PDA

View Full Version : cowboys actually played a game tonight


dragonsdaddy
08-17-2008, 12:03 AM
when was the last time the boys played and no one watched it? how did they look. i only caught 2 scores, the last being 17-10. jj must be pulling out his storebought hair with the lack of interest. he's building a new stadium using arlington money and this is how we treat him.

Firebird
08-17-2008, 12:13 AM
It's preseason...and NBC is showing the world's fastest man and the final chapter of the most compelling sports story in several years. No way are you winning that match-up. In one week the country will be back to watching the NFL.

jtk1519
08-17-2008, 12:19 AM
...and the final chapter of the most compelling sports story in several years.

I hate to tell you this, but the Superbowl was a couple of months ago. The Patriots lost. Sorry to spoil it for you.

Firebird
08-17-2008, 12:25 AM
I hate to tell you this, but the Superbowl was a couple of months ago. The Patriots lost. Sorry to spoil it for you.

Phelps v. History and the world > Giants v. Patriots.

slorch
08-17-2008, 06:35 AM
Phelps v. History of the World > Giants v. Patriots.

you like Mel Brooks that much?

tayb
08-17-2008, 11:20 AM
Pre-season football would be 15th or 16th on a list of things to watch on any given day....

svhorns
08-17-2008, 12:53 PM
Phelps v. History and the world > Giants v. Patriots.

2nd that

jtk1519
08-17-2008, 10:30 PM
Phelps v. History and the world > Giants v. Patriots.

Phelps is a good story, but please... it's not even close...

An average estimated aud of roughly 40 million were tuned in during the 10 o'clock hour to watch Phelps capture the 200-meter butterfly and his 10th career Olympic gold medal. And that aud swelled post-primetime, hitting 41.2 million in the 11 o'clock half-hour, which featured women's gymnastics and another Phelps gold medal, this one as part of a relay team.
http://www.variety.com/VR1117990490.html

The game eclipsed the previous record of 94.08 million, set when Dallas faced Pittsburgh in 1996. Last year's game between Indianapolis and Chicago was seen by 93.2 million people, Nielsen said.

More people watched Sunday's game than all but one American television broadcast ever, the M*A*S*H finale in 1983, which was seen by 106 million viewers.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/story/2008/02/04/superbowl-ratings.html?ref=rss

Firebird
08-17-2008, 10:41 PM
Judging how compelling a sports story is by U.S. tv viewership is stupid. By that measure, your precious world cup is a total fail. The last final was watched by only 12 million people here in the U.S.

Stop guzzling the haterade. The Super Bowl was a good game, but it's nowhere near the best sports story of the year. All those numbers show is that people don't know what's cool.

jtk1519
08-17-2008, 10:48 PM
Judging how compelling a sports story is by U.S. tv viewership is stupid. By that measure, your precious world cup is a total fail. The last final was watched by only 12 million people here in the U.S.

Stop guzzling the haterade. The Super Bowl was a good game, but it's nowhere near the best sports story of the year. All those numbers show is that people don't know what's cool.

You have a remarkable gift for self-deception. If you truly, actually believe any of that, then more power to you. There is absolutely no form of tangible evidence to even remotely back your claim, but more power to you. Let me know the minute you come back to the real world.

Firebird
08-17-2008, 10:53 PM
The only way the Super Bowl would have maybe been more interesting is if New England won. That would have been historic. But, they choked. Moreover, it happened in a sport with limited regional interest. When all is said and done, just another Super Bowl.

twcpfan1
08-17-2008, 10:56 PM
Holy Crap. Get real. These Cowboy fans are just like tu fans.

I bet a good portion of the US don't even know who qb'd the Giants in the last superbowl, let alone the rest of the world.

Firebird
08-17-2008, 10:59 PM
Holy Crap. Get real. These Cowboy fans are just like tu fans.

I bet a good portion of the US don't even know who qb'd the Giants in the last superbowl, let alone the rest of the world.

jtk isn't a Cowboys fan, just a hater of all things Olympics.

twcpfan1
08-17-2008, 11:03 PM
To tell you honestly I can't even remember off hand which team the Giants lost to the year Kerry Collins was their Superbowl QB. Was it the Ravens or Tampa Bay. All I know is the ratings were pretty bad that year considering the largest media market was on show.

Would have been the same this year if an undefeated NE would have not been in the mix. Also the fact that they were undefeated

Firebird
08-17-2008, 11:05 PM
To tell you honestly I can't even remember off hand which team the Giants lost to the year Kerry Collins was their Superbowl QB. Was it the Ravens or Tampa Bay. All I know is the ratings were pretty bad that year considering the largest media market was on show.

Would have been the same this year if an undefeated NE would have not been in the mix. Also the fact that they were undefeated

I'd have to think hard to put the last five winners in the correct order. And I watch football religiously......A lot easier for me to recall the great Olympians.

jtk1519
08-17-2008, 11:59 PM
jtk isn't a Cowboys fan, just a hater of all things Olympics.

My personal opinion about the Olympics are irrelevant. How I feel doesn't change the fact that since the '96 Atlanta games and the original dream team, nothing Olympic related has even come close to comparing to the rating the Superbowl halftime show gets, much less the game itself and this year is no different.

JMSFan
08-18-2008, 12:01 AM
My personal opinion about the Olympics are irrelevant. How I feel doesn't change the fact that since the '96 Atlanta games and the original dream team, nothing Olympic related has even come close to comparing to the rating the Superbowl halftime show gets, much less the game itself and this year is no different.

If only Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake would be there and do an encore performance of " nipplegate " .

JMSFan
08-18-2008, 12:03 AM
To tell you honestly I can't even remember off hand which team the Giants lost to the year Kerry Collins was their Superbowl QB. Was it the Ravens or Tampa Bay. All I know is the ratings were pretty bad that year considering the largest media market was on show.

Would have been the same this year if an undefeated NE would have not been in the mix. Also the fact that they were undefeated

I think it was the Ravens. The Bucs beat the Raiders the year they went to the SB.

Firebird
08-18-2008, 12:03 AM
My personal opinion about the Olympics are irrelevant. How I feel doesn't change the fact that since the '96 Atlanta games and the original dream team, nothing Olympic related has even come close to comparing to the rating the Superbowl halftime show gets, much less the game itself and this year is no different.

So like I said, the World Cup doesn't hold a candle to either, since we are using U.S. tv ratings to make the judgement of what counts as compelling.

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 12:08 AM
To tell you honestly I can't even remember off hand which team the Giants lost to the year Kerry Collins was their Superbowl QB. Was it the Ravens or Tampa Bay. All I know is the ratings were pretty bad that year considering the largest media market was on show.

Would have been the same this year if an undefeated NE would have not been in the mix. Also the fact that they were undefeated

New York lost to Baltimore in a game that Nielson said was watched by more than 131 million Americans... almost 100 million more than watched the most recent opening ceremonies.

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 12:10 AM
So like I said, the World Cup doesn't hold a candle to either, since we are using U.S. tv ratings to make the judgement of what counts as compelling.

Nobody said it did so I don't know why you would bring the World Cup up in this discussion. We all know it's not terribly popular in America and it's certainly not a compelling story. What relevance that has on our current discussion, I don't know.

Firebird
08-18-2008, 12:11 AM
Nobody said it did so I don't know why you would bring the World Cup up in this discussion. We all know it's not terribly popular in America and it's certainly not a compelling story. What relevance that has on our current discussion, I don't know.

Most of the rest of the world would disagree with you......what has little relevance in the discussion is U.S. tv ratings, which regularly reward the likes of American idol.

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 12:14 AM
The most recent Superbowl winners (without looking) are New York, Indy, Pittsburgh, New England, New England, Tampa, New England, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver, Denver and then it's hazy after that. I know Green Bay and San Francisco won one each and Dallas won a few.

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 12:24 AM
Most of the rest of the world would disagree with you......what has little relevance in the discussion is U.S. tv ratings, which regularly reward the likes of American idol.

Yeah, how many people watch a sporting event has little relevance to it's popularity. :rolleyes:

BTW, the last Superbowl was watched by over a billion people worldwide, but I suppose such facts are irrelevant in determining the game's popularity.

twcpfan1
08-18-2008, 07:32 AM
The NFL is a sport that's played at a high level here and in one other country. That should tell you a lot right there. Foreigners will watch the superbowl for the pre game and the halftime show more than for the game itself. Nobody cares about the game. You put it in the same time slot as the opening ceremonies and the worldwide audience for the superbowl virtually disappears.

I think football purists have a problem with its nature, mainly the armory and the fact that you have separate offensive and defensive teams.

Firebird
08-18-2008, 08:36 AM
Yeah, how many people watch a sporting event has little relevance to it's popularity. :rolleyes:

BTW, the last Superbowl was watched by over a billion people worldwide, but I suppose such facts are irrelevant in determining the game's popularity.


Popular:

–adjective 1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general: a popular preacher.

Compelling:

2. having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect: a man of compelling integrity; a compelling drama.

I use the words that mean what I want to say. Popular =/= compelling. jtk=fail.

Speaking of the Super Bowl, you should first of all concede that the 1 billion figure is baloney marketing hype. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/steve_rushin/02/03/rushin0206/

Second, the Super Bowl is a de facto American holiday. It's like saying that eating turkey in late November is compelling. People watch the game even if they do not have the slightest bit of interest. At LEAST one guy at every superbowl party is the "ironic" d-bag that is watching it "just for the commercials." At least another 1/3 is wives and girlfriends that are "watching" but had to ask who was playing on the drive over and are all in the kitchen chatting by the 2nd quarter. They will then ask who won after the game is over.

I'd wager that if you are actually counting head to head people who know why they are tuning in and who have a definite preference about the outcome (wanting a team to win/Phelps to win/etc.,) then the numbers approach even. Very few people of that 40 million who tuned in to watch Phelps win his race were clueless folks who didn't know what they were cheering for.

slorch
08-18-2008, 08:39 AM
The NFL is a sport that's played at a high level here and in one other country. That should tell you a lot right there. Foreigners will watch the superbowl for the pre game and the halftime show more than for the game itself. Nobody cares about the game. You put it in the same time slot as the opening ceremonies and the worldwide audience for the superbowl virtually disappears.

I think football purists have a problem with its nature, mainly the armory and the fact that you have separate offensive and defensive teams.

football purists?

are they against facemasks still?:D

I don't have an issue with equipment advances because the basis of the game still comes down to executing a play while 11 dudes are coming to knock your block off. Equipment affects baseball, tennis, and golf more directly. football will always be about the athletes going against each other, as long as both teams have access to that equipment.

as far as the window dressing around the games( pregame, halftime, ect) I don't really care how long they are as long as the halftime doesn't become so long that it affects the players. I agree with you in that most of that stuff is done to attract the non-fan. Longer halftime just means more time to take a restroom break, get beer, and refill the food we're munchin on...

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 06:09 PM
Second, the Super Bowl is a de facto American holiday. It's like saying that eating turkey in late November is compelling. People watch the game even if they do not have the slightest bit of interest. At LEAST one guy at every superbowl party is the "ironic" d-bag that is watching it "just for the commercials." At least another 1/3 is wives and girlfriends that are "watching" but had to ask who was playing on the drive over and are all in the kitchen chatting by the 2nd quarter. They will then ask who won after the game is over.

I'd wager that if you are actually counting head to head people who know why they are tuning in and who have a definite preference about the outcome (wanting a team to win/Phelps to win/etc.,) then the numbers approach even. Very few people of that 40 million who tuned in to watch Phelps win his race were clueless folks who didn't know what they were cheering for.

You're speaking in "what ifs' and "I bets" and whatnot... I'm speaking in fact. When you join me in Factland, this discussion can continue because all you are doing now is speaking as irrational fan grasping at any hope of superiority and you are failing miserably.

Favpack
08-18-2008, 06:21 PM
Apparently all the Cowboy coaches were busy timing the Jamaican sprinters.

Firebird
08-18-2008, 10:35 PM
You're speaking in "what ifs' and "I bets" and whatnot... I'm speaking in fact. When you join me in Factland, this discussion can continue because all you are doing now is speaking as irrational fan grasping at any hope of superiority and you are failing miserably.

Selective quoting. Why don't you join me once you are willing to accept the plain meaning of words....instead of acting like an irrational fan.

jtk1519
08-18-2008, 11:15 PM
Selective quoting. Why don't you join me once you are willing to accept the plain meaning of words....instead of acting like an irrational fan.

I can't hear you in Factland... come join me.