Football gets big ratings because of fantasy, gambling, violence and the fact that a football fan only needs to pay attention one or two times a week- three at the most. Therefore, even the busiest of people are able to follow their favorite team or their top fantasy players. The supply is nowhere near as much as the demand, so the surplus demand shows up in the gargantuan ratings. Compare to baseball, which is the day-in and day-out grind. If the NFL had a 162 game schedule, I doubt it'd get as good ratings as it does being on only once or twice a week (and, besides, people would die if they played football every day).

I've said before that while there are more NFL fans than there are MLB fans, I wouldn't be surprised that if you were to quantify the amount of "Fan-Hours" put in, baseball would probably beat it out.


...

Oh, and the Doctor Who finale was a definite mixed bag. Tons of loopholes and logical problems that make no sense, but a good story emotionally.

I don't get why anyone cares about TV ratings. I get to see the games, I know they are going to be on TV and I can follow the action on my phone or tablet so I don't really worry too much.

Interleague is of course personal preference. And the wild card has been widely successful/popular. Yes Selig has upset the traditionalist while massively increasing the fanbase.... he has the right viewpoint on this, screw the traditionalist for the most part.

Look, I understand why Jeff Loria or Ted Lerner or Drayton McLane or the like would evaluate Bud Selig this way. But I am not -- despite all appearances -- Jeff Loria, Ted Lerner, or Drayton McLane. So why would I evaluate Bud Selig this way?

I agree with Cardsfanboy. I don't think Selig is great, but has he really been so terrible?

Yes, 1994/1995 was terrible, but dammit, it was 17 years ago.

Baseball has had labor peace since then (the most labor peace post Curt Flood), and it looks like it will have labor peace for the foreseeable future.

I don't get why anyone cares about TV ratings.

They're a decent indicator of popularity. The real question is why anyone cares whether baseball is more popular than other sports. I certainly don't.

If the NFL had a 162 game schedule, I doubt it'd get as good ratings as it does being on only once or twice a week (and, besides, people would die if they played football every day).

They would have enormous squads that they rotated constantly, and people would be arguing about 4 vs 5-man QB rotations. Some would say the 5-man keeps the QB's healthier, but the detractors would point to how awful that 5th QB is.

They would have enormous squads that they rotated constantly, and people would be arguing about 4 vs 5-man QB rotations. Some would say the 5-man keeps the QB's healthier, but the detractors would point to how awful that 5th QB is.

As a lifelong Bears fan, this idea fills me with horror. We're lucky if we can get a decent #1. Hard to imagine what a #5 would look like.

As a lifelong Bears fan, this idea fills me with horror. We're lucky if we can get a decent #1. Hard to imagine what a #5 would look like.

What, you can't remember 8 years ago?

What, you can't remember 8 years ago?

That's not funny. I'd blocked him out! Worst I could think of off the top of my head was Henry Burris.

Jonathan Quinn and Craig Whelihan (the guy who came in after the Chargers started benching Ryan Leaf, and was even worse) are always my go-to hopeless quarterback references.

That article should also help you out with its off-hand references to Will Furrer, Steve Stenstrom, and Craig Krenzel.

If the NFL had a 162 game schedule, I doubt it'd get as good ratings as it does being on only once or twice a week (and, besides, people would die if they played football every day).


They would have enormous squads that they rotated constantly, and people would be arguing about 4 vs 5-man QB rotations. Some would say the 5-man keeps the QB's healthier, but the detractors would point to how awful that 5th QB is.

Hang on... this could greatly cut down on unemployment! Brilliant!

Yes, 1994/1995 was terrible, but dammit, it was 17 years ago.

Yeah, the Holocaust was terrible, but most of those Jews would be dead by now anyway, so who cares?

so, i'm watching revolution now, on hulu, and i cannot remember a worse lead character than this girl. terrible writing, terrible acting, and she's got disney eyes, where they seem to always be glistening with tears. she has no experience in battle, she has no experience as a leader, and she has terrible judgement, and yet, when there's a disagreement, somehow she gets her way.

again, this is kind of in the same realm as my complaint about dexter, where, if the nonsensical motivation of the main character was written into the storyline, it might actually be interesting, but since that's not the case, it's just very grating, as a viewer.

also, in that scene in the restaurant with the captive officer, there were basically 2 minutes between the captive saying that the monroe militia does not negotiate with traitors, and them actually negotiating a deal with the traitors. they really need to do a better job there.