Still a nationally-televised game where everyone in the country can watch it without blackout restrictions. I'm not sure what else you would call a brand that has more fans than another. If the Saints are not more popular than the Texans, what would you call it then? Whatever you call it, more people are watching their games and that's the concern of those scheduling the "prime-time" games.
Well, everybody with a cable or satellite package. Thus why total viewers will always be less than the Sunday night game, the Thursday night game, and the Fox/CBS national game of the week. I'd break it down more that the Saints being more popular in New Orleans, or the Chiefs being more popular in KC than the Texans are in Houston is leading to the skewed numbers.... and that facet is in part because there's far more entertainment/sports/activity options in Houston than there are in New Orleans or KC. But I agree that Houston is just a blah sports market overall... and if that is why they don't get national attention (versus the quality of the team), so be it. In the end, I'd still venture the NFL should focus on getting the best teams/matchup period... the national ratings will be there if the games are good.
Which comes first... these teams being good and the country developing a "craving" for watching them (doubtful, esp when you see Arizona or Detroit on that list)... or the NFL just being a monster overall, and people will watch good teams play in big games? And all those teams mentioned above have been in a lot more national games over the last several years than Houston has. Are you really saying that if Houston was good, and was in all those national games over Arizona and Carolina that the ratings would suffer? Yes, they'll never have a national following of Pittsburgh, Dallas, or Green Bay... but if they're a good team, they should get the proper allotment of national games as well.
Why do we care if it's a national game? There's no trophy for popularity. I much prefer my local broadcast team's homerism. And you earn popularity by winning titles, that's when the bandwagoners jump on. The other thing is it's a quarterback driven league and we are a big question mark. I read an analysis of whom the networks would pick for the season opener with the Patriots and it came down to Pittsburgh because Roethlisberger is a proven quarterback with the comeback ability to keep even a blow-out interesting.
Huh? There are no local broadcasts in the NFL... its either a national game or a regional game. As far as QB's go, Matt Stafford, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, and Colin Kapernick are not "elite" either despite being "big" names.
If Houston had the ability to draw eyeballs, it wouldn't matter if they were a great team. But yes, if they become a great team for any sustained period, they will get more national tv games, but they will always be a team that as soon as they are mediocre or worse they'll get dropped from the schedule. We don't have a sexy QB star and we aren't a sexy sports market. This is true across all sports. Heck, MVP candidate James Harden can't even crack the top 15 NBA jersey sales! Even in the good years the Texans ranked middle of the pack in local tv ratings. You can't use the big city excuse when teams like Chicago and Detroit and Dallas and Philly all rank ahead of us.
Not sure you can make many widespread generalizations for a team that has only been existence for 13 years in a city that has a significant number of Cowboys fans that do affect overall "viewership". These other cities have zero competition for "loyalty" as they've bred generations upon generations of fans that virtually have no choice but to become fans of that team. Now, if you strongly believe that support could "never" reach those levels in Houston, and that Houston is just genetically flawed, so be it. I still think its entirely circumstantial, based in part of the team's performance along with its longevity.
Stand Corrected. Popular and elite I guess aren't the same thing, but TV producers right now don't have any idea about Texans quarterback play. Nor do we. For better or worse with Fitz you knew you were going to get steady unspectacular play. We could still be boom, bust or the same.
If this were some isolated thing to the Texans, sure, you could make the argument that the timeline matters. It's not. Support wanes VERY QUICKLY in Houston for teams that aren't contenders. Of course support for the Texans can reach a fever pitch if people think they are going to win a title or something, but in general, sports don't do well in Houston. We've been one of the bottom 2 or 3 markets in the country for Superbowl ratings, college basketball ratings, NBA ratings, baseball ratings, jersey sales, etc. But, I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
Week 1: Sunday, Sept. 13 – vs. Kansas City WIN Week 2: Sunday, Sept. 20 – @ Carolina LOSS Week 3: Sunday, Sept. 27 – vs. Tampa Bay WIN Week 4: Sunday, Oct. 4 – @ Atlanta WIN Week 5: Thursday, Oct. 8 – vs Indy WIN Week 6: Sunday, Oct. 18 – @ Jacksonville WIN Week 7: Sunday, Oct. 25 – @ Miami WIN Week 8: Sunday, Nov. 1 – vs Tennessee WIN Week 9: Sunday, Nov. 8 – Bye Week Week 10: Monday, Nov. 16 – @ Cincinnati WIN Week 11: Sunday, Nov. 22 – vs Jets WIN Week 12: Sunday, Nov. 29 – vs New Orleans WIN Week 13: Sunday, Dec. 6 – @ Buffalo LOSS Week 14: Sunday, Dec. 13 – vs New England LOSS Week 15: Sunday, Dec. 20 – @ Indy LOSS Week 16: Sunday, Dec. 27 – @ Tennessee WIN 12-4 Week 17: Sunday, Jan. 3 – vs Jacksonville WIN
Not as easy a schedule as initially perceived, 12-4 seems as if it will be extremely difficult. KC tough, Miami much improved, Buffalo much improved, Indy always tough, Jags certainly have improved (albeit not significantly) and the Titans could get really good with a Rivers trade. I expect another 8-8 to 10-6 season.
