Skip to content

Pats-Saints still doesn't top Packers-Vikings on MNF

In the end, the widely-anticipated Monday night game between the Patriots and the Saints was slightly less widely anticipated than the widely-anticipated Monday night game from two months ago between the Packers and the Vikings.

The most recent edition of ESPN’s Monday Night Football drew 21.4 million viewers, 800,000 eyeballs shy of the 21.8 million viewers who tuned in for Favre’s first foray against his former team.

In New Orleans, the game scored a 66.7 rating, which means that two out of every three televisions, including those that were turned off, were tuned in to the game.

The national rating was 15.0, only 0.3 lower than the national rating generated by Packers-Vikings.

Though no further game on the MNF docket will generate similar interest, Bristol gets the Packers again this week, and the Vikings for the final Monday night game of the year, a Soldier Field showdown against a Bears team that Favre and company steamrolled on Sunday.

Permalink 30 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
30 Responses to “Pats-Saints still doesn't top Packers-Vikings on MNF”
  1. birdmancometh says: Dec 2, 2009 12:20 PM

    Not everybody has two working eyes Florio. Have some respect.

  2. PervyHarvin says: Dec 2, 2009 12:27 PM

    Considering that the Saints-Pats game had no giant human interest story such as Favre faces the Packers, the numbers the game generated are very impressive. 21.4 is damn good.

  3. CountryLawyer says: Dec 2, 2009 12:31 PM

    Oh, wait, never mind! Two eyes per viewer. I get it! Sorry. High-larious.

  4. cusoman says: Dec 2, 2009 12:37 PM

    And Bob Nelson will still come here and continue his vile spewing that the Vikings just don’t draw a national audience.
    Guess it really doesn’t matter considering the guys who call the shots, you know, the NFL, think he’s wrong.

  5. bustabloodvessel says: Dec 2, 2009 12:40 PM

    Why would it? Every still talks about the Pats like they are football gods, but they are at best a wild card playoff team just above 500. The Saints are one of the punchlines in the NFL. They are a remarkable team this year, I will give that to them. The Vikings and Packers have one of the best, and most storied rivalries in the league. Which game would you rather watch?

  6. whosthisguy says: Dec 2, 2009 12:43 PM

    Figured the Vikings – Packer game would be the highest rated game this season because it was circled on everyones calendar from week 1 as a don’t miss game. (Marked as a holiday on Maddens calendar )
    I didn’t expect the saints-pats to get so close though.

  7. nationscapital10 says: Dec 2, 2009 12:56 PM

    I am sure we will now hear from all Vikings fans…
    No one wants to watch your team, we all watched to see Brett Favre against his old team. No one cared about his new team, and for all these Vikes fans that keep popping up, why dont you go to a game so that your franchise does not get blacked out, or should we be saying welcome Los Angeles Vikings. Loser fans

  8. hayward giablommi says: Dec 2, 2009 12:58 PM

    “Why would it? Every still talks about the Pats like they are football gods, but they are at best a wild card playoff team just above 500. ”
    ^^^^^
    Pats are considered by most to be the team of the decade with 3 Super Bowl rings. 7-4 is just above .500? Come on. Yeah, they’re probably not going to be playing in February with their defense, but looking at their remaining schedule, they’ll finish no worse than 11-5. “Just above .500″ would be 9-7.
    “The Saints are one of the punchlines in the NFL.”
    ^^^^^
    No, the Browns are one of the punchlines in the NFL. The Jesters are the other.
    “They are a remarkable team this year, I will give that to them.”
    ^^^^^
    I am sure they appreciate it, considering they are 11-0 and have as good, if not a better, shot than the Patriots did to go 19-0.
    “The Vikings and Packers have one of the best, and most storied rivalries in the league. Which game would you rather watch?”
    ^^^^^
    I’d rather watch Pats-Saints, personally.

  9. bustabloodvessel says: Dec 2, 2009 1:13 PM

    Hayward,
    We all remember from the the whole cards-vikes flex issue that you are a die hard pats fan.

  10. PervyHarvin says: Dec 2, 2009 1:16 PM

    nationscapital10 says:
    December 2, 2009 12:56 P
    No one cared about his new team, and for all these Vikes fans that keep popping up, why dont you go to a game so that your franchise does not get blacked out, or should we be saying welcome Los Angeles Vikings. Loser fans
    ===================================
    You got balls dude. If the Vikings fans can get out of the AD thread,they will fry your ass tool.
    We don’t have blackouts tool,from your name you may be a Redskin? LOL Explains the hate.All the money in the world and a shit team. Saints gonna murder you!

  11. turbodog says: Dec 2, 2009 1:20 PM

    Favre was the only and I repeat only reason the Vikes-Pack attracted so many viewers. It wasn’t because of the “storied” rivalry between Minn and GB. The fact that the Saints- Pats game got so many viewers without a ‘Favre” type element is remarkable. Without Favre playing for Minn, that game wouldn’t have gotten half the viewers it did.

  12. PervyHarvin says: Dec 2, 2009 1:31 PM

    Naw,you are not a Redskins fan. Not even you are that stupid!

  13. Fan_Of_ Four says: Dec 2, 2009 1:53 PM

    It’s all about the Legend that is Brett Favre.

  14. hayward giablommi says: Dec 2, 2009 1:55 PM

    @ busta:
    Indeedious maximus.
    But you could substitute any good AFC team (Colts/Chargers etc) vs. the Saints and I’d find it more interesting. Getting beaten over the head with the Favre revenge thing has become tiresome.

  15. Colt's McCoy says: Dec 2, 2009 1:57 PM

    Viking fans will be real quiet when Favre is back in Mississippi and the team is in L.A. What a cocky fan base. Did you guys get the black out extension this week for?

  16. jeff says: Dec 2, 2009 2:14 PM

    nations capital:
    STFU!
    You got nothing else to bash us on except for “blackouts”, which there hasn’t been one in 12 years.
    Or that the vikes are moving…they aren’t a deal will get done.
    You follow the media like a sheep. go follow your own football team….oops they suck, Try hoops, uh, wait they suck too. How bout baseball?
    Damn, no wonder you have to try and tear down the Vikes, I’d be envious too if I were you.
    Hey are the Mystics still playing?

  17. sand0 says: Dec 2, 2009 2:15 PM

    The Favre story wasn’t the only reason that people tuned into the MNF game in record numbers. The last time the Vikings and Packers played on Monday night the game had very high ratings as well and Favre wasn’t even on the field for either team.
    But yes the Favre angle is what allowed two fairly small market teams with generally surprisingly high ratings to go to a new level and set a record.
    Regardless, the Vikes/Pack game was still the highest rated non postseason game ever and the Vikes preseason game against the Texans was the second highest rated game ever. Minnesota sports fans will take the national audience any time we can get it as we are usually over looked even when our teams are half decent.

  18. stetai says: Dec 2, 2009 2:35 PM

    I know, what’s this “storied rivalry” crap that someone said between the Vikings and Packers. The only NFC North feud that anyone knows outside the great lakes is the Packers-Bears and no one really cares that much.
    A record crowd tuned in to watch Brett Favre smoke the team that spurned him, and that big of an audience would’ve turned out if he was playing for the Vikings, Jets, or Rams.
    As for any of you other in-denial cheeseheads compare the Packer-Raven MNF with this one, and against the Vikings-Cards this Sunday for who the draw is.

  19. Bob Nelson says: Dec 2, 2009 2:40 PM

    The Packers have always drawn the audience and ratings. That’s why even in the occasional down year the Packers are on national television.
    Teams that have been around awhile and won championships draw ratings. That’s why the Packers, Steelers, Bears, and Giants always have ratings. They have won the most championships. The exception is a newer team like the Cowboys that have had success as a franchise.
    This season they had the added attraction of Brett Favre who singlehandedly garners more ratings than any other NFL player. Together the ratings were extreme.
    The ignorant, suddenly mouthy this season, have trouble selling seats in their Minnesota arena. That franchise very rarely is ever on national television and then it is against the Packers or the Bears. They couldn’t beat Judge Judy in ratings if they were not playing the Packers, Bears, or the Steelers, Giants or Cowboys.
    The NFL franchise in Minnesota is going to relocate because
    a) it does not earn enough to pay it’s own way without NFL welfare from high revenue teams like the Cowboys, Packers, and Chiefs.
    b) they cannot sell a season worth of tickets to their dark dinky 64K indoor arena without corporate bailouts.
    c) 40% of the NFL fans in Minnesota are not viking fans. Packer team merchandise is sold at the Bloomington airport and the Mall of America.
    d) They simply are not entertaining without Brett Favre.

  20. Colt's McCoy says: Dec 2, 2009 2:56 PM

    Spot on assessment, Bob Nelson. It is unbelievable how mouthy the Vikes fans are over here. Enjoy this season beacuse when Favre retires for the 18th time after this season they are stuck between Rosenfels and Jackson. Ouch. I understand them resensting the Saints fans a little because they are stealing a lot of their spotlight but the Saints look like a team that will be solid thenext 4-6 years.

  21. PornFlorio says: Dec 2, 2009 2:58 PM

    hayward giablommi says:
    December 2, 2009 12:58 PM
    “Why would it? Every still talks about the Pats like they are football gods, but they are at best a wild card playoff team just above 500. ”
    ^^^^^
    Pats are considered by most to be the team of the decade with 3 Super Bowl rings. 7-4 is just above .500? Come on. Yeah, they’re probably not going to be playing in February with their defense, but looking at their remaining schedule, they’ll finish no worse than 11-5. “Just above .500″ would be 9-7.
    “The Saints are one of the punchlines in the NFL.”
    ^^^^^
    No, the Browns are one of the punchlines in the NFL. The Jesters are the other.
    “They are a remarkable team this year, I will give that to them.”
    ^^^^^
    I am sure they appreciate it, considering they are 11-0 and have as good, if not a better, shot than the Patriots did to go 19-0.
    “The Vikings and Packers have one of the best, and most storied rivalries in the league. Which game would you rather watch?”
    ^^^^^
    I’d rather watch Pats-Saints, personally.
    _________
    Finish 11-5? I guess that means that Tom Brady = Matt Cassel…which means that absent the great DEFENSE that won them those three Super Bowls, the Pats aren’t going ANYWHERE in the playoffs this year. LMFAO!!!!
    No matter what you say, haywoodjablowtheentirepatsteam, your team hasn’t beaten ONE SINGLE GOOD TEAM this season. And they won’t the rest of the season nor in the playoffs. They are ONE-AND-DONE this year…END OF STORY.

  22. wrath4771 says: Dec 2, 2009 3:07 PM

    I don’t mind the Vikings fans – it’s been 11 years since that team did anything and will be another 11 when Tavaris jackson is leading them to another thrilling 9-7 finish. The “dynasty” talk is pretty amusing. I always wondered how you could have a dynasty with a 40 year old quarterback and two aging DT’s that anchored that team. But, I guess if I rooted for a team that hasn’t even lost a Super Bowl since the 70’s it’d be hard to ask a Vikings fan to act like they’ve been there before when obviously they haven’t. And this is coming from a Rams fan-HA!

  23. PervyHarvin says: Dec 2, 2009 3:10 PM

    Colt’s McCoy says:
    December 2, 2009 2:56 PM
    I understand them resensting the Saints fans a little because they are stealing a lot of their spotlight but the Saints look like a team that will be solid thenext 4-6 years.
    ===================================
    Do you see the age of many of our best players? lol apparently not . I’ll take our team over the saints any day! We will be fine at qb.

  24. LarryDavid says: Dec 2, 2009 3:28 PM

    People forget that the Vikings won the division last year without Favre. The additions of Favre and Harvin gave them a boost this year. To say that the Vikings will immediately go to the bottom of the division when Favre retires is silly. They have a lot of talent other than Favre and have been drafting well the last few years.

  25. cusoman says: Dec 2, 2009 3:54 PM

    Bob, your predictability is uncanny.
    Does it ever occur to you that maybe the NFL sees more potential income out of the Vikes market, and that’s why they are featuring the team more? For all this talk you seem to think you know so much about when it comes to the NFL being a business, you sure don’t understand the concept of growing a business, do you? And don’t give me that crap about LA being a larger market and that they are oiling the Vikes to move – the NFL has been down that road and LA has been proven over and over again to be a mine field for NFL profits, new stadium or no.

  26. purpleguy says: Dec 2, 2009 4:20 PM

    Somehow Viking fans bashing cheesers for bashing Viking fans is equated as being mouthy? Maybe we should just start a seriesof posts, after school is out of course, which goes: Shut up — no you shut up — no you shut up — no you shut up — Mommy, please tell the Vikings fans to stop talking to me.
    Cheesers, read the posts above and tell me, other than Percy responding to the typical lame cheeser drivel, where a Viking fan is being mouthy? It’s all the same lame Pack fans throwing rocks from their glass houses. Well, that and Bob spouting off his typical innaccurate and mis-informed facts.

  27. mnmaverick says: Dec 2, 2009 5:24 PM

    The Packer – Viking rivalry is second to none.

  28. LarryDavid says: Dec 2, 2009 5:54 PM

    @mnmaverick
    Couldn’t agree more. Just look at the most-commented stories on this site and see what they have in common. There is a lot of hatred between Viking and Packer fans.

  29. DCViking says: Dec 2, 2009 7:15 PM

    Most ignorant statements of the NFL season so far:
    — Vikings will miss Matt Birk and Darren Sharper to the point where both units will fall apart.
    — The Williams’ will lose every time they (or their lawyers) set foot in a courtroom
    — Percy Harvin will be the biggest bust in the first round
    — Brett Favre will never (I repeat ever) play for the Vikings.
    The MVP of stupid posts (and source of these pearls of wisdom): Little Bobby Nelson…

  30. sand0 says: Dec 3, 2009 12:31 PM

    Hilarious hearing all the Vikings hate. What have we really done to deserve it all? It is like we are supposed to appologize for our team being good this year. You guys keep grasping for straws as to why we just suck. Saying Minnesotans are arrogant or mouthy is so f’ing retarded I can’t even go into the subject. Sure, there are those like myself that will try to push buttons on these boards out of boredom but you know nothing of Minnesota or our fans obviously by hearing some of the “arguments” you pose.
    Just a bunch of nonsense. Our team is good this year. A blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while. Get over it.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!