In a press release, CBS claims that 108.41 million Americans tuned in for last night's Super Bowl:
CBS SPORTS’ COVERAGE OF SUPER BOWL XLVII IS THIRD-MOST-WATCHED PROGRAM IN TELEVISION HISTORY AND SECOND-HIGHEST-RATED SUPER BOWL IN 27 YEARS Average of 108.41 Million Watch Baltimore Win Super Bowl XLVII Network Garners Fast National Household Rating/Share of 46.3/69 The CBS Television Network’s coverage of Super Bowl XLVII featuring the BALTIMORE RAVENS’ 34-31 win over the SAN FRANCISCO 49ers’ on Sunday, Feb 3 (6:32-8:41 and 9:11-10:47 PM, ET) was watched by a Nielsen estimated average of 108.41 million viewers, making it the third-most-watched program in television history (Super Bowl XLVI - 111.3 million; Super Bowl XLV – 111.0 million). CBS Sports’ coverage of Super Bowl XLVII earned an average fast national household rating/share of 46.3/69 (47.0/71; N.Y. Giants-New England; Super Bowl XLVI), making it the second-highest-rated Super Bowl in 27 years (1/26/86; 48.3/70; Chicago-New England). Last night’s Super Bowl HH rating/share peaked at a 50.7/73 with an average of 113.92 million viewers from 10:30-10:47 PM, ET.
Last week, in a blog post titled, "Super Bowl City Leads on Energy Efficient Forefront," the Energy Department touted the Superdome's lights. The Superdome, in New Orleans, is hosting tonight's Super Bowl, where a power outage stopped play for more than half an hour.
The Super Bowl is, as everyone knows, the biggest thing in sports. And television. Which are, increasingly, indistinguishable. The game is routinely the highest rated program of the year. Any year. In fact, three of the four most highly rated shows of all time are Super Bowls. And those would be the last three games. The trend, then, is for this year’s game to become the highest rated ever. For a year, anyway.
Can the Giants front-four get to Brady and—as the fastidious football locution puts it—disrupt his timing? That is to say...pound him into wet, pink pulp.
Multitudes will be watching Sunday night to learn the answer to this and other questions that the Super Bowl exists to ask and then, millions upon millions of dollars and tons of avocado dip later, to answer.
There are so many questions to be answered in Indianapolis . . . wait a minute, did you say Indianapolis?
When Tim Tebow's pro-life ad ran during the Super Bowl, I wasn't a fan of it. It seemed so innocuous as to be a lost opportunity. Why did Focus on the Family pay so much money, create such a ruckus only to punt (forgive the pun) the issue when the Tebows finally came on-screen? It was a nice ad, which drove traffic to the Tebows' powerful story, on Focus' website, but I thought it should have done more.
If life is like a box of chocolates, then the televised Super Bowl is like an Oreo. The chocolate wafers are the game itself, and the ads are the cream filling. If you watched those ads, you probably saw this one, heralding that Electronic Arts is bringing to an Xbox 360 and/or PlayStation 3 near you its reimagining of Dante's Inferno. Yes, the Inferno is now a video game.
The only thing more analyzed than quarterback play after the Super Bowl is the commercials: Were they funny, offensive, pointless? Money well spent, or 30 seconds of confusion? How does the MTV set view the last 25 years of politics?
I will only countenance this if the NFL on Fox dancing robot gets to interview Obama. The dancing robot's disapproval numbers, if one were to take them, are likely lower than the president's, but I like him. I like it when he does high knees. I like it when he does the Electric Slide. I think he's got a lotta personality.
An amazing piece in the Post today about Tim Tebow's "celebrate life" Super Bowl ad:
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion.