It’s not a strategy. They played a game one day 90k turned up and the AFL say lock it in forever. Hardly a strategy.
Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It’s not a strategy. They played a game one day 90k turned up and the AFL say lock it in forever. Hardly a strategy.
sr36
TheBrownDog
I don't want the blockbusters. Like I've said I think they're screwing over clubs - just not the one's complaining in this thread. However, other than the double ups - I don't view the marketing or designated days of big games as creating an unfair fixture in terms of a football competition - they do create unfair marketing opportunities in terms of the Vic clubs. I doubt the Non-Vic clubs would give up their FTA perks which came about because the AFL negotiated that Northern clubs would have their games shown live - back when the TV networks didn't want to do so as they didn't rate well enough - the tv networks agreed, but it would have come at a price. This later became live FTA once the market changed and the FTA netwroks were running multiple channels and were happy to have the games playing live on one of them. The other states pushed for the same - they couldn't give the Vic clubs it as it would have made the streaming rights worthless, so it is were it is with FTA - some Vic clubs get stuff all, nor blockbuster games and they're going to struggle to keep their market share in the long run.
I think it's impossible to have a fixture that is both fair and perceived as fair. The reality is that most supporters are so biased that they can only see their club's disadvantages and not their advantages. And they think their disadvantages are huge, whereas their size is unmeasurable and often inbuilt, so even if they are offset with something that was "fair" - we'd still have this thread complaining about #VICBIAS.
However, as far as I can see the fixture has produced pretty equitable ladder results. Sure Sydney, Collingwood, wCE, Haw and Geelong have generally been more successful in home and away for most of th last 20 years due to various advantages that they've been given or have worked. We haven't seen one state dominating at all like this thread seems to think.
Last edited:
[face
The NBA doesnt have a rolling fixture.
Divisional rivals play each other more every single year.
And NBA does put Lakers, Celtics in their marquee national TV slots more than small market teams.
The big market American teams get the best TV exposure. Same with NFL.
Ah what?
The NBA doesnt have a rolling fixture.
Divisional rivals play each other more every single year.
And NBA does put Lakers, Celtics in their marquee national TV slots more than small market teams.
The big market American teams get the best TV exposure. Same with NFL.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Yeah, AFL and AFL media has basically just copied NBA marketing, from fixturing to broadcasting and right down to the huge focus on stars.
Over a 4 or 5 year period though they don’t have the imbalance that they play certain teams a lot and others hardly ever.
I am not talking about tv, I am talking about purely who you play over a period of 5 years should be virtually identical to who the Eagles play in the same time frame.
The double up games need to be done better and not because of income.
While Carlton and Essendon have been crap the Pies got to play them some 10 times each more than Geelong did over the same period. The cats could have possibly won a couple more flags with their lists picking up an easy 8 extra points a year which Collingwood got to pick up.
Seriously mate the comp should not be like this, it’s laughable.
I know you benefit but how can you defend it.
Nope they have copied NFL, if they copied the NBA we would be much better off and have a better league
sr36
TheBrownDog
I've never followed NFL. How has it differed and been more like AFL marketing?
Fair doesn't have to be 'equal'
The purpose of the fixture is essentislly to deliver the best 8 teams to the finals series in something approximating an order of merit;
Beyond that, everything is a choice, and if we play enough games then a few minor differences in who plays who don't matter - they get far outweighed by the sheer competence of the good teams and incompetence of the bad.
With that in mind, the question should always be 'are we playing enough games'. Would an extra two weeks make the ladder different and would that be worth the toll on players bodies?
Get the season length question right and them you can just maximise money, and in fact that is the sensible thing to do. If the season is long enough to get a 'fair' result then everyone benefit from more money and blockbusters - the league is more stable, more professional, etc.
The fixture no longer delivers the best sides in the finals. Who plays who twice, where they play them, what advantage or disadvantage your double up games gave you means who gets in the finals is close to a raffle. Who wins the flag is also no longer certainly the best team. We will say they are but again who did you play twice, where did I finish on the ladder, where did you finish on the ladder??
It all comes into it.
Why would you want such a fixture. It’s a joke.
If you watched that video it clearly tells you that we are modelled on the NFL when we should be modelled on the NBA.
What are you waffling about. They dont have the same schedule. America smartly breaks the competition into smaller geographic based divisions.
Lakers only ever play Celtics twice a year, but Lakers play Golden State and Clippers 4 times EVERY year.
NFL is even more drastic, the Seattle SeaHawks play the San Fran 49ers twice every single year, but will play the Buffalo Bills just once every four years.
Why?
Do it like America, you are ranked primarily against geographic rivals who have the SAME fixture EVERY Year!
The 49ers and SeaHawks play the same schedule and are ranked against each other.
And then you have NY Giants and Philly Eagles who also ALWAYS play each other twice and have similar fixture, so they are ranked.
Nobody cares that NY Giants have a completely different schedule to the SeaHawks.
Yep, split into geographic based divisions.
And have a changed approach where you are ranked against teams who actually play the same fixture.
Local rivals lift when matched against each other, it isn't a soft kill.
Collingwood would be better off it we got all our homes games at the MCG and everything was completely random.
Last edited:
The thing is though you're always gonna get more crowd and $ on a public holiday for blockbuster games.
HQ won't wanna give that up, ethical? No.
Are HQ gonna change it for less crowds and $? No.
We just need a CEO to come in, throw it all out and start from scratch and not allow any input from clubs in regards to the fixture.
I am available……lol
Which is what we should be doing here.
State conferences and then a playoff of conference champions is the only way, or we just accept what we have.
And that's never gonna happen.
sr36
TheBrownDog
I'm talking about marketing with the fixturing only being one part of that.
I tried watching the video. Didn't get very far, too many holes, and either misunderstandings or intentional bias and blurred the three things with the draw impact and are the subject of fairness or inequality - competition, finances in short term , marketing and thus growth and finances in the longer term.
It’s not complicated mate, I think you are trying to make it complicated.
Anyway no need to worry it will all continue nicely for you.
sr36
TheBrownDog
It is complicated when you try to mash together 3 different concepts and make some erroneous assumptions and misunderstandings which was how that video began.
I'm not going to mention many of the points that I got through, but let's look at fairness in terms of competition regarding who you play twice: The presenter was suggesting a 4 or 5 year rolling fixture where you play every team the same amount is fairer: it suggests that playing your mob twice in 2018 is the same as playing them twice in 2023. Ditto Richmond in 2020 versus 2024. Seems to me that dividing the previous year's ladder into 3 like the AFL do and the video dismissed as a complete mess without explaining why is more likely to produce a more equal standard of opponents across the fixture each year than a multi year rolling fixture is. The AFL handicap it so the teams at the top play each other more as they want more games between too teams. But the fairest in terms of likelihood of equal standard of opponent for each team would be double ups against 2 from each third. It would be more to give equality than a rolling fixture
Short term finances: guy was all about double ups for this. Didn't seem to understand that it's about who you play at home - you get the home gate, not the away gate. For example Sydney get a home game against Collingwood virtually every year - great for their short term finances and longer term marketing as it's a big local game helping to sell the brand in their target market. They don't get an away game - wouldn't help them to push deeper into their target market or with short term finances, wed get that game takings. They barely ever play us in Melbourne, but they wouldn't particularly want to either - it doesn't particularly benefit them. It's who Collingwood play for our 11 away games that matters - except in the Melbourne market - then you want both to better market in your target market.
Yes of course, no big deal that at all.
The AFL don’t divide it into three though, the blockbusters get in the way and hence the sane sides play each other twice year after year after year.
Now if they actually did it then you may have a point but for the AFL there is always an excuse why we couldn’t do it.
An extra trip across the continent is no big deal?
AFL Fixture by locking in two Derbies a year is a blatant compromise that is about minimising travel.
What the AFL doesn't do is just go and create the small geographic divisions that ALWAYS play each other more...like the NBA.
Do it NFL style, WC play 2 games against the Dockers, Crows and Port EVERY year but might only play Carlton once every four years.
sr36
TheBrownDog
But they do divide the ladder into 3 and blockbusters don't get in the way. This year as a team who was top 6 Collingwood get double ups against 3 from last year's top 6 - Bris, Carl, Melb, 2 from the middle 6 Ess, Syd and 1 from the bottom 6 Haw..
I haven't checked, but I think you'll find that the other teams who were top 6 last year get the same allocation.
Despite all the carry on about Collingwood, we actually have a really tough draw, as we get a tougher allocation to start with for being too 6 and our middle 6 and bottom 6 teams are flying.
