Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[HoneyBadger35]

We covered Vic Bias on this week’s episode of the Eagles board podcast. Three WA fans perspective, but I feel we gave a fairly measured approach to it and explored the benefits of being an ‘interstate’ club as well.

There’s inherent benefits and disadvantages to every club, and I think we tried to address those that are inevitable and those that can be mitigated somewhat.

Give it a listen if you’d like, hopefully people find a few of the suggestions interesting. Timestamps in the description if you want to skip the discussion and just cut straight to the proposed solutions.

Podcast - Countdown to Restart, 2020 - Vic Bias Special

With one week left until football returns, HoneyBadger35, Miguel Sanchez and Keys take an in depth look at Victorian Bias. Is it real? Does it compromise the league's integrity? What can be done to change it? Link iTunes RSS Previous Episodes We've joined Twitter! Follow us at @WCEBFPod.

www.bigfooty.com

West Coast Eagles BigFooty Podcast on Apple Podcasts

Sport · 2024

bit.ly

 

[nick1408]

We covered Vic Bias on this week’s episode of the Eagles board podcast. Three WA fans perspective, but I feel we gave a fairly measured approach to it and explored the benefits of being an ‘interstate’ club as well.

There’s inherent benefits and disadvantages to every club, and I think we tried to address those that are inevitable and those that can be mitigated somewhat.

Give it a listen if you’d like, hopefully people find a few of the suggestions interesting. Timestamps in the description if you want to skip the discussion and just cut straight to the proposed solutions.

Podcast - Countdown to Restart, 2020 - Vic Bias Special

With one week left until football returns, HoneyBadger35, Miguel Sanchez and Keys take an in depth look at Victorian Bias. Is it real? Does it compromise the league's integrity? What can be done to change it? Link iTunes RSS Previous Episodes We've joined Twitter! Follow us at @WCEBFPod.

www.bigfooty.com

West Coast Eagles BigFooty Podcast on Apple Podcasts

Sport · 2024

bit.ly

I'm going to give it a listen but since you said this:

Thanks to everyone for submitting questions. We'll tackle them next week in our Round 2 pod but, given the new raft of "unexpected benefits" received by Victorian clubs this week, we couldn't miss the chance to Stick It Up The Vics™.

I'm going into it thinking it will be far from balanced.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I'm going to give it a listen but since you said this:



I'm going into it thinking it will be far from balanced.

Just stoking the fires of tribalism to try scrounge more listeners. I’m shameless like that, will do anything for a click.

If you scroll down to one of the early replies they were upset we were too soft. Give it a crack, I’ll happily accept if you think we’ve said something unfair.

 

[Freomaniac]

Gold Coast is the 6th largest city in the country, there is more merit in the Gold Coast remaining and having 6 teams in Victoria (5 in Melbourne)

Actually there is a few reasons I want Gold coast suns to Survive.

-Value in the TV rights.
-Theres 5 million Queenslanders and as you said, 6th Largest city in the Country, at 600-650,000 more than Canberra, more than tassie.
-Grass roots footy has increased in Queensland in the last 10 years.
-Speaking of Grass roots footy, Gold coast suns staying alive Helps the QAFL and NEAFL. The QAFL isnt as good as the SANFL, WAFL or the TAC Cup as breeding grounds for AFL talent but some solid players have started their Careers in the QAFL.

 

[nick1408]

Just stoking the fires of tribalism to try scrounge more listeners. I’m shameless like that, will do anything for a click.

If you scroll down to one of the early replies they were upset we were too soft. Give it a crack, I’ll happily accept if you think we’ve said something unfair.

Certainly pandering to the locals, hey! Understandable, it is a West Coast podcast (well presented too - good work). I certainly encourage Carringbush2010 and Mister M to have a listen.

You did sort of acknowledge that not having someone to counter your arguments (and you probably needed 2-3 so one poor bastard wasn't arguing against 3) and it showed in the first six minutes where all three of you just made the assumption that a bias exists without acknowledging that it may not exist. There wasn't even a counter argument, just a rant about a bias that exists and how to fix it.

I'm not going to touch on training as personally, I think as soon as clubs were allowed to train they should have been, hence I can't argue the Victorian clubs shouldn't have been training as I feel that would be hypocritical.

If the AFL stops GWS from hosting fans (again, I think it would be stupid, but hey) I don't think this is a Victorian bias at all. It actually is stopping GWS gaining some sort of financial advantage over all other 17 clubs (well, maybe not Sydney as I assume they'd be doing it as well). Unless the AFL stopped all interstate clubs from gaining financial advantages (really bad phrasing financial advantages) while the Victorian clubs could earn money I don't think it's a bias at all.

You're plain wrong about Richmond not going to Tasmania. I think some posters think Richmond hasn't been to Tasmania because they are now a successful club after 30 years of bias that yielded exactly 0 premierships. Richmond also sold games to Cairns (and paid the price on the field for it) just like Hawthorn and North Melbourne but in the end worked out there is more value to play in Melbourne in front of a home crowd (see Final Siren last post regarding home crowd advantage) than to play in Queensland.

Good Friday was initially setup to support the smaller Victorian clubs - yes. Unfortunately those clubs (North v Bulldogs & North v St Kilda) could only draw 42,814 and 33,966 in their respective matches. As this fixture grows into the future (it's only had 3 goes and North v Essendon has been the biggest drawing) I think North will be happy with the income that it draws rather than the 34k that St Kilda got. While Essendon only got about 6000 more than the dogs the dogs were 2 & 1 after a GF win and got 43k in the door. I doubt the crowd would be like that if they had been in a run of form like Essendon has been in.

Speaking of finances; While Hawthorn aren't requesting clubs to go to Tasmania (neither are North Melbourne) they (as well as every club) are putting in requests to play certain clubs at certain times every year. Inevitably every club in Melbourne wants to play big Melbourne clubs as a home game at the MCG. It's why Carlton and Essendon have never played eachother at Docklands. There is no benefit to Hawthorn requesting to host Collingwood at York Park. Hawthorn v Sydney average 43952 and unsurprisingly they have only been to York Park once. Is this some sort of bias towards Sydney? North Melbourne got Richmond to Hobart twice and sold out all 17k seats.In the next 3 seasons they got 36k, 29k and 29k as home games at Docklands. Would there be a chance North requested Richmond as a home game against Richmond rather than the AFL screwing someone due to North getting better crowds at their true home in a venue that better fits the demand?

With regards to Richmond and Collingwood reopening the season; that was always the round two fixture and was always a Thursday night game.

You were happy to mention Richmond's home and away games at the MCG post-bye but no mention of the pre-bye lack of games at the MCG up until round 17 - a grand total of 6, only 4 of which were home games. Added to this, how many times do interstate sides have to do back to back weeks of travel? Three Victorian sides copped that last year - one of which was Richmond and one was Collingwood.

I admit there was some inequities early on in the finals setup. Not being old enough to know the ins and outs My initial feeling was existing contracts needed to play out or be re-written. Rewriting a contract isn't usually an easy process hence why some of these deals had to be played out.

You state you want Victorians to acknowledge there is a bias but there was no comment of West Coast (as it was West Coast fans presenting the podcast) acknowledging there was no bias. If this was to be as measured as you aimed to be there should have at least been some discussion on the possibility that no bias exists.

I waited the whole 46 minutes before you gave 6 minutes on the benefits the Eagles get for playing outside Melbourne. Even in these 6 minutes there was still arguments like "yeah, that is a benefit but..." I do agree that financial clubs (Eagles, Magpies, Tigers, Crows etc) make money but cannot benefit from it.

West Coast playing in Alice Springs was a really good idea and I liked the idea of 'buying' a Victorian game to play in Alice Springs. I doubt you'd get any club from anywhere selling a home game to Optus purely to benefit the Eagles or Dockers but I can see it happening in Darwin or Alice Springs (although, wouldn't Darwin be a similar flight time as Melbourne?)

I also like the idea of not having a 6 day break after travel. Does this happen? Would you prefer 6 day breaks before or after travel? Every club has to cop them somewhere. Maybe the interstate clubs can cop one prior to their respective derbies.

Chartered flights is also a great idea. Without a Virgin contract anymore I can certainly see this happening. I'd say the Eagles had to wear it in the soft cap due to the previous arrangement with Virgin and all teams having to travel with them rather than Qantas or anyone else. Make it happen I say.

Are you going to do a second edition or not? I hope if you do you get someone on who can give a counter-argument. Again though, good podcast. I can see why Eagles fans like it.

 

[Grin]

So in summary:

You designed a "system" based on math and logic (according to you), to prove there's no disadvantage to travel for interstate teams.

When the obvious flaws in your "system" are calmy pointed out to you, you throw the toys out of the cot and call the person that pointed out these obvious flaws irrational.

And then completely change the point you were trying to make.


Got it. Peak BF

No. I’m simply asking for evidence that VICBias exists

 

[peterbuch74]

I know I am going to go a bit off topic here.

In the Start of the 1990s, you had a few Vic Sides playing at their suburban home grounds. Just a few examples

-Collingwood played at Victoria Park
-Essendon Played at Windy hill
-Bulldogs played at Western Oval/Whitten oval.
-Carlton played at Princes Park
-Saints playing at Moorabbin

The point was I can understand why the likes of Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton moved to the MCG and Docklands perminently After 2000. All 3 sides were too big for their Suburban grounds that held 20-25,000 people. There were more incentives to play more games at the MCG and Docklands. Bigger crowds is one of them, More corporate money is the other reason.

Saints, North and Dogs were screwed financially when it came to the docklands deal. Even if they got 20-25,000 a game at docklands, they were still losing money due to high rent prices. But those 3 clubs are helped with the AFLs tv rights money.

I sort of missed Princes Park/ optus oval/ IKON park as another Alternative AFL ground, Strangle how its owned by the Melbourne city council. I thought it was owned by Carlton. Personally it should be used for AFL games. But due to Conflict of interest, the AFLs Priority is to Buy out Docklands.

Geelong have been lucky as They have a fair deal in Kardinia Park compared to Docklands as Kardinia Parks rent is Dirt cheap.

Saying that.... A few saints fans on Bigfooty have said if the AFL Paid 100 million to redevelop Moorabbin Oval into a 30-35,000 seat stadium like Kardinia Park, they would be as well off as Geelong.

Also, Hawthorn and Fitzroy played at Princes Park for a while, and Fitzroy also shared the Whitten oval. Hawks and Saints also moved out to Waverley for a time there too.

Problem with a lot of those suburban grounds is they were crapholes... don't get me wrong I used to love going out to away games back in the day, the crowd atmosphere was fantastic.

Major problem with Princes Park was getting in and out. You couldn't park anywhere if you drove in, and the trams were either too packed or there wasn't enough of them, and the train out to Royal Park then walking was also a nightmare. Was a great place to watch a game though.

Interesting point on Waverley though... the VFL had intended initially to double the capacity of that ground with a second tier of seating around the outer.


Waverley (VFL Park as it was also known) was initially used as a boutique stadium hosting different games each Saturday (ie: not a home ground to anyone) and the VFL had planned to play all Grand Finals at this venue from 1084 onwards so that it was a neutral venue.

The potential Grand Final shift was blocked by the Cain Victorian government at the time and they jumped into bed with the MCC saying that it had to played at the MCG should they wish to retain government funding.

The VIC government forever blocked any plans to expand the rail network out to Waverley to allow easy public transport to the ground essentially killing it off.

I wonder if the government hadn't done what they did and the crowd capacity was 100K+ as was initially forecast, and if it was used primarily as a neutral venue throughout the season if things would be different in terms of non-Vic clubs being disadvantaged by having the MCG being used for finals. I believe Waverley could've been just like Wembley Stadium London which is used for International games, the FA Cup finals and other cup games.

I blame the government!

 

[Freomaniac]

Also, Hawthorn and Fitzroy played at Princes Park for a while, and Fitzroy also shared the Whitten oval. Hawks and Saints also moved out to Waverley for a time there too.

Problem with a lot of those suburban grounds is they were crapholes... don't get me wrong I used to love going out to away games back in the day, the crowd atmosphere was fantastic.

Major problem with Princes Park was getting in and out. You couldn't park anywhere if you drove in, and the trams were either too packed or there wasn't enough of them, and the train out to Royal Park then walking was also a nightmare. Was a great place to watch a game though.

Interesting point on Waverley though... the VFL had intended initially to double the capacity of that ground with a second tier of seating around the outer.
View attachment 887199

Waverley (VFL Park as it was also known) was initially used as a boutique stadium hosting different games each Saturday (ie: not a home ground to anyone) and the VFL had planned to play all Grand Finals at this venue from 1984 onwards so that it was a neutral venue.

The potential Grand Final shift was blocked by the Cain Victorian government at the time and they jumped into bed with the MCC saying that it had to played at the MCG should they wish to retain government funding.

The VIC government forever blocked any plans to expand the rail network out to Waverley to allow easy public transport to the ground essentially killing it off.

I wonder if the government hadn't done what they did and the crowd capacity was 100K+ as was initially forecast, and if it was used primarily as a neutral venue throughout the season if things would be different in terms of non-Vic clubs being disadvantaged by having the MCG being used for finals. I believe Waverley could've been just like Wembley Stadium London which is used for International games, the FA Cup finals and other cup games.

I blame the government!

I knew the 1991 AFL grand final was held on that ground.

Yeah other clubs played at Princes park. Fitzroy always got the bad end of the stick. Fitzroy always had little to no money and had a small fan base but the AFL were determined to kill them off. Port were coming to the AFL in 1997 and yes there were possible mergers in 1996.

Well at least you agree, you get a certain feel and atmosphere in suburban grounds. That is something the AFL is missing. Dont get me wrong, some suburban grounds were crapholes but they were alternatives. It sucked that the Vic government at the time prevented a rail line to go to Waverly park.

Point is Kardinia Park and Ikon Park is the closest you can get to a suburban ground. The AFL has gone more of a different path. More focused on the money and corporate people. If they are that keen to pay off the docklands, why not use some of that 2.6 billion in tv rights money to do it?

They are that determined to own Docklands. Fair enough to a degree to help the Tenants that are Saints, North and Dogs. AFL makes so much money in TV rights it not funny.

This Is why I have some Respect for the NRL. Sure they have 10 sides in NSW. 4 of them are in Western Sydney. You got so many rectangular grounds in Western Sydney. Some NRL teams play in Suburban grounds that Hold 15-25,000 people

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Certainly pandering to the locals, hey! Understandable, it is a West Coast podcast (well presented too - good work). I certainly encourage Carringbush2010 and Mister M to have a listen.

You did sort of acknowledge that not having someone to counter your arguments (and you probably needed 2-3 so one poor bastard wasn't arguing against 3) and it showed in the first six minutes where all three of you just made the assumption that a bias exists without acknowledging that it may not exist. There wasn't even a counter argument, just a rant about a bias that exists and how to fix it.

I'm not going to touch on training as personally, I think as soon as clubs were allowed to train they should have been, hence I can't argue the Victorian clubs shouldn't have been training as I feel that would be hypocritical.

If the AFL stops GWS from hosting fans (again, I think it would be stupid, but hey) I don't think this is a Victorian bias at all. It actually is stopping GWS gaining some sort of financial advantage over all other 17 clubs (well, maybe not Sydney as I assume they'd be doing it as well). Unless the AFL stopped all interstate clubs from gaining financial advantages (really bad phrasing financial advantages) while the Victorian clubs could earn money I don't think it's a bias at all.

You're plain wrong about Richmond not going to Tasmania. I think some posters think Richmond hasn't been to Tasmania because they are now a successful club after 30 years of bias that yielded exactly 0 premierships. Richmond also sold games to Cairns (and paid the price on the field for it) just like Hawthorn and North Melbourne but in the end worked out there is more value to play in Melbourne in front of a home crowd (see Final Siren last post regarding home crowd advantage) than to play in Queensland.

Good Friday was initially setup to support the smaller Victorian clubs - yes. Unfortunately those clubs (North v Bulldogs & North v St Kilda) could only draw 42,814 and 33,966 in their respective matches. As this fixture grows into the future (it's only had 3 goes and North v Essendon has been the biggest drawing) I think North will be happy with the income that it draws rather than the 34k that St Kilda got. While Essendon only got about 6000 more than the dogs the dogs were 2 & 1 after a GF win and got 43k in the door. I doubt the crowd would be like that if they had been in a run of form like Essendon has been in.

Speaking of finances; While Hawthorn aren't requesting clubs to go to Tasmania (neither are North Melbourne) they (as well as every club) are putting in requests to play certain clubs at certain times every year. Inevitably every club in Melbourne wants to play big Melbourne clubs as a home game at the MCG. It's why Carlton and Essendon have never played eachother at Docklands. There is no benefit to Hawthorn requesting to host Collingwood at York Park. Hawthorn v Sydney average 43952 and unsurprisingly they have only been to York Park once. Is this some sort of bias towards Sydney? North Melbourne got Richmond to Hobart twice and sold out all 17k seats.In the next 3 seasons they got 36k, 29k and 29k as home games at Docklands. Would there be a chance North requested Richmond as a home game against Richmond rather than the AFL screwing someone due to North getting better crowds at their true home in a venue that better fits the demand?

With regards to Richmond and Collingwood reopening the season; that was always the round two fixture and was always a Thursday night game.

You were happy to mention Richmond's home and away games at the MCG post-bye but no mention of the pre-bye lack of games at the MCG up until round 17 - a grand total of 6, only 4 of which were home games. Added to this, how many times do interstate sides have to do back to back weeks of travel? Three Victorian sides copped that last year - one of which was Richmond and one was Collingwood.

I admit there was some inequities early on in the finals setup. Not being old enough to know the ins and outs My initial feeling was existing contracts needed to play out or be re-written. Rewriting a contract isn't usually an easy process hence why some of these deals had to be played out.

You state you want Victorians to acknowledge there is a bias but there was no comment of West Coast (as it was West Coast fans presenting the podcast) acknowledging there was no bias. If this was to be as measured as you aimed to be there should have at least been some discussion on the possibility that no bias exists.

I waited the whole 46 minutes before you gave 6 minutes on the benefits the Eagles get for playing outside Melbourne. Even in these 6 minutes there was still arguments like "yeah, that is a benefit but..." I do agree that financial clubs (Eagles, Magpies, Tigers, Crows etc) make money but cannot benefit from it.

West Coast playing in Alice Springs was a really good idea and I liked the idea of 'buying' a Victorian game to play in Alice Springs. I doubt you'd get any club from anywhere selling a home game to Optus purely to benefit the Eagles or Dockers but I can see it happening in Darwin or Alice Springs (although, wouldn't Darwin be a similar flight time as Melbourne?)

I also like the idea of not having a 6 day break after travel. Does this happen? Would you prefer 6 day breaks before or after travel? Every club has to cop them somewhere. Maybe the interstate clubs can cop one prior to their respective derbies.

Chartered flights is also a great idea. Without a Virgin contract anymore I can certainly see this happening. I'd say the Eagles had to wear it in the soft cap due to the previous arrangement with Virgin and all teams having to travel with them rather than Qantas or anyone else. Make it happen I say.

Are you going to do a second edition or not? I hope if you do you get someone on who can give a counter-argument. Again though, good podcast. I can see why Eagles fans like it.

Cheers mate, appreciate the feedback.

I have some counter points to a few of your examples but would rather avoid derailing the thread or risking it becoming a shit fling so I’ll keep it as brief as a know how (not very).

I think the majority of the pod is saying that there’s no malice or intentional bias, but some things have adverse affects that aren’t always considered.

I know we didn’t spend long exploring if it doesn’t exist, but i think that’s because we’re all so adamant it does and tries to present examples as such. Again, I’m not saying there’s malice involved in the decisions, just a lack of due consideration in some areas.

The point about GWS having a financial advantage rather than a sporting advantage If they have a small crowd frustrates me, because it comes on the heels of a news story where MCG tenants are getting $200k per game solidarity payments in a presumed empty stadium. The AFL will ensure Marvel tenants also see payments as per the AFL media yesterday. When you then turn around and say 350 corporates is a financial advantage, it’s a frustrating one given the other news. Perhaps an example of what we said in the pod - in isolation there’s a lot of minor issues that, when combined, make people come to conclusions of bias. In isolation this may not have been a big deal, but it’s seemingly the same clubs being told to not get an unfair advantage, and the same clubs receiving “surprising boosts” every time.

I understand why the Pies and Essendon for example play Geelong at the G or Hawks at the G rather than in Geelong or Tassie, but that speaks to the point that really underscores all of the podcast. Finance > sporting integrity in a lot of areas, fixturing being one. The Cats having what amounts to the best home ground advantage of all time (90 wins out of 100 at GMHBA) but some clubs not travelling there this century is a sporting integrity issue that could easily be rectified, and would go a long way to cooling discussions around unfair fixturing. As mentioned in the pod, we all know the financial reality drives this, and I’m ok with that provided there’s a more willing acknowledgment of yes, this is a sporting advantage to some clubs over others. If they just said we know it is, but here’s why we made the decision, it would go a long way.

The second main point is really about attitude, in that a “it doesn’t exist” or “get over it” approach doesnt exactly progress the discussion.

There’s no real plans as such to do a part two, it was just good timing with a gap in content before footy starts, but I’d gladly explore it with some Victorian fans in the postseason. I actually think despite how much of a shit fight the topic often becomes, it’s actually one of the genuinely interesting off field talking points if approached maturely.

Genuinely do appreciate the listen and the feedback, obviously the podcast has a WCE tilt to it but we try to make it accessible to non Eagles fans so I’ll absolutely take it on board going forward.

 

[nick1408]

Cheers mate, appreciate the feedback.

I have some counter points to a few of your examples but would rather avoid derailing the thread or risking it becoming a shit fling so I’ll keep it as brief as a know how (not very).

I think the majority of the pod is saying that there’s no malice or intentional bias, but some things have adverse affects that aren’t always considered.

I know we didn’t spend long exploring if it doesn’t exist, but i think that’s because we’re all so adamant it does and tries to present examples as such. Again, I’m not saying there’s malice involved in the decisions, just a lack of due consideration in some areas.

I appreciate your point that there isn't malice if it exists and that you all believe it does is fine. I guess what got me was you stated that it was intended to be fairly balanced but it was pretty obvious it wasn't.

That's fine. You're a West Coast podcast so you need to cater to your listeners.

The point about GWS having a financial advantage rather than a sporting advantage If they have a small crowd frustrates me, because it comes on the heels of a news story where MCG tenants are getting $200k per game solidarity payments in a presumed empty stadium. The AFL will ensure Marvel tenants also see payments as per the AFL media yesterday. When you then turn around and say 350 corporates is a financial advantage, it’s a frustrating one given the other news. Perhaps an example of what we said in the pod - in isolation there’s a lot of minor issues that, when combined, make people come to conclusions of bias. In isolation this may not have been a big deal, but it’s seemingly the same clubs being told to not get an unfair advantage, and the same clubs receiving “surprising boosts” every time.

The AFL hasn't said they are telling GWS they can't do it. They simply said they are looking at it. They should look at it too. The AFL on the surface are maintaining they want an even competition so should look at anything that may negate that. I still maintain that it isn't a bias unless they say they can't do it while Victorians are allowed to do the same.

I understand why the Pies and Essendon for example play Geelong at the G or Hawks at the G rather than in Geelong or Tassie, but that speaks to the point that really underscores all of the podcast. Finance > sporting integrity in a lot of areas, fixturing being one. The Cats having what amounts to the best home ground advantage of all time (90 wins out of 100 at GMHBA) but some clubs not travelling there this century is a sporting integrity issue that could easily be rectified, and would go a long way to cooling discussions around unfair fixturing. As mentioned in the pod, we all know the financial reality drives this, and I’m ok with that provided there’s a more willing acknowledgment of yes, this is a sporting advantage to some clubs over others. If they just said we know it is, but here’s why we made the decision, it would go a long way.

I'm pretty confident that the AFL has acknowledged that one of the considerations when making the fixture is that they try to maximise value. Happy to be corrected on this though.

Edit: Found it - "Maximise attendance" -

Ultimately our overarching priority is to maximise attendances, and that ultimately is the deciding factor in the majority of decisions

Personally, I take this as "maximise income" but understand if you don't

The second main point is really about attitude, in that a “it doesn’t exist” or “get over it” approach doesnt exactly progress the discussion.

An attitude adamant that it doesn't exist is the same as an adamant attitude it does exist. Why should someone that has an attitude it does exist change if your not willing to consider it doesn't exist?

Edit: I should have expanded on this - sorry! If this is to be an open and adult debate (wow - nearly forgot I was on BigFooty) everyone needs to acknowledge a bias may or may not exist. There is even room that a bias may have existed in the past but no longer does or vice versa.

There’s no real plans as such to do a part two, it was just good timing with a gap in content before footy starts, but I’d gladly explore it with some Victorian fans in the postseason. I actually think despite how much of a shit fight the topic often becomes, it’s actually one of the genuinely interesting off field talking points if approached maturely.

Genuinely do appreciate the listen and the feedback, obviously the podcast has a WCE tilt to it but we try to make it accessible to non Eagles fans so I’ll absolutely take it on board going forward.

No issues. I think it can be debated maturely as you suggest it is a good topic (or interesting at least). I'd love to expand on the ideas of West Coast playing games in the NT in lieu of Tasmania. I'm not sure it would be fair to all the other interstate sides but it's worth exploring.

 

[amazingjoshy]

No. I’m simply asking for evidence that VICBias exists

Not really for me to provide as I haven't mentioned a thing about VicBias in this thread.

The only posts I've made in this thread are pointing out the obvious flaws in your "system based on maths and logic" that you used to convince yourself interstate sides aren't disadvantaged by travel.

As a reminder:

So let's have a look at travel using very basic maths and logic.
If we start with the position that travel is a disadvantage then non travel must be an advantage. Let's say travel = -1 non travel = +1.
In West Coast's case they travel 10 times = -10
They play at home 10 times against teams that travel = +10
They play twice at home against another home state club = 0
so the sum total is 0.
Therefore their is both no advantage and no disadvantage in the home and away season for the West Coast Eagles when we consider travel alone.

That teams have to travel home after an away game meaning technically WC/Freo travel every single week (except for Rd 1 or after a Derby/bye), is conveniently not included. (that +10 is much closer to a 1 or 2).

Your own made up "system based on maths and logic" when used with the correct facts, proves the exact opposite point you were trying to make. Not sure how you missed it to be honest...blinded by #VICBIAS perhaps?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I appreciate your point that there isn't malice if it exists and that you all believe it does is fine. I guess what got me was you stated that it was intended to be fairly balanced but it was pretty obvious it wasn't.

That's fine. You're a West Coast podcast so you need to cater to your listeners.



The AFL hasn't said they are telling GWS they can't do it. They simply said they are looking at it. They should look at it too. The AFL on the surface are maintaining they want an even competition so should look at anything that may negate that. I still maintain that it isn't a bias unless they say they can't do it while Victorians are allowed to do the same.



I'm pretty confident that the AFL has acknowledged that one of the considerations when making the fixture is that they try to maximise value. Happy to be corrected on this though.

Edit: Found it - "Maximise attendance" -

Personally, I take this as "maximise income" but understand if you don't



An attitude adamant that it doesn't exist is the same as an adamant attitude it does exist. Why should someone that has an attitude it does exist change if your not willing to consider it doesn't exist?

Edit: I should have expanded on this - sorry! If this is to be an open and adult debate (wow - nearly forgot I was on BigFooty) everyone needs to acknowledge a bias may or may not exist. There is even room that a bias may have existed in the past but no longer does or vice versa.




No issues. I think it can be debated maturely as you suggest it is a good topic (or interesting at least). I'd love to expand on the ideas of West Coast playing games in the NT in lieu of Tasmania. I'm not sure it would be fair to all the other interstate sides but it's worth exploring.

I think a few of your suggestions would probably be alleviated if we’d framed the episode as “here is why we think Vic Bias exists”, rather than as we did which is more of a “Vic Bias exists, here’s some problems we have with it.” A pitch rather than a confirmation, which was probably a framing error on our part.

As I’ve said I know the AFL prioritise revenue/attendance, and they’ve addressed that especially re:finals attendance, but the aspect of it that I haven’t seen them address is that that approach does carry a sporting integrity issue. We all know why they make the calls that they do regarding Geelong at the MCG for example. Acknowledging that revenue drives that decision is one thing, but acknowledging that revenue drives the decision AND that leads to a situation where some clubs get the sporting advantage of not making one of the hardest trips in footy is an important distinction.

How ****ing good is having a reasonable chat on BigFooty just quietly, on the main board no less

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not at all mate, was a genuine question as no one loves their sport as much as the Vics and I often wondered why it's not an issue to them that revenue is the model they prefer now. You have answered that so cheers.

Actually it's incorrect to say that no one loves their sport as much as vics. That's not the impression I get from here in Perth - just as passionate.

'Some' have an issue of revenue trumps all other factors and for understandable reasons. But revenue is not an intent to deliberately bias - which many believe. It's for the end game.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Vic Teams, and especially the big Vic teams are the white males of the AFL world.

Why would they complain.

The clubs don't, in fact freo and wc don't either, nor any other club (or rarely) it's their fans that do. I haven't met any big vic club fan complain about how the landscape is and nor they shouldn't.

 

[nick1408]

I think a few of your suggestions would probably be alleviated if we’d framed the episode as “here is why we think Vic Bias exists”, rather than as we did which is more of a “Vic Bias exists, here’s some problems we have with it.” A pitch rather than a confirmation, which was probably a framing error on our part.

As I’ve said I know the AFL prioritise revenue/attendance, and they’ve addressed that especially re:finals attendance, but the aspect of it that I haven’t seen them address is that that approach does carry a sporting integrity issue. We all know why they make the calls that they do regarding Geelong at the MCG for example. Acknowledging that revenue drives that decision is one thing, but acknowledging that revenue drives the decision AND that leads to a situation where some clubs get the sporting advantage of not making one of the hardest trips in footy is an important distinction.

How ******* good is having a reasonable chat on BigFooty just quietly, on the main board no less

It is a nice change - especially on this topic!

I'm not sure how others take it but by saying they consider maximising attendances I take it that by maximising attendances there is a loss of sporting integrity (as you put it). I actually think they indirectly acknowledge this by making a statement like they did.

It's always nice to hear a direct acknowledgement as it leaves nothing to interpretation but to have the AFL actually say they maximise attendances as a main consideration is really a nice way of saying "the lower drawing matches are going to cop the rough end of the stick". This doesn't mean "All interstate clubs are going to cop it..." it means all low drawing matches, hence why Melbourne and St Kilda copped the trip to Hobart last year.

It isn't even a big vic team bias. As I pointed out, Sydney have only done one trip to York Park because they draw a big enough crowd against Hawthorn that for the AFL to maximise attendance they schedule it in Melbourne.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Why don't vic fans complain? Some do but that's inequity against their own club like the Marvel stadium deals and non prime time game slots. Where as the majority of us don't complain because there's no disadvantage to a club like mine apart from less true hga than non vic clubs.

All I really care about is that my club survives and that the game grows. I won't go over how HQ attempt to grow the game - that's the whole revenue reason that's been explained ad nauseum and you obviously understand that.

In an ideal world we'd have a truly equitable comp with an even amount of clubs from each state in a perfectly geographical set up. Apart from the geographical point I imagine HQ have a very very very long term of the former.

If you were to ask me personally ideally I'd like the VFL back with it's 12 clubs, because that's what I grew up with. What an evil bastard I am for wanting that. At least I don't complain about it.

The AFL is a mutated comp that will never return to what I grew up with - the WAFL and SANFL remain largely as they have been for a long time, I can never get my league back.

In saying that I do like this expanded VFL competition though and it is likely more 'professional' than if the VFL continued on it's merry way in a hypothetical world.

I know you're asking in an attempt to make clear that I do know that my club has an advantage in certain areas, some kind of 'gotcha'. Everyone on here knows my position, and not many are going to argue that as a surprise.

It's interesting you say you prefer the old 12 team VFL comp.

As an older head (50+) I would agree with you but only because I miss the old suburban grounds.

I like the national competition, the fact we get games all over the weekend, the seemingly more opportunity for clubs to win flags. Let's not forget that in the 70s and 80s only a select number of clubs were winning. Now seems more open.

 

[Grin]

I haven't mentioned a thing about VicBias

I’m glad you agree VicBias doesn’t exist.
You therefore don’t need to prove it

 

[Leeda]

I think a few of your suggestions would probably be alleviated if we’d framed the episode as “here is why we think Vic Bias exists”, rather than as we did which is more of a “Vic Bias exists, here’s some problems we have with it.” A pitch rather than a confirmation, which was probably a framing error on our part.

As I’ve said I know the AFL prioritise revenue/attendance, and they’ve addressed that especially re:finals attendance, but the aspect of it that I haven’t seen them address is that that approach does carry a sporting integrity issue. We all know why they make the calls that they do regarding Geelong at the MCG for example. Acknowledging that revenue drives that decision is one thing, but acknowledging that revenue drives the decision AND that leads to a situation where some clubs get the sporting advantage of not making one of the hardest trips in footy is an important distinction.

How ******* good is having a reasonable chat on BigFooty just quietly, on the main board no less

there are times we appreciate and then there we are all over the place
we gather ourselves and yo know we keep to yourselves..

 

[amazingjoshy]

I’m glad you agree VicBias doesn’t exist.
You therefore don’t need to prove it

Well I would probably normally just believe that.......

but now I've seen YOUR "system", which essentially proves how unfair it actually is, and more importantly, how unwilling you seem to be to acknowledge it even under your own rules

 

[Carringbush2010]

Certainly pandering to the locals, hey! Understandable, it is a West Coast podcast (well presented too - good work). I certainly encourage Carringbush2010 and Mister M to have a listen.

You did sort of acknowledge that not having someone to counter your arguments (and you probably needed 2-3 so one poor bastard wasn't arguing against 3) and it showed in the first six minutes where all three of you just made the assumption that a bias exists without acknowledging that it may not exist. There wasn't even a counter argument, just a rant about a bias that exists and how to fix it.

I'm not going to touch on training as personally, I think as soon as clubs were allowed to train they should have been, hence I can't argue the Victorian clubs shouldn't have been training as I feel that would be hypocritical.

If the AFL stops GWS from hosting fans (again, I think it would be stupid, but hey) I don't think this is a Victorian bias at all. It actually is stopping GWS gaining some sort of financial advantage over all other 17 clubs (well, maybe not Sydney as I assume they'd be doing it as well). Unless the AFL stopped all interstate clubs from gaining financial advantages (really bad phrasing financial advantages) while the Victorian clubs could earn money I don't think it's a bias at all.

You're plain wrong about Richmond not going to Tasmania. I think some posters think Richmond hasn't been to Tasmania because they are now a successful club after 30 years of bias that yielded exactly 0 premierships. Richmond also sold games to Cairns (and paid the price on the field for it) just like Hawthorn and North Melbourne but in the end worked out there is more value to play in Melbourne in front of a home crowd (see Final Siren last post regarding home crowd advantage) than to play in Queensland.

Good Friday was initially setup to support the smaller Victorian clubs - yes. Unfortunately those clubs (North v Bulldogs & North v St Kilda) could only draw 42,814 and 33,966 in their respective matches. As this fixture grows into the future (it's only had 3 goes and North v Essendon has been the biggest drawing) I think North will be happy with the income that it draws rather than the 34k that St Kilda got. While Essendon only got about 6000 more than the dogs the dogs were 2 & 1 after a GF win and got 43k in the door. I doubt the crowd would be like that if they had been in a run of form like Essendon has been in.

Speaking of finances; While Hawthorn aren't requesting clubs to go to Tasmania (neither are North Melbourne) they (as well as every club) are putting in requests to play certain clubs at certain times every year. Inevitably every club in Melbourne wants to play big Melbourne clubs as a home game at the MCG. It's why Carlton and Essendon have never played eachother at Docklands. There is no benefit to Hawthorn requesting to host Collingwood at York Park. Hawthorn v Sydney average 43952 and unsurprisingly they have only been to York Park once. Is this some sort of bias towards Sydney? North Melbourne got Richmond to Hobart twice and sold out all 17k seats.In the next 3 seasons they got 36k, 29k and 29k as home games at Docklands. Would there be a chance North requested Richmond as a home game against Richmond rather than the AFL screwing someone due to North getting better crowds at their true home in a venue that better fits the demand?

With regards to Richmond and Collingwood reopening the season; that was always the round two fixture and was always a Thursday night game.

You were happy to mention Richmond's home and away games at the MCG post-bye but no mention of the pre-bye lack of games at the MCG up until round 17 - a grand total of 6, only 4 of which were home games. Added to this, how many times do interstate sides have to do back to back weeks of travel? Three Victorian sides copped that last year - one of which was Richmond and one was Collingwood.

I admit there was some inequities early on in the finals setup. Not being old enough to know the ins and outs My initial feeling was existing contracts needed to play out or be re-written. Rewriting a contract isn't usually an easy process hence why some of these deals had to be played out.

You state you want Victorians to acknowledge there is a bias but there was no comment of West Coast (as it was West Coast fans presenting the podcast) acknowledging there was no bias. If this was to be as measured as you aimed to be there should have at least been some discussion on the possibility that no bias exists.

I waited the whole 46 minutes before you gave 6 minutes on the benefits the Eagles get for playing outside Melbourne. Even in these 6 minutes there was still arguments like "yeah, that is a benefit but..." I do agree that financial clubs (Eagles, Magpies, Tigers, Crows etc) make money but cannot benefit from it.

West Coast playing in Alice Springs was a really good idea and I liked the idea of 'buying' a Victorian game to play in Alice Springs. I doubt you'd get any club from anywhere selling a home game to Optus purely to benefit the Eagles or Dockers but I can see it happening in Darwin or Alice Springs (although, wouldn't Darwin be a similar flight time as Melbourne?)

I also like the idea of not having a 6 day break after travel. Does this happen? Would you prefer 6 day breaks before or after travel? Every club has to cop them somewhere. Maybe the interstate clubs can cop one prior to their respective derbies.

Chartered flights is also a great idea. Without a Virgin contract anymore I can certainly see this happening. I'd say the Eagles had to wear it in the soft cap due to the previous arrangement with Virgin and all teams having to travel with them rather than Qantas or anyone else. Make it happen I say.

Are you going to do a second edition or not? I hope if you do you get someone on who can give a counter-argument. Again though, good podcast. I can see why Eagles fans like it.

Do you have a link to this podcast? I'd like to listen to that.

 

[Grin]

Well I would probably normally just believe that.......

but now I've seen YOUR "system", which essentially proves how unfair it actually is, and more importantly, how unwilling you seem to be to acknowledge it even under your own rules

Once again. Do you have any evidence of a net VICBias? If you do, please provide it.
I won't ask again.

 

[nick1408]

Do you have a link to this podcast? I'd like to listen to that.

Mega Thread - VICBias - Genuine Discussion

We covered Vic Bias on this week’s episode of the Eagles board podcast. Three WA fans perspective, but I feel we gave a fairly measured approach to it and explored the benefits of being an ‘interstate’ club as well. There’s inherent benefits and disadvantages to every club, and I think we...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Rich01]

Actually there is a few reasons I want Gold coast suns to Survive.

-Value in the TV rights.
-Theres 5 million Queenslanders and as you said, 6th Largest city in the Country, at 600-650,000 more than Canberra, more than tassie.
-Grass roots footy has increased in Queensland in the last 10 years.
-Speaking of Grass roots footy, Gold coast suns staying alive Helps the QAFL and NEAFL. The QAFL isnt as good as the SANFL, WAFL or the TAC Cup as breeding grounds for AFL talent but some solid players have started their Careers in the QAFL.

All of your points are valid.
In fact if you were defending the survival of any AFL club (even a Melbourne club, gasp) they would be as equally valid.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Once again. Do you have any evidence of a net VICBias? If you do, please provide it.
I won't ask again.

Explain the flaws in your "system" first.

I won't ask again

 

[Freomaniac]

All of your points are valid.
In fact if you were defending the survival of any AFL club (even a Melbourne club, gasp) they would be as equally valid.

Well the thing is that is the main reasons why Gold coast will survive. AFL knows that Victoria draws ratings and so does NSW and Queensland. They also Know WA draws lots of money too despite only 2.6-2.7 million people live there.

I actually want the Smaller Vic Clubs in Saints, North and Dogs play in Suburban grounds.

I have said it was Stupid to get rid of princes park as an Alternative AFL venue.

Its funny the AFL dont play games at Suburban grounds, even it they held 25,000 seats. But no, their priority is to pay off Docklands. Not suprising, North, Dogs and Saints got a raw end of the Docklands deal as they were solid false promises.

Geelong at least had Kardinia Park.