Talking Footy

NlolRL wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:22 pm

pussycat wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:24 pm

Your mob goes on and on about games shown in isolation all the time. When games are shown head to head you have 40 or 50m shown in isolation . But we don't go on and on about it like you guys

Are you kidding? We talk about concurrent games for our own code, not yours against ours. FFS, your first 4 rounds are in isolation against NO sport!!

We've also discussed the tiny theoretical advantage we would have by playing our last 1.5 quarters against no NRL. Given it's mostly after 10pm, and NSW/QLD ratings for the AFL arent high, and it's only 1/3rd of of our telecast, the advantage would be stuff all

we don't need to make excuses for every little thing

see above Your excuse of the last 40 minutes is idiotic in the extreme

Rugby League not only has more viewers on TV than any othersport, they come from less matches

Simply untrue given none of your games cannibalise of another. If your game had more viewers you wouldnt have lost EVERY final, and 26 of 30 head to head games during the season.

It also has the two most watched matches nationally (4 of the top 6). As well as being worth more per minute than any other sport in this country

and we already know SOO rates well. The fact you pl;ay it 3 times is why you have 4 of the top 6. If you played it once like our GF's you'd have two of the top 6. If we played our GF 3 times we'd have 3 of the top 6. The '4 of the top 6' BS is pointless when we dominate the next top 20 games.

Firstly , your completely missing the point here. Its not AFL plus excuses verses Rugby League . Its AFL (singular) v Rugby League.

You've got excuses, who hasn't. Problem is you only want to deal with you own , and make out that there the reason League kicks your arse when it comes to ratings


Isolation but, but - are you Farcking crazy? On a Saturday's 70% of Rugby League viewers cant watch any football whatsoever. While all AFL viewers can watch a match in isolation and shown into there own market. what's more if you live in Adelaide, Perth, NSW or Qld you can usually watch one of a day aswell! You ignore facts like there are many duel viewers who change channels .


There are more Rugby League viewers deal with it and stop making excuses at every turn for your boring as bat shit game

pussycat wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:14 am

Firstly , your completely missing the point here. Its not AFL plus excuses verses Rugby League . Its AFL (singular) v Rugby League.

You've got excuses, who hasn't. Problem is you only want to deal with you own , and make out that there the reason League kicks your arse when it comes to ratings

I address all your excuses, and mine, so cut the crap. I'm also not contesting the NRL getting more cumulative ratings, I'm explaining it's not as simple as you guys make out.

Isolation but, but - are you Farcking crazy? On a Saturday's 70% of Rugby League viewers cant watch any football whatsoever. While all AFL viewers can watch a match in isolation and shown into there own market. what's more if you live in Adelaide, Perth, NSW or Qld you can usually watch one of a day aswell! You ignore facts like there are many duel viewers who change channels .

I used Saturday as an example. You can use any day. Having a longer telecast hurts ratings because people who are time poor may not watch an entire game. A shorter telecast is more likely to be watched completely. Dual viewers would make up such a small percentage they would be insignificant. It would be completely covered by your first round being shown against no sport.

There are more Rugby League viewers deal with it and stop making excuses at every turn for your boring as bat shit game

This claim flies in the face of the complete domination the AFL has over the NRL when games are shown head to head. Something you repeatedly ignore

The ratings that are put out by the various ratings agencies each day are the most accurate figures available and theres no blah blah about it.!

pussycat wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:58 am

The ratings that are put out by the various ratings agencies each day are the most accurate figures available and theres no blah blah about it.!

Im not disputing the ratings figures, Im disputing the claim that 120mil viewers for 2 hours is more watched than 110m viewers for 3 hours. Anyone with even the most basic maths can see the latter is viewed more

I asked this question earlier, and yet havent seen a response. Can someone show me a ratings authority that gives any value to yearly cumulative ratings?

Oh dear
Let's look at your fucked logic another way .
A fumble game gets a crowd of 60k ..
A RL game gets a crowd of 20k
That's the numbers.
You don't add on another 1/3 of the fumble crowd because the game goes 1/3 longer .
It's fucking absurd
To apply your logic( & it's anything but logic)
The AFL crowd should be 80k
It's bullshit
It's falsely inflating the numbers .
It's downright laughable .
Yet you can't see that .

AFLcrap1 wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:18 pm

Oh dear
Let's look at your fucked logic another way .
A fumble game gets a crowd of 60k ..
A RL game gets a crowd of 20k
That's the numbers.
You don't add on another 1/3 of the fumble crowd because the game goes 1/3 longer .
It's fucking absurd
To apply your logic( & it's anything but logic)
The AFL crowd should be 80k
It's bullshit
It's falsely inflating the numbers .
It's downright laughable .
Yet you can't see that .

fair point, although attendance and TV are very different so I dont think the same principle applies.
1. When you attend a game you tend to stay for its duration because it has cost you money and taken time to get there, where as people change channels or switch the TV off for many reasons with no wasted time or money
2. making the effort to attend a game means you've allocated the time and arranged your other affairs around it, where as catching 30 minutes of a game on TV is easy to do between other commitments.
3. A reasonable proportion of fans would watch multiple games per round on TV because of the convenience, where as only a small would attend multiple games because of the cost and overall time including travel to the game etc.

Eg: I have free time between 12pm and 6pm on Saturday so i can see 1 AFL game at the MCG. Yet I can watch 2 games on TV, 1 in Adelaide and 1 in Melbourne, during the same time. So the cumulative TV ratings escalate easily, but crowds do not

Fred wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:54 pm

Oh and I agree Rl win re cumulative. Just wondering why AFL wins when head to head. Someone said the AFL have 40 or so minutes where it isn’t up against nrl ... and nrl folk may turn over. Well there you go someone tried to explain. Nrol does not feel that is an factor but at least pussy? Put some reason or possible explanation forward.

I may have to hand this thing over to my PA for a few weeks. You may see some improvement lol. Less typos anyway. He’s an nrl supporter but not fanatical ... nice lad.

AFL generally win the head to head battles during finals time due to the fact
geographically have more teams involved, bringing in more markets>>

I do got to say> 2017 NRL finals was the most I have been disappointed in
the errors and sloppy football produce was well below average.
the Quality of games were poor>> very one sided.

leeroy*NRL* wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:47 am

Fred wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:54 pm

Oh and I agree Rl win re cumulative. Just wondering why AFL wins when head to head. Someone said the AFL have 40 or so minutes where it isn’t up against nrl ... and nrl folk may turn over. Well there you go someone tried to explain. Nrol does not feel that is an factor but at least pussy? Put some reason or possible explanation forward.

I may have to hand this thing over to my PA for a few weeks. You may see some improvement lol. Less typos anyway. He’s an nrl supporter but not fanatical ... nice lad.

AFL generally win the head to head battles during finals time due to the fact
geographically have more teams involved, bringing in more markets>>

I do got to say> 2017 NRL finals was the most I have been disappointed in
the errors and sloppy football produce was well below average.
the Quality of games were poor>> very one sided.

But but but
Rubbish
They win the head head battles nearly every time through out the season
The nrlol is shown in to nearly just as many markets as well also take in to the fact the population size of nsw and Qld compared to the rest of the states and territories

There is a reason why head to head in similar times the AFL wins easily


And but but but the nrlll games were one sided.
For all the crap the AFL gets for having one sided games that are blow outs!
Welcome to the club

NlolRL wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:10 pm

pussycat wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:58 am

The ratings that are put out by the various ratings agencies each day are the most accurate figures available and theres no blah blah about it.!

Im not disputing the ratings figures, Im disputing the claim that 120mil viewers for 2 hours is more watched than 110m viewers for 3 hours. Anyone with even the most basic maths can see the latter is viewed more

I asked this question earlier, and yet havent seen a response. Can someone show me a ratings authority that gives any value to yearly cumulative ratings?

Most viewed would mean viewed by the most people.

Yes
Normal people would see it like that
Southern fumblers live by some logic that doesn't apply to the real world

pussycat wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:05 am

NlolRL wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:10 pm

pussycat wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:58 am

The ratings that are put out by the various ratings agencies each day are the most accurate figures available and theres no blah blah about it.!

Im not disputing the ratings figures, Im disputing the claim that 120mil viewers for 2 hours is more watched than 110m viewers for 3 hours. Anyone with even the most basic maths can see the latter is viewed more

I asked this question earlier, and yet havent seen a response. Can someone show me a ratings authority that gives any value to yearly cumulative ratings?

Most viewed would mean viewed by the most people.

so you dont actually mean most viewed, you mean bigger TV audience.

Well in that case our head to head victory of 34 - 4 puts that one to bed well and truly

There was around 250 games LOL, we won more, attracted more viewers and got higher ratings.....What part of that do you have trouble understanding?

I just can't understand how he thinks
Ike that
It is bizarre

double post

Beaussie wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:27 am

post_hoc wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:40 am

How did it compare to the Socceroos game during the week? I'll wait

Smashed every other non Socceroos soccer game on Australian tv this year that’s for sure. Smashed!

Any comment on soccers declining tv ratings since leaving SBS?

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=6295

Comon would love to hear your analysis of soccer tv ratings this season.

But aren't we comparing international games? After all you are trying to compare international rules to Rugby League World Cup games, so i suggested the Socceroos game, you know INTERNATIONAL.

But alas I guess you either too dumb to realise tha, or you are so pathetic you need to move the goal posts when you are shown to have lost.

I remember playing cricket and football against kids like you when i was young, they'd start to lose throw a tantrum and want to change the rules. Appears the rest of us have grown up.