Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

TLPG wrote:

62,568,000 AFL 14 telecasts per week
50,454,000 NRL 8 telecasts per week

THEM' the facts, blind mouse!

Wait what look up and read again dipshit...

Those figures don't included regional viewers as i stated in my comment....

Even with dodgy regionals the NRL still lose. This is despite the fact they have more games televised per week and a shorter game which results in a higher average. You only have to look at the highest rating games this year to see the AFL have the top 15 or so. The NRL are miles behind.

Aussie Rules 4 live games + 9 on Fox footy+ regionals = 14 telecasts from which we can pull ratings from each week.
RL 1 live game 2 delayed + 5 on Fox + regionals = 8 telecasts from which we can pull ratings from each week.

RL wins hands down, them the facts. =D>

62,568,000 AFL 14 telecasts per week = 280 telecasts for the year / of which 80 are live Fta telecasts per year
50,454,000 NRL 8 telecasts per week = 192 telecasts for the year / of which 24 are live Fta telecasts per year

Then you add Rep games and the Regionals figures and its the Black Caviar of Tele streaking away.

Clear winner is NRL dem the Factual's....

Eel, stop ignoring the cold hard facts. The AFL CAN'T rate the maximum on all of it's games because of clashes. The NRL CAN rate the maximum on all of it's games.

Now imagine what would happen if the AFL COULD rate the maximum. It would get even higher ratings than it is now!!

Accept that your figures are flawed - or go join KE back in class for a re-education in common sense.....

Xman wrote:

eelofwest wrote:

TLPG wrote:

62,568,000 AFL 14 telecasts per week
50,454,000 NRL 8 telecasts per week

THEM' the facts, blind mouse!

Wait what look up and read again dipshit...

Those figures don't included regional viewers as i stated in my comment....

Even with dodgy regionals the NRL still lose. This is despite the fact they have more games televised per week and a shorter game which results in a higher average. You only have to look at the highest rating games this year to see the AFL have the top 15 or so. The NRL are miles behind.

Aussie Rules 4 live games + 9 on Fox footy+ regionals = 14 telecasts from which we can pull ratings from each week.
RL 1 live game 2 delayed + 5 on Fox + regionals = 8 telecasts from which we can pull ratings from each week.

RL wins hands down, them the facts. =D>

62,568,000 AFL 14 telecasts per week = 280 telecasts for the year / of which 80 are live Fta telecasts per year
50,454,000 NRL 8 telecasts per week = 192 telecasts for the year / of which 24 are live Fta telecasts per year

Then you add Rep games and the Regionals figures and its the Black Caviar of Tele streaking away.

Clear winner is NRL dem the Factual's....

Some facts why they show concurrent games.
1. The AFL has a more nation wide spread in different time zones.
2. Games go for 3 hours, the networks want games in prime time so concurrent games are a must
3. AFL now have 9 games this year.
4. Fox Payed through the nose for this product, they are on there own schedule and dont take orders from AFL HQ about concurrent game problems..
5. If AFL HQ could fix the problem they would have.
That is a problem that is built into your product, that is why NRL and other football codes ie Soccer, Rugby, League are better Tv products then the AFL around the world.

Clear winner is NRL dem the Factual's....

It's not a problem for us. It's a problem for YOU! NRL is being THRASHED! Because we are able to draw more viewers DESPITE the negative of concurrent games. Like I said - if we had no concurrent games like the NRL we would have even MORE viewers than we already have!

Concurrent games are in fact a BAD thing! And yet you thugby morons can't beat us on a good platform! Even with a game that is better on TV than live - unlike footy which is better live than on TV! We're winning when we shouldn't be, but because thugby is on the nose of the majority of sporting fans in Australia, WE ARE!

The more you highlight your figures, the more you prove yourself wrong.....

Clear winner is AFL dem the Factual's....

Concurrent games are not a problem, counting cummulative figures without taking the length of telecast in to account is a problem. The networks wouldnt do this. I'm sure every network would prefer 3 hours of 700k ratings than 2 hours of 800k ratings.

I've said it before but the AFL Anzac day rated over 1.7m nationally for a 4 hour telecast. Yet if 2 FTA NRL games were shown during these 4 hours, and rated 1m each, the cummulative figures would say the NRL won with 2 million. But the reality is the AFL had 4 hours of 1.7m and the NRL 4 hours of only 1m.

So the AFL may lose put with concurrent games but they more than make up for it in value with longer matches that rate well. The issue is that cummulative ratings just don't show this advantage.

As for eels trying to say the TV networks control the AFL. the AFL still schedule their games during attendance friendly times, unlike the NRL who have truly sold out to the networks to the detriment of crowds.

Xman wrote:

Concurrent games are not a problem, counting cummulative figures without taking the length of telecast in to account is a problem. The networks wouldnt do this. I'm sure every network would prefer 3 hours of 700k ratings than 2 hours of 800k ratings.

I've said it before but the AFL Anzac day rated over 1.7m nationally for a 4 hour telecast. Yet if 2 FTA NRL games were shown during these 4 hours, and rated 1m each, the cummulative figures would say the NRL won with 2 million. But the reality is the AFL had 4 hours of 1.7m and the NRL 4 hours of only 1m.

So the AFL may lose put with concurrent games but they more than make up for it in value with longer matches that rate well. The issue is that cummulative ratings just don't show this advantage.

As for eels trying to say the TV networks control the AFL. the AFL still schedule their games during attendance friendly times, unlike the NRL who have truly sold out to the networks to the detriment of crowds.

ANZAC day was a 5 hour telecast on C7. If you compare this to say a SOO game which is 2 hours, 1.4 million viewers (C7 + mate only) over 5 hours is worth 3.5 million viewers over 2 hours. Add to this the Fox numbers and you would say that it is worth more in my opinion than a SOO game. This game was also on in the afternoon which would earn it more brownie points from the network. Just my opinion and feel free to bring up some valid points if you disagree.

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Concurrent games are not a problem, counting cummulative figures without taking the length of telecast in to account is a problem. The networks wouldnt do this. I'm sure every network would prefer 3 hours of 700k ratings than 2 hours of 800k ratings.

I've said it before but the AFL Anzac day rated over 1.7m nationally for a 4 hour telecast. Yet if 2 FTA NRL games were shown during these 4 hours, and rated 1m each, the cummulative figures would say the NRL won with 2 million. But the reality is the AFL had 4 hours of 1.7m and the NRL 4 hours of only 1m.

So the AFL may lose put with concurrent games but they more than make up for it in value with longer matches that rate well. The issue is that cummulative ratings just don't show this advantage.

As for eels trying to say the TV networks control the AFL. the AFL still schedule their games during attendance friendly times, unlike the NRL who have truly sold out to the networks to the detriment of crowds.

ANZAC day was a 5 hour telecast on C7. If you compare this to say a SOO game which is 2 hours, 1.4 million viewers (C7 + mate only) over 5 hours is worth 3.5 million viewers over 2 hours. Add to this the Fox numbers and you would say that it is worth more in my opinion than a SOO game. This game was also on in the afternoon which would earn it more brownie points from the network. Just my opinion and feel free to bring up some valid points if you disagree.

Pies your starting to sound crazy...........now i know that your account is a duplicate from one of our resident nutjobs...

Pies who are you really mate? Coslettuce?

You lost all Credibility when you start trying to compare SOO to a Anzac test in AFL.....

He has started to show his true colours

Not half as much credibility as someone who as "a ANZAC" when it's "an ANZAC"!

Not to mention the fact that SOO is NOT on pay TV, whereas the ANZAC Day AFL game is!

Eel's education = zero!

AFL's ratings have been slowly catching up, and has now exceeded the ratings of the NRL.

eelofwest wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Xman wrote:

Concurrent games are not a problem, counting cummulative figures without taking the length of telecast in to account is a problem. The networks wouldnt do this. I'm sure every network would prefer 3 hours of 700k ratings than 2 hours of 800k ratings.

I've said it before but the AFL Anzac day rated over 1.7m nationally for a 4 hour telecast. Yet if 2 FTA NRL games were shown during these 4 hours, and rated 1m each, the cummulative figures would say the NRL won with 2 million. But the reality is the AFL had 4 hours of 1.7m and the NRL 4 hours of only 1m.

So the AFL may lose put with concurrent games but they more than make up for it in value with longer matches that rate well. The issue is that cummulative ratings just don't show this advantage.

As for eels trying to say the TV networks control the AFL. the AFL still schedule their games during attendance friendly times, unlike the NRL who have truly sold out to the networks to the detriment of crowds.

ANZAC day was a 5 hour telecast on C7. If you compare this to say a SOO game which is 2 hours, 1.4 million viewers (C7 + mate only) over 5 hours is worth 3.5 million viewers over 2 hours. Add to this the Fox numbers and you would say that it is worth more in my opinion than a SOO game. This game was also on in the afternoon which would earn it more brownie points from the network. Just my opinion and feel free to bring up some valid points if you disagree.

Pies your starting to sound crazy...........now i know that your account is a duplicate from one of our resident nutjobs...

Pies who are you really mate? Coslettuce?

You lost all Credibility when you start trying to compare SOO to a Anzac test in AFL.....

Im not saying that ANZAC day is more popular im just saying that because it is a 5 hour telecast it is worth a lot of TV money because of all the advertising that it can fit into the 5 hours. I would say dollar for dollar it would be up there with an SOO game. Disagree if you want I am just pointing out that 1.4 million viewers over 5 hours in particular during a low ratings time is worth as much as 4 million viewers for 2 hours during a high ratings time. With all the advertsing you can fit into an AFL game probabaly more then 4 times the advertsing compared to a SOO match. Add to this a 300K foxtel game as well and it is worth a lot of money.