Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[.Shotties.]

The point is that they DO play 11 games outside of Melbourne.

Yes, and this is something they decided to do.

Why is it hard for Sydney to play outside of Sydney 11 times and Port outside of Adelaide 10 times, but Hawthorn playing outside of Melbourne 11 times isnt hard?

It is, but this isn't something inherent in the league, it's an active choice they've made. Of Sydney chose to sell half their games interstate I wouldn't say it was an unfair advantage that we play 15 games in another state.

If you are being consistent in your argument, travel is a disadvantage, you would group Hawthorn with Sydney and Port as a team disadvantaged compared to Essendon and Carlton.

No, because an advantage one has willingly decided to give up and can go back to when they want is not the same as when it's inherent in the league.

 

[doppleganger]

Yep. Doppleganger will never accept that there are even minor disadvantages to being a non-Victorian team.

A travel disadvantage exist for WA teams, they are the only teams who have a significant number or long haul flights where they also have to manage significant time zone change.

SA and NSW supporters are taking the piss trying to align themselves with WA clubs as copping a travel disadvantage (especially considering they travel less than a number of Vic teams).

 

[catstorm]

...Yeah, right. Well, not only is that not how any seeding system in the world works, but even if it did, it would still put Sydney as the home team in '16.

No other sports league that I can think of has this double elimination nonsense. The seeding or rankings or whatever you want to call them can not be compared to any other sport.

Any other sport you lose you’re done and gone.

Still haven’t got a clear answer from any of you though.

In 2016 should you have been given a home final if you’d vs’d GWS in the GF?

This year should Geelong beat Port and vs them again in the GF should Port get home field?

Answer it. No more skirting around the edges.

 

[.Shotties.]

.

Still haven’t got a clear answer from any of you though.

In 2016 should you have been given a home final if you’d vs’d GWS in the GF?

This year should Geelong beat Port and vs them again in the GF should Port get home field?

Answer it. No more skirting around the edges.

The **** are you talking about? You claimed that Sydney shouldn't have had home team in 16. Even in your made-up scenario, that's incorrect.

 

[doppleganger]

Yes, and this is something they decided to do.

It is, but this isn't something inherent in the league, it's an active choice they've made. Of Sydney chose to sell half their games interstate I wouldn't say it was an unfair advantage that we play 15 games in another state.

No, because an advantage one has willingly decided to give up and can go back to when they want is not the same as when it's inherent in the league.

AFL House policy of ground rationalisation in Melbourne was inherent in the league.

Hawthorn and StKilda didnt choose to abandon Waverley, AFL House policy made that call to kill off their home ground.

In your Sydney mates made up time frame, starting from 2007, Hawthorn have travelled 9-11 times EVERY season.

Hawthorn have determined finding a ground advantage is more important than travel, smart decision makers at Hawthorn.

 

[sr36]

How much Sydney travels isn't the point being made though, it's the very extended periods without travel for other teams, bar those who sell games

Yeah, when discussing the equity of travel, how much teams travel isn't relevant? Makes sense to me.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you told most teams they essentially couldn't pick players from their home state for 30 years then told them they had exclusive access recruit from the equivalent of the Hunter Valley or Wollongong, they probably wouldn't be stoked about it.

You're an incredibly privileged club complaining about how tough you had it back in the day. How many years back are you going to find a year of woe?

 

[sr36]

The **** are you talking about? You claimed that Sydney shouldn't have had home team in 16. Even in your made-up scenario, that's incorrect.

They won't get a home prelim if they lose the qualifying final and then win their way to the prelim. They will effectively get re-ranked lower if they lose a final. How the rankings would chosen to be done for the gf in this hypothetical is unknown. There aren't any rules or precedents for it.

 

[doppleganger]

And you still haven’t answered the question.

Dodge dodge dodge you guys all keep dodging it.

View attachment 2099245

Because you know when you actually say it you will look like ****ing morons.

2006 is the better reality.

In H&A Sydney finished 4th, WC finished 1st.

Sydney went to Perth and beat WC in QF1.

Sydney had the week off and the won a home PF1 to qualify for GF.
WC had to go the long way, winning SF, and then won an away PF2 to qualify for the GF.

And the GF was a rematch of the QF1 which Sydney won.

Who "earnt" the right to a home GF?

Was it the higher ranked H&A team WC, or the team that won QF1 and then also won PF1 in Sydney?

 

[sr36]

2006 is the better reality.

In H&A Sydney finished 4th, WC finished 1st.

Sydney went to Perth and beat WC in QF1.

Sydney had the week off and the won a home PF1 to qualify for GF.
WC had to go the long way, winning SF, and then won an away PF2 to qualify for the GF.

And the GF was a rematch of the QF1 which Sydney won.

Who "earnt" the right to a home GF?

Was it the higher ranked H&A team WC, or the team that won QF1 and then also won PF1 in Sydney?

Sydney.

I'd say that they also would have gotten the home granny in 2016.

Here's how it'd work and the way it currently sort of does in prelims.

Teams are re-ranked after weak 1

Winner of q finals ranked 1 and 2 based on ladder position. Losers in 3 and 4 based on ladder position. Winners of elim in 5 and 6.

The winners of the semis become 3 and 4 based on previous ranking.

Then it's the highest ranked prelim winner who hosts

 

[blue harvest]

Yes, and all 3 of those teams were able to use free agency to lengthen their premiership window.

During our flag period Hawks picked up Simpkin and Frawley and lost Buddy, Ellis and Young.

 

[blue harvest]

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.

Bulldogs played the same number of games at the G as Swans in 2016, won 2 interstate finals and a 3rd against the reigning premiers on the premiers home ground. They would likely have a crowd advantage in a Sydney GF too. I think they win it at either ground, they were in hot form

 

[RUNVS]

Bulldogs played the same number of games at the G as Swans in 2016, won 2 interstate finals and a 3rd against the reigning premiers on the premiers home ground. They would likely have a crowd advantage in a Sydney GF too. I think they win it at either ground, they were in hot form

The crowd in 2016 clearly had an effect on the umpires. Had it been a mostly Sydney crowd the umpiring may have been more even.

 

[doppleganger]

Sydney.

I'd say that they also would have gotten the home granny in 2016.

The answer will always be Sydney according to the "good faith" Sydney supporters.

But yes, agree if were awarding a home GF, that in 2006 it would have been Sydney hosting...despite WC being the higher ranked H&A team.

Here's how it'd work and the way it currently sort of does in prelims.

Teams are re-ranked after weak 1

The current finals is just a fixed bracket system, it doesnt consider H&A ranking in match-ups after week1, which is deliberate to ensure you cant get a double up clash until the GF.

And because of that, determining who should host a GF based on a redundant H&A ranking that wasnt considered in week 2 or week 3 match-ups is a nonsense.

No surprise a few VICBias nuffies think H&A ranking is relevant though.

 

[blue harvest]

The crowd in 2016 clearly had an effect on the umpires. Had it been a mostly Sydney crowd the umpiring may have been more even.

But ithe crowd wouldn't be mostly Swans at an SCG GF.

 

[ClintEastwood]

No other sports league that I can think of has this double elimination nonsense. The seeding or rankings or whatever you want to call them can not be compared to any other sport.

Wtf? Off the top of my head - Stanley Cup finals - best of 7. Lose first 3 games in a row, but win the rest - you still take the cup.

 

[.Shotties.]

And you still haven’t answered the question.

Mate, again, I don't care about what system you think the finals work under. When you said Sydney shouldn't have had home ground advantage you were wrong.

 

[peetoo]

Sydney, eagles and freo were all contending during the hawks dominant era. The former also won flags in recent years.

Sydney also managed to recruit hawks best player. They also got the extra days advantage in 2012 prelims.

Sydney have also playeyed grand finals, but can only argue they deserved HGA in 2 of them, and the win came in one of the others.

This year sydney will go with HGA and likely a non mcg tenant match up. Sydney’s finals run in 2024 should be seen as exhibit A in any potential corrective action

I don’t see how Sydney can argue they have been disadvantaged

 

[Dangerousfield]

A travel disadvantage exist for WA teams, they are the only teams who have a significant number or long haul flights where they also have to manage significant time zone change.

SA and NSW supporters are taking the piss trying to align themselves with WA clubs as copping a travel disadvantage (especially considering they travel less than a number of Vic teams).

I don't think a supporter of the most advantaged team in the comp should be commenting on what SA, NSW & Qld clubs are saying about the disadvantages of travel.

Get back to us when Collingwood are regularly playing in Ballarat, Geelong, Alice Springs, Darwin, Tasmania

 

[sr36]

Get back to us when Collingwood are regularly playing in Ballarat, Geelong, Alice Springs, Darwin, Tasmania

Get back to us when a team wants to play Collingwood at one of those places. Adelaide could put their hand up to play us in Alice. You should start petitioning your club. Pies wouldn't care. Are you going to put your hand up for it to be your club that is disadvantaged by moving a home game against Collingwood to a regional venue?

Maybe Hawks might choose to play a home game against us in Tassie in the rare years they get a home game against us. None of this 80,000 business. I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I was you.

Actually, for some obscurely obvious reason, Sydney gets a home game against Collingwood almost every year, so perhaps it could be in Darwin every second year. It's a matter of time before Sydney request it...

 

[catstorm]

Mate, again, I don't care about what system you think the finals work under. When you said Sydney shouldn't have had home ground advantage you were wrong.

No I’m not you are, and the fact you won’t answer a simple question proves you know it as well. It’s actually ****ing pathetic.

I’m just about done with this, you present no argument other than, “nah I’m right.”

I’ll ask you another question if Carlton beats Brisbane and Sydney beat GWS who will Carlton play in the semi final?

You won’t answer so I will for you, They play GWS. So 8th gets to play 4th even though the loser of the other QF is a higher rank.

Once again proving that in the AFL system you take the role of the the higher ranked team you beat.

So if you take that to it’s logical conclusion GWS took number 1 off you and the Dogs took 1 off them.

That IS the way the AFL finals works. Prove to me how it’s not?

 

[doppleganger]

I don't think a supporter of the most advantaged team in the comp should be commenting on what SA, NSW & Qld clubs are saying about the disadvantages of travel.

Get back to us when Collingwood are regularly playing in Ballarat, Geelong, Alice Springs, Darwin, Tasmania

It is the teams who shift their home game to those locations and miss out on home ground advantage, and instead have to travel for a home game who are the teams who are dudded.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

It is the teams who shift their home game to those locations and miss out on home ground advantage, and instead have to travel for a home game who are the teams who are dudded.

Yes what a disadvantage it is for the Hawks choosing to play games in Tassie with a 75% winning percentage and their highest winning % of any home ground they’ve played at.

Seems they are really getting the short end of the stick there and lost that home advantage.

 

[doppleganger]

Yes what a disadvantage it is for the Hawks choosing to play games in Tassie with a 75% winning percentage and their highest winning % of any home ground they’ve played at.

Seems they are really getting the short end of the stick there and lost that home advantage.

So travel and sleeping in a hotel is not a disadvantage.

Being away from your family, not being able to spend months on end at home isnt actually a disadvantage.

Good to know

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

So travel and sleeping in a hotel is not a disadvantage.

Being away from your family, not being able to spend months on end at home isnt actually a disadvantage.

Good to know

Traveling to play at a ground you play at multiple times a year and have the home ground familiarity with as a second home ground is not the same as travelling to play away.

Don’t claim they don’t have a home ground advantage in Tassie when they clearly still maintain that. Just because they choose to hop on a plane doesn’t mean that just disappears. Keep shifting those goal posts though.

 

[sr36]

Yes, and this is something they decided to do.

It is, but this isn't something inherent in the league, it's an active choice they've made. Of Sydney chose to sell half their games interstate I wouldn't say it was an unfair advantage that we play 15 games in another state.

No, because an advantage one has willingly decided to give up and can go back to when they want is not the same as when it's inherent in the league.

Do you get that your two issues - extra travel and home grown talent - work against each other.

If looking at it by state, in terms of home grown talent and footy fans. 10 clubs in Vic is spot on for an 18 team comp. About 55% of the clubs are Victorian. About 55% of the players come from Vic. And probably a similar proportion of fans. SA is also pretty much spot on. With only two clubs in WA they're way over-represented in terms of home grown talent and fans.and the Northern states are way under-represented. If you want anything close to proportional home grown talent, you have to have lots of clubs in Victoria - that's the footy landscape in Australia and it means that Vic clubs travel less if it's equal access to home grown talent that you want.

This situation creates a travel advantage for Vic clubs and a recruiting and financial advantage for WA clubs and a financial and recruiting disadvantage for the Northern states. To level up the financial disadvantage, the AFL gives much bigger distributions to the Northern states. To level up the recruiting disadvantage for the Northern states - the AFL first went with COLA - however they overcooked it and Brisbane and Sydney were able to maintain better teams than the other clubs - they didn't distribute COLA throughout the list as they didn't need it to retain the bottom of the list - thus they were able to use it poach the best player in the league in Sydney's case and maintain an extraordinary team in Brisbane's case. This resulted in the Northern states being way over-represented in terms of both flags and finals during the COLA era.

COLA went and has been replaced by academies. Bringing about more of a level playing field for a while. However, the thing with draft concessions is that they usually take a fair while to kick in - unless you get a Daicos or Gulden - as most players don't peak until years 6-10 of their careers. Now with the early academy guys hitting their peaks and a fair few still on the rise - the academy advantage is beginning to kick in, but is still a fair way from it's peak - and low and behold, it's looking like the AFL has once again over-cooked the recruiting advantage for the North - with the Northern clubs already becoming over-represented at the pointy end - and looking set for long stints there and the academy advantages are still a fair way from having peaked.

SA is the state without advantages - although Gather Round has temporarily addressed that with an extra home game. However, the travel advantages of Vic and the extra home game of SA don't actually make you a better team and thus don't really help you win flags.

Now if you then drill down into individual states - the bigger clubs in those states - or the clubs who are currently good - do have an advantage over the smaller or struggling clubs in those states in terms of recruitment. And thus in Victoria despite the state not having an advantage overall in terms of recruiting - the clubs going well do have an advantage and can attract players more cheaply than the other Vic clubs. Which is often going to result in a big difference between the best and worst in that state - probably helping to explain the Vics recently dominating both flags and spoons.

As far as I can see, if you really want to level it - it's not about levelling Vic and Non-Vic, it's about levelling the Vic clubs so that the bigger and currently good ones don't have that recruiting advantage over the battling Vic clubs. Resulting in the top Vic teams often being a little bit too good and the bottom Vic teams really awful.

Now with all of those factors in place, the AFL has the draft to help create equilibrium and currently have a really even comp - although it does look likely that the academy concessions will push it out of equilibrium when they begin to peak.

Personally, I think they've done an amazing job - despite over-egging th North at times - and the inequality within Victoria - with nearly every club having made a grand final over the last 25 years and most having won a flag over the last 30.

But it really is somehow levelling the Vic clubs that would result in greater equity - how would you level Collingwood, Geelong, North and Saints - it's the imbalance inside Victoria that is likely to result in more flags going to the good teams in Victoria? You'd need to have something to make it a little bit harder for the top Vic teams to top up with recruits and a little bit easier for the bottom Vic teams. You need to stop looking to benefit the Swans and start looking to benefit North and co, f you want to knock the top Vic teams down a bit and make the dynasty teams less likely to be Victorian. Under the current system, it's the top Vic and Northern teams with the best chance of being dominant. WA and SA should be looking to knock down your advantages and raise up the bottom Vic teams to improve their chances of flags - or they'll be stuck in the middle with the best of the North and the best of Vic winning all the flags.