Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[Hank Heavenly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hank Heavenly]

I should make note, that although I listed some things that infer they are no to the benefit of Non Vic clubs, I do acknowledge that some if not most fall short of their attempt to make things more even...

But the point is, the competition has looked for ways to make things better for non-vic clubs, even if they have done a poor job of it, but each non vic club is in a better position now than what they were when entering the comp.

 

[Muddiemoose]

If you don’t believe in the integrity of the comp just don’t follow it.


Become a member of a local league and follow that
State level footy is great and a much more personal experience as a fan

The think whole VICBIAS argument is boring and short sighted personally but there are plenty of other options

 

[JT_the_Man]

This should end well.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Rightly or wrongly there is clearly a level of antagonism about lack of fairness that AFL can’t be head in the sand about.

 

[Robertio]

A. Interstate sides have to travel, a big disadvantage.
B. Interstate sides play 12 home games on their own deck, big advantage.

Compare the home game advantage with my club who play 6 at Marvel and 5 at the MCG and also travelled to every state last year. So you got a give some and take some and also it wouldn't hurt to share the Grand Final around.

 

[Rickee]

This is the football equivalent of "I'm not racist, but".

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Rightly or wrongly there is clearly a level of antagonism about lack of fairness that AFL can’t be head in the sand about.

I'm not saying that it's fair, it's clearly not...

But the unfair aspects where in place before these teams joined, it's not new...

And no one has told me a solution of where Vic clubs should play away games against other Vic clubs to make the comp "fairer"....

So apart from the GF being held at the G, instead of being shared around say like the Superbowl, or the higher team hosting it, what else could the AFL do to make it fairer....?

 

[mike123]

Having to travel more is also a trade off of having more home games. Most vic games are neutral. Easier for a non vic team make the finals during their lean years as they can win more points through their game ground advantage.

 

[PerthblueGold]

For me the biggest issue is the fact that some clubs play a lot of their games @ the Grand Final venue..and this becomes a huge advantage if one of those teams gets to the GF against an interstate club.....so if you cant shift the home of the GF....shift some of those tennant clubs around a bit more...

 

[RUNVS]

The fact that the AFL just signed a 50 million year deal with the MCG to host the Grand Final seemingly without even consulting the teams or fans annoyed the crap out of me. Almost like they did not want the non-Victorian teams and fans to know about it ahead of time.

 

[RUNVS]

Rightly or wrongly there is clearly a level of antagonism about lack of fairness that AFL can’t be head in the sand about.

The thing is though, the AFL doesn't care. They know we can't take our business elsewhere.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The fact that the AFL just signed a 50 million year deal with the MCG to host the Grand Final seemingly without even consulting the teams or fans annoyed the crap out of me. Almost like they did not want the non-Victorian teams and fans to know about it ahead of time.

Yes but the AFL has shown it can change

Look at the finals from back in the 1990s/ early 2000s.Non Vic teams were forced to travel to play second week semi finals and prelim finals despite being higher qualified. Now that would be considered totally unfair

 

[banzai]

Compare the home game advantage with my club who play 6 at Marvel and 5 at the MCG and also travelled to every state last year. So you got a give some and take some and also it wouldn't hurt to share the Grand Final around.

I've always felt Carlton and Essendon put themselves at a huge disadvantage by splitting their home games between two stadiums which suit completely different game styles.

 

[RUNVS]

Yes but the AFL has shown it can change

Look at the finals from back in the 1990s/ early 2000s.Non Vic teams were forced to travel to play second week semi finals and prelim finals despite being higher qualified. Now that would be considered totally unfair

There are still plenty of people on this board though that argue that Victorian teams don't get an advantage from playing the Grand Final at the MCG. It is some rather tortured logic, but you are never going to be able to convince them otherwise.

 

[Yojimbo]

An interesting aside to this whole argument of Vic Bias is to look at the point
of origin for all the talent who enter the game every year. If you break it
down to state based it is clear that the further away from Victoria a club is
the various percentages vary for instance the South Australian clubs have a
higher intake of NAB/TAC players than do the Western Australian clubs.

NAB/TAC %'s:
Dogs- 60.00 %
Freo- 26.67 %
WC- 27.91 %
Port- 42.22 %
Crows- 46.51 %
Suns- 32.00 %
Lions- 39.13 %
GWS- 37.77 %
Swans- 44.44 %
Hawks- 44.19 %
Rich- 47.73 %
Coll- 57.78 %
Geel- 43.48 %
North- 63.64 %
Melb- 45.45 %
Ess- 60.00 %
StK- 60.00 %
Blues- 71.11 %

Other categories- WAFL, SANFL, NEAFL, VFL, Ireland, TSL, and Traded so
figures are not exact, but give a general ideal.

 

[Senor M]

I believe that there are many inequities within the AFL today:

• The long-term Grand Final deal. But I also acknowledge as a Victorian that I'm happy my State government negotiated that with the AFL before the most recent state government funding was announced for the MCG/Marvel. That's a win from a state government perspective that's impacted the inequity of the AFL IMO.
• The varying rules for Father/Son, NGA, Academy players, etc. in the draft that provide some teams a leg-up RE: access to talent
• Fixturing anomolies (Richmond not playing against North Melbourne @ the G during a H&A game in 8 years, COLL & ESS not going to Geel, true 'home ground' advantage for some clubs over others, back-to-back interstate travel, etc.)

However I also feel that the #VICBIAS whinging & ranting gets thrown around that often on BigFooty that it starts to lose some of its meaning & impact when it's discussed. The amount of outrage at the AFL maintaining the status quo & not upping the number of people who could train together a few weeks ago was a prime example. It became "Victoria's fault"

There's currently advantages & disadvantages of being every club within the competition--- that's not going to be fixed, but it's important that the advantages of all clubs get acknowledged rather than just whinging about the "pampered Victorian clubs" that "owe the interstate clubs" because of a $4 million licence fee to join the AFL over 30 years ago.

 

[RUNVS]

So apart from the GF being held at the G, instead of being shared around say like the Superbowl, or the higher team hosting it, what else could the AFL do to make it fairer....?

I know many many people will disagree with this but I would introduce a 10% increase in the pay of any AFL player playing in their non-native state if they are earning below $400,000 a year.

You only get that 10% increase if you are drafted though, not traded.

 

[Senor M]

I know many many people will disagree with this but I would introduce a 10% increase in the pay of any AFL player playing in their non-native state if they are earning below $400,000 a year.

You only get that 10% increase if you are drafted though, not traded.

COLA 2.0?

 

[RUNVS]

COLA 2.0?

No, it is available to Victorian clubs as well if they draft non-Victorian players.

 

[La Dispute]

There have been a number of grand finals over the past ten years where a higher ranked interstate team has played a Victorian team at the MCG, and to me this is completely unfair irrespective of whether the interstate team manages to overcome the odds and win. You can discuss the advantage of having a genuine home ground advantage during the season, but the Grand Final isn't played played during the season.

The mentality is 'ah well, if the (interstate) team is good enough they'll win it anyway' but that isn't the point. They shouldn't have to rise up above an unfair playing field.

You can talk about the logistics of playing a Grand Final all you want (and it is logistically possible to hold it elsewhere), the current system is broken, and wont be fixed for another 40 years. I can see why so many interstate supporters feel aggrieved.

 

[Senor M]

No, it is available to Victorian clubs as well if they draft non-Victorian players.

So you're encouraging clubs to draft players from outside of their home state with an extra 10% allowance. I'm assuming to minimise the risk of the 'go home' factor). Seems like a great idea in theory to encourage more player movement.

But how do you prevent clubs then offering the talent on less than $400,000 10% less than what they deserve, because it'd be the same as another club in their home state would offer them? It effectively because extra room in the salary cap for clubs to make such ridiculously high offers to their 'stars' -iie. Swans with Tippett & Franklin while paying their role players less (because the AFL is topping up their salaries.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You can talk about the logistics of playing a Grand Final all you want (and it is logistically possible to hold it elsewhere), the current system is broken, and wont be fixed for another 40 years. I can see why so many interstate supporters feel aggrieved.

I've already come up with the perfect counter-balance for the Grand Final dis/advantage.

Prelims every year: Two best non-Melbourne teams host the two best Melbourne teams.

 

[RUNVS]

So you're encouraging clubs to draft players from outside of their home state with an extra 10% allowance. I'm assuming to minimise the risk of the 'go home' factor). Seems like a great idea in theory to encourage more player movement.

But how do you prevent clubs then offering the talent on less than $400,000 10% less than what they deserve, because it'd be the same as another club in their home state would offer them? It effectively because extra room in the salary cap for clubs to make such ridiculously high offers to their 'stars' -iie. Swans with Tippett & Franklin while paying their role players less (because the AFL is topping up their salaries.

The 10% is to encourage players to stay in their team, rather than moving back home, and as for how it is added, simply have a normal salary cap, and if a player meets the criteria then the AFL adds the 10% on top.

Again, it would not be for the top players, only players earning under $400,000 and it is to help try and lessen the "go home" factor.

 

[bzparkes]

Didn't mind joining the VFL as it was in Vic but they really should've gotten rid of all the insolvent clubs, such as Richmond, to make the competition truly national.