Conan v Leno

I much prefer Conan O'Brien to Jay "The Evil of Banality" Leno. However, as Bill Simmons explains, you can't say NBC was being stupid dumping Conan. Leno put on an awful show at 11:30, but it drew a good audience. Conan dumbed down his show to try to copy this, but was unable to repeat Leno's sucess and lost half his audience in six months (HT: James Choi).

Do you think Conan worked at 11:30?
Conan's show sucked at 11:35. That's the reason the ratings were down — not because of his lead-ins. What's Jon Stewart's lead-in? What's SNL's lead-in? Conan did a watered-down, toothless version of his 12:35 show, and even his die-hard fans weren't crazy about it. These are the facts. Only after they canned him did he show flashes of the old Conan again. Look, he's not Johnny Carson; he's a gawky, super-witty, awkward, hyperactive goofball who isn't going to appeal to everyone.

Do you think Conan handled this situation the right way?
I thought he was too whiny. Look, it's television. His job was to deliver ratings and revenue; he lost nearly 50 percent of Leno's 11:35 audience in six months, but took none of the blame and made no effort to fix his show. This wasn't his fault? And besides, he's the one who stupidly passed up all that Fox money in 2004. I never understood that. What was so special about a Tonight Show that had twelve years (and counting) of Leno stink on it? How iconic could it have been?

Isn't this all kind of silly? Isn't the theory that everyone just watches everything on Hulu and DVR anyway?
Normally, I'd agree with you, but did you see the numbers? Leno's 11:35 show made $35–40 million profit for NBC; Conan's show was on pace to lose $5 million and had zero critical buzz. So it was a big deal, I think; look at where Conan was five years ago and where he is now. It's one of the biggest falls in TV history. NBC paid $43 million to get rid of him!