The Big Bang Theory is now the most popular sitcom on TV.  (Did I tell you so, or what?)  The last time I looked, TBBT ranked as the third most popular series on all of television, and was the most popular scripted series.  I read one article that suggested, probably correctly, that Big Bang’s current surge in popularity was due, at least in part, to the fact that the series had gone into syndication late last year.  Viewers who had never seen Big Bang before were suddenly discovering it on local stations or on cable, liking what they saw, and tuning in to watch it in prime time, boosting the weekly ratings for the CBS hit.  Here in Los Angeles, reruns of Big Bang can be seen nearly every night of the week on local stations KTTV and KCOP and on the TBS cable network.

But syndication isn’t the only reason for Big Bang’s growing popularity.  Another well-known and much-rewarded series, 30 Rock, also began its first syndication run late last year.  Has syndication helped to create a surge of interest in 30 Rock?  The last time I looked, the NBC critics' darling was ranked somewhere in the eighties among all prime time television series in the national Neilsen ratings.  30 Rock’s viewership is so low that it is beaten each week by a number of series in Spanish.

So what gives?  How come there’s a bigger bang for Johnny Galecki, who does not have a best-selling book for sale, wasn’t shown on camera every ten seconds during the Golden Globes, and as far as I know has never been on the cover of Vogue?  How come Johnny is flying higher than Tina?

In my opinion, the answer is simple.  The Big Bang Theory is a more likable series than 30 Rock.  The characters are more likable.  The plots are more believable – or perhaps less unbelievable.  The jokes are more enjoyable – and not so ridiculously inside that you need copies of In Style and the DSM-IV to understand them.  In short, The Big Bang Theory is a better series than 30 Rock – and by a lot.

Why should you care?  Maybe you still like 30 Rock better than Big Bang.  And that’s fine, by the way.  We don’t all have to think alike.  I don’t want us to all think alike.  If my wife and I thought alike, our Vizio flat screen would be tuned 100% of the time to either HGTV (How much Candace Olsen and Sarah Richardson can a person watch in a lifetime?  I don’t know, but my wife is trying to find out.), or to the MLB network  (How much baseball can a person watch in a lifetime?  I don’t know, but I’m working on it.)  In either case, thinking alike can facilitate too much of a good thing... and too many versions of CSI.  My wife and I don’t think alike.  We try to find something that we can watch together once in a while.  We have settled on The Big Bang Theory, New Girl, and Downton Abbey.  What do all these series have in common?  Likable characters.  (To see the other extreme of the spectrum - a series featuring all intensely unlikable characters - set your DVR for HBO's Luck.  But don't have a loaded gun nearby when you watch it.)

I’m writing about Big Bang – again – to point out to you – again – that likable series with likable characters usually – not always, but usually – do much better in the ratings than mean-spirited series. Seinfeld raised the mean-spirited series to new heights.  Seinfeld Heights were, in fact, so high, that NBC clings to the “Let’s make every sitcom as nasty as ‘Will and Grace’” philosophy to this day, and is in last place, at least in part, because of that philosophy.  You may be left underwhelmed by How I Met Your Mother or Mike and Molly, but those are likable shows with likable characters, and they do better in the ratings every single week than all of the sitcoms on the "dead peacock" network combined.

Again, why should you care?  Well, you’re the one who claims to want a career as a TV comedy writer.  Now, if the mean-spirited thing works better for you as an artiste, there’s Family Guy, The Daily Show, South Park, and maybe Tosh.0.  But if you fantasize about being a really successful and wealthy comedy writer, I’d look to emulate Chuck Lorre over whoever writes Community.  (Who wouldn’t want to be Trey Parker right now?  But then I can live without the death threats.)  I’d rather create a series that is a time-slot hit at first (because it follows the hit series that I already created,) then builds an audience of its own (and gets renewed for two years at a time), then moves to anchor another night (and retires the phrase “Must See TV”), does even better on its new night (Screw you, Charlie Sheen,) and then, when put into syndication, takes off like a Saturn rocket.

The guys who write It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia have spoken openly about how they had to work other jobs even after their series went on the air and was renewed because F/X paid them so little, but they didn’t care because they got to do the show that they wanted to do.   Bravo, Philly Boys.  Me?  I’d rather have so much money that I could build a house on the sand in Kauai and fly there in a Gulfstream.  But, hey, we’re not all alike.