I find it useful for my own mental health to be agnostic about Neilsens. They're not perfect. There's nothing better. Those are not mutually exclusive statements.
Man, it sure would be nice for someone to find these ratings. It would probably explain a lot of things that bug the heck out of people. It clearly adds important information to the choice of Seattle, and the move from SJ to Houston. For expansion watchers, it'd really be helpful to know what the ratings are in other non-MLS cities.
I think the numbers in Paul Allen's bank account had a hell of a lot more to do with it than the Nielsen numbers. The ratings may have helped convince him moreso than the league.
According to this, the Telefutura games averaged 175,000 households (a 0.15 national rating). Take that for what it's worth in trying to figure out how many people watched the match there Sunday.
I've already posted that tidbit. I think that's not really an indication of what MLS Cup ratings would be. Remember SuperLiga games averaged 637,000 households, and the Beckham-Chelsea game had a .4 rating (those numbers aren't figured into the MLS average). So, I think a .4 is a realistic possibility for MLS Cup ratings. That would bring a total of a 1.3 rating.
I don't think the share represents # of households. I think share is suppose to represent the % of TV's that are on that are watching your event. Ratings are the ones that count the households if I am not mistaken. I believe the entire Univision family moved to the broadbased ratings system at the beginning of 2006, so yes, the ratings and share should be comparable.
Refresher: Rating=percentage of total homes with television that are tuned to that program. Share=percentage of homes using television at that moment that are tuned to that program. And hispanic TV audience used to be measured differently (how, I don't know, but I always saw that disclaimer). As Andy said, I think they're comparable now.
Is it a good sign that a city without an MLS team got that rating? Wouldn't it imply that the overall rating would be higher then that?
No, I don't think it implies that at all. Final national ratings are almost always lower than overnight ratings.
Wouldn't you expect cities with MLS teams to have the best ratings though? Especially Houston and Boston? And if a team that does not even have a city is getting .9 I would think that means good numbers.
You mean a city without a team. We don't know the rest of the MLS market numbers. For every San Diego (with a soccer-friendly makeup), there are dozens of markets like Baltimore and Indianapolis where the rating may not have been as high as that. The overnight samples 56 (I think) of the top markets in the country. The ones below that simply don't have the mathematical power to move the ratings that much. Which is why there's not often a bump from overnights to final national.
The non major markets can both move up or down a rating as much as 15-20%. NASCAR's recent ratings history has seen its final ratings be significantly higher than the overnights, where as MLS has almost been the opposite.
I'd like to see those numbers, because I haven't seen that effect. The 56 overnight markets represent 77 million (out of 112 million) TV households. NASCAR may have more of a "small-town" appeal (which makes sense when you think of its stereotypical audience) than some other programming. But I have yet to see an overnight rating that didn't drop when the final numbers come in. If you have them, I'd love to see them. I've always collected final national numbers, not overnights, so I don't have that data.
Because the ratings system is flawed, thus you won't get the true scope of how many people are watching MLS games on TV.Now back to ratings of sporting events, I don't see NASCAR been a real sport. Why in the world you sit behind the wheel of a very expensive car with a bunch of ads plastered all over it and making left turns all day long.
Now explain your point. Why don't you make your own crybaby thread? Where everyone can debate the legitimacy of Nascar as a sport.
Define flawed. So says the soccer fan who will probably throw a fit if anyone dare speak ill of his favorite sport. Criticizing other sports is so third grade. All I have "learned" from you is that NASCAR is stupid and you don't like the Nielsen system because soccer gets bad ratings. You really should step away from the computer for a while if that's all you're bringing to the table.
This NASCAR site lists both the overnight numbers (the usually smaller number) and the final ratings (usually the higher number) for the last 3 years. Final Ratings on top, and Fast/Overnight Ratings below with an '*'. http://www.jayski.com/pages/tvratings2007.htm Let me know if this is what you were looking for.
I have no guess really. All I know is that soccers ratings almost never go up from the overnights to the final, where as something like NASCAR almost always goes up from the nightlys to the final ratings.
Excuse my ignorance but after living abroad, I've never really known or understood what the main importance of ratings mean or meant. Can someone please explain in the simplest terms?