Ratings lowest ever for U.S. Open men’s final [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Ratings lowest ever for U.S. Open men’s final

Deboogle!.
09-13-2004, 11:00 PM
:o :o
Ratings lowest ever for U.S. Open men’s final

Federer's straight-set victory over Hewitt not a hit on TV

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:21 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2004

NEW YORK - Roger Federer’s dominant win over Lleyton Hewitt was the lowest-rated U.S. Open men’s final ever.

Federer’s 6-0, 7-6 (3), 6-0 win over Hewitt on Sunday drew a preliminary national rating of 2.5 for CBS. That means an average of 2.5 percent of the country’s TV homes tuned in at any given moment.

The rating was down 29 percent from the 3.5 last year, when Andy Roddick captured his first Grand Slam title with a win over Juan Carlos Ferrero. The rating for Roddick’s win was a 44 percent drop from 2002, when Pete Sampras beat longtime rival Andre Agassi in four sets for his 14th major title.

The rating for the women’s final on Saturday was also down. Svetlana Kuznetsova’s 6-3, 7-5 win over fellow Russian Elena Dementieva drew a preliminary national rating of 2.2, down 12 percent from the 2.5 last year when Justine Henin-Hardenne beat fellow Belgian Kim Clijsters.

The rating is the percentage of all homes with TVs, whether in use or not.

Clara Bow
09-13-2004, 11:12 PM
That is a shame, but not unexpected. With the first full day of Sunday football coverage and two non-Americans playing. Plus- unlike the crazy French Open five-set final where ratings were higher than the year before, this was a three set match with two utterly dominant sets.

But on the bright side, it sounds like from Jon Wertheim(sp)'s most recent ESPN column the ratings for the US Open as a whole tournament were up.

But I guess a lot of US columnists will discount the rise of the general ratings for the tournament and will once again say that men's tennis is dying (failing to differentiate between the US and the world as a whole) and filled with a bunch of people with hard to pronounce names.

pinky
09-13-2004, 11:13 PM
=>
no american = 2.5
1 american = 3.5
2 americans = 6.25 :)

sol
09-13-2004, 11:15 PM
Well,
I think that those rating statistics come from the American TV. The Americans have lost the interest in the tennis and also there wasn’t any American in the men's and woman's final.
If you basically check this forum in detail, can see as from yesterday so many posters has come here to talk about that final and Federer’s performance, and there are too much threads opened about this topic. I’ve see posters that had been absent for a while as well.

Blaze
09-13-2004, 11:17 PM
NFL :shrug:

Jennay
09-13-2004, 11:26 PM
:o :o

the cat
09-13-2004, 11:28 PM
That's dissapointing news. Now we're going to once again here stories about how tennis is dead in America and that's just not the case.

EHendrick
09-13-2004, 11:31 PM
:lol: I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!

Neely
09-13-2004, 11:32 PM
thanks for the info, Bunk....

it's sad for the tennis sport, but the American TV ratings aren't so surprising IMO. The situation with the US Open this year was that both, on the men's and women's side all US players lost quite early. And that's what for me is the main reason.

The last year in which all US players lost before the semifinal should date already long time back. It wasn't the case in the years before when often at least one US player reached the final, or when we had even an all-American final or when there was at least one American player in the semifinal. The result with Andy and Andre losing in their quarterfinals was quite disappointing from an American point of view who were used to better results the last years.

Maybe the following conclusion I'm drawing is a bit vague, unfair and of course I can't prove its validity, but I guess that the same decline in TV ratings would occur with a Nalbandian vs Moya Wimbledon final if the British viewers were used to have Henman, Rusedski or any other British players in the final.

As I already said, it's not good for the popularity of tennis in the USA, but it's also not really surprising because we are talking about US rating and it's normal thing that a Roddick/Agassi vs anybody US Open final would make more viewers to tune in than Hewitt vs Federer one.

Tennis Fool
09-13-2004, 11:34 PM
That's dissapointing news. Now we're going to once again here stories about how tennis is dead in America and that's just not the case.


Tennis is dead in America, Cat.

In fact, baseball and basketball no longer get the comfy ratings they used to. Only sport that's growing: NASCAR.

:I post although suspicious of why Duck Nation appears out of hybernation to make a thread about ratings:

WF4EVER
09-13-2004, 11:43 PM
What do you expect from a final between two foreigners when all American does is show American players? It demonstrates the lack of interest in tennis of a good part of the American public whose knowledge of tennis is limited to a 'superstar' like Roddick, Agassi and Sharapova.

This is a hole they've dug for themselves.

Back to the fixing-the-draw-to-favour-our-superstars drawing board.

Clara Bow
09-13-2004, 11:43 PM
Tennis Fool- this is slightly OT but ratings for baseball have increased in the past couple of years. Last year's pennent races got the highest ratings since before the baseball strike in the 1990s.

So maybe there is hope in the future for tennis. Heck, a person can dream!

Fumus
09-13-2004, 11:59 PM
Tennis is boring when Fed plays. Now Andy Roddick there's somebody to watch.

Billabong
09-14-2004, 12:03 AM
pffff:o

Tennis Fool
09-14-2004, 12:03 AM
Tennis Fool- this is slightly OT but ratings for baseball have increased in the past couple of years. Last year's pennent races got the highest ratings since before the baseball strike in the 1990s.

So maybe there is hope in the future for tennis. Heck, a person can dream!


CB, FYI. Here's an article done when the story of sports ratings got press last year.




Scorecard

Posted: Wednesday July 30, 2003 9:40 AM


King Hut

Pro football rules in America; SI's Frank Deford explains why

While it has long been accepted that though baseball may be our national pastime, football is our favorite sport, never has pigskin preeminence been more evident than now, as our hideously mesomorphic gladiators hie off to training camp again. Hardly any other sport is prospering. Ratings for the NBA and NHL playoffs plummeted to new lows, baseball attendance is down again, and even hot-stuff golf only exists anymore when Tiger Woods plays well or Annika Sorenstam plays men. Well, horse racing is making a comeback this summer; unfortunately, this is 2003 and horse racing is coming back to 1938.

But, ah, football is more popular than ever, truly king. The NFL has its $18 billion TV package (over eight years) and is coming off a season in which 90% of its games were sold out and the Super Bowl had its usual audience that will not be exceeded until Princess Diana is buried again. Moreover, we're only now finally learning that the NCAA and all its other sports and conferences are just so many incidentals. It's the NCFA. Remember when the Atlantic Coast Conference was supposed to be about basketball? Even Donna Shalala is in shoulder pads now.

So apart from the obvious, that we violent Americans just plain like smashmouth, how do we explain football's power and popularity -- especially in an economic time when so many other sports (including soccer abroad) are losing paying customers, TV eyeballs, money and glamour?

The old real estate saw about location, location, location applies here, except that what matters is schedule, schedule, schedule. Every other sport (save one; we'll get to that) has games that go on all week long. Football teams play once a week, on the weekend. The games in other sports blur. If it's Tuesday, it must be Dick Vitale. To hell with thinking outside the box. Football is very boxy. It always gives us just one game per team a week, which we can look forward to and analyze and, yes, even better, commit to with a wager. The games are discrete. We get up for them. We're all experts. The game-a-week setup is good for betting too.

The only other major sport that's on the uptick is NASCAR. And isn't it interesting that NASCAR's schedule is basically like football's: relatively few competitions, neatly scheduled, all on weekends. Also, nobody dominates NASCAR. NFL parity might be boring, but parity pays. The amazing thing, too, is that while NFL socialism so obviously works best for everyone, it really doesn't exist anywhere else in the sports world. Just as only a few teams have much chance in the major leagues and the NBA, so is it pretty much that way elsewhere: Manchester United and Real Madrid and Juventus and the Yomiuri Giants are the over and everybody else is the under. Parity is good for betting too.

Also, football has the right season. The baseball poets all rhapsodize about their game melding with the calendar, blooming in spring, tra la. Yeah, but football starts when the real year begins, after vacations, when school opens and families settle down to eat fatty foods and watch TV. The season climaxes at the gloomiest, coldest time of the year, when television is most seductive. Football doesn't even need to play games in our second-largest city. TV trumps L.A. Having everyone around the tube is good for betting too.

Finally, maybe these times are most in tune with football. At a time when the United States is arrogant, unilateral and insular, baseball can have all its Latins and Asians, and basketball can have all its Croats and Lithuanians, but football is still ours, 100% pure 'Mercan. It's ironic. Although George W. Bush is of baseball, he operates with none of the patient rhythms of the sport but simply charges ahead. He is perhaps the most un-baseball president since the unrepentant Teddy Roosevelt, who declared: "In life, as in a football game ... hit the line hard." Bring it on.

Also, football is best for betting.

Issue date: August 4, 2003

For more Scorecard see this week's issue of Sports Illustrated, on newsstands Wednesday, July 30. Click here to subscribe to SI.

alfonsojose
09-14-2004, 12:08 AM
Tennis is boring when Fed plays. Now Andy Roddick there's somebody to watch.

Sure, blasting aces all the time :zzz:

Fumus
09-14-2004, 12:14 AM
Hey is Scheuttler sleeping too?

heya
09-14-2004, 12:16 AM
Do you mean we don't love the soothing voices of Washington, Gilbert, Carillo, Courier, Bud Collins, Enberg, Trautwig, Fowler & ahhhh, the McEnroes?:lick:

Leo
09-14-2004, 12:16 AM
Tennis is dead in America, Cat.

In fact, baseball and basketball no longer get the comfy ratings they used to. Only sport that's growing: NASCAR.

And don't forget Poker. ;)

Nascar sucks. :rolleyes:

EHendrick
09-14-2004, 12:19 AM
Tennis is boring when Fed plays. Now Andy Roddick there's somebody to watch.

:lol: You're too much.

Fumus
09-14-2004, 12:22 AM
haha <bows> I aim to please

EHendrick
09-14-2004, 12:25 AM
:lol:

heya
09-14-2004, 12:28 AM
I guess bagels are yummy in Switzerland.

WyveN
09-14-2004, 12:29 AM
Its a shame, in the AO the Safin-Federer match got positive rankings compared to previous finals even though there was no Australian past the 4th round.

TennisLurker
09-14-2004, 12:30 AM
I like Roger, and after the first set I decided the match probably would be boring and went to the movies, and I dont regret my decision, probably because of the onesidedness, many people prefered to do other things instead of watching the final too.

TennisLurker
09-14-2004, 12:31 AM
what is nascar?

Clara Bow
09-14-2004, 12:34 AM
Thanks for the article Tennis Fool.

But I still think if I recall correctly that the baseball pennant races (which occured in 9/04 and 10/04- after that article) were the highest rated in years. Here is an excerpt from an 11/02/04 article in the St. Louis Dispatcg

The ratings game

"Baseball is what the postseason is," says HBO and NBC broadcaster Bob Costas, a renowned and well-spoken baseball traditionalist who delighted in October's dramatics.

Fox Sports would agree. MLB's postseason rightsholder enjoyed a 29 percent increase in ratings over the 2002 postseason. Postseason telecasts became so popular that rival networks replaced some original programming with re-runs until the Marlins clinched in Game 6.

The Marlins-Yankees series took a 12.8 rating and 22 share for Fox. The numbers represented an 8 percent improvement over last year's Angels-Giants seven-game series. Compared to the first six games of the 2002 Series, it represented a 17 percent increase. More telling, the Division Series realized increased ratings of 21 percent over 2002 and the League Championship Series experienced a remarkable 65 percent bump.

and an artilce in the 7/5/04 Sports Illustrated was titled "10 Reasons Why Baseball Is Back;
There's hope in San Diego, Cincinnati and, heck, even Tampa Bay--and that's just one explanation for why fans are flocking to the game again"

Granted- baseball does not have the central role it once did, but in the past few years it has arisen from the dregs of apathy it had in the late 1990s/very early 2000s.

Fumus Gotta disagree with you-- I do not find Federer boring at all. ;) I like to have a variety of styles to watch, not just one. I can appreciate both Federer and Roddick for their differences.

Havok
09-14-2004, 12:38 AM
Its a shame, in the AO the Safin-Federer match got positive rankings compared to previous finals even though there was no Australian past the 4th round.
When was the last time an Aussie even MADE it that far into the slam?:haha: The US have been spoiled rotten on both sides with an American picking up either the men's or the women's trophy (and sometimes both) for a heck of a long time. If there isn't an American there, ratings drop, plus there was football that day, so they drop even more, plus it was a boring final (2 bagels in a slam final :scared: ) hence the low ratings. Anyways who really cares about the ratins, because if I remember correctly, the total number of viewers were up, and that counts more instead of just who watched the finals.

TennisLurker
09-14-2004, 12:40 AM
I havent posted any article...???...

alfonsojose
09-14-2004, 12:42 AM
Hey is Scheuttler sleeping too?
Who is Scheuttler ? :retard:

Neely
09-14-2004, 12:47 AM
Who is Scheuttler ? :retard:
the same like Keifer :p ;) :haha:

Fumus
09-14-2004, 12:48 AM
Who is Scheuttler ? :retard:

fine be a jerk, make fun of my learning disability. All I was saying is that your favorite had a pretty boring year by any standards.

Fumus
09-14-2004, 12:50 AM
Schuettler

Gonzo Hates Me!
09-14-2004, 12:55 AM
I dont blame US for not watching, I mean, that final was like watching a car crash and wasnt it NFL kickoff crap or whatever? More important things were going on, yeah??!

2Tough4Men
09-14-2004, 01:06 AM
One thing about the rating.

You'll note it is the percentage of all TVs in the nation. Well, that number changes from day to day. The women's final, despite a lower percentage, GARNERED MORE VIEWERS THAN LAST YEAR. Of course, there was only a .3 percent differential between the two. But it's important to note.

Clara Bow
09-14-2004, 01:13 AM
I havent posted any article...???...

Oops sorry TL, I had a brain fart- I meant to type Tennis Fool.

Gonzo Hates Me!
09-14-2004, 01:20 AM
tennis is just a "sissy" sport here, lol

Blaze
09-14-2004, 01:30 AM
The one sidedness had nothing to do with the ratings.
The fact is it was NFL kickoff sunday and no American was in the final. It was not well publicized either. Any one you ask about the final would not tell you that it was boring or onesided but rather they didn't even no if it the USO final was being played.


as for one sidedness, weren't some of these same posters the ones who were complaining in the begining of the tournaments that Federer was overlooking his opponents and losing sets to nobodys, but when he concerntrates and play to his ability and defeats Hewitt who is famous for his combacks and fighting spirit, then the match is boring?

Dirk
09-14-2004, 02:12 AM
perfect Blaze. :)

Billabong
09-14-2004, 02:21 AM
lol;)!

Smankyou
09-14-2004, 02:27 AM
what is nascar?

Dodgem cars, but on a larger scale.

Rosa Luxembourg
09-14-2004, 03:03 AM
something tells me those ratings were shooting up in Russia, Australia and Switzerland.

Iheartandy&roger
09-14-2004, 03:16 AM
SHOCKER!! :rolleyes: :devil: :D right....

Adcourt
09-14-2004, 03:45 AM
Tennis takes itself way too seriously in the United States. Because some people obsess over the sport on the internet does not mean that the sport is popular among the average person. The fact is that Roddick did not have a decent rating for the men's finals last year. Further, Roddick and Serena were mostly shown at nights on USA, this year and yet the day broadcasts were rated higher than evening broadcasts particularly during the Republican Convention.

Certain people in tennis transcend the sport..I don't think Federer or Hewitt have done that. Roddick despite the over promotion is not very well-liked by a number of people in the United States who see him as a pretentious jerk. Although he was an American in the Wimbledon final, he could only generate a one-third increase in ratings over the previous year when no Americans were in the final...And the rating for the Wimbledon men's final was lower than that of the women. :eek: :eek:

It is like the John McEnroe Show. No one is watching because they are just not interested. Over-promoting a player won't attract them either. People have their own preception of who is unique. Charisma is something that cannot be manufactured (although they have been trying tirelessly with roddick). I wonder why they can't find more young players to promote. :confused: :confused:

In addition, Tennis needs a real shake-up in the broadcast booth. Having Carillo, McEnroe and Enberg laughing over their own jokes is just not interesting.

tennischick
09-14-2004, 03:53 AM
ratings schmatings :rolleyes:

tennischick
09-14-2004, 03:55 AM
...I post although suspicious of why Duck Nation appears out of hybernation to make a thread about ratings:
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

can't worship you enuf Fool :kiss:

the cat
09-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Tennis isn't dead in America, TF. The tournaments bring in big money and get decent ratings when Americans are incolved in the semifinals and finals. That's fact not fiction. :) I think there are too many sports to watch and too many other things people can watch on televison and that has hurt the ratings of tennis, baseball, basketball and my beloved hockey. :(

AgassiFan
09-14-2004, 03:46 PM
Back to the fixing-the-draw-to-favour-our-superstars drawing board.

The real Final on the men's side took place in the Quarters. Organizers should have put a lil' more thought into the seeding process.

*Ljubica*
09-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Its a shame, in the AO the Safin-Federer match got positive rankings compared to previous finals even though there was no Australian past the 4th round.

My thoughts exactly - just as Wimbledon doesn't lose viewers here as soon as Tim makes his inevitable quarter or semi final departure, and likewise the French Open.

Marc Rosset is Tall
09-14-2004, 04:39 PM
I can't believe such a thing would happen when there are no Americans involved.

FryslanBoppe
09-14-2004, 05:10 PM
My thoughts exactly - just as Wimbledon doesn't lose viewers here as soon as Tim makes his inevitable quarter or semi final departure, and likewise the French Open.

What a tragedy of mankind this is.

AgassiFan
09-14-2004, 05:23 PM
Tennis is just not that popular in the US anymore. Period.


For the uninitiated, five major sports in the US currently are:

Football
College football
Basketball
Baseball
NASCAR

Hockey no longer registers and is closer to golf, college basketball and poker than the Big 3, and Nascar is growing by leaps and bounds. Soccer still trails, though as always its popularity among kids is suprisingly high (then they grow up and move on to traditional sport interests).

Of course there are some regional/demographical enclaves where the popularity distribution varies.

Wulfram
09-14-2004, 05:38 PM
My thoughts exactly - just as Wimbledon doesn't lose viewers here as soon as Tim makes his inevitable quarter or semi final departure, and likewise the French Open.

Yes it does.

Well it might be fairer to say he adds viewers as long as he lasts, given the state of British tennis before he arrived, but it amounts to the same thing.

YoursTruly
09-15-2004, 01:25 PM
Tennis is boring when Fed plays. Now Andy Roddick there's somebody to watch.

No, tennis is boring when Lleyton plays! And Andy would just get the ratings due to his name and the American viewers, but his game is far from what gets people watching.

Fumus
09-15-2004, 02:16 PM
In America we like interesting people...Federer is from planet boring.

WyveN
09-15-2004, 02:31 PM
In America we like interesting people...

Like George Bush :tape:

Fumus
09-15-2004, 02:34 PM
actually we don't like Bush...we didn't elect him remember...;)

WyveN
09-15-2004, 02:41 PM
Good point. The only reason the final got poor ratings was because there was no American, from a tennis point of view the final match up couldn't be much better.

A former champion who hasn't dropped a set and is on a 15 match winning streak against the #1 player in the world. A Hewitt win would put him in front of Roger in terms of career achievements while a Roger win would open up a significant gap.
what more can you ask for?

Fumus
09-15-2004, 03:11 PM
a good match...;)

¿esquímaux?
09-15-2004, 03:32 PM
I enjoyed the match....even though I fell asleep after the first set ;):devil:

Clara Bow
09-15-2004, 04:07 PM
In America we like interesting people...Federer is from planet boring

Fumus Please don't speak for all Americans. Some of us actually like Federer for his skill, beautiful strokes, ability to mix up his style of play and make winners out of situations where it seems like the point would be lost. I also find Federer to be very interesting and thoughtful in his interviews and he does have a very nice dry wit.

Would you like Federer more if he threw tantrums and yelled the way he used to when he was a teenager? He used to scream and pout- but when he did that- he lost. Not everyone needs to be a yeller on the court.

As I’ve said before. I like to see a variety of different styles in tennis. IMO- tennis would be boring if everyone played in the same manner. Just because Federer doesn’t play in the same way as your favorite doesn’t mean he’s boring to everyone else. I always wonder why a lot of people who like the power game seem to frequently dismiss players who does not have power games as boring without seeming to appreciate the skills and excitement that many non-power players have in their game. Why should everyone play the same way? Federer himself said on McEnroe that a variety of styles (including the power style of Andy) are needed to make the game interesting.

Fumus
09-15-2004, 04:09 PM
I was trying to be sarcastic. I guess my humor fails...

Clara Bow
09-15-2004, 04:33 PM
Sorry Fumas if I misconstrued. I thought you were calling Federer boring again because I've seen you call him as such in several posts.

I knew that you weren't literaly speaking for everyone in the uS by the way. ;)

Gonzo Hates Me!
09-15-2004, 04:43 PM
ugh, Americans, so, anal... I hate myself

Fumus
09-15-2004, 05:50 PM
I was just being silly when I was saying he was boring...lol...I think he is a boring person but, he is also fun to watch. I just like to make fun of him because he is no1 and Andy isn't.

Asar
09-15-2004, 07:35 PM
oh my gas! somebody is party pooper to this very very good win fromFederer in USO with a amazing results in modern tennis and make thread like this? who is care about tv ratings? for real tennis fans this USO finals was very great. show Federer why he is no. 1. maybe many many other peoples not in USA watch? maybe if Rodick win 60 76 60 USO finals bunkie duckie post here again nonstop!!!???

Fumus
09-15-2004, 07:56 PM
Asar when Andy won last year that was a beat down too.

tennischick
09-15-2004, 08:44 PM
Americans have been conditioned to think of tennis in terms of Agassi or Duckboy. if either one had made it to the finals, the ratings would have gone thru the roof. neither one made it, folks were not interested. serious tennis fans watch regardless of who is playing bec chances are we are familiar with the person. casual fans tune in to see their faves and no-one else. most casual fans look at only ONE match -- the finals. they could care less about the preceding matches. Agassi is in the finals? go pop some corn, open some brewski's and take in some tennis. Agassi is not there? who gives a shit? what we have reflected in the ratings is the number of serious tennis fans living in the US.

same thing happens on the WTa side of the fence. Serena or Venus is in the finals? scores of people who give a crap about tennis watch the match bec these girls are their faves. two Russian women are in the finals? only serious tennis fans watch. casual fans switch the channel. that's it folks.

heya
09-15-2004, 09:22 PM
Good match if u consider it interesting to encourage Hewitt's appetite for bagels. It's good for the crowd to see him weakly dump balls in the net.




I can hear the trolls coming...

Havok
09-16-2004, 01:01 AM
If the likes of Andre, Andy, Serena, Venus, Lindsay, Jennifer were in the finals, sure the ratings would have been up, but not by much. I would guess maybe 1 more million viewers would show up and watch the finals had an American been participating in it, but in all seriousness it all boils down to the NFL starting that week-end. I wonder how the ratings would look like if the finals were's coincided with the NFL kick-off.

UseTheSearchTool
09-16-2004, 04:29 AM
Good point. The only reason the final got poor ratings was because there was no American, from a tennis point of view the final match up couldn't be much better.

A former champion who hasn't dropped a set and is on a 15 match winning streak against the #1 player in the world. A Hewitt win would put him in front of Roger in terms of career achievements while a Roger win would open up a significant gap.what more can you ask for?

That's still not enough for some people unfortunately.

It's not a surprise in the US, if there aren't Americans playing in the finals, then they won't tune in.

babsi
09-16-2004, 09:26 AM
From a sheer financiale standpiont the pure headcount isn´t everything as far as tv raitings are concerned. For companis bying ad time it is more importened who is watching and not how many.

There is a reason why Daimler is so heavily involved in tennis and not Honda.

As for my ,I can do without people only watching to see if some US boy can break any speed recorde.If that kind of tennis gets any raitings than the tennis I like to watch is dead!!!!!

AgassiFan
09-16-2004, 06:51 PM
Just in case it was missed the first time around.....

Tennis is just not that popular in the US anymore. Period.

For the uninitiated, five major sports in the US currently are:

Football
College football
Basketball
Baseball
NASCAR

Sorry.

Socket
09-17-2004, 12:53 AM
I won't be surprised if NASCAR is third on that list in a few years. Talk about successful marketing. You gotta take your hat off to those folks.

"Vroom, vroom, vroom, I love NASCAR." -- Cledus T. Judd

Neely
09-17-2004, 12:58 AM
NASCAR is the biggest shit I've ever seen.... even Formula One with Schumacher winning 80% of all the races :zzz: :zzz: :yawn: is more interesting... the whole fucking shit with motorcycle or car races or crashcar racing is a complete shit IMO.

I can't understand the American public in this case why this is so popular there... :rolleyes:

Socket
09-17-2004, 01:17 AM
NASCAR is the biggest shit I've ever seen.... even Formula One with Schumacher winning 80% of all the races :zzz: :zzz: :yawn: is more interesting... the whole fucking shit with motorcycle or car races or crashcar racing is a complete shit IMO.

I can't understand the American public in this case why this is so popular there... :rolleyes:

That's kind of how I feel about basketball. Up the court, down the court, up the court, down the court . . . :confused:

Neely
09-17-2004, 01:25 AM
LOL, Socket... :tears: :tears: :tears:

well, basketball also had a HUGE drop in TV ratings after Jordan finally retired... just too sad that the people don't get that basketball is more than :mad: Jordan :rolleyes:
at least I hope that it stays always popular enough that the US television produces pictures :angel:

TennisLurker
09-17-2004, 01:30 AM
how is nascar different from, for example f1? Ive never seen it

Neely
09-17-2004, 01:51 AM
as far as I could see NASCAR is with heavily tuned up stock cars (about 350PS or more, 4 or 5 gears, about 1500kg of weight) and not with special f1 racing cars like in F1.
I guess it's said to have "more action" as more overtaking is taking place and it seemed to be also much closer (no big winning margins) and with more collisions.

the rest is the same... put stupidly your foot on the throttle control and switch off your brain :banghead: no big ability needed, maybe that also explains its big success because the viewers can identify better with it: we all drive a car at some time of our lives, but not all of us can become a baseball, football/soccer or basketball player :shrug:

loner1984
09-17-2004, 01:57 AM
Excellent analysis Neely, but don't forget that Nascar stock drivers have the uncanny ability of controlling their bowel movements. :rolleyes:
By the way, is that you on your avatar Neely?

Neely
09-17-2004, 02:09 AM
no unfortunately not, that would be really cool if I were that :yeah:

Bilbo
09-17-2004, 02:11 AM
I wonder how someone like Schumacher can earn so much. He's not even a real athlet.

tennischick
09-17-2004, 02:17 AM
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
PRIMETIME SURGE RESULTS IN USA NETWORK'S U.S. OPEN RATINGS RISE
Released by USA

Ratings up +15%, Viewership up 21% in Prime Time :eek:
NEW YORK -- September 15, 2004 -- A primetime ratings' surge helped propel USA Network to increased ratings during two weeks of the 2004 U.S. Open Tennis Championships.

Overall, primetime and daytime ratings and viewership growth resulted from USA's national primetime rating of 1.1 (975,000 HH, 1.3 million viewers, up +15% from last year's .96) and aided the Network's overall performance. Average viewership in prime time experienced a 21% spike with 1.3 million viewers in 2004 compared to 1.05 million viewers in 2003.

"Coming on the heels of the Olympics, the U.S. Open took some time to gather momentum this year," said USA Network Sr. VP and Executive Producer Gordon Beck. "We definitely benefited from the compelling quarterfinal match-ups and less rain this year."

Primetime coverage featuring the Serena Williams/Jennifer Capriati women's quarterfinal match (Sept. 7) garnered USA's top ratings' night with a 2.23 national rating with 1.93 million households and 2.6 million viewers tuning in to watch the controversial match won by Capriati. Overall, viewership in the Adult 18-34 demographic was up +25% during the tournament.

Daytime viewership also witnessed an upsurge with a 15% bounce as an average of 536,000 viewers tuned in during the day in 2004 compared to 466,000 in 2003. USA's national daytime ratings of .53 (475,000 HH, 536,000 viewers) was up +10% from last year's .48 average rating during the day.

Overall, during USA's two weeks of live coverage in its 21st consecutive year, the Network's national rating of .80 (715,000 HH, 884,000 viewers) was up +5% from the 2003 totals of .76 (656,000 HH, 802,000 viewers).

USA Network is cable television's leading provider of original series and feature movies, sports events, off-net television shows, and blockbuster theatrical films. USA Network is available in 82% of all U.S. homes and is seen in over 88 million U.S. homes. The USA Network Web site is located at www.usanetwork.com .

USA Network is a program service of NBC Universal Cable a division of NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media and entertainment companies in the development, production, and marketing of entertainment, news, and information to a global audience.

source: http://www.thefutoncritic.com

Neely
09-17-2004, 02:18 AM
Bilbo, of course he is the best driver and everything... and I admit that he also has a lot of fitness training, especially in the neck area to endure the brutal centrifugal forces in the curves (plus wearing a heavy helmet), and he has the risk of dying every time when he takes a seat in his car... but why does he earn THAT much? :confused: go figure... :shrug:

BTW, why does Tiger Woods get so much money for playing golf... excuse me... yes, I mean playing golf LOL :lol: isn't he the best earning sports athlete of the world (Schumacher 2nd I guess?!)... tztzt... both are overpaid; and Tiger Woods more than Schumacher IMO

I think they both can earn that much because of sponsors or advertising and furthermore they are uncontested the best in their sports. Or where does the money come from?

heya
09-17-2004, 02:19 AM
If people don't watch Hewitt/Fed because there were no Fish/Agassi/Roddick,
how do you explain the scum ratings of Wimbledon/AO/FO?
How about Tennis Channel's
lack of success and programming thievery?

WyveN
09-17-2004, 02:49 AM
If people don't watch Hewitt/Fed because there were no Fish/Agassi/Roddick,
how do you explain the scum ratings of Wimbledon/AO/FO?


I will keep it simple for you.

AO had no Americans - scum ratings
FO had no Americans - scum ratings
USO had no Americans - scum ratings

Wimbledon had americans in the final - good ratings

Source: http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/tennis/articles/2004/07/05/wimbledon_mens_final_ratings_on_the_rise/


Federer's 4-6, 7-5, 7-6 (3), 6-4 victory over Roddick for a second straight title at the grass-court Grand Slam tournament drew a 3.6 overnight rating Sunday on NBC.

That's 33 percent higher than the 2.7 last year, when Federer beat Mark Philippoussis. It's also the best overnight rating for a Wimbledon men's final since 2000 -- the last time an American was in the match.

Adcourt
09-17-2004, 02:57 AM
A one third or 33 percent increase is not really a big increase. With all the hype and with Wimbledon being on July 4-Independence Day, the ratings should have been up by fifty percent or more. In addition the ratings for the men's finals was less than that of the women. Speaking of good Wimbledon ratings is just putting a "spin" on the facts. Statistics can always be manipulated to reflect what the writers or publicists want. One third increase with an American in the final = not good.

USA is 'spinning" the states. Those ratings of .55 are poor by any standard. Plus, they would have an increase this year because there was TENNIS TO WATCH. Last year, there was hardly any play because of rain. A fifteen percent increase is bad. With tennis to watch this year the increase should have been at least 40 percent to be good. They are"spinning" the stats.

Clara Bow
09-17-2004, 03:00 AM
Good to see that the ratings for the USA network rose. I thought that their coverage was really good this year and so much more well rounded than ESPNs coverage (of the French Open in particular, Wimbledon to a somewhat smaller degree.)

WyveN
09-17-2004, 03:00 AM
A one third or 33 percent increase is not really a big increase. With all the hype and with Wimbledon being on July 4-Independence Day, the ratings should have been up by fifty percent or more. In addition the ratings for the men's finals was less than that of the women. Speaking of good Wimbledon ratings is just puting a "spin" on the facts. Statistics can always be manipulated to reflect what the writers or publicists want. One third increase with an American in the final = not good.

What is your point?
The point of my post was to show Heya the low US Open ratings were because of lack of Americans in the final rather then people not wanting to see Hewitt v Federer

Socket
09-17-2004, 03:01 AM
I think there were 3 factors that led to USA's good weekday ratings, and CBS's bad weekend ratings.
1) competition from NFL, especially since it's the first weekend of the season
2) too few familiar names to draw in casual fans (hardcore fans watched, but there aren't enough of them in the US)
3) Dick Enberg. He's the Dan Rather of tennis. His time has passed, he won't admit his mistakes, and he's relying on his reputation to get him through, which is just not enough.

Adcourt
09-17-2004, 03:04 AM
The ratings were down last year and Roddick an American was in the final. My point is that maybe it is not such a coincidence that the ratings for the finals fell again this year.

WyveN
09-17-2004, 03:11 AM
The ratings were down last year and Roddick an American was in the final. My point is that maybe it is not such a coincidence that the ratings for the finals fell again this year.

Of course the ratings fell from 2002, that had Sampras v Agassi. In fact apart from 97/98 each USO final of the last decade had either Sampras or Agassi.

Adcourt
09-17-2004, 03:20 AM
Yes, but with the Roddick/American hype one would have thought if there was going to be a fall it would have been small. They lost over a million viewers last year...and, at Wimbledon, why wasn't there a dramatic jump in the ratings which were also less than that of the women. It is a matter of interpreting the stats. With the rain last year, USA should have seen bigger increases this year because there was play nearly every day.

heya
09-17-2004, 04:17 AM
Tennis is not respected because it requires intelligence. Golf, baseball, Nascar, football, hockey and NBA are overhyped in the U.S. Tiger Woods hasn't won anything significant in 2 years. After earning more than $80 million, he told the media that he had to stop promoting so many sponsors!

WyveN
09-17-2004, 05:49 AM
at Wimbledon, why wasn't there a dramatic jump in the ratings which were also less than that of the women.


A lot of people tuned in to watch Sharapova, not the tennis.

Zetlandsk
09-17-2004, 05:51 AM
A lot of people tuned in to watch Sharapova, not the tennis.

Your stating of the obvious, might confuse some of the lumpen.

Red~Ruby
09-17-2004, 10:04 AM
oh my gas! somebody is party pooper to this very very good win fromFederer in USO with a amazing results in modern tennis and make thread like this? who is care about tv ratings? for real tennis fans this USO finals was very great. show Federer why he is no. 1. maybe many many other peoples not in USA watch?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bilbo
09-17-2004, 10:40 AM
he the best earning sports athlete of the world (Schumacher 2nd I guess?!)

Not anymore, it's Schumacher now.

Space Cowgirl
09-17-2004, 08:33 PM
I wonder how someone like Schumacher can earn so much. He's not even a real athlet.


Wrong! Schumacher is as fit as any tennis player. I'm a big F1 fan (not of Schumi though) and the reason he earns so much (he's worth $700million, so I read today, earns $70million a year) is that he is the dominant driver. He is dominating F1 the way Federer is dominating tennis this year.
NASCAR is said to be very popular among the, um, rednecks ;)

Adcourt
09-18-2004, 12:55 AM
Tennis is not respected because it requires intelligence. Golf, baseball, Nascar, football, hockey and NBA are overhyped in the U.S. Tiger Woods hasn't won anything significant in 2 years. After earning more than $80 million, he told the media that he had to stop promoting so many sponsors!

Tennis is NOT RESPECTED because, among other things, it has disregarded its traditions. Golf has gone out of its to retain its in order to occupy its niche in the marketplace. Many people have wondered out loud about the dress code for the game after seeing the Golovin/Serena match and many of the matches with some of the young women whose agents have bought into the"sex sells" adage.

Yes, Tiger dominated golf but golfers from foreign countries are not treated as if they have the pox as is the case with foreign tennis players in the United States. The reason for this is that there are intelligent people promoting that sport and, unlike tennis, the commentators do not have agendas such as the promotion of the US Davis Cup team. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs but it's time to show the Mcenroes the door. John Mac's talk show is in the doldrums. Is that an extension of the response to his tennis commentary...hmmm

Shy
09-18-2004, 01:05 AM
BTW, why does Tiger Woods get so much money for playing golf... excuse me... yes, I mean playing golf LOL :lol: isn't he the best earning sports athlete of the world (Schumacher 2nd I guess?!)... tztzt... both are overpaid; and Tiger Woods more than Schumacher IMO

?

Micheal Schumacher earns more than Tiger Woods acyually.

Bilbo
09-18-2004, 01:41 AM
Wrong! Schumacher is as fit as any tennis player.

Let him play a 5 hours match and we will see.


He is dominating F1 the way Federer is dominating tennis this year.

So you are saying he is working harder as Federer? Or how do you want to defend his $70 million a year?

Shy
09-18-2004, 01:46 AM
Let him play a 5 hours match and we will see.



So you are saying he is working harder as Federer? Or how do you want to defend his $70 million a year?Actually, you need to be in very good form to drive a car that fast, They train almost everyday.I would tell you that they would not last 2 min in a car that fast if they were not fit. As oppose to tennis players, they are risking their life everyday.

WyveN
09-18-2004, 01:47 AM
So you are saying he is working harder as Federer? Or how do you want to defend his $70 million a year?

F1 drivers go through a fairly rough training regime. Besides since when do we live in a world where your salary is decided by how hard you work.

AgassiFan
09-18-2004, 01:56 AM
Tennis is NOT RESPECTED because, among other things, it has disregarded its traditions. Golf has gone out of its to retain its in order to occupy its niche in the marketplace. Many people have wondered out loud about the dress code for the game after seeing the Golovin/Serena match and many of the matches with some of the young women whose agents have bought into the"sex sells" adage.

Yes, Tiger dominated golf but golfers from foreign countries are not treated as if they have the pox as is the case with foreign tennis players in the United States. The reason for this is that there are intelligent people promoting that sport and, unlike tennis, the commentators do not have agendas such as the promotion of the US Davis Cup team. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs but it's time to show the Mcenroes the door. John Mac's talk show is in the doldrums. Is that an extension of the response to his tennis commentary...hmmm

Tennis has a major component that golf does not: athleticism.

John Daley and Vijay Singh are a helluvalot lot easier to relate to than Andre Agassi or Roger Federer.

Yoda
09-18-2004, 02:12 AM
Let him play a 5 hours match and we will see.



So you are saying he is working harder as Federer? Or how do you want to defend his $70 million a year?

I heard Schuey can run a decent marathon...and is quite a good football player (as is Federer)....so I bet he could hold his own when it comes down to fitness

Tennis Fool
09-18-2004, 03:50 AM
Tennis is NOT RESPECTED because, among other things, it has disregarded its traditions. Golf has gone out of its to retain its in order to occupy its niche in the marketplace. Many people have wondered out loud about the dress code for the game after seeing the Golovin/Serena match and many of the matches with some of the young women whose agents have bought into the"sex sells" adage.

Yes, Tiger dominated golf but golfers from foreign countries are not treated as if they have the pox as is the case with foreign tennis players in the United States. The reason for this is that there are intelligent people promoting that sport and, unlike tennis, the commentators do not have agendas such as the promotion of the US Davis Cup team. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs but it's time to show the Mcenroes the door. John Mac's talk show is in the doldrums. Is that an extension of the response to his tennis commentary...hmmm

Actually, golf has gone down in popularity in the US, even during the reign of Tiger Woods. Again, it's an expensive sport and favored by the channels because NBC, ABC, CBS management watch/play golf. (This is from an article I read in the Wall Street Journal).

Also, the media has lamented about "nobodies" winning all the golf Slams, and were happy when Phil Mickleson won the Masters.

I don't know about other countries, but here you just don't pick up a conversation with a stranger and start talking tennis. It's football season.

Adcourt
09-18-2004, 04:05 AM
Many people can speak about a Vijay Singh, Ernie Els or Greg Norman easier than Federer,Moya, etc. because they are shown widely in golf coverage and Americans are not constantly force fed players who the commentators like and want them to see as is done with tennis.

For example, in American tennis, one is guaranteed that someone like Mardy Fish will be shown over Ferrero or Moya, even though he is lower ranked, because he is on the Davis Cup team and he is a friend of Roddick, Courier and the McEnroes. Why isn't similar exposure given to matches of Americans like Spadea?? We hardly see those matches. It never used to happen until Pat Mcenroe became Davis Cup captain and he and Jim Courier started doing tennis commmnetary. Definitely a conflict of interest (but, I digress).

Captain Obvious
09-18-2004, 04:10 AM
Americans wan't see to Americans and the next time there is an all-American final the ratings will go up.

AgassiFan
09-18-2004, 05:04 PM
Many people can speak about a Vijay Singh, Ernie Els or Greg Norman easier than Federer,Moya, etc. because they are shown widely in golf coverage and Americans are not constantly force fed players who the commentators like and want them to see as is done with tennis.



No, I meant in a sense that Daly and Singh and Montgomery are just your average guys, athletically.

You could be 45 years old, fat and still play the game of golf on the highest of levels. Tennis, on the other hand, requires agility and quickness. Agassi is Mesuthelah at the ripe ol' age of 34. Most people can't relate to him or Federer.

Golf is a way of life for some Old White Men as well.

Space Cowgirl
09-18-2004, 05:27 PM
Let him play a 5 hours match and we will see.

In that case, prepare to be surprised, Bilbo. Of course, maybe you think that fitness is not really a requirement to help your body cope with 8G side forces when turning into a corner and cockpit temperatures of up to 60° :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]So you are saying he is working harder as Federer? Or how do you want to defend his $70 million a year?[/QUOTE]


Uh no, where did I say that?? Of course Schumacher's salary is indefensible, but that's market forces. Nobody held a gun at his team's head to pay him that money, from its point of view he's worth every penny because of the success he's had (7 world championships and counting)

AgassiFan
09-18-2004, 05:42 PM
I would have paid money to see Proust, Senna and Schumacher race against each other on identical F1 cars. Not sure who would have an upper hand since they are all brilliant drivers in their prime.

pinky
09-18-2004, 10:18 PM
I would have paid money to see Proust, Senna and Schumacher race against each other on identical F1 cars. Not sure who would have an upper hand since they are all brilliant drivers in their prime.

Ahhhh, the poetry in motion of "Alain Proust"!!! ;)

tennischick
09-19-2004, 04:22 AM
Americans wan't see to Americans and the next time there is an all-American final the ratings will go up.
Hola Mali Vai:
nice to see ya posting. how's the wife -- did she ever recover from that attack by Safin?

here are the latest stats from USA. p'raps they support your perspective, p'raps they don't. :wavey:


2004 US Open Sets Records

9/14/04 2:09 PM

Attendance and Website Visit Records Set; Cable Television Viewership Up Nearly 20%

FLUSHING, N.Y., September 13, 2004 – The USTA today announced that the 2004 US Open set several records in attendance and website traffic. The following lists the new records and other highlights through Sunday, September 12:

Attendance:

• The final attendance of 631,870 is the second highest of all-time.
• The combined day and night session attendance record of 58,438 was set Monday, September 6.
• A new night session attendance record of 23,226 was set on Saturday, September 4.

Ratings:

• Total viewership of the 2004 US Open on USA Network was up 19% vs. 2003.
• Primetime viewership on USA Network was up 20% over 2003, averaging a 1.1 rating.
• Viewership of the first three days of US Open coverage on CBS Sports (Labor Day Weekend) was up 19% vs. 2003.
• Total viewership for the Saturday Night primetime Women’s Final on September 11 was up 7% over 2003.

Website:

• Visits to USOpen.org reached a record 15.4 million.
• Unique users to the site reached a record 2.8 million, up 15% vs. last year.
• USOpen.org remains a top-five most-trafficked sports website.

source: www.usta.com

Adcourt
09-19-2004, 04:37 AM
They are just putting a spin on the stats. Look at this :


"Total viewership for the Saturday Night primetime Women’s Final on September 11 was up 7% over 2003."
Yet we were told in an earlier release that viewership was down from the previous year. What are we to believe ?? Shouldn't we be comparing a rain-affected year to a rain-affected year and a fairly sunny year like 2004 to one that was similar. Last year there was very little play so it is obvious that there would be an increase in 2004 when some tennis was actually played; The size of increase is what should be questioned. there were empty seats during a lot of those matches--pre-paid tickets??