Comments on: Game 3 of Lakers/Celtics Final Draws 14.51 Million http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/ Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:22:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-265693 Robert Seidman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:07:43 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-265693 Paulsen, good catch. Thanks., Paulsen, good catch. Thanks.,

]]> By: Paulsen http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-265694 Paulsen Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:59:55 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-265694 The game drew a 9.2 rating. The 8.8 is the average through three games.<br><br>-- Paulsen The game drew a 9.2 rating. The 8.8 is the average through three games.

– Paulsen

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-14133 Robert Seidman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:07:43 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-14133 Paulsen, good catch. Thanks., Paulsen, good catch. Thanks.,

]]> By: Paulsen http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-14132 Paulsen Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:59:55 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-14132 The game drew a 9.2 rating. The 8.8 is the average through three games.<br><br>-- Paulsen The game drew a 9.2 rating. The 8.8 is the average through three games.

– Paulsen

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303328 Robert Seidman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:58:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303328 I had (or more accurately Nielsen and ABC) done the math in the post - 13.801 million according to ABC. I'm guessing they calculate based on all the raw data divided by duration and since you only get 3 digits you're ever so slightly off. Or they're just wrong. This may sound contrarian, but I'm actually worried that game 4/rest of series gets a boost BECAUSE of the scandal. Long-term if there's any merit, that's really awful for the NBA, but in the short-term, America loves a scandal. I had (or more accurately Nielsen and ABC) done the math in the post – 13.801 million according to ABC. I’m guessing they calculate based on all the raw data divided by duration and since you only get 3 digits you’re ever so slightly off. Or they’re just wrong.

This may sound contrarian, but I’m actually worried that game 4/rest of series gets a boost BECAUSE of the scandal. Long-term if there’s any merit, that’s really awful for the NBA, but in the short-term, America loves a scandal.

]]> By: Robert Seidman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303329 Robert Seidman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:58:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303329 I had (or more accurately Nielsen and ABC) done the math in the post - 13.801 million according to ABC. I'm guessing they calculate based on all the raw data divided by duration and since you only get 3 digits you're ever so slightly off. Or they're just wrong. This may sound contrarian, but I'm actually worried that game 4/rest of series gets a boost BECAUSE of the scandal. Long-term if there's any merit, that's really awful for the NBA, but in the short-term, America loves a scandal. I had (or more accurately Nielsen and ABC) done the math in the post – 13.801 million according to ABC. I’m guessing they calculate based on all the raw data divided by duration and since you only get 3 digits you’re ever so slightly off. Or they’re just wrong.

This may sound contrarian, but I’m actually worried that game 4/rest of series gets a boost BECAUSE of the scandal. Long-term if there’s any merit, that’s really awful for the NBA, but in the short-term, America loves a scandal.

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303326 Bill Gorman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:44:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303326 (14.509+13.384+13.499)/3 = 13.797m average for the first 3 games. If it only goes 6, the next 3 will have to average 16.203m to finish with an overall average of 15m. That's looking good for Robert [with the under on 15m]. I think I need a seventh game, not only for the likely final game viewership increase, but also the extra game to be averaged in. If it goes 7, the last 4 need to average 15.90. Assuming a big boost for game 7, I think that's possible, but that's still a lot of *ifs*. (14.509+13.384+13.499)/3 = 13.797m average for the first 3 games.

If it only goes 6, the next 3 will have to average 16.203m to finish with an overall average of 15m. That’s looking good for Robert [with the under on 15m].

I think I need a seventh game, not only for the likely final game viewership increase, but also the extra game to be averaged in. If it goes 7, the last 4 need to average 15.90. Assuming a big boost for game 7, I think that’s possible, but that’s still a lot of *ifs*.

]]> By: Bill Gorman http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303327 Bill Gorman Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:44:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303327 (14.509+13.384+13.499)/3 = 13.797m average for the first 3 games. If it only goes 6, the next 3 will have to average 16.203m to finish with an overall average of 15m. That's looking good for Robert [with the under on 15m]. I think I need a seventh game, not only for the likely final game viewership increase, but also the extra game to be averaged in. If it goes 7, the last 4 need to average 15.90. Assuming a big boost for game 7, I think that's possible, but that's still a lot of *ifs*. (14.509+13.384+13.499)/3 = 13.797m average for the first 3 games.

If it only goes 6, the next 3 will have to average 16.203m to finish with an overall average of 15m. That’s looking good for Robert [with the under on 15m].

I think I need a seventh game, not only for the likely final game viewership increase, but also the extra game to be averaged in. If it goes 7, the last 4 need to average 15.90. Assuming a big boost for game 7, I think that’s possible, but that’s still a lot of *ifs*.

]]> By: Todd D. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303324 Todd D. Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:34:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303324 2002 doesn't seem like that long ago, but just think: NBC still had the NBA and had built a following with regularity in theme, number of games broadcast, etc. And, even just six years ago, there wasn't such a plethora of other viewing options (online, gaming, etc.). Otherwise, how could a Lakers/Celtics finals not even approach the numbers of the Lakers finals with the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets in the early `00s? With this scandal in the wings, none of this can really be great news. Personally, I think this is the result over a quarter century of David Stern running the show. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so he benefitted greatly from the Bird/Magic, and then, Jordan years. But real change is needed. Maybe the 2010s will represent that birth in hopefully new, energetic hands that have a bit of integrity. 2002 doesn’t seem like that long ago, but just think: NBC still had the NBA and had built a following with regularity in theme, number of games broadcast, etc. And, even just six years ago, there wasn’t such a plethora of other viewing options (online, gaming, etc.). Otherwise, how could a Lakers/Celtics finals not even approach the numbers of the Lakers finals with the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets in the early `00s? With this scandal in the wings, none of this can really be great news. Personally, I think this is the result over a quarter century of David Stern running the show. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so he benefitted greatly from the Bird/Magic, and then, Jordan years. But real change is needed. Maybe the 2010s will represent that birth in hopefully new, energetic hands that have a bit of integrity.

]]> By: Todd D. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/06/11/game-3-of-lakersceltics-final-draws-1451-million/4106/comment-page-1/#comment-303325 Todd D. Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:34:00 +0000 http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4106#comment-303325 2002 doesn't seem like that long ago, but just think: NBC still had the NBA and had built a following with regularity in theme, number of games broadcast, etc. And, even just six years ago, there wasn't such a plethora of other viewing options (online, gaming, etc.). Otherwise, how could a Lakers/Celtics finals not even approach the numbers of the Lakers finals with the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets in the early `00s? With this scandal in the wings, none of this can really be great news. Personally, I think this is the result over a quarter century of David Stern running the show. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so he benefitted greatly from the Bird/Magic, and then, Jordan years. But real change is needed. Maybe the 2010s will represent that birth in hopefully new, energetic hands that have a bit of integrity. 2002 doesn’t seem like that long ago, but just think: NBC still had the NBA and had built a following with regularity in theme, number of games broadcast, etc. And, even just six years ago, there wasn’t such a plethora of other viewing options (online, gaming, etc.). Otherwise, how could a Lakers/Celtics finals not even approach the numbers of the Lakers finals with the Pacers, 76ers, and Nets in the early `00s? With this scandal in the wings, none of this can really be great news. Personally, I think this is the result over a quarter century of David Stern running the show. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so he benefitted greatly from the Bird/Magic, and then, Jordan years. But real change is needed. Maybe the 2010s will represent that birth in hopefully new, energetic hands that have a bit of integrity.

]]>