10 posts
  • Page 1 of 1
 by St. Loser Fan
3 months ago
 Total posts:  2086  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum

Further proof St. Louis is a bad football town and deserved to lose the Rams.

St. Louis has nation's fourth-worst Super Bowl television rating
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 5556c.html

St. Louis and NBC just didn’t mix this NFL season.

The local rating for Sunday’s Super Bowl telecast was worse than all but three of the 56 major markets in which Nielsen measures viewership electronically, and comes after St. Louis finished 47th for NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” telecasts in 2017.

Nielsen says 41.6 percent of homes with a TV in the St. Louis market were tuned in, on average, to KSDK (Channel 5) on Sunday when it was airing NBC’s telecast of Philadelphia’s exciting 41-33 upset victory over New England. The only worse ratings among the major markets came in Los Angeles (41.0), Miami (38.7) and Salt Lake City (37.7). At the other end of the spectrum, Buffalo surprisingly led the way (56.4 rating), followed by Philadelphia (56.2) and Boston (55.9)...

 by Elvis
3 months ago
 Total posts:  15952  
 Joined:  Mar 28 2015
United States of America   Los Angeles

That 41 in L.A. works out to 2,245,000 households whereas the 41.6 in St. Louis = 506,000 households.

L.A. is just really, really big. Basically twice as many people watched the SB in L.A. as there are TV households in the St. Louis market...

 by St. Loser Fan
3 months ago
 Total posts:  2086  
 Joined:  May 31 2016
United States of America   LA Coliseum

Elvis wrote:That 41 in L.A. works out to 2,245,000 households whereas the 41.6 in St. Louis = 506,000 households.

L.A. is just really, really big. Basically twice as many people watched the SB in L.A. as there are TV households in the St. Louis market...


That's why you have two teams and we have none.

 by BobCarl
3 months ago
 Total posts:  1773  
 Joined:  Mar 08 2017
Poland   LA Coliseum

Elvis wrote:That 41 in L.A. works out to 2,245,000 households whereas the 41.6 in St. Louis = 506,000 households.

L.A. is just really, really big....


I agree that L.A. is really really big.
And I also agree with Loser's conclusion: that's why You have 2 and He has none.

I'd be curious where the "41" and the "41.6" were drawn from.

When it comes to St. Louis, the population of the city does not represent the demographics of the St. Louis metro area. 41.6% of the St. Louis metro area is closer to 1,200,000 and ..... total of the population of just the city is well less than 500,000.

The Los Angeles metro has got to be well over 15,000,000 (just my guess)

Also the "ratings" don't take into account the social habits of their respective areas. My guess is that the Los Angeles area as a whole is a lot more outgoing and more apt to be at a party watching the game (not at home).

  • Page 1 of 1
10 posts It is currently May 22 2018