NRL v AFL.. are people serious?

[MarkT]

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.

Good post Dan. Nice to see some context and relativity put into your stats. The only apples v apples is bums on seats and TV network cheque books. They are objective measures of exactly what the codes seek and provide clear results.

 

[Ronin]

You are saying that it is not apples vs apples comparing GF's because one is on at night, but you are happy to include SA and WA, but not include NZ.

Who is manipulating the numbers again?

 

[littleduck]

Look, we are talking about what is Australia's biggest code.

No we aren't!!! AFL is undisputably the biggest overall nationally.

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.

True.

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

They are about as relevant as NZ. Lets start including NZ ratings and junior participation and interest in direct comparisons... hey?

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

Yes you can.. SA and WA are as relevant as North Korea, Iraq, south Africa, and Span in any direct comparison between AFL and NRL.

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.

Can't you see that you're being equally selective by arguing what to include rather than exclude?

Of course it depends on participating teams. It also depends on the timeslot of the Grand Final.

Just admit participating teams is the major factor...

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.

It only affects ratings on the fringe... the Brisbane audience for Broncos GFs will be similar providing if you want to watch it you will regardless when its on.

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.

Maybe not, but close to it...

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!

True. Great idea for a night GF in that sense. In saying that, I'm still dead against a night GF for the biggest day of the football year.

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.)

What about increased interest since 2000??

Timeslot is a massive factor. Massive.

But not as big as which teams are competing...

 

[littleduck]

You are saying that it is not apples vs apples comparing GF's because one is on at night, but you are happy to include SA and WA, but not include NZ.

Who is manipulating the numbers again?

Ironic isnt it...

 

[littleduck]

Good post Dan. Nice to see some context and relativity put into your stats. The only apples v apples is bums on seats and TV network cheque books. They are objective measures of exactly what the codes seek and provide clear results.

A-League Mark I got $1mil tv rights. AFL was getting $100 mil tv rights the same year. Was AFL 100 times more popular on every criteria?

 

[cos789]

.

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?

If you want to compare the codes then it might be valid to look at current "battlegrounds" as to real time developements , however unbalanced these "battlefields" maybe .You might want to consider that WA and SA are "battlefields" lost to RL .

But the question was which was bigger , AFL or NRL . So then it is obvious that WA and SA must be included as well as NZ otherwise the question would have been which is bigger , AR or RL in Australia .

.

 

[Dan26]

You are saying that it is not apples vs apples comparing GF's because one is on at night, but you are happy to include SA and WA, but not include NZ.

Who is manipulating the numbers again?

I'm not manipulating anything. We are taling about what is the biggest code in Australia, right. And WA and SA are part of this country last time I checked.

NZ is not part of Australia but if you want to include them, you have to take into account that Rugby league is very small in NZ compared to Union. League does not dominate NZ, like Aussie Rules dominates WA and SA. But why would we be including anything to do with NZ in an argument about "Australias biggest code," anyway?

 

[littleduck]

If you want to compare the codes then it might be valid to look at current "battlegrounds" as to real time developements , however unbalanced these "battlefields" maybe .

unbalanceD?

You might want to consider that WA and SA are "battlefields" lost to RL .

I agree. Many on the RL consider them both immediate expansion priorirites. I would classify them as distant future possibilities at best. I think we agree on the future of RL in WA and SA, dont we?

But the question was which was bigger , AFL or NRL . So then it is obvious that WA and SA must be included as well as NZ otherwise the question would have been which is bigger , AR or RL in Australia .

.

If your talking nationally within Australia it's obvious, AFL is bigger.
If you're talking world-wide it's obvious, RL is bigger.
If you're talking Australasia, RL is bigger once NZ and PNG are included.

Aren't they givens?

Doesn't the real debate involve the head2head battlegrounds?

 

[littleduck]

I'm not manipulating anything. We are taling about what is the biggest code in Australia, right. And WA and SA are part of this country last time I checked.

Your applying the classic spin doctoring technique of pretending to be sprouting the no-spin view by clinging to some notion that the debate is about which is code is bigger nationally. You sound like a dinosaur in this debate. AFL won that debate 10 years ago when it was a close run race in the early/mid 90s.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The time of day that a programme is shown is the biggest factor as to the ratings. The top rating show of the last 25 years has been Sixty Minutes. When does Channel 9 show it? 2.30 on a Saturday arvo or 7.30 on a Sunday night?

Three times as many people watch TV from 7pm-9pm compared with the afternoon. Click on this link to see the proof:

http://www.afc.gov.au/gtp/wftvviewtimeofday.html#Raa21967

Good luck to the NRL for putting their GF on in absolute prime time but they did it for a reason: to hugely increase their ratings and they have been successful.

 

[Dan26]

They are about as relevant as NZ. Lets start including NZ ratings and junior participation and interest in direct comparisons... hey?

See my post to Ronin above.

They are about as relevant as NZ. Lets start including NZ ratings and junior participation and interest in direct comparisons... hey?

Why is NZ relevant in an argument about AUSTRALIA'S biggest football codes? if you compare the leagues (NRL vs AFL) then you can count NZ, just as we can count WA and SA. The problem with that (form the NRL's point of view), is that RL has minimal presence in NZ, compared to Union, and Aussie Rules has massive presence in WA and SA, hence "counting NZ" doesn't really add much to the NRL.

Yes you can.. SA and WA are as relevant as North Korea, Iraq, south Africa, and Span in any direct comparison between AFL and NRL.

We are talking about the biggest code in Australia. Aussie Rules is bigger the RL in Australia, and WA and SA are part of Australia. If you're arguing that RL is bigger than Aussie Rules worldwide, then of course it is. if you want to include NZ, Great Britain, France etc, then go for it. RL is bigger than Aussie Rules worldwide. But in Australia it's not. Aussie Rules is the undisputed market leader in Australia, and WA and SA are part of this reason.

Just admit participating teams is the major factor...

It only affects ratings on the fringe... the Brisbane audience for Broncos GFs will be similar providing if you want to watch it you will regardless when its on.

Maybe not, but close to it...

True. Great idea for a night GF in that sense. In saying that, I'm still dead against a night GF for the biggest day of the football year.

What about increased interest since 2000??

But not as big as which teams are competing...

I admit participating teams are a factor, but so is timeslot. Storm rate 600,000 in Melbourne during the day in 1999, Swans rate 1,000,000 in Sydney during the day in 2005. That is apples vs apples. Storm will rate one million in Melbourne if they make it next Sunday but only the prime time slot will push it to this figure. The AFL gets one million with the Swans in Sydney during the day. Lord knows what it would get at night with no RL competition. 1.3? 1.4?

If you admit, that Aussie Rules is the market leader in this country, what exactly is it that you're arguing anyway?

 

[Dan26]

Your applying the classic spin doctoring technique of pretending to be sprouting the no-spin view by clinging to some notion that the debate is about which is code is bigger nationally. You sound like a dinosaur in this debate. AFL won that debate 10 years ago when it was a close run race in the early/mid 90s.

What, in the name of God are you on about?

 

[MarkT]

A-League Mark I got $1mil tv rights. AFL was getting $100 mil tv rights the same year. Was AFL 100 times more popular on every criteria?

Pointless question. Twice as popular doesn’t mean twice as expensive. It isn’t a linear progression. TV execs worked out which was more valuable and paid accordingly. People with entertainment dollars and time to spend make attendance decisions accordingly. These are objective and indisputable.

 

[littleduck]

See my post to Ronin above.




Why is NZ relevant in an argument about AUSTRALIA'S biggest football codes? if you compare the leagues (NRL vs AFL) then you can count NZ, just as we can count WA and SA. The problem with that (form the NRL's point of view), is that RL has minimal presence in NZ, compared to Union, and Aussie Rules has massive presence in WA and SA, hence "counting NZ" doesn't really add much to the NRL.



We are talking about the biggest code in Australia. Aussie Rules is bigger the RL in Australia, and WA and SA are part of Australia. If you're arguing that RL is bigger than Aussie Rules worldwide, then of course it is. if you want to include NZ, Great Britain, France etc, then go for it. RL is bigger than Aussie Rules worldwide. But in Australia it's not. Aussie Rules is the undisputed market leader in Australia, and WA and SA are part of this reason.



I admit participating teams are a factor, but so is timeslot. Storm rate 600,000 in Melbourne during the day in 1999, Swans rate 1,000,000 in Sydney during the day in 2005. That is apples vs apples. Storm will rate one million in Melbourne if they make it next Sunday but only the prime time slot will push it to this figure. The AFL gets one million with the Swans in Sydney during the day. Lord knows what it would get at night with no RL competition. 1.3? 1.4?

If you admit, that Aussie Rules is the market leader in this country, what exactly is it that you're arguing anyway?

Again, your mistaken as to the question we are debating... its not about the bigger code nationally. It's a dinosaur question that's been answered. Today, the key battleground is the East Coast, including NSW VIC QLD ACT. I would argue RL is #1 market leader overall across those markets; the markets in which RL and AFL go head to head. The debate is about the future of RL and AFL in these markets.

 

[littleduck]

Pointless question. Twice as popular doesn’t mean twice as expensive. It isn’t a linear progression. TV execs worked out which was more valuable and paid accordingly. People with entertainment dollars and time to spend make attendance decisions accordingly. These are objective and indisputable.

There are still critical variables... eg comparing MCG attendance on a Friday night when public transport and access is worlds best standard, against SFS attendance on a Friday night where public transport and access is nearing worlds worst standard.

 

[Dan26]

Again, your mistaken as to the question we are debating... its not about the bigger code nationally. It's a dinosaur question that's been answered. Today, the key battleground is the East Coast, including NSW VIC QLD ACT. I would argue RL is #1 market leader overall across those markets; the markets in which RL and AFL go head to head. The debate is about the future of RL and AFL in these markets.

I see. So you don't want to include WA and SA, just because the NRL has nearly zero popularity there, and has given up on those markets? Remembering, of course, that they did have teams there at one point.

So if you give up on a market, you don't count it? LOL

Jesus Christ, it never ends. Never bloody ends.

 

[littleduck]

I see. So you don't want to include WA and SA, just because the NRL has nearly zero popularity there, and has given up on those markets? Remembering, of course, that they did have teams there at one point.

So if you give up on a market, you don't count it? LOL

Jesus Christ, it never ends. Never bloody ends.

Exactly right..

 

[cos789]

What, in the name of God are you on about?

Classic LD technique of talking gibberish to distract people from the fact he's lost the argument (and maybe the plot) .

 

[littleduck]

Classic LD technique of talking gibberish to distract people from the fact he's lost the argument (and maybe the plot) .

Look, the debate isnt about whether or not I've lost the plot.. that debate was lost (by me) long ago..

 

[cos789]

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

No , but Australian Football was the dominent code there for a while early on .
As it's making a resurgence and is on NZ TV , it has to be included in LD's "battlefield ."

 

[Aucklander]

Look, the debate isnt about whether or not I've lost the plot.. that debate was lost (by me) long ago..

You've got these guys wrapped around your little finger. Well done.

 

[cos789]

comparing MCG attendance on a Friday night when public transport and access is worlds best standard, against SFS attendance on a Friday night where public transport and access is nearing worlds worst standard.

If you'd ever been to Sydney LD you'd realise you can walk from Sydney CBD to the SFS . I've never thought access was a problem at the SFS . Of course access to the SCG is surely the reason why those Sydney Swans games haven't been a total sellout for the last decade .

 

[Jack Bridge]

See my post to Ronin above.

Why is NZ relevant in an argument about AUSTRALIA'S biggest football codes? if you compare the leagues (NRL vs AFL) then you can count NZ, just as we can count WA and SA. The problem with that (form the NRL's point of view), is that RL has minimal presence in NZ, compared to Union, and Aussie Rules has massive presence in WA and SA, hence "counting NZ" doesn't really add much to the NRL.

Minimal?

In most English speaking dictionaries, Minimal means either: very small in amount or extent, or: smallest possible in amount or extent. Does your missuse of this word really describe rugby league's presence in NZ?

I think most would accept that union is the major code in the Shaky Isles, but to suggest that league has "minimal presence" reveals your ignorance of that countries sporting preferences. Would you also be prepared to describe the AFL's presence in NSW and Queensland as minimal? Of course not, that would also be laughable.

 

[Jack Bridge]

I see. So you don't want to include WA and SA, just because the NRL has nearly zero popularity there, and has given up on those markets? Remembering, of course, that they did have teams there at one point.

So if you give up on a market, you don't count it? LOL

Jesus Christ, it never ends. Never bloody ends.

He obviously considers them to be minimal states.

 

[Dan26]

Jack Bridge,

Who the hell ARE you? You coem on here, and start arguing semantics about the "definition" of the word "minimial." LOL! What are you an, an idiot?

The NZ Warrriors are hardly the "jewel in the NRL's crown." The contribute virtually no crowds to the NRL, and are not the main sport of choice in NZ.

For some reason littleduck and Ronin wanted NZ "counted" (form the NRL's viewpoint) because I was counting WA and SA for the AFL. The difference is that the AFL has a massive, overwhelming presence in WA and SA. the NRL doesn't have this in NZ.

Oh but I forgot... when you lose an argument start arguing semantics and definitons of words to deflect attention. What are you debating anyway? You know, as do we all, that the AFL is THE biggest league in Australia. There is no debate, no argument, that's just the way it is.

No amount of manipulating stats to suit the NRL can change that.