Oi, Sporting Capital of Australia, where's the ticker tape parade?

[skeepe]

= 405 400 000

x 4 (4 NRL seasons per RUWC)

= 1 621 600 000

Or 16 billion.

Or 5.4 times bigger than the RWC.

Your maths is woeful. I'll assume that the rest of your post is the same.

 

[Nook]

This really is quite pitiful.

 

[JW]

 

[Nook]

Danish is going to China (to see how many of them are watching the WC - millions, I suspect)

 

[JW]

Help him dig Skeepe, you lazy bastrard.

 

[Misty Bee]

Yeah, skeepe. The decimal points always get me.

Still flogs Union -bearinog in mind that Danish is obviously trying to find where he buried his Union TV Viewers Almanac.

 

[BuffaloRules]

Even the unionites over at Planet Puntmonkey admit the 4 billion figure is BS, or as one of them put it, an example of "good marketing" by the IRB...

In Asia SOME of the games ( many clash with English Premier League games on the weekends and are not on) are only being shown on Star Sports/ESPN Asia.

I would be surprised if 1% of people living in Asia actually had access to these channels, as Pay TV packages are about the equivalent of average monthly salaries in the region...

 

[Danish]

I'm not fussed with the rest of the post, but I'll happily examine your maths Misty....

NRL TV VIEWING AUDIENCE PER UNION WORLD CUP.

1) Domestic FTA durnig competition rounds.

2 games over 26 rounds = 52 games.

Average audience (city and regional NSW and QLD) per game: 1.8 million

=52 x 1 800 000

= 93 600 000

First, there are 3 games on each weekend on FTA.

Looking at the ratings from any random week of footy I have not seen a game rating more than 600,000, so I am also unsure where you are getting this 1.8 million viewers per game figure from?

Even the semi finals games couldn't crack the top 40 most watched programmes nationally

http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/2007_Week_37_Ratings_Report.pdf

Since the finals matches were pulling less than 1.4 mill, I think it is safe to say regular round games would be lucky to average out at 700,000 over the course of the year.

So....

700,000 x 3 games x 26 rounds = 54,600,000 viewers at the most

2) Live Pay TV games during competition rounds

6 games over 26 rounds = 156 games

Average audience (city and regional NSW and QLD) per game: 0.5 million –(Foxtel states that these games attract 1 million viewers nationally)

= 156 x 500 000

= 78 000 000

The opening round monday night footy game between the roosters and rabbits got an audience of 240,000. This is the highest rating foxtel match I could find (the next highest being 218,000, and most sitting around 160-190,000).

So, again, no idea where you pulled the 500,000 figure from.

There are 5 FTA games on fox each week (you seem to think 6 for some reason??)

Assuming that each foxtel game matched the souths game (they didn't) we have:

250,000 x 5 games x 26 rounds = 32,500,000 viewers on Foxtel.

Only out by 45 million there, Misty. Not too shabby.

3) New Zealanders watching Warriors games

26 games. Average estimated audience = 100 000 per match

= 26 x 100 000

= 2 600 000

I have no idea how league rates in NZ, so i'll just take these figures as gospel (although I think we could safely halve them).

4) Semi Finals, weeks 1 and 2

6 games – estimated average audience in Aust and NZ = 2 200 000

= 6 x 2 200 000

= 13 200 000

These games did not crack the top 40 programmes for their ratings week in the metropolitan areas of Australia. In 40th was one of the AFL finals with 1 million viewers. So we'll assume then that each of the first finals matches attracted 9,000,000 viewers in the metro areas.

The 4 finals faired a little better in the regional areas. Each averaging around 500,000 viewers.

With those figures in mind, we will assume that each of the 6 qualifying finals had about 1.5 million viewers (only 700,000 off Misty). I'll even throw in double the normal NZ audience to bring it up to 1.7 million

1,700,000 viewers x 6 games = 10.2 million viewers

5) Preliminary Finals

2 games – estimated audience in Austr and NZ = 2 600 000

= 2 x 2 600 000

= 5 200 000

2.6 million per game??

thinktv lists the prelims as 2 million and 1.4 million respectively. Throw in our 200,000 from across the ditch and that leaves us with:

1,600,000 + 2,200,000 = 3.8 million viewers for the prelims.

6) Grand Final. Australian Audience = 3 600 000. Estimated NZ audience = 200 000.

= 3 800 000

No problems with these figures.... I mean, it would be pretty hard for you to get these ones wrong.


So all in all you have a total audience throughout the NRL season of 107.5 million viewers over the course of the year.

You had it listed at 196.4 million viewers.


Seems that we can't really trust your maths for the rest of of those stats, if you cant even add up figures that are easily accessible on the net.

 

[byrne_rovelli_fan82]

Those who insit on throwing the insults at those of us down here. Have you actually livied here for any period of time? Oh, wait you can't because we aren't good enough for you.

Look and read before you spew your cuts about us.

Anyway, some people are obviously jealous

 

[skeepe]

Anyway, some people are obviously jealous

Wouldn't surprise me. Melbourne is, generally speaking, a far far better city than Sydney.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Looking at the ratings from any random week of footy I have not seen a game rating more than 600,000, so I am also unsure where you are getting this 1.8 million viewers per game figure from?

Even the semi finals games couldn't crack the top 40 most watched programmes nationally

Well, you need to remember that the NRL isn't just on FTA TV...

And PF #2 has 2,037,000.

http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Media_Releases/Week_39_2007_-_Weekly_Ratings_Report.pdf

They just haven't updated it yet.

Try again.....

 

[Misty Bee]

Youing Danish, you quote Oztam figures. Using Oztam assessed livestock, they would be telling you that cows only had 2 legs and no head. Regionals my boy! Rememer them? All those places you drive through between capitals, and beyond? Oztam thinks that no one lives north of Redcliffe, and Canberra doesn't exist (going by Skeepes profound thesis about Melbourne being far better than Sydney I'm assuming Oztam is right in this regard!

Now I never said my maths were flash hot. I usually doze through the second FNF game because it usually is a Panthers game. Anyway, that means MORE people would watch it, dunnit!

LOL at quoting Chooks v Souths on Monday Night as evidence too. It would rate as highly as your Rumania v Ivory Coast yawnion bliockbuster that crontributes hefty numbers toward your 3 billion ratings.

Danish, the abacus might be flawed, but I did more than repeat a number, then jump up and down yelling "Mummy said so!". Yawnion wouldn't get 3 billion people who would have heard of it, let alone got bored watching it!

NRL - unchallenged each year as the biggest competition in either Rugby code. Period.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Wouldn't surprise me. Melbourne is, generally speaking, a far far better city than Sydney.

Melbourne is a toilet, complete with a skidmark.

So it's a great surprise that Union hasn't taken off there....

 

[miguel de cervantes]

My earlier argument can be broken into two seperate arguments. I'll need some time to savlage the first, but the second is rock solid and I can explain it quickly.

1) people in england, France, South Africa and NZ would not bother tuning in to watch their teams because they are on at unreasonable times? We'll see how this weekends final rates in Oz to see if this point holds any water

2) Check out how many of us got involved in the Soccer world cup. Soccer is a 5th string competition which had next to no folllwing prior to making the world cup, and it got the best ratings by far last year. Obviously Union isn't going to have the same effect, but people tend to tune in when their country makes it unexpectedly to the world stage.

3) you assume that Australia loves sport more than any other country, which is simply bullsh*t.

The 3 OPINIONS you stated may point to australia having one of the highest television ratings in the world for the 2003 world cup.

You seem to be skirting my point here, but you get the jist at the end. I'm not saying that your points here a false, they are just mis-aimed. I'm saying my three hypotheses above tend to suggest that Australia probably would have the the highest ratings in proportion to its population. NZ would probably be up there, maybe even more, but comparing these two countries to others involved and they would kick ass. I don't believe France would be even close - certainly in this WC but not in the last one.

If you don't believe me about Argentina, have a read as to what lengths they are going to at the moment to ensure their people can watch the Pumas without a worry. Soccer games are being moved and/or delayed so that they dont overlap with the broadcast.

I believe you, but I am referring to the last world cup.

No doubt 3 billion is a bit of a hard figure to stomach. However it certainly isn't out of the question either.

And you seem to have accepted the rest of the argument. Australia's 30,000,000 ratings over its 20,000,000 population gives the factor 1.5. Applying this figure as an upper bound to all other union nations partaking in the cup gives a union nation world wide figure and hence upper bound of 1.5 billion. That leaves 1.5 billion to account for in livesites and pubs. Union wave a wand and 'puff', this figure is doubled to include these locations. I'm surprised they don't include extra-terrestrials who may possibly be receiving the '91 WC in a few hundred years.

Australia had each TV tuned in to 3 games on average for the world cup.

Yes, on average. In reality less tvs spat out more games each. Obviously less games cannot be shown by more tvs.

You said yourself there is 1 billion TVs in the nations with an interest in Union.

I don't think I did. I'm pretty sure I said this \/

There were just under 1.5 billion televisions on earth in 2003. Just a quick scan of the top of the list and you can instantly subtract a third of this, 500 million, as they belong to countries I'm certain aren't the least bit interested in rugby union. ....... That leaves us with a generous one billion telelvisions worldwide

I did quote someone else saying that the total population in union WC partaking countries was around 1 billion and applied the 1.5 factor to this figure to obtain the 1.5 billion.

Let me get back to the first argument. I did confuse the hell out of myself putting it together so it may leak a bit......

In the meantime someone please split this thread up and move it elsewhere.

 

[OVP]

But you make a good point, Melbourne is the event capital of Australia.

Thats pure bollocks EA ... Sydney is the event capital... what about the greatest olympics EVER ?. Melbourne is the insular sport capital, thats it.

 

[Willow]

the total population of the countries represented at the rugby world cup in 2003 equates to around 1 billion people.

So they all follow union?

Got a link to back up that figure?

Got some research to back up the notion that they all follow union and are glued to their TV sets?

In Australia, they estimate over 30 million TVs tuned in to the world cup over the course of the tournament.

FMD!!!!!
In a country of 20 million, that's an astounding figure!

Safe to say that equates to at the very least each person in the country watching 2 games each

I haven't seen one yet.

Where are you getting these figures from?

(and that is assuming that the vast majority of people watched the games by themselves on their own individual TVs).

lol. I'd put that part in brackets too.
I can only imagine what you do with your own individual TV while union is showing.

 

[Willow]

Just had the chance to scan the thread.

I see danish is already on a hiding to nothing.

that equates to EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH watching 5 games each

Classic stuff.

 

[OVP]

Just had the chance to scan the thread.

I see danish is already on a hiding to nothing.

Classic stuff.

Not even I are so stupid as to back him up on this. Sorry fellow Rooster, you MUST be delusional.

 

[Willow]

http://www.worldgames-iwga.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,1044-163417-180632-54682-0-file,00.pdf

The link is from the 2003 Union World Cup.

In the same link the publisher refers to the cup as being named after "William Webb Ellis who is credited with inventing rugby football in 1820" - a notion which has since been totally discredited and can best be described as an outright lie.

These are the sites you are linking to for your sources danish.

 

[OVP]

Btw Willow .. its nice to see you up late in the Devil's hour or three