Once again pal NO!!!!!! Shheeeesshhhhhh!!!!! The TV ratings are an AVERAGE over the length of the program. If the AVERAGE viewership is the same over a 2hr program & a 3hr program it cannot possibly mean, mathematically, more ppl have watched the 3 hr program. It just means the same number watched it slightly longer.NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 6:00 pm8 games played in isolation to 1. A short 2 hour telecast to 3. 16 hours on TV to 27.Terry wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 3:48 pmPal, you don't seem to know what you're talking about!! Our fox ratings are for 15.5 teams v 18 & we still flog you. If we had more teams we would beat you by more ya dill!!!! Shhhheeessshhhhhh......this is becoming embarrassing!!!!!!!!NlolRL wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 2:38 pm
hmm, I dunno, cause 30% of your audience can only choose 1 game?
Yes we have some expansion teams with very small support, but these are additional teams that you dont even have. If you had 2 teams in perth and 2 in Melbourne you'd have some poor ratings too. Our top 15 clubs are easily as strong as yours
These are factors you continually ignore. I wonder why
Fact is if the AFL get a similar sized audience for a 50% longer program the AFL is clearly more watched
Geeeezzzz this is tiresome.
And for another stat: At this stage of the season in 2017 the AFL had 2 games on Fox rate less than 100k. This year they have had 16. If this continues it will have massive ramification for the next broadcast deal.