Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Are the Bears a ratings hit or something? (Number of primetime games)


Recommended Posts

I swear, for a team that's been mediocre (and that's being generous) over the past decade, normally sneaking into the playoffs because of freak accidents in the division (like Rodgers injuries), they seem to get a fair amount of primetime games every year. Are they still riding on that 85 Bears magic or something? Do they pull in good ratings because of their name? I don't get it. I watched the first couple of drives to see how the game would fare out, and when it went largely as predicted, I muted the TV and just kept it on in the background while I did other things. And 99% of Bears/Packers primetime games involve 45-10 Packers blowouts.

 

I have ragged on the Cowboys getting a ton of primetime games when they've only won two or three playoff games in the last 25 years, but they normally have a decent team and you are always pulling for them to lose. The Bears have neither of those characteristics.

 

Speaking of primetime, the Bills will be on a TV near you for the next month (Monday Night @ 49ers, Sunday Night vs. Steelers, Saturday Night @ Broncos, Monday Night @ Patriots, and it's always possible the Week 17 game vs. the Dolphins could be flexed into a national audience if the division/playoff spot comes down to that game).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, buffalo34 said:

I swear, for a team that's been mediocre (and that's being generous) over the past decade, normally sneaking into the playoffs because of freak accidents in the division (like Rodgers injuries), they seem to get a fair amount of primetime games every year. Are they still riding on that 85 Bears magic or something? Do they pull in good ratings because of their name? I don't get it. I watched the first couple of drives to see how the game would fare out, and when it went largely as predicted, I muted the TV and just kept it on in the background while I did other things. And 99% of Bears/Packers primetime games involve 45-10 Packers blowouts.

 

I have ragged on the Cowboys getting a ton of primetime games when they've only won two or three playoff games in the last 25 years, but they normally have a decent team and you are always pulling for them to lose. The Bears have neither of those characteristics.

 

Speaking of primetime, the Bills will be on a TV near you for the next month (Monday Night @ 49ers, Sunday Night vs. Steelers, Saturday Night @ Broncos, Monday Night @ Patriots, and it's always possible the Week 17 game vs. the Dolphins could be flexed into a national audience if the division/playoff spot comes down to that game).

I don’t mean to offend, but.....

 

The population of Buffalo is roughly 255,000.

 

The population of Chicago is roughly 2.66 million.   Our nation’s third largest city.  Plus, they were playing Green Bay, a team that historically gets good TV ratings even though it is much smaller than Buffalo.  It’s the smallest city to have a major sports franchise. 

TV ratings are, in part,  why Indianapolis doesn’t get many National games unless they have someone like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck. 
 

It’s not just about the win-loss records. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get they're from one of the biggest TV markets in the country, but you knew that game was going to be a non-competitive snoozefest before it even started. I generally watch every Sunday Night game available, but I can tell you that both Sunday Night games that I largely tuned out of involved Packers-Bears contests (I wanna say there was a game in 2013 or 2014 where the Packers dropped 50+ on the Bears on Sunday Night and you could feel it was going to happen before the game even started).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, buffalo34 said:

I swear, for a team that's been mediocre (and that's being generous) over the past decade, normally sneaking into the playoffs because of freak accidents in the division (like Rodgers injuries), they seem to get a fair amount of primetime games every year. Are they still riding on that 85 Bears magic or something? Do they pull in good ratings because of their name? I don't get it. I watched the first couple of drives to see how the game would fare out, and when it went largely as predicted, I muted the TV and just kept it on in the background while I did other things. And 99% of Bears/Packers primetime games involve 45-10 Packers blowouts.

 

I have ragged on the Cowboys getting a ton of primetime games when they've only won two or three playoff games in the last 25 years, but they normally have a decent team and you are always pulling for them to lose. The Bears have neither of those characteristics.

 

Speaking of primetime, the Bills will be on a TV near you for the next month (Monday Night @ 49ers, Sunday Night vs. Steelers, Saturday Night @ Broncos, Monday Night @ Patriots, and it's always possible the Week 17 game vs. the Dolphins could be flexed into a national audience if the division/playoff spot comes down to that game).

I think the league gives prime time games to average teams with weak fan bases. Teams like the Colts have a strong fanbase that always gets rating even at 1pm no matter what. Teams like the Jets or Bears have fans that dont tune in with out it being a better time slot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t mean to offend, but.....

 

The population of Buffalo is roughly 255,000.

 

The population of Chicago is roughly 2.66 million.   Our nation’s third largest city.  Plus, they were playing Green Bay, a team that historically gets good TV ratings even though it is much smaller than Buffalo.  It’s the smallest city to have a major sports franchise. 

TV ratings are, in part,  why Indianapolis doesn’t get many National games unless they have someone like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck. 
 

It’s not just about the win-loss records. 

Are game against the Pack was the second most watched. I think the NFL give fair weather viewers better slots to help get the most viewers tuned in. Colts fans watch no matter what time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I mean... everybody says that and right now maybe we are the best option for him, but would that be the same in 2 years time? Who knows...    About the pick compensation - yes, I would really hope Ballard doesn't go into a bidding war with other teams. Have a firm price set and don't go over it. 1st and 3d is about the max I would be willing to give for 33 year old Stafford. 
    • Stafford has been very public about his number one goal:   Winning.   (His words, not mine).   He’s not going to want to leave because we want to pay him $25m instead of $30+ million.   The Colts give Stafford the best chance of winning.   Period.  Leaving the Colts for a money grab would be the worst look possible for him.  I don’t see that as a worry.  Honestly.    My bigger concern is the cost in draft picks to acquire him.  There may be a bidding war, which could prove very expensive.   At some point, I could see Ballard dropping out.   We will likely know in the next 6 weeks. 
    • He is 33 and has 2 years left on reasonable contract. After that you will have to give him a contract in the realm of what other top QBs are getting now and he will be getting older... So you will either have to pay big or lose him and this is while all our young pieces are moving out of their rookie contracts... So we will start losing some of them. So IMO IF we get Stafford this will be the golden window to try to go all in...  Use Stafford's best remaining years at the best contract you will have him at, to try to surround him with best talent we can get while our young player are still cheap. Later he will be older/worse on worse contract and our young studs we either be paid much more (less money to get reinforcement elsewhere) or will be gone.    So... Go all in NOW. This doesn't mean you concede the later years, but IMO the best chance we have are the next 2 years if we get Stafford. This is legitimate Superbowl contender if we can get one of the top receivers, a very good pass-rusher and some solid CBs. 
    • Odds are you can’t do all that because the salary cap is going down roughly $15-20 million.    We’re likely going to need more time.   I don’t understand the 2-year window reference?   Stafford likely has 5+ years left.   With a GM like Ballard, our window should remain open longer than that. 
  • Members

    • luv_pony_express

      luv_pony_express 452

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 7,545

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtsTone

      ColtsTone 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solon

      Solon 94

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IinD

      IinD 2,111

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • James

      James 347

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • drakau

      drakau 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 7,493

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • crazycolt1

      crazycolt1 7,047

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • CoachLite

      CoachLite 400

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...