[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by TV Guy

That’s not accurate. Rankings don’t measure viewership. What you should be looking at is ratings, which actually measures number of eyeballs watching the show. By the time “Head of the Class” aired, overall primetime network ratings had declined, so it took fewer eyeballs to get into the top 10 or 20 or 30. By ratings points and number of viewers, “Facts of Life” was the higher rated show. FOL ratings:

Season 1: 4.5 rating
Season 2: 19.3 rating
Season 3: 19.1 rating
Season 4: 17.1 rating
Season 5: 17.3 rating
Season 6: 16.3 rating
Season 7: 17.7 rating
Season 8: 16.3 rating
Season 9: 14.6 rating

By comparison, HoTC ratings:

Season 1: 16.4 rating
Season 2: 16.7 rating
Season 3: 17.1 rating
Season 4: 14.8 rating
Season 5: 14.5 rating

To better show the decline in overall network viewership: back in the 1950s, the top-rated show, “I Love Lucy” used to get 30-40 million viewers regularly. By comparison, “The Big Bang Theory”, the top rated sitcom (prior to the Roseanne revival) gets about 18-20 million viewers.

I'm aware of the decline in viewership over the years, and it doesn't matter. Both The Facts of Life and Head of the Class aired during the 1986-1987 television season, a direct apples-to-apples comparison. Head of the Class, which its gigantic cast, beat The Facts of Life, with its smaller cast, by millions of viewers: 16.4 rating vs 14.8 rating. The following season, 1987-1988, Head of the Class again beat The Facts of Life by millions of viewers: 16.7 rating vs 14.6 rating.

You are misrepresenting what I posted. I never said that Nancy was more successful in her acting career than Molly. I said she was more successful than Julie Anne Haddock in her acting career.

No, I understood that you were comparing Nancy's success with Julie Anne's success. And Molly was most successful of all the Facts girls, arguably. Molly's career picked up soon after she left FOL, and she never looked back. The idea that she was a poor actress just isn't supported. With the right scripts and the right direction, she was amazing.

Again, a misinterpretation of my post. I was referring to her work within the context of the show. She was a non-entity on the show, to me. That has nothing to do with what she did outside of the show. And that’s subjective - there’s no “right” answer. But she was let go, and the show was higher rated without her.

The critic I mentioned was talking about Julie Anne's work within the context of the show: he notes the plot of the pilot episode, and highlights Julie Anne's work. As far as I know, Nancy doesn't merit a mention. Julie Anne's work on the Facts of Life merits discussion, so she is not a "non-entity". It's a shame she didn't get more screen time, because she was amazing as it was, and her work on TFOL is noteworthy... or at least critics thought so.

And again, FOL was more successful from a ratings standpoint with a smaller cast.

Nope, in a head-to-head contest, HOTC, with its huge cast, beat FOL's smaller cast in both 1986-1987 and again in 1987-1988. The idea that "the cast was too large" just isn't supported: big casts worked just fine... better, even.

Then, once the producers realized they had cut too many characters out, they started adding random characters nobody cared about. Let's see, there was:
Howard the Cook
Roy the Delivery Boy
Kelly the Street Thug
Boots the snob
Miko
Terry
Alexandra the Princess
Mr. Parker
Andy
George
Kevin
Snake
Jo's husband, whose name I can never recall
Beverly Ann
Pimpa
Richard Moll
???

Most of these characters were completely unlikable.