Over the weekend, that story about Jimmy Fallon replacing Jay Leno got a surprising amount of traction considering (a) it was completely unsourced, (b) it's the exact same rumor that proved untrue — or at least, way premature — just a few months ago and (c) it is, after all, a report about a network that wants to win the time slot getting rid of the guy who's pretty consistently won the time slot…and is still doing so. That's not to say they wouldn't do it again but it's not the most normal tactic for a network, especially since the last time they did that, they ended up having to reverse the decision.
Still, I see no official denial today from NBC…no statement of strong support for Jay. So maybe there's something to it. Or maybe someone at NBC is hoping there will soon be something to it.
This article by Jeff Bercovici insists NBC should dump Leno for Fallon and tries to prove it with their respective "Q" ratings. I don't think that's much of an argument, given how fuzzy "Q" scores can be. They ostensibly measure how much the public likes a performer but a high "Q" doesn't mean they'll watch him…or will watch him in any kind of show or time slot. As I recall, Simon Cowell has or had a pretty low one but that wasn't an indicator that American Idol would have fared better without him. More relevant is that I believe the sole reason Fox once tried to give Chevy Chase a late night talk show was because of how high his "Q" rating was.
Really, the networks wish it was as simple as comparing "Q" scores. If that was a reliable barometer for success, they'd never have to cancel anything instead of having to cancel almost everything.