Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[kranky al]

Wow, so one occasion means that there is no advantage?
What kind of argument is that?

That’s what he does, finds an exception to the norm as llays it as the norm.

“See collingwood beat you in a final in perth.

That means theres no disadvantage playing any final interstate.”

“Also you have massive advantage hosting away teams in h and a “

 

[SC_Power]

That’s what he does, finds an exception to the norm as llays it as the norm.

“See collingwood beat you in a final in perth.

That means theres no disadvantage playing any final interstate.”

“Also you have massive advantage hosting away teams in h and a “

So given Richmond have such a great win loss record at the Gabba, then we should play all the Grand Finals up there, to maximise the advantage to Vic clubs.?

 

[doppleganger]

That’s what he does, finds an exception to the norm as llays it as the norm.

“See collingwood beat you in a final in perth.

That means theres no disadvantage playing any final interstate.”

“Also you have massive advantage hosting away teams in h and a “

LoL

Coming from the bloke who cherry picks selective periods (and includes wrong numbers) to try and back-up his point.

Ie Richmond losing some games during H&A away from the G means they only won a flag because of the MCG.

Conveniently ignores that the Tigers won finals at the GABBA, Adelaide Oval, Metricon on their way to premierships.

AFL Premierships decided away from the MCG, MCG tenants have a 100% win rate.

AFL Premierships decided at the MCG, MCG tenants have a 55-60% win rate.

The biggest bias in the AFL is during the H&A season, the select group of teams who have retained their home ground advantage consistently finish higher on the H&A ladder.

We all know which teams that is, but the beneficiaries make up laughable falsehoods:

• It is them as the away team who is disadvantaged when not playing a team at their home ground
• That "travel" isnt a disadvantage if you are the nominal home team.
• A Melbourne team travelling 9-10 times per year is different to an SA side travelling 10 times...because the Melbourne team "chooses" to travel.
• The Fixture and locking in two fixed SA/WA derbies isnt the AFL looking after SA/WA teams

The results are their for anybody to see, post Melbourne ground rationalisation (when the AFL removed home ground advantage for the Melbourne clubs) the H&A ladder shows that non-Melbourne teams dominated the H&A ladder - almost as if home ground advantage is real!

But keep up the entitled sooking how the poor Eagles are disadvantaged by getting their 12 games in WA (10 with an advantage) but then playing away games not at the home ground of their Melbourne opponent.

 

[SC_Power]

Oh goodie, we will get the most obvious bias detailed.

Right...is the bias bit the AFL Fixture locking in 2 showdowns every single year?

Is that what you are unhappy about?

Or do you want it included in the AFL list of MCG BLOCKBUSTERS and are upset that it isnt?

Sunday night is the real prime time, why dont the SA/WA teams ever do something to want to push that as a way of getting their "east coast" prime time commerical audience?

Have you pondered for a minute that C7, the broadcaster, has a big say in which clubs and matches are included for Friday night?

Perhaps they realise that casual fans in QLD and NSW dont know or care about Power v Crows. So a game between a VIC and WA club will have a much broader national appeal than the SA battle.

But yes, whilst you mention it, how unfair is it that SA fans get all their games on free to air.

Good luck being a Melbourne bases Hawk fan, not only does the club travel 9-10 times a season, they also get home game at Marvel and s**t TV slots so their fans need foxtel if they want to watch their team every week.

So you agree, the desire to maximize $$$ means that the AFL make decisions which skew the competition, and as Victoria are the largest financial state, they stand to gain the greatest benefit.

And as the Vic clubs “own” the national competition (which they shouldn’t, it’s not their competition, they signed up to a national competition, but refuse to let go), then no one is going to upset the status quo.

Good to see we agree.

 

[SC_Power]

LoL

Coming from the bloke who cherry picks selective periods (and includes wrong numbers) to try and back-up his point.

Ie Richmond losing some games during H&A away from the G means they only won a flag because of the MCG.

Conveniently ignores that the Tigers won finals at the GABBA, Adelaide Oval, Metricon on their way to premierships.

AFL Premierships decided away from the MCG, MCG tenants have a 100% win rate.

AFL Premierships decided at the MCG, MCG tenants have a 55-60% win rate.

The biggest bias in the AFL is during the H&A season, the select group of teams who have retained their home ground advantage consistently finish higher on the H&A ladder.

We all know which teams that is, but the beneficiaries make up laughable falsehoods:

• It is them as the away team who is disadvantaged when not playing a team at their home ground
• That "travel" isnt a disadvantage if you are the nominal home team.
• A Melbourne team travelling 9-10 times per year is different to an SA side travelling 10 times...because the Melbourne team "chooses" to travel.
• The Fixture and locking in two fixed SA/WA derbies isnt the AFL looking after SA/WA teams

The results are their for anybody to see, post Melbourne ground rationalisation (when the AFL removed home ground advantage for the Melbourne clubs) the H&A ladder shows that non-Melbourne teams dominated the H&A ladder - almost as if home ground advantage is real!

But keep up the entitled sooking how the poor Eagles are disadvantaged by getting their 12 games in WA (10 with an advantage) but then playing away games not at the home ground of their Melbourne opponent.

Complete nonsense.

Vics continue to try and equate individual teams, and not where the benefit lies, which is the best teams of any given year. It’s the best teams that win flags, not the finals 5-8 teams except WB - coincidentally a Vic team.

The best Vic teams will always gravitate to the top of the ladder, because they have an inherent advantage because of the reduced number of travel games, compared to the best non Vic teams. The best Vic clubs such as Collingwood this year will start favourites in their 15-16 home and neutral games in Victoria, and 4-5 away games. This happens every year.
It also happens the opposite, the worst Vic teams gravitate to the bottom of the ladder, for the opposite reasons.

The non Vic teams gravitate to the middle, as they have to overcome greater travel obstacles bringing them down from the top, and have the balance of greater home advantages pulling them up from the bottom.

Its why the best Vic teams have far better W/L records than the best non Vic teams. Not a particular team, but the best ones each year.
Don’t believe me? Tally up the 20 win, 19 win, 18 win, 17 win, 16 win seasons in the AFL era.

 

[Brasher]

Complete nonsense.

Vics continue to try and equate individual teams, and not where the benefit lies, which is the best teams of any given year. It’s the best teams that win flags, not the finals 5-8 teams except WB - coincidentally a Vic team.

The best Vic teams will always gravitate to the top of the ladder, because they have an inherent advantage because of the reduced number of travel games, compared to the best non Vic teams. The best Vic clubs such as Collingwood this year will start favourites in their 15-16 home and neutral games in Victoria, and 4-5 away games. This happens every year.
It also happens the opposite, the worst Vic teams gravitate to the bottom of the ladder, for the opposite reasons.

The non Vic teams gravitate to the middle, as they have to overcome greater travel obstacles bringing them down from the top, and have the balance of greater home advantages pulling them up from the bottom.

Its why the best Vic teams have far better W/L records than the best non Vic teams. Not a particular team, but the best ones each year.
Don’t believe me? Tally up the 20 win, 19 win, 18 win, 17 win, 16 win seasons in the AFL era.

I wonder what the win/loss record these teams that give up home ground advantages under ground rationalisation or willingly sell home games would be if they played on their VFL home grounds instead and were now in liquidation.

 

[Underarm]

So you agree, the desire to maximize $$$ means that the AFL make decisions which skew the competition, and as Victoria are the largest financial state, they stand to gain the greatest benefit.

And as the Vic clubs “own” the national competition (which they shouldn’t, it’s not their competition, they signed up to a national competition, but refuse to let go), then no one is going to upset the status quo.

Good to see we agree.

I don't recall Richmond signing up to a national competition in 1908, could you provide a source for that?

 

[SC_Power]

I don't recall Richmond signing up to a national competition in 1908, could you provide a source for that?

They did in 1987. All the Vic clubs did.

 

[LoungeLizard]

And genius lounge lizard points out the low tv ratings.... can't see the forest because he's starting at a giant tree trunk.

So, sarcastically calling someone genius, usually means you think you are the smart one.

Then you should know it's 7 who asks for which team play in prime time, as they are who pays the bills.

So seeing as you see yourself as so smart, please answer this.
Why don't 7 play the SA teams in prime time?

Is it because they know no-one wants to watch them outside of SA?

 

[doppleganger]

So you agree, the desire to maximize $$$ means that the AFL make decisions which skew the competition, and as Victoria are the largest financial state, they stand to gain the greatest benefit.

Disagree.

The AFL use Melbourne based teams to fund the expansion strategy.

And as the Vic clubs “own” the national competition (which they shouldn’t, it’s not their competition, they signed up to a national competition, but refuse to let go), then no one is going to upset the status quo.

The AFL own the Melbourne based clubs, even the almighty powerful Collingwood cant get its home games at home...so what hope do smaller teams like North amd Hawthorn have?

Good to see we agree.

Agree that SA fans have it better than Melbourne in relation to being able to watch their team?

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL own the Melbourne based clubs

lol this isnt true at all. ALL Melbourne clubs are owned by the members, not a single one has the AFL as an owner.

• Constitution of the Carlton Football Club Limited
• Collingwood Football Club Limited Articles of Association
• Constitution of Essendon Football Club Limited
• Constitution of Geelong Football Club Limited
• Constitution of Hawthorn Football Club Limited
• Constitution of Melbourne Football Club Limited
• Constitution of North Melbourne Football Club
• Constitution of Richmond Football Club Limited
• Constitution of Footscray Football Club Limited

The AFL does have control of the fixture though.

 

[The_Wookie]

They did in 1987. All the Vic clubs did.

No they didnt. Not even close. Victorian clubs remained in the same competition they have always been in. Its an uncomfortable truth for many, but it remains the truth nonetheless.

In the first place, nothing changed at all about the leagues governance other than the addition of two teams in 1987. The league name didnt change until 1990, and the VFL Board of Directors didnt hand over control until 1993.

The AFLs ACN dates to 1929, and specifically notes it was the Victorian Football League as a prior name.

The Articles of Association for the league didnt change at all until 1993.

• 1993 Articles of Asociation
• 1993 Memorandum of Association

 

[doppleganger]

Complete nonsense.

Vics continue to try and equate individual teams, and not where the benefit lies, which is the best teams of any given year. It’s the best teams that win flags, not the finals 5-8 teams except WB - coincidentally a Vic team.

Yes the best teams win flags.

The best Vic teams will always gravitate to the top of the ladder, because they have an inherent advantage because of the reduced number of travel games, compared to the best non Vic teams.

Wrong.

Go and check top2 and top4 H&A ladder positions since 2000.

Non-Melbourne teams are over-represented in minor premier, top2, top4.

It also happens the opposite, the worst Vic teams gravitate to the bottom of the ladder, for the opposite reasons.
The non Vic teams gravitate to the middle, as they have to overcome greater travel obstacles bringing them down from the top, and have the balance of greater home advantages pulling them up from the bottom.

Myth

Go and actually check middle 6 of H&A the 7-12

2022 - 4 Melbourne teams
2019 - 4 Melbourne teams
2018 - 2 Melbourne teams
2017 - 5 Melbourne teams
2016 - 5 Melbourne teams
2015 - 2 Melbourne teams
2014 - 3 Melbourne teams
2013 - 3 Melbourne teams
2012 - 5 Melbourne teams
2011 - 4 Melbourne teams

Melbourne teams dominate the middle of the ladder.

Non-Melbourne teams are over represented at the the top of the H&A ladder.

It is because home ground advantage is the most important.

Melbourne teams are the ones who as a result of Melbourne ground rationalisation, give up home ground advantage.

Melbourne based teams are the ones who are travelling for home games.

 

[doppleganger]

lol this isnt true at all. ALL Melbourne clubs are owned by the members, not a single one has the AFL as an owner

It was own as in regards to the fixture, which was pretty obvious if you read the post.

 

[longdonkey]

The article was noting the AFL is set to continue tying up any loose ends within its bidding process, for NGA, F/S and Northern academies.

Primarily about whether clubs can match first-round bids with a host of later selections.

This is general review, all clubs try and exploit the rules by trading out early picks so to use a glut of later picks to get a kid they are linked to.

Brisbane used picks 34, 35, 38, 40 and 41 to get Ashcroft.

Pies used picks 38, 40, 42, 44 to get Daicos.

Does the AFL really want clubs to trade out their 1st round pick for a glut of 3rd rounders if they know they have a highly rated kid linked to them?

They tweak the points mechanism and methodology every year, but yes the wowsers west of Horsham see this as another example of conspriacy against them.

Gary Ablett Jnr 40, Tom Hawkins 41 After 20 years of this, its time to wrap up the loose ends now that the non-Vics are getting father/sons and its finally kind of equal. VICBIAS

So there's no problem one of the best players of the last 20 years going at pick 40 but Brisbane using 5 picks around the to get Ashcroft or you guys 4 picks around that to get Daicos is bad?

 

[doppleganger]

Gary Ablett Jnr 40, Tom Hawkins 41 After 20 years of this, its time to wrap up the loose ends now that the non-Vics are getting father/sons and its finally kind of equal. VICBIAS

So there's no problem one of the best players of the last 20 years going at pick 40 but Brisbane using 5 picks around the to get Ashcroft or you guys 4 picks around that to get Daicos is bad?

So SA clubs received start-up concessions and access to kids of parents who never even played a game for the Adelaide Crows or Port Power. But the SA fan think they deserved even more.

And now they arent happy to have to follow the same F/S rules that all clubs follow, which are constantly adjusted.

Back when Gaz was chosen the draft didnt even use the points per pick. But yeah lets go back to the future because the SA fan thinks that is fair.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

So SA clubs received start-up concessions and access to kids of parents who never even played a game for the Adelaide Crows or Port Power. But the SA fan think they deserved even more.

And now they arent happy to have to follow the same F/S rules that all clubs follow, which are constantly adjusted.

Back when Gaz was chosen the draft didnt even use the points per pick. But yeah lets go back to the future because the SA fan thinks that is fair.

You mean the same rules for all clubs like how Brad ebert wasn’t eligible as a FS for us even though his dad played over 100 games for the club?

 

[longdonkey]

Disagree.

The AFL use Melbourne based teams to fund the expansion strategy.

The AFL own the Melbourne based clubs, even the almighty powerful Collingwood cant get its home games at home...so what hope do smaller teams like North amd Hawthorn have?

Agree that SA fans have it better than Melbourne in relation to being able to watch their team?

This is due to historically Adelaide not having cable laid in all suburbs which isn't the case now but there are moves by Fox to try and not have all games on 7 anymore.

 

[Papa G]

Doddlebanger loves a stat that suits his idiotic argument but refutes the biggest one. Since the Royal Commission/Operation Heartland, 14 of the last 16 grand finals have been won by Victorian teams. The 2 that weren't, were by a grand total of 15 points between them. It really has become irrefutable that Victorian interests and advantage has been put above fairness.

 

[longdonkey]

So SA clubs received start-up concessions and access to kids of parents who never even played a game for the Adelaide Crows or Port Power. But the SA fan think they deserved even more.

And now they arent happy to have to follow the same F/S rules that all clubs follow, which are constantly adjusted.

Back when Gaz was chosen the draft didnt even use the points per pick. But yeah lets go back to the future because the SA fan thinks that is fair.

Oh you mean like how the son of our 392 game 4 time Magarey Medalist wasn't actually eligible under father/son rules but nobody checked it because he couldn't be not eligible or like our 4 time premiership player and captain who played 246 games who's son was eligible for the Crows under AFL Next Gen Academy because he was born in Egypt but not for Port.

In our first 20 years I think we got one father son who wasn't even eligible and we are quite happy now to continue under the rules that are in place NOW not to change the rules to make it harder, because you have now lost your VICBIAS rule that gave you an advantage over us because it was impossible for us to get a father/son pick. These are the things that infuriate us.

And thanks for those draft concessions which meant we had to give up the Top 5 draft picks and 5 more picks in the 20's for that year to other clubs so Port got Ian Downsborough who played 7 games for us while West Coast got Michael Gardiner who played 181 games and was AA in 2003.

The only Melbourne club that was affected was Essendon who lost Wanganeen (who was our player in the first place) and Scott Cummings in return Essendon got draft picks that got them the following players Heffernan 170 games Bomford 28 games McAlister 6 games Jason Johnson 184 games. So of course the start up concessions were so great for Port despite Essendon getting 4 players back for 2 all you hear is their whining about losing Wanganeen Who if you want to see him in the 1990 Grand Final playing for Port before he ever played for Essendon you can find it on You Tube.

 

[longdonkey]

So, sarcastically calling someone genius, usually means you think you are the smart one.

Then you should know it's 7 who asks for which team play in prime time, as they are who pays the bills.

So seeing as you see yourself as so smart, please answer this.
Why don't 7 play the SA teams in prime time?

Is it because they know no-one wants to watch them outside of SA?

Anyone who is happy to watch Carlton on a Friday night will watch Moe Under 16's if you play it on a Friday night. People watch AFLW enough for 7 to televise it!

 

[doppleganger]

You mean the same rules for all clubs like how Brad ebert wasn’t eligible as a FS for us even though his dad played over 100 games for the club?

The "club" LoL

Port Power get access to kids if the parent has played 100 games for the Power...that is the same as ALL AFL clubs.

But Port Power also get access to SANFL teams - North Adelaide, West Adelaide, Central, Woodville and the Port Magpies.

So you get more access, but want even more.

Yet think this is an example of VICBias?

 

[longdonkey]

Disagree.

The AFL use Melbourne based teams to fund the expansion strategy.

NO - the AFL uses the money from TV rights and gate takings that is generated from all the clubs to fund the expansion strategy.

The AFL own the Melbourne based clubs, even the almighty powerful Collingwood cant get its home games at home...so what hope do smaller teams like North amd Hawthorn have?

The smaller Melbourne clubs possibly get screwed more than the interstate clubs but then along comes #freekickhawthorn and then #freekickbulldogs

 

[doppleganger]

This is due to historically Adelaide not having cable laid in all suburbs which isn't the case now but there are moves by Fox to try and not have all games on 7 anymore.

So you agree that it is a bit rich for SA fans to complain re TV exposure, when they have it much better compared to many Melbourne based fans.

 

[doppleganger]

The smaller Melbourne clubs possibly get screwed more than the interstate clubs but then along comes #freekickhawthorn and then #freekickbulldogs

LOL - Dogs and Hawks won premierships as they were able to travel and win finals.

And the most disadvantaged clubs are the two old VFL powerhouses - Carlton and Essendon - they dont have a home anymore, and have been irrelevant ever since Marvel came in.