Talk:Rugby World Cup

Superbowl comparison

Just to clarify, I think the Superbowl comparison is inaccurate due to fact that "Superbowl" essentially describes one game at the end of an annual national tournament, whereas "Rugby World Cup" is the name for this four-yearly international tournament as a whole. Perhaps a better example would be to compare it to the soccer world cup. Your decision of course, but why is this so important? WilcoxD 19:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Ask this guy. ScottDG 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)

It is a reasonable comparison perhaps, but I should like to hear a reason for its inclusion contained within the article. We could just as easily compare it to the soccer WC or the cricket WC or the world series etc. I would like to hear why the superbowl in particular is the prefered comparison. (And I don't care at all that NFL is related to rugby in its infancy) --DamianJohn 17:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)

What sort of TV viewship ratings does the World Cup average in comparison to the Superbowl? how much does a 30 second ad spot cost in comparison to the Superbowl? Rob Smith 18:07, 28 January 2012 (EST)

A typical Superbowl gets 93 million viewers apparently, practically all of them in the States. Cumulative TV audience for the 2007 World Cup was 4.2 billion over 42 matches, so an average of 100 million per match with the highest figures being for the final. --GeorgeLi 21:36, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Not sure why that is relevant, but I'd say the total expenditure worldwide for a 30 second ad at halftime in the WC final would be about the same. Of course rugby is a continuous sport so there aren't random ads in the middle of a game. --DamianJohn 21:03, 28 January 2012 (EST)

To go back to my original question, why is it important that there be a comparison? Further to that, on what grounds should the comparison be based? WilcoxD 21:08, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Good question; my guess is there's some comparison between viewership worldwide, however a comparison of the cost of advertising a 30 second spot might be fair to give perspective and relevance, at least for CP's primary American target market. Rob Smith 22:30, 29 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know how that would compute given that the RWC market is all over the world with different broadcasters all with different ads, and some who sell their product on a PPV basis with no ads. Also, the value of an ad at halftime will obviously always be less than an ad that is in the middle of the game. I think you are trying to measure a worldwide sport through the narrow lens of your USA upbringing. --DamianJohn 23:18, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Here's the price list. Now convert euros to dollars and compare with Superbowl rates. Rob Smith 23:44, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Wow. Do you even read the links you provide as sources? That is a list for the sale of advertising in Ireland, a very small part of the total viewership and broadcasters. In fact I suspect that RTE was probably not even the only broadcaster in Ireland for the RWC. In order to gain a meaningful comparision you would need to add up the rates of all the broadcasters in all countries that took the RWC. This would be quite some exercise as I know there were 4 in NZ, and at least 2 in Aus and 2 in the UK. You would also need to factor in the point that several countries (including the US) had the RWC as a PPV event ($200 would get you all the games I believe, though don't ask me to refind the source for that). In short, as I said above, the comparison is meaningless and your attempt to make it only shows you are restricted by your Amerocentric view. Not everything in the world can be translated into US terms of reference. --DamianJohn 00:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Ok. So we have a starting point. It shouldn't be too hard to find an average worldwide cost comparison of a 30 sec ad spot on the Rugby World Cup vs the Superbowl. This is the First World, after all. Billions of dollars (or euros or whatever) are being spent. We're not all that stupid or ignorant in the First World. Somebody in an ad agency or business college somewhere in the First World must be on to this, one would think. Rob Smith 15:50, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Or, we can ignore Rob's childish nonsense and just revert his trolling on sight. It seems that the sysops don't think much of him, why should we? RachelW 15:56, 30 January 2012 (EST)

(a) have I edited this mainspace? (b) when someone asked (on another site) to an equivalent in US sports of the Rugby Cup, I ASKED if possibly the Superbowl, being its nearly a national holiday in the United States. Clearly, clearly, I must have overstated the significance of the World Rugby Cup in comparison to the Superbowl, by US standards. Rob Smith 16:06, 31 January 2012 (EST)

No, you don't want the average world price, as that will be the price for individual smaller markets rather than a cumulative price as we have for the Super Bowl. That is what is being compared, right? I'm not exactly sure why you seem obsessed with advertising rates; aren't we more interested in total viewership, and aren't those stats much easier to find than trying to do a bunch of math based on rates for every country that shows the RWC? If you really want to compare ad rates, you will have to add up the cost of a 30 second commercial on every station in the world that shows the RWC, which is difficult. It's easy to do with the Super Bowl, because it's only carried by a single station (though perhaps oversees viewers can see it on an NBC cable affiliate? I'm not sure, but in any case, that's going to be a small fraction of their audience), but in a situation in which millions of people are watching the same thing on hundreds of different stations, you need the sum the average rate for a single commercial in every single market, if you want to find the cost of airing an add everyone watching the RWC will see (I'm pretty sure this never happens, for language reasons if no other). Like I said, it's easy for the Super Bowl: pay NBS x million dollars and everyone watching will see your commercial. This can't really be done in international markets. ChrisU 09:00, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Superbowl advertising is the most expensive on the planet -- this year a 30 sec spot is US $3.5M. It would be an interesting and fair comparison, given that The World Rugby Cup has nearly three times the viewership. My guess, ad rates are not even half, and probably pitifully less than that. So, what's more worth watching? Sure, if you're an advertiser, maybe the Rugby Cup gives you more bang for the buck in terms of exposure and viewership, but if you want a return on investment, the US seems to be the place to be. Yes its a difficult task to add up stations around the planet, at different exchange rates, and convert to US dollars for comparison; but it's a simpler equation than calculating the distance of a gravitationally unbound object at x lightyears comoving with another gravitationally bound object and making adjustments for at what rate space is expanding between them while it approaces the horizon of an expanding universe. And much more practical -- there's a payday at the end of all your laborious calculations. Rob Smith 19:30, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Ok then Rob, please work it out, show all your working, and show us what allowance you have made for the fact some are pay TV stations (and the costs of sports channels if applicable) and some are on a pay per view basis, and also what allowance you have made for the fact that the ads are not during the game itself, but either before, after or at half-time. You would also need to factor in the real money value of the advertising purchased, since some countries have had higher than normal inflation in the past 12 months. I look forward to reading your results. You will also need to factor in the point that many of the broadasters will be showing the game in bad time zones, I wonder what allowance you will make for that. Good luck. I look forward to reading your results. --DamianJohn 23:23, 31 January 2012 (EST)

You would also need to factor into your calculations the fact that the Superbowl Ads have a certain "fame" to them, and therefore will hold extra-ordinary significance for the money paid. Boy you will be busy working all this out!! I can't wait to see what you come up with. --DamianJohn 23:28, 31 January 2012 (EST)

And Rob, you have to take into account that the Rugby World Cup and the Superbowl are gravitationally bound objects with a relativistic number of heads up their ass.

New Zealand

New Zealand won the Rugby World Cup twice in the past 25 years? Amazing accomplishment for a (unnecessary insult removed). Perhaps the list in mainspace is a little too Anglo-centric. Rob Smith 18:10, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Anglo-centric? I haven't heard that word outside of a humanities classroom at a university in a long time. RachelW 19:11, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Well, sure. In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs -- all English speaking members or former members of the British Empire and Commonwealth of nations. Didn't any non-English speaking members of the British Empire win, or other (unnecessary insult removed) besides New Zealand? Rob Smith 19:15, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Actually if you count again you will see that only 4 countries have ever won it. --DamianJohn 20:59, 28 January 2012 (EST)

"In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs" Really? Wow. In a 4-yearly tournament that's been running for 24 years, how many champions would you expect there to be? --GeorgeLi 21:23, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Got it. So the event is held only once every four years. Perhaps that can be clarified. Rob Smith 16:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Since the article was created several years ago, the second sentence has made it clear that it is held every 4 years. I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Also, only 4 nations have won in 7 contests, not 7 nations. AngusT 16:48, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you. The WP article states 22 member nations to the Rugby Union, if that is reliable information. I have no idea. Rob Smith 16:53, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Our article says 20. I'd trust that over Wikipedia any day. Is there an official rugby union website we can double check? AngusT 16:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)

(Ec) Don't know. You could access the link from WP. Rob Smith 17:16, 29 January 2012 (EST)

The International Rugby Board lists 93 member nations, but of course, not all qualify for the tournament. Why would you trust a source that called Newt Gingrich an orphan for a week and which argues that people are born with the perfect amount of teeth even though most of us need to have our wisdom teeth removed? ScottDG Talk Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 17:13, 29 January 2012 (EST)