IBJNews

Colts' victory over Broncos reaps ratings bonanza in Indianapolis

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sunday night's Colts-Broncos game on WTHR-TV Channel 13 was the fourth most-watched installment of NBC's "Sunday Night Football" since its debut in 2006, according to the network.

It set a record for "Sunday Night Football" in Indianapolis. The game featuring Peyton Manning’s return to Indy as a Denver Bronco averaged a 49.1 household rating and 71 share in Indianapolis. That means that nearly half of all homes—nearly 540,000—were tuned to the game. And, in homes watching TV, more than 70 percent were watching the game.

The game registered almost exactly the same numbers in the Denver market—49.6 and a 71 share, according to NBC.

The game peaked in Indianapolis with a 54 rating and an 80 share of the audience. For comparison, the 2012 Super Bowl in Indianapolis peaked with an 84 share, according to WTHR. Sunday's game posted higher ratings in Indianapolis than four of the past 10 Super Bowls.

For NBC, the game was the fourth-highest-rated production in the eight-year history of  “Sunday Night Football." According to preliminary national estimates from Nielsen, the game posted a commanding 10.0 rating for adults in the sought-after 18-49 demographic, and was viewed by 25.9 million viewers overall from 8:30 to 11 p.m.

For the whole 8:30 p.m.-12:15 a.m. broadcast, it posted an overnight rating of 17.3, or an average of about 21.5 million viewers.

That gave "Sunday Night Football" the biggest Sunday night audience this year since the Feb. 24 Academy Awards.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Waaaaah!
    The rating were already figured in at primetime...didn't matter what time the game finished....someone needed their beauty sleep!
  • Ratings
    Ratings would have been even higher if the game had not gone on well past midnight.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT