Even the few results in the article are interesting. Only 61% of DFW residents have "watched, attended or listened" to a Cowboys game in the past year? Only 65% of Boston (area?) has done the same for a Patriots game? (And 68% for the Sox.) 44% of New Yorkers for the Giants, 46% for the Yankees.

Compared to that, 81% for the Cards really stands out.

It wouldn't surprise me if this were true; Cowboys support extends far beyond the Metroplex, compared to that of the Rangers. Many folks in DFW can't stand Jerry Jones or the way he runs his franchise (though they're probably thankful for all the revenue Cowboys Stadium brings in from a variety of events), whereas the Rangers have risen to prominence with a minimum of fuss.

We're far from the target demographic here.

My responses would be 100% and 100% for every team in both leagues over the last year.

I love how 49% of San Franciscans follow the you-know-whos.

And how 47% of NFL season ticket holders take a tax deduction for their seats.

Groups of people who tend not to watch sports teams: 1) people who work multiple jobs to get enough to eat, 2)people who don't understand English, 3) women.

4) people with lives (a group I hesitate to include myself in, but still).

2)people who don't understand English

When I'm somewhere where I don't understand the language, sports is usually one of the few things that are watchable on TV (the local music may or may not be in that category).

anything good that happens for baseball at the expense of football is allright with me.

more D/FW folks watched a Rangers game last year than a Cowboys game (and remember that the Rangers play ten times as many games).

So... which way is the parenthetical spinning this? Since there are 10 times as many games, it is much more likely that a person randomly saw a Rangers game than a Cowboys game, if they didn't go out of their way to watch either. But a single person watching a single game means less to the Rangers than it does to the Cowboys.

But a single person watching a single game means less to the Rangers than it does to the Cowboys.

Not really. NFL TV revenue is 100% shared. Ratings for the Cowboys mean very, very little to the Cowboys.

But a single person watching a single game means less to the Rangers than it does to the Cowboys.

Not really. NFL TV revenue is 100% shared. Ratings for the Cowboys mean very, very little to the Cowboys.

I don't know that he was referring solely to TV ratings. I'm guessing fan interest in general. Catching one Rangers game out of 162 might mean you are a less avid fan than catching one of 16 Cowboys games, and less inclined to become a bigger fan, buy some merchandise, etc.

Yeah, I meant as a general rule of thumb, there. Like if measuring interest in the sport, the fact that someone watched 1/16th of the schedule should indicate more interest than watching 1/162nd. But again, I'm just kind of trying to figure out what the "remember" part is supposed to indicate. It's certainly easier to "accidentally" watch a Rangers game than a Cowboys game, since there's a ton more of them.

I think football being on network TV changes that equation somewhat. My mom (who actually likes baseball, but let's use her as a proxy for not a sports viewer) is not accidentally leaving the channel on CSN Bay Area because she never watches it. But she is much likelier to leave the TV on Fox and therefore be sucked into a 31-31 tie in the fourth quarter and I assume watching the end of the game counts as a yes in the poll.