Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[PenfoldsFan]

Basically, the way I see it, we've had

Brisbane then Geelong then Haw then Richmond as dominant teams recently who a brace of flags each.
3 Vic 1 Non Vic.

Then other teams who were generally thereabouts without being dominant and have snuck a couple of flags each here and there Collingwood, WCE and Sydney - 1 Vic and 2 Non-Vic.

Then you've had the 1 flag teams - Port, Melb and Dogs who've had shorter stints without getting to dominant eras
1 NV, 2 Vic.

I'm just not seeing the Vic/NV thing. I see 18 teams with different advantages and disadvantages.But most of all I see a really even comp. We're going into a final series where the whole top 8 other than Carlton have a shot. Yet all we're hearing about is intenable bias - even from the teams getting the easiest path into the Granny. And I think the 9th team would go OK if they were in there too.

You guys have a great path to the Granny. Try enjoying that and hoping your boys are good enough to get you there before worrying about who you will meet and whether or not they have been on a plane recently. I sure as hell hope you give the Cats a touch up - no idea who you'll get after that.

Yeah, nah, its WC , Adelaide then Brisbane, then a few single flags to Port, Sydney and WC.
Then 07 and since then Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond with a scattering of flags to Collingwood x2, Dogs and Dee's.

So again, when you include all the multiples from pre and post 07, rather than cherry pick and omit pre 2001, you see another trend, that pre 07 we had an advantage and post 07 you have an advantage.

Now, I'll ask again, who, vic or non vic, would a gambler put their money on in the immediate future with that form guide?

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Agree, the H&A fixture needs to be rectified to stop bog average teams like Adelaide, Brisbane and WC to ride their ground imbalance to an undererved H&A ladder position.

Thus they wouldn't get the undeserved easy run of home finals to qualify for a GF, where they just sit back for a good month with no travel, and get used to even more ground advantage to qualify for the GF.

Then get shown up as frauds on GF day by a hardened team who wins anywhere and everywhere.

So youre saying we need to investigate why non Vic teams fail at the pointy end and fix it so we dont continue to see the same one sided results yeah?

 

[sr36]

Yeah, nah, its WC , Adelaide then Brisbane, then a few single flags to Port, Sydney and WC.
Then 07 and since then Hawthorn, Geelong, Richmond with a scattering of flags to Collingwood x2, Dogs and Dee's.

So again, when you include all the multiples from pre and post 07, rather than cherry pick and omit pre 2001, you see another trend, that pre 07 we had an advantage and post 07 you have an advantage.

Now, I'll ask again, who, vic or non vic, would a gambler put their money on in the immediate future with that form guide?

I started at Brisbane, but yes could have made it 3-2. I wouldn't call Adelaide a super team. In terms of gambling. It's pretty clear where the money has been laid. Maybe the punters have gotten their head around a difficult concept. Individual teams and not states win flags and those great former premiership teams arent relevant to this year.

https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/australian-rules/afl/afl-premiership-winner-2024-7668076

Hawks at $12 look the best bet to me.

 

[doppleganger]

So youre saying we need to investigate why non Vic teams fail at the pointy end and fix it so we dont continue to see the same one sided results yeah?

We need stop the biased H&A fixture from gifting mediocre non-Melbourne teams top4 spots.

Time to give small Melbourne teams like StK,WB,NM,ESS and Carl a fighting chance at ever playing in a QF, let alone a GF.

 

[RUNVS]

We need stop the biased H&A fixture from gifting mediocre non-Melbourne teams top4 spots.

Yes that is the problem. Non-Victorian teams have too many advantages

 

[PenfoldsFan]

We need stop the biased H&A fixture from gifting mediocre non-Melbourne teams top4 spots.

Time to give small Melbourne teams like StK,WB,NM,ESS and Carl a fighting chance at ever playing in a QF, let alone a GF.

So apart from WC and Sydney, wbo havent won in over a decade, and combined won 2 flags by a goal, the rest are all mediocre yeah?

That means you want a 6-2 split with Sydney and WC qualifying 7th and 8th adjusted for the bees dick chance they actually have as seen in results post 07 yeah?

And you think a 25% representation in finals of 45% of the competition, a national competition I might add, is about right and doesnt need addressing yeah?

 

[hawkman]

I would actually be fine with it if the AFL introduced a rule saying we will rotate the Grand Final between any stadium that has 80,000 seats or more. I think the Perth stadium would be upgraded for that if it was a rule and then the MCG is the Grand Final every second or third year. That would be much fairer.

So you would be happy to lock in a disadvantage for SA, Qld and Tassie clubs?

 

[Brasher]

Yep. The 9 other Vic teams couldn't match those teams either.

We're about to embark on a final's series and as always the two top teams have the best path to the Granny and are thus in the best position to win the flag. One of those teams had their ladder position helped by getting an extra home ground advantage game. The other one has been helped by special recruiting rules that have given them priority access to 3 All Australian stars. Yet their fans are claiming that the cards are stacked against them ...

TBF, one of those teams didn't so much make top 2 because of HGA and an extra game at home as they did because of the weakness of their fixture.

A lot of commentary here about HGA but in a competition where you don't play everyone twice home and away, I reckon strength of schedule, timing of fixtures, your double up games, travel and just how good a football team you are play as much if not more of a role.

I read earlier here about the lack of top 4 finishes for Dockland tenants...well maybe they just ain't that good at football rather than some overwhelming hga that they are disadvantaged by?

 

[catstorm]

Sydney not having home Grand Finals in 2014 and 2016 did not help either. I mean who knows if it would have made a difference, but it could have.

Sorry Sydney lost the right to a home Grand Final in 16 when they lost in the QF to GWS.

Even if it was top seed gets to host it wouldn't be Sydney.

You don't get to lose in a final and still claim the 1 seed, **** off with that shit.

 

[sr36]

TBF, one of those teams didn't so much make top 2 because of HGA and an extra game at home as they did because of the weakness of their fixture.

A lot of commentary here about HGA but in a competition where you don't play everyone twice home and away, I reckon strength of schedule, timing of fixtures, your double up games, travel and just how good a football team you are play as much if not more of a role.

I read earlier here about the lack of top 4 finishes for Dockland tenants...well maybe they just ain't that good at football rather than some overwhelming hga that they are disadvantaged by?

I agree with you totally.

Ultimately you've got to be a good team to finish high regardless of whether or not there is an advantage either way in aterms of HGA, double ups, etc ... And to get to the granny you have to be a very good team and to win it even better.

Personally I'd take the advantages that help make you a better team over anything else - recruiting advantages:

Respective Academies.
The attractiveness of Collingwood's big games in front of huge crowds
The clubs with greater marketing appeal to increase player income
WA's go home edge.

Frankly, if GC don't have a golden era, with an academy in an area full of expats from southern states - then they're just badly run.

I think the smaller Vic clubs are in the weakest position to recruit good teams followed by the SA clubs - but then it gets evened up with draft picks and thus we have a really even comp.

 

[.Shotties.]

Do you mean the 5 games where Vic teams had a disadvantage at their home games against us, as they were outnumbered and out-noised in the crowd.

...out-noised?

Anyway, yes, you played five games at your home ground as the away team. This is the counter balance to your 'No true home advantage', your away disadvantage is also reduced, so this line of argument is a furphy.

 

[.Shotties.]

Sorry Sydney lost the right to a home Grand Final in 16 when they lost in the QF to GWS.

Even if it was top seed gets to host it wouldn't be Sydney.

You don't get to lose in a final and still claim the 1 seed, **** off with that shit.

Uh...what? You think the 7th placed team would have been seeded higher regardless of how the QF went?

 

[sr36]

...out-noised?

Anyway, yes, you played five games at your home ground as the away team. This is the counter balance to your 'No true home advantage', your away disadvantage is also reduced, so this line of argument is a furphy.

You suddenly seem to be arguing the same thing as me - counter balances. I'm just saying that the carry on about the disadvantage of travelling every second week is counter balanced by being advantage by having teams travel to you every second week. I'm glad you've come around to seeing that.

I think those advantages and disadvantages balance out and the only question regarding travel is whether or not there is a cumulative disadvantage to doing it more often or potentially a familiarity advantage from doing it more often. **** knows, but I think it's pretty minor either way as the ladders are pretty even in terms of ic and non-vic representation and the week off before finals would take away any accumulated disadvantage for the finals.

 

[catstorm]

Uh...what? You think the 7th placed team would have been seeded higher regardless of how the QF went?

Conversely you think if GWS beat the Bulldogs they should be seeded lower than the team they beat in the QF?

This is the problem with double elimination, it creates ambiguity in seeding. Theoretical speaking Sydney became the 4 seed by losing to GWS then regained the 2 seed by beating Geelong.

 

[sr36]

Conversely you think if GWS beat the Bulldogs they should be seeded lower than the team they beat in the QF?

This is the problem with double elimination, it creates ambiguity in seeding. Theoretical speaking Sydney became the 4 seed by losing to GWS then regained the 2 seed by beating Geelong.

At the moment you simply take the position of the team you beat - like you do in all other seeded fixtures. **** knows what they'd do with a home grand final if we switched to that but with the same final system? Not really worth arguing about.

 

[catstorm]

At the moment you simply take the position of the team you beat - like you do in all other seeded fixtures.

That is correct, but it obviously hasn't been applied to a GF as they are always at the MCG.

Hence the issue, lets go back to 16 and lets say Geelong and GWS both win PF's, who is the GF host?

Is it Geelong as they finished as the 2 seed? Or is it GWS because they claimed the 1 seed from Sydney?

I don't have an answer to this.

I think any situation where the GF is decided purely based on higher seed will necessitate a single elimination finals, no more double chances.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Sorry Sydney lost the right to a home Grand Final in 16 when they lost in the QF to GWS.

Even if it was top seed gets to host it wouldn't be Sydney.

You don't get to lose in a final and still claim the 1 seed, **** off with that shit.

Why not, finishing top gives a 2nd chance and they took it, top seed was restored when they made the GF, how they got there is irrelevant.

 

[RUNVS]

Why not, finishing top gives a 2nd chance and they took it, top seed was restored when they made the GF, how they got there is irrelevant.

Yep. Sydney still had a right to a home final in the 2016 Grand Final. 2014 may not have made a difference, though it could have, but 2016 definitely made a difference playing at the MCG instead of SCG.

 

[catstorm]

Why not, finishing top gives a 2nd chance and they took it, top seed was restored when they made the GF, how they got there is irrelevant.

I already explained why in other posts.

Yep. Sydney still had a right to a home final in the 2016 Grand Final. 2014 may not have made a difference, though it could have, but 2016 definitely made a difference playing at the MCG instead of SCG.

Nope. They were the 2 seed, claimed from Geelong, they forfeited the 1 seed to GWS who did likewise to the Dogs.

 

[Brasher]

I think the smaller Vic clubs are in the weakest position to recruit good teams followed by the SA clubs - but then it gets evened up with draft picks and thus we have a really even comp.

Maybe we and the AFL are dreaming regarding all teams being on an equal footing? Every major league from EPL to MLB have small market teams where the cycle of success happens far less frequently than the big clubs.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Conversely you think if GWS beat the Bulldogs they should be seeded lower than the team they beat in the QF?

This is the problem with double elimination, it creates ambiguity in seeding. Theoretical speaking Sydney became the 4 seed by losing to GWS then regained the 2 seed by beating Geelong.

But they didnt, so none of that s relevant.
All thats relevant is top seeded Sydney won the games it had in hand to make the GF as top seed.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

I already explained why in other posts.


Nope. They were the 2 seed, claimed from Geelong, they forfeited the 1 seed to GWS who did likewise to the Dogs.

Listen to this crap, honestly.

 

[sr36]

Maybe we and the AFL are dreaming regarding all teams being on an equal footing? Every major league from EPL to MLB have small market teams where the cycle of success happens far less frequently than the big clubs.

I think it's working and gives everyone a chance.

It's an 18 team comp and in the last 30 years every team other than Gold Coast has played in a Grand Final and they haven't been in the comp that long - plus their time should come soon. And 14 of the 18 clubs have won a flag - Freo, Saints and the two new clubs are the only ones who haven't won one in the last 30 years - and Saints were a couple of points away from winning 2.

But yeah you can't have completely equal footing - bigger clubs or clubs the AFL want to grow will always have an advantage - but it's not that big. The draft and the salary cap are good levellers.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Listen to this crap, honestly.

You go on and on like you have to be right all the time.

Have you ever stopped and listened to others and thought, oh maybe i'm wrong?

I have no idea how the AFL would seed teams if they did, but I do know in other sports, if you are the #1 seed and lose, whoever beats you then takes the path you would have.

 

[catstorm]

Listen to this crap, honestly.

Take your interstate persecution bullshit somewhere else.

We get it you have a massive inadequacy chip on your shoulder, get over it.

This is how the system works in the AFL in finals. As a lower seed you claim the role of the team you beat.

If you are the 7 seed and beat 6 you take their role and move on if you then beat the 3 seed you take their role and move on if you then beat the 1 seed you take that role and move on.

Conversely if you are the 1 seed and lose you become the 4 seed and vs the 5, should you win you retain 4 and move on if you then beat the 2 you take that role and move on.

You don't like it, I don't give two shits, this is the system, deal with it.