Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[sr36]

Port doesn't have a significant advantage through home and away games.

It just has a significant (self inflicted) disadvantage on big occasions, which happens to include Finals.

It hasn't just been Port losing home finals though. Even if you remove Port results - Non-Vic teams have been losing a higher rate of their home state advantage finals.

I'm just suggesting that the travel thing is a furphy, which balances out - if it truly was this big home and away advantage that helped Vic clubs - we should see a trend of Vic clubs underperforming their ladder position in finals - if anything, we're seeing the opposite.

 

[OniAu]

COLA has not existed for a decade now.

Also how many big named non-South Australians have Port been able to attract in the last decade or so?

Port can realistically only hope for South Australians coming home to bolster their list at the trade table, at least with the really good players and not enough South Australians are drafted in order to provide many options, certainly not enough to be strategic in terms of a position you need.

WA Teams and SA Teams have been neglected far too long. I agree. AFL will continue to pump up two non football states, as their ideology is that SA & WA will last regardless.

 

[estibador]

I'm really just looking at the travel being a big disadvantage during H&A theory.

Basically, the theory is that travelling every second week and then having a home game against a travelling opponent every second week is a big disadvantage.

If that was the case, the Non-Vic teams would be ranked lower on the ladder than they deserve - they'd have to be significantly better than a Vic team to finish 2nd on the ladder and get a home final against them. They'd then get the home ground advantage on top of already being better and thus you'd expect them to very rarely lose their home finals.

It's not the case though, Non-Vic teams at the moment are more likely to lose their home finals against a travelling team. Over the time frame I could be bothered looking, they've lost twice as many - and without checking - I'd be willing to bet they have hosted less, so their home state advantage winning percentage during finals would be a fair bit lower.

The home and away travel disadvantage theory isn't supported by either ladder positions over the years, or by finals results. It's viewed as unquestionable by some - but what is there to support it.

Or perhaps the non-Vic teams are affected by the cumulative fatigue of that travel come the end of the season and find it harder to lift for finals intensity than the well rested Vic teams?

 

[sr36]

Because the disadvantage in travelling is the drain over a long period. Travelling across country once a year isn't a big drain. Doing it constantly though is. Its why you see things with clubs that rarely travel having good records at it.

Finals comes at the end of the year. So you're starting in a more banged up/fatigued state.

That's a possiblity.

Do we see that in the home and away with Non-Vic results dropping off over the course of the year? Without analysing it, it doesn't seem that way. Recently it's been the big Vic clubs who travel the least who are the ones who've crashed in the second half of the year. He's with about 15 travels last year came home flying in more ways than one. Obviously too anecdotal to draw much from, but you'd expect to see a trend.no idea if it exists or not. Doesn't feel like it though. Injuries by club would also be interesting in this regard too.

In the single home state teams, we are talking about an extra 4 or 5 return flights over a 25 week season and then a week off before finals. Unless these extra flights are hitting the back end of home and away as well - it seems a stretch to think it suddenly becomes a thing in finals.

Personally, I suspect there might be something there for the WA teams with longer flights that cross time zones.

 

[sr36]

Or perhaps the non-Vic teams are affected by the cumulative fatigue of that travel come the end of the season and find it harder to lift for finals intensity than the well rested Vic teams?

It's a possiblity. Seems unlikely though. See post above.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Will be barracking hard for the Vic teams just to watch the crymelts this fred will produce.

Except the blues, cannot barrack for them.

The others? Knock yourself out, but not them.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

WA Teams and SA Teams have been neglected far too long. I agree. AFL will continue to pump up two non football states, as their ideology is that SA & WA will last regardless.

The biggest problem is development of talent in the State.

In SA, the development of kids is left to the SANFL clubs. So they play U/18s for the SANFL clubs. However, for these clubs the main focus is on winning the SANFL seniors competition. The U/18s are just the juniors sides for these clubs, and maybe if the kids in there are good enough, they can pop up and help the Senior side. But they don't really care, because if those kids are good enough, they'll end up playing AFL for most of their careers and not help the SANFL club in their main goal.

In Victoria, you've got the Talent League. The Sandringham Dragons, Murray Bushrangers, Calder Cannons etc aren't focussed on winning a VFL Premiership with ex-AFL players. They're entirely focussed on developing these kids.

 

[doppleganger]

Or perhaps the non-Vic teams are affected by the cumulative fatigue of that travel come the end of the season and find it harder to lift for finals intensity than the well rested Vic teams?

That would only apply to WA teams.

Vic teams like Hawthorn, North and Melbourne have similar travel impost to the SA and Swans.

And for finals, players get a bye and if a top2 finish non-vic team they just sit at home for a month with no travel.

Some teams making 10 primarily short trips where there is minimal to no time zone change over a 6 month season, compared to others only making 6-7...it is a red herring.

How many games you get where you are at a distinct ground advantage is most important.

 

[Freshwater]

To reduce travel the WA teams could have 1 or 2 road trips? But the real key here is reducing the games played by everyone, to playing everyone just the once per year. This reduces the overall travel load too. The AFL is trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, by increasing games. Put a higher value on each home and away game. Every game then has a historical significance that “we beat you in 2025….” One showdown and Derby per year (2 if you need one extra rivalry round, but I wouldn’t) and this takes a load off. And is FAIR, if you play a team home one year, you are away the next to that club. You would then have a ladder at the end of the season that reflects your ability, our ladder now is so compromised by the FIXture.
There will be 20 teams so many more split rounds to create rests for fatigued players but public still get at least 6-7 games every weekend. Travel fatigue becomes much less a factor.

 

[sr36]

To reduce travel the WA teams could have 1 or 2 road trips? But the real key here is reducing the games played by everyone, to playing everyone just the once per year. This reduces the overall travel load too. The AFL is trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, by increasing games. Put a higher value on each home and away game. Every game then has a historical significance that “we beat you in 2025….” One showdown and Derby per year (2 if you need one extra rivalry round, but I wouldn’t) and this takes a load off. And is FAIR, if you play a team home one year, you are away the next to that club. You would then have a ladder at the end of the season that reflects your ability, our ladder now is so compromised by the FIXture.
There will be 20 teams so many more split rounds to create rests for fatigued players but public still get at least 6-7 games every weekend. Travel fatigue becomes much less a factor.

I actually won't be that surprised if they crunch the numbers and realise that more games isn't even much of a financial windfall.

You could still have the same length season, but with more byes throughout it. So from a tv perspective, you've still get all the same timeslots every week for the same number of weeks - just less double ups with two games on at a time. The drop in audience from this might be compensated by the lesser cost of broadcasting two competing games as often. And in terms of attendances, you'd probably get slightly bigger crowds and thus more profits from the games you run.

The extra byes would spread out the travel and reduce whatever disadvantages might be there. The draw would be fairer. Players would be fresher and probably less injuries so the game would probably go up a notch. The AFLPA would love it. Club fans would have a bit of a loss, as we'd get to watch our team less often.

Once we're up to 19 teams - I think it's the way they should go - an 18 game season over the same number of weeks they play now.

 

[peetoo]

It's because the Non-Vic teams like Brisbane, WCE and Port of that era were actually better than the Vic teams - and hence they didn't lose many home finals and won the Grand Finals.

It's a crazy revolutionary theory, but it seems possible that most premierships aren't won by a conspiracy of advantages - they're won by the best team.

And in th AFL era there have been 7 good Victorian teams, only 5 good non vic

 

[sr36]

And in th AFL era there have been 7 good Victorian teams, only 5 good non vic

People point to the Cats as this advantaged club, but they've had much worse draft picks than everyone else because of their success.

Frankly, if you want to compete with the Cats over the long run, you've got to draft, develop and coach as well as they do and most clubs vic or Non-Vic haven't been able to. Only one of their 4 recent flags was from poaching stars.

Tiges had a great era through coaching tactics which changed the game and recruiting of pace without worrying about height to complement that game style. The rest of the footy world was putting a line through blokes under 6 foot - they went and won 3 flags with about 10 such players in their teams.

Hawks drafted extremely well and changed the game by focussing on recruiting blokes who could kick and clearing out scrub kicking defenders with a game style made for it.

Sydney are the only Non-Vic club that have really had a crack at being as good or as innovative off-field as those teams were. Most of the footy world: Vic and Non-Vic have tried to copy to catch up with the innovators rather than being innovative themselves.

But let's blame aeroplanes.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I would love a competition where we all play each other twice, home and away. Proper home and away too, Geelong play all their home games in Geelong, Doggies at Marvel, Hawthorn and Norf in Victoria, not Tasmania unless everyone has to play them in Tassie etc

Can you imagine a world with fixture integrity?

Insert Simpsons scene where people of all races and religions are holding hands singing.

 

[Freshwater]

I would love a competition where we all play each other twice, home and away. Proper home and away too, Geelong play all their home games in Geelong, Doggies at Marvel, Hawthorn and Norf in Victoria, not Tasmania unless everyone has to play them in Tassie etc

Can you imagine a world with fixture integrity?

Insert Simpsons scene where people of all races and religions are holding hands singing.

Fair, but too much football. For 100 years 18 games and a max 3 finals was the season. They obviously worked through the week as well as football, the football wasn’t as taxing on the body as the professional era. The professional era is manic football, NFL only have 15 regular season games. When we have 20 teams 19 or 20 games would be plenty and fair…and much less travel.

 

[Grin]

Maybe, I dunno, the way you mob handled the last pandemic its only a matter of time before you have egg on your contract, I mean face, again.

Richmond did OK whilst making a mockery of the VICBias/MCG advantage conspiracy theories that some of our resident cookers go on and on about.

Premierships are earned, not gifted.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Fair, but too much football. For 100 years 18 games and a max 3 finals was the season. They obviously worked through the week as well as football, the football wasn’t as taxing on the body as the professional era. The professional era is manic football, NFL only have 15 regular season games. When we have 20 teams 19 or 20 games would be plenty and fair…and much less travel.

Yeah I know it's not feasible without fewer teams and/or conferences.

It all goes back to the creation of the national comp. It should have been seperate to and above any existing competition. Unfortunately a lot of the blame there rests with WA. We should have held out with SA.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Yeah I know it's not feasible without fewer teams and/or conferences.

It all goes back to the creation of the national comp. It should have been seperate to and above any existing competition. Unfortunately a lot of the blame there rests with WA. We should have held out with SA.

I will tell you now, it wouldn't have worked, you may think i'm joking, but Victorians are not like West Australians, we would have followed our teams in the VFL and stuck the middle finger up at the AFL, we support our clubs not the league.

 

[RUNVS]

Richmond did OK whilst making a mockery of the VICBias/MCG advantage conspiracy theories that some of our resident cookers go on and on about.

Premierships are earned, not gifted.

Richmond got Lynch, Prestia, Taranto and Hopper thanks to players looking to "go home" and get a premiership too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah I know it's not feasible without fewer teams and/or conferences.

It all goes back to the creation of the national comp. It should have been seperate to and above any existing competition. Unfortunately a lot of the blame there rests with WA. We should have held out with SA.

That conference model could be achieved now.

It should have been seperate to and above any existing competition.

Agreed, I'm going to fairly assume you meant have a completely new franchise clubs like WC and Bris, separate to the vfl and its clubs.

That could work now, but I don't think it would've worked then.

A vic conference and whatever is the popular choice of the non vic fans for the non vic clubs.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

I will tell you now, it wouldn't have worked, you may think i'm joking, but Victorians are not like West Australians, we would have followed our teams in the VFL and stuck the middle finger up at the AFL, we support our clubs not the league.

How is this different to Western Australians (or any other Non-Vic). This whole thread is about us supporting our club, and not the league, and (mainly Collingwood fans) telling us if we hate the league so much, piss off.

 

[LoungeLizard]

How is this different to Western Australians (or any other Non-Vic). This whole thread is about us supporting our club, and not the league, and (mainly Collingwood fans) telling us if we hate the league so much, piss off.

When I lived in WA, every person I met followed a VFL club, at the same time, no-one I knew in Vic followed an interstate club.

It's an obsession you lot have with Vic, and I would guess that's why you all jumped ship the 1st second you could, to try stick it up the Vics.

No-one in Vic gave a rats about the WA clubs most still don't we love our clubs and would have stuck with them in the VFL.

And really we don't care if you piss off back to your leagues, do it, like I said we don't really care, if you want to stay, stay, I just can't understand why a lot of the older ones can abandon their clubs if they hate this league, you could always go back to the clubs y'all followed.
And don't start with the, "but the AFL" it was the VFL when you joined and your clubs didn't join, you jumped ship to follow a brand new made up club.

 

[Carringbush2010]

How is this different to Western Australians (or any other Non-Vic). This whole thread is about us supporting our club, and not the league, and (mainly Collingwood fans) telling us if we hate the league so much, piss off.

This whole thread is about vic bias and what causes it.

No one's telling you to piss off, if you're referring to me (fair assumption), I'm pointing out the benefits of not following a club in this league. No vic bias, this is particularly relevant to non vic fans who followed the state comps before the vfl expansion.

I've also asked why non vic fans are so keen to follow this league yet constantly complain about it.

That's not saying 'piss off'

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Richmond did OK whilst making a mockery of the VICBias/MCG advantage conspiracy theories that some of our resident cookers go on and on about.

Premierships are earned, not gifted.

Yes you did, I agree.

Not sure what that has to do with failing as a state at containing a pandemic leading to a loss of your freshly inked GF stranglehold.

 

[Grin]

Richmond got Lynch, Prestia, Taranto and Hopper thanks to players looking to "go home" and get a premiership too.

Odd comment. So what?
I don't see how individuals wanting to go home or play in successful sides (which is wrong anyway, in 3 of your 4 examples) proves your conspiracy theory.
I'll raise you Lance Franklyn and your Academy.

 

[Freomaniac]

Starting to think interstate teams arent a true reflection of their skill/form. The amount of advantage they have through the home and away season of pure home games they receive isnt reflective of their finals ability

I like to hear the dockers and eagles home ground advantage you speak of. Magpies get 22 games at the MCG and one game at Docklands lol