AFL fans, Gridiron is professional in two nations not one like Aussie Rules..

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yeah sure, they might be down over there because of form lately, or freaking yearly but plenty of other teams have been supported over there for years before the warriors were even thought of. Yet we are not allowed according to cultists from the Rustbelt states to include all our teams in the crowds and tv ratings because the other lot don't have them but at the same time, they don't consider the reverse when talking SA, WA and the ACT. That's the hypocritical part, the part that makes me think Victorians and their cousins next door to the west are all fucking idiots.

[ParraEelsNRL]

And Gridiron is played in Two countries professionally, if RL is one game with the SL and its different rules compared to the NRL which has different rules to all other nations, how can you say the US and Canada's versions arent the same sport with a few different interpretations? I'm quite sure if they wanted to, the US and Canada could agree on which official rules they would like to use and play said Internationals, if they wanted to.

[Fred]

Yeah sure, they might be down over there because of form lately, or freaking yearly but plenty of other teams have been supported over there for years before the warriors were even thought of. Yet we are not allowed according to cultists from the Rustbelt states to include all our teams in the crowds and tv ratings because the other lot don't have them but at the same time, they don't consider the reverse when talking SA, WA and the ACT. That's the hypocritical part, the part that makes me think Victorians and their cousins next door to the west are all fucking idiots.

Again, if you want to use the figures to argue which sport is more popular in this country by all means include nz stats.

[Fred]

And Gridiron is played in Two countries professionally, if RL is one game with the SL and its different rules compared to the NRL which has different rules to all other nations, how can you say the US and Canada's versions arent the same sport with a few different interpretations? I'm quite sure if they wanted to, the US and Canada could agree on which official rules they would like to use and play said Internationals, if they wanted to.

A bit like the abortion that is International Rules between Aussie rules and Gaelic football.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Nothing like it at all seeing as the only rules that would need changing in the Gridiron would be how many downs you have and maybe a less player or something. They only have a couple of rules that are different whereas in fumbleball playing against the Irish sees them change everything from the field to the ball they use and everything in between.

[ParraEelsNRL]

Yeah sure, they might be down over there because of form lately, or freaking yearly but plenty of other teams have been supported over there for years before the warriors were even thought of. Yet we are not allowed according to cultists from the Rustbelt states to include all our teams in the crowds and tv ratings because the other lot don't have them but at the same time, they don't consider the reverse when talking SA, WA and the ACT. That's the hypocritical part, the part that makes me think Victorians and their cousins next door to the west are all fucking idiots.

Again, if you want to use the figures to argue which sport is more popular in this country by all means include nz stats.

Wtf I am talking what the competitions get, how can you exclude some parts of ones competition all because you don't have something similar in your own sport yet you can add whatever stats you like to your sport that my hasn't got and it's ok?

Just like when you lot use junior numbers that have all the auskick participants but the rugby league folk have to use official club registrations, seems fair huh. No wonder I stopped posting here, the hypocrisy and stupidity of some posters was overwhelming.

[Fred]

Totally agree with you para re nz numbers ... add them in however don't use them to state rl is more popular or more people watch it on Australia.

[Terry]

So if we take out NZ ratings and do away with rep football you you thing you might be a chance of knocking us off?

I think we can take you with NZ ratings - which are likely to be lower than the averages i cite from 2014 when we last got any indication- included. The gap aint that big now.

It literally boils down to origin.

So are you going to add in the RL World cup ratings this year? Bearing in mind you have added in the female fumblers and pre season mens fumbling which gives a massive number of games advantage to FB.

[Terry]

If it occurs within the calendar year then generally yes they'll be included on the same spreadsheet.

Ill note that AFLW is literally an AFL competition. the RLWC is not an NRL one.

Either way, someone is going to bitch whichever way i go on this.

Fred will of course. I'll note that whilst AFLW is literally an AFL competition they don't actually play in the AFL. Ditto the RLWC. The RLWC games will get RL somewhere near the number of games you will be using for the AFL for aggregate total........so would be very fair comparison.

[Fred]

I'm happy to compare AFL season v nrl season. I am even happy to leave out finals and just compare home and away. I also think averages should be the mark not cumulative. I have no idea which comp will win but to me that is the fairest comparison. And if using these figures to say which is more popular in Australia than should be Australian ratings. Exclude all the other competetuons on the calendar and just do an apples v apples comparison.

[AFLcrap1]

Lol how strange .Fred thinks that culmitive ratings that show RL winning are not the mark .
You mob are a riot . Can never accept that your sport gets beaten .

[NlolRL]

Lol how strange .Fred thinks that culmitive ratings that show RL winning are not the mark .
You mob are a riot . Can never accept that your sport gets beaten .

I acknowledge your sport gets greater accumulative ratings over a year. What I contest is its value. Having continual higher rating games through the year shows the difference in popularity, and we win that every year

[AFLcrap1]

More eyeballs are watching Rl each year than AFLOL
We win
You lose

[NlolRL]

More eyeballs are watching Rl each year than AFLOL
We win
You lose

well actually, no. More chances for the same eye balls to watch. Again, means nothing except maybe the $$ to the network

[Terry]

More eyeballs are watching Rl each year than AFLOL
We win
You lose

ah thats not necessarily true.

its worth noting that the NRL itself placed its ratings substantially lower than my estimates last year - where i estimated 133 million for the NRL the total figure given by the NRL was less by more than 10 million. (check the annual report)

Also note that the AFL streaming is far higher than NRLs from every report ive seen.

Yes. But you are a fumbleball partisan zealot. So for you to calculate that the NRL flogged the fumblers last year obviously means something otherwise you wouldn't say it.