Doubt the power of NASCAR and Dale Earnhardt? Check this.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:26 pm

Snipped from jayski.com:

>>>>>>>

# '3' does well in the Ratings: ESPN's original movie, "3", was a huge success delivering a 5.0 HH rating, a record for an ESPN original movie.

* "3" was the highest rated ESPN movie among M18-34, M18-49, and M25-54.

* "3" was the most-viewed cable program for the entire day among M18-34, M18-49 and M25-54.

* From 9pm-11pm on Saturday, "3" was the most-viewed program on television among M18-34, M18-49, and M25-54.

* "3" was the second highest rated movie on ad-supported cable this year, only behind "Librarian" which delivered a 5.1 HH rating on TNT (12/5).

With the exception of the NFL, it is a special feat for an ESPN program to deliver a 5.0 rating. This is ESPN's highest rated EOE program and puts it in an elite class. Programs like the MLB Divisional Playoffs and premiere bowl games achieve this level of performance.(ESPN PR)(12-15-2004)
AND Saturday's presentation of ESPN's fourth original made-for-television movie, "3", was the network's highest-rated movie ever, seen in an average of more than four million households, based on a rating of 5.0, according to the official data released today by Nielsen Media Research. The two-hour portrayal of the late NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt was the second-highest rated movie of 2004 on ad-supported cable. It posted ESPN's highest movie rating ever among all key male demographics (M18-34, M18-49 and M25-54). In addition, "3" was the most-viewed program on all of TV from 9-11 p.m. that day among men 18-34, 18-49 and 25-54.

<<<<<<<

ESPN promoted the hell out of this movie, but those are still damn impressive numbers. To put this into perspective, two weeks ago USC-UCLA football drew a 4.9 on ABC, the SEC football championship game pulled a 4.4 on CBS, the Big 12 football championship game pulled a 3.1 on ABC, and Army-Navy pulled a 2.4 on CBS.

"3" outdrew them all. I expected this movie to be popular, but not <i>this</i> popular. I watched the movie, contributing my .00000001 of a point to the rating.

Take care,
PK

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:31 pm

It's not quite as impressive as it seems. But any Nascar event that gets any type of rating is obviously doing something right. I just can't believe how freakin' popular Nascar is, I just don't get it.

No one watches TV on Saturday night and winning the night doesn't exactly say much. Had they put it on Sunday night or even a day during the week other than Friday, then I'd be really impressed.

I watched part of it on Tivo and I was bored. I can definitely see the facination for all the 'necks out there though.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:33 pm

Agree that winning the night doesn't mean much when it's a Saturday night. But pulling in higher ratings than college football championship games among BCS teams is pretty strong.

Yeah, they weren't going head-to-head, but "3" pulled bigger numbers on a Saturday night on cable than Auburn-Tennessee did the previous Saturday night on network TV.

Take care,
PK

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:41 pm

"It's not quite as impressive as it seems. But any Nascar event that gets any type of rating is obviously doing something right. I just can't believe how freakin' popular Nascar is, I just don't get it."

It is very popular in this country, but any racing sport worth a damn has international popularity and influences. If ESPN had made a documentary of Schumacher and played it on all their international stations, it would have blown away the "3" ratings.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:01 pm

True, Schumacher is more boring, so the movie would have to focus more on his racing performances, which are far more dominating for longer periods of time in his sport than Dale's ever was. Nevertheless, any film about such a great driver would be watched.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:35 pm

I don't doubt their power, I'm just bemused by it.

I'm no racing fan, but I just can't comprehend NASCAR's popularity when you have, what appears to my untrained eye, superior racing alternatives out there like F1.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:56 pm

sf_z wrote:No matter how you spin them, the numbers and demographics are mighty impressive.

I agree about Schumacher's international popularity, but I don't know how anyone could structure a decent screenplay around his life. Great driver, boring movie. A movie about Senna, Gilles Villeneuve or Zanardi would be a lot more compelling stuff.

The only interesting part of the Schumacher movie would be when he stole Heinz Harald Frentzen's girlfriend away from him when both were sportscar drivers around 1990. That woman became Mrs. Corinna Schumacher. True story.

How about a movie on Tim Richmond? Now there's a fascinating racing character. Foyt also would be an incredibly fascinating subject. His complexities make Earnhardt look like an emotional simpleton.

I think a movie on James Hunt would be fascinating, too. An incredibly gifted driver who wasted a lot of his talent because he wanted to drink, smoke and f*ck as much or more than he wanted to drive. Or what about Lauda? What balls, what determination, both in the recovery from the horrible accident and his decision to walk away from F1, return a few years later and win another world title.

All of these guys would be way more compelling subjects than Schumacher, who is superb behind the wheel -- doesn't hurt the whole team is built around him, though -- yet dull as dishwater out of it.

Speaking of shows on drivers, the "Biography" series on A&E and The Biography Channel finally profiled a racing driver for the first time -- Mario Andretti.

Excellent choice, as Mario probably had the greatest combination of skill and versatility of any race driver who ever lived. Won Indy, Daytona, F1 World Championship, 12 Hours of Sebring, won on dirt, etc., etc.

The show debuted last night. I recorded it and can't wait to watch it tonight.

Take care,
PK

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:58 pm

I've been a racing fan my whole life and can not explain NASCAR's popularity either. It sort of drives me crazy, even, watching it continue to grow in the public consciousness while open-wheel racing (and specifically, Indy) struggles mightily.

I'd gladly watch a movie about Gilles Villeneuve. Wasn't there a plan for a Senna movie (with Banderas taking the lead role)?

Neckthai · Post by **Neckthai** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:18 pm

Tim Richmond's movie was already made. They called it "Days of Thunder." Only Cole Trickle didn't die of AIDS.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:25 pm

Neckthai wrote:Tim Richmond's movie was already made. They called it "Days of Thunder." Only Cole Trickle didn't die of AIDS.

Ha! You're right! Although I'd like something a little closer to reality.

Out,
PK

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:41 pm

Aw crap. I know I should just ignore certain posts, but here goes anyways....

DB, why do you have to bring out "'necks" with Nascar? Haven't we been through this whole stereotyping enough? I may as well refer to anything NBA with the term Thugs.

Nascar appeals to so many....let me modify that. I cannot speak for the millions of others who enjoy the sport. I personally enjoy nascar because of the competition. During any race there are dozens of guys who could win. One week Dale Jr. takes the flag, the next week he's 22nd. You never know who's going to win, and that makes it exciting. Hell, within a single race you see many lead changes, and not all of them are due to pitting. Nascar also kows how to market thier product, and that includes not just the cars, but the drivers in them. They have personality, which generates interest.

Meanwhile, all the F1 lovers can't imagine why F1 isn't as popular. It's BORING. Schumacher by a lap every week....YAWN. Indy cars screwed themselves by splitting into two groups. After that I stopped caring about either faction.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:44 pm

RobVarak wrote:I don't doubt their power, I'm just bemused by it.

I'm no racing fan, but I just can't comprehend NASCAR's popularity when you have, what appears to my untrained eye, superior racing alternatives out there like F1.

And what exactly makes F1 superior to Nascar?

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:57 pm

"And what exactly makes F1 superior to Nascar?"

For one thing, it attracts racers from all over the world which adds elements of nationalism to the sport. You are also bound to get a higher level of talent when you have drivers from a larger pool than NASCAR, as well as offering more variation in driving techniques and strategies.

Parker · Post by **Parker** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:04 pm

Oops wrong thread

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:25 pm

matthewk wrote:
RobVarak wrote:I don't doubt their power, I'm just bemused by it.

I'm no racing fan, but I just can't comprehend NASCAR's popularity when you have, what appears to my untrained eye, superior racing alternatives out there like F1.
And what exactly makes F1 superior to Nascar?

As I said, I'm only speaking as an outsider here, but F1 seems to demand more of the drivers and machines and provide a more exciting spectacle. I know that there is strategy in NASCAR, and understand the impressive technological and competitive elemetns as well, but it just doesn't impress me when I see it the way that Rally racing or F1 do. Don't get too pissed, as I'm as clueless as it comes about racing. Like I said, "untrained" eye.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:03 pm

Aw crap. I know I should just ignore certain posts, but here goes anyways....

DB, why do you have to bring out "'necks" with Nascar? Haven't we been through this whole stereotyping enough? I may as well refer to anything NBA with the term Thugs.

Most people on this board do.

I actually agree with your sentiments but it's not like this is the first time or something.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:46 pm

Rob, I'm not pissed, just curious. Personally I don't see how F1 is superior. As a fan, Nascar is much more entertaining to watch. What matters to be is being entertained, and Nascar does that, in part due to the suspense of wonderig who will win.

So Nascar had 12 different winners in 36 races? How many different drivers won an F1 race? I'll take six teams having a shot at the title over 1 any day.

For those who prefer F1, that's fine by me. Go ahead and enjoy it. People here enjoy soccer too, even though I cannot seem to get into it. I love Moto GP and Motocross, but I don't expect most others to.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:51 pm

RobVarak wrote:I don't doubt their power, I'm just bemused by it.

I'm no racing fan, but I just can't comprehend NASCAR's popularity when you have, what appears to my untrained eye, superior racing alternatives out
there like F1.

Martketing...

skinsfan · Post by **skinsfan** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:56 pm

NASCAR features cars that look like regular production vehicles.The brands are manufacturers of everyday cars and trucks that people drive.The drivers are American and easy to identify with.The racing is fairly competitive and features alot of passing(except restrictor plate races).Most importantly,it televises very well.It is easy for all of the on track action to be captured in the frame.The open wheel split really hurt that type of racing right when NASCAR took off.The IRL has taken a"open wheel Nascar" approach by staying with ovals and standardized engines.F1 can't attract much of a following here because it has no American drivers,the races are on TV at a bad hour for most and long road courses don't seem to provide for a good televised experience as compared to oval or regular tracks.The lack of much passing and the dominance of one guy can't help,either.I enjoy any kind of racing,but these are a few of my thoughts on how NASCAR is so big.I hope the real racing nuts here don't trash me,because I think this is how the casual race fan sees things.