Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Startlegram: Rangers pass Cowboys as most popular team in DFW

The Texas Rangers are more popular than the Dallas Cowboys. That doesn’t sound right, does it?

Probably because it isn’t; or at least, the evidence is a single survey showing that, by a single percentage point, 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). 

I could not find the complete survey results, but basically there are a lot of cities where about as many people see a pro football as a pro baseball game each year.  The one interesting outlier is St. Louis, where evidently 81% of the population saw a Cardinals game last year as opposed to 48% watching the Rams.  Now that’s “more popular.”

BDC Posted: February 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cardinals, rangers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. puck Posted: February 10, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4366673)
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.
   2. TerpNats Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:08 PM (#4366698)
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.
   3. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: February 10, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4366703)
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.
   4. RMc is Fairly Irrefutable Posted: February 10, 2013 at 06:19 PM (#4366738)
I love how 49% of San Franciscans follow the you-know-whos.
   5. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: February 10, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4366781)
And how 47% of NFL season ticket holders take a tax deduction for their seats.
   6. depletion Posted: February 11, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4366940)
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.
   7. gef, more dangerous than a monkey w/ a razor blade Posted: February 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4367011)
4) people with lives (a group I hesitate to include myself in, but still).
   8. Swedish Chef Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4367072)
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).
   9. phredbird Posted: February 11, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4367101)
anything good that happens for baseball at the expense of football is allright with me.
   10. Greg Pope Posted: February 11, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4367110)
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.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 11, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4367129)
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.
   12. spycake Posted: February 11, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4367165)
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.
   13. Greg Pope Posted: February 11, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4367174)
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.
   14. Flynn Posted: February 11, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4367280)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BarrysLazyBoy
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 1-16-2017
(6 - 9:57am, Jan 16)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOTP 9 Jan. 2017: What’s next for sports, politics, and TV in 2017?
(1935 - 9:56am, Jan 16)
Last: DJS, the Digital Dandy

NewsblogThe Ballot 7: Larry Walker
(157 - 9:54am, Jan 16)
Last: dlf

NewsblogOT - NFL stretch drive/playoffs (December 2016 - February 2017)
(579 - 9:11am, Jan 16)
Last: Rickey! No. You move.

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(1788 - 8:38am, Jan 16)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his 2017 HOF Tracker Up and Running
(761 - 8:38am, Jan 16)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogOT - December 2016 NBA thread
(1016 - 2:07am, Jan 16)
Last: maccoach57

NewsblogOT: January 2016 Soccer Thread
(73 - 9:06pm, Jan 15)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogSunday Notes: Baseball Scotland, Projections, Posada, more | FanGraphs Baseball
(20 - 7:56pm, Jan 15)
Last: puck

NewsblogMaterials From Jim Bouton’s ‘Ball Four’ Days Going Once, Going Twice ... - The New York Times
(4 - 6:27pm, Jan 15)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogWe assigned cooler names to old players to get them into the Hall of Fame
(90 - 5:54pm, Jan 15)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHall of Fame voting shifts in Jeff Bagwell's favor - Houston Chronicle
(2 - 4:32pm, Jan 15)
Last: Scott Ross

NewsblogThe many reasons why Sandy needs to move Bruce for good of Mets - NY Daily News
(12 - 1:30pm, Jan 15)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogChecking in on Chase Utley’s Hall of Fame chances
(81 - 11:27am, Jan 15)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(95 - 9:19am, Jan 15)
Last: bachslunch

Page rendered in 0.1819 seconds
49 querie(s) executed