Pathetic Globe self-administers reassurance

[Rob0729]

I do have to agree with the original poster in that the Celtics have waited over 20 years to be the toast of Boston again and the Globe couldn't let the Celtics have their 15 minutes in the spotlight before they ran an article with a theme of "yeah, but the Red Sox that are partially owned by our parent company is still the most popular team in town". I find it a bit bush league.

You aren't going to see an article from Mike Reiss if the Red Sox win the World Series that has the theme "Yeah, but the Patriots are closing in on being the most popular team in town".

I don't have as much problem with the article itself as the timing of it. They could have waited until next week to run an article like that. It just comes off petty publishing it a few days after the Celtics win the title.

 

[BPF]

yeah 1 game out of 16 v. 1 game out of 162, so obviously each football game is more important and will have more viewers than a regular season baseball game. And nationally football is more popular now clearly, but all that it "says" is that you don't like baseball while others do.

It's not just 1 game here or there, it's been a consistent pattern for over 12 yrs now. If I do recall there were many times when the Pats had more viewers during a Yankees-Sox series. I think the evidence is pretty clear that Pats are the tv ratings winners vs anyone. For ex, last yr Pats games accounted for the five most watched tv programs in 2007-2008 tv season and the most watched program in cable tv history.

Here are some stats I found in research:
* The 33.8 million who watched the Pats-Colts were the most to tune in to a Sunday afternoon, regular-season NFL game since CBS began keeping records in 1987.

* The 17.5 million who watched the Pats-Ravens on the four letter network on Monday Night Football broke the previous cable TV record of 17.2 million.

* The Pats-Jets game on Dec. 16 was the highest rated, with a 62 share, 1 pm regular-season Pats game in Boston tv history and the 3rd highest for any time period.

* The audience totals for the Pats games came vs the Colts, Steelers and Cowboys last yr were extremely impressive when you consider the fact that they were played in the afternoon, not during primetime when more people watch television. The Pats helped the 4 p.m. Sunday games on CBS outrate primetime games on NBC and ESPN by a whopping 37% and led a 5.1%increase in overall NFL ratings on CBS, up to a 10.3 to close in on Fox 10.7.

* This past season the Pats accounted for 7 of the 10 most-watched games of all time in the Boston market.

In historical terms I will put it like this. In the early 1960s, Boston was considered a hockey town. You could go to any Sox game you wanted to by purchasing tickets that day for a $1, they wouldn't even sell half the seats. The 1967 team rejuvenated baseball in Boston and the Sox have been considered the most popular Boston team since. Just like in 1967, in 2001 a change occured when the was the Pats finally won it all with that special underdog team.

 

[BPF]

I do have to agree with the original poster in that the Celtics have waited over 20 years to be the toast of Boston again and the Globe couldn't let the Celtics have their 15 minutes in the spotlight before they ran an article with a theme of "yeah, but the Red Sox that are partially owned by our parent company is still the most popular team in town". I find it a bit bush league.

You aren't going to see an article from Mike Reiss if the Red Sox win the World Series that has the theme "Yeah, but the Patriots are closing in on being the most popular team in town".

I don't have as much problem with the article itself as the timing of it. They could have waited until next week to run an article like that. It just comes off petty publishing it a few days after the Celtics win the title.

You are 100% correct, let the C's have their time in the sun. They deserve it!!

 

[patsgo]

yeah 1 game out of 16 v. 1 game out of 162, so obviously each football game is more important and will have more viewers than a regular season baseball game. And nationally football is more popular now clearly, but all that it "says" is that you don't like baseball while others do.

pats went head to head with the yankees and red sox and blew them away it hasnt nothing to do about liking baseball its stating factaul information

 

[Wildo7]

pats went head to head with the yankees and red sox and blew them away it hasnt nothing to do about liking baseball its stating factaul information

I was responding to the "people want to watch boring games" comment.

And that has nothing to do with people liking the Pats more, it has to do with people missing 1 game of 162 so that they can watch a more important game that is only 1 of 16, even if it is Yankees/Sox. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept to grasp, the ratings are irrelevant when you have that large a difference in the number and importance of games. Again, people bitch about bandwagon fans, but now they seem to want to lay claim to them for some reason.

 

[castlelong1]

... It's important to note though that in the tv ratings dept the Pats have surpassed the Sox on days they both played in the past 12 years or so, too many to list. ...

That, imo, is telling since we are talking Red Sox in playoff race, or the playoffs and Patriots in pre-season or early season.

 

[castlelong1]

yeah 1 game out of 16 v. 1 game out of 162, so obviously each football game is more important and will have more viewers than a regular season baseball game. And nationally football is more popular now clearly, but all that it "says" is that you don't like baseball while others do.

1 game in pre-season vs. last leg of pennant race.

Oh, I agree that baseball is big here. My 77 year old father sees the Patriots as a pleasant diversion in winter.

Of course I've also seen him read the paper during Red Sox Games and sit on the edge of his seat for a replay of the snow bowl on the NFL network. Still if you asked him, the Red Sox are #1.

NFL = games that mostly end before midnight.
MLB = Playoff games that I can't watch if I have to work the next day.

Anything can happen in the future, but if this continues MLB will die out.
But not yet. Give it time.

 

[castlelong1]

I was responding to the "people want to watch boring games" comment.

And that has nothing to do with people liking the Pats more, it has to do with people missing 1 game of 162 so that they can watch a more important game that is only 1 of 16, even if it is Yankees/Sox. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept to grasp, the ratings are irrelevant when you have that large a difference in the number and importance of games. Again, people bitch about bandwagon fans, but now they seem to want to lay claim to them for some reason.

When people have the choice of Patriots or Red Sox at the same time, what months are we talking of? Am I right in saying August and September?

Am I correct in assuming a Yankees vs Red Sox game in late August is a tad more important than the 3rd pre-season game?

To compare apples to apples I think the Red Sox need to televise spring training games in December or January, and unfortunately it won't happen.

 

[Wildo7]

When people have the choice of Patriots or Red Sox at the same time, what months are we talking of? Am I right in saying August and September?

Am I correct in assuming a Yankees vs Red Sox game in late August is a tad more important than the 3rd pre-season game?

To compare apples to apples I think the Red Sox need to televise spring training games in December or January, and unfortunately it won't happen.

I believe the first Chargers game last year is what people are referring to when hey talk about the Pats upstaging Red Sox/Yankees, but I find it hard to believe a Pats preseason game ever beat out a late August Sox/Yanks game.

Apples to Apples, a spring training baseball game is totally different than a preseason football game.

 

[patsgo]

I was responding to the "people want to watch boring games" comment.

And that has nothing to do with people liking the Pats more, it has to do with people missing 1 game of 162 so that they can watch a more important game that is only 1 of 16, even if it is Yankees/Sox. I'm not sure why this is so hard a concept to grasp, the ratings are irrelevant when you have that large a difference in the number and importance of games. Again, people bitch about bandwagon fans, but now they seem to want to lay claim to them for some reason.

if you have a sox yankees game in september schilling vs clemens, for first place, and a early regular season game for pats vs chargers, its pretty simple, if boston was a baseball town ,why did more people watch the pats by a good margin, your number of game argument doesnt fly, people could watch the sox or pats, and more people watched the pats, with your argument the pats are cant miss viewing, so your making my point

 

[Wildo7]

if you have a sox yankees game in september schilling vs clemens, for first place, and a early regular season game for pats vs chargers, its pretty simple, if boston was a baseball town ,why did more people watch the pats by a good margin, your number of game argument doesnt fly, people could watch the sox or pats, and more people watched the pats, with your argument the pats are cant miss viewing, so your making my point

So then why doesn't the survey agree with you? Let's see, 1 game of a 3 game series against the Yankees v. 1 game against the Chargers, which one has more impact on the outcome of the given teams season?

 

[Kdo5]

F*ck this writer.

I don't care if it is a baseball town, the Red Sox are currently the third best team in the area.

This is kind of stupid though, a lot of Red Sox fans are Patriots fans, a lot of Sox fans are Celtics fans and vice versa. We love all our teams here in Boston, who cares. Theres a time of the year for each sport. {Baseball in mostly the summer, Football in mostly the fall, Basketball in mostly the winter}.

I am a Sox fan but not a diehard that watches every game. I cant get into it. For one basketball and football to me are far more exciting and faster and in football's case every game is important unlike baseball where there are 182 frigging games.

 

[patsgo]

So then why doesn't the survey agree with you? Let's see, 1 game of a 3 game series against the Yankees v. 1 game against the Chargers, which one has more impact on the outcome of the given teams season?

let me repeat this, when head to head the pats beat the sox big time, if you dont get it , then stop posting and trying to make exuces, when boston fans have a choice between the sox and the pats they pick the pats, ratings dont lie, you are obviously trying to make exuces

 

[Wildo7]

let me repeat this, when head to head the pats beat the sox big time, if you dont get it , then stop posting and trying to make exuces, when boston fans have a choice between the sox and the pats they pick the pats, ratings dont lie, you are obviously trying to make exuces

Excuses for what? I already said I'm a Pats fan first and Sox fan second. But "head to head" ratings is meaningless when the importance of each single game is so different. It's not that I "don't get it" it's that it's a useless comparison.

 

[BPF]

Excuses for what? I already said I'm a Pats fan first and Sox fan second. But "head to head" ratings is meaningless when the importance of each single game is so different. It's not that I "don't get it" it's that it's a useless comparison.

I think you get it but you may be underestimating the importance of tv ratings. If head-to-head tv ratings are useless then how do we go about measuring whether Boston is a football or baseball town?? (To be honest with you I personally could care less because to me the Pats are it) Should we walk the streets of Boston and start counting t-shirts? or maybe we should count license plates, or maybe we should take my great grandpas or the Globe's word for it. There really is no way to measure if we remove tv ratings, because this coupled with merchandise sales would be the best way to measure the popularity of a team in a region.

 

[tedylb]

Meanwhile, in Titletown USA, the Sox, Celts and Pats continue to enrage the rest of the country with envy. Depending on the season, they're all numero uno with me.

 

[Wildo7]

I think you get it but you may be underestimating the importance of tv ratings. If head-to-head tv ratings are useless then how do we go about measuring whether Boston is a football or baseball town?? (To be honest with you I personally could care less because to me the Pats are it) Should we walk the streets of Boston and start counting t-shirts? or maybe we should count license plates, or maybe we should take my great grandpas or the Globe's word for it. There really is no way to measure if we remove tv ratings, because this coupled with merchandise sales would be the best way to measure the popularity of a team in a region.

I agree with that, but I think the survey is a fairly decent way to tell. I just don't understand how people can complain about bandwagoners in one breath and then get angry when the Pats aren't the most popular team. And I don't see it as a slight against the Pats that the other team in town, that's been around for a hundred years and has also had a tremendous amount of success in the past few years, is still slightly more popular. The fact that it's even close speaks volumes about how special the Pats are v. the Sox. Not to mention that the most successful team in Boston history is behind them in 3rd.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

You guys are just cannibalistic up there. You need to be a Pats/Sox (not much of a b-ball fan, but Celtics by default) fan in exile for a few years. Dudes, they don't play the same sports. You can like them all.

 

[Mike the Brit]

You guys are just cannibalistic up there. You need to be a Pats/Sox (not much of a b-ball fan, but Celtics by default) fan in exile for a few years. Dudes, they don't play the same sports. You can like them all.

I don't have a problem with the Red Sox -- I have a problem with the Globe.

 

[castlelong1]

I think you get it but you may be underestimating the importance of tv ratings. If head-to-head tv ratings are useless then how do we go about measuring whether Boston is a football or baseball town?? (To be honest with you I personally could care less because to me the Pats are it) Should we walk the streets of Boston and start counting t-shirts? or maybe we should count license plates, or maybe we should take my great grandpas or the Globe's word for it. There really is no way to measure if we remove tv ratings, because this coupled with merchandise sales would be the best way to measure the popularity of a team in a region.

No it is easy to understand. People say one thing and do another all the time.

How often do people say they hate negative campaigning but then vote for the guy who wasn't a "fill-in-blank-as-the-tar-changes."

Why? Who knows.

I've seen it. My father will read the paper during playoff games for the Red Sox but is on the edge of the couch for repeats of NFL games. If you ask him though, he will say the Sox are #1.