NRL v AFL.. are people serious?

[gaelictiogar]

This week in Sydney, the biggest crowd to any preliminary final (and there are 3) will be to an AFL game, despite the AFL costing roughly double per ticket.

Imagine the opposite (NRL final out drawing AFL anywhere else) ?

NRL fans talk of ratings, but that are rubbery, manipulated, and highly subjective figures which cant be proved to any degree of accuracy.

The only concrete figures we have are crowd figures, and TV rights value.

Grayham the network people negotiating the deals know all about manipulation of ratings and the dark arts of making ten seem like a dozen.

Question: Which did they pay most for?

Answer: The most wtched one of course. In TV ratings like for like comparison will see AFL ahead 90% of the time for the simple reason that it has more support.

I'll look forward with interest to the spin the forum leaguers put on the Swans outdrawing the two league games if it happens - indeed even if it doesn't they will draw more money through the gate. Imagine say Richmond VS Adelaide and Essendon VS Brisbane in PFs at the "G"being outdrawn by Storm VS Newcastle knights on the ame weekend charging more per ticket at the "G" in Melbourne !!!! Riciculous as it sounds that is the equivalent.

Absolutely no comparison.

 

[Refried Noodle]

A handful of people? Nice try.

I'm still waiting on that Domino's survey link being fixed. I think all surveys are bulls**t until I find out the survey methods. Sweeney is irrelevant to all of Australia, but relevant in Capital cities. Roy Morgan seems credible, but the survey technique favours Swans/Lions/Broncos/Storm cos they are one team towns.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Again, you are using 5 city numbers.

Over 1m people watched the NRL GF in the regionals. Go and look up the table in my previous posts.

There's always an excuse Ronin isn't there?

regionals, fixturing, traffic, scheduling, culture, media bias, sightlines in stadium etc etc ad infinitum. Its never just what it seems is it - AFL comfortably ahead.

Even including your million that means the NRL GF EVERYWHERE drew marginally more than AFL in cities only. Do you suppose no one in regionals watched the AFL GF?

The simple truth is the AFL GF draws more annually than the NRL GF on any serious like for like analysis. Do you accept this? Do you accept that the are non metropolitan regions in which people actually watch the most popular code in the nation?

 

[Ronin]

Even including your million that means the NRL GF EVERYWHERE drew marginally more than AFL in cities only. Do you suppose no one in regionals watched the AFL GF?

Did I say that? Of course when you add in the regionals in AFL areas, they should draw a larger audience. You are making out that it is a huge difference, but it is closer than you think.

How about you answer one for a change.

Can explain how a sport is rated #1, when it has not had a program that has cracked the top 50 programs on FTA in more than half the nation, including numbers like 25,000, 61,000 and 68,000 for finals matches?

While you are at it, why don't you tell us how many people watched the GF in Sydney in 2004 vs 2005?

 

[Dan26]

Can explain how a sport is rated #1, when it has not had a program that has cracked the top 50 programs on FTA in more than half the nation, including numbers like 25,000, 61,000 and 68,000 for finals matches?

While you are at it, why don't you tell us how many people watched the GF in Sydney in 2004 vs 2005?

What are you trying to say?

Are you implying that the AFL is NOT number one? Is that what you are trying to say?

It's not about the top 50 programs. It's about total average audiences per game in ALL markets, and the AFL doubles the NRL's weekly figures each and every round. It's easy to manipulate figures by only including programs in the top 50 (and ONLY in NSW and Qld at that), and not loooking at the bigger picture i.e not looking at the total cumulative audience for every game across the entire country in all markets.

Seriously, havn't I warned you NOT to use stats to interpret in way to suit the NRL? I've already told you not to do that.

I don't get what you are implying? It seems you are implying that the AFL is not number one... but we all know that it is. In virtually every measurable category it is number one. We all know it is not number one in NSW and Qld. No one is saying it is. But Australia wide it is number one, and there is nothing to counter that argument.

What exactly are you arguing?

And as for the Sydney 2004 GF rating, ONCE AGAIN this is not an apples vs apples comparison. Firstly the Swans were not involved, and the match was played on a Saturday afternoon (it rated in the 300,000's in Sydney in 2004)

Does anyone doubt that if the AFL Grand Final was played on a Sunday evening in prime time with no sporting competition (just like the NRL Grand Final is) that it would rate similar to what the NRL GF does in Melbourne (which was 400,000's in 2004 and 500,000 last year in prime time.)

The last NRL Grand Final in day time was in 2000 and it was Brisbane vs the Roosters and it failed to get a 2 million audience, hence the successful move to Sunday night. I've looked everywhere for a link to the figures, but I can't find one, but I know what the rating was because I remember reading how the NRL GF rated over 600,000 in Melbourne in 1999 during the day, and without the Storm, it went down to 200,000's approx in 2000, with the total audience not even getting 2 million (the game in 2000 wasn't sold out, either I might add.) These figures were in Inside Sport, back in 2000, but for some reason you can't get TV ratings in the internet before 2001.

So a better apples vs apples example is to compare what the NRL GF rated in Melbourne during the day without the Storm, rather than comparing the non-Swans AFL Grand Final to a prime time NRL Grand Final.

One thing is for sure though - if the Broncos play the Storm in this years NRL Grand Final, it will most likely be the highest rating GF of the two codes. Perhaps ever.

 

[ant78]

I think to anyone it is clear that AFL holds a lead over NRL in overall popularity, I think perhaps what is at most dispute is how big or small that lead is.

Personally I think when you take all facts into consideration the lead is probably only small. What is clear is that AFL is perhaps stronger in its heartlands than NRL is in its own. The AFL has made stronger gains in sydney and brisbane, than NRL has done in Melbourne, you could add that AFL has been there for about an extra 15 years.

I think when you do analyse, it clearly the NRL's popularity must be close to the AFL's simply because NSW and QLD hold the majority of the country's population. There are over 11 million of the nation's population live in league dominated areas. While just over 9 million live in the AFL strongholds. Yes AFL has a foothold in those states but it is not strong, and what is clear it is totally related to the lions and swans.

If you look at the biggest picture which is TV, ratings show the both sydney and brisbane show very little interest in AFL unless their teams are involved. The AFL GF figures in sydney tripled last year with the swans in the final. While the figures for the GF dropped 30% in brisbane, based on other finals figures it may drop again this year in brisbane.
So has AFL taken hold, well not really, when they win do the swans and lions take hold, well yes they do.
Not suprisingly the AFL have a smart program which works to make sure that the swans and lions and competitive, by providing subsidies etc. The NRL would be wise to prop up the storm in a similar way, because success can build your base.

I guess while on TV, i think its is foolish for anyone to dismiss regional figures if we are looking for overall popularity. The OZtam city figures actually survey more people in the AFL strongholds than the NRL strongholds, its only about 100000 more but when you consider 2 million more people in NRL states its not an accurate figure to measure nationwide popularity. There are another 2 million afl states people not measured, but an extra 4 million from league states. You can't leave 6 million people or just under a third of the country out when looking at overall popularity, some on this site seem to think you can.
I tend to think that if you had accurate tv figures nationwide, you would see quite an even balance, with nrl or afl taking the lead based on which teams are prominant (ie swans, lions help afl, storm help nrl).

Crowds is where afl has the edge. I don't think lions or swans crowds are particularly relevent in this debate. It is when you compate syd nrl to melb afl, clearly afl leads the way and this heartland crowd dominance is currently what puts afl in the lead.

One thing I would say is that afl has a nice situation when it comes to crowds, when the 9 melb (geelong not counted) teams play each other there is no such thing as a home game. Each game played between melb teams is a double home game. All games are played at 2 central venues. Average crowds have increased for the teams that formerly played at suburban grounds. 84% of crowds over 35000 in melb are played between 2 melb teams. It is a great set up, not saying there is anything wrong with it at all, or that it makes afl crowds bigger than nrl crowds, they'd be bigger anyway. But it does help a lot. It is also impossible to say how popular some melb afl clubs are, but clearly the likes of collingwood, essendon, st kilda, richmond are st kilda are the bigger crowd guns.

So who is more popular well, TV wise probably pretty much the same I think. But crowds and afl fans willingness to go to the game in the strongholds tips afl over the edge, but not far in front.

Just on TV contract, yes AFL got a lot more, but it was only because chan 9 screwed the other networks, Kerry's last stand. He either got the rights or screwed the rest, because every TV analyst have projected large losses on the contracts. As stated above there is no way a game that is only marginally more popular is worth that much more, I know some will jump and done and say told you so, but like I said every analyst said after the deal it was commercially unsound. But afl is a valuable product, 7 and 10 needed something, and had to pay the money. Look for there to be no increase or possibly a decrease next time round with no packer about.

But afl on top just.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Did I say that? Of course when you add in the regionals in AFL areas, they should draw a larger audience. You are making out that it is a huge difference, but it is closer than you think.

How about you answer one for a change.

Can explain how a sport is rated #1, when it has not had a program that has cracked the top 50 programs on FTA in more than half the nation, including numbers like 25,000, 61,000 and 68,000 for finals matches?

While you are at it, why don't you tell us how many people watched the GF in Sydney in 2004 vs 2005?

To be honest ron i don't know. I don't have to find little pieces of evidence to prove AFL is a bigger draw than League since like everyone else i KNOW it is bigger.

No offence Ron but if the GF in Sydney didn't outdraw the NRL GF in Melbourne then it was simply a fluke and I'm sure it did in fact outdraw.

Your more than half the nation thing is a bit of a spin. Your Prelims are dwarfed this weekend in your own backyard Ron. This is enough evidence that AFL is closer to League in Sydney than League is to AFL in Melbourne.

League IS No.1 in Sydney but by far the biggest sports club is the marquee draw this weekend while the league clubs struggle to shift their low priced tickets. The Crown in Adelaide, Thge Weagles in Perth, the Pies in Melbourne would NEVER struggle against a League game. NEVER. It COULD not happen. Whereas Swans are a money magnet this weekend as ppl vote with their feet and their dollars. The gap between the 2 sports in much larger in AFL areas.

Honestly Ron this is a simple fact.

AFL in NSW >NRL in Vic.

 

[littleduck]

Even including your million that means the NRL GF EVERYWHERE drew marginally more than AFL in cities only. Do you suppose no one in regionals watched the AFL GF?

Of course they would, but the population of AFL regionals is miniscule compared to the population of RL regionals. The fact is RL embraces this nations most highly populated regional teams and there many fans deserve to be counted.

The simple truth is the AFL GF draws more annually than the NRL GF on any serious like for like analysis.

The reality is the code with the higher Grand Final ratings is too hard to predict and depends on participating teams, because both codes are national games with teams from a wide variety of cities/regions. Therefore it changes from year to year.

Do you accept this? Do you accept that the are non metropolitan regions in which people actually watch the most popular code in the nation?

Nobody suggests otherwise, but do you accept RL regionals are significant in the scheme of things for RL while AFL regionals are tiny compared to the metropolitan capitals.

 

[littleduck]

It's about total average audiences per game in ALL markets...

No it's not!!! You characterise the battleground as all markets nationally, but the reality is West Aust and South Aust arent battlegrounds at all are they?

It's easy to manipulate figures by only including programs in the top 50 (and ONLY in NSW and Qld at that), and not loooking at the bigger picture i.e not looking at the total cumulative audience for every game across the entire country in all markets.

When will you realise that the battleground isnt nationally bcoz SA and WA arent battlegrounds.

Seriously, havn't I warned you NOT to use stats to interpret in way to suit the NRL? I've already told you not to do that.

Your doing the exact same thing in reverse by demanding that SA and WA be included in code comparisons.

One thing is for sure though - if the Broncos play the Storm in this years NRL Grand Final, it will most likely be the highest rating GF of the two codes. Perhaps ever.

Exactly, but GF audiences depend on participating teams and its therefore too close to call between NRL and AFL on an annual basis until the week before.

 

[littleduck]

I think to anyone it is clear that AFL holds a lead over NRL in overall popularity, I think perhaps what is at most dispute is how big or small that lead is.

Personally I think when you take all facts into consideration the lead is probably only small. What is clear is that AFL is perhaps stronger in its heartlands than NRL is in its own. The AFL has made stronger gains in sydney and brisbane, than NRL has done in Melbourne, you could add that AFL has been there for about an extra 15 years.

I think when you do analyse, it clearly the NRL's popularity must be close to the AFL's simply because NSW and QLD hold the majority of the country's population. There are over 11 million of the nation's population live in league dominated areas. While just over 9 million live in the AFL strongholds. Yes AFL has a foothold in those states but it is not strong, and what is clear it is totally related to the lions and swans.

If you look at the biggest picture which is TV, ratings show the both sydney and brisbane show very little interest in AFL unless their teams are involved. The AFL GF figures in sydney tripled last year with the swans in the final. While the figures for the GF dropped 30% in brisbane, based on other finals figures it may drop again this year in brisbane.
So has AFL taken hold, well not really, when they win do the swans and lions take hold, well yes they do.
Not suprisingly the AFL have a smart program which works to make sure that the swans and lions and competitive, by providing subsidies etc. The NRL would be wise to prop up the storm in a similar way, because success can build your base.

I guess while on TV, i think its is foolish for anyone to dismiss regional figures if we are looking for overall popularity. The OZtam city figures actually survey more people in the AFL strongholds than the NRL strongholds, its only about 100000 more but when you consider 2 million more people in NRL states its not an accurate figure to measure nationwide popularity. There are another 2 million afl states people not measured, but an extra 4 million from league states. You can't leave 6 million people or just under a third of the country out when looking at overall popularity, some on this site seem to think you can.
I tend to think that if you had accurate tv figures nationwide, you would see quite an even balance, with nrl or afl taking the lead based on which teams are prominant (ie swans, lions help afl, storm help nrl).

Crowds is where afl has the edge. I don't think lions or swans crowds are particularly relevent in this debate. It is when you compate syd nrl to melb afl, clearly afl leads the way and this heartland crowd dominance is currently what puts afl in the lead.

One thing I would say is that afl has a nice situation when it comes to crowds, when the 9 melb (geelong not counted) teams play each other there is no such thing as a home game. Each game played between melb teams is a double home game. All games are played at 2 central venues. Average crowds have increased for the teams that formerly played at suburban grounds. 84% of crowds over 35000 in melb are played between 2 melb teams. It is a great set up, not saying there is anything wrong with it at all, or that it makes afl crowds bigger than nrl crowds, they'd be bigger anyway. But it does help a lot. It is also impossible to say how popular some melb afl clubs are, but clearly the likes of collingwood, essendon, st kilda, richmond are st kilda are the bigger crowd guns.

So who is more popular well, TV wise probably pretty much the same I think. But crowds and afl fans willingness to go to the game in the strongholds tips afl over the edge, but not far in front.

Just on TV contract, yes AFL got a lot more, but it was only because chan 9 screwed the other networks, Kerry's last stand. He either got the rights or screwed the rest, because every TV analyst have projected large losses on the contracts. As stated above there is no way a game that is only marginally more popular is worth that much more, I know some will jump and done and say told you so, but like I said every analyst said after the deal it was commercially unsound. But afl is a valuable product, 7 and 10 needed something, and had to pay the money. Look for there to be no increase or possibly a decrease next time round with no packer about.

But afl on top just.

Fair comments, but remember its no longer a close run race as it was in the early 90's. AFL has a clear and unambiguous lead over NRL, but you're right, the margin isnt as big as tv rights money suggests and what BF cronies say it is. Further, the gap in favour of AFL and the current sporting environment means RL will never again challenge AFL for national dominance.

 

[fishmonger]

Fair comments, but remember its no longer a close run race as it was in the early 90's. AFL has a clear and unambiguous lead over NRL, but you're right, the margin isnt as big as tv rights money suggests and what BF cronies say it is. Further, the gap in favour of AFL and the current sporting environment means RL will never again challenge AFL for national dominance.

I agree with this.

But from what I gather, many rugby league fans don't follow the Storm because they represent News Limited who all but destroyed what used to be a healthy Sydney based competition.

Now News Limited try to unsuccessfully push their product through every media channel known to man.

I feel sorry for the rugby league guys that their game has become over corporatised, and fear the AFL is heading in the same direction.

Those that scratch the surface soon realise that:

NRL = Newscorporation Rugby League

 

[grayham]

Imagine say Richmond VS Adelaide and Essendon VS Brisbane in PFs at the "G"being outdrawn by Storm VS Newcastle knights on the ame weekend charging more per ticket at the "G" in Melbourne !!!! Riciculous as it sounds that is the equivalent.

Absolutely no comparison.

Its worse than that. Sydney v Freo would be equivalent to the Storm v Nth Queensland. Freo (like NQ) arent bringing many fans to the game.
At least a few Newcastle people would toddle down the highway.

 

[Beckers]

Fair comments, but remember its no longer a close run race as it was in the early 90's. AFL has a clear and unambiguous lead over NRL, but you're right, the margin isnt as big as tv rights money suggests and what BF cronies say it is. Further, the gap in favour of AFL and the current sporting environment means RL will never again challenge AFL for national dominance.

Got you LD, everyone, book mark this post! LD has actally stated an 'AFL is bigger' fact with no spin whatsoever
Congratulations ant78, we have been waiting a long time for someone to get the upper hand and make LD see the light

 

[littleduck]

Got you LD, everyone, book mark this post! LD has actally stated an 'AFL is bigger' fact with no spin whatsoever
Congratulations ant78, we have been waiting a long time for someone to get the upper hand and make LD see the light

I've been saying that since day 1 of my BigFooty career...

 

[Ronin]

I agree with this.

But from what I gather, many rugby league fans don't follow the Storm because they represent News Limited who all but destroyed what used to be a healthy Sydney based competition.

Now News Limited try to unsuccessfully push their product through every media channel known to man.

I feel sorry for the rugby league guys that their game has become over corporatised, and fear the AFL is heading in the same direction.

Those that scratch the surface soon realise that:

NRL = Newscorporation Rugby League

Can't argue with that.

 

[Beckers]

I've been saying that since day 1 of my BigFooty career...

...generally while beating around the bush talking the AFL down and NRL up!

 

[Ronin]

...generally while beating around the bush talking the AFL down and NRL up!

More like debunking the death of League.

 

[grayham]

Can't argue with that.

Is it true that 3 of the top 4 teams in the NRL are News Ltd owned and financed ?

Seems dodgy.

 

[littleduck]

...generally while beating around the bush talking the AFL down and NRL up!

It's called providing balance..

 

[littleduck]

Is it true that 3 of the top 4 teams in the NRL are News Ltd owned and financed ?

Seems dodgy.

The ARL/SL agreement way back in 1998 means that News Ltd have to work towards owning just 1 club. At present, they still own most of 4 clubs. The 1 club they will be keeping is Brisbane.

 

[Dan26]

No it's not!!! You characterise the battleground as all markets nationally, but the reality is West Aust and South Aust arent battlegrounds at all are they?

When will you realise that the battleground isnt nationally bcoz SA and WA arent battlegrounds.

Your doing the exact same thing in reverse by demanding that SA and WA be included in code comparisons.

Exactly, but GF audiences depend on participating teams and its therefore too close to call between NRL and AFL on an annual basis until the week before.

These comments by you are from a response by me to Ronin stating that the AFL is the biggest competition. Given that TV is one of the way to measure the size, and importance of a code, I stated that Rugby league people shouldn't be manipulating figures to suit their own agenda. They need to look at the total, cumulative audience for ALL game in ALL markets, rather than just isolating certain games to make the NRL look good.

Now for some insane, crazy reason, you came up with this : "When will you realise that the battleground isnt nationally bcoz SA and WA arent battlegrounds."

One of the reasons why the AFL is bigger is because it has teams in WA and SA and the NRL doesn't. You can't just ignore WA and SA and pretend they are not there, because it makes the NRL look bad by "including them."

If the NRL don't wish to compete in those markets, that's their problem. The reality is that those markets exist, the AFL has those markets with virtually no competition and that fact is one of the reasons (among many) why the AFL is the number one league in the country.

Also, the only reason the audiences for the NRL Grand Final and AFL Grand Final are too close to call, is because the NRL has its match in prime time. The last daytime Grand Final in 2000 rated less than 2 million nationally and only about 200,000 in Melbourne (the year before with the Storm it rated over 600,000 in Melbourne.)

When the Swans are not involved, the AFL Grand Final usually rates about 350,000 (give or take.) Given that the NRL Grand Final (with no Storm) has risen from the 200,000 in the daytime to over 500,000 last year in Melbourne prime time, it is obvious that the Sydney AFL Grand Final figure would rate well over 500,000 in Sydney if it was in prime time (with no Swans) and probably close to 600,000, provided there was no RL competition.

As usual, the NRL vs AFL debate is not an apples vs apples comaprison. It never is. The NRL poeple ALWAYS manipulate the figures to suit their own agenda and comparing a prime time Grand Final to a daytime one, is another in a long line of examples of this. It never ends. It never bloody ends.

 

[littleduck]

These comments by you are from a response by me to Ronin stating that the AFL is the biggest competition. Given that TV is one of the way to measure the size, and importance of a code, I stated that Rugby league people shouldn't be manipulating figures to suit their own agenda. They need to look at the total, cumulative audience for ALL game in ALL markets, rather than just isolating certain games to make the NRL look good.

Now for some insane, crazy reason, you came up with this : "When will you realise that the battleground isnt nationally bcoz SA and WA arent battlegrounds."

One of the reasons why the AFL is bigger is because it has teams in WA and SA and the NRL doesn't. You can't just ignore WA and SA and pretend they are not there, because it makes the NRL look bad by "including them."

SA and WA are as relevant as NZ... neither are head2head battlegrounds between the codes.

If the NRL don't wish to compete in those markets, that's their problem. The reality is that those markets exist, the AFL has those markets with virtually no competition and that fact is one of the reasons (among many) why the AFL is the number one league in the country.

Exactly right.

Also, the only reason the audiences for the NRL Grand Final and AFL Grand Final are too close to call, is because the NRL has its match in prime time. The last daytime Grand Final in 2000 rated less than 2 million nationally and only about 200,000 in Melbourne (the year before with the Storm it rated over 600,000 in Melbourne.)

False. It's because the size of the Grand Final audience depends heavily on participating teams and therefore its always unpredictable as to which code will have the higher rating GF in any one year. Whether it's a day or night game is irrelevant compared to the major factor: the competing teams.

ps. Personally, I want the tradition of a day GF back!

When the Swans are not involved, the AFL Grand Final usually rates about 350,000 (give or take.) Given that the NRL Grand Final (with no Storm) has risen from the 200,000 in the daytime to over 500,000 last year in Melbourne prime time, it is obvious that the Sydney AFL Grand Final figure would rate well over 500,000 in Sydney if it was in prime time (with no Swans) and probably close to 600,000, provided there was no RL competition.

You're probably right that a non-Swans GF in Sydney would probably rate a little higher at night, but you have to agree the major factor remains the location of participating GF teams in predicting which code will have the higher rating GF in any given year.

As usual, the NRL vs AFL debate is not an apples vs apples comaprison. It never is.

Surely attempting an apples v apples comparison means excluding NZ SA WA in any comparison bcoz they arent battlegrounds. Surely an apples v apples comparison is confining comparisons to the head2head battleground. Surely?

The NRL poeple ALWAYS manipulate the figures to suit their own agenda and comparing a prime time Grand Final to a daytime one, is another in a long line of examples of this. It never ends. It never bloody ends.

Day/Night isnt the major reason as I said.... it's more to do with participating GF teams.... surely you would agree?

 

[Hornet]

SA and WA are as relevant as NZ... neither are head2head battlegrounds between the codes.

AFL has never established a team in NZ whereas League has tried (pardon the pun) in Adelaide and Perth . . . and failed.

 

[littleduck]

AFL has never established a team in NZ whereas League has tried (pardon the pun) in Adelaide and Perth . . . and failed.

Yeah, it use to be a battleground but no longer.

 

[Dan26]

SA and WA are as relevant as NZ... neither are head2head battlegrounds between the codes.

Look, we are talking about what is Australia's biggest code. The fact that the AFL has a major presence in WA and SA and the NRL doesn't is one of many reason why it's the biggest.

The fact that WA and SA is not a head2head battleground is totally and utterly irrelevant. WA and SA are still part of Australia.

You can't just "not include the parts of Australia that make the NRL look bad"

Jesus, havn't I already warned NRL people about mainpulating stats and being selective about what the include (and exclude) just to suit their code.

False. It's because the size of the Grand Final audience depends heavily on participating teams and therefore its always unpredictable as to which code will have the higher rating GF in any one year. Whether it's a day or night game is irrelevant compared to the major factor: the competing teams.

Of course it depends on participating teams. It also depends on the timeslot of the Grand Final. The NRL Grand Final has rated higher than it did during the day even though the last day Grand Final included the Bronocs (the biggest team) in 2000. That tells you something.

You're probably right that a non-Swans GF in Sydney would probably rate a little higher at night, but you have to agree the major factor remains the location of participating GF teams in predicting which code will have the higher rating GF in any given year.

Timeslot is a massive factor. Last years NRL GF rated 800,000 in Brisbane. There is no way it would get that during the day.

Look at the difference of the Melbourne figures (200,000's during the day in 2000. I havn't got the exact figure sorry, but I remember reading it in Inside Sport a few years ago.) Last year during prime time it rated over 500,000!

No doubt if the Storm are in the GF, it will rate around a million in Melbourne. In 1999, during the day, the Storm rated in the 600,000's (The Swans during the day, rate 1,000,000 in Sydney if they are in it.)

Timeslot is a massive factor. Massive.