It was a simple exercise in very basic logic. Of course up for debate.Explain the flaws in your "system" first.
I won't ask again
I feel you're a bit simple so I'll disengage.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was a simple exercise in very basic logic. Of course up for debate.Explain the flaws in your "system" first.
I won't ask again
It was a simple exercise in very basic logic. Of course up for debate.
I feel you're a bit simple so I'll disengage.
I'm suggesting it isn't and not from a capacity issue. Clearly from a capacity issue it would be fine and if you were going to do it one group of supporters would be cleared out before the next is let in. Why charge someone more if they are only interested in one game? And really, what is the benefit? Staff still need to be paid, food and drinks still need to be stocked, electricity is still paid for.
If there was a benefit I think it would already be happening.
Another question -
Should pre AFL-era premierships next counted in the official count?
I know this would now bring my own club’s count down from 16 to 2, but if we aren’t counting SANFL flags prior to the roll out of the national competition why are we still including VFL era flags?
Since 2012 (when North Melbourne started playing in Hobart) The West Coast have been there three times--- as has Sydney, St. Kilda & Melbourne, while Richmond has been there twice.
This is where #VICBIAS seems to struggle for legitimacy in my opinion because it's often based on 'gut feel' and observations rather than evidence & data.
No. I’m simply asking for evidence that VICBias exists
Here is a link for Launy: https://afltables.com/afl/venues/york_park.html
Hobart:https://afltables.com/afl/venues/bellerive_oval.html
& IF dinkum Subi: https://afltables.com/afl/venues/subiaco.html
So you agree that that West Coast has only been To Hobart 3 times since 2012 (as your links suggest)??
Hardly “every year” as your fellow Eagles supporter was suggesting.
I can't speak for other posters, but for me the argument doesn't centre around the impact on my club exclusively, it's based on the impact on a group of clubs (the non Vics).So you agree that that West Coast has only been To Hobart 3 times since 2012 (as your links suggest)??
Hardly “every year” as your fellow Eagles supporter was suggesting.
We need to fix the core problems before we start catering to the expansion problems.
I can't speak for other posters, but for me the argument doesn't centre around the impact on my club exclusively, it's based on the impact on a group of clubs (the non Vics).
Bellrieve:
Hosts: North x 22
Non-Vic opponents:
GWS x4
Sydney x3
West Coast x 3
Adelaide x 2
Port Adelaide x 1
Vic opponents:
Melbourne x 3
St Kilda x 3
Richmond x 2
Carlton x 1
York Park:
Hosts: Hawthorn x 64
St Kilda x 8
Non-Vic opponents:
Fremantle x 12
Port Adelaide x 10
Brisbane x 10
West Coast x 7
Adelaide x 5
Gold Coast x 5
GWS x 2
Sydney x 1
Vic opponents:
North Melbourne x 7
Western Bulldogs x 5
St Kilda x 4
Carlton x 2
Richmond x 1
Geelong x 1
There have been 94 games 'hosted' in Tasmania. Breaking down the 94 opponents in these games, 65 have been from interstate. 19 have been from the 'small' Victorian clubs (20 if you count Geelong). Richmond, Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood, Melbourne have combined to travel to Tasmania nine times total.
The clubs that travel the most already are usually the ones that get sent there. It's not about the Eagles alone, it's about the Freo x 12, Port x 11, Brisbane x 10, West Coast x 10 figures that are a stark contrast to the Collingwood x 0, Essendon x 0, Richmond x 3, Carlton x 3, Melbourne x 3.
Obviously we all know why this is - the Victorian clubs that 'host' Tassie games would rather host big drawing Victorian teams at the G because its more lucrative. That's fine, nobody is naive to that fact. It's the integrity issue that comes with 1) the same teams being exposed to a very strong home ground advantage in Tassie and 2) the AFL sending the teams that already travel the most on the ridiculous Tasmania trip, when sending some of the other clubs could somewhat mitigate the travel gulf between the big Vics and the rest.
Trips to Geelong are much the same. Again, we all know the financial reality of why it happens, but when you get teams having not been there in over a decade, or having not been there this century, that is just insane from a fixturing point of view. Adam Simpson played 79 AFL games, retired, became an assistant coach, became a head coach, lost a Grand Final then won a Grand Final three years later since Hawthorn last went down there. Collingwood don't go, Essendon don't go, Richmond have been twice this decade.
Like I said, nobody is naive as to why - its more financially beneficial to play these clubs at the MCG rather than in Tassie or Geelong. If people could just acknowledge that that also carries with it a sporting advantage to some teams and disadvantage to the others, we could all move on in the conversation a bit.
This is another thing that adds to the frustration.I completely agree with you that there’s quirks in the fixture such as what you’ve mentioned—but it’s important to back it up with facts rather than just emotion.
I’m going to use my team of support as an example though—- Over recent years Richmond has to play some of the smaller Victorian teams repeatedly at Marvel rather than the G:
-Vs North Melbourne 6 of the last 8 H&A games at Marvel, the other 2 @ Bellerive. Richmond haven’t had a home game at home against North since 2012.
-Vs Western Bulldogs 6 of the last 8 H&A games at Marvel, only 2 at the MCG.
Being forced to play “home games” at another clubs home ground & playing half your games at your home ground against co-tenants doesn’t provide us with the advantage that a club with a unique home ground gets (Geelong & the 8 interstate sides)
I completely agree with you that there’s quirks in the fixture such as what you’ve mentioned—but it’s important to back it up with facts rather than just emotion.
I’m going to use my team of support as an example though—- Over recent years Richmond has to play some of the smaller Victorian teams repeatedly at Marvel rather than the G:
-Vs North Melbourne 6 of the last 8 H&A games at Marvel, the other 2 @ Bellerive. Richmond haven’t had a home game at home against North since 2012.
-Vs Western Bulldogs 6 of the last 8 H&A games at Marvel, only 2 at the MCG.
Being forced to play “home games” at another clubs home ground & playing half your games at your home ground against co-tenants doesn’t provide us with the advantage that a club with a unique home ground gets (Geelong & the 8 interstate sides)
Out of curiosity what would Those core problems be in your opinion.
Some teams get consistently sent on the harder trips in football, and they’re usually the teams that already travel the most. That is an easily fixable situation for the AFL, but it would come at the expense of some revenue, so there’s a sticking point there. I understand that reality. If the league or fans could acknowledge that carries a sporting integrity question with it, the “Vic Bias” brigade would be a lot happier I can guarantee it.
1st, 2nd, 5th & 6th receiving home finals. The entire system needs to be written as Richmond won 2 flags from a rather dodgy loophole. Provided they come up against Geelong in finals they can afford to drop 1-2 games over the season compared to all other finalists and finish 3rd/4th (but really receiving the same advantage as 1st/2nd)
This could occur with any MCG tenant against Geelong. ie Geelong finish top 2 and a Melbourne club that finishes 3rd/4th is fixtured against them. Teams that should be good but not quite good enough can become premiers.
If you read through my posts I agree that #VICBIAS (more so money bias does exist)—- but my sentiment from the beginning is that I’m sick of the overuse & victim mentality that’s attached to it that seemingly takes over half the BigFooty main board.
In the past few week in this thread alone there’s been:
-An Eagles supporter using a single game at Blacktown Oval against GWS in 2012 as an example of #VICBIAS (because GWS’ home ground wasn’t ready to be used)
-An Eagles supporter claim that they travel there every year (thus why the Tasmania stats were originally discussed)
-That the AFL was only letting the Eagles take 25 players to QLD because an article about a podcast said so
-That Willie Rioli’s drug charges were kept a secret until the Eagles got to Victoria to mess up their finals chances
-That COVID-19 is #VICBIAS
There’s a difference between acknowledging that #VICBIAS exists and turning everything into a victim mentality that is making me & I believe many other contributors on BigFooty frustrated by Eagles supporters at present.
The benefit is making money not losing it.
You reckon North or the Saints wont think its worth considering?
You dont charge people more, thats why its a double header not 2 games.
Instead of 2 lots of staff you pay one, the contractors, say the catering have one set up not 2, one stadium gets cleaned, not 2.
People dont have to leave at any time.
Clearly its a factor greater than 1, not a saving of 1. The big save is the stadium rent, 60,000 at the G, not 2 x 30,000 at Docklands.
Nick its 2020 not 1920!
This is another thing that adds to the frustration.
These are the facts. No emotions.
Fremantle have played in Tassie 12 times. Port 11. Brisbane 10, West Coast 10.
The entire group of “Big Vics” have combined for nine total, six if you take out Melbourne (not being a dick I just have nfi if they’re considered “big” anymore).
That’s not a “quirk”. That doesn’t accidentally happen. It knowingly happens, and we know why (finance, which is fine but carries with it a sporting integrity question). To have it hand waved away as a quirk is part of the issue.
There absolutely are people who use it as a crutch or an excuse, or they claim it when it isn’t there. You’re right in a money bias more than anything, though with the way the league is currently set up the two amount to the same thing. Maybe it’ll change in time, who’s to say.
I can’t defend unreasonable people who cry Vic Bias every time they stub their toe, but there are some very real issues with the system as it currently exists that benefit Victorian teams far more often than they benefit non Victorian teams.
It doesn’t mean every advantage is to Victoria, it doesn’t mean no Victorian clubs deal with disadvantages of their own, it doesn’t mean Victorian clubs don’t have to work hard for success. It just mean there’s some issues and several in my mind could be very easily ironed out without too much fuss or without any real complaints from anybody.
The problem with this topic is that it has gotten so unreasonable on the periphery that the very reasonable suggestions at its core get lost in the commotion. I’m also sick of people who lean on it as the victims at every turn, because it undermines what I feel is a legitimate issue and a very solvable one.
A competition where everyone feels like the playing field is as level as possible, and sporting merit is king, is a legitimate competition. That should be the goal for all fans, regardless of post code. Right now a big chunk of fans don’t think that’s the case, so “it doesn’t exist” or crying Vic Bias every time your team loses aren’t productive in moving the discussion forward.