Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Nov 29, 08:01
2: Nov 28, 16:19
3: Nov 28, 09:42
4: Nov 27, 18:07
5: Nov 27, 12:04
6: Nov 27, 08:26
7: Nov 26, 18:06
8: Nov 26, 12:05
9: Nov 26, 08:29
10: Nov 25, 18:33
11: Nov 25, 11:12
12: Nov 25, 07:08
13: Nov 24, 13:17
14: Nov 23, 18:13
15: Nov 23, 06:17
16: Nov 22, 13:24
17: Nov 22, 09:09
18: Nov 21, 22:36
19: Nov 21, 14:03
20: Nov 21, 10:18
Posts: 153
In response to
"
Guy, you realize US population grew in that time, right? -- nm
"
by
Reagen
yes - and you were the one who posted about 2009 having the most viewers.
Posted by
Guy (aka lostatlimbo)
Dec 8 '09, 17:28
i bet the percentage population increase is much larger that of the super bowl viewer increase from 08 to 09.
maybe i misunderstood the point of your post on B2.
Responses:
the point is that of course there are more viewers now, there are more people.
-
Reagen
Dec 8, 17:32
26
Where are you getting the 1988 thing? first thing I saw said it's sorta comparable through the last 30 years -- nm
-
Will Hunting
Dec 8, 17:37
1
1978 through 1987 averages a 47.0 rating. 1988 to now averages a 42.2.
-
Reagen
Dec 8, 17:41
I don't disagree with your IM. I thought we were debating what matchups bring the biggest % relative to the NFL now.
-
Guy
Dec 8, 17:35
23
some teams bring more viewers, but better stories bring even more.
-
Reagen
Dec 8, 17:37
22
the 'story' is important, but so subjective - and my underlying point is that all NFL fans watch the game. that number might grow marginally
-
Guy
Dec 8, 17:41
21
They only care about a "name" because there is a story attached to it. It's absurd to say they don't care about stories.
-
TFox
Dec 8, 17:44
6
you clearly don't understand women -- nm
-
Guy
Dec 8, 17:49
4
you're right. i should learn that their interests can be easily categorized into "knitting", "cats", "things i can fuck", and "sad family dramas". -- nm
-
TFox
Dec 8, 17:51
3
Then you jump to the next qualifier: how hot are particular players, especially their asses.(Hi Troy!) -- nm
-
Trish
Dec 8, 18:06
1
Silly woman, that falls into the third category.
-
musubi
Dec 8, 18:08
Don't forget "Oprah"! (nm)
-
musubi
Dec 8, 17:53
("rakishly") -- nm
-
TFox
Dec 8, 17:47
I think you're wildly underestimating the number of casual fans. Those are precisely the people who'll watch because of a story. -- nm
-
Reagen
Dec 8, 17:43
13
the other factor worth mentioning is how good the NFL's marketing has become at turning ANY matchup into a 'story'
-
Guy
Dec 8, 17:51
12
so why didn't it work for TB/Oak or NYG/Bal or Phi/NE? -- nm
-
Reagen
Dec 8, 17:53
11
Women must have been busy knitting.
-
musubi
Dec 8, 17:55
10
excuse me - read my posts - TFox is the one who brought the focus on women.
-
Guy
Dec 8, 18:00
6
Did I miss you posting at least twice on b2 that Romo & Brady are hawt and would bring in women?
-
Will Hunting
Dec 8, 18:03
2
i mean to say "back on women". my case is the casual or non- fans cares about celebrities more than storylines
-
Guy
Dec 8, 18:08
1
I'm not saying you're sexist. I'm saying your argument is nonsensical and wrong. (nm)
-
musubi
Dec 8, 18:12
Oh, so this post by you wasn't you posting then? (link)
-
musubi
Dec 8, 18:03
[Backboard]
2
you c&p faster than me. -- nm
-
TFox
Dec 8, 18:03
1
I do a lot of things faster than y....wait, nevermind. (nm)
-
musubi
Dec 8, 18:05
That we are trying to discuss casual watching of the Super Bowl without saying the word "commercials" is even funnier. -- nm
-
TFox
Dec 8, 17:56
2
Honestly, ever since the commercials have become such an "event", they've kind sucked.
-
musubi
Dec 8, 17:59
1
This year, I demand more pothole. -- nm
-
TFox
Dec 8, 18:00
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.