IBJNews

Super Bowl just misses major-market TV-rating record

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The New York Giants’ 21-17 win over the New England Patriots in Sunday night’s Super Bowl narrowly missed drawing the highest major-market television rating in National Football League history, Comcast Corp.’s NBC network said Monday.

The game at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis was seen in an average of 47.8 percent of households in the top 56 U.S. television markets. Last year’s NFL championship between the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers drew a 47.9 major-market rating, which tied a 1987 title game between the Giants and Denver Broncos for the previous high.

Full national ratings are due later. Last year’s Super Bowl was seen by 111 million viewers, making it the most-watched event in U.S. television history, beating the 1983 season finale of “M*A*S*H,” which was watched by 106 million people. It was also the fourth straight year of Super Bowl-record viewership.

Sunday’s game came down to a last-second heave from Patriots quarterback Tom Brady into the end zone. The ball bounced off of several hands before falling to the ground a few feet from diving New England tight end Rob Gronkowski.

The Giants’ Super Bowl victory, their fourth, in many ways mirrored their upset 17-14 win over New England in the 2008 title game, as Eli Manning led late-game touchdown drives in both contests.

The 2008 game had a television audience on News Corp.’s Fox of 97.4 million and a 43.1 national rating.

The average 30-second commercial during Sunday night’s game sold for $3.5 million, according to NBC.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT