>
>Which is more fair, because it controls for the fact that
>SNL had hundreds of millions more viewers during that
>time period.
>
>With less fans, the cast of ILC made more impact
>per viewer. Not insignificant.
>
>You guys are simply deciding to be bad at math when
>it exposes the SNL cast's mediocrity.

I just wanted to point out that your statement regarding the numbers is wrong.

In Living Color was a primetime show on a network station. Before it fell off it was routinely ranked between #35 and #60 for shows and was anywhere from Fox's #1-#3 rated show for the week (depending on how The Simpsons and Married...With Children did any particular week). During it's second season 91-92, it averaged a rating of 12.2. Which was down from it's first season where it seldom dropped below a 16. The 92 Super Bowl halftime show even pulled a 32.8. Around the time it was cancelled it was still rating somewhere around a 8.

By comparison from May of 1980 until a fluke spike when Nancy Kerrigan hosted in March of 1994, no SNL show achieved a 12.2 rating. Big numbers for SNL in the mid 90s were anything from 7.5-8.5.

Basically, a summer rerun of In Living Color had more viewers than an average episode of SNL. Even around the time it was cancelled.