Talking Footy

piesman2011 wrote:

We have been over this Eel but you dont seam to understand:

The Australian newspapers figures which have for 2011 NRL 113 and AFL 113
The Australians figures in 2012 had NRL 114 and AFL 123

The Sydney Morning herald in 2011 had NRL 134 and AFL 122 in Nov 2011 (more accurate released later in the year then your quote) (they are using different stats or missing figures in the Australian newspaper perhaps)

This is from the SMH Nov 2011 while your quote is Oct 2011.

outweighing the AFL by 12 million viewers this year. The 2011 season review revealed rugby league had a cumulative audience of 134 million viewers, without including a further 12 million in New Zealand.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2KpQRamCU



So what would the 2012 figures be for this newspaper? Who knows?

But what you are doing is comparing figures from one stastical analysis which has come up with much bigger numbers (134 NRL and 122 AFL in 2011) and comparing it with a different statistical analysis,with much small figures (2011 113 NRL and 113 AFL and in 2012 114 NRL and 123 AFL). Then you using the AFLs figure from the smaller data sets comparing them to the NRL figures from the larger data sets and pretending that it means something.

This is what you did

2011 NRL 134 X1.01 for 2012 increase (135 total)+ NZ results 12 million = 147 million (which is fine)

but you gave AFL a figure of 122. (either thats the 2011 SMH stats which needs an increase for 2012 of 9%) or thats "The Australian's" data (incorrect its 123 million) which you cant really compare because it is a different statistical analysis.

What you should have done to the AFL data was use the same reports stats (comparing 2011 SMH data NRL V AFL and extraporlated) to make your data valid:


2011 AFL SMH data 122 X 1.09% (AFL increased ratings by 9% FTA + PTV overall in 2012 I think you forgot this) for 2012 increase (133 total) + Phone (1 million + subs) T-box and tablets = who knows but I think 150 million +

The reason for this is that if you used the NRL SMH data for the NRL 2011 and add the increase for 2012 you need to use the SMH data for AFL and add their 9% increase.


You cant use data from one report and compare it directly with the other report.

Thats like me using "The Australian's" NRL 114 million and comparing it with my 133 AFL figure that I extrapolated from the SMH.


STOP TRYING TO USE STATS I DONT THINK YOU GET IT

piesman2011 wrote:

that I extrapolated from the SMH.

piesman2011 wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Eels for 2011 in one paper the AFL got a rating of 122 million compared to the NRL/RL having 133? million for culumative ratings (Sydney morning herald?). In another report AFL had 113 million in another for culumative ratings (the Australian) and the NRL got 113. This year the only report I have see has been the Australian, which talked about two different ways of adding up ratings. In both AFL was in front.
You can add NZ viewers and I can add T-box, tablets and phone viewers, all of which take away from people watching games on TV for the AFL. Yes NRL will have phone viewers next year but this will take away from your TV viewers and with no new changes for NRL next year apart from a slight change to the time in which one game is shown your TV viewer numbers will suffer. You might be right in that RL has won the cumulative ratings this year but you dont know for sure. But all of the reports printed so far say otherwise.

Might be right.......................

Mate you know it i know it on this issue i am 100% correct and i dare you to prove me otherwise.

Look at the 2011 ratings of 134m + 12m in NZ, now i linked Xman the 2012 RL anual report which shows 0.3% up on FTA ratings, 1.4% up on Fox ratings and SOO is up 10% and the Test matches were also up slightly.

How can you even deny that the RL gave Aussie rules another Ass wooping in 2012?

Come on at least admit the blatantly obvious that the RL handed your code a beatings on Tele.

Or are you going to stick your head in the sand Pies????

You might be right. There are a few issues:
Firstly the silence from the NRL in terms of saying "we won" .

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Most watched sport? 16 hrs a week v 27 hrs

I wonder which is most watched?

and which hour is more valuable to broadcasters in this nation


an hour of vicky kicky
or
an hour of Rugby League

& folks ... its another whupping for the Victorian game

They are completely different indicators

We have the most valuable Australian TV product and we are the most watched sporting product in Australia.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

and which hour is more valuable to broadcasters in this nation


an hour of vicky kicky
or
an hour of Rugby League

& folks ... its another whupping for the Victorian game

They are completely different indicators

We have the most valuable Australian TV product and we are the most watched sporting product in Australia.

I don;t care
answer the question

who gets more bang for their buck

it seems .... VFL is a low priced commodity
cheap as chips to buy

&

is watched by less Australians then Rugby League

silver
yep.. it looks good on you blokes

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

They are completely different indicators

We have the most valuable Australian TV product and we are the most watched sporting product in Australia.

I don;t care
answer the question

who gets more bang for their buck

it seems .... VFL is a low priced commodity
cheap as chips to buy

&

is watched by less Australians then Rugby League

silver
yep.. it looks good on you blokes

Bang for their buck....

The AFL accepted a lower than achievable deal:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

I don;t care
answer the question

who gets more bang for their buck

it seems .... VFL is a low priced commodity
cheap as chips to buy

&

is watched by less Australians then Rugby League

silver
yep.. it looks good on you blokes

Bang for their buck....

The AFL accepted a lower than achievable deal:

so did the NRL
in exchange for its F& L rights

& we still have far less time on air
but got more money

jeez.. how the fuck did we manage that ?


RL
the most valuable sporting commodity in Australia

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Bang for their buck....

The AFL accepted a lower than achievable deal:

so did the NRL
in exchange for its F& L rights

& we still have far less time on air
but got more money

jeez.. how the fuck did we manage that ?


RL
the most valuable sporting commodity in Australia

because the AFL is shown on FTA into expansion markets 4 times a week, with 2 being in prime time

The AFL is also simulcast for every game, with 8 of 9 concurrent, therefore reducing the audience for both FTA and fox.

The NRL only 3 FTA games into expansion states, with only 1 being prime time. They also have 6 of eight games in isolation and no simulcasting.

Get it yet?

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Bang for their buck....

The AFL accepted a lower than achievable deal:

so did the NRL
in exchange for its F& L rights

& we still have far less time on air
but got more money

jeez.. how the fuck did we manage that ?


RL
the most valuable sporting commodity in Australia

because the AFL is shown on FTA into expansion markets 4 times a week, with 2 being in prime time

The AFL is also simulcast for every game, with 8 of 9 concurrent, therefore reducing the audience for both FTA and fox.

The NRL only 3 FTA games into expansion states, with only 1 being prime time. They also have 6 of eight games in isolation and no simulcasting.

Get it yet?

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

so did the NRL
in exchange for its F& L rights

& we still have far less time on air
but got more money

jeez.. how the fuck did we manage that ?


RL
the most valuable sporting commodity in Australia

because the AFL is shown on FTA into expansion markets 4 times a week, with 2 being in prime time

The AFL is also simulcast for every game, with 8 of 9 concurrent, therefore reducing the audience for both FTA and fox.

The NRL only 3 FTA games into expansion states, with only 1 being prime time. They also have 6 of eight games in isolation and no simulcasting.

Get it yet?

Wow the but butting is starting to get heavy now dave......................

The AFL offered the networks a extra game and we still get more TV money, less hours on Tele and less games and we are getting more TV money who would have thought... =D>

Raiderdave wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Xman wrote:

because the AFL is shown on FTA into expansion markets 4 times a week, with 2 being in prime time

The AFL is also simulcast for every game, with 8 of 9 concurrent, therefore reducing the audience for both FTA and fox.

The NRL only 3 FTA games into expansion states, with only 1 being prime time. They also have 6 of eight games in isolation and no simulcasting.

Get it yet?

Wow the but butting is starting to get heavy now dave......................

The AFL offered the networks a extra game and we still get more TV money, less hours on Tele and less games and we are getting more TV money who would have thought... =D>

yeah eels

22 extra games since 2010 ..... & STILL less coin

pookus wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

Wow the but butting is starting to get heavy now dave......................

The AFL offered the networks a extra game and we still get more TV money, less hours on Tele and less games and we are getting more TV money who would have thought... =D>

yeah eels

22 extra games since 2010 ..... & STILL less coin

What an NRL apologist fuckwit you are Dave.Here is your pissant little club dying for exposure being reamed by the worst coverage deal ever.But you got close(reality is you got less in Australia and gave a whole lot more).What fukn idiot would argue the virtues of there own club being considered irrelavent by the competition they help uphold.Your a fool Dave.

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Wow the but butting is starting to get heavy now dave......................

The AFL offered the networks a extra game and we still get more TV money, less hours on Tele and less games and we are getting more TV money who would have thought... =D>

yeah eels

22 extra games since 2010 ..... & STILL less coin

What an NRL apologist fuckwit you are Dave.Here is your pissant little club dying for exposure being reamed by the worst coverage deal ever.But you got close(reality is you got less in Australia and gave a whole lot more).What fukn idiot would argue the virtues of there own club being considered irrelavent by the competition they help uphold.Your a fool Dave.

Raiderdave wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

that I extrapolated from the SMH.

the Only thing you extrapolate .. is shit
from one end of your posts to the other

RL whopped .... whupped ... smashed ... Victorian Rules & its as plain as day this occured in 2012
the whining
crying
feeting stamping

from singletballers ... is some of the funniest .. & saddest ... stuff one will read
they just cannot accept reality
& their delusion is quite astounding

RL.. Australias most watched sport

pookus wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

pookus wrote:

Wow the but butting is starting to get heavy now dave......................

The AFL offered the networks a extra game and we still get more TV money, less hours on Tele and less games and we are getting more TV money who would have thought... =D>

yeah eels

22 extra games since 2010 ..... & STILL less coin

What an NRL apologist fuckwit you are Dave.Here is your pissant little club dying for exposure being reamed by the worst coverage deal ever.But you got close(reality is you got less in Australia and gave a whole lot more).What fukn idiot would argue the virtues of there own club being considered irrelavent by the competition they help uphold.Your a fool Dave.