RoyalTea

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35013549

this says that the game that would result in the best ratings would be Vikings-Colts and the game that would result in the worst ratings would be Saints-Jets.

I'm not going to disagree with that, but I wonder why CBS would give a shit. Are there people who haven't yet bought Super Bowl ads because they're just waiting for the results of the conference Championship Games?

And if the ratings are unusually horrible, wouldn't that affect Fox (who's broadcasting the Super Bowl in 2011) and NBC (who's broadcasting the Super Bowl in 2012) more than it would affect CBS, who won't broadcast the game again until 2013?

Furthermore, would bad ratings this year really affect the price of advertisements in subsequent years? Do people really think that a Saints-Jets game this year would cause the American public to think the Super Bowl finally jumped the shark and they'll never watch another Super Bowl ever again?

twikoff

hard to say how much the ratings of one super bowl would affect future ad sales..

but it also only seems logical that it would be better to have their best ratings ever as opposed to their worst rating ever

not to mention.. cbs loves to use the superbowl to advertise alot of their own shows

j123vt_99

I think Saints-Colts would be a bigger game than Vikes-Colts. I think more people who aren't sports fans would take interest in the Saints and the whole Katrina thing than Favre. After all, that's what we are talking about since all sports fans will watch the game regardless.

Also, not sure if you guys read The Sports Guy on espn.com, but he has a good article on how it is kind of a win/win game for fans

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...2&sportCat=nfl

TGM

I think everyone but Jets fans want the Jets to lose, because their style of football will make for a pretty boring game.

Drav3n

everybody wants to see colts/saints just bc of how well they played all season and bc they almost had the perfect seasons. i do think it would be a good game, but i think more people would watch vikings/colts bc of name recognition of 'favre vs manning.' Dont get me wrong, Drew Brees is a great QB but when you say his name the average person doesnt recognize that name as they would compared to Favre/Manning.

But i dunno, w/ the way the Jets have been playing as of late I really wouldnt be surprised if they were able to beat the colts today.

Im amused at how all the sports outlets are saying that if the jets win they are gonna face the vikings in a battle of the 'favre redemption' and if the colts win then they will face the saints.. lol

Deftones

I don't necessarily believe that in terms of ratings. The Cards/Saints game last weekend was the lowest rated game of the weekend, IIRC.

Red Dog

Unlike the other pro sports championships, the Super Bowl isn't all that dependent on having big markets involved. The ad price is already locked in (and probably mostly sold), so I don't know why it matters.

Drexl

This isn't anything new. I'm sure they always have a preference. The NBA loved having the Lakers against the Celtics a couple years back, and they clearly would have liked Cleveland in the Finals last year. Although as Red Dog said, the NFL doesn't seem to care much.

If anything, you'd think they'd be fine with the Jets because it might bring in more of the New York market.

Fist of Doom

Bingo. That's why the ratings matter.

Plus, CBS wants to have the largest lead-in audience possible for their new crappy reality show, Undercover Boss.

RoyalTea

I don't think you can compare the Super Bowl to a best-of-seven NBA finals.

Patman

Usually, the network will guarantee a certain ratings level, and if the game is perceived to be a boring one, or a blowout in the 2nd half, thus attracting less viewers, then the network has to reduce the ad rates and refund the difference, or give reduce rates on future ads until compensation for the low ratings is completed.

PopcornTreeCt

I really hate it when stories like this surface, fans are already paranoid that games are rigged and this only fuels that paranoia.

I really hate how NBA Commish Stern publicly talks about his preference for the championship? Who does that? You don't see Selig or Goodall talking about teams they want to see in the championships. Anyway, rant over.

DeanoBKN

I would think they would love the Jets. Not only are they from NJ....eh I mean NY, but it's an underdog story.

Drav3n

I dont think he was really comparing the two, but using that as the example. Last year for the NBA finals, every single sports fan was expecting Lakers/Cavs aka Kobe vs Lebron. It got so crazy that we started seeing those Nike commercials w/ Kobe and Lebron to hype it up more. Buttttttt... Orlando (the underdogs) shut the world up and eliminated the cavs.

But w/ all the hype and publicity for Kobe vs Lebron, the ratings wouldve been alot higher for Lakers/Cavs in the Finals, no doubt about that.

Exactly. I really wouldnt be surprised if the Jets upset the Colts today... as long as Sanchez doesnt give the ball away.

Red Dog

Honestly, I think today's Colts have a national following (thanks to bandwagoning) that trumps whatever market-factor that the Jets may bring as the NY/NJ B team.

That being said, it's hard to believe that this will be the first Colts game that Nantz/Simms have called this season.

Drav3n

same thing w/ the stupid Patriots too! haha

dx23

I don't think it's very professional for CBS to say something like that. If the Jets lose tonight by a blown call from the refs, its puts the NFL in a situation where they have to defend themselves from accusations of fixing games and being in cahoots with sponsors and CBS in order to bring more ratings to the big game.

RoyalTea

CBS didn't say anything.

dx23

You are right. It was a former CBS Sports president. The article makes it look like CBS said it.

chuckd21

The Super Bowl is pretty much matchup-proof at this point, right? It's not like the World Series when it's between Colorado and Tampa or something like that. People just watch the Super Bowl.

kenbuzz

Well, considering that all the Sunday/Monday night appearances took away the "sexy" matchups (CBS does not broadcast those), and the fact that the rest of their schedule included Tennessee, Houston, Jacksonville (twice each), Arizona, San Francisco, St Louis and Seattle, there was almost always a better matchup on those weekends when CBS had the Colts game.

kenbuzz

But when you go back and look at their schedule, it's easy to understand. They had a lot of Prime Time appearances (CBS does not broadcast those), and the rest of their schedule was loaded with teams from the AFC South and NFC West. Those weeks when CBS had a Colts game, it was likely that there was a "sexier" matchup available elsewhere:

Week 1: Jacksonville (CBS: NYJ at HOU)
Week 2: Monday night (at Miami) (ESPN)
Week 3: Sunday night (at Arizona) (NBC)
Week 4: Seattle (FOX)
Week 5: Sunday night (at Tennessee) (NBC)
Week 7: at St Louis (CBS: NE vs TB in London)
Week 8: San Francisco (FOX)
Week 9: Houston (CBS: SD at NYG)
Week 10: Sunday night (New England) (NBC)
Week 11: at Baltimore (CBS: NYJ at NE)
Week 12: at Houston (CBS: none)
Week 13: Tennessee (CBS: NE at MIA)
Week 14: Denver (CBS: SD at DAL)
Week 15: Thursday (at Jacksonville) (NFLN)
Week 16: NY Jets (CBS: DEN at PHI)
Week 17: at Buffalo (CBS: BAL at OAK)

Games in BOLD were on CBS
CBS: xxx at xxx was the "national" game they chose over the Colts

Jimmy James

Yeah, the only decent ones were Houston and Baltimore. For one of those three weeks, CBS put the first team on relatively rare opportunities to broadcast a Giants game -- their New York affiliate has to love them promoting that game heavily with their best team.

I think it was a questionable call airing Jets-Patriots over Colts-Ravens.

What does none mean in week 12, by the way? Did the first team take that week off or something?

kenbuzz

Nantz/Simms did the OAK at DAL game on Thanksgiving day during week 12. There was no "#1" team covering a game that Sunday. The #2 team (Gumbel/Dierdorf) did the Colts game that weekend. So the only time CBS had a Colts in their "top" game, their "top" broadcasting crew was unavailable.

Red Dog

I didn't say it wasn't understandable, simply hard to believe without the detailed analysis. It's probably a first where the #1 announcing team didn't call a game from the eventual conference champ (besides the title game).