Regular-season CFL game beats out record-setting Wimbledon

For all those legions of CFL-haters who contend that no one outside of a few prairie hicks and small-town types care a whit about three-down football, we present the following evidence:

Friday's night home opener in Regina, an entertaining game between the B.C. Lions and Saskatchewan Roughriders, was the most-watched sports event of the weekend as it drew an average of 457,000 viewers to TSN. More amazing, it topped Roger Federer's record-setting Wimbledon victory on Sunday -- a broadcast that was filled with emotion, great tennis and history.

This isn't all that unusual. CFL games routinely outdraw a lot of sports, including the hallowed NFL.

What was unusual, though, was the fact that the Calgary Stampede rodeo derby on Saturday night attracted more viewers to CBC than Saturday's women's final at Wimbledon. It might have been a blip, but it probably says more about the waning popularity of tennis than any huge increase in rodeo interest.

Here are the weekend English-language sports ratings, according to BBM Nielsen Media Research overnight figures:

1. Football, Lions at Roughriders, Friday, TSN: 457,000

2. Tennis, Wimbledon men's final, Sunday, Global/NBC: 384,000

3. Baseball, Blue Jays at Yankees, Saturday, Sportsnet: 273,000

4. Baseball, Blue Jays at Yankees, Sunday, Sportsnet: 267,000

5. Rodeo, Calgary Stampede, Saturday, CBC: 230,000

6.  Tennis, Wimbledon women's final, Saturday, Global/NBC: 227,000

7. Baseball, Phillies at Mets, Saturday, Sportsnet: 205,000

8. Baseball, Blue Jays at Yankees, Friday, Sportsnet: 184,000

9. Rodeo, Calgary Stampede, Friday, CBC: 107,000

10. Baseball, Rays at Rangers, Sunday, Sportsnet: 81,000

OTHER STUFF: Kudos to the FAN 590 for introducing a daily noon-hour baseball show, for no other reason than it gives us a break from 365-days-a-year hockey talk. The show, hosted by Mike Wilner, is still in its infancy and apparently hasn't settled on a format -- Wilner was asking listeners for suggestions on Monday -- but I have no doubt it will give baseball fans what they want. ... The Tiger effect was in evidence again on the weekend. CBS reports that its PGA National coverage, won by Tiger Woods, scored a 207 per cent ratings increase over last year.

Comments

[greg]

Wow, a 207% increase with Tiger. And you wonder why the networks show him a bit more then the average player. Maybe you won't waste your whole column from now on bemoaning that. We can only hope.

And a point about the tennis and this is an honest question: Does the fact that the Wimbeldon is played at 9am not effect the ratings? If it was on in primetime I would have to think that a CFL game would beat it in the ratings.

BLOGGER'S REPLY: To set the record straight, I have no problem with networks showing Tiger all day IF he's in contention, which he was during the National. My complaint is that they show him all day, telling us how much of a threat he is, even when he hasn't got a hope.
Indeed, a morning start does affect ratings. But this was Wimbledon, a once-a-year event in which Federer was going for a record. The CFL game was just another on the schedule.
Chris Z

[Bill]

You keep advancing the lie that the CFL routinely outdraws the NFL. That is simply not true. The fact is that NFL fans watch games on American channels and on the Sunday Ticket package in addition to what is aired on Canadian television channels. Not to mention those who watch the games in bars and other establishments. Canadians overwhelmingly prefer the NFL to the CFL. That is a fact.

BLOGGER'S REPLY: A fact, is it? And outside of your personal experience, what do you have to back up your fact? The ratings system isn't perfect, but that's what I'm going with and they say the CFL is more popular than the NFL in Canada.
Chris Z

[LOCKSTOCK93]

You make a pretty quick about face there, Chris.

From "More amazing, it topped Roger Federer's record-setting Wimbledon victory on Sunday" to "the waning popularity of tennis" in just a few lines.

I don't see the popularity of tennis can be used as a positive barometer and a negative barometer at the same time. It's just not sensible.

[Jason Cormier]

Chris, when the broadcaster is listed as Global/NBC does that mean that all viewers were counted, regardless of whether they switched to Global's channel or NBC's channel or is it simply the numbers for those who tuned to channel 3 (or which ever channel Global uses on the other providers)?

BLOGGER'S REPLY: If a game is simulcast, all viewers are counted. If you watched it on NBC or Global, you were counted. So the figures shown are total viewers period.
Chris Z

[Mike S]

Greg is right..........it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to compare the ratings of a football game played in prime time (involving two Canadian based teams) with a tennis match that is played at 9:00 on a Sunday morning (which means it started at 6:00 am on the west coast)

[JoeKnowsIt]

Bottom line when it comes to the CFL. Its TV ratings are second only to the NHL on Canadian TV. Nobody knows how many people watch US TV feeds, and they have no impact on Canadian ratings. These people who say the NFL supposedly has millions of viewers watching US feeds have no proof. The bottom line are the numbers. And the numbers show the CFL is getting bigger and bigger each year. IF they could only find a way to get some new stadiums built in Quebec and Halifax, this league would explode in popularity.

[steve]

Hey Chris:

Rita MacNeil specials also draw huge ratings...what's your point?

[Tennisfan]

There isn't a waning interest in tennis. It's the fact that the women's final was with both Williams sisters, which is not interesting as they don't play as hard as they usually would against any other opponent.

Dare I say the outcome is predetermined so that both sisters will win their fair share of major events

[Mike]

Joe, you're right when you say that no one knows how many people watch the US feed because they are not tracked by BBM but are 100% WRONG when you say that it has no effect on audience numbers. It most certainly does have a HUGE impact when only 1 of 2 NFL games on TV are tracked. And not counting the majority of NFL fans that don't like the Bills and order Sunday Ticket to follow their team (be in Pats/Steelers/Packers/Cowboys etc) also distorts the numbers tremendously. A automatic 50% increase in the NFL number would be a very conservative rule of thumb.

Also, in the playoffs your theory is destroyed. When there is only 1 game on at a time and sim-sub allows the counting of all viewers the NFL > CFL and not just for the Super Bowl but all rounds.

It's a shame that Chris didn't include this large caveat. Is this just an oversight or did he intentionally ignore it like so many inferiority complexed CFL nuts who can't face the fact that the two leagues popularity are about even in Canada.

[baseballfan]

The number of viewers watching on NBC is not calculated in Canada. So, given that 384,000 watched on Global -- a channel that people are not accustomed to turning to for sports -- you can deduce another large chunk (perhaps even 200,000+) were watching on NBC.

Also factor in that this broadcast began at 9 am on a Sunday morning, and that makes this entire blog moot. The Wimbledon final is definitely more widely watched than a Lions/Roughriders game on Friday night.

[Jack C]

Another pro-tennis viewership observation:

A lot of people I know were talking about the Wimbledon Men's Final for the rest of the Sunday and the next day at work. It also led all the sports newscasts.

NOBODY was talking about the CFL game.

[Peter Brown]

One clarification: For programs that are simulcast on a Canadian broadcast network (Global, CTV, CBC, etc.) and a U.S. carrier, the Canadian feed is inserted over the U.S. channel on cable and (I believe) satellite. So, in that case, the Canadian TV ratings do capture the totality of the audience, except for Canadians in border cities who watch the U.S. channel over-air instead of through cable/satellite.

When a program is shown only on a U.S. network, or when it's simulcast by a Canadian *cable* network (TSN, Sportsnet, The Score, etc.), the Canadian signal is *not* inserted over the U.S. signal. CRTC regulations about forcing Canadian feeds only covers broadcast networks, not cable. So, in that case, Canadian ratings are only capturing part of the total audience.

So, in the case of Global showing Wimbledon, that's a true simulcast. IE, if you switch to NBC on your cable box, you still get the Global signal.

[JP]

I second your kudos to The Fan 590 for having a baseball show and giving Hockey Central a couple of months off.

I'm not sure there's has been anything more boring in the world than flipping between Leafs Lunch and Hockey Central at noon in July and August over the past couple of years. Everyone loves hockey, but I'm sorry, that was coma inducing overkill. I'll be checking out the baseball show for sure.

[moosy]

You have no idea (and no does since it isn't really measured) if 200k or 2k watched it on NBC. So, to then conclude that Wimbledon outdrew Friday night CFL is a stretch.

But I do agree comparing an event on Friday night to one on Sunday morning isn't fair. But considering tennis infrequently makes top 10 weekend ratings while CFL infrequently doesn't make the top 10, prime time US Open & Rogers Cup matches usually don't outdraw CFL, it is again a stretch to conclude Wimbledon Sunday morning beats CFL Friday night.

[Argofan]

Why are so many Canadians threatened by the CFL being so popular?

[Mike]

why wasn't my comment before posted? I didn't swear or say anything offensive. Oh well, I'll try again in short from.

Joeknowsit, you don't know this. You're dead wrong when you say that American feeds/NFLST have no impact on ratings, they have HUGE impact. a 50% increase as a rule-of-thumb is conservative. Look at the playoff numbers of the 2 leagues (when american feeds aren't an issue) and the NFL consistently does better.

Why some people absolutely refuse to acknowledge this fact puzzles me.

[Josh]

Peter Brown basically has it right. If you were watching NBC on cable (and satellite in most places), you were actually watching the Global feed during the Wimbledon final and as a result it would be counted towards Global's numbers, but even then it only matters if you have a Neilsen box.

As for the CFL/NFL thing, until the playoffs its hard to compare the two for many reasons. The US networks numbers are counted, there are so many games on at once and there are way more NFL games in a week than CFL games. However, the Grey Cup and Super Bowl numbers are usually quite close, which makes me think that they have about the same popularity.

[Beacher]

"Why are so many Canadians threatened by the CFL being so popular?"

It makes some people feel smart and worldly and sophisticated to dump all over the CFL. Such is the allure of the NFL marketing machine. Even some local sports reporters fall under its spell. As Chris will tell you, the Argonauts draw more local TV viewers than the Raptors, Blue jays or FC, but you'd never know it based on the respective amount of coverage these teams get.

[David]

People like the CFL, whats wrong with that? I like the CFL, NFL, NHL, MLS, EPL, let's all trash on me for liking those leagues too.

One last point. I work in construction and the guys talk about the CFL all the time, especially when the Cats lose, again. We talk about the Argos, Cats, Bills, Leafs. That's it, no Jays, Raptors, TFC. Just because your group of friends likes something, doesn't mean my group likes the same things.

[dualie]

I can tell you this: From July to September no football fan is watching live NFL games. So back off the ridiculous argument that "Canadians overwhelmingly prefer the NFL to the CFL." Only a complete fool (and highly ignorant football fan) would buy that.

- Dualie in California; Raider season ticket holder and avid CFL fan.

[JoeKnowsIt]

So Mikey. You're sayin' for the Stanley Cup final, that when 3.6 million watched on cBC, another 1.8 million were watching NBC. Meaning 5.4 million watched game 7 in Canada? Thats your theory? I would say more like 10%. At the max.
Bottom line. You don't know how many watch US feeds. Look at how lousy Raptor and baseball TV ratings are simulcast or not. You pro NFL guys have been proven wrong wrong wrong at every turn, and you just can't accept it. Face facts. You NFL lovers are a miniscule loud mouthed minority.

[Mike]

Explain how I'm wrong, Joe. You claim to know it. You haven't proved me or anyone wrong of anything.
1. BBM ratings are greatly flawed when it comes to sports simulcasts and they apparently have no plans to fix this. FACT.
2. Therefore, an NFL game that is on FOX for example while the Bills are forced on us on CTV/CBS is not counted. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS NBC/CBC FEED OF THE SAME GAME!!! (Which is a Red Herring argument altogether because that involves preferring a Canadian or American feed, not the same feed on 2 channels). BTW, could you explain why you think only 10% would watch an NFC game (ie. NYG/Chi) instead of a Bills game?
3. Sunday Ticket is available for purchase for fans of teams not always shown in this region (i.e. Non-Bills fans). Those fans can watch their team on the digital sports channels. Those fans are also not included. Another FACT.
4. Every year in the playoffs this issue goes away completely when CTV simulcasts the only game on. And every year in the playoffs the NFL beats the CFL in ratings. Coincidence, right?

I'll even give you an example to help you understand the issue. In 07, the Patriots were going against the NY Giants for a 16-0 perfect season. The game was suppose to be on TSN here and NFL Network in the States but because of fan outrage over the limited distribution of the channel, the NFL relented and allowed BOTH NBC and CBS to simulcast the game across the country. In response CTV also picked up a simulcast of the game so they could sim-sub commercials on the 2 American feeds.

The result: the game got over 1.25 million viewers, roughly split between CTV/NBC/CBS and TSN. And it beat HNIC that aired a Leaf game (when was the last time the CFL did that?)

What's the point of all this, you ask? Well imagine if CTV didn't also pick up the game, those watching NBC/CBS WOULDN'T BE COUNTED (see where I'm going). Also, those on CTV would have had to change the channel and some of them would have gone to TSN but others would have stayed with an American OTA channel. So the result would have been say around 725,000 on TSN but with another 525,000 viewers on NBC/CBS NOT COUNTED!! A lot more than the 10% you made up.

In reality, the 2 leagues are about even in popularity across the country and using the flawed ratings system as the crutch to try to prove otherwise is an incredibly weak argument.

There it is, and I didn't have to make up red herring attacks on other sports to get my point across (which sounds a lot like that billy b guy from before).

[greg]

First off, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post Chris. Secondly, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I totally take issue with your response because in both cases that you made a case of the too much Tiger coverage was the Masters and the US Open. I watched the final round of the Masters and Tiger Woods was 100% a THREAT to win it. Go back and watch it. He faltered late and that's when the coverage scaled back but until then he was right there. And at the US open he wasn't as much as a threat but he was still right there on the final day. I think he had gotten to within one shot of the lead. In both of those instances it wasn't what you say above "the networks showing Tiger and saying he's a threat when he has no chance". He had a chance both times and faltered late. I don't fault the networks in either of those cases.

Regardless, i think we can agree to disagree on this issue. Thanks again for your time.

[Canadian NFL fan]

what's the CFL?

[Argofan]

Mike,
Why don't you actually give us some figures to prove what you are saying. Chris Zelkovich has provided many figures over the years which show that the CFL is no less popular in Canada than the NFL, even in southern Ontario. Now, let's see some hard figures from you which prove otherwise.