gutterfax wrote:
Ah.,.....so his response to sweeping incorrect statements using facts isn't to your liking then? If the more insecure posters amongst us weren't so hell bent on making themselves look stupid, then Billy would be out of a job. I for one enjoy his statistical posts.
He doesn't offer contradictions......unlike your good self.
Which is it? Either you care or you don't?
Then....and this is pretty clever, you compare the 2 Leeds clubs but almost childishly dismiss the Harlequins clubs and the 2 sharing the stadium near Manchester because they most assuredly don't suit your point of view.
Actually, the stats in this case have not been manipulated to how anything. They were simply produced as the seasons average attendances for the 2 top leagues, one in Union, the other in League. Because Union comes out streets ahead, you of course say "stats can be made to show anything".
I'd be interested to see how much you learnt from your Stats professor. Show me, using the published attendance figures above, how Superleague has a bigger average attendance than the Aviva Premiership!
No he's using facts that make assumptions. If your going to bring stats into it, at least factor in some kind of influence over figures, otherwise you literally have to include every attendance at every sport in the world, as only then can the conditions be quantifiably fair.
Hence I don't care about union vs league attendance debates.
I do find stats interesting, and when compared properly do offer insight. As you noticed, the ones it said can be used were those who shared grounds (as one can assume the same factors influence both sets of fans) - I wasn't dismissive of harlequins. I said ru clearly and brutally won. I offered some explanation as to why that was and moved on? The reason I wasn't fond on comparing sale is they supposedly (aka I read on the internet) are having trouble with fans saying moving to Salford changes the identity of the club or some other rubbish. So in that instance the very location of the stadium can be considered a factor to be factored in.
If you want me to do some quant analysis for you, by all means get in touch with my company and I'll make em show anything you want, but I'm not doing it on here now, it's what I'm paid to do. But, I will say a couple of things
A) any unciphoned data means nothing to everyone. If your in marketing you should know that.
B) as I finished my last post. The numbers posted prove more people occur in an area where professional rugby union is occurring. The rest is conjecture. I suppose it depends if your arguing "league vs union whose doing better getting quantity through the door?" Or "league vs union whose doing better?" - though the answer technically neither, American football (which is also a spin off of rugby) is kicking both behinds.
I am the hash browns of rlfans 
