game got a 6.4, which I presume was #1 for the week.
In the last 15 years the market has gotten so splintered that ratings for virtually all major events are much lower. Outside of the Super Bowl; and even that has been in a downtrend the last 5 years.
Just look at the ratings for the top shows on television now vs 30 years ago. The percentage is much lower; in many cases less than half.
As I posted earlier first time in history all professional sports plus college football being played at the same time. Huge factor in the ratings for ALL the sports.
Of course. You are stating the obvious. Some would rather engage in speculation and make up reasons based upon their own beliefs.
Cable or satellite has probably tripled the number of stations offered in the last 30 years (probably should've replied to burmaboy). We're talking 1990. And look at the sports channels alone that waters down the rating. BSPN probably had 3 channels in 1990. Now it's Disney owned - that's about 15 channels right there that weren't around in 1990.
True. But a big matchup on ABC like Notre Dame-Michigan or CBS like Bama-LSU still gets a very large ratings. Our 2.4 may have barely made the top 10 on a typical Saturday last year.
Going forward the scary part is the SEC sold out to Disney (ABC/ESPN) and ND might also be in the Disney-controlled ACC.
Unless that's something new, CBS has the first right of refusal while carrying first choice of SEC football on Saturdays. BSPN has for a long time carried games from all conferences that are not first choices of CBS and now FOX.
I can't think of anyone else who played last Saturday, can you name 2 teams, quick?
Clemson and whoever they played, can't even remember.
O well
Clemson and whoever they played, can't even remember.
O well
How much of each is being broadcast? And even then you put all the numbers together and the percentage is less then it was 30 years ago.
Fact is that there are so many choices out there besides sports now; many choose otherwise.
There's a few more years on the CBS-SEC contract but Disney simply outbid them for the renewal. Soon about 90% of all CFB viewership will be on their networks.
With fans and tv ratings ND will always be relevant. They just won’t be relevant when it comes to national title talk. That goes for 97% of the nation as well.
If a team like Michigan can’t compete against Bama and OSU then ND isn’t going to either.
NBA is unwatchable. It takes 20 minutes just to watch the last minutes of a game.
NBA is amazing right now. Players are so skilled and athletic now it is ridiculous. So good. And the playoffs have been fun and awesome to watch
Partially right. There are a ton of factors. But to act like the racial and social aspects arent a factor is just wrong
he does not want to admit they are a factor because he supports all the protests.
In addition to losing some of the audience all these meaningless PR gestures sour those still watching so that they need less and less of an excuse to try something else.
Death of a thousand cuts and the pro leagues are going to find that out the hard way.
As far as the NHL has fallen in the last 20 years or so you would think they would have figured it out by now.
NBA sucks. It is the worst of all the professional sports and has been for the last 20 years, probably longer.
I do not watch NFL, NBA, NASCAR, MLB, or NHL. It's my decision. Many in my circle do. I do not lecture or shame anyone who does. That's their own decision. I might not agree, but it's their personal decision. There are musicians that I enjoy but I have zero respect for them as any kind of mouthpiece. Somehow it works for me and them. I don't have a ton of respect for BK as a person, but I can grudgingly separate that from his production as the ND HC. Irish players sounding off about fans is not a good look. Most fans can work past that. Some cannot.Most will continue to watch the Irish. A few may not. There is definitely a downslide in pro sports viewership with me, but I'm only one person and it's my decision. I haven't mentioned pro soccer because I'd rather attend a life insurance seminar than watch those dudes run around. Great at what they do, but soccer just ain't my scene.
NBA peaked in the mid 80's and has slowly gone downhill since; the MJ years kind of hid it for a while.
Watch a game now. Then watch a game from the past. You'll be shocked at how much more skilled and athletic the players are now than the past. It's drastic. This is typical of the certain fans who always feel their era and generation are better than anyone else's. And their is no changing their minds, no matter how wrong they may be.
If you talk to the older generation, they will say the nba peaked in the 60s and that was the best lol. It's all crazy talk
That, I think is debatable. I really do. Depends on how far you go back. Go back to 70s, probably. Go back to the 90s? I don't know....
The one thing that has changed is that everybody effortlessly shoots three pointers from 25 feet. That's true. But overall, I just don't know. Yeah, they moved a little different, the physical mannerisms, but they're not less physically athletic. Clyde Drexler comes off looking a little stiff to players now. But Shawn Kemp? That guy would absolutely destroy people if he was playing today. And given what a sloppy, fundamentally unsound, overly loosey goosey player he was, he would fit right in in today's NBA.
And I definitely think the players and the game is softer now. I hate to sound like that kind of guy, but it really is. In any case, the only way you could ever tell is if you had a time machine and you could take the Bulls or Pistons from the 80s/90s, and play them against the Warriors of today. Which is beyond hypothetical. I just see no reason why the Golden State Warriors would have their way with the bad boy Detroit Pistons of the year 1990, or whatever. Unless magically they just would. It would take a little bit for each team to get used to the flow or feel of each other. But the notion that Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars would be totally smoked by Curry and Thompson? I just don't see it at all, or why that would be demonstrably obvious, even though I'm inclined to agree with that line of thinking in general, of course.
It WAS better in the 60s. Did you watch in those days? Doubtful. You speak with naivety on many things. It was better because it was truer to its origin. A team game. Big money changed it to a selfish "Me" game. Refs have gotten way worse almost to the point of WWF. Or refs letting certain stars get away with anything akin to the way the Harlem Globetrotters were allowed to entertain us.
Jordan was allowed 4 steps to pretty much do anything because it looked good, Hakeem Olajuwon and moreover Shak invented this "Jump step" that allowed them 4 steps and it wasn't even a layup!
It sucks.
I think he's trying to get at something a little more abstract or subtle, and you'd be a fool if you didn't recognize that. Sorry buddy, but time goes in one direction. Sometimes things can devolve, and get worse with time. But that's the exception to the rule.
I'm with you, though. I think teams from the 90s would kick their ass. The sixties? Come on now....
It's a fascinating thing to wonder about, if also utterly hypothetical in a way that could obviously never be tested. I definitely feel like in soccer that the level of technique is really at a fever pitch. And better than it's ever been, noticeably so. And yet there's something missing. It's not like players from a previous generation, your Zidanes and your Thierry Henrys and Dennis Bergkamps would be outclassed by some random unexceptional player from today, they would definitely still be stars. That's what makes it so hypothetical. We're talking Back To The Future type shit, purely theoretical, but fascinating to wonder what would happen.
If the Bad Boy Pistons, could play the best Warriors team of yesteryear, who are coached of course by Steve Kerr, who's best NBA years were as the replacement for John Paxson in the Bulls triangle offense. Why don't we just ask him. I'm sure he'd say the players of today are so much better. Which might somehow be true, but those are pretty heavy thoughts to meaningfully contemplate. They're definitely not more physically athletic. And if they are it is negligible.
Lol. You're kidding right? Most of the players couldn't dribble with their left hand. Guys weren't even close to athletic. Players were wayyyy slower. Couldn't jump. Some had 2nd jobs. There were no international players.
This is the stuff I'm talking about. Watch a full game now. Then turn on the tape of a game from the 60s. It is beyond drastic. Its like 2 different sports. The pkayers are so much bigger, stronger, faster more athletic. This is the stuff that makes me laugh
Shawn Kemps athleticism was rare in the 90s. And he was a really good player, no doubt. But his athleticism is almost normal now. Theres guys who are as athletic or more but bigger.
Look at Giannis. Hes 7 foot, as athletic, but a better ball handler. Hed tower over Kemp as does everything better than Kemp.
Every era is different. But the Deyroit Pistons didnt have to guard playwrs 25 feet from the basket. Teams used to pack the lane and they could help off so many players that couldn't shoot. That wouldnt happen today. The floor is spread because players are such good shooters now compared to the past
You're going to have to make a better argument than that. Any notion that the athletes are vastly physically superior now is silly IMO. For your argument to have any compelling merit you're going to have to demonstrate that today's players have more game.... I don't think they're bigger, faster or stronger. If so, it's trivial. But everyone shoots long range threes now, that's true. That's noticeable. Otherwise, no, I don't necessarily agree.
And you're just declaring that players today are simply better and that's all there is to it, you gotta do better than that, even though this is absurd to even argue about because you'd be talking about Einstein level time travel shit. And you might just be surprised in a way that you had basically no capacity to anticipate given your juvenile bias for your own generation, that in fact players from today might get their asses completely kicked by players from a full generation and even longer ago.
I'm the perfect age, in my 40s, to have watched both eras, and while the basic argument that things improve over time, at least when it comes to, whatever, human society, is probably true, you'd have to do an extremely philosophically deep analysis to attempt to draw any worthwhile conclusions, or more like total guesses, for this admittedly very interesting scenario, and I'm not sure that's your area. But at a glance I don't think there's much difference at all, other than cosmetic. Everyone plays all loosey goosey now, and there's positives and negatives to that.
Ultimately it comes down to the zeitgeist. Not any one individual player, but the collective whole that they all contributed to and fed off of and are molded by. And attempting to clash the two eras into each other, and see who would come out on top if they could play each other in heaven or something..... there's just no way to know, given the smallness of the differences, in terms of skills, 'game', and physical prowess.
Ever since Magic and Bird retired the NBA has been unwatchable. NBA does suck. By far the worse of the big 3.
Of course what I said went right over your head. Or, you chose to ignore the points I made. And what happens if we put todays players with yesteryears refs? When the game wasn't all about money? When refs adhered to the rules including a layup was allowed 1 1/2 steps? Do you think players today could handle that? No way. There'd be more turnovers than points scored. Pushing off to create a shot? Lordy, we'd have the "stars" fouling out in the 1st half. Every trip down the court would be an offensive foul if they had to adjust to the rules back then.
And the game has become a dunkfest. It's boring basketball watching FGs be 50% dunks per/gm. So because you're tall you can play. Yea, I'm sure you will name a guy today that's short (like Calvin Murphy or Nate Archibald) The game is all about playing above the rim today! Tall = Talent. Let's see how much better skilled the players of today would be if they actually had to rely on basketball talent if they raised the rim 2 feet. Make the avg. 6'7" guy actually have to jump high to dunk. Dunks might mean something then. And would today's versions of Calvin Murphy or Nate Archibald dunk on a 12' rim if they're so superior to yesteryears littles?
David Stern made it all about the money. Home team getting all the calls because when you have the advertising showing the crowds going nuts and having a good time, it's not because the refs have called something against the home team now, is it?
So you guys mean 'peak' in terms of some sort of dignity of the sport, that sort of thing? Not that they were actually outright better than they are now, and would totally defeat teams of today if they could somehow play each other. Because I might agree with you a bit on the first part. But the 2nd part is a different scenario.
However I do think that if comparing the late 80s/90s, let's say, that not enough time has passed that you just automatically concede that 20 and 30 years into the future that they're just automatically better.
I watched 7 seconds of the Celtics, muted on a treadmill, and could tell that it was an exhibition for Black Power. I have no desire to go back.
Its called evolutuon boss. Look at any Olympic event that measures strength, speed, jumping ability. All numbers are better now.
The fastest man in the world in the 1960s is over .4 of a slower than Usain Bolt. Carl lewis over .2 of a second slower than Bolt. Its called evolutuon. They wouldnt be competitive now
Fans for some reason dont feel that apllies in sports. They think players get slower and less athletic while the opposite is true. Training and nutrition have improved dramatically since even the 80s and 90s.
Fans are so loyal to their era. It's crazy
Latest posts
-
Football If you'd rather listen to the Blue-Gold Game on radio ...- Latest: Eric Hansen
-