Packers smoke Brewers in head-to-head TV duel

[fitz19]

I am stunned to say the least. A rating difference of more than 2 to 1. 26 years vs a crappy packer team. Milwaukee area fans, can you clue me in to any possible reasons.

 

 

The Packers-Falcons game had a 29.6 rating, or 267,983 households. The Brewers-Phillies Game 4 had a 13.0 rating, or 117,695 households.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=803734

[PeaveyFury]

As I said in the 'TV priorities' thread, this state was wonderfully supportive of the team, and very excited about the post season, but is still a Packer-first state by far.

[bcf5575]

I wonder if the early crappiness by suppan lead some people to switch over to the packers. They were behind by a lot rather early on.

 

I bet that with a close brewer game the numbers might have been very different...

[Patrick425]

Doesn't surprise me in the least. This is a city/state that will bump a regular season Brewer game on the radio in order to broadcast an exhibition Packer game. I was actually very surprised when the Packers were bumped the last two weekends (although to WKTI in Milwaukee, which isn't as bad as in past years when the Brewers were shunned to some weak AM signal that could not be picked up west of 894). In addition, last week I would tune in to 620 an hour or so before game time expecting some expanded coverage of Brewer Pregame, afterall it was the playoffs. TMJ had on their normal broadcast up until about 1/2 hour before the game as usual. Geez, the Packers get about a 5 hour pre-game (I know, exaggeration..but not by too much), for an exhibition game.

 

Regardless of what people want to think. Doesn't matter if the Brewers were to win 5 World Series titles in a row. This is, and will always be, a football state.

[bucksman4]

I think the Brewers have made inroads locally this season by far in terms of unseating some of the Packer love in the media. If the fans can't tune in to support the Brewers during an elimination game in the playoffs (something they have not sniffed in 26 years) there's a clear problem. Oh and by the way, they weren't playing a Super Bowl winner, they weren't playing Dallas, Chicago, or Minnesota. It was the freakin' Atlanta Falcons. Now that's must see TV!

[patrickgpe]

i never saw the numbers of the tampa bay game vs the cubs game. does anyone know if that was a wipe out too?

[TSack27]

How do you think those of us that watched the games picture-in-picture, and flipped whichever one was in the middle of bigger action on to the large screen, were accounted?

 

(And before you question priorities, we were in the Green Bay area for the weekend with a dozen guys to all try to appease viewing preferences and planned to watch the games locally at a place with multiple TV's. But due to the FOX/Time Warner fued pulling the Packer game off cable, the place we were at could only get Packers with the antenna and Brewers only on cable, not both at the same time... and since it was GB, they went with the Packer game on all TV's. So being an out-of-towner and learning this just an hour before game time, we cut our weekend short and raced back home to catch first-pitch and kick-off at home where we assured of getting the Brewers and could control the remote.)

 

I just appreciate that the Brewers put us in that position on Sunday. Chicago fans didn't have to worry about Bears & Cubs games overlapping http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[JohnBriggs12]

A fall Sunday afternoon has meant Packer football on TV for 50 years. It's ingrained into the culture of the state. I was in Lambeau Sunday, with 70,000 other people. Another 80,000 people were in Madison Saturday night. I had earphones on listening to the Brewers as did many others. I was updating the fans around me as the game progressed. Everyone around me was interested but not expecting much. After all, we've all seen Suppan.

 

People were interested in the Brewers but I sensed that having watched this team play so poorly most of September, there was very little belief in them succeeding beyond what they had done. So rather than invest emotionally again for the Brewers, they stuck to their football habit. Besides, even a Brewer win just meant there would be another game (that wouldn't conflict with a Packer game) and that was the game with the potential for the big payoff for a Brewer fan.

 

As far as bucksman's comment about it being only the "Falcons", it's the NFL (not for long) bucksman where teams are on equal payroll footing, and last I checked the Falcons are 3-2 and actually pretty good.

 

Tsack are you telling me there are no bars in GB with satellite? I can't believe they all just have cable.

[DuWayne Steurer]

During the game Saturday night, I had brought a 13" tv into my living room with a splitter and another cable, and had the Brewers on the regular tv, and the Badgers on the little one.

 

I worked sunday, so I watched neither that day of course.

[Ennder]

I'm willing to bet as soon as Suppan gave away the game early the majority of TV's switched over to the Packers. That has more to do with it than anything.

[Invader3K]

I am not sure how this is calculated into the numbers, but more people had access to the Packers game than the Brewers. Brewers were on cable/satellite only where as the Packers were on broadcast.

[bork]

Also, I'm sure that cable vs. broadcast TV skews things a bit. How much closer would it have been if both were on broadcast TV?

 

My relatives were over at my parents house on Sunday. My sister and brother-in-law had the Packers on in one room. My wife, dad, and I had the Brewers on the radio in another room. No cable to watch the Brewers.

 

And my 4 year old has been raised right. He said "Why are the Packers on?" He'd rather watch baseball.

[naivin]

This is a Packer town. Packers were on over the air, while the Brewers were on cable. The Brewer game was over early. Those numbers make perfect sense.

[joepepsi]

A lot of people hate baseball. Football is an easy sport to watch and understand. It requires zero attention span and no knowledge of the game or players in order to enjoy it. Baseball is an acquired taste.

[Fatter than Joey]

I am stunned to say the least. A rating difference of more than 2 to 1. 26 years vs a crappy packer team. Milwaukee area fans, can you clue me in to any possible reasons.

 

This coming from the guy who has a Brewers logo photoshopped on a FB helmet? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

A lot of people hate baseball. Football is an easy sport to watch and understand. It requires zero attention span and no knowledge of the game or players in order to enjoy it. Baseball is an acquired taste.

 

I don't think that this is a fair statement at all. In the last 15 years the Packers have had 11 playoff appearances and only one losing season -- they have done a far superior job in creating and maintaining their fanbase. I think the difference in a large part is solely in the success of the franchises.

 

A lot of people keep forgetting that in 1982 when the Brewers went to the WS -- they had 4 years of 90 win baseball before that, so there was momentum heading into 1982 -- if the Brewers keep winning 90 games, in 4 years when the players are more familiar, etc... things will be a lot closer between the Packers and Brewers.

[MJLiverock]

A lot of people think baseball is the easy to understand sport. Football has imense amounts of strategy on both sides of the ball, many individual relationships to the strategy through different positions responsibilities and almost all players are involved in all plays.

 

Baseball is often just a game of watching pitches and involves only the batter and hitter. Baseball boils down to throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball with only limited moves for strategy. Football involves many more strategic moves via play calling on both sides of the ball.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I think that's pretty pathetic that people would watch a regular season NFL game over an MLB playoff game, but hey, people can do what they want.

[Patrick425]

A lot of people hate baseball. Football is an easy sport to watch and understand. It requires zero attention span and no knowledge of the game or players in order to enjoy it. Baseball is an acquired taste.

I agree completely.

 

My son is involved in various sports. Several weeks ago when the Packers were on Monday Night Football, his football coach rearanged the schedule so that the kids could get home early and not miss much of the game. There was absolutely no thought of that when it came to the Brewers playing at 5pm last Thursday. Yes, I realize it makes sense for a football coach to make arrangement for a football game over a baseball game. However, it was the freaking playoffs! I know that if it was basketball season, they would never schedule a practice (and would probably move a game time) during a Packer playoff game.

[JoeHova]

In the article in the JS about this, the author said that 80% of Milwaukee area households get TBS, which probably accounts for some of the difference (unless you assume people without cable aren't baseball fans in the same proportion as people with cable, I don't know enough about the demographics of those groups to say whether that would be the case or not).

 

However, I agree with the idea that football is more popular partially because it's much easier to be a fan than it is to be a fan of baseball, basketball, or hockey. You're talking less than 50 hours per season of watching your football team, compared with 200+ for basketball and hockey and 480+ for baseball. Being a fan of non-football team sports requires a serious time commitment. I'm not saying football fans aren't devoted or knowledgeable, I'm just saying that it is easier to follow 16 games than it is 82 or 162.

[Patrick425]

A lot of people think baseball is the easy to understand sport. Football has imense amounts of strategy on both sides of the ball, many individual relationships to the strategy through different positions responsibilities and almost all players are involved in all plays.

Ok, this makes sense and my comment that I agree completley with the fact that football is easy to watch and understand is not quite true. For many, I think it's easier to watch football than it is baseball. There is this missconception that football has more action than baseball. I think a lot of people think they understand baseball because they believe it's such a simple sport, but they don't.

[Patrick425]

Sorry for the multiple posts. But as JoeHova eluded to, I think any sport could thrive if you pared the season down to 16 games, one game a week in addition to the season taking place during months when the weather is turning colder and people have fewer options of other things to do. Football definitely has an advantage there.

[joepepsi]

A lot of people think baseball is the easy to understand sport. Football has imense amounts of strategy on both sides of the ball, many individual relationships to the strategy through different positions responsibilities and almost all players are involved in all plays.

Ok, this makes sense and my comment that I agree completley with the fact that football is easy to watch and understand is not quite true. For many, I think it's easier to watch football than it is baseball. There is this missconception that football has more action than baseball. I think a lot of people think they understand baseball because they believe it's such a simple sport, but they don't.

I don't mean to discount the complexities of football. It's a very coaching dependent game, whereas with baseball it's questionable how much a manager/coaching staff actually contribute. But football attracts far more casual fans. It's simple to understand at the surface; you can enjoy the action and athleticism on nearly every play without having to understand the "immense amounts of strategy". People can get together once a week with chips and salsa, some brewskis, and cheer on the team for 3-1/2 hours. Every single game is important and a significant part of the season.

 

A lot of people hate baseball. Football is an easy sport to watch and understand. It requires zero attention span and no knowledge of the game or players in order to enjoy it. Baseball is an acquired taste.

 

I don't think that this is a fair statement at all. In the last 15 years the Packers have had 11 playoff appearances and only one losing season -- they have done a far superior job in creating and maintaining their fanbase. I think the difference in a large part is solely in the success of the franchises.

 

I think there are very few markets where baseball on TV would outdraw a football game. It's true the Favre era raised the fanatical level and numbers of Packer fans, but football has a bigger fan base than baseball, and Wisconsin has always been Packers first.

[Ennder]

You won't ever solve the baseball vs football question pretty much~. Baseball is a long season where any single game doesn't matter that much, Football is a short season and every game means a lot because football has gone out of it's way to make every team have a chance at the playoffs. You just can't really compare the two. Any way you choose to compare the two sports in popularity is going to be highly flawed and the two sides won't agree on it.

 

For me personally Football is more fun to watch than Baseball but Baseball is way more fun to follow. In baseball I can name almost the full roster of every single team and can even give a mini scouting report on the players. During the off season I still visit baseball sites constantly, look at the numbers etc. In football I watch the game when it is on and then forget about the sport completely until the next game, I probably couldn't name 5 players on some of the teams. During the off season I pretty much dont' pay any attention to it at all.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

I think that the posts about the limited amount of games had something to do with the ratings. I also think the Brewers poor month of September contributed to the ratings differences. Finally, the fact that Suppan was pitching in an elimination didn't help much either. I flipped back and forth between the games staying mainly with the Brewer game. Most people I talked to did the opposite. I think if the Phillies hadn't scored early more people would have been like me. We hadn't made a lot of big comebacks in September, there was little hope to latch onto once the Phillies had their big inning.

[AJhawk50]

Wow thats a little suprising considering the dispute with LIN TV and Time Warner Cable. I wasn't even able to watch the Packers game due to the lack on an analog signal and even if I could I'd much rather watch the Brewers in the playoffs rather than the 5th of the 16 Packers games.