Talking Footy

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:16 pm

pussycat wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:46 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:31 pm

All im doing is asking for the evidence you have to make your claim. Why is that unreasonable? All the claims ive made about the one v one games are there for all to see

I assume your talking about the head to head ratings?

Last time that Wookie posted the rating figures was in NRL round 20(Page 44). At the Stage the AFL were in front by 2.6m. In round 21 we will say you took that lead to 3m. We had 4 FTA for the next 5 weeks. pegging back the lead to, say 2.5 million. In the NRL final round, there only opposition was the old men and a women's game. The AFL got 1.5m and the NRL got 4.5 .A difference of 3m.
Meaning the AFL are Half a million behind with just the final series and two Irish games to go the AFL can not possibly win . Meaning they've lost the rating yet again.

Better luck next year..............

Yet Wookie is the first to admit he hasnt got ratings from all sources eg AFL regionals. How you can then make a conclusion about totals is beyond me. What we do know is the AFL has easily won the direct comparisons, and continues to do so in these finals

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

Terry wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

Geez what a stupid post!! The raw numbers prove how many people watch each code yearly. RL regularly wins with or without the Warriors home ratings - that's what it proves.

You only rant on and on and on and on about scheduling because the Australian Fumbling League doesn't win.

Grow up child!!!!!

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:43 pm

It's absolute panic stations over on LU!! Multiple posters claim OZTAM have been influenced by the AFL to fudge ratings which show the AFL smashing the NRL game after game. Given ratings determine income for channels and programs this would be a massive case of fraud by OZTAM if true. Theyre off their rockers (more than usual).

It's hilarious

pussycat wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:46 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

But but but

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:43 pm

It's absolute panic stations over on LU!! Multiple posters claim OZTAM have been influenced by the AFL to fudge ratings which show the AFL smashing the NRL game after game. Given ratings determine income for channels and programs this would be a massive case of fraud by OZTAM if true. Theyre off their rockers (more than usual).

It's hilarious

Terry wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:57 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:43 pm

It's absolute panic stations over on LU!! Multiple posters claim OZTAM have been influenced by the AFL to fudge ratings which show the AFL smashing the NRL game after game. Given ratings determine income for channels and programs this would be a massive case of fraud by OZTAM if true. Theyre off their rockers (more than usual).

It's hilarious

You're the bloke that's hilarious pal. You troll round RL sites - haven't you got a life?? Lolololololololololoolol. I never look at LU. Didn't even know it existed until fumblers here started talking about it Lolololololololololol. Let alone get onto any fumbling sites - I've got a life!!!!!

Ahhhhh the life of the fumbling zealot Lolololololololololooolololol. It's a fulltime job hahahahahaha.

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Terry wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

Geez what a stupid post!! The raw numbers prove how many people watch each code yearly. RL regularly wins with or without the Warriors home ratings - that's what it proves.

You only rant on and on and on and on about scheduling because the Australian Fumbling League doesn't win.

Grow up child!!!!!

in reality totals are influenced primarily by the number of times a program is shown. If you total up ratings for the news they reach nearly 7mil per week for ch7. Compare that to the block, which only shows twice a week, and the news looks more popular. Yet the block may get more viewers per episode. Which is more popular? The higher tally or higher individual rating?

pussycat wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:20 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Terry wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 pm

Geez what a stupid post!! The raw numbers prove how many people watch each code yearly. RL regularly wins with or without the Warriors home ratings - that's what it proves.

You only rant on and on and on and on about scheduling because the Australian Fumbling League doesn't win.

Grow up child!!!!!

in reality totals are influenced primarily by the number of times a program is shown. If you total up ratings for the news they reach nearly 7mil per week for ch7. Compare that to the block, which only shows twice a week, and the news looks more popular. Yet the block may get more viewers per episode. Which is more popular? The higher tally or higher individual rating?

???????????????????????? You've really out done yourself this time LOL. What type of lame aars excuse is that?. I've got know idea what your latest excuse is about. the news???? the block?????????????? the NrL have ratings for 7.5 matches the AFL 9 . Each match is shown just once.

Are you batting for the NRL now?

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:39 pm

Terry wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:25 pm

NlolRL wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:39 pm

you expect me to believe your figures based on estimates? LOL

Even if wookie magically found every ratings figure, yearly totals are basically meaningless anyway given the massive difference in TV scheduling. Tell me, what do they even prove?

Geez what a stupid post!! The raw numbers prove how many people watch each code yearly. RL regularly wins with or without the Warriors home ratings - that's what it proves.

You only rant on and on and on and on about scheduling because the Australian Fumbling League doesn't win.

Grow up child!!!!!

in reality totals are influenced primarily by the number of times a program is shown. If you total up ratings for the news they reach nearly 7mil per week for ch7. Compare that to the block, which only shows twice a week, and the news looks more popular. Yet the block may get more viewers per episode. Which is more popular? The higher tally or higher individual rating?