Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[LoungeLizard]

There's an undeniable bias in fixturing where certain teams do not travel to certain locations.

Now Collingwood fans, spend a page or two replying to each other about why there's nothing wrong with that

And here you are replying to yourself, this get funnier and funnier every day.

Now you know why I am here, people like you amuse me.

Now do you have any Vicbias stuff or do you just want to talk to yourself some more?

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Me: If the Eagles have to play on Tassie, then so do Collingwood

Collingwood fans, ignoring a fairly simple point: Have you seen our record in Geelong? There's no Vic bias here, something about Marvel, carry on.

Me: Look, we play on Tassie every year, I really think that should be scrapped or everyone should play there

Collingwood fans: Stop yelling at clouds, Geelong record, no bias

Me: You guys really like the status quo huh?

Collingwood fans: What do you mean, I hate the status quo. Funnier and funnier.

 

[doppleganger]

There's an undeniable bias in fixturing where certain teams do not travel to certain locations.

Now Collingwood fans, spend a page or two replying to each other about why there's nothing wrong with that

The undeniable bias is that only a small group of teams retain a full home ground advantage.

These teams unsurprisingly dominate the H&A ladder, and yet continue to be the biggest sooks and complain abiut how hard they have it.

They even stupidly claim they are disadvantaged by playing teams at neutral venues all over the country instead of playing teams at their home ground and are disadvantaged by playing a game in the GF timeslot.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

It's a lot easier to say yes, I agree with the AFL that we should never have to play in Tassie, but you do.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Me: If the Eagles have to play on Tassie, then so do Collingwood

Collingwood fans, ignoring a fairly simple point: Have you seen our record in Geelong? There's no Vic bias here, something about Marvel, carry on.

Me: Look, we play on Tassie every year, I really think that should be scrapped or everyone should play there

Collingwood fans: Stop yelling at clouds, Geelong record, no bias

Me: You guys really like the status quo huh?

Collingwood fans: What do you mean, I hate the status quo. Funnier and funnier.

Ok mate, if you want to talk, reply to the posts, it seems to me you are just and angry WC supporter and can't get over how crap you are and need to blame that on someone else.

Let me reply to what I think you are trying to say.
You think it's not fair that some teams have to go to Tassie and teams like Collingwood don't.
We have tried to tell you, we don't care if the AFL sends us to Tassie, we would most likely be better off.

We have also tried to explain why, Colingwood make them money playing in Melbourne, WC don't

Now the Geelong reference was for all the nuffies who think we are blessed playing at the MCG, our record there is not that good.

The Funnier reference was you going on about how Collingwood supporters were talking amougnst themselves and getting worked up.
But you were replying to your own posts and typing in Caps (yelling)

So if you want a convo, then come at me, if not I will keep laughing at you and we can make this thread larger and larger, which also seems to upset you.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

It just blows my mind you blokes can type so many posts without either saying "You're right, we should have to play in Tassie too" or "You're right, North and Hawthorn should play all their home games in Melbourne".

If one of you have done either of those things in the the last however many pages, my apologies. I missed it in all the irrelevant crap.

 

[LoungeLizard]

It just blows my mind you blokes can type so many posts without either saying "You're right, we should have to play in Tassie too" or "You're right, North and Hawthorn should play all their home games in Melbourne".

If one of you have done either of those things in the the last however many pages, my apologies. I missed it in all the irrelevant crap.

Oh so that's what you're after you want recognition for your genius idea.

Ok, you're right we should be sent to Tassie, we should be sent to Geelong, we should be sent to Darwin and Alice.

Now go look through the thread and I think you will find this has been said before.

Oh and just in case you ask, yes, the GF should not be played at the MCG every year.

 

[Walshawk]

Hawks would be playing their final game this weekend without the pre-finals bye that every other finalist gets. Probably would have been GWS and/or Blues last year. not to mention that some teams wouldn't have had a bye since round 1-5 coming up against teams fresh of their second bye. It would make the fixture even more uneven.

No I don't think they'll go back to 22games- it'll be 22+gather round. 11 home and 11 away. There's no data to suggest that the extra travel impacts home and awy outcomes for non-Vic teams. And the extra travel disadvantage theory ignores the extra advantage of teams travelling to them.

All of that doesn't mention the biggest obstacle:

9 teams with 12 home games and 11 away games and 10 teams with 12 away games and 11 home games doesn't actually add up - so some teams would have to get disadvantage or advantaged with the formula not applying to them.

It does add up. Over and above 22 games, there are 19 extra games with 24 games. Nine of those after home game for the nine non vic clubs. 10 are neutral games. Seven of those at Gather Round, three elsewhere. For example, Darwin as per my previous thread. You can spread those games over multiple rounds.

Also, you can’t play 23 games with 19 teams if you want all teams to play the same amount of games. It has to be 22 or 24.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Oh so that's what you're after you want recognition for your genius idea.

Ok, you're right we should be sent to Tassie, we should be sent to Geelong, we should be sent to Darwin and Alice.

Now go look through the thread and I think you will find this has been said before.

Oh and just in case you ask, yes, the GF should not be played at the MCG every year.

Yeah, I'm not reading through 90 pages of Collingwood fans doing what you've been doing in the last couple.

Never claimed it was a genius idea, I said multiple times it was a pretty ****ing basic one, but then came Geelong, yelling at clouds, the Eagles' ladder position etc etc etc etc

Wild.

Glad you agree with me though. You had me for a sec.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Yeah, I'm not reading through 90 pages of Collingwood fans doing what you've been doing in the last couple.

Never claimed it was a genius idea, I said multiple times it was a pretty ****ing basic one, but then came Geelong, yelling at clouds, the Eagles' ladder position etc etc etc etc

Wild.

Glad you agree with me though. You had me for a sec.

You see mate you have an opinion, and for a while now you have been telling us what you think about Collingwood supporters on this thread, but it seems when someone expresses their opinion to you, you start yelling at them.

I have an opinion of you also after reading your posts, I expressed it and it hasn't changed.

So are you going to yell at me now?

I will give you one thing, you can actually quote posts.

 

[sr36]

It does add up. Over and above 22 games, there are 19 extra games with 24 games. Nine of those after home game for the nine non vic clubs. 10 are neutral games. Seven of those at Gather Round, three elsewhere. For example, Darwin as per my previous thread. You can spread those games over multiple rounds.

Also, you can’t play 23 games with 19 teams if you want all teams to play the same amount of games. It has to be 22 or 24.

Yes you're right with the final paragraph.

Gather round to go until they bring in team 20. Keep the same length season but with 22 games.

Ultimately there just is no data to support the supposedly big travel disadvantage in home and away. It would simply be the squeaky wheel getting the oil. And then create more squeaking as someone misses out on either a home or an away game. Someone has their byes distributed badly, etc and ultimately 9 teams do actually get a leg up despite results not suggesting that it's warranted.

 

[Jez1974]

Marvel is North's actual home ground.

WC get to play North at a ground that isn't their home ground, and North players have to travel to get to.

It is North who are shafted as they give up a home game, and WC who benefit as they get an away disadvantage game replaced with a neutral away game where both teams are travelling.

North should play WC at Marvel and actually enjoy a home advantage, and WC cop the away disadvantage.

Often happens!!
Norf do play at tassie more than most teams probs a financial benefit. Should play it in NZ.
Almost as far. No advantage then!!!!

 

[doppleganger]

It just blows my mind you blokes can type so many posts without either saying "You're right, we should have to play in Tassie too" or "You're right, North and Hawthorn should play all their home games in Melbourne".

Are you still that dense that the entire argument is that Melbourne clubs are disadvantaged by not getting their home games in Melbourne at their home ground.

When North play WC in Tassie, it is North effectively travelling for a home game. It is North who give up an advantage, and WC who lose a disadvantage

When Dees play Freo in Darwin, it is the Dees effectively travelling for a home game. It is the Dees who give up an advantage, and Freo who lose a disadvantage.

When Hawks go to Tassie, when Richmond play in FNQ, when StK play in NZ or China, when WB play in NT or Ballarat...it is always the Melbourne based team giving up home ground advantage.

It really shouldn't be hard to follow, teams who have a proper home ground advantage are at an advantage in H&A, teams who play home games all over the shop are disadvantaged.

Same goes for finals week1, not all teams get home finals. But the teams sooking aren't the ones who miss out on a final at their home ground.

 

[Jez1974]

Are you still that dense that the entire argument is that Melbourne clubs are disadvantaged by not getting their home games in Melbourne at their home ground.

When North play WC in Tassie, it is North effectively travelling for a home game. It is North who give up an advantage, and WC who lose a disadvantage

When Dees play Freo in Darwin, it is the Dees effectively travelling for a home game. It is the Dees who give up an advantage, and Freo who lose a disadvantage.

When Hawks go to Tassie, when Richmond play in FNQ, when StK play in NZ or China, when WB play in NT or Ballarat...it is always the Melbourne based team giving up home ground advantage.

It really shouldn't be hard to follow, teams who have a proper home ground advantage are at an advantage in H&A, teams who play home games all over the shop are disadvantaged.

Same goes for finals week1, not all teams get home finals. But the teams sooking aren't the ones who miss out on a final at their home ground.

Ahhhhhh!!

 

[LoungeLizard]

Are you still that dense that the entire argument is that Melbourne clubs are disadvantaged by not getting their home games in Melbourne at their home ground.

When North play WC in Tassie, it is North effectively travelling for a home game. It is North who give up an advantage, and WC who lose a disadvantage

When Dees play Freo in Darwin, it is the Dees effectively travelling for a home game. It is the Dees who give up an advantage, and Freo who lose a disadvantage.

When Hawks go to Tassie, when Richmond play in FNQ, when StK play in NZ or China, when WB play in NT or Ballarat...it is always the Melbourne based team giving up home ground advantage.

It really shouldn't be hard to follow, teams who have a proper home ground advantage are at an advantage in H&A, teams who play home games all over the shop are disadvantaged.

Same goes for finals week1, not all teams get home finals. But the teams sooking aren't the ones who miss out on a final at their home ground.

Don't be too harsh on him, he just wants to be told you agree with him that Collingwood should play North in Tassie if WC have to.

He doesn't want to know if they get an advantage or not, he seems to not care less, you know, same as he says we don't.

So don't be too harsh, just agree that Collingwood should play North in Tassie, it makes him feel good.

 

[sr36]

It just blows my mind you blokes can type so many posts without either saying "You're right, we should have to play in Tassie too" or "You're right, North and Hawthorn should play all their home games in Melbourne".

If one of you have done either of those things in the the last however many pages, my apologies. I missed it in all the irrelevant crap.

What about option c. They're hawk and north home games. Let them play them wherever they want.

I'm not sure why it's a big disadvantage for WCE to play north in Tassie rather than marvel. Or why it's a big advantage for us to play north at marvel rather than in Tassie? Seems much the same to me. Could you run me through your reckoning.

Hawks is a bit different as non-mcg tenants should get more opportunities at the grand final venue.

 

[hawkman]

What about option c. They're hawk and north home games. Let them play them wherever they want.

I'm not sure why it's a big disadvantage for WCE to play north in Tassie rather than marvel. Or why it's a big advantage for us to play north at marvel rather than in Tassie? Seems much the same to me. Could you run me through your reckoning.

Hawks is a bit different as non-mcg tenants should get more opportunities at the grand final venue.

Plus North are beatable anywhere while Hawthorn have a much better record at Launceston than anywhere else so it is a genuine disadvantage for clubs to regularly go there

 

[doppleganger]

Hawks is a bit different as non-mcg tenants should get more opportunities at the grand final venue.

If they think MCG exposure is so important, why dont they play a "home game" at the G?

It is still their home game, so as we have been informed in this thread, travel wouldn't count as they choose to sell it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

If you agree with the logic, you should then agree that VICBias is a nonsense, and it that it is actually non-Melbourne teams that are advantaged in H&A.

Results are clear, just look at the ladder in the 21st century.

I have never said to much about Vic bias, this thread has gone off on other things quite a bit. I had had my say about that.
Do I think the comp is set up and basically run around for the best interests of Victoria. Yes absolutely.
Has there been many deals done that benefits Vic clubs and at the same time benefits Victoria, again yes of course there has.
Is it Vic bias? Hard not to say a little.
Do non Vic clubs get a H&A advantage? Yes they do. The penalty for that is the GF at the MCG. All means nothing. Only one game you can win the flag.

You guys keep denying travel etc yet the biggest people in the game that actually live it say it is very very real. Should I believe you or maybe someone like Mick Malthouse, John Longmire, Robert Walls, Malcolm Blight, Leigh Matthews? Head office says its real, all coaches say it. Must be something to it?? I have not done it so don't know. In fact the only people who deny it seem to be in this thread. Again Maybe you guys are right??

So is Vic bias real? Bias is probs the wrong word.
But it still amazes me when they invent a blockbuster like Kings Birthday eve or Anzac Eve etc that they never ever say to WA or SA this is your chance to put your Showdown or Derby as a lock and make those nights/timeslots theres to own. It always is another Vic game.

How is that not a bias or a favour for Vic clubs? And its time after time.
I wouldn't of watched a Friday night more than twice this year, just sick to death of the same old clubs when there is much better games to be played in the round that should have the timeslot.

Anyway, I could go on and on. Its not a fair comp, we all know it. Who it advantages and disadvantages is clearly one we will never agree on.
But as a traditional footy supporter i wish I had of been born in melbourne so at least then I know I sit on the right side of it all and most decisions will always benefit the Melbourne teams.

 

[Dan26]

But it still amazes me when they invent a blockbuster like Kings Birthday eve or Anzac Eve etc that they never ever say to WA or SA this is your chance to put your Showdown or Derby as a lock and make those nights/timeslots theres to own. It always is another Vic game.

How is that not a bias or a favour for Vic clubs? And its time after time.

It's got nothing to do with "bias" just simply market forces, and I'm sure if you were in charge of the fixture, you'd schedule public holiday matches the same way, as I will explain here.

A public holiday adds around 25% to the crowd, so the best way to maximize that 25% extra is to ensure two teams supporter bases are at the game, not just one.

Now, sure you could schedule Port-vs Adelaide (two supporters bases) on a public holiday, but these games are sell-outs anyway. You are not adding any extra attendance due to the limited capacity of the Adelaide oval. So what possible benefit is there in scheduling this match on a public holiday? None

You could schedule Port vs a non-Vic team on a public holiday and increase the crowd from 38,000 to 46,000, but you are only increasing the Port fan base because there is only one local team.

Putting two Victoria teams at a 100,000 capacity stadium on a public holiday ensures you are getting maximum "extra fans" because of the presence of two local teams, not just one.

You could make a case for it with Port vs Crows or Eagles vs Dockers if those stadiums held 100,000 people because there would be an increase in attendance due to the massive capacity. But both those games are sell-outs anyway, so there is literally no benefit.

That's why Vic vs Vic matches tend to get held on public holidays at big stadiums - it's the best way to maximize attendance. There are simply more local Victorian derbies.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's got nothing to do with "bias" just simply market forces, and I'm sure if you were in charge of the fixture, you'd schedule public holiday matches the same way, as I will explain here.

A public holiday adds around 25% to the crowd, so the best way to maximize that 25% extra is to ensure two teams supporter bases are at the game, not just one.

Now, sure you could schedule Port-vs Adelaide (two supporters bases) on a public holiday, but these games are sell-outs anyway. You are not adding any extra attendance due to the limited capacity of the Adelaide oval. So what possible benefit is there in scheduling this match on a public holiday? None

You could schedule Port vs a non-Vic team on a public holiday and increase the crowd from 38,000 to 46,000, but you are only increasing the Port fan base because there is only one local team.

Putting two Victoria teams at a 100,000 capacity stadium on a public holiday ensures you are getting maximum "extra fans" because of the presence of two local teams, not just one.

You could make a case for it with Port vs Crows or Eagles vs Dockers if those stadiums held 100,000 people because there would be an increase in attendance due to the massive capacity. But both those games are sell-outs anyway, so there is literally no benefit.

That's why Vic vs Vic matches tend to get held on public holidays at big stadiums - it's the best way to maximize attendance. There are simply more local Victorian derbies.

Then one must ask what actually is the point of the National league? If it solely about market forces as you say and that market is Victoria then what’s the point of it all. The only clubs that will ever grow will be Victorian.
What a pointless exercise the whole league is.

 

[sr36]

You guys keep denying travel etc yet the biggest people in the game that actually live it say it is very very real. Should I believe you or maybe someone like Mick Malthouse, John Longmire, Robert Walls, Malcolm Blight, Leigh Matthews? Head office says its real, all coaches say it. Must be something to it?? I have not done it so don't know. In fact the only people who deny it seem to be in this thread. Again Maybe you guys are right??

I've also heard Mick and Leigh talk about how much of a fortress they made their respective non-vic homes.

So yes, travelling to a hostile crows is obviously a disadvantage, but that's the case in both directions.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I've also heard Mick and Leigh talk about how much of a fortress they made their respective non-vic homes.

So yes, travelling to a hostile crows is obviously a disadvantage, but that's the case in both directions.

Absolutely, just as I believe the MCG is for the Pies against non vic clubs. An absolute fortress.

 

[doppleganger]

I've also heard Mick and Leigh talk about how much of a fortress they made their respective non-vic homes.

So yes, travelling to a hostile crows is obviously a disadvantage, but that's the case in both directions.

Ive also heard Mick talk about BLOCKBUSTER fatigue.

And the WC CEO, confirm that WC would prefer an away game to a Derby in final round of H&A.

Much easier to scoot off to Tassie and play a game nobody cares about.

 

[sr36]

Absolutely, just as I believe the MCG is for the Pies against non vic clubs. An absolute fortress.

Pies have an advantage over the other vic teams as well, as usually we've got the majority of the crowd on our side - and we're bloody loud.

However there is a bit of a disadvantage in that sometimes it's a bigger game for the opposition than us, as a 70,000 crowd against the Pies at the G is a big game and our opponents come to play.