You’re right there are are a whole host of reasons for what is going on with the numbers. Numbers are a good way to start seeing what is happening. I’m a numbers person. Numbers don’t lie and Nielsen has been at the numbers game of television for a long time. I trust their methodology.

The problem is that numbers must be interpreted.

No, Mr. Carter did in his second paragraph. You’re right, I should have put my second comment in a separate comment, not tagged onto my response to you.

People keep saying NCIS’ viewership is down, but what they also fail to mention is that all networks’ viewership is down, and that could be as much responsible for the drop in viewership as could Ziva’s exit. NCIS does not exist in a vacuum. If only its numbers were down then, yes, you could point definitely to changes in the show, in the cast, in the writing, but they’re not.

The same point works the other way, too – say NCIS’ viewership numbers DO go up when Dovekeepers is aired. How do you know if it’s because of Dovekeepers, or because of something else? If NCIS’ numbers go up, but Dovekeepers are bad, does that still mean people tuned in because NCIS aired before it or does it mean Dovekeepers had nothing to do with NCIS’ gain? If NCIS’ numbers are the same (or lower) but Dovekeepers’ are high, what does that mean? What happens if Tuesday’s numbers for Dovekeepers are high, but Wednesday’s tank? Or vice versa?

My point is that, without some sort of definitive information (a survey of households or something like that) we can speculate all we want, but it’s next to impossible to say “this is why this happened”, and people are going to spin whatever happens to suit their worldview.

You use the word “ironic.” I never said it was “ironic.” What I’m saying is that NCIS has now achieved the lowest viewership numbers since season 6. Season 12 is consistently about 1 million or more viewers lower than season 11. That’s not delusion. It’s not wishful thinking. It’s not voodoo math. It’s a fact.

The average viewership for season 12 is 17.57 million through ep 9. For season 6 eps 1- 9 the average was 17.69 million. So, season 12 viewership is running slightly lower than season 6. (CBS likes to blame the numbers loss on increased DVR usage. They are pushing for a new way to calculate viewership that would include DVR usage. Now that could end up being voodoo math.) Anyway, if CBS execs think that the loss of Cote de Pablo somehow has had an effect on viewership numbers, this could be a way to test that theory or as I said bolster the sagging numbers

NCIS is still the most watched TV drama in the world but the numbers are slipping. Gary Glasberg liked to say in the past that he ran a show with 20 million viewers.. Not so much anymore. I don’t know if the average TV viewer’s lack of Knowledge about Masada will hurt the show or not. A lot of Americans today know only as much about the Bible as you can get from watching movies or Roma Downey and Mark Burnett’s series. I’m intersted in seeing how they take the book, the Dovekeepers, to the small screen.

More likely they’re hoping to use NCIS’ popularity and Ms. de Pablo’s former status as one of the stars of that show as a lead-in to boost ratings for what is, essentially, a niche production. Don’t get me wrong, it looks like an interesting miniseries, but I’m a history buff and I like that sort of thing in general. How many average viewers, though, would feel the same way without the cachet of the stars involved? Hence the hyping, as Mr. Carter has done above, as Ms. de Pablo’s “return to CBS” as the focus of the miniseries. I suspect we’ll see more of that from other outlets, including CBS, as we get closer to the airdate.

Oh, and no, it’s not ironic. Someone’s been listening to too much Alanis Morrisette. Irony is something happening in the opposite way to what is expected. I, at least, don’t think this was in any way unexpected. Why wouldn’t CBS capitalise – especially given some fans’ reaction over the past year and a half – on Ms. de Pablo’s NCIS ties? They’d be stupid not to. So it’s opportunistic, maybe, and smart marketing, definitely, but not at all ironic.