TV ratings show locals loving Colts, still fixated on Peyton

September 20, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The most recent round of TV ratings for NFL games shows the Indianapolis Colts bandwagon is still filling up. The Nielsen numbers also show that this market hasn’t forgotten about Peyton Manning.

During the Colts 2012 opener in Chicago, 346,256 central Indiana households tuned in. The 32.3 rating was strong, but not terribly surprising, for several reasons. First was the intrigue about the new-look Colts and the team’s rookie quarterback, No. 1 overall draft pick Andrew Luck. You had to figure every Colts fan in the area was watching because they weren’t likely to travel three hours to the Windy City.

Also fueling the ratings was the opponent. It isn’t like it was before the Colts arrived in Indy in 1984, but plenty of Bears fans are still here, and a game against Chicago has historically driven Colts ratings up here.

During week two, the Colts scored a 32.8 rating, meaning 351,616 central Indiana households watched the home game against Minnesota. While that seems like a small gain, it’s bigger than it looks. The Bears factor was out. Also, 67,000 hard-core Colts fans watched the game live, so you can subtract them from the TV ratings equation. And Sept. 17 was a beautiful fall day.

So while only about 5,360 more local households watched week two than week one, I’d say that’s a significant sign that a sizable and growing number of fans are willing to give this team a chance to win them over.

What about Manning? Obviously, Indianapolis still loves him, or is at least fixated on him.

Almost 310,000 central Indiana households watched Manning’s new team, the Denver Broncos, battle Pittsburgh in prime time Sunday night in week one. Not a huge surprise, given the intrigue of watching No. 18 play his first game in 20 months and his first NFL game ever without a horseshoe on his helmet.

Apparently, the fascination hasn’t waned.

The central Indiana market registered the highest rating of any market nationally for Denver’s Monday Night Football clash against Atlanta. The 19.0 rating (203,680 households) was higher than Denver (18.9) and Atlanta (12.5).

One big caveat is that the Monday Night Football game is also shown on a local station in the market of the two teams playing as well as on ESPN. Still, for the Indianapolis market to beat Atlanta by 6.5 rating points on the ESPN telecast is pretty phenomenal. The way John Gruden goes on about Manning, I can see why some Falcons fans might have tuned out.

Denver and Atlanta aside, the local TV market beat the next best market by one entire rating point. That’s a pretty big margin. The 10th highest rated market, Charlotte scored a 15.1.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Local vs. ESPN
    Interesting to see the numbers. One correction--fans in local markets (i.e. Denver and Atlanta in this case) still see the ESPN feed (and hear the ESPN announcers) even if they watch the game on a local channel--it's just a simulcast of the ESPN feed. The NFL and ESPN allow this so that people without cable can still see the game.
  • Thanks
    Thanks for the clarification, Russ.
    • ratings
      The Denver and Atlanta local ratings were probably much, much higher than Indy, since the game was broadcast on TWO channels in those teams' markets (not just ESPN).
    • I would bet the vast majority of those in Atlanta and Denver watched ESPN, with only those who do not have basic cable watching the local feed. I have watched our local feed on WNDY and got tired of the screw ups where they pop in late for plays because their commercials ran long or some intern fell asleep and forgot to flip a switch. Many of us still love Peyton and wish him well. At the same time, we love our home team. I have even seen some week one naysayers jumping back on the band wagon. Luck now has one more win in his career than Peyton had as the same time and arguably Peyton had a better supporting cast.

    Post a comment to this blog

    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
    1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

    2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

    3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

    4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

    5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.

    ADVERTISEMENT