I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Also--this flies in the face of people not giving a shit about the Eagles nationwide. According to Nielsen, they're the 5th most popular team in the league
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
I don't know where to find a list displaying estimated numbers of fans for teams. Did find a few things that point to there being more national interest in the Iggles than you think there is.
Conversely I don't think many people give a darn about the Aints. Most of their history was as a joke team that hadnt won a playoff game...and then that had won a single playoff game. Brees changed that and made everyone forget that they were so bad. Now...the Lions are probably the worst team in modern NFL history. Don't they still only have 1 playoff victory in the SB era?
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
That's pretty shocking. I'll take your word for it.
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
That's pretty shocking. I'll take your word for it.
Or you can take the word of a company whose job it is to measure such things...
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
That's pretty shocking. I'll take your word for it.
Or you can take the word of a company whose job it is to measure such things...
I just meant I wasn't going to go back through the thread looking for the post you were talking about. I assumed you were citing something like this.
I think that away from the I-95 corridor, no one gives a shit about this SB.
Ratings wise, I think this was the best possible outcome for the NFL
I don't know. I think due to Patriots-fatigue, the Steelers might have made a bigger rating than New England. And as for the NFC, I think if the NFL was able to choose, they'd want the Saints over the Eagles or Vikings.
I mean really, a Browns/Lions Super Bowl would probably draw a higher rating than a Warriors/Cavs game 7. But as far as Super Bowls go, and using only the teams in this year's playoffs, I think Saints vs. Patriots/Steelers would produce the best rating
I'm not sure there is a Patriots fatigue. They're kind of like the Yankees. Most either love them or hate them. So I think more people will tune in to root against them, than will root for the Steelers. Plus Boston is a much bigger market than Pittsburgh.
And Eagles/Saints---no contest. Philadelphia is the 4th largest tv market, New Orleans is 50th...4 spots above Scranton Wilkes-Barre.
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Ugh....admittedly, I guess I just personally would rather see Pittsburgh and New Orleans. This time next week I'm going to be surrounded by either the super-happy Eagles fans, or super-angry Eagles fans....and God help me either way.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
That's pretty shocking. I'll take your word for it.
Or you can take the word of a company whose job it is to measure such things...
I just meant I wasn't going to go back through the thread looking for the post you were talking about. I assumed you were citing something like this.
Bomani Jones (ESPN, juggler!) had a good line....eagles need to win so that eagles fans can quit acting like they act (tortured) and patriots fans can quit acting like they act (see: halifax2themax).
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Every scoring play is reviewed but there's been a lot of touchdowns overturned because it wasn't ruled a catch. A lot of controversial calls over the catch rule.
Comments
I agree with the Yankees comparison and the tune into cheer against them notion.
I don't dispute that Philadelphia is a much larger TV market than New Orleans. But I'm talking about nationwide viewing habits. People in like fly-over states would probably gravitate towards a big star like Brees or Rodgers in a game like this.
And really......and look......I know you love the Eagles and you live in the bubble so don't get worked up about this statement.....but I think people on a national level don't give a shit about the Eagles. In terms of historical franchise relevance, they have to be a distant 4th in their division right? A win this Sunday could go a long way to changing that. But I just think Joe Schmo from Idaho, when forced to watch NFC East primetime games like we all are, would be least interested in watching the Eagles. Again, that's historically speaking because certainly the Eagles were more fun to watch than any of the other NFC East teams this year.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Yeah but why would someone's viewing habit in a fly over state count differently than someone on the east coast? There are more people, and thus, more televisions on the east coast. In terms of overall ratings, which is what I initially talked about, I don't think there's any doubt that a Boston vs Philadelphia super bowl would generate a higher number than Pittsburgh vs New Orleans. I actually don't think it would be close.
And I don't take offense to what you said....but the same can be said of most teams. Who cares about the Saints in Philadelphia? Who cares about the Falcons in Los Angeles? Point is, this matchup is probably the best case scenario in terms of overall tv ratings.
Also--this flies in the face of people not giving a shit about the Eagles nationwide. According to Nielsen, they're the 5th most popular team in the league
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/whos-americas-nfl-team-nielsens-media-exposure-rankings-detail-the-top-franchise.html
So, on top of what I mentioned earlier, this SB has two of the five most popular teams in the league going at it.
And to your "who cares about the Saints in Philly, who cares about the Falcons in LA?" point. I guess I'm trying to refer to what gamblers call the "public" teams. The teams with real national followings: Dallas, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, San Francisco and to a lesser extent, Oakland, Washington, and Miami. Basically, teams that had a lot of success when the NFL was first becoming big on television in the 70's and 80's, and people jumped on their bandwagons.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Look at my prior post. Eagles are 5th most popular team in the league
http://www.nflshop.com/pages/Top_Selling_Jerseys
https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2017/06/17/nfl-fan-base-and-brand-rankings-2017/
Conversely I don't think many people give a darn about the Aints. Most of their history was as a joke team that hadnt won a playoff game...and then that had won a single playoff game. Brees changed that and made everyone forget that they were so bad.
Now...the Lions are probably the worst team in modern NFL history. Don't they still only have 1 playoff victory in the SB era?
That's pretty shocking. I'll take your word for it.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Or you can take the word of a company whose job it is to measure such things...
I just meant I wasn't going to go back through the thread looking for the post you were talking about. I assumed you were citing something like this.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Trieste 14, Vienna 14, Gdynia 14, Leeds 14, Milton Keynes 14, Denver 14
Central Park 15
Fort Lauderdale 16, Miami 16, Tampa 16, Jacksonville 16, Greenville 16, Hampton 16, Columbia 16, Lexington 16, Philly1 16, Philly2 16, NYC1 16, NYC2 16, Quebec City 16, Ottawa 16, Toronto1 16, Toronto2 16, Fenway1 16, Fenway2 16, Wrigley1 16, Wrigley2 16
He actually caught the ball lol
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I like the Eagles approach. The Pats look stale.
Should be a good second half.
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018