Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Monday Night Football


Chrisaaron1023
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, teganslaw said:

I read that the Manning brothers got good reviews, but viewing wasn't as high. They got about 800,000 viewers with a .6 rating. The regular ESPN analysts were still tops. Maybe they will improve in weeks to come. 

Its still à lot more viewers than ESPN2 would have had without them.  

 

My opinion.

 

I think viewership will grow.

 

Once again just my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, teganslaw said:

I read that the Manning brothers got good reviews, but viewing wasn't as high. They got about 800,000 viewers with a .6 rating. The regular ESPN analysts were still tops. Maybe they will improve in weeks to come. 

I would guess alot of people didn't know I spoke to a few co-workers who didn't even know about the Mannings broadcast. Also I wonder how many people have ESPN/ABC but not ESPN 2? I started a free trial of YouTube TV just to tune in lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, King Colt said:

The FACTS are in so read them & weep.

 

The back-and-forth contest went into overtime, with the Raiders taking a 33-27 win on a walk-off touchdown pass from Derek Carr to Zay Jones. While the game gave plenty for fans to talk about, the debut of ESPN’s “Monday Night Football” with the Manning brothers stole the headlines.

On Monday night, Peyton and Eli put on a show for NFL fans watching the Ravens-Raiders game with constant skits, hilarious one-liners, and brotherly jabs at each other.

Fans couldn’t stop talking about the broadcast, but were people actually tuning in? Apparently not many. According to John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal, the Manning’s generated a 0.6 rating, with a share of 1.

MNF Overnights by network:

ABC- 6.5/14

ESPN – 4.5/10

ESPN 2 – 0.6/1

— John Ourand (@Ourand_SBJ) September 14, 2021

In contrast, the primary feed, televised by ABC and ESPN, rang up a 6.5 and 4.5 rating, respectively, and shares of 14 and 10.

Fans loved the conversation between the Mannings, but it’s clear most of the fans watching the game were following along with a the traditional broadcast.

It was on ESPN 2.  I guarantee that's the biggest number ESPN 2 has gotten on a Monday night vrs Monday night football.    It was and will continue to be a huge success.   

After all the buzz it get on social media, expect that number to get much bigger.   

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

It was on ESPN 2.  I guarantee that's the biggest number ESPN 2 has gotten on a Monday night vrs Monday night football.    It was and will continue to be a huge success.   

After all the buzz it get on social media, expect that number to get much bigger.   

But you said millions watched the Mannings and that is a lie. Now you say it was a huge success and that is also a lie. Their ratings sucked. Boomer & Gio show said it was 800,000, a spit in the ocean. You offer zero support to back your fantasy. Social media has nothing to do with ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

I would guess alot of people didn't know I spoke to a few co-workers who didn't even know about the Mannings broadcast. Also I wonder how many people have ESPN/ABC but not ESPN 2? I started a free trial of YouTube TV just to tune in lol

I completely forgot about it or would have watched.  I certainly will this monday....unless i forget. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, King Colt said:

But you said millions watched the Mannings and that is a lie. Now you say it was a huge success and that is also a lie. Their ratings sucked. Boomer & Gio show said it was 800,000, a spit in the ocean. You offer zero support to back your fantasy. Social media has nothing to do with ratings.

With the publicity it got this week,   they will have a much better rating next week.   Also,  I don't know how people who stream the broadcast vrs watch on the TV effect ratings.   The fact is,   even the NFL network and Rich Eisen were praising what an incredible show it was.     It's obvious the Mannings,  especially Peyton , is revered among the football world.   Not surprising 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

With the publicity it got this week,   they will have a much better rating next week.   Also,  I don't know how people who stream the broadcast vrs watch on the TV effect ratings.   The fact is,   even the NFL network and Rich Eisen were praising what an incredible show it was.     It's obvious the Mannings,  especially Peyton , is revered among the football world.   Not surprising 

The reviews have been 99% negative 1% positive.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, King Colt said:

The reviews have been 99% negative 1% positive.

I am guessing you "googled" negative response and that is where you came up with your skewed numbers.  Or perhaps it's a made up percentage. :dunno:

 

Every review I've read was definitely positive.  Not that I care about reviews...I make my own décisions on what I choose to watch.

 

In any event.....we "get" that you'd prefer they fail, and that you don't care for them.   Simple solution for you...don't watch then.

 

I will definitely watch MNF with The Manning brothers from here on out! :fb:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gramz said:

I am guessing you "googled" negative response and that is where you came up with your skewed numbers.  Or perhaps it's a made up percentage. :dunno:

 

Every review I've read was definitely positive.  Not that I care about reviews...I make my own décisions on what I choose to watch.

 

In any event.....we "get" that you'd prefer they fail, and that you don't care for them.   Simple solution for you...don't watch then.

 

I will definitely watch MNF with The Manning brothers from here on out! :fb:

You wrote "I am guessing". What does that mean? It means you don't know so why bother to post?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RollerColt said:

I copied a section of your link to prove me right as always.. "

While there had to be some watching on the traditional broadcast on ESPN, it seemed like most of the football world was tuning in to see what the brothers had to say."

Since when is "it seemed like" statistical data?:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, King Colt said:

I copied a section of your link to prove me right as always.. "

While there had to be some watching on the traditional broadcast on ESPN, it seemed like most of the football world was tuning in to see what the brothers had to say."

Since when is "it seemed like" statistical data?:lol:

Continue trolling like always. Amazing how you’re the only thing person in the world is right. Good day to you. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King Colt said:

You wrote "I am guessing". What does that mean? It means you don't know so why bother to post?

Unlike some people...if I don't know for a fact...but strongly suspect, I say I'm guessing. 

 

I can't understand how your mind works, nor do I care to.  

:dunno:

But if you really need an answer to why I bothered to post; when every article or newscast I've seen reports rave reviews to the show but you somehow come up with à 99% negative rating it stands to reason that you googled negative reviews to get your numbers.   

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it if someone doesn't like Peyton and Eli Manning, but why keep at it? The point was made, so I don't understand why that person has to argue ratings or who's watching their broadcast. It achieves nothing except others getting frustrated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Unlike some people...if I don't know for a fact...but strongly suspect, I say I'm guessing. 

 

I can't understand how your mind works, nor do I care to.  

:dunno:

But if you really need an answer to why I bothered to post; when every article or newscast I've seen reports rave reviews to the show but you somehow come up with à 99% negative rating it stands to reason that you googled negative reviews to get your numbers.   

 

 

Yeah, facts suck like how much I make per year. How much my taxes are. How much weight I am gaining, probably none but I'll never get on a scale because it will give me those stupid facts.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Gramz said:

I am guessing you "googled" negative response and that is where you came up with your skewed numbers.  Or perhaps it's a made up percentage. :dunno:

 

Every review I've read was definitely positive.  Not that I care about reviews...I make my own décisions on what I choose to watch.

 

In any event.....we "get" that you'd prefer they fail, and that you don't care for them.   Simple solution for you...don't watch then.

 

I will definitely watch MNF with The Manning brothers from here on out! :fb:

You do understand this experiment is only for ten weeks then you will have to suffer through game analysis instead of farm jokes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, teganslaw said:

I get it if someone doesn't like Peyton and Eli Manning, but why keep at it? The point was made, so I don't understand why that person has to argue ratings or who's watching their broadcast. It achieves nothing except others getting frustrated. 

It's called :atroll:

 

And some people thrive on confrontation.

 

Time to use the ignore feature again. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Colt said:

You do understand this experiment is only for ten weeks then you will have to suffer through game analysis instead of farm jokes. 

Yes. And I will enjoy every episode. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, King Colt said:

The reviews have been 99% negative 1% positive.

Post your facts.

 

800,000 viewers on ESPN2(those are the only people who can give it a +/- review.)

 

Show me 792,000 negative reviews + 8,000 positive.

 

You can't do it, because News Flash, you are not right.

 

 

Now if you were to say that 99% watched non Manning broadcast and 1% watched Mannings, that would of been correct.

 

 

However to classify it as positive and negative reviews is completely wrong. Just because someone didn't tune in doesn't mean they thought negatively on it. 

 

I watched regular broadcast, only because I didn't know the simulcast was on different channel. Does that mean I have a negative review for it? No, not at all.

 

 

So quit posting about how you are always right. Looks real bad when you are saying you are always right, but saying something in same breath that isn't.

 

 

I will say post your facts 1 more time, but you won't, because you can't. You misrepresented what the "reviews" numbers actually indicated and your "facts" have been ripped to shreds.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, w87r said:

Post your facts.

 

800,000 viewers on ESPN2(those are the only people who can give it a +/- review.)

 

Show me 792,000 negative reviews + 8,000 positive.

 

You can't do it, because News Flash, you are not right.

 

 

Now if you were to say that 99% watched non Manning broadcast and 1% watched Mannings, that would of been correct.

 

 

However to classify it as positive and negative reviews is completely wrong. Just because someone didn't tune in doesn't mean they thought negatively on it. 

 

I watched regular broadcast, only because I didn't know the simulcast was on different channel. Does that mean I have a negative review for it? No, not at all.

 

 

So quit posting about how you are always right. Looks real bad when you are saying you are always right, but saying something in same breath that isn't.

 

 

:thanks:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, w87r said:

Post your facts.

 

800,000 viewers on ESPN2(those are the only people who can give it a +/- review.)

 

Show me 792,000 negative reviews + 8,000 positive.

 

You can't do it, because News Flash, you are not right.

 

 

Now if you were to say that 99% watched non Manning broadcast and 1% watched Mannings, that would of been correct.

 

 

However to classify it as positive and negative reviews is completely wrong. Just because someone didn't tune in doesn't mean they thought negatively on it. 

 

I watched regular broadcast, only because I didn't know the simulcast was on different channel. Does that mean I have a negative review for it? No, not at all.

 

 

So quit posting about how you are always right. Looks real bad when you are saying you are always right, but saying something in same breath that isn't.

 

 

I will say post your facts 1 more time, but you won't, because you can't. You misrepresented what the "reviews" numbers actually indicated and your "facts" have been ripped to shreds.

The best I can tell, 99% hated it while the other 99% liked it. Read what statistical analysis says about paradox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2021 at 8:05 AM, King Colt said:

The reviews have been 99% negative 1% positive.

Quit Trolling dude, it is getting old and admit when you are wrong. Some in here can't admit when they are wrong. 99% negative 1% positive - that is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard in here Boston Celtics Lol GIF by NBA. Everyone I know of and on TV said they loved the Manning's, I think you have things backwards. More like 90% positive and probably 10% negative. Take your L and move on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching a repeat of the Ravens-Raiders game on NFL Network. They are showing the broadcast with Peyton and Eli, which I missed the first time.

 

They definitely know their football, but the jury is out on their reporting. I think that they are trying too hard to be entertaining and it's distracting as it takes away from the actual game.  I feel that I'm missing the best plays because the focus is on the Mannings and their banter.  Maybe I'll get used to it if I watch them a few more times.

 

Right now I think that Peyton should stay with a podcast or commercials, which I like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, teganslaw said:

I'm watching a repeat of the Ravens-Raiders game on NFL Network. They are showing the broadcast with Peyton and Eli, which I missed the first time.

 

They definitely know their football, but the jury is out on their reporting. I think that they are trying too hard to be entertaining and it's distracting as it takes away from the actual game.  I feel that I'm missing the best plays because the focus is on the Mannings and their banter.  Maybe I'll get used to it if I watch them a few more times.

 

Right now I think that Peyton should stay with a podcast or commercials, which I like. 

I think it is designed for entertainment more than anything and they at least keep people informed on who is winning the game, etc.. I loved it personally after watching it on Youtube. You could always split screen it between them and the actual game on ESPN to see every play.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Anyone but the Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox.    Preferably the Cardinals.
    • Wentz was clearly unable to play yesterday. Playing Wentz eliminated any chance of winning even with a 3-0 turnover margin. You have to be concerned with the mindset that let Wentz play. 
    • Don't know if it's Wentz or the scheme, but the guy holds the ball forever. I did the rewind to count seconds on every hit and in every case he held the ball for more than 3 seconds. Once he held it for 5. You can't expect any OL to keep a good DL out of the backfield for that long. I think Rivers, last years statue, got rid of the ball in under two. Give the OL a two second window and they become all pro.   I agree with the earlier comment about acquiring people with history and then expecting them to not play up or down to that history. Wentz has been injury prone much of his pro career. To expect him to come here and have a different outcome is insane. If we lose to Miami, which will be a huge embarrassment considering who'll be under center, then we should put Eason out there and sink or swim for the rest of the season. Let Wentz heal. If Eason is not the answer we need to know. If he isn't then we'll get a great pick and we shouldn't give that away in return for a gimpy, oft injured QB that can't give us 100%, 100% of the time. A high number one should net you a SB caliber QB. 
    • I bet they didn't pass our "character" screen.  For all we know it could be one of the top criteria. 
    • I hope so because simply from a fans perspective watching bad football is just boring/waste of time of my Sundays.   If we can't beat Mia even with our struggles I'll start watching from my phone and enjoying my Sundays out. No need to sit in my living room watching intently.
  • Members

    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,250

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SteelCityColt

      SteelCityColt 4,731

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mitch Connors

      Mitch Connors 427

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • pgt_rob

      pgt_rob 817

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • BlackTiger

      BlackTiger 238

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Blueblood23

      Blueblood23 411

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • strt182

      strt182 248

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shive

      Shive 2,968

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nesjan3

      Nesjan3 714

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 3,074

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