Play Nice 2021 Crowds and Ratings Thread

[The_Wookie]

An average is not data.

A series of averages and associated facts and statistics constitute data whether you agree with it or not. Frankly I dont care.

You are responding to people in a really belittling and demeaning way who have merely just disagreed with you.

Where did i actually do this that wasnt in response to something you or others have said on this sub forum. Again, it comes down to how you disagree, not why.

You are also the moderator of this forum.

that doesnt mean i have to agree with or like you or your posts. You have an issue with moderation go to an admin. I dont moderate threads im involved in.

Receive it as graciousness or pettiness as you will. That's your prerogative.

I didnt need your permission.

You are happy to be called out or corrected if a calculation is wrong. Very different response when someone disagrees with you on a matter of opinion or interpretation. THat's when you get really worked up and start with the demeaning responses and the petty power wielding

That very much depends on people who claim i know nothing about the subject at hand and how its worded.

See an admin or mod. or report it. Youve always had this capablity.

My claim is, when the AFL is on there are about 100K more people watching on average than when the NRL is on. The data supports this.

Either its data or its not. You cant have it both ways.

And the AFL has been on for at least 5 hours more each weekend than the NRL thus far. That number will actually get larger when the games are more overlapping

Yes but you dont seem to believe anything that happens after Friday night, so why would this even matter to you.

Again, you don't even know that an average is not data. This is the premise from which you are coming from

the entire premises of your arguments is based on average data. Every piece of ratings data that you've ever seen is average based or the addition of averages. I really dont understand how you cant see this.




Sheesh. Not sure how my post suggested I thought I had an option but if you need to reiterate your pettiness again than each to their own I guess
[/QUOTE]

 

[NoobPie]

A series of averages and associated facts and statistics constitute data whether you agree with it or not. Frankly I dont care.

A broader definition a the term data that, once adopted, makes the assertion "the data says what it says" an absurd

Where did i actually do this that wasnt in response to something you or others have said on this sub forum. Again, it comes down to how you disagree, not why.

Go back and read some of your posts over the last week if you actually care (I know, I know - you don't care)

that doesnt mean i have to agree with or like you or your posts. You have an issue with moderation go to an admin. I dont moderate threads im involved in.

It means you probably should uphold a higher standard. Complaining about moderation is not something that I bother with

I didnt need your permission.

The pettiness

That very much depends on people who claim i know nothing about the subject at hand and how its worded.

See an admin or mod. or report it. Youve always had this capablity.

Again, don't care about admin or mods. Just pointing out you are very sensitive around things you think you understand better than you do

Either its data or its not. You cant have it both ways.

The actual data points are the average viewer ratings for specific programs. That's what I am basing the claim on. The averages of those data points are not themselves data - they are statistical properties of that data.

Yes but you dont seem to believe anything that happens after Friday night, so why would this even matter to you.

Whaaat? What are you talking about?

My claim relates to the entire round.

the entire premises of your arguments is based on average data. Every piece of ratings data that you've ever seen is average based or the addition of averages. I really dont understand how you cant see this.

You are confusing average viewer numbers (the data points) with the aggregations and averages of those data points. You are saying the latter is "data" and on that basis asserting your apples and oranges comparisons are "is what it is" comparisons that are beyond misrepresentation. You are specifically using these when you assert as fact that the AFL is barely ahead of the NRL.

 

[Gigantor]

I'll put my two bobs worth in for the last time.

All live broadcasts of games on Foxtel are available to the exact same population, so an average of the ratings of each game makes sense.

I think (not 100% sure), the NRL games on FTA are always telecast into their two key markets, so an average of those broadcasts makes sense (i.e. you don't get games solely broadcast into Melbourne, or Canberra, or Townsville, or Alice Springs, etc.)

In the AFL, we do get some games broadcast solely into single cities, including the two Northern cities.

So to then do an average of all AFL games broadcast on FTA, mixing up games broadcast nationally, games broadcast into two cities, and games broacast into single cities, in particular, the two Northern cities, is an absurdity. It's a nonsense. It's an absolutely meaningless number.

 

[parano1a]

I think (not 100% sure), the NRL games on FTA are always telecast into their two key markets, so an average of those broadcasts makes sense

Yes, Nine definitely broadcasts the same NRL game to all markets (Usually on 9 in Syd/Bris and 9Gem in Melb/Adel/Perth). There are no region-specific broadcasts.

 

[weewilly]

I'll put my two bobs worth in for the last time.

All live broadcasts of games on Foxtel are available to the exact same population, so an average of the ratings of each game makes sense.

I think (not 100% sure), the NRL games on FTA are always telecast into their two key markets, so an average of those broadcasts makes sense (i.e. you don't get games solely broadcast into Melbourne, or Canberra, or Townsville, or Alice Springs, etc.)

In the AFL, we do get some games broadcast solely into single cities, including the two Northern cities.

So to then do an average of all AFL games broadcast on FTA, mixing up games broadcast nationally, games broadcast into two cities, and games broacast into single cities, in particular, the two Northern cities, is an absurdity. It's a nonsense. It's an absolutely meaningless number.

Agree 100%

 

[The_Wookie]

So to then do an average of all AFL games broadcast on FTA, mixing up games broadcast nationally, games broadcast into two cities, and games broacast into single cities, in particular, the two Northern cities, is an absurdity. It's a nonsense. It's an absolutely meaningless number.

Good for you and your mates.

I put out data for both ALL FTA broadcasts and All National broadcasts (as defined by the broadcaster not random bigfooty poster) in the original post I made. This is where the broadcast and FTA averages come from.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Billy ray]

Whats kayo freebies?!

 

[Billy ray]

Nvm googled it. Interesting

 

[The_Wookie]

Whats kayo freebies?!

Essentially its Kayo, you need a login, but not a subscription to watch. They'll be doing Intrust Cup as well.

 

[manicmagpie]

32,056 at Docklands for StK v Rich.

 

[weewilly]

32,056 at Docklands for StK v Rich.

That's good crowd on a cold Thursday.

 

[Sammoll]

Brilliant work West Coast fans

 

[PonsfordMagpie]

Excellent crowd attendance.

 

[weewilly]

Optus Oval also looked great on TV!

 

[Kwality]

Sheesh. Not sure how my post suggested I thought I had an option but if you need to reiterate your pettiness again than each to their own I guess

 

[NoobPie]

Did you like that one Kwality ?

Thankyou

 

[Rob]

Given crowds everywhere have dropped by roughly 25%, last night's crowd probably shows West Coast could get 75k+ if they had the capacity. More if they charged less than $58 for a ticket.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Given crowds everywhere have dropped by roughly 25%, last night's crowd probably shows West Coast could get 75k+ if they had the capacity. More if they charged less than $58 for a ticket.

Maybe one day when they become so big they can afford to build their own ground. Having to share with Fremantle holds them back.

 

[Rob]

Maybe one day when they become so big they can afford to build their own ground. Having to share with Fremantle holds them back.

Do you know what a 100k ground costs?

As big as they are, they don't have 2 billion dollars to spend.

 

[Billy ray]

Yeh adding 10000 seats is fairly straight forward but costs money. Selling around 2-5000 standing room tickets could be done too. Probably only stadium with zero standing room sold atm

 

[Kwality]

There is room at Perth Stadium to go up another level and increase seating by over 10,000 without much inconvenience .Eagles members in waiting would like to see that happen but with Fremantle attendances at about 50% of the stadiums current capacity the costs outweigh the returns atm.

22 x AFL games only does not make it viable at 60k.

 

[Asapartyhat]

22 x AFL games only does not make it viable at 60k.

It's already at 60,000
22 games and bonus finals on top would make it viable to increase to 70,000. But Fremantle will never get close to a sell out unless it is a v Eagles match.
That is the only reason I get peeved
at Fremantle being so bad at everything both on and off the field.
With covid overseas we won't be getting international tourists for EPL games ,rugby internationals, other international sport for at least a few years so increasing capacity is on hold for now

 

[Cmarsh]

22934 at AO for AFLW grand final.

 

[Rowan18]

22934 at AO for AFLW grand final.

Is that lower than expected? I thought they had nearly 50k for 2019 pre COVID.