Talking Footy

Completely wrong

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 8:00 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 9:02 pm

Oh I did

& you say we are doing something that we are not
What is wrong with your brain ?
No one on the RL side of the fence accepts for one sec your looney 1.5 theory .
Yet you accuse us of doing that .

read the post again you fool! I never said you are using any 1.5 theory, I said the raw ratings figures give the NRL a natural advantage of 1.5 because of the difference in broadcast time. I even provided a basic example to prove it. I then said you guys expect me to believe this 'natural' advantage is reasonable.

And you have the nerve to question Victorian education after some of the shit you guys post

I can repost it over & over excatly where you said it .

Read what you wrote you fool


Its ridiculous to suggest 6 hours of NRL should be worth 1.5 times 6 hours of AFL, which is what you guys are doing.

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 3:15 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 8:00 am

AFLcrap1 wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 9:02 pm

Oh I did

& you say we are doing something that we are not
What is wrong with your brain ?
No one on the RL side of the fence accepts for one sec your looney 1.5 theory .
Yet you accuse us of doing that .

read the post again you fool! I never said you are using any 1.5 theory, I said the raw ratings figures give the NRL a natural advantage of 1.5 because of the difference in broadcast time. I even provided a basic example to prove it. I then said you guys expect me to believe this 'natural' advantage is reasonable.

And you have the nerve to question Victorian education after some of the shit you guys post

I can repost it over & over excatly where you said it .

Read what you wrote you fool


Its ridiculous to suggest 6 hours of NRL should be worth 1.5 times 6 hours of AFL, which is what you guys are doing.

I was not suggesting you are using any mathematics, theory or equations to reach that conclusion. I was saying the raw figures show a 1.5 times advantage to the NRL and you guys were expecting me to swallow this as reasonable.

*sigh* Why bother! You guys are dumb as dog shit and still wont get it

Apparently yOURE the only one who gets it
No one else on here is backing up this bizarro theory
No ratings organisation uses this crap 1.5 theory .
Lol not even the zealots at BF use it .

& no media are using it .
Just you .

Oh dear ..if you can't see how you are wrong there's no use trying to talk sense to you .

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 12:19 pm

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 9:33 am

NlolRL wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 6:57 pm

dear oh dear

AFL games add time off which means the quarters go for 30 minutes. The NRL doesnt

30mins, as there is so many stoppages,
goal breaks, ball going out, lining up at goal, etc.

see 30mins x 4 = 2hrs. are you saying there is 1hour breaks in the game>

the whole thing in the AFL atm is congestion>>

wouldn't reducing breaks put more fatigue in the game> and open it up

3 hrs is the telecast length, which is what the ratings results are measuring. The nrl telecast is 2hrs, but the game is only 80 mins

Haven't you ever heard the story about Pinocchio?

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 3:47 pm

Apparently yOURE the only one who gets it
No one else on here is backing up this bizarro theory
No ratings organisation uses this crap 1.5 theory .
Lol not even the zealots at BF use it .

& no media are using it .
Just you .

Oh dear ..if you can't see how you are wrong there's no use trying to talk sense to you .

its not a theory, its basic logic. I've mentioned on here previously and Wookie commented that it's a factor that you guys never acknowledge

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:08 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 3:47 pm

Apparently yOURE the only one who gets it
No one else on here is backing up this bizarro theory
No ratings organisation uses this crap 1.5 theory .
Lol not even the zealots at BF use it .

& no media are using it .
Just you .

Oh dear ..if you can't see how you are wrong there's no use trying to talk sense to you .

its not a theory, its basic logic. I've mentioned on here previously and Wookie commented that it's a factor that you guys never acknowledge

Simple question why is your " LOGIC"not used by any of the above mentioned .

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:12 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:08 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 3:47 pm

Apparently yOURE the only one who gets it
No one else on here is backing up this bizarro theory
No ratings organisation uses this crap 1.5 theory .
Lol not even the zealots at BF use it .

& no media are using it .
Just you .

Oh dear ..if you can't see how you are wrong there's no use trying to talk sense to you .

its not a theory, its basic logic. I've mentioned on here previously and Wookie commented that it's a factor that you guys never acknowledge

Simple question why is your " LOGIC"not used by any of the above mentioned .

you honestly dont think the networks consider the length of a program when reviewing ratings?

Saturday

1.30pm: Saturday Footy on Fox — hosted by Sarah Jones


My momma always told me stupid is as stupid does.

Lol
Still nothing

Next this ones cooked

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:19 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:12 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:08 pm

its not a theory, its basic logic. I've mentioned on here previously and Wookie commented that it's a factor that you guys never acknowledge

Simple question why is your " LOGIC"not used by any of the above mentioned .

you honestly dont think the networks consider the length of a program when reviewing ratings?

We have no interest in length of a program or selling advertising space . We are here to see which game is more popular on TV and the ratings clearly say Rugby League is

pussycat wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 7:10 pm

NlolRL wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:19 pm

AFLcrap1 wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 6:12 pm

Simple question why is your " LOGIC"not used by any of the above mentioned .

you honestly dont think the networks consider the length of a program when reviewing ratings?

We have no interest in length of a program or selling advertising space . We are here to see which game is more popular on TV and the ratings clearly say Rugby League is

and the length of time effects the ratings which is what you are using to gauge popularity

lol just lol

The massive ratings drop off for the fumbling league has continued unabated in R9. So far Fox ratings for 6 games have totalled 812k or ave 135k per game. That includes 2 games yesterday that were below 100k. Ouch !!!!!

R9 2017 total Fox ratings for 9 games was 1618k. With 3 games today they need an ave of 268k per game to break even. It won't happen. It won't even go close. Once again they will fall 100k's short. And that's not even counting FTA which is such a disaster the great Wookie has stopped reporting on it.

For comparison the NRL has a Fox total of 1451 for 6 games at ave 241k. To break even they need 389k over 2 games today at ave 194k per game. Once again they will beat last years number easily.

I'm sure whatever bullshit Chinese figure they come up with for the game will make up the shortfall & then some .

30 trillion would be a nice round figure to have the cultists nodding