Fight Club - Football TV Ratings (AFL vs NRL)

[pussycat]

Most games televised ...AFL
Most games televised on FTA...(far bigger viewing audience than STV)..AFL

Most viewed sport ..RL

Lol but but but

BUTTHURT fumblers are sailing down the river in Egypt .

I hope this denial goes on forever .
It's hysterical

Reminds me of the Black knight in Monty Python

Most viewed sport is oddly subjective - for that we should use peak audiences - but we lack a lot of data on that. Ill note as well that since the AFL is averaged over 3 hours and not 2, theres a greater probability more people watched AFL games than the averages suggest.

If the peaks are higher at some points then to arrive at the average they must be lower at other points. (generally peaks seem higher around presentation time in an AFL match).

what is it that makes you think there not the same people watching. or if more people do tune in more people must tune out.

[Terry]

Most games televised ...AFL
Most games televised on FTA...(far bigger viewing audience than STV)..AFL

Most viewed sport ..RL

Lol but but but

BUTTHURT fumblers are sailing down the river in Egypt .

I hope this denial goes on forever .
It's hysterical

Reminds me of the Black knight in Monty Python

Most viewed sport is oddly subjective - for that we should use peak audiences - but we lack a lot of data on that. Ill note as well that since the AFL is averaged over 3 hours and not 2, theres a greater probability more people watched AFL games than the averages suggest.

So now your just making things up lololololololol You're saying there is a 'probability' more people watch fumbleball games than the average suggests. That's total BS fantasy land stuff. Whey don't ya just grab ya 'probable' figure and add it on to the totals - anything to get a fumbleball win - incredible stuff by the fumblers today.

[eelofwest]

AFLCrap, you see the latest trick wookie trying to pull with his ratings spreadsheets for the great unwashed on Bigfooty..?

He is adding US ratings =D> to the AFL spreadsheet and also adding the brownlow just to try and catch up ground... :_<> :_<>

Mate the reality is starting to kicking in and they will squirm and do whatever they can to make that gap seem smaller than it actually is.

Theres no trick about it. And as Ive said before, they are my tables. Ill put whatever fucking data i want on them.

Ill add whatever published ratings i can find from anywhere on the published ratings page - im still updating those - its not my fault league hardly rated in the US during the finals. And Ill note US ratings are not included in the totals on either the published or estimated charts, you fucking peanut.

Mate adding US data just makes you look desperate....

But i guess you gotta keep feeding cult members over at BF your medicine, would not want to let the brainwashing wear of now would we

Imagine the NRL added UK and PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga ratings, mate a no contest.

[eelofwest]

Um let me explain it for those currently sailing down a river in Egypt.

In a decathlon ...it is not how many events you may win but how well you go overall .

Ratings are like that
AFL might win a few .
But when it's all added up at the end of the season
We can only have ONE winner .
GOLD for RL
Silver for AFL

Which means nothing more than you had more available content. It certainly doesn't prove popularity. Your decathlon example fails because if one competitor won the vast majority of events, like the AFL have, they would certainly win the gold at the end. Your RL competitor simply had more events in comparison. If they both had competed in the same number of events the AFL competitor would have won easily.

Surely you don't believe what you say ya dill!!!! The fact is you fumblers had more content. You had more games and your fumbling goes for way longer than a RL game - that equates to more content!!! And even with that you got smashed by 8 million+. Just take a deep breath ya dill and take it like a man instead of whinging and whining like a schoolgirl!!!

LOL.

To begin with all but one of our games are shown directly against another game. The effect is essentially halving your telecasted games because no one can watch two games at the same time, and even if you could OZAM wouldnt count it. Eg: on a typical Saturday there are 5 AFL games, but all of them overlap so any viewer can only watch 3 of them at the most.

Secondly, our game goes for longer which hurts the ratings, not helps. Eg: I can watch 6 hours of AFL on Saturday but only get counted as watching 2 games. You can watch 6 hours of NRL but that counts as 3 games. Yet we both spent the same amount of time watching our sport, and the advertising dollar received by the network is roughly the same.

Any comment on these two points or would you like to continue your childish replies?

Im sure I just posted about your over lapping matches. As for games going longer being a disadvantage that's absolute Bullshit and a sign of your desperation. both systems have there pros and cons. is either game is poor for the first 30m , that almost half our game, everyone switches off, almost impossible for us to recover from. For you its just the first quarter. And you loose very few viewers if its a one sided 1st quarter.

The real kicker is , Head to head matches are over after 90m giving you 1 hour of unopposed viewing. How many people would switch over at the end of the league game ?

He is forgetting that the length of AFL footy is the only reason they got more in TV money.

How much more adds are there in a game of AFL?

Take away this so called disadvantage of 3 hour games and the money would be less than the NRL.

Take the good with the bad.

[NlolRL]

Most games televised ...AFL
Most games televised on FTA...(far bigger viewing audience than STV)..AFL

Most viewed sport ..RL

Lol but but but

BUTTHURT fumblers are sailing down the river in Egypt .

I hope this denial goes on forever .
It's hysterical

Reminds me of the Black knight in Monty Python

Most viewed sport is oddly subjective - for that we should use peak audiences - but we lack a lot of data on that. Ill note as well that since the AFL is averaged over 3 hours and not 2, theres a greater probability more people watched AFL games than the averages suggest.

So now your just making things up lololololololol You're saying there is a 'probability' more people watch fumbleball games than the average suggests. That's total BS fantasy land stuff. Whey don't ya just grab ya 'probable' figure and add it on to the totals - anything to get a fumbleball win - incredible stuff by the fumblers today.

Terry, the peak audience is always higher than the average, and longer telecasts like the AFL will always be effected more than the 2 hour NRL telecast.

[NlolRL]

He is forgetting that the length of AFL footy is the only reason they got more in TV money.

How much more adds are there in a game of AFL?

Take away this so called disadvantage of 3 hour games and the money would be less than the NRL.

Take the good with the bad.

no, RL fans on here have repeatedly said this thread is about ratings, not revenue. Well when considering ratings only a longer telecast is always a disadvantage

[Terry]

The ifs, the buts, the maybe's, the excuse's from the fumblers has gone to a new level today. These dills will say anything, tell any lie, distort any figure to make the fumbling game look better than it actually is. This is desperate, pathetic stuff from the fumblers.

I'll go through and add up all the excuses the dills are giving why they got flogged by RL to the tune of 8 million viewers. It could take me some time but it will be good a laugh lololololololololol. Dills.

[NlolRL]

Most games televised ...AFL
Most games televised on FTA...(far bigger viewing audience than STV)..AFL

Most viewed sport ..RL

Lol but but but

BUTTHURT fumblers are sailing down the river in Egypt .

I hope this denial goes on forever .
It's hysterical

Reminds me of the Black knight in Monty Python

Most viewed sport is oddly subjective - for that we should use peak audiences - but we lack a lot of data on that. Ill note as well that since the AFL is averaged over 3 hours and not 2, theres a greater probability more people watched AFL games than the averages suggest.

If the peaks are higher at some points then to arrive at the average they must be lower at other points. (generally peaks seem higher around presentation time in an AFL match).

what is it that makes you think there not the same people watching. or if more people do tune in more people must tune out.

some people cant wait 3 hours for an entire game. On Friday nights the second half of the game doesnt start until nearly 9.15pm, which is when the NRL is nearly finished. With junior sports on Saturday morning many kids would go tobed rather than watch the second half, especially if the game wasnt close.

Of course, as has been mentioned, there are advantages in having a 3 hour telecast. But certainly not when considering ratings only, which is what you guys are doing here

[NlolRL]

The ifs, the buts, the maybe's, the excuse's from the fumblers has gone to a new level today. These dills will say anything, tell any lie, distort any figure to make the fumbling game look better than it actually is. This is desperate, pathetic stuff from the fumblers.

I'll go through and add up all the excuses the dills are giving why they got flogged by RL to the tune of 8 million viewers. It could take me some time but it will be good a laugh lololololololololol. Dills.

there have been a number of points raise in the last few pages, but you seem incapable of discussing any of them. Why is that?

Anyway, you have your meaningless cummulative ratings victory. We'll take the highest rating final, GF, H&A game and STV game. All of which prove the AFL has more fans. All you've got is proof you have more available game content on TV =D>

[leeroy*NRL*]

The gnashing of teeth & the stamping of feet are sure signs that when reality intrudes into the AFL propaganda bubble the brainwashed tools just can't accept it .
The but but but but but but buting is great entertainment .

No nashing of teeth at all, you're completely misreading me. I'm absolutely comfortable with the AFL winning almost every ratings direct comparison but ending up with a little less in the season tally. The direct comparisons show popularity, the tally merely the most content

You are only stating half the story..

AFL have a lot more FTA Air games - meaning a lot more viewers.
Home States get there Home Teams
And Melbourne get there blockbusters on FTA

[leeroy*NRL*]

Um let me explain it for those currently sailing down a river in Egypt.

In a decathlon ...it is not how many events you may win but how well you go overall .

Ratings are like that
AFL might win a few .
But when it's all added up at the end of the season
We can only have ONE winner .
GOLD for RL
Silver for AFL

Which means nothing more than you had more available content. It certainly doesn't prove popularity. Your decathlon example fails because if one competitor won the vast majority of events, like the AFL have, they would certainly win the gold at the end. Your RL competitor simply had more events in comparison. If they both had competed in the same number of events the AFL competitor would have won easily.

Surely you don't believe what you say ya dill!!!! The fact is you fumblers had more content. You had more games and your fumbling goes for way longer than a RL game - that equates to more content!!! And even with that you got smashed by 8 million+. Just take a deep breath ya dill and take it like a man instead of whinging and whining like a schoolgirl!!!

LOL.

To begin with all but one of our games are shown directly against another game. The effect is essentially halving your telecasted games because no one can watch two games at the same time, and even if you could OZAM wouldnt count it. Eg: on a typical Saturday there are 5 AFL games, but all of them overlap so any viewer can only watch 3 of them at the most.

Secondly, our game goes for longer which hurts the ratings, not helps. Eg: I can watch 6 hours of AFL on Saturday but only get counted as watching 2 games. You can watch 6 hours of NRL but that counts as 3 games. Yet we both spent the same amount of time watching our sport, and the advertising dollar received by the network is roughly the same.

Any comment on these two points or would you like to continue your childish replies?

Im sure I just posted about your over lapping matches. As for games going longer being a disadvantage that's absolute Bullshit and a sign of your desperation. both systems have there pros and cons. is either game is poor for the first 30m , that almost half our game, everyone switches off, almost impossible for us to recover from. For you its just the first quarter. And you loose very few viewers if its a one sided 1st quarter.

The real kicker is , Head to head matches are over after 90m giving you 1 hour of unopposed viewing. How many people would switch over at the end of the league game ?

Very good point.. Many sports fans who want more live action turn over after the NRL game is done.
I often do depending on the teams playing..

[NlolRL]

The gnashing of teeth & the stamping of feet are sure signs that when reality intrudes into the AFL propaganda bubble the brainwashed tools just can't accept it .
The but but but but but but buting is great entertainment .

No nashing of teeth at all, you're completely misreading me. I'm absolutely comfortable with the AFL winning almost every ratings direct comparison but ending up with a little less in the season tally. The direct comparisons show popularity, the tally merely the most content

You are only stating half the story..

AFL have a lot more FTA Air games - meaning a lot more viewers.
Home States get there Home Teams
And Melbourne get there blockbusters on FTA

We only have 23 more FTA games, all being on Saturday arvo, and delayed into Melbourne our biggest audience. This doesnt come close to the advantage the NRL have by showing every game in isolation

[Terry]

Well I've gone over the last 24 hours of fumbling excuses on this thread as to why RL wins by 8 million+. Gotta admit......even I'm staggered. In the past 24 hours only there have 14.....yes 14 different excuses offered by these pathetic insecure fumbling dills llololololololololol.

There are way too many to mention them all - but here are some that will give us a good belly laugh.

* The highest seasons ratings tally only shows which sport has the most content. (Wrong.....fumbleball had more games and goes for longer). lolololololol
* Ratings don't measure popularity lololololololol. I don't know what the hell they do then - measure unpopularity????
* If fumbleball had the same number of events as RL they would win loolololololololol. They have more games and still get flogged.
* A game of Fumbleball goes longer than a game of RL which negatively effects it's ratings - WHAT?????? lololololol
* The most viewed game is subjective. Really????? lolololol
* Fumbleball goes late into the night and kiddies go to bed lololololol this apparently effects ratings lololololol.
* A RL cumulative ratings victory is meaningless anyway lolololololol. Tell that to the broadcasters and advertisers lolololol ya dills.

I hope everyone has had a good laugh at these delusional fumbling, bumbling attempts to talk down RL's massive 8 million+ ratings victory.

And please fumblers keep posting. Lets see what we can get the excuse number up too by the end of today. Will be hilarious reading.

[NlolRL]

And not one of them actually addressed by you funny enough

[Terry]

And not one of them actually addressed by you funny enough

You'll have to get someone to read the post to you then Pal......very slowly........I think you may have missed some things lololololol.........others need no comment they're so base level studid lololololol. How about a few more excuses to add to the list pal??????