Jump to content

Lowest Rated Super Bowl Since 1969!


Reagan

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Not the hurt the narrative but those tv numbers don’t include streams (over a billion minutes for the first time in streaming history).  It will also the most watched telecast of 2021 by a long shot.  

But carry on old heads 🤣 (from a fellow old head).  

Trump/Admin was unceremoniously mocked (and still are) for pointing out this same fact after his 2016 inauguration. It's funny that acknowledging the streaming audience is only logical when basing it on political ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

Trump/Admin was unceremoniously mocked (and still are) for pointing out this same fact after his 2016 inauguration. It's funny that acknowledging the streaming audience is only logical when basing it on political ideology.

It’s television in general.   Ratings are vastly lower across the board.   Cable/Satellite out, streaming in.  And the SB set the all time record for streaming.  Again, doesn’t fit the narrative but it’s the world we live in.  Not my bag but apparently is for many. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

It’s television in general.   Ratings are vastly lower across the board.   Cable/Satellite out, streaming in.  And the SB set the all time record for streaming.  Again, doesn’t fit the narrative but it’s the world we live in.  Not my bag but apparently is for many. 

I totally agree with you...and thank you for bringing to the forefront the reality of data. I was using your post to take a stab at the anti-Trump hypocrites that walk among us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TxHoops said:

It’s television in general.   Ratings are vastly lower across the board.   Cable/Satellite out, streaming in.  And the SB set the all time record for streaming.  Again, doesn’t fit the narrative but it’s the world we live in.  Not my bag but apparently is for many. 

I dunno... I've got a LOT of friends who won't watch anymore because of the social justice protests.  The NFL lost a bunch of diehard fans, and I don't think the soy-boys are deciding to tune in and replace the eyes lost.  

 

But make no mistake... there are a lot of hardheads that gave up on the NFL, NBA, MLB, and even Nascar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I dunno... I've got a LOT of friends who won't watch anymore because of the social justice protests.  The NFL lost a bunch of diehard fans, and I don't think the soy-boys are deciding to tune in and replace the eyes lost.  

 

But make no mistake... there are a lot of hardheads that gave up on the NFL, NBA, MLB, and even Nascar.  

No doubt about that.  Just saying that television as a whole like we know it is down.  And even with those of us who don’t watch anymore (or much - I watched one half of NFL this  year which was the first half of SB), it will still be the highest rated program of the year and it won’t be close.  
 

And to be clear, I didn’t not watch because of the kneeling, etc.  I don’t watch because my team sucks and I can’t stand the owner.  And the refs gave me all I could stomach in the first 30 minutes of the game Sunday.  I would rather spend my time doing or watching other things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TxHoops said:

And actually it’s the lowest numbers since 2007, not 1969, when the Colts-Bears received 3 million less viewers.  Stop posting fake news Reagan - you were only 40 years off! 

Super Bowl Ratings Crash to Lowest Level Since 1969, Least Watched Since 2006!  In the title...

Anyway, all major sports, with the exemption of the UFC, are being effected by this un-American mentality the liberal left keeps pushing.  Basketball, baseball all down.  But, maybe a glimmer of hope.  Un-American Mark Cuban wanted to not play the National Anthem at their home games.  But -- the NBA said, no, you will.  Maybe the NBA's pocketbook is feeling the pinch.  Amazing how Cuban does business with China and never complains about the genocide over there.  Could it be because he says he makes a lot of money from China?  But he said he'd kneel down because America is so bad.  Does anyone ever notice how none of these un-American complainers never leave America to go live someplace else?  Just another sign of idiots being hypocrites!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Reagan said:

Super Bowl Ratings Crash to Lowest Level Since 1969, Least Watched Since 2006!  In the title...

Anyway, all major sports, with the exemption of the UFC, are being effected by this un-American mentality the liberal left keeps pushing.  Basketball, baseball all down.  But, maybe a glimmer of hope.  Un-American Mark Cuban wanted to not play the National Anthem at their home games.  But -- the NBA said, no, you will.  Maybe the NBA's pocketbook is feeling the pinch.  Amazing how Cuban does business with China and never complains about the genocide over there.  Could it be because he says he makes a lot of money from China?  But he said he'd kneel down because America is so bad.  Does anyone ever notice how none of these un-American complainers never leave America to go live someplace else?  Just another sign of idiots being hypocrites!

You mean the CBA (China Basketball Association) aka NBA. 🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I dunno... I've got a LOT of friends who won't watch anymore because of the social justice protests.  The NFL lost a bunch of diehard fans, and I don't think the soy-boys are deciding to tune in and replace the eyes lost.  

 

But make no mistake... there are a lot of hardheads that gave up on the NFL, NBA, MLB, and even Nascar.  

But.....But....the population has grown so much since 1969. SMH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 5:10 PM, TxHoops said:

Not the hurt the narrative but those tv numbers don’t include streams (over a billion minutes for the first time in streaming history).  It will also the most watched telecast of 2021 by a long shot.  

But carry on old heads 🤣 (from a fellow old head).  

Yeah... kinda like Grandpa Earpiece Biden votes were live-streamed. 80 million votes 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Deep Breath😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...