Why do more people tune in to watch us playing Man Utd, Liverpool , Chelsea and Arsenal than they do to watch them playing other clubs or each other? Unless the Burnley game skewed the figures?
Really? It could be, but the fact we've had far less matches broadcast than the others at the top but still have had more viewers is a bit odd isn't it? We're just massive in the US...live with it
The mount of games doesn't affect the average, it is the total of viewers divided by the number of games played.
Tigers? Common, lousy name. Auburn Tigers Cincinnati Tigers Clemson Tigers Colorado College Tigers Detroit Tigers East Central Tigers Fort Hays Stare Tigers Grambling State Tigers Jackson State Tigers Lincoln Blue Tigers LSU Tigers Memphis Tigers Missouri Tigers Ouachita Baptist Tigers Pacific Tigers Princeton Tigers RCC Tigers RIT Tigers Savannah State Tigers Tennessee State Tigers Texas Southern Tigers Towson Tigers Trinity University Tigers West Alabama Tigers Maybe why some of the new football clubs have called themselves something shorter like City.
I think I posted a similar list a while back, along with Hull's very own failed teams with "Americanised" names. I believe I also kept tabs on our capital's finest & world leading brand, "London Tigers'" exploits in the FA Cup.
Every City league game has been on live here in the Frozen North. Average number of viewers at least 3.