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's Yelling Mob of Hackmen 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 the talking mongoose 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
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFull Count » Year after his career-changing meeting, Drew Pomeranz has no interest in returning to bullpen
(8 - 11:04pm, Feb 26)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP 20 Feb. 2017: Baseball in a Time of Politics
(1950 - 10:55pm, Feb 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogWhich spring training stats actually matter?
(3 - 10:51pm, Feb 26)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogMets’ Duda, Who Had Back Trouble in 2016, Is Now Bothered by His Hips - The New York Times
(13 - 10:48pm, Feb 26)
Last: Fancy Pants with a clinging marmoset on his Handle

NewsblogPosnanski | A Baseball Challenge!
(65 - 10:15pm, Feb 26)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogAngels figure to run more this season, just like Mike Scioscia likes it - The Orange County Register
(5 - 10:10pm, Feb 26)
Last: JAHV

NewsblogAZ Snakepit: If Zach Greinke were a Free Agent today, what would he get ?
(28 - 10:07pm, Feb 26)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogBehind MLB chemistry: How teams try to sniff out ‘bad guys’ | New York Post
(17 - 9:39pm, Feb 26)
Last: BDC

NewsblogHow to Fix Arbitration for Relievers | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 9:37pm, Feb 26)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogCan Bud Black break the curse of Coors Field for Colorado Rockies pitchers?
(10 - 9:36pm, Feb 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - December 2016 NBA thread
(2557 - 8:49pm, Feb 26)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogInside Baseball with Jon Heyman: Final offseason grades
(29 - 7:59pm, Feb 26)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(146 - 7:27pm, Feb 26)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogRio Ruiz has dropped 30 pounds in 16 months, boosted his stock
(5 - 5:07pm, Feb 26)
Last: DCA

NewsblogOT: January 2016 Soccer Thread
(285 - 4:24pm, Feb 26)
Last: AuntBea

Page rendered in 0.3173 seconds
49 querie(s) executed