LIII lowest rated Super Bowl in a decade.

Lowest rated Super Bowl since XLIII in 2009, when the Stealers beat the Cardinals.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2019/2...tings-nielsen-viewers-streaming-rams-patriots

:sarcasm_on: Well, knock me over with a feather. :sarcasm_off:

Maulbert":1y11v2nj said:

Lowest rated Super Bowl since XLIII in 2009, when the Stealers beat the Cardinals.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2019/2...tings-nielsen-viewers-streaming-rams-patriots

:sarcasm_on: Well, knock me over with a feather. :sarcasm_off:

Click to expand...

Not surprising as there are more cord cutters every year and nielson doesn't count streamers in it's ratings system. Even with that, it was still well above the 2009 super bowl, so it's really not a bad rating when taken into perspective.

If this Owl didn’t teach the NFL that it’s not a good idea to steer games in favor of who they “think” will draw the biggest ratings and not a good idea leave everything “as is” with officiating, then nothing will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Rams have no fans and casual fans are bored of the Patriots. So it was a perfect storm in that regard. Also, the New Orleans market boycotted the game and the ratings bare that out.

I didn't watch.

The Rams didn't even deserve to be there so I am not sure what the 'Super Bowl' was supposed to decide - since one of the opponents was missing. You could even argue that the Chiefs were jobbed with a roughing penalty on Brady that prolonged a drive and gave them the win.

(Though I think the Chiefs were done once they lost their RB because he kicked someone...)

The irony is that a Chiefs vs Saints SuperBowl would have been a HUGE must watch. Plus it would be the Elite veteran vs The Next Big Thing. Probably an incredible SuperBowl too.

I imagine fairly and reasonably officiated games would have resulted in that outcome.

If the Saints went, they probably beat the Patriots (which is likely why they were not allowed to win that playoff game, the NFL wanted a tomato can so they could crown Brady again). But even that game would have likely been watched.

But WWE style stuff was going to be shoved right back at the NFL, and that is what happened. Apparently, even the commercials sucked, so I suppose I missed nothing.

What an amazing performance from the Paper Champions from LA :?

kidhawk":29enz8w4 said:

Maulbert":29enz8w4 said:

Lowest rated Super Bowl since XLIII in 2009, when the Stealers beat the Cardinals.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2019/2...tings-nielsen-viewers-streaming-rams-patriots

:sarcasm_on: Well, knock me over with a feather. :sarcasm_off:

Click to expand...

Not surprising as there are more cord cutters every year and nielson doesn't count streamers in it's ratings system. Even with that, it was still well above the 2009 super bowl, so it's really not a bad rating when taken into perspective.

Click to expand...

Nielson does account for streamers, it’s actually one of the easier things from them to track, to some extent. I think their issue with streaming comes down to illegal streams and determining what a live viewing audience is.

For instance, streamers that are a few minutes behind aren’t technically live viewers. This is a key distinction for Nielson because it’s sole existence is pretty much determining ad value. This data can be distorted because someone with a DVR can pause the game and still be counted as a live viewer simply because the DVR is still caught up to the live feed.

knownone":2lo1rdfy said:

kidhawk":2lo1rdfy said:

Maulbert":2lo1rdfy said:

Lowest rated Super Bowl since XLIII in 2009, when the Stealers beat the Cardinals.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2019/2...tings-nielsen-viewers-streaming-rams-patriots

:sarcasm_on: Well, knock me over with a feather. :sarcasm_off:

Click to expand...

Not surprising as there are more cord cutters every year and nielson doesn't count streamers in it's ratings system. Even with that, it was still well above the 2009 super bowl, so it's really not a bad rating when taken into perspective.

Click to expand...

Nielson does account for streamers, it’s actually one of the easier things from them to track, to some extent. I think their issue with streaming comes down to illegal streams and determining what a live viewing audience is.

For instance, streamers that are a few minutes behind aren’t technically live viewers. This is a key distinction for Nielson because it’s sole existence is pretty much determining ad value. This data can be distorted because someone with a DVR can pause the game and still be counted as a live viewer simply because the DVR is still caught up to the live feed.

Click to expand...

Streamers are added in eventually but aren't counted in the initial ratings declaration. The ratings will be adjusted over the coming days/weeks. All in all though, it's really still a very solid rating. Anyone who thinks this rating is a win for those saying they didn't watch for whatever reason (there are several) aren't seeing the numbers too clearly.

Not even people in LA wanted to watch the SB.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/footbal ... ce4b7.html

Pretty sad that a team moves back into the 2nd largest market in the country, and no one cares about that team making it to the SB, when literally every other fanbase in every other city would do anything for their team to get there.

James in PA":1bl1vzj2 said:

If this Owl didn’t teach the NFL that it’s not a good idea to steer games in favor of who they “think” will draw the biggest ratings and not a good idea leave everything “as is” with officiating, then nothing will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I don't get this post.

Are you talking about SB48?

Sgt. Largent":276nsnsn said:

Not even people in LA wanted to watch the SB.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/footbal ... ce4b7.html

Pretty sad that a team moves back into the 2nd largest market in the country, and no one cares about that team making it to the SB, when literally every other fanbase in every other city would do anything for their team to get there.

Click to expand...

That was pure arrogance on the NFL's part. They left for 20 years and all those kids grew up to be basketball and soccer fans.

NFL didn't even have the right teams playing.

sdog1981":1cecnr1f said:

Sgt. Largent":1cecnr1f said:

Not even people in LA wanted to watch the SB.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/footbal ... ce4b7.html

Pretty sad that a team moves back into the 2nd largest market in the country, and no one cares about that team making it to the SB, when literally every other fanbase in every other city would do anything for their team to get there.

Click to expand...

That was pure arrogance on the NFL's part. They left for 20 years and all those kids grew up to be basketball and soccer fans.

Click to expand...

It's other owners, not the NFL.

Very rarely are the other owner's going to get in the way of their own moving a team, because they also want that leverage to hold over their cities for sweet new tax payer paid for stadiums when the time comes.

It's also LA, where over 50% of the population is made up of people from somewhere else. It's never been a great sports town.

LA already struggles to bring fans in since major parts of their audience comes from every other state against a team who essentially makes the SB every year that no one but parts of New England wanted to win gives you a very uninteresting SB. Chiefs vs Saints would have been far more thrilling even if it was a defensive battle just because I'd have been happy for either team to win as I'm sure most NFL fan bases would agree with.

I had no desire to see either Tom Brady or Ndamukong Suh get a ring this year. That's why I didn't watch.

I didn't watch. I'm tired of the Patriots. They don't always win a Super Bowl and I did watch last year when they lost (which was fun), but watching the same team win over and over is super boring.

When I was a kid/high school/college in the late 80s/90s the Super Bowls were often stupid blowouts with a couple of teams (Cowboys and 49ers) winning them a lot. And the Seahawks sucked. I still watched the Seahawks but the NFL wasn't a lot of fun to watch at times.

There were a few years after that era and before the Patriots won 3 out of 4. Those were exciting. Then it got a little annoying with the third Patriots win. But then we had nearly a decade of interesting football (even though the Patriots were always in the mix, they couldn't win). But because the Seahawks and Falcons couldn't get the job done, we're back to annoying.

Hopefully the Seahawks win. But if they don't I'd like to see the league be more up for grabs. It's more fun.

Sgt. Largent":1fkj2v4h said:

sdog1981":1fkj2v4h said:

Sgt. Largent":1fkj2v4h said:

Not even people in LA wanted to watch the SB.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/footbal ... ce4b7.html

Pretty sad that a team moves back into the 2nd largest market in the country, and no one cares about that team making it to the SB, when literally every other fanbase in every other city would do anything for their team to get there.

Click to expand...

That was pure arrogance on the NFL's part. They left for 20 years and all those kids grew up to be basketball and soccer fans.

Click to expand...

It's other owners, not the NFL.

Click to expand...

The problem with all the arguments about NFL arrogance or owner stupidity is they misunderstand how the math actually works.

SHORTHAND METAPHOR, FOLLOWED BY THE REAL NUMBERS THAT MATTER FOR THIS SITUATION:

If you're hungry, would you rather I give you 57% of one slice of pizza, or 45% of three and a half slices of pizza?

APPLYING THAT IDEA TO THIS CASE:

Let's assign St. Louis the highest metro-level national rating of 57.1 (which is what Boston had). Given that the St. Louis Metro area has 2.8 million people that means that with a 57.1 rating St. Louis is offering up 1.6 million fans who might buy tickets and gear.

Compare that to Los Angeles' 44.6 rating. It's 12 points lower, but the Los Angeles metro area has 13.1 million people. That means that Los Angeles is offering up 5.8 million fans who might buy tickets and gear.

The real question is then as follows: If you're selling something, would you prefer to have a captivated consumer-base of 1.6 million people or 5.8 million people?

The NFL and Rams aren't arrogant or stupid, they've just taken the time to do the actual math that matters for the question.