Talking Footy

NlolRL wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:21 pm

Terry wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Geez it's hard work with these bubble living fumblers. The bottom line is RL had many million more viewers than fumbleball in 2016. Strangely enough that means it was the most watched sport in Australia last year. The fumblers won some comparisons and RL won others but in the end RL had the most viewers despite playing less games.

If there is any of that you don't understand please go and ask ya mama.

other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?

According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant when both codes have completely different TV schedules? It's like saying the news is more popular than MKR when the news is on 7 days a week compared to 3 times, and MKR rates higher per game

Terry wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:14 pm

NlolRL wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:21 pm

Terry wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Geez it's hard work with these bubble living fumblers. The bottom line is RL had many million more viewers than fumbleball in 2016. Strangely enough that means it was the most watched sport in Australia last year. The fumblers won some comparisons and RL won others but in the end RL had the most viewers despite playing less games.

If there is any of that you don't understand please go and ask ya mama.

other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?

According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant when both codes have completely different TV schedules? It's like saying the news is more popular than MKR when the news is on 7 days a week compared to 3 times, and MKR rates higher per game

Is this dill for real??????? 'Other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?" Other than the tally????????? lolololololololol. So do we pretend the tally doesn't exist? Do we look the other way when the tally is posted? How do we deal with this troublesome tally if we're a fumbleball zealot? Oh yeah.........hands over our eyes time......lolololololo.

"According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for the year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant".....lololololololololol. Is that the most oxy moronic statement ever blurted by a bubble dwelling fumbler?????? Apparently ratings are no longer a measure of popularity........lololololololololol.

Does anybody else think lic is back?? May the Lord help us......lololololololol

Terry wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:14 pm

NlolRL wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:21 pm

Terry wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:08 pm

Geez it's hard work with these bubble living fumblers. The bottom line is RL had many million more viewers than fumbleball in 2016. Strangely enough that means it was the most watched sport in Australia last year. The fumblers won some comparisons and RL won others but in the end RL had the most viewers despite playing less games.

If there is any of that you don't understand please go and ask ya mama.

other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?

According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant when both codes have completely different TV schedules? It's like saying the news is more popular than MKR when the news is on 7 days a week compared to 3 times, and MKR rates higher per game

Is this dill for real??????? 'Other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?" Other than the tally????????? lolololololololol. So do we pretend the tally doesn't exist? Do we look the other way when the tally is posted? How do we deal with this troublesome tally if we're a fumbleball zealot? Oh yeah.........hands over our eyes time......lolololololo.

"According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for the year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant".....lololololololololol. Is that the most oxy moronic statement ever blurted by a bubble dwelling fumbler?????? Apparently ratings are no longer a measure of popularity........lololololololololol.

Does anybody else think lic is back?? May the Lord help us......lololololololol

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Lol
Poor old fumblers .
Is the MELBOURNE cup decided by which horse is in front at the winning post the first time around ?
Or who is in front at the 1600. Or 1000
Or at the top of the straight .
NO
It's who is in front after the whole race is run .
In football terms ..that's RL by a healthy margin .
No other numbers matter .

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Lol
Poor old fumblers .
Is the MELBOURNE cup decided by which horse is in front at the winning post the first time around ?
Or who is in front at the 1600. Or 1000
Or at the top of the straight .
NO
It's who is in front after the whole race is run .
In football terms ..that's RL by a healthy margin .
No other numbers matter .

Fred wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Terry wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:14 pm

NlolRL wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:21 pm

other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?

According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant when both codes have completely different TV schedules? It's like saying the news is more popular than MKR when the news is on 7 days a week compared to 3 times, and MKR rates higher per game

Is this dill for real??????? 'Other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?" Other than the tally????????? lolololololololol. So do we pretend the tally doesn't exist? Do we look the other way when the tally is posted? How do we deal with this troublesome tally if we're a fumbleball zealot? Oh yeah.........hands over our eyes time......lolololololo.

"According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for the year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant".....lololololololololol. Is that the most oxy moronic statement ever blurted by a bubble dwelling fumbler?????? Apparently ratings are no longer a measure of popularity........lololololololololol.

Does anybody else think lic is back?? May the Lord help us......lololololololol

I'm a bit confused... nothing unusual there, but are rl people the the cumulative total is better than say an average? And that cumulative total includes all rl ? That's a question by the way!

From where I sit, an it is just my view, that the cumulative total may not reflect most popular or best. If I show 40 games of sport B and 20 games of sport B, and both sports are reasonably popular in a particular market, and I get 100000 for sport A and 50000 for sport a B, both are averaging the same amount if we use the mean as a measure of central tendency (I would argue to median would be a better measure to take out outliers). It would not mean sport B is more popular. It gets further complI cared when one sport is made up of several mechanisations such as international or soo for instance. For me, I think if you are going to use statistics to analyse something than it should be done correctly to control for extraneous variable ... as any good statically analysis does so we know we are comparing two things (a sport.. dependent variable) with the independent variable (crowds, ratings).(I may have these arse about tit... been a long time since uni tutorials). This obviously is very hard to do when we take in weather, ease of getting to ground, type of ground ect.).

So anyway, cumulative total means little really unless we are looking at the same or roughly the same at best, number of occursnces. What would be interesting would be the standard deviation. As I used to write on many a marked lab report... means are useless as an inferential statistic without standard deviation. That tells us the story. Medians also be used anyway I reckon.

pussycat wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:45 pm

Fred wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Terry wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:14 pm

Is this dill for real??????? 'Other than the tally which comparison did the NRL win?" Other than the tally????????? lolololololololol. So do we pretend the tally doesn't exist? Do we look the other way when the tally is posted? How do we deal with this troublesome tally if we're a fumbleball zealot? Oh yeah.........hands over our eyes time......lolololololo.

"According to the year's tally RL was the most watched for the year, but as a measure of popularity how is that relevant".....lololololololololol. Is that the most oxy moronic statement ever blurted by a bubble dwelling fumbler?????? Apparently ratings are no longer a measure of popularity........lololololololololol.

Does anybody else think lic is back?? May the Lord help us......lololololololol

I'm a bit confused... nothing unusual there, but are rl people the the cumulative total is better than say an average? And that cumulative total includes all rl ? That's a question by the way!

From where I sit, an it is just my view, that the cumulative total may not reflect most popular or best. If I show 40 games of sport B and 20 games of sport B, and both sports are reasonably popular in a particular market, and I get 100000 for sport A and 50000 for sport a B, both are averaging the same amount if we use the mean as a measure of central tendency (I would argue to median would be a better measure to take out outliers). It would not mean sport B is more popular. It gets further complI cared when one sport is made up of several mechanisations such as international or soo for instance. For me, I think if you are going to use statistics to analyse something than it should be done correctly to control for extraneous variable ... as any good statically analysis does so we know we are comparing two things (a sport.. dependent variable) with the independent variable (crowds, ratings).(I may have these arse about tit... been a long time since uni tutorials). This obviously is very hard to do when we take in weather, ease of getting to ground, type of ground ect.).

So anyway, cumulative total means little really unless we are looking at the same or roughly the same at best, number of occursnces. What would be interesting would be the standard deviation. As I used to write on many a marked lab report... means are useless as an inferential statistic without standard deviation. That tells us the story. Medians also be used anyway I reckon.

What would be interesting would be to write Roy Morgan a letter to find out if the news actually won the ratings last night or his rating system is totally stuffed and he's been duping advertisers for years.