It is the same game. One is for the North title. One is for the East title. I do not agree that one game is more compelling than the other. I don't see how Tony Romo not playing makes the Eagles- Cowboys game less compelling.
What is even crazier is the Cardinals could win 11 games and not make the playoffs. I'm not sure how many times in NFL history a team has missed the playoffs after winning 11 games. I could almost promise you if this was the Cowboys or Giants the idiots on TV like Skippy Bayless and Stepen A Moron would say they need to change the format but because it's the Cardinals....ho hum.
before, Romo was assumed to be playing and Rodgers was assumed not to be playing that makes a big difference Matt Flynn as opposed to Aaron Rodgers Tony Romo as opposed to Kyle Orton since both games are for the division, they'd want the more compelling matchup. Rodgers making his return makes Packers/Bears a very compelling matchup. They promote games for the casual fan, focusing on the 'stars'. Romo and Rodgers are stars.
Possibly because Romo gives the Cowboys a better chance to win than Orton/Kitna, or because Romo has this history of sucking in big games people like to watch train wrecks. I'm not so sure I'm with Yisman on this but I do think with Romo in there it's ceratinaly a more competitive game at least on paper.
Competitive is not a synonym of compelling. So maybe Yisman and I are not on the same page because of that? I would say that, on paper, Phi-Dal took a hit in that the game now has a better chance of being a blowout, but I don't think the game is less compelling now. As for the casual fan, I have a hard time thinking a QB not playing is going to make much of a difference with the ratings. I buy it in the NBA when LeBron James sits out a game or in golf when Tiger Woods doesn't play.
yeah I didn't get into that part of it but the "Romo is a choker" angle is a definite draw. SI had him on its cover just a few weeks ago, discussing this.
Look at how the networks promote the games. When it's Brady vs. Manning, it's all about that. When Rodgers is playing, the ads are all about Rodgers. They push the stars, especially the QBs. They know what the casual viewer wants. Stars not playing definitely affects the ratings, and that goes for any sport.
So if stars don't matter in the NFL, you're saying NE/Denver with Mallett and Osweiler playing QB would do just as well in the ratings as with Brady and Manning?
I suppose a bunch of Giants and Redskins fans who hate both teams, might pass on the game now, but maybe would have watched it if Romo played just to hopefully see him blow at the end. I will concede that point. But with either game, NBC was going to win. Both games are for division titles and all four teams are big market and/or flagship teams.
I have to know more information. This whole thing started because of the comparison of the games. I think that even with the Romo injury, NBC's still getting a huge rating. Dallas is the biggest team of the 4 as far as ratings are concerned. These are essentially playoff games which always do good with the ratings. I cannot think of a playoff game that had poor ratings. If the AFC title game features Mallett vs Osweiler due to injuries to the other QBs, CBS will get huge ratings.
Again, I didn't say NBC was going to get a poor rating with Eagles/Cowboys. I just said they'd get a better rating with Packers/Bears. SNF never gets a poor rating. You keep telling me the NFL gets good ratings. I know it does. This is about one game vs. another. This is about regular season games, not the AFC championship. Regular season with brady/manning or with the backups.
Yisman has no clue what hes talking about, im not going to bother. I provided the evidence, two losing teams drew the highest rated week 17 SNF at that time. Enough Said. No one cares if its Charlie Whitehurst playing or if its Brett Favre playing.
I disagree, but anyway I was referring to your general statement that stars don't affect ratings. So this isn't about the playoffs or play-in games, it's about any game. Do stars matter for ratings or don't they? You're running away again because you can't keep up, as junc would say. You're quite clearly wrong. Direct quotes from you: I have to assume you're soxxxing for attention again.
If star power meant so much then why did WhiteHurst vs Bradford pull the highest rating? a 6-9 team vs a 7-8 team pull the highest rating? St Louis team vs a Seattle team pull the highest rating? Explain Mr. Know it all.
Can you not read? no one cares whos playing. It doesnt matter, AT ALL. I provided evidence. You just keep making claims while I support my stance with clear evidence. Make a strong case with evidence, until then I will continue to believe the facts that I have shown. Seattle vs St Louis 2010 week 17, ENOUGH SAID. Highest rated week 17 SNF Game at that point in time.
2 horrible teams, in 2 "smaller" markets, with 2 garbage QB INCLUDING a backup draws the highest rating ever. Just stop arguing Yisman.
:rofl: at you telling me to stop arguing. Those stats you posted that the NFL's ratings have gone up over the years, and that's true. It does not prove that the teams in the game are irrelevant to the ratings. You have the worst reading comprehension on the forum. Are you being serious here?
Enough said. The ratings continue to improve. So 2010 ratings were better than 2005 ratings and so on and so forth. You posting stats from before NBC got SNF is ludicrous. New network and they got the ability to flex games.
