Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[JackOutback]

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.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that Collingwood have played Essendon 54 out of a possible 55 games (the only year they didn't double up being 2016, wonder what in 2016 that might have had an impact) and Carlton 53 of a possible 55. A better way to put it is to say their 'formula' doesn't get in the way of their agenda for 'Vic blockbusters'. Now, given how average Carlton and Essendon have been for the past 20 years, do you accept that's been a bit of a leg-up not provided to the likes of Geelong or Hawthorn in that time period?

 

[sr36]

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that Collingwood have played Essendon 54 out of a possible 55 games (the only year they didn't double up being 2016, wonder what in 2016 that might have had an impact) and Carlton 53 of a possible 55. A better way to put it is to say their 'formula' doesn't get in the way of their agenda for 'Vic blockbusters'. Now, given how average Carlton and Essendon have been for the past 20 years, do you accept that's been a bit of a leg-up not provided to the likes of Geelong or Hawthorn in that time period?

I watched that bit. It doesn't give you a leg up if you're running the thirds formula of the AFL.

It just means that the specific shit team we played was Carlton, rather than getting a different shit team. The thirds model makes it more likely that you'll get the same number of shit teams as other teams. I don't think it really should be weighted so the top third get a harder draw, but see why the AFL do it and don't think it's an issue.

Just as Carlton now being good doesn't mean that we're disadvantaged by playing them twice, it just means that they're one of the good teams we get a double up against - we'll get the same number of good teams as the teams around us get.

It doesn't increase or decrease the number of shit or good teams you play against.

I'm not advocating the double ups - I think they're rubbish and unfair for reasons other than footballing equity, but I do think a thirds formula is better than a draw that rolls over multiple years. As the draw that rolls over multiple years is much more likely to give you an imbalance of good or shit teams that you play within a year.

The video didn't go into the thirds formula - either because they didn't get it or they intentionally omitted it for obvious reasons.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that Collingwood have played Essendon 54 out of a possible 55 games (the only year they didn't double up being 2016, wonder what in 2016 that might have had an impact) and Carlton 53 of a possible 55. A better way to put it is to say their 'formula' doesn't get in the way of their agenda for 'Vic blockbusters'. Now, given how average Carlton and Essendon have been for the past 20 years, do you accept that's been a bit of a leg-up not provided to the likes of Geelong or Hawthorn in that time period?

They keep thinking this video is about us proving a point when all the video does is confirm what most of us know which is the whole league is run poorly and for most clubs.
It can be easily fixed.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I watched that bit. It doesn't give you a leg up if you're running the thirds formula of the AFL.

It just means that the specific shit team we played was Carlton, rather than getting a different shit team. The thirds model makes it more likely that you'll get the same number of shit teams as other teams. I don't think it really should be weighted so the top third get a harder draw, but see why the AFL do it and don't think it's an issue.

Just as Carlton now being good doesn't mean that we're disadvantaged by playing them twice, it just means that they're one of the good teams we get a double up against - we'll get the same number of good teams as the teams around us get.

It doesn't increase or decrease the number of shit or good teams you play against.

I'm not advocating the double ups - I think they're rubbish and unfair for reasons other than footballing equity, but I do think a thirds formula is better than a draw that rolls over multiple years. As the draw that rolls over multiple years is much more likely to give you an imbalance of good or shit teams that you play within a year.

The video didn't go into the thirds formula - either because they didn't get it or they intentionally omitted it for obvious reasons.

I think your missing the point here. The NBA have a formula that has you playing all sides outside of your conference the same amount of times over a 4-5 year period.
As we don't have conferences ( and I agree with doppleganger that we should) the same can still b applied in the AFL. There is simply no want to do so for some unknown bloody reason.
Collingwood for example may play Essendon 7 times over a 5 year period but they will also play Saint Kilda 7 times over the same period, Sydney 7 times, West Coast 7 Times etc etc,
At the moment we have Collingwood playing essendon 10 times over a 5 year period and playing the saints like 5-6 times over the same period.
And this is not about Collingwood, it's about any club, just using the Pies as an example.
With 18 sides and a 23 round season the most fair it can be done is doing it over a 4-5 year period.

 

[Underarm]

I think your missing the point here. The NBA have a formula that has you playing all sides outside of your conference the same amount of times over a 4-5 year period.
As we don't have conferences ( and I agree with doppleganger that we should) the same can still b applied in the AFL. There is simply no want to do so for some unknown bloody reason.
Collingwood for example may play Essendon 7 times over a 5 year period but they will also play Saint Kilda 7 times over the same period, Sydney 7 times, West Coast 7 Times etc etc,
At the moment we have Collingwood playing essendon 10 times over a 5 year period and playing the saints like 5-6 times over the same period.
And this is not about Collingwood, it's about any club, just using the Pies as an example.
With 18 sides and a 23 round season the most fair it can be done is doing it over a 4-5 year period.

Using the NBA method, you don't guarantee West Coast v Fremantle twice a year. This will means both those teams will travel an extra time which doesn't work for anyone.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Using the NBA method, you don't guarantee West Coast v Fremantle twice a year. This will means both those teams will travel an extra time which doesn't work for anyone.

Why doesn't it work? That makes no sense. What we are hearing here is West Coast are going to look to travel in blocks and play like 3 away games in a row a couple of times per year to reduce travel. Not playing two Derby's simply is not important when you are trying to run a fair fixture for all clubs.
The only thing it seems getting in the way of a far fixture is clubs self interest, well thats easy to fix. Stop asking clubs for input into the fixture, their job is to play where fixtured, not have any say when or how its fixtured.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think your missing the point here. The NBA have a formula that has you playing all sides outside of your conference the same amount of times over a 4-5 year period.
As we don't have conferences ( and I agree with doppleganger that we should) the same can still b applied in the AFL. There is simply no want to do so for some unknown bloody reason.
Collingwood for example may play Essendon 7 times over a 5 year period but they will also play Saint Kilda 7 times over the same period, Sydney 7 times, West Coast 7 Times etc etc,
At the moment we have Collingwood playing essendon 10 times over a 5 year period and playing the saints like 5-6 times over the same period.
And this is not about Collingwood, it's about any club, just using the Pies as an example.
With 18 sides and a 23 round season the most fair it can be done is doing it over a 4-5 year period.

You are all wanting to get less travel, now you are asking for more travel.

If we go with that formula, you don't get to play Freo twice.

Taking the double headers from Collingwood is not going to make a difference to where they finish on the ladder, because if we don't play Carlton/Essendon, then we just play someone else from those groups they are in, so the difficulty stays the same in principle.

No-one from them clubs will care, but the media want there say and they won't want it to happen.

 

[JackOutback]

Using the NBA method, you don't guarantee West Coast v Fremantle twice a year. This will means both those teams will travel an extra time which doesn't work for anyone.

It's not the one and only solution to everything. You make the fixture as fair as you can, then you address travel issues. The AFL should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[LoungeLizard]

This is so f%^$#&N funny.

Go with the NBA fixture 1st to make it fairer, then address travel, like the AFL are doing already.

So take one derby away, then later give it back.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You are all wanting to get less travel, now you are asking for more travel.

If we go with that formula, you don't get to play Freo twice.

Taking the double headers from Collingwood is not going to make a difference to where they finish on the ladder, because if we don't play Carlton/Essendon, then we just play someone else from those groups they are in, so the difficulty stays the same in principle.

No-one from them clubs will care, but the media want there say and they won't want it to happen.

I have never spoken about less travel, you have just bundled me up with others. Geography is geography. the solution as already discussed is play travel blocks of 3 games.
Stop talking about collingwood, talk about the league fixture. what is the fairest solution to the fixture. Self interests jumps out if you talk about collingwood.
The double ups will be different virtually every year. which is fantastic for fans of all clubs.

It is just so hard to have a footy chat without self interest in my club popping up.

I am a West Coast fan and I would prefer a fair fixture for the entire league.

Can you say those words but use your clubs name?

 

[LoungeLizard]

I have never spoken about less travel, you have just bundled me up with others. Geography is geography. the solution as already discussed is play travel blocks of 3 games.
Stop talking about collingwood, talk about the league fixture. what is the fairest solution to the fixture. Self interests jumps out if you talk about collingwood.
The double ups will be different virtually every year. which is fantastic for fans of all clubs.

It is just so hard to have a footy chat without self interest in my club popping up.

I am a West Coast fan and I would prefer a fair fixture for the entire league.

Can you say those words but use your clubs name?

People have tried to tell you what is wrong with the NBA system, fine you think it's fairer, but it's not.

One year a club will get all the advantages and another club will get none, it will still depend on who your double ups are.

The system we have now is the AFL decide who you play on the previous years ladder, the higher you finish the more teams you play in your bracket of 6 teams.
so they try to make it fairer for all, but they can't predict who falls and who rises.

You think Collingwood are getting advantages that helps their position on the ladder because we got to play Carlton twice a year when they were crap, well as some have tried to explain to yo, if we didn't play Carlton twice, then we would be playing another team from the same bracket as them IE: No difference.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

People have tried to tell you what is wrong with the NBA system, fine you think it's fairer, but it's not.

One year a club will get all the advantages and another club will get none, it will still depend on who your double ups are.

The system we have now is the AFL decide who you play on the previous years ladder, the higher you finish the more teams you play in your bracket of 6 teams.
so they try to make it fairer for all, but they can't predict who falls and who rises.

You think Collingwood are getting advantages that helps their position on the ladder because we got to play Carlton twice a year when they were crap, well as some have tried to explain to yo, if we didn't play Carlton twice, then we would be playing another team from the same bracket as them IE: No difference.

No I am saying other clubs were disadvantaged because they never got to bully those clubs over two decades as your club did.

So what happens when Collingwood finish bottom 4 and the top 4 the previous year is Carlton, Melbounre , essendon, Richmond. How many of those sides you reckon the AFL will fixture twice under the current scenario?
The b;lockbusters get in the way of the 6-6-6

 

[LoungeLizard]

No I am saying other clubs were disadvantaged because they never got to bully those clubs over two decades as your club did.

So what happens when Collingwood finish bottom 4 and the top 4 the previous year is Carlton, Melbounre , essendon, Richmond. How many of those sides you reckon the AFL will fixture twice under the current scenario?
The b;lockbusters get in the way of the 6-6-6

Then we will only play 1 of them.

You probably think that's crap, but it hasn't happened yet, but if it does, that is what happens.

The blockbusters will still be played, IE: ANZAC day, Kings birthday, Dreantime at the G etc., we just won't have the return matches.

 

[JackOutback]

I have never spoken about less travel, you have just bundled me up with others. Geography is geography. the solution as already discussed is play travel blocks of 3 games.
Stop talking about collingwood, talk about the league fixture. what is the fairest solution to the fixture. Self interests jumps out if you talk about collingwood.
The double ups will be different virtually every year. which is fantastic for fans of all clubs.

It is just so hard to have a footy chat without self interest in my club popping up.

I am a West Coast fan and I would prefer a fair fixture for the entire league.

Can you say those words but use your clubs name?

Add to that and people think addressing the travel issue means more home games. No, it might mean blocks of travel, no five-day breaks, placement of byes, fewer trips to far-flung locations, etc. There's plenty the AFL could do, they just don't want to at the moment.

 

[Underarm]

Add to that and people think addressing the travel issue means more home games. No, it might mean blocks of travel, no five-day breaks, placement of byes, fewer trips to far-flung locations, etc. There's plenty the AFL could do, they just don't want to at the moment.

Guaranteeing the derby doesn't add any extra home games for those clubs.

 

[LoungeLizard]

See your mate always wants to talk about travel greatwhiteshark, this is why you get lumped in with them.

 

[dont bowl there]

Add to that and people think addressing the travel issue means more home games. No, it might mean blocks of travel, no five-day breaks, placement of byes, fewer trips to far-flung locations, etc. There's plenty the AFL could do, they just don't want to at the moment.

Do the WA clubs even want the block of away trips? West Coast was the team that struggled the most in the hubs and Fremantle weren't thrilled with this years small block in Adelaide. I would have thought it was a good thing for the clubs but they don't seem to be on that same page.

No 5 day breaks makes a lot of sense and no Tasmania trip for WA clubs, not that it really adds much travel time on.

 

[sr36]

I think your missing the point here. The NBA have a formula that has you playing all sides outside of your conference the same amount of times over a 4-5 year period.
As we don't have conferences ( and I agree with doppleganger that we should) the same can still b applied in the AFL. There is simply no want to do so for some unknown bloody reason.
Collingwood for example may play Essendon 7 times over a 5 year period but they will also play Saint Kilda 7 times over the same period, Sydney 7 times, West Coast 7 Times etc etc,
At the moment we have Collingwood playing essendon 10 times over a 5 year period and playing the saints like 5-6 times over the same period.
And this is not about Collingwood, it's about any club, just using the Pies as an example.
With 18 sides and a 23 round season the most fair it can be done is doing it over a 4-5 year period.

I understand it. I'm saying that a rolling draw does nothing to address inequality in terms of a year.

Eg. If it rolled around to being your turn to play double ups against Nth, WCE, Richmond, Stkilda, etc, that's who you'd play and you'd have a much easier draw that year than a team that doubled up against good teams. The AFL thirds model is an attempt to address that.

It's not perfect, as the previous year's ladder position isn't the perfect predictor of how good a team is going to be, but it's more likely to give equality in terms of how good your opponents are in a season.

 

[dont bowl there]

The main issue for me is the lumping of everything into "Vicbias". Outside of grand final location (should be moved every 4 years) and travel (which can't be helped) there really isn't a Vicbias, North, Saints and Dogs are the hardest done by clubs in the competition and the Eagles have more resources and cash than the AFL.

It's like any professional sport, they want as many eyes on the brand as possible so the big clubs get a leg up in terms of fixturing and TV. It's hardly groundbreaking stuff.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I understand it. I'm saying that a rolling draw does nothing to address inequality in terms of a year.

Eg. If it rolled around to being your turn to play double ups against Nth, WCE, Richmond, Stkilda, etc, that's who you'd play and you'd have a much easier draw that year than a team that doubled up against good teams. The AFL thirds model is an attempt to address that.

It's not perfect, as the previous year's ladder position isn't the perfect predictor of how good a team is going to be, but it's more likely to give equality in terms of how good your opponents are.

But rolling it means no clubs get to play lots more games against certain opponents than other clubs do.
In a yearly basis you are correct but my point is that your club should not play another club 10 times over 5 years and. Y club only plays that club 5 times. That is absurd.

 

[Underarm]

But rolling it means no clubs get to play lots more games against certain opponents than other clubs do.
In a yearly basis you are correct but my point is that your club should not play another club 10 times over 5 years and. Y club only plays that club 5 times. That is absurd.

You only win the Premiership in the 1 year you win it.

year 1: X team plays 4 top 6 teams twice - finish last and get pick 1
year 2: x team plays 4 middle 6 teams twice
year 3 x team plays 4 bottom 6 teams twice - finish first, get home finals, huge leg up to win the premiership.

What part of that is more fair than what we've got?

 

[LoungeLizard]

The main issue for me is the lumping of everything into "Vicbias". Outside of grand final location (should be moved every 4 years) and travel (which can't be helped) there really isn't a Vicbias, North, Saints and Dogs are the hardest done by clubs in the competition and the Eagles have more resources and cash than the AFL.

It's like any professional sport, they want as many eyes on the brand as possible so the big clubs get a leg up in terms of fixturing and TV. It's hardly groundbreaking stuff.

I agree with this except the Grand Final, well all finals actually, no final should be played at a teams home ground, all finals should be at neutral grounds, that gets rid of all the arguments that "you had it easier during H&A, you should'nt be here anyway"

 

[JackOutback]

Do the WA clubs even want the block of away trips? West Coast was the team that struggled the most in the hubs and Fremantle weren't thrilled with this years small block in Adelaide. I would have thought it was a good thing for the clubs but they don't seem to be on that same page.

No 5 day breaks makes a lot of sense and no Tasmania trip for WA clubs, not that it really adds much travel time on.

That would be for the clubs and AFL to decide. One of the issues the video posted earlier referred to was the discrepancy in rest and preparation time caused by travel, short breaks, staggered byes etc. Damien Hardwick spoke about the bye giving teams an opportunity to practice ball movement and drills when their opponents didn't have a week off, something they don't practise as much during game weeks when they are going over video footage, strategies etc. So saying 'travel is an issue' doesn't simply refer to kms travelled (though that obviously has an impact), it's about how it affects other parts of the game and what can be done make that fairer.

 

[The Feeder Club]

I dislike the AFL thirds system a lot, but if we have to have it it is actually not too hard to address the main problem with it. That main problem is the double ups are based on last year's ladder position, not this year's.

It would be better to have every team play one another once and at the end of round 17, you assign the double ups based on this season's ladder, using whatever opaque formula they currently use to assign the double ups. That would certainly reduce, though not eliminate, glaring inequities in double ups.

It might also be a good time to have a whole round bye, between round 17 and 18.

It's still a stupid fixture, but it would be less stupid.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You only win the Premiership in the 1 year you win it.

year 1: X team plays 4 top 6 teams twice - finish last and get pick 1
year 2: x team plays 4 middle 6 teams twice
year 3 x team plays 4 bottom 6 teams twice - finish first, get home finals, huge leg up to win the premiership.

What part of that is more fair than what we've got?

Of course that’s true but who you played in those double ups is critical to your pathway to finals.
So let’s go with the ladder last year
Collingwoid
Brisbane
Port
Melbourne
Carlton
St kilda

That was the top 6

Collingwood play 3 of them twice this year?
They play Sydney twice who finished 8th
Essendon twice who finished 11th and Hawthorn twice who finished 16th.

You say they are doing the 6-6-6.
They even cheat on that.

I mean ffs they can’t even stand behind their own system. It’s a joke mate. How can you not think it’s a joke.