Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[WilloTree]

By design, the AFL Fixture is not random.

Part of the key design component is to minimise WA clubs travel.

If they adopted a fair and random home and away fixture, WA clubs would travel more than they do currently.

A random fixture would see them

Play away in pre-season
They wouldn't get a gauranteed away game in Perth
They wouldn't travel to NT (no teams there)
They would head to QLD and NSW more (the big trips)
They would head to SA less (the short trips)

Why aren't you telling me? It's a pretty straight forward question. I wasn't being a smart-arse when I asked, but I'm getting a bit frustrated as to why you're not answering the question.

What have the AFL done to minimize travel for WA teams?

I'm not asking about geography or it's design component. You said the AFL has reduced travel for WA teams.

Just name the thing/s they have done to reduce travel so I can look them up, see how it's different from past years and see if it's helping.

 

[doppleganger]

Let me tell you a way to make a random fixture fairest, make it 22 rounds H&A amongst 12 teams with 2 from WA and only 5-6 Vic.. Then the only randomness is the order you play teams in, not which teams you actually play.

Sure, killing off 6 teams (4 in Melbourne, Port and probably Gold Coast) and then going back on the Tassie team could enable a fair 12 team 22 round season.

The more realistic option is that after Tassie that there is another team added - potentially an NT/NQLD or WA or Canberra team that would make 20 teams.

Then you split into smaller conferences where you can make fair H&A fixtures and seperate ranking ladders amongst smaller groups that all have the exact same fixture.

It would also fix a few of the other things that are unfair like
1. Collingwood would travel to WA every year, twice, without fail. Something that outside the COVID hub has happened once in the past 25 years or something.

It has only happened once in history, 2002.

The AFL pushes the Pies as part of the strategic growth markets up north. Pies played in Sydney every year for almost 20 years straight, Brisbane get their traditional Easter Thursday game, and we regularly head to Gold Coast since they have been introduced.

So leaves just 1 each for SA and WA. Because no real commercial incentive to send Collingwood to WA or SA twice. Those clubs dont really need the Pies to draw a crowd.

Instead of us having 10x the number of long haul flights a year that you do, we'll only have 5x, still shit but better than the current scenario.

Still shit being the key point, and thus based on this thread would still sook about how unfair it is.

2. Collingwood would play only 12 games a year at the MCG, 11 home and one away to their co-tenant. Same as the WA teams have at Optus. Not your 14 games.

Even in your scenario where you kill off 4 Melbourne teams, that still leaves 5 Melbourne based teams in Vic. If that is the case, you would have 3 based at the G.

So Collingwood would get 11 home, and 2 away = 13 at the G.

This would obviously still not be fair if Brisbane only gets 11 at the GABBA.

So again still shit being the key point, and thus based on this thread would still sook about how unfair it is.

 

[WilloTree]

It's not exactly great for Vic teams either. we've played both Pies and Tigers, games that are restricted due to ground size (Saints Tigers regularly draw more than 40k and it's held at a ground that holds 10k. It stinks period for everyone bar the SA teams who not only get a free home game but the Thurs/Fri TV slot to boot.

Freo played Adelaide April 6 at Optus, 2 home games in the opening 3 rounds and 3rd HG in Round 8, the only anomaly is gather round, which is shit for all bar the SA teams.


we had
tigers in SA
GWS in Canberra
HG vs Dogs ( 2nd HG @ round 6 )
Port in Port
4 games in 20 days, 3 of them interstate and round 8 is just our 3rd home game
Imagine if that was a WA Team!

Not sure how many games Saints play interstate this year. I'd guess maybe 6?

 

[CarterS]

Thanks for that. Good info on Qld/NSW

It doesn't really answer the question though.

Freo/WC still travel interstate 11 times this year wouldn't they?

eg - Freo play in Alice this week, then Marvel, Optus, SCG, Optus and then down to Tassie. 5 states in 6 weeks.

I'm just asking what the AFL has done to reduce the travel for WA clubs.

Whatever it is - it's not working.

Yeah 5 states in 6 weeks is tough.

Look at it overall in the season though.

If you look at any team you could pick out a period in isolation and argue that makes it look unfair.

Brisbane played in Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne four matches in a row early this season - 4 states in 4 games.

Swap a Melbourne game for a Brisbane game or a GC game and the KMs go up...

The point stands from my post- Freo have no trips to QLD at all this year- there is something the AFL have done to reduce travel.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Sure, killing off 6 teams (4 in Melbourne, Port and probably Gold Coast) and then going back on the Tassie team could enable a fair 12 team 22 round season.

The more realistic option is that after Tassie that there is another team added - potentially an NT/NQLD or WA or Canberra team that would make 20 teams.

Then you split into smaller conferences where you can make fair H&A fixtures and seperate ranking ladders amongst smaller groups that all have the exact same fixture.


It has only happened once in history, 2002.

The AFL pushes the Pies as part of the strategic growth markets up north. Pies played in Sydney every year for almost 20 years straight, Brisbane get their traditional Easter Thursday game, and we regularly head to Gold Coast since they have been introduced.

So leaves just 1 each for SA and WA. Because no real commercial incentive to send Collingwood to WA or SA twice. Those clubs dont really need the Pies to draw a crowd.


Still shit being the key point, and thus based on this thread would still sook about how unfair it is.


Even in your scenario where you kill off 4 Melbourne teams, that still leaves 5 Melbourne based teams in Vic. If that is the case, you would have 3 based at the G.

So Collingwood would get 11 home, and 2 away = 13 at the G.

This would obviously still not be fair if Brisbane only gets 11 at the GABBA.

So again still shit being the key point, and thus based on this thread would still sook about how unfair it is.

Nah I said 5 vic not 5 melb. if you had 5 Vic teams you'd house 2 at the MCG, 2 marvel and 1 kardinya for example. Then in H&A home ground terms you'd be in exactly the same boat as WA and SA teams
That's fairer than anything you've come up with. If we coupled those changes with a rotating grand final venue and move AFL house out of Melbourne we might be getting somewhere towards a fair national comp.
And how many times does it have to be said, every WA supporter undestands we'll always travel more, we just want the discrepancy reduced

 

[doppleganger]

Why aren't you telling me? It's a pretty straight forward question.

I have listed them multiple times.

Just name the thing/s they have done to reduce travel so I can look them up, see how it's different from past years and see if it's helping.

It aint different from past years, because EVERY year the AFL Fixtures with the same principles to reduce travel for WA teams.

They have a preference to send WA teams to SA over the really long trips to NSW/QLD - 2024 WA teams combine for 1 trip to QLD, 2 trips to NSW, but 5 trips to SA.

They give WA teams NT games (again shorter trips).
They ensure the WA dbl up.

Next step would be for the WA teams to continue to be proactive and push the AFL to schedule some dbl up away games (which the AFL is also happy to Fixture) that will further reduce the travel burden.

If they opened it up and made it random, the WA teams would face a greater travel burden than the AFL Fixture currently gives them.

 

[WilloTree]

I have listed them multiple times.


It aint different from past years, because EVERY year the AFL Fixtures with the same principles to reduce travel for WA teams.

They have a preference to send WA teams to SA over the really long trips to NSW/QLD - 2024 WA teams combine for 1 trip to QLD, 2 trips to NSW, but 5 trips to SA.

They give WA teams NT games (again shorter trips).
They ensure the WA dbl up.

Next step would be for the WA teams to continue to be proactive and push the AFL to schedule some dbl up away games (which the AFL is also happy to Fixture) that will further reduce the travel burden.

If they opened it up and made it random, the WA teams would face a greater travel burden than the AFL Fixture currently gives them.

Thanks for clarifying. So, nothing different to reduce travel.
That's not what you initially wrote.

Carry on.

 

[CarterS]

Thanks for clarifying. So, nothing different to reduce travel.
That's not what you initially wrote.

Carry on.

How come QLD teams combine for 4 trips to WA but WA teams only travel 1 time to QLD between them? How's that equal? I'd argue the QLD teams getting short end of the stick there.

 

[doppleganger]

Thanks for clarifying. So, nothing different to reduce travel.
That's not what you initially wrote.

Carry on.

It is exactly what I initially wrote.

The AFL fixture is all about minimizing travel for WA teams, whilst not completely destroying the fabric of a home and away season.

WA teams always do double local derbies, rarely leave WA in pre-season, they use WA teams in NT games, WA teams get more away games in SA and less away games in NSW/QLD, and AFL are happy to fixture back2back away games in same location...all to reduce travel burden.

In a random home and away fixture, the WA teams would face a much greater travel burden for their 11 away games than they are currently exposed to.

 

[WilloTree]

It is exactly what I initially wrote.

The AFL fixture is all about minimizing travel for WA teams, whilst not completely destroying the fabric of a home and away season.

WA teams always do double local derbies, rarely leave WA in pre-season, they use WA teams in NT games, WA teams get more away games in SA and less away games in NSW/QLD, and AFL are happy to fixture back2back away games in same location...all to reduce travel burden.

In a random home and away fixture, the WA teams would face a much greater travel burden for their 11 away games than they are currently exposed to.

You're inference was that the AFL have reduced travel for WA teams. You say now that there is nothing new they have done and can't name one thing implemented that has reduced travel since 1997.

I have no interest in continuing a discussion where you post unrelated matters on geography and having WA players spend weeks away from their families on end. I was asking a specific question in good faith and with respect so I'm happy to leave it here.

Good luck on the weekend V the Bullies.

 

[Mat Mann]

Let me tell you a way to make a random fixture fairest, make it 22 rounds H&A amongst 12 teams with 2 from WA and only 5-6 Vic.. Then the only randomness is the order you play teams in, not which teams you actually play.
It would also fix a few of the other things that are unfair like
1. Collingwood would travel to WA every year, twice, without fail. Something that outside the COVID hub has happened once in the past 25 years or something. Instead of us having 10x the number of long haul flights a year that you do, we'll only have 5x, still shit but better than the current scenario.
2. Collingwood would play only 12 games a year at the MCG, 11 home and one away to their co-tenant. Same as the WA teams have at Optus. Not your 14 games.
You know what might happen then, with random fixture ordering, a hilarious scenario where Collingwood had to play away in Perth round 20, MCG round 21, and fly back to Perth for their second away game here round 22. Can you imagine the squeals? Collingwood have to fly across the country twice in a fortnight! Computer says yes

so the answer to the WA team's issues is to simply wipe 5 teams with near/over 150 years of footballing history for 2 clubs that were made less than 50 years ago.

How about you relocate instead? no amount of whining is going to reduce the burden of travel, geography dictates that, the big melb clubs aren't going to wear the brunt of whatever is done, it's going to be my club and the other small ones that will get screwed over again and again the same way we have with fixturing and TV.

I'm all for equalization, but it won't be the big clubs that have to pay the price

 

[VicBased]

Yep, happy for St.Kilda, North, Dogs to all get home games against Collingwood in marquee slots to help em out.

Benevolence means you playing them at Marvel.

 

[WilloTree]

so the answer to the WA team's issues is to simply wipe 5 teams with near/over 150 years of footballing history for 2 clubs that were made less than 50 years ago.

How about you relocate instead? no amount of whining is going to reduce the burden of travel, geography dictates that, the big melb clubs aren't going to wear the brunt of whatever is done, it's going to be my club and the other small ones that will get screwed over again and again the same way we have with fixturing and TV.

I'm all for equalization, but it won't be the big clubs that have to pay the price

Agree with a lot of this. AFL won't reduce teams. The rights deal is dependent on there being heaps of footy to consume.

The two options that are most obvious are clubs selling games or dispense with the 'home and away' fixture and go with one that has equality of travel.

 

[The Feeder Club]

so the answer to the WA team's issues is to simply wipe 5 teams with near/over 150 years of footballing history for 2 clubs that were made less than 50 years ago.

How about you relocate instead? no amount of whining is going to reduce the burden of travel, geography dictates that, the big melb clubs aren't going to wear the brunt of whatever is done, it's going to be my club and the other small ones that will get screwed over again and again the same way we have with fixturing and TV.

I'm all for equalization, but it won't be the big clubs that have to pay the price

Of course the answer to Vicbias is to reduce the relative influence of Vic teams by either cutting their number or massively increasing the number of non Vic teams. The former makes much more sense to me, there are already too many clubs surviving on welfare.
I understand the sentiment of supporters of suburban Melbourne clubs but the bigger picture is a fairer, better national competition, not the current thing we have which is the rebranding of the VFL that puts vested Vic interest over other considerations..
These clubs need not disappear fully but they don't have any place in a proper national comp. They can stay intact ad is and play in the VFL. If they do want to be part of the AFL they can merge and/or relocate. And they will not be the only teams gone, clearly GWS and GCS were errors.
Maybe if the Vic clubs want they can form a promotion/relegation system and each year the top VFL team replaces the worst performing Vic AFL team in the big time, and just all go that way

 

[VicBased]

Why aren't you telling me? It's a pretty straight forward question. I wasn't being a smart-arse when I asked, but I'm getting a bit frustrated as to why you're not answering the question.

What have the AFL done to minimize travel for WA teams?

I'm not asking about geography or it's design component. You said the AFL has reduced travel for WA teams.

Just name the thing/s they have done to reduce travel so I can look them up, see how it's different from past years and see if it's helping.

I am starting to think dg is a computer with answers on default

 

[WilloTree]

I am starting to think dg is a computer with answers on default

Chat - dg?

 

[doppleganger]

You're inference was that the AFL have reduced travel for WA teams. You say now that there is nothing new they have done and can't name one thing implemented that has reduced travel since 1997.

My inference was that the AFL fixture minimizes travel for WA teams, because it has always been a key principle of the AFL Fixture.

Not sure how or why you have decided to come up with an alternative intepretation of my post.

I have no interest in continuing a discussion where you post unrelated matters on geography and having WA players spend weeks away from their families on end. I was asking a specific question in good faith and with respect so I'm happy to leave it here.

Geography aint unrelated to travel! LoL.

And doing a week away and knocking over 2 away games, is a clear option to further reduce travel burden in the home and away season, which the AFL facilitated for both WC and Freo.

Bell confirms Freo's Gather Round plans

Fremantle have confirmed their plans for a week-long stay in South Australia ahead of the inaugural Gather Round

www.fremantlefc.com.au

Extended road trip to enhance team bonding

West Coast hopes its Gather Round long haul can help fast-track team development through a tough start to the season

www.westcoasteagles.com.au

Clear that this is an option that both clubs are happy to explore and does further reduce the travel burden.

But I agree, if you are only going to read what you want to read and ignore anything else, no point in responding.

Good luck on the weekend V the Bullies.

We will need it.

The Pies annual "home game" where we give home ground advantage away to a Marvel renant, this time the Dogs benefit.

Not all clubs are fortunate enough to get 10 games with a genuine home ground advantage.

 

[scotty13]

The AFL won't do it because it would make things too fair (but it would increase the amount of games per season).

Bring in a 20th team (NT for my own bias but anywhere other than Vic).
Each team plays every other team once + one double up = 20 games (10 home and 10 away)
The double up will allow for non vic sides to have their showdown derby ect = 11 home state games and 9 travel games.
Only exception for this would be Tas and NT - who would play each other on the double up weekend.

This will shorten the season to 20 rounds - which then can allow for a 'Gather Round' if the AFL is still persistent on this. = 21 rounds at 10 games a round.

This is 210 H&A games which more than the current 207 games (it will still be 207 games when Tassy come in).

Get rid of the staggered bye weeks and schedule 2 byes where the whole competition is not playing.

During 1 of these weekends (1/3rd the way through the season) have State League SOO games (because lets face it AFL SOO wont happen again)
During the 2nd of these weekends (2/3rds through the season) and after U18 championships - have a blockbuster game with the best 44 18yr olds playing against each other.

More footy is the result - different the schedule and making travel as fair as it can be without removing Victorian teams (my personal preference would be 2-4 Victorian teams folding as I'm not sure there is enough talent in the country for 18 teams, let alone 19 or 20, but I can't see this happening in this day and age.)

 

[Shane Heard]

Shame neither the AFL or Clubs themselves publicly release membership breakdowns (why, because they now sell the data to Roy Morgan and you have to purchase the data and you can't republish).

However there is limited 2018 data available from Roy Morgan showing 48 years as the average age of Eagles supporters which is same as Collingwood, but with WC supporters having on average more teeth with less fillings.

Age demo of Swans was 49, Tigers 44.

You would expect Bomber demo to be around Collingwood & Tigers (if you are claiming to be a 'big' club for Melbourne), so lets just say Tigers, Bombers, Eagles, Collingwood, Swans all within 5 years as a member age demographic.

Age demo of interstate clubs will all be initially skewed on startup and balance out over time (i.e. WC now being the same as Collingwood's).

So in summary, what's your point?

I’ve been to many many WC games here in Perth

The crowd was 40 plus 20 years ago at subi

You only have to look around the ground

Older WC fans turn up regardless of ladder position because that’s their big day out.

This is in response to a poster saying “ we turn up!”

So the club will
Always be strong ..membership is guaranteed year after year

No one wants to lose their seat

 

[Papa G]

Doddlebanger is surely an AFL/VIC GOVT BOT.

 

[sr36]

Of course the answer to Vicbias is to reduce the relative influence of Vic teams by either cutting their number or massively increasing the number of non Vic teams. The former makes much more sense to me, there are already too many clubs surviving on welfare.
I understand the sentiment of supporters of suburban Melbourne clubs but the bigger picture is a fairer, better national competition, not the current thing we have which is the rebranding of the VFL that puts vested Vic interest over other considerations..
These clubs need not disappear fully but they don't have any place in a proper national comp. They can stay intact ad is and play in the VFL. If they do want to be part of the AFL they can merge and/or relocate. And they will not be the only teams gone, clearly GWS and GCS were errors.
Maybe if the Vic clubs want they can form a promotion/relegation system and each year the top VFL team replaces the worst performing Vic AFL team in the big time, and just all go that way

It's just funny that you think the fariest thing to do is to get rid of a heap of Clubs.

 

[The Feeder Club]

It's just funny that you think the fariest thing to do is to get rid of a heap of Clubs.

It is fairer. Despite all the hysterical reactions, there hasn't been a single coherent rebuttal that it isn't fairer. It's all been 'but but but money', or 'but but but Victorian tradition'.
In other words, people like yourself are quite happy to prioritise other interests over a fairer national competition. Welcome to the VFL masquerading as the AFL.

 

[sr36]

It is fairer. Despite all the hysterical reactions, there hasn't been a single coherent rebuttal that it isn't fairer. It's all been 'but but but money', or 'but but but Victorian tradition'.
In other words, people like yourself are quite happy to prioritise other interests over a fairer national competition. Welcome to the VFL masquerading as the AFL.

How are you going to fairly decide which clubs to snuff out of the AFL.

The funniest thing about the whole thing is that it will result in WA clubs travelling further.

 

[Papa G]

How are you going to fairly decide which clubs to snuff out of the AFL.

The funniest thing about the whole thing is that it will result in WA clubs travelling further.

North Melbourne serve no purpose. None. They've tried or half tried everything. Nothing works.

 

[Engimal v3]

North Melbourne serve no purpose. None. They've tried or half tried everything. Nothing works.

North Melbourne is actually the best club