Talking Footy

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Just called them and asked. My apologies folks, the Morgan interviews are conducted in regional + remote areas. I was mistaken that these were tv ratings polls, which we all know dont bother.

But...these figures in the morgan poll only represent people aged 14yrs+. About a third of the pop ignored. Younger boys girls and toddlers love their league. By the AFL supporters own admission RL is a much more primal and violent game than Marngrook. And we all know children understand primal instincts better. As a child of just 4 yrs old I remember turning on the box to watch my beloved parra eels go at it and i really got it, I understood and enjoyed the game thoroughly. And this has never changed, apart from my my growth in knowledge of the many many intricacies and rules of the sport. Perhaps some younguns are watching AFL on the box but I'd say this sport is, especially nowadays, far too separated from primal instincts for young folk to understand.

So lets not get too carried away with polls that only poll 2/3rds of the pop. And please Xman lets not go down the line of you need brains to watch AFL/be a supporter and you dont for league. We all have carnal instincts, even albert einstein.

So all the polls showing the AFL is the preferred TV sport over RL, including SOO, are legitimate because they include regional markets as well. =D> =D> =D>

Thanks!

Haha... KE, Raider, pussycat and co OWNED!!!!

Owned? Now dont go jumping up and down like a schoolgirl beaussie. Xman has completely misread my post and put a ridiculous spin on it. i.e. "all the polls are legitimate". I showed the morgan poll is invalid, which would then suggest that 'all the polls prob arent legitimate'

What an idiot that xman is. He just cant see much with his testicle eyes beyond those pube lined rose shades.

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Just called them and asked. My apologies folks, the Morgan interviews are conducted in regional + remote areas. I was mistaken that these were tv ratings polls, which we all know dont bother.

But...these figures in the morgan poll only represent people aged 14yrs+. About a third of the pop ignored. Younger boys girls and toddlers love their league. By the AFL supporters own admission RL is a much more primal and violent game than Marngrook. And we all know children understand primal instincts better. As a child of just 4 yrs old I remember turning on the box to watch my beloved parra eels go at it and i really got it, I understood and enjoyed the game thoroughly. And this has never changed, apart from my my growth in knowledge of the many many intricacies and rules of the sport. Perhaps some younguns are watching AFL on the box but I'd say this sport is, especially nowadays, far too separated from primal instincts for young folk to understand.

So lets not get too carried away with polls that only poll 2/3rds of the pop. And please Xman lets not go down the line of you need brains to watch AFL/be a supporter and you dont for league. We all have carnal instincts, even albert einstein.

So all the polls showing the AFL is the preferred TV sport over RL, including SOO, are legitimate because they include regional markets as well. =D> =D> =D>

Thanks!

Haha... KE, Raider, pussycat and co OWNED!!!!

It seems Morgan isnt the only lunny around here . What other polls are you talking about Beau ?.

Oztam figure shows the NRL has a total of 15m more viewers than the AFL. They also show the NRL enyoys 4 of the 5 top rating shows between our codes. The Friday night game in Sydney more often than not outrates the Friday night AFL game in Melbourne. They also show that the highest rating Qld match always - always outrates the best WA match & SA matches combined - and were yet to talk about regional figure.

I almost forgot to mention, the NRL also provides 75 of Fox's top 100 programs

pussycat wrote:

always outrates the best WA match & SA matches combined

FFS the WAFL outrates the nrl.

Another one who stuggles with facts.

pussycat wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

RL. The AFL comp games go for near on 3 hours you silly bandicoot. RL just 90mins.

And the numbers of total viewers in 2011 shows it all . RL ahead by a clear distance. More families getin together to enjoy a good ol bit of league, each and every weekend. :D

Ah .... No.

Havent you been listening? The shorter game length of RL means their viewers are counted more often every weekend for watching essentially the same or even less game time overall. Cummulative figures mean sweet FA and are only touted by RL media to make them feel their code is comparable to the AFL. If you want to see which code is watched by the most fans have a look at the many morgan polls showing the AFL is clearly the preferred game on TV.

Here's a recent one showing far more Aussie kids watch AFL than RL. Look at the proportion of girls too. Very healthy mix right there. So much for the bs they claim on LU about the AFL fan base aging.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2012/1587/

Here's another recent one showing the AFL dominating the NRL.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2012/1556/

What happend to all those oztam figures Roy seized upon, you were so happy to quote them? The ones that showed that the NRL had a larger audience by 15 million? Don't suit your case hey?

Morgan :D :D :D AFL rates better on Pay tv L :D :D =D> =D> what a nut!

All Roy did was add all the ratings up together. It has nothing to do with how many people watch each game because the games go for different lengths of time and the seasons go for different lengths.

The Morgan poll asks a simple question of a broad spectrum of the population: "which sport do you watch, and how often do you watch it"

The AFL is the most popular sport in Australia and wins this batle, just like it does finances, memberships, crowds and media attendtion.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

So all the polls showing the AFL is the preferred TV sport over RL, including SOO, are legitimate because they include regional markets as well. =D> =D> =D>

Thanks!

Haha... KE, Raider, pussycat and co OWNED!!!!

Owned? Now dont go jumping up and down like a schoolgirl beaussie. Xman has completely misread my post and put a ridiculous spin on it. i.e. "all the polls are legitimate". I showed the morgan poll is invalid, which would then suggest that 'all the polls prob arent legitimate'

What an idiot that xman is. He just cant see much with his testicle eyes beyond those pube lined rose shades.

Your post was clear. You claimed the polls were invalid because they excluded regionals. You confirimed for us all that this was a baseless lie. You are now trying to discredit the polls because they exclude children under 14yrs. What a fool!

pussycat wrote:

Beaussie wrote:

Xman wrote:

So all the polls showing the AFL is the preferred TV sport over RL, including SOO, are legitimate because they include regional markets as well. =D> =D> =D>

Thanks!

Haha... KE, Raider, pussycat and co OWNED!!!!

It seems Morgan isnt the only lunny around here . What other polls are you talking about Beau ?.

Oztam figure shows the NRL has a total of 15m more viewers than the AFL. They also show the NRL enyoys 4 of the 5 top rating shows between our codes. The Friday night game in Sydney more often than not outrates the Friday night AFL game in Melbourne. They also show that the highest rating Qld match always - always outrates the best WA match & SA matches combined - and were yet to talk about regional figure.

I almost forgot to mention, the NRL also provides 75 of Fox's top 100 programs

What's a "lunny"?

OZTAm blah blah. Cummulative ratings mean jack shit because they count the NRL almost twice as much each round because AFL games go for 50% more. If the NRL was more popular on TV they would have a larger TV rights deal. They havent yet and they still wont next time.

Xman a poll that does not bother to include U14's leaves out a massive population. We already know you are discriminatory towards australians who live in regional areas. Are you also saying U14 year olds shouldnt count either?

What a nasty piece of work you're turning out to be Xman

We all know your steretypical subjective views about islanders and RL in melbourne also

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman a poll that does not bother to include U14's leaves out a massive population. We already know you are discriminatory towards australians who live in regional areas. Are you also saying U14 year olds shouldnt count either?

What a nasty piece of work you're turning out to be Xman

We all know your steretypical subjective views about islanders and RL in melbourne also

Trying to claim a poll is irrelevant because it doesnt count kids under 14yrs!!!



What about this one then: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2012/1587/

When looking at what these kids watch on TV, 47% (1,113,000) chose to watch the Olympic Games. Over a third of all Australian kids have watched AFL Games, 36% or 835,000, whilst a similar number watched the Commonwealth Games, 35% or 820,000. More than a quarter watched tennis (28% or 659,000), Rugby League Football (27% or 645,000), cricket (25% or 588,000) and soccer (25% or 586,000).

Overall a higher proportion young sports viewers are boys. Sports such as AFL, Rugby League, Cricket, Soccer, Racing and Wrestling are more likely to be watched by boys than girls. Boys watching AFL make up 63% of the 6—13 year old TV viewers, 67% of the Rugby League 6—13 year old audience is male, and 72% of crickets’ 6—13 is male.

:D :D :D

Thanks Xman,

Def positive results and signs there for AFL and tv. Unfortunately though the sheer numbers of viewers on television clearly contradicts this morgan poll. As you highlighted before the morgan polls you're presenting ask a very "simple" question. Ask a simple question and you get a simple answer I'm afraid. More individuals may have watched a game or two of the AFL comp but as is consistent with raiderdaves comments and indeed the actual numbers watching both sports week in week out (more viewers watching RL), you'd have to say those individuals in the morgan poll who've said they watch marngrook on the tele have watched a game and get bored and dont watch again. The numbers dont lie Xman, the RL watchers must be watching week in week out. The NRL comp is closely fought out with no hint of tanking and nowhere near the number of blowouts in the AFL comp. All these facts add up and present a pretty strong argument which provides reason as to why the "simple" morgan poll is really not a good indicator of interest and consistent support in viewing matches on tv.

As i said before, more australian families are settling down in front of the tele, week in week out, and watching the closely contested NRL.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Thanks Xman,

Def positive results and signs there for AFL and tv. Unfortunately though the sheer numbers of viewers on television clearly contradicts this morgan poll. As you highlighted before the morgan polls you're presenting ask a very "simple" question. Ask a simple question and you get a simple answer I'm afraid. More individuals may have watched a game or two of the AFL comp but as is consistent with raiderdaves comments and indeed the actual numbers watching both sports week in week out (more viewers watching RL), you'd have to say those individuals in the morgan poll who've said they watch marngrook on the tele have watched a game and get bored and dont watch again. The numbers dont lie Xman, the RL watchers must be watching week in week out. The NRL comp is closely fought out with no hint of tanking and nowhere near the number of blowouts in the AFL comp. All these facts add up and present a pretty strong argument which provides reason as to why the "simple" morgan poll is really not a good indicator of interest and consistent support in viewing matches on tv.

As i said before, more australian families are settling down in front of the tele, week in week out, and watching the closely contested NRL.

you've been owned at every turn!!!!!!

Now on with the desperate "but but buts"

No I'm on with the sheer numbers of viewers recorded as a much more valid indicator of viewer support.

King-Eliagh wrote:

No I'm on with the sheer numbers of viewers recorded as a much more valid indicator of viewer support.

So the fact they have more games, more live games, more viewable games, rep games and shorter games is not relevant?

The poll results see through these disparities to reveal the true winner.

The poll is as you stated it to be Xman. "Simple". Those who have a little more depth of wisdom and knowledge know this is not the full picture. More games yes. It means more viewers, yes indeedy! Rep games? Yes! It means more viewers, my fukkin oath it does because its a brilliant concept used by the vast majority of pro sporting comps worldwide.

Chew those sour grapes elsewhere Xman, i'm sick of imagining your twisted noggin all confused and angry about the fact that more families are sitting down and watching RL year in year out, weekend in, weekend out

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

No I'm on with the sheer numbers of viewers recorded as a much more valid indicator of viewer support.

So the fact they have more games, more live games, more viewable games, rep games and shorter games is not relevant?

The poll results see through these disparities to reveal the true winner.

The fact that the Super bowl gets billions for a 10sec. add has sweet FA do do with the length of the game & everything to do with its popularity. Without including regional viewers, our numbers are pretty close, on an apples V apples and Oranges V's Oranges basis we are actuall slightly ahead. But when you include test & Origin football there no longer even a contest. Adds during major sporting events is wear the real money from advertising is & its here that we swamp you.

What brain dead moron would advertise during a Swans game, even if it went thee weeks?

King-Eliagh wrote:

The poll is as you stated it to be Xman. "Simple". Those who have a little more depth of wisdom and knowledge know this is not the full picture. More games yes. It means more viewers, yes indeedy! Rep games? Yes! It means more viewers, my fukkin oath it does because its a brilliant concept used by the vast majority of pro sporting comps worldwide.

Chew those sour grapes elsewhere Xman, i'm sick of imagining your twisted noggin all confused and angry about the fact that more families are sitting down and watching RL year in year out, weekend in, weekend out

King, Xman knows that in 6 years time with coverage across Aus, RL will pull even further ahead on the ratings battle and will barter a bigger TV deal also.

I can see ratings across SOO, Tests, Four Nations all going up substantially now that all states get televised rugby league games at a decent hour every week.

The fact that the AFL can only add 24 rounds of AFL and nab cup games tells me that they don't have to many more options to add to the ratings pie

NRL can add 26 rounds of league, SOO, Tests, Four Nations, RLWC every 4 years, indigenous All Star vs NRL Allstars, WClubChallenge every year. With all these platforms having heaps of room to grow now that Tassie, Melbourne, Perth, SA are all watching league every week.

I mean fancy that not being able to represent your country in your chosen sport.

I mean i am not a sports nerd but AFL would have to be one of the only sports were you cant rep your nation. Just fail.

Thanks eels I agree, multitiered levels of RL will be something which pulls viewers and the market RL's way. But i have to disagree with your comment about not representing your nation. Victorian rules football has the international cup and I once represented the netherlands in a match against some frenchies so, well, im an international in that sport. I have to be honest though the level of quality is generally about that of the over 40's fatties running round in aus. And if you're australian, well there's no international team for you to aspire to. Amazing eh...especially for a sport innapropriately but mostly called Aussie rules. What a contradiction of terms!