Strummer Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I would put the Dolphins in the national fan base category. Kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s while they were a powerhouse are salivating for them to be contenders again. It's just they've been pretty quiet since Marino retired (12 years ago) and if the NFL doesn't institute a salary cap in the mid 90s we are still getting "Superbowl is over by mid 2nd quarter" games. Incredibly smart move. There is no Cowboys of the early 90s team in the cap era. Impossible to keep all your great players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 The Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. The Pats did the same a decade later. It simply takes a while for deep thinkers to come along and figure out how to make the cap work. The other key thing is that the Cowboys were still a relatively young team (i.e. not that far out of college) when winning those Super Bowls. The reason the cap impacted them was that by 1994 they were hitting the career stage where they had opportunities to increase their contracts. Jimmy was rather brilliant in playing within the rules and knowledge base of the NFL in the era. Things got out of control once he left, Jerry took full control, and they made an idiot the figure-head coach. Pretty confident that if there were a cap created in 1984 rather than 1994, Jimmy would have figured it out. Especially because it would have likely impacted the Cowboys top *rival* more, despite their reputation later as great capologists in the 90s. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 This year, Giants-Pats or Giants-Jets would have drawn a better rating than Pack-Pitt. And a much better rating than Jags-Bucs. Tough to say for sure. Colts-Saints did better than Giants-Pats, and I think Steelers-Cards did about the same. Those are much smaller TV markets, but it doesn't seem to matter for the SB. I would have figured that Pats-Giants, with the Boston and NYC markets and 19-0 at stake, would have shattered all of the records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Tough to say for sure. Colts-Saints did better than Giants-Pats, and I think Steelers-Cards did about the same. Those are much smaller TV markets, but it doesn't seem to matter for the SB. I would have figured that Pats-Giants, with the Boston and NYC markets and 19-0 at stake, would have shattered all of the records. Ratings 46.4 Colts-Saints 42.0 PIT-AZ 43.1 NWE-Giants 42.6 Indy-Chi 41.6 PIT-SEA 41.1 NWE-PHI 41.4 NWE-Carolina 40.7 OAK-Tampa 40.4 STL-NWE 40.4 Giants-BAL 43.3 STL-TEN 40.2 DEN-ATL 44.5 GB-DEN 43.3 GB-NWE 46.0 DAL-PIT 41.3 49ers-SD 45.5 DAL-BUF 45.1 DAL-BUF This year of course will top last year. There has been a long, general decline since the peak with SanFran-Cincy for Montana's first win. It spiked for the 1985 Bears, then began declining again. Relative to the decline, the Giants did good ratings for their two wins during Tuna's reign. The Cowboys spiked things back up for each of their three wins. Even Buff heading towards their fourth straight job, which everyone knew was going to happen, did the best ratings in years. Dittos PIT. I wouldn't go too hog wild about PIT's rating there as we already saw Dallas move the ratings nearly *5* points in their first return to the Super Bowl, then another .4 when facing the same team they beat the year before. PIT doing a +0.5 over the second Cowboys-Bills is pretty small relatively. Ratings started their slide back downward after that. Farve's second trip drew a one-year bump... one can debate whether that was Farve vs Old Man Elway, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that Elway was *not* a ratings draw in his other 4 trips to the Super Bowl, which included against the Giants and Montana going for back-to-back (then again, I think everyone knew the 49ers were beating the Broncs). Anyway, if Farve-Elways drew more than Farve-JobberPats, the air went out the next year I'd add that the decline of the Super Bowl in this period is probably *less* than the average decline of other Primetime and Major Programing. The average rating of say the annual Top 10 was considerably less in 199-99 season that it had been when SanFran-Cincy set the Super Bowl record. What was happening to the Super Bowl was similar to all network programing: downward, for reasons I think we all know about. Anyway, there was a one year spike for the Greatest Show On Turf. If we look at just it and the three below, you'd think maybe the DEN-ATL was the outlier, and STL-TEN was just the SB getting back up to it's normal, declining level. But looking at the next three years, that's not the case. That STL team seemes to have caught fans imagination for one year. Sure did for me. Bottom fell right out the next year, even with the Giants. STL-NWE "held" the rating from NYG-BAL: this was before Brady became Brady, and the buzz for the Rams wasn't quite what it was two years before as people had seen this show not for a 3rd straight year. OAK-Tampa *might* be the turning point. Not a thrilling combo, but a mild uptick. Noteworthy as Primtime and Major programing continues to decline even through today, with the major exception of the NFL. Two more years at a higher rating with NWE, PIT-SEA having a similar bump above that TAM-OAK did over STL-NWE. Rather large jump for Indy-CHI, another bump for NWE-NYG, and a drop of more than a full ratings point for PIT-AZ. Indy-NWE then put up the best rating since the 48.3 of CHI-NWE with the 1985 Bears. This one looks to have pulled a 47.9 overnight, compared to the 46.4 last year. Overall, the *trend* is upward from the 40.2-40.7 range of XXXIII throgh XXXVII (with the exception of the Rams-TEN outlier). One might be able to argue the trend started with XXXVII when a not-very-interesting game did a modest increase on the prior year's game. The trend since then has been up, with the biggest "jumps" forward being the ones where Manning was in it: a full point, and then +3.3 of the prior peak in the trend (ignoring the dip for PIT-AZ). This year's is going to be a nice bump up, but it isn't terribly off the trendline, nor as huge as last year's. The best "draws" in history based on multiple data points look to be the Dallas Cowboys and Manning. The 1985 Bears have just one year, and wasn't quite the bump we saw from the Cowboys in the 90s especially when the Cowboys were swimming against a long current of downward ratings. Manning is part of the upward trend, though arguable a big part of it and +1.0 & +3.3 are pretty sizeable since he doesn't have a Team Brand behind him. The Cowboys were a key team in building the SB Brand in the 70s. They basically took the rating from a 39.4 to a 44.2 in their first two appearances, it then barely peaked above that without them, then they upped it to a 47.2/47.1 in their last two appearances. Of course the Cowboys then "made" the 49ers by jobbing to them with The Catch, helping build up that record ratings. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Todd Martin complains about Vince McMahon promoting WrestleMania as a bigger deal than the Super Bowl: Vince McMahon came out to start the show. He put over WrestleMania as a bigger event than Super Bowl. I’d like to take this opportunity to say this Raw report is a bigger piece of writing than the Bible. He said that no one has ever hosted an event in front of 75,000 people, not the Super Bowl or the World Cup or anything else. I guess that depends on WWE’s definition of what constitutes a host. He then said they will announce the guest host of WrestleMania next week. I wonder if they can find a way to have a “guest host” make a difference in a pay-per-view buy rate. I mean what do you expect him to say, actually there'll be a half dozen bigger UFC PPVs this year and we're not even in the same stratosphere as the Super Bowl? A promoter's got to promote and within the universe he's trying to create that's got to be the image he portrays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Todd Martin complains about Vince McMahon promoting WrestleMania as a bigger deal than the Super Bowl: Vince McMahon came out to start the show. He put over WrestleMania as a bigger event than Super Bowl. I’d like to take this opportunity to say this Raw report is a bigger piece of writing than the Bible. He said that no one has ever hosted an event in front of 75,000 people, not the Super Bowl or the World Cup or anything else. I guess that depends on WWE’s definition of what constitutes a host. He then said they will announce the guest host of WrestleMania next week. I wonder if they can find a way to have a “guest host†make a difference in a pay-per-view buy rate. I mean what do you expect him to say, actually there'll be a half dozen bigger UFC PPVs this year and we're not even in the same stratosphere as the Super Bowl? A promoter's got to promote and within the universe he's trying to create that's got to be the image he portrays. I only skimmed through the report to see would he spell "Corre" as "Corre." Anyway: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I mean what do you expect him to say, actually there'll be a half dozen bigger UFC PPVs this year and we're not even in the same stratosphere as the Super Bowl? A promoter's got to promote and within the universe he's trying to create that's got to be the image he portrays. I conceptually agree with Todd on this one, but probably would low sell it with a "That's a hoot" rather than wasting much thought on it. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Guitar Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 All this talk about the Super Bowl makes me wish that Pillman had gone through with his plan to to storm the pitch and handcuff himself to the goal at the 1996 event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's hilarious that a complaint about Dave comparing sports to wrestling turns into 2 pages of dissecting the NFL as sports entertainment You guys realize how ridiculous this is, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Yes. But the question is, does Dave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's hilarious that a complaint about Dave comparing sports to wrestling turns into 2 pages of dissecting the NFL as sports entertainment You guys realize how ridiculous this is, right? You might want to go back to see what those two pages were in response to. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I await Wedding planning is Pro Wrestling when Dave marries off his children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's hilarious that a complaint about Dave comparing sports to wrestling turns into 2 pages of dissecting the NFL as sports entertainment You guys realize how ridiculous this is, right? You might want to go back to see what those two pages were in response to. John A stupid article by some guy and then the ever tedious "Dave thinks everything is wrestling/sports entertainment, even the NFL" talking point leading to a long discussion of exactly that. What did I miss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 It's hilarious that a complaint about Dave comparing sports to wrestling turns into 2 pages of dissecting the NFL as sports entertainment You guys realize how ridiculous this is, right? You might want to go back to see what those two pages were in response to. John A stupid article by some guy and then the ever tedious "Dave thinks everything is wrestling/sports entertainment, even the NFL" talking point leading to a long discussion of exactly that. What did I miss? The radio show where he put over the booker of the NFL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The NFL is booked in a sense. Not in the "it's fixed" sense but in the presentation, which is what Dave tries to get it in an obtuse way. The schedule is built to maximize exposure of the best teams in primetime games and to give national games on Sunday the best matchups. They introduced flex scheduling to put the games with the most heat on tv. And why do you think the Pats and Colts play every single year? Rivalries, matchups, ratings, heat....it's all coaxed along by the NFL. I just find it funny that the discussion here basically made all those points, which is all Dave is really trying to get at but maybe doesn't articulate in the best way or bogs it down with wrestling analogies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The NFL is booked in a sense. And why do you think the Pats and Colts play every single year? No, this is where Dave gets confused and we try to correct him. The Pats and Colts play every year because you play the other division teams that finished in the same spot as your team. The Pats and Colts get first every year, except for one where they both got second. Beyond that, I think we just enjoyed talking football for a little bit, it was Super Bowl weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 This does remind me that I'm very happy about no NFL or MLB interrupting my favorite shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The NFL is booked in a sense. And why do you think the Pats and Colts play every single year? No, this is where Dave gets confused and we try to correct him. The Pats and Colts play every year because you play the other division teams that finished in the same spot as your team. The Pats and Colts get first every year, except for one where they both got second. You're right. I'm ashamed for not knowing that. Some NFL Entertainment fan I am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 In every business, business decisions are made for business reasons that make business sense. For some reason, that is slowly morphing into "Every single business is pro wrestling". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 The NFL is booked in a sense. And why do you think the Pats and Colts play every single year? No, this is where Dave gets confused and we try to correct him. The Pats and Colts play every year because you play the other division teams that finished in the same spot as your team. The Pats and Colts get first every year, except for one where they both got second. And no matter how many times we point that out: * people don't get it; or * they go Jumbo Is Lazy on it by shifting the NFL Is Booked discussion onto another stupid claim that we have to shoot down So we usually have to shoot down the old claim yet again, then have to spend time shooting down the new one. Beyond that, I think we just enjoyed talking football for a little bit, it was Super Bowl weekend. Yep... there was a lot of that. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 In every business, business decisions are made for business reasons that make business sense. For some reason, that is slowly morphing into "Every single business is pro wrestling". "BP is Pro Wrestling. Boy did the screw up the booking of that oil spill." John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Joe Barton did a great heel promo demanding that Congress apologize for going after them so hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 But it was a swerve because the fans cheered for him when they were supposed to boo and ended up turning the heel group into babyfaces by voting them back into office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Which is exactly like Kevin Nash and Sting being on to Immortal's plans all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 John, aside from my making the stupid mistake of pointing to Pats/Colts, something I really should have known, isn't everything else I said true and at the root of what Dave is trying to say? Thanks for being super snarky about it after I already noted my stupidity on that point too. It was an honest mistake. I'm sorry I don't read and study every word of every inane argument you guys have to know what has and hasn't been shot down previously. Usually when I see stupid arguments and pissing fights on these boards I just skip past it all because it never makes for interesting reading, and here I find myself getting into one against my better judgment. I "get it," because it's a simple concept that had eluded me. I'm not going to go do whatever stupid puro shit I don't care about and shift the topic on you. Guess I'm the exception to your well traveled rules of A and B outcomes to this argument. The point isn't NFL = pro-wrestling, that's the oversimplification you guys choose to label it by. The point is SPORTS ARE ENTERTAINMENT. Pro-wrestling is FAKE SPORT MEANT TO ENTERTAIN. Therefore any comparison to REAL SPORT is not outlandish, especially not the way pro-sports have evolved in this country where the emphasis is on the show as much as the game. Is it really such a hard concept to understand? It's a little clumsy, and maybe Dave doesn't verbalize it very well, but the gist of his meaning is pretty clear. Nothing Dave says of this nature is any more ridiculous than you guys mocking this talking point to the extreme degrees you guys do, ad nauseum, and it's really about the only thing here and at DVDVR that really bugs me because it's so fucking stupid and you guys just never give it up. /rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.