[moklerman]

http://raiderswire.usatoday.com/2016/11 ... n-ratings/
By: Will Reeve | 15 hours ago

The Oakland Raiders have become darlings in the national media in recent weeks, and if the ratings are any indication, they are already Los Angeles’s team of choice.

NBCLA’s Fred Roggin shared the Nielsen ratings for the nation’s second-largest media market on Twitter Monday morning. The Los Angeles Rams aren’t likely going to enjoy reading the results.

Fred Roggin ✔ @FredNBCLA
LA TV Rankings
1. #Raiders-Panthers
2. Broncos-Chiefs
3. #USC-Notre Dame (Sat)
4.#Rams-Saints
5.Michigan-Ohio State(Sat)
6.#Chargers -Texans
7:13 AM - 28 Nov 2016

The Rams not only were beaten out by the Raiders in their own market, they didn’t even beat out a college game between USC and a bad Notre Dame team.

The Raiders leading the way in L.A. ratings likely won’t surprise Eric Dickerson, who’s gone on record lambasting the Rams several times in 2016. But for the Raiders, it serves to further solidify the team’s ever-growing popularity.

Few teams are as popular in America as the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders are when they’re good. However, the way this current version of the Raiders is constructed makes them more appealing than previous incantations.

Derek Carr has the arm, leadership, late game heroics and personality to captivate any football fan. Meanwhile, Khalil Mack has the warrior spirit that endears him to those who respect the roots of the franchise.

Moreover, the team’s coach Jack Del Rio is exactly what a Raiders coach should be. Or, as former Raiders coach and Hall of Famer John Madden so aptly put it, “when he walks into a room, [you know] a man just walked in the room,” per The Mercury News.

L.A. is known for having a culture of instant gratification as well as possessing a short attention span. Present the city with a team that’s young, wins and is exciting, and they will embrace it even over a team located in their own zip code.

While the Raiders have no reason to be interested in taking over the Cowboys’ moniker — “California’s Team” does have a nice ring to it.

Our sincere condolences go out to Rams fans.

[moklerman]

I wonder how many reasons there actually are to fire Fisher?

[Hacksaw]

That's a report with SPIN you might expect from a Raiders new wire. No bias there..

Funny thing about winning. Where were all these Raider fans a couple of years ago?

If the Rams were winning I guarantee those number would be different.

California's team...? I betch'a the Chargers, 49'ers and Rams might take offense to that. lol

Nevada's team perhaps. And has anyone seen the way the StLoo's are reveling in this news.

[moklerman]

That's a report with SPIN you might expect from a Raiders new wire. No bias there..

Funny thing about winning. Where were all these Raider fans a couple of years ago?

If the Rams were winning I guarantee those number would be different.

California's team...? I betch'a the Chargers, 49'ers and Rams might take offense to that. lol

Las Vegas's team perhaps.

I agree that the tone of the article is Raiders friendly but the facts of the ratings aren't. Rams were lower than Chiefs/Broncos too.

Winning cures all and I agree the Rams ratings "would" be higher "IF" they were winning. MacKenzie's got the Raiders doing that, so credit where it's due.

[TomSlick]

I say good for the Raiders. I know LA Raider fans are not well loved, but I've never met a douche Raider fan here in the Bay Area. They've all been good blokes. Much better than Bay Area Niner fans.

It wasn't that long ago when the RAMS bombed the Raiders in St. Louis (52-0, I think). The RAMS have gone nowhere since then and the Raiders are THE STORY of the NFL.

Makes one kind of envious.

[Hacksaw]

I agree that the tone of the article is Raiders friendly but the facts of the ratings aren't. Rams were lower than Chiefs/Broncos too.

Winning cures all and I agree the Rams ratings "would" be higher "IF" they were winning. MacKenzie's got the Raiders doing that, so credit where it's due.

Absolutely, and where it's not. What's that fishy smell around here?

[moklerman]

I've never been one to worry about my team's popularity.
Usually, if you're good, people watch.

How large a font would you like for that particular "if"?

I think we all know just how possible "good" is with the current regime. Good usually means a winning record but I maintain that even if Fisher squeaked out a winning record, it'd still be so boring that people wouldn't watch as much as other teams with similar records.

Using the Raiders as an example, I think people aren't just watching because they're winning, it's because of how they're winning.

[OldSchool]

These articles weekly always make me laugh because they're just garbage "reporting". First and foremost unless they provide the actual ratings numbers their claim of "dwarfing" ratings is just a boast that isn't backed up. It's funny to brag about a ratings difference between different times and days. No kidding a 10am game drew less viewers than 1 pm and 5 pm games, truly a shocking revelation. Also it's revolutionary thinking that two teams with losing records yet again will draw less viewers than the AFC number one seed and the defending NFC champ and reigning MVP. Thes articles pointless and really aren't worth the time I just took to respond to them

[moklerman]

These articles weekly always make me laugh because they're just garbage "reporting". First and foremost unless they provide the actual ratings numbers their claim of "dwarfing" ratings is just a boast that isn't backed up. It's funny to brag about a ratings difference between different times and days. No kidding a 10am game drew less viewers than 1 pm and 5 pm games, truly a shocking revelation. Also it's revolutionary thinking that two teams with losing records yet again will draw less viewers than the AFC number one seed and the defending NFC champ and reigning MVP. Thes articles pointless and really aren't worth the time I just took to respond to them

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 6f89a.html

Can't find just a list of the numbers, which I'm curious how they look as the season's gone on, but this article does give some of them. Rams drawing 8.7 compared to other games in the market at 12.9 doesn't sound too good.

They are boring, they are losing and they couldn't even carry the "honeymoon" for a single season. That is NOT a good thing.

[OldSchool]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-can-t-beat-other-nfl-teams-in-la-television/article_082f221b-2bce-5214-94cf-208b1006f89a.html

Can't find just a list of the numbers, which I'm curious how they look as the season's gone on, but this article does give some of them. Rams drawing 8.7 compared to other games in the market at 12.9 doesn't sound too good.

They are boring, they are losing and they couldn't even carry the "honeymoon" for a single season. That is NOT a good thing.

So I still don't change my opinion. They're comparing time zones which is apples to oranges. Funny they don't point out the obvious that the Rams won their time slot. And the ratings in LA might be a smaller share than the numbers in StL but it provided more viewers. Kind of them also not pointing out the 84k people going to the games on Sunday's. Anybody can spin numbers to make themselves look better and somebody else bad. It all depends on your agenda.