Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[doppleganger]

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?

??

I am using your own 10 year period, and the biggest red alert is that none of the 5 Marvel tenants have ever finished top4.

40 spots and 0 have been filles by Marvel tenants. That is a 0% representation in top4, from a 28% of teams.

There is an obvious structural inequity in H&A season, caused by AFL House policy that forced Melbourne based clubs to give up home ground advantage.

But you have nuffie Sydney fans who think they are disadvantaged, despite them having 5 top4 finishes and playing in the most GFs of any team in the 21st century.

"Good faith"

 

[PenfoldsFan]

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.

Lol, your lack of self awareness is telling, youre present in almost every page of the thread, but its me that goes on and on.
Perhaps heed some of your own advice.

Tennis seeds dont transfer, youre seeded on performance, rankings are a different story.

 

[go_the_dockers]

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.

It doesn't work that way in any league in the world.

You are dreaming

 

[PenfoldsFan]

??

I am using your own 10 year period, and the biggest red alert is that none of the 5 Marvel tenants have ever finished top4.

40 spots and 0 have been filles by Marvel tenants. That is a 0% representation in top4, from a 28% of teams.

There is an obvious structural inequity in H&A season, caused by AFL House policy that forced Melbourne based clubs to give up home ground advantage.

But you have nuffie Sydney fans who think they are disadvantaged, despite them having 5 top4 finishes and playing in the most GFs of any team in the 21st century.

"Good faith"

Do you think that might be because those 5 teams cant recruit decent coaches or top up players when theyre competing with MCG tenants/Geelong in the Vic market.
Id suggest theres too many clubs competing for them all to succeed but we cant upset those fans now can we.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

It doesn't work that way in any league in the world.

You are dreaming

He/she has lost the plot.

 

[sr36]

It doesn't work that way in any league in the world.

You are dreaming

You seem to be getting worked up about the rules of a system that doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have any rules.

Double cahnce final systems are rare to start with - are there any that have seedings that remain the same with an advantage all the way through the system?

 

[doppleganger]

Do you think that might be because those 5 teams cant recruit decent coaches or top up players when theyre competing with MCG tenants/Geelong in the Vic market.
Id suggest theres too many clubs competing for them all to succeed but we cant upset those fans now can we.

Carlton and Essendon are "big" clubs.

Id suggest it highlights the importance of home advantage, and being a co-tenant without a real home is a massive disadvantage.

Id also suggest that it makes the entire premise of VICBias redundant, when it is obvious that the teams that struggle to compete are Melbourne based clubs.

Much better to be an SA team with extra home ground advantage games, or be Sydney/Brisbane with academies and AFL House wanting your success to help with a strategic aim to grow the game in NSW and QLD.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

You seem to be getting worked up about the rules of a system that doesn't exist and therefore doesn't have any rules.

Double cahnce final systems are rare to start with - are there any that have seedings that remain the same with an advantage all the way through the system?

Do we actually have seeds in AFL finals officially?
Seeding is generally more to do with performance at a particular venue or surface rather than outright ranking.
Its why Nadal was the no1 seed at Roland Garros when he didnt hold the no1 ranking.
If he lost in a minor round, the person who beats him doesnt take his seeding.

 

[Slime Roy]

Is this the forum where we congratulate the VFL for naming its 12 award after a Victorian player (Ronaldale Barass) in our proud "National" competition?
Just wanna get in early before the "Daisy" is announced in a few months time.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Carlton and Essendon are "big" clubs.

Id suggest it highlights the importance of home advantage, and being a co-tenant without a real home is a massive disadvantage.

Id also suggest that it makes the entire premise of VICBias redundant, when it is obvious that the teams that struggle to compete are Melbourne based clubs.

Much better to be an SA team with extra home ground advantage games, or be Sydney/Brisbane with academies and AFL House wanting your success to help with a strategic aim to grow the game in NSW and QLD.

Not when it comes to the GF because its generally the tenant/part time tenant that you run into that have the venue advantage.
The last time a non vic ran into a non tenant where things should have been the closest to equal, we saw the worst 1 sided umpiring in modern GF history.

So Id say history shows even though Marvel teams struggle to get there, they get a different advantage to ensure they succeed.

 

[sr36]

Do we actually have seeds in AFL finals officially?
Seeding is generally more to do with performance at a particular venue or surface rather than outright ranking.
Its why Nadal was the no1 seed at Roland Garros when he didnt hold the no1 ranking.
If he lost in a minor round, the person who beats him doesnt take his seeding.

First 16 used to be seeded in tennis - think it might have gone to 32.

But it was designed so no one in the top 16 played each other until the round of 16 - when 1 would be seeded to play 16, 2 v15, etc and then it goes through to the final where 1 was seeded to play 2. If you beat the top seed, you took their place in the draw and thus were seeded to play 16 - in the round of 16, 8 in the quarter finals, 4 in the semis and then 2 in the final. Not sure if there is a double chance system with seedings all the way through - it would be odd.

We don't have seeds as such, but we do have highest ranked teams getting home final - until the Granny.

Now if Geelong beat Port i n the qualifying final and then they met in the Granny, in a home grand final system where would it be played is the question? It would be a bit strange for Port to still be ranked higher despite losing to them in the Prelim. It's only an issue in a double chance system like ours.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

First 16 used to be seeded in tennis - think it might have gone to 32.

But it was designed so no one in the top 16 played each other until the round of 16 - when 1 would be seeded to play 16, 2 v15, etc and then it goes through to the final where 1 was seeded to play 2. If you beat the top seed, you took their place in the draw and thus were seeded to play 16 - in the round of 16, 8 in the quarter finals, 4 in the semis and then 2 in the final. Not sure if there is a double chance system with seedings all the way through - it would be odd.

We don't have seeds as such, but we do have highest ranked teams getting home final - until the Granny.

Now if Geelong beat Port i n the qualifying final and then they met in the Granny, in a home grand final system where would it be played is the question? It would be a bit strange for Port to still be ranked higher despite losing to them in the Prelim. It's only an issue in a double chance system like ours.

I have never, in all my days of watching tennis, seen tennis seeding pass from player to player during a tournament.

 

[Ross]

Now if Geelong beat Port i n the qualifying final and then they met in the Granny, in a home grand final system where would it be played is the question? It would be a bit strange for Port to still be ranked higher despite losing to them in the Prelim. It's only an issue in a double chance system like ours.

If the highest ranked team gets a home grand final then they may as well also get a home prelim as well. Basically the highest ranked team gets to keep playing at home until they win three times or they lose twice. A little bit reminiscent of the old challenge system from 100 years ago.

Edit: Just to clarify, the argument earlier was the Swans should have got a home grand final in 2016 as the team who finished first even though they lost a final, but if they get a home grand final for that then they may as well have also been given a home prelim against No. 2 Geelong, even though Geelong had won their only final.

 

[sr36]

I have never, in all my days of watching tennis, seen tennis seeding pass from player to player during a tournament.

There is no announcement seeding is just used to set up the draw so the good players don't meet until the end, but the draws set at the start. If you beat the top seed - you're in the first seeds spot in the draw until the end or you lose and then whoever beats you takes the top seeds spot in the draw. It's how it works in seeded knockout tournaments - the draw isn't reshuffled after each round for the higher ranked of the remaining seeds, so if you beet a higher seed, you get the benefits that the higher seed gets - you get lower seeded opponents.

 

[doppleganger]

Not when it comes to the GF because its generally the tenant/part time tenant that you run into that have the venue advantage.
The last time a non vic ran into a non tenant where things should have been the closest to equal, we saw the worst 1 sided umpiring in modern GF history.

So Id say history shows even though Marvel teams struggle to get there, they get a different advantage to ensure they succeed.

That is actually something that changed in the late 2000s. Geelong and Hawthorn both pushed to play less home games at Marvel.

Hawthorn started playing 4 games in Tasmania from 2007, they were happy to travel 9-10 times a season instead of play neutral games at Marvel.

Geelong also pushed for no "home" games at Marvel, early in 2000s they had a 7/8 Cat Park, 3/4 Marvel home game deal and they would play 7/8 games at Marvel.

In 2006, both Geelong and Hawthorn played 7 games at Marvel.

In 2011, it was down to just 2 and 3 respectively.

Home advantage is important, playing at the neutral AFLHouse imposed Marvel stadium hinders Melbourne based clubs.

Collingwood are looking at trying to do a Hawthorn and play our remaining "home" Marvel games in QLD, as a ground advantage is more important them travel.

 

[catstorm]

It doesn't work that way in any league in the world.

You are dreaming

Because practically no other league in the world has this nonsense double chance system.

About the only one I can think of is the NRL and they like the AFL have a fixed GF location in Sydney.

Funny how I don't see this being such a major issue for them.

What you and old mate PenfoldsFan are advocating for makes no logical sense. It would mean should Geelong beat Port and go on to make a GF and Port were to meet them there Port would get the home GF because they have the higher original seed.

Make that make sense, at least what I'm saying is logical.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

There is no announcement seeding is just used to set up the draw so the good players don't meet until the end, but the draws set at the start. If you beat the top seed - you're in the first seeds spot in the draw until the end or you lose and then whoever beats you takes the top seeds spot in the draw. It's how it works in seeded knockout tournaments - the draw isn't reshuffled after each round for the higher ranked of the remaining seeds, so if you beet a higher seed, you get the benefits that the higher seed gets - you get lower seeded opponents.

The little number 1 that appears next to the no1 seeded players name never shifts to a player who beats them, the seed is knocked out and there is no seed in that section going forward.
Again, I have never, in all my days watching tennis, heard of a player being referred to as having taken the seeding.
If it were the case then whoever makes the final would through attrition, be 1 and 2 seeds and thats not the case

 

[sr36]

The little number 1 that appears next to the no1 seeded players name never shifts to a player who beats them, the seed is knocked out and there is no seed in that section going forward.
Again, I have never, in all my days watching tennis, heard of a player being referred to as having taken the seeding.
If it were the case then whoever makes the final would through attrition, be 1 and 2 seeds and thats not the case

It's set up so that 1 doesn't meet any of the top 16 until the round of 16. Any of the top 8 until the round 8, any of the top 4 until the semis - the number 2 seed until the final. If you beat the Number 1 seed - that run through the draw becomes yours. You are in the place of the number 1 seed. You're not the number 1 seeded player for the event, but your in their place for the rest of the tournament.

 

[doppleganger]

I have never, in all my days of watching tennis, seen tennis seeding pass from player to player during a tournament.

The AFL finals system doesn't use H&A ranking to determine match-ups after week1.

H&A ranking becomes redundant.

You beat #1 at any point in AFL finals, and you take their spot.

That is the similarity to tennis, if you beat the higher seeded player at any stage you just take their spot in the pre-determined bracket for remaining games in the tournament.

This year, if GWS beat Sydney, they head to PF1. They dont magically decide that the winner of Port v Geel becomes the "highest ranked" team and moves across to PF1.

In AFL finals current model, effectively the winner of PF1 should host the GF if awarding it on merit, as it will always be the minor premier, or a team who knocked off the minor premier and took their spot in the finals bracket.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Because practically no other league in the world has this nonsense double chance system.

About the only one I can think of is the NRL and they like the AFL have a fixed GF location in Sydney.

Funny how I don't see this being such a major issue for them.

What you and old mate PenfoldsFan are advocating for makes no logical sense. It would mean should Geelong beat Port and go on to make a GF and Port were to meet them there Port would get the home GF because they have the higher original seed.

Make that make sense, at least what I'm saying is logical.

It makes sense because we have the double chance system.
The double chance allows variation in how you get there.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

It's set up so that 1 doesn't meet any of the top 16 until the round of 16. Any of the top 8 until the round 8, any of the top 4 until the semis - the number 2 seed until the final. If you beat the Number 1 seed - that run through the draw becomes yours. You are in the place of the number 1 seed. You're not the number 1 seeded player for the event, but your in their place for the rest of the tournament.

But it doesnt make you the number 1 seed.
You are not referred to as the number 1 seed, you just move through that section of the draw without the seed.
Catstorm is suggesting a seeded team that loses hands over the seed officially and be recognised as such.
It doesnt happen.

 

[sr36]

But it doesnt make you the number 1 seed.
You are not referred to as the number 1 seed, you just move through that section of the draw without the seed.
Catstorm is suggesting a seeded team that loses hands over the seed officially and be recognised as such.
It doesnt happen.

In tennis and currently in AFL, seeding is only relevant when making the original draw. Once the draw is set, it's irrelevant.

I don't think there's a finals system with a relevant situation.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Lol, ranking and seeding are 2 different things, a no1 rank isnt always no1 seed as it has certain variables, like venue, surface.

We dont use seeding, we use ranking, no1 ranked team, in this years case, is Sydney.
They get a home final week 1 because they are ranked no1.
They dont get ranked no1 because its being played at the SCG.

Only in the mind of a Victorian will GWS assume the no1 rank should they beat Sydney in a scenario where Sydney are not yet knocked out.

 

[sr36]

Lol, ranking and seeding are 2 different things, a no1 rank isnt always no1 seed as it has certain variables, like venue, surface.

We dont use seeding, we use ranking, no1 ranked team, in this years case, is Sydney.
They get a home final week 1 because they are ranked no1.
They dont get ranked no1 because its being played at the SCG.

Only in the mind of a Victorian will GWS assume the no1 rank should they beat Sydney in a scenario where Sydney are not yet knocked out.

The draws set, rankings/seedings are no longer relevant.

How they'd do it if they kept a double chance system and went with a home grand final - the answer is **** knows - it'd be whatever rule they decided was the one to go with.

 

[Jezza Blair]

Yes, very good. Just one question: WHAT THE ACTUAL F*CK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

8 non-Vic teams
10 Vic teams

Vic teams, for their games against other Melb clubs, have to drive across town, or at worst to Geelong, which some clubs like Collingwood have done twice in 20 years.

ALL non-Vic teams have to travel a MINIMUM of 700km to play a Vic team away (dist. from Adel. to Melb.). For the odd club that chooses to play games somewhere like in Tassie (Hawks/North?) - that's their choice - that's on them.

Your bullshit numbers above are made up.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Galileo!

Those games against other melbourne clubs are not “home games”. Conveniently ignored by non-Victorian club supporters always. This disadvantage balances out the advantage of less travel. The AFL knows this, but a victimhood complex can always play victim.