Is it me or do none of the #s look impressive? DWTS looks decent but everything else looks low or am I reading these wrong? Precisely. – CBS’ “Hawaii Five-0″ (13.8 million viewers, 3.8 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) opened solid, though not as strong as expectations. Last fall’s premiere week rating in the time period: 4.3 (”CSI: Miami”). – “Dancing With the Stars” (21.0 million, 5.0) returned up sharply from last fall. Though even the casting of Bristol Palin and The Situation couldn’t overthrow last spring’s heavily hyped premiere aided by Kate Gosselin. Last fall: 4.1. – “Castle” (11.2 million, 2.8) posted significant gains, not surprisingly. The show was expected to be aided by its “Dancing” lead-in and grew in the numbers during last season. Last fall: 2.3. – CBS comedies: “How I Met Your Mother” (8.8 million, 3.6), “Rules of Engagement” (8.3 million, 3.1), “Two and a Half Men” (14.5 million, 4.8) and “Mike & Molly” (12.2 million, 3.9). Big question here was how much weaker would the lineup perform overall with “Rules” and new comedy “Mike & Molly” in the mix instead of “Big Bang Theory.” Last fall: 3.6 (”Mother”), 3.3 (”Accidentally on Purpose”), 4.5 (”Half Men”) and 4.7 (”Big Bang”). Fox’s top-rated “House” (10.5 million, 4.1) was down notably. Last fall: 6.7. – The critically acclaimed “Lone Star” (4.1 million, 1.3) was expected to have an uphill battle drawing viewers and, sure enough, really did. Last fall: 2.9 (”Lie to Me”). – NBC’s “Chuck” (6.1 million, 2.1). Last fall: 2.9 (”Heroes”). – NBC’s “The Event” (11.2 million, 3.7). Along with the “Lone Star” number, this is the big surprise of the morning. Expectations were all over the place for this “Lost”-meets-”24″ drama. But nobody thought “The Event” would be a tenth of a point from matching “Hawaii Five-0″ this morning. Last fall: 2.2 (”Trauma”). – NBC’s numbers dropped going into Jerry Bruckheimer’s procedural thriller “Chase” (7.9 million, 2.5). Last fall: 5.3 (”Jay Leno Show”).

Well that is better than what I originally thought of the 7.4 ratings. If I recall last year, did they start out competing with DWTS? I don't think so but I could be wrong. House's ratings are not impressive and seems to be where they were at at the end of the season, which was not good. Well, I loved the premier.

Yes, I believe it went up against DWTS last year. Then again, if I recall correctly, no 'Chuck' and no debuting shows. There was less competition. Still, numbers are low. Hopefully they'll be up next week.

I think the #s for all the shows are more or less what they were at the end of last season. Which makes sense as they are all the same shows that were on Mon @ 8p last season... Last year's premiere ratings were quite a bit higher than those for "regular" episodes. House in a mental hospital + 2 hours of Hugh Laurie facing off with Andre Braugher undoubtedly would be a bigger draw for casual or non-viewers of House than House & Cuddy starting a relationship.

The TV season starts in September because that's when the school year starts and people are, theoretically now indoors at night. But, despite the fact that they are season premieres, episodes in September are still competing with the weather.

I wonder how important ratings here in the US are for House. Doesn't the show make most of it's money internationally where it is a big hit in several countries? Don't think the same is true for DWTS!

To quote TVByTheNumbers' explainer (which is itself quoting the old saying about two guys being chased by a bear): You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other guy. Especially with "Lonestar" completely tanking (Wow.Considering all the hype that got too.) "House" remains the network's strongest drama. Personally, I thought the episode got better numbers than I expected, what with stunt casting galore over on DWTS.

I think football is the decisive factor in these ratings. NBC was able to get big attention to the premiere of "The Event" by flogging it heavily on its Sunday football broadcast. So a larger than expected audience tuned in to sample the new show. Then on Monday evening, all of the premieres were up against the ESPN showing of the New Orleans Saints against the 49ers. The game should have been a walk-over for the reigning champion Saints but the 49ers put up an unexpectedly valiant struggle and the game was only decided in the final few minutes. I think the attraction of the live sports broadcasts must have cut into the audience for "House" and all the other shows last night. I think "House" did fine in the circumstances.

I'm not gonna lie, I watched football and we DVR'd House. I doubt I was the only one.

Canadians still love House. It topped the night there.

I don't think it's fair to compare Broken to last night's episode. Broken was 2 hrs long and I'll bet the second hr was stronger than the first due to varying competition. Also, I always DVR House. How many others do this, and how can they account for those numbers?

But, that wouldn't happen while the show is in the top 20 or so and, even when that point comes, Fox probably still wouldn't want to drop it because another network or cable network would grab it. I don't know if TPTB at House can afford to be that confident considering what happened to "24." Fox cancelled "24" despite seasons 7 and 8 of the series being a rebound from an earlier ratings slump, and the show being very popular internationally and on DVD. House's season seven premiere got less than 24's season 7 premiere (10.5 vs. 12.6 million viewers), also in the Monday 8:00 timeslot. (Coincidentally, 24's season 7 premiere was down a bit from the 15.7 who watched the season 6 premiere - the same numbers House got for its season six premiere, House just suffered a bigger dropoff). 24 also managed to pretty much retain their premiere ratings throughout season seven, increasing at the finale. Nonetheless it wasn't spectacular enough to stave off being put on notice by Fox, who cancelled the show the following spring. The main reason, supposedly, was because the series' production costs were too expensive. House used to be able to claim fairly low production costs. However, now it's one of the most expensive network dramas because of a combination of the large cast of regulars (who have all gotten pay raises because of being on the show for years), an increased number of "event" episodes requiring special effects and new sets, more money being spent on name guest stars instead of the character actors or unknowns of earlier seasons, and Hugh Laurie, who has taken over Kiefer Sutherland's spot as the highest paid actor on TV. Kiefer's huge salary was one of the rumored reasons Fox deemed 24's production too expensive - Hugh Laurie's pay is now comparable to Kiefer's per episode price tag, minus any additional cut (syndication, etc.) Hugh might also get for being exec producer. That David Shore and TPTB have kept increasing House's production costs while the ratings have declined is a bit mind boggling, especially as there are other showrunners who have publicly talked about heeding the call from their networks to cut back, due to both the economy and the state of television overall. One thing's for sure: TPTB definitely do not have the "20 million viewers" that Katie Jacobs somewhat arrogantly bragged entitled them to a free pass.

Kiefer Sutherland was not and Hugh Laurie is not the highest paid actor on television. They were/are the highest paid actor in a drama -- Charlie Sheehan makes more. Syndication cuts have nothing to do with whether Fox renews House because Fox doesn't get a part of the syndication costs. While House is certainly more expensive to film than 24 was, the cost of an occasional new set does not compare to the cost of blowing things up on a regular basis. Additionally, House can save money by having 22 episodes (last year and this) while 24 had the number of episodes per season built in. House is in its 7th season. Whether this will be the last or we get another one or two remains to be seen. But of course the show isn't going to have the viewership in S7 as it had in S3 or S4.