Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[sr36]

That’s the current regions as per the AFL website but who knows if they actually keep it up to date.

May very well be as you have said, otherwise it’s just odd that those regions haven’t been assigned.

It is interesting though that even though WA have huge zones, the Vic clubs have still done pretty well in comparison with JUH, Quanor, Kako this year and the clubs that got screwed in Melbourne with Andrew and Saints with McKenzie I think it was not being able to select them, falling into club NGA zones.

A number of highly rated kids at the pointy end of the draft are falling in the Vic clubs zones compared to the other states. More so just the luck of the draw but still interesting given it’s a much smaller area.

Then the Northern academies are a whole other ball game but jeez I hate them.

You've got to remember that there are 10 Vic clubs. In the few years where there was unfettered access, juh, iq, tarryn Thomas and Liam Henry were the four highly rated NGa players gotten on the cheap. 3 to Vic 1 to wa - it's still a better ratio for WA than Vic in terms of clubs. But significantly, that was when WA had small zones and not the entire state. With the new zones, in the long run you'd expect them to kill it. Which is why west coast have been the big pushers for NGa changes. They've done well.

 

[melanChronic]

That's been the case for all the NGa for Vic too. Mac Andrew was part of Melbourne's academy for example. It's changing soon and they'll be available for matching at any point in the draft.

That article is from 2018. They succeeded and got their tweak and metropolitan kids are part of the academies. And now that you can match at any point, they'll be valuable academies

The 2021 change that affected Mac Andrew etc. was just bringing all NGAs into line with the top 40 exclusion that originally applied only to SA and WA metropolitan indigenous NGA players (after WA and SA clubs campaigned to have them included at all).

I guess you're claiming that with this recent 2024 reversion of the top 40 exclusion it will also be removed for SA and WA metropolitan indigenous NGA players. I'll be glad if that is the case, but have never seen it explicitly confirmed-- the only reference to it is that Jake Niall article stating that the exclusion still exists. Have you seen an AFL statement contradicting Niall?

 

[Jables]

I agree. There should have been more Vic teams that got the same treatment. North Melbourne's next premiership should have come playing out of gold coast or Hobart. The Melbourne Hawks should have been a reality.

It is hilarious though, suddenly reading about those thousands of rusted on south and fitzroy supporters that will be at the grand final, after being told by the usual suspects on this thread that we can't reduce the number of Vic teams to reduce Vic bias, because all their fans will be lost to the game forever

If we somehow got folded into Fremantle you lot still wouldn't sniff a flag, so don't worry your little head about it.

How do you guys post this stuff seriously?

 

[Chronz]

If we somehow got folded into Fremantle you lot still wouldn't sniff a flag, so don't worry your little head about it.

How do you guys post this stuff seriously?

The empty trophy cabinet has turned some of them a bit mad. I'd let them have their little cope thread, very therapeutic it seems.

 

[Choogler]

I have a genuine question as to why teams complain about a #VICBIAS , but before you answer why you think there is one, please read these facts before you do:

All these facts were before each club CHOSE to enter the competition, not changed after-

• The GF has been locked in at the G for years, that was the case before any club entered from outside Vic, and let's be honest, as the home of footy, was never likely to be changed either
• In fact, at the time of entering the comp, at least 1 Prelim was meant to be guaranteed at the G also, that has actually moved back to teams earning the right to host
• When choosing to enter the comp, there was already 10 teams in Melb... THIS IS NOT NEW. Non-Vic teams where always going to have to travel every second week while Vic teams play away games still in VIC. Where do you expect Vic teams to play away games against other Vic teams... no seriously, where?
• People whinge it's still the old VFL... It is, the AFL is not a newly formed comp, it is a rebranded/renamed version of the existing comp non Vic teams again CHOSE to join

On the flip side, things that are now (or at one time have been) in place that weren't in place before No Vic teams joined the comp:

• National draft, gone are the days every kid in a zone was linked to that club. By weight of numbers alone, Vic produces the most talent at U18 levels, and that is now open and available to ALL teams to select talent in the draft
• Academy Zones, traditionally for non Vic states, even though now each club has its own zone.
• Salary Cap relief/Cola, again for periods of time, Non Vic teams at one time or another have been given advantages not afforded to Vic Teams

Now I'm a West Australian, and if there was a proper SOO match tomorrow, I would be in the Sandgropers corner in a heart beat, so this is not coming from your "typical Victorian"...
And I certainly appreciate and respect the fact that Non-Vic teams have to travel a hell of a lot more than Vic teams...

So the question, honestly is this, if each Non-Vic club knew all of these FACTS before they CHOSE to enter the competition, why is there all a sudden a cry of #VICBIAS

If it was soooo bad, why did your clubs still want to enter the competition?

I can't believe you have uttered the same ill-informed comment that is the commonly trotted out by the Vics... that the interstate clubs knew all the facts but still "chose" to enter the competition. This may be true for some of later entries, but certainly not for WCE, or the BB.
WCE and BB signed up to a 14 team competition. Therefore,
in the 22 round season, if both Sydney and BB played WCE in Perth, it meant a minimum of NINE of the 11 Vic clubs had to travel to Perth each season.
There were ZERO Vic-biased MARQUEE games comprising the fixture
WC got to play consecutive home games regularly.
There were no long trips to Tasmania, usually the lot of interstate teams
There is no doubt that the more teams that join the more the fixture favours the "big" Vic teams.
Have a read of this and see what it says about mergers... has it happened? I suspect WCE & BB were aware and probably expected it to happen, further reducing the number of teams and creating an even fixture. Instead, while Fitzroy merged with BB, the other 3 plus STK have been propped up for decades.
So, don't go thinking the BB & WC signed up for the AFL that exists today.

Saving football: New documents reveal how close the VFL came to shutting down

In 1986, the Victorian Football League came perilously close to being shut down. Thirty years on, never before seen documents reveal how close the end nearly came.

www.theage.com.au

 

[sr36]

The 2021 change that affected Mac Andrew etc. was just bringing all NGAs into line with the top 40 exclusion that originally applied only to SA and WA metropolitan indigenous NGA players (after WA and SA clubs campaigned to have them included at all).

Im 99% sure that it was part of an earlier change. There is no distinction between aboriginal and overseas NGa in terms of eligibility.

Lance Collard is a city kid and was a WCE Aboriginal NGA.

 

[LoungeLizard]

See if this helps you 2.

Explained: How NGAs work, what the AFL's rule change means

The League has confirmed changes to rules regarding trade and draft so, what does it all mean?

www.afl.com.au

 

[PowerBaz]

Vic Bias. If that's SPP it's 2 weeks min.

 

[sr36]

Vic Bias. If that's SPP it's 2 weeks min.

Not addressing your point, but I think it cost the Cats the prelim. Danger was rattled. Not long after that, Tanner Bruhn, Danger and Stanley were discussing a ruck set up and Danger just walked off with Bruhn giving him a WTF look. Then for the rest of the game, Danger fumbled every ball that came his way.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Vic Bias. If that's SPP it's 2 weeks min.

Yeah good point.

I also think if the Rampe one was the other way around, Butters? would have got 4 weeks.

The AFL just hate Port.

 

[HairyO]

Vic Bias. If that's SPP it's 2 weeks min.

3 dangerous tackles by Port players against Hawthorn. How many Port players got a week or more?

The MRO has ignored all dangerous tackles during the finals. Its not a conspiracy. They dont care about CTE as much as they pretend.

 

[PowerBaz]

Yeah good point.

I also think if the Rampe one was the other way around, Butters? would have got 4 weeks.

The AFL just hate Port.

Butters got up - if that was Todd Marshall they would of had an ambulance!

 

[PowerBaz]

3 dangerous tackles by Port players against Hawthorn. How many Port players got a week or more?

The MRO has ignored all dangerous tackles during the finals. Its not a conspiracy. They dont care about CTE as much as they pretend.

Houston's wasn't worth 5 and to miss finals.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Butters got up - if that was Todd Marshall they would of had an ambulance!

I'm talking about if Butters had of laid the elbow into Rampe, he would have got 4 weeks for sure.

The AFL hate Port.

 

[PowerBaz]

I'm talking about if Butters had of laid the elbow into Rampe, he would have got 4 weeks for sure.

The AFL hate Port.

Oh yeah that too.

 

[HairyO]

Houston's wasn't worth 5 and to miss finals.

Even if the bias existed it would not have been less than 4 weeks for any other player.

So he absolutely would have missed finals, so would have anyone else.

 

[sr36]

I'm talking about if Butters had of laid the elbow into Rampe, he would have got 4 weeks for sure.

The AFL hate Port.

It's tough for the AFL - Port are continually telling them that their jumper sucks and should be different, the AFL have started to agree with them and unfairly penalise the jumper.

 

[sr36]

Even if the bias existed it would not have been less than 4 weeks for any other player.

So he absolutely would have missed finals, so would have anyone else.

Plus the extra week was never going to be a penalty for Port, it was always going to be a penalty for a Vic side.

 

[HairyO]

Plus the extra week was never going to be a penalty for Port, it was always going to be a penalty for a Vic side.

Yep. Port were even pushing for a maximum of 4 weeks, werent they ?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Houston's wasn't worth 5 and to miss finals.

And if he had of played, Port would now be training for the Grand Final.

The AFL hate Port.

 

[sr36]

Yep. Port were even pushing for a maximum of 4 weeks, werent they ?

Can't remember, but I'd assume it would have been something like that. It was pretty straight forward - guilty, straight to the tribunal and a big penalty, with club begging for leniancy.

 

[Choogler]

The 2021 change that affected Mac Andrew etc. was just bringing all NGAs into line with the top 40 exclusion that originally applied only to SA and WA metropolitan indigenous NGA players (after WA and SA clubs campaigned to have them included at all).

I guess you're claiming that with this recent 2024 reversion of the top 40 exclusion it will also be removed for SA and WA metropolitan indigenous NGA players. I'll be glad if that is the case, but have never seen it explicitly confirmed-- the only reference to it is that Jake Niall article stating that the exclusion still exists. Have you seen an AFL statement contradicting Niall?

my understanding is, in the 2024 draft, no exclusion or limit on, clubs matching any bid on their academy players. From next year, the AFL will limit the number of academy players (and Father/Sons) a club can bid on, not by limiting it directly, but by reducing the points values of all draft picks (except pick 1) with picks after 54 (end of 3rd round) carrying no points. They are effectively taking 10,000 points out of the draft and making it more difficult for clubs to bank junk picks/points to match with, as happened last draft with GC who matched at least 3 bids in the first round. The following explains it better than me!

Explained: How NGAs work, what the AFL's rule change means

The League has confirmed changes to rules regarding trade and draft so, what does it all mean?

www.afl.com.au

 

[Choogler]

There's a difference between being in the NGA and being available as an NGA selection in the draft. SA and WA metropolitan NGA kids haven't been accessible to the SA and WA clubs since the scheme began, and as far as I know that hasn't changed.

it most definitely has changed commencing in the 2024 draft. This explains it

Explained: How NGAs work, what the AFL's rule change means

The League has confirmed changes to rules regarding trade and draft so, what does it all mean?

www.afl.com.au

 

[sr36]

my understanding is, in the 2024 draft, no exclusion or limit on, clubs matching any bid on their academy players. From next year, the AFL will limit the number of academy players (and Father/Sons) a club can bid on, not by limiting it directly, but by reducing the points values of all draft picks (except pick 1) with picks after 54 (end of 3rd round) carrying no points. They are effectively taking 10,000 points out of the draft and making it more difficult for clubs to bank junk picks/points to match with, as happened last draft with GC who matched at least 3 bids in the first round. The following explains it better than me!

Explained: How NGAs work, what the AFL's rule change means

The League has confirmed changes to rules regarding trade and draft so, what does it all mean?

www.afl.com.au

They're increasing the price you have to pay; however, they will still be gotten cheaper.

 

[melanChronic]

it most definitely has changed commencing in the 2024 draft. This explains it

Explained: How NGAs work, what the AFL's rule change means

The League has confirmed changes to rules regarding trade and draft so, what does it all mean?

www.afl.com.au

I agree that article can be interpreted as meaning all NGAs are now available to be matched.

As mentioned before, there are a few news articles since that explainer referring to the old metropolitan exclusion, but hopefully they are just a mistake or using outdated information.