Talking Footy

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 8:00 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 4:57 am

NlolRL wrote: Sun May 13, 2018 9:01 pm

They're only worth what the networks are willing to pay. If they paid us more they value the product more overall which includes all your mega popular rep games.

You are the one who has tried to apply the theory of hrs..AFL games go longer so ratings should be multiplied by1.5.

It's absurd .
Totally absurd ...tell me ..are ratings averaged over those 3 hrs
& averaged over 2 for RL
If so
Your theory is like most other crap you post ...absolute rot .

Its not a theory, its fact. A program is watched 'more' if it rates with similar numbers but goes for longer.

If the NRLs 3 games or 6 hrs of TV on Saturday rate 200k each on stv they total 600k. The AFLs 2 games shown at the same time over 6 hours could also rate 200k but end up with a cumulative total of only 400k. Yet the same size audience watched TV over the same 6 hours. Its a misleading result. The way to adjust for this disparity is multiply the AFL audience by 1.5 which then accurately reflects the same audience size watched both 6 hours of TV.

Thats the way to accurately demonstrate 'most watched'

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:24 am

One day the length of your game is a good thing the next its a bad thing. Depending on what your arguing that day

If longer matches means more ratings (more viewers) why do they break there games into segments?


Would'nt a longer game mean that in the final half an hour you could just as easily lose viewers as gain them?

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:40 am

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:24 am

One day the length of your game is a good thing the next its a bad thing. Depending on what your arguing that day

If longer matches means more ratings (more viewers) why do they break there games into segments?


Would'nt a longer game mean that in the final half an hour you could just as easily lose viewers as gain them?

Ive always said a longer telecast makes cumulative totals misleading. Our 27 hours at comparable ratings to your 16 hours means we had a similar audience for nearly twice the length of time. Saying they are basically the same in value or as a gauge of popularity is ridiculous.

Last saturday is a perfect example. 18 hours of AFL v 6 hours of NRL yet counting raw stv ratings figures the NRL looks like it had more viewers on stv. Ah, no. 6 hours of nrl is equivalent to 2 games of AFL, which is reasonable viewing on a Saturday while still doing other things. 18 hours of sport in one day is absurd.

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 10:47 am

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:40 am

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:24 am

One day the length of your game is a good thing the next its a bad thing. Depending on what your arguing that day

If longer matches means more ratings (more viewers) why do they break there games into segments?


Would'nt a longer game mean that in the final half an hour you could just as easily lose viewers as gain them?

Ive always said a longer telecast makes cumulative totals misleading. Our 27 hours at comparable ratings to your 16 hours means we had a similar audience for nearly twice the length of time. Saying they are basically the same in value or as a gauge of popularity is ridiculous.

Last saturday is a perfect example. 18 hours of AFL v 6 hours of NRL yet counting raw stv ratings figures the NRL looks like it had more viewers on stv. Ah, no. 6 hours of nrl is equivalent to 2 games of AFL, which is reasonable viewing on a Saturday while still doing other things. 18 hours of sport in one day is absurd.

Stop with the bullshit. Where not in your fishbowl now. Many time I've heard you whinge and whine about how much harder it is to maintain ratings over the length of your game.

On Saturday You had 6 'progams' we had 3. We had more viewers for our 3 programs than you did for your 6. That what's so funny . Your game is as boring as bat shit is what it means.

Origin 3 , a 100min program, was the most watched program last year. Not a one dayer on the list.

Wall to wall coverage allowing people to watch there game and one or two others. Isn't this what i've been telling you all along? The two channels allow the majority of PTV viewers to watch all they want to watch!

AFLcrap1 wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 2:11 pm

& applying your looney theory to tv rights means the length of a game must be taken into account when discussing tv rights .
We are far far more valuable per hour .

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 1:03 pm

100m game is your biggest event of the season, so that proves nothing.

I have no issue with the length of our game. However, it must be taken into account when comparing ratings.

As for you having more than one popular game, we do too which is proven by the fact we win almost every FN despite playing different teams.

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:28 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 1:03 pm

100m game is your biggest event of the season, so that proves nothing.

I have no issue with the length of our game. However, it must be taken into account when comparing ratings.

As for you having more than one popular game, we do too which is proven by the fact we win almost every FN despite playing different teams.

100m might be the length of all RL games but there are plenty of other events out there. For example we have just watched the commonwealth games . The night session (probably 3 or 4 hours) will not be viewed by more than Origin - Rugby Leagues 100m offering.

If you have so many popular fixture then why do you get smashed in the ratings each round ?

pussycat wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 6:59 pm

Your Saturday night game nearly always rates lower than our Thursday night And your Sunday game more often than not does to.

Terry wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 9:00 am

NlolRL wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 8:00 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 4:57 am

You are the one who has tried to apply the theory of hrs..AFL games go longer so ratings should be multiplied by1.5.

It's absurd .
Totally absurd ...tell me ..are ratings averaged over those 3 hrs
& averaged over 2 for RL
If so
Your theory is like most other crap you post ...absolute rot .

Its not a theory, its fact. A program is watched 'more' if it rates with similar numbers but goes for longer.

If the NRLs 3 games or 6 hrs of TV on Saturday rate 200k each on stv they total 600k. The AFLs 2 games shown at the same time over 6 hours could also rate 200k but end up with a cumulative total of only 400k. Yet the same size audience watched TV over the same 6 hours. Its a misleading result. The way to adjust for this disparity is multiply the AFL audience by 1.5 which then accurately reflects the same audience size watched both 6 hours of TV.

Thats the way to accurately demonstrate 'most watched'

Great pal. Show us any ratings agency or TV network that applies your mad professor x1.5 theory to any ratings anywhere at any time. Good luck with that. When you come up nada take yourself off to the jungle pal & look for the plot you've lost!!!!

Nutter!!!!.jpg