The Academies - 2016

[Banyo Bloods]

No the people advocated that some teams should receive exceptional assistance written into the rules of competition have the obligation justify it.

Onus still on you as spokesperson for "The People"

 

[Colonial]

but there are simply pointing out how vague your claims are. They are not my claims.

you claim t5he your players are disadvantaged by inferior markets for third party deals for example. Thats not may claim. It your northern guys claim.

are you saying in the absence of figures, the claim must be accepted as fact?

they are you claims you guys have to provide the figures to back up your claims.

Your answer. Again.

Onus is on you - If a team is getting "assistance" under AFL rules then if somebody disputes that the onus is on them to provide the reasons why it shouldn't be happening

No the people advocated that some teams should receive exceptional assistance written into the rules of competition have the obligation justify it.

Yeah come on.

Only people who disagree with you have to provide it.

Its an academy thread and still no facts from you. Tsk tsk.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[BloodySwan]

No the people advocated that some teams should receive exceptional assistance written into the rules of competition have the obligation justify it.

Hey mate here's some of the facts. It's been posted many times before so I'm sure you've seen it

 

[briztoon]

The silence is deafening.

 

[Determinant]

Of course the Giants and Suns should have advantages. The AFL can't bring them into the comp and have them fail... it would be a massive waste of money. So naturally they would ensure they would be strong clubs - and the best way they can control this is theough draft picks. The academies is another way to assist both clubs to be strong as well as strengthen junior interest across the states.
With a strong presence in both NSW and QLD the AFL will make all that money back and some through future TV rights deals.
It's not rocket science.

You are arguing with a noticeboard, there is zero debate intelligence present, best to just use the button BF provide for us to avoid the challenged..

 

[pugsville]

Hey mate here's some of the facts. It's been posted many times before so I'm sure you've seen

The quotes don't mean much, The leigh quotes are just press releases form the propaganda department. Players will pile on the go home factor as it;s often the easy answer, very few are going to say it was the money, or rtes club was being run very badly,

Sloppy cherry picked data. Slick piece of propaganda,but not overly good analysis.

didnt brisbane have a salary cap bonus for some of the period covered.

whats the retention rate competition wide. homegrown v domestic players. whats the the first round picks too each club, if a clubs had twice the first round picks and lost twice the players it's the same mention rate, whats the retention rate for Sydney, what is the retention rate for clubs in the lowest 4 spots, is the mention related to Brisbane or just lower performing clubs.

there is a problem with never comparing like with like. Players recruited outside the draft don't appear.
there are all sorts of pretty subjective calls to in what you count. it's all a problem with statitics.


I decided to do my own analysis but it will take time.

 

[BloodySwan]

The quotes don't mean much, The leigh quotes are just press releases form the propaganda department. Players will pile on the go home factor as it;s often the easy answer, very few are going to say it was the money, or rtes club was being run very badly,

Sloppy cherry picked data. Slick piece of propaganda,but not overly good analysis.

didnt brisbane have a salary cap bonus for some of the period covered.

whats the retention rate competition wide. homegrown v domestic players. whats the the first round picks too each club, if a clubs had twice the first round picks and lost twice the players it's the same mention rate, whats the retention rate for Sydney, what is the retention rate for clubs in the lowest 4 spots, is the mention related to Brisbane or just lower performing clubs.

there is a problem with never comparing like with like. Players recruited outside the draft don't appear.
there are all sorts of pretty subjective calls to in what you count. it's all a problem with statitics.


I decided to do my own analysis but it will take time.

It's like arguing with Malcom Roberts on climate change. Even with the facts there you just choose to ignore them.

 

[pugsville]

It's like arguing with Malcom Roberts on climate change. Even with the facts there you just choose to ignore them.

refusal to face the facts can be annoying. You guys never go go we hadn't thought of that good piont, now you first response is your post is invalid, you are crazy, bais, or whatever, you just attack the man and ignore the argument.

brisbane may have experienced more interstate players "going home: but with far more interstate players on the list you are not comparing apples with apples.

there is a leaving rate for all players. that has to be factor in. OS work out the retention rate league wide for all players, then compare that to Brisbane leaving rate.

The graphic is bad statistics because there are so many more interstate players of course Brisbane all have more leave, even if they were leaving at the exact same rate as hime grown players.

Also during the period Brisbane was receiving zone concession outside the draft. calculate each 150 game player recieved as a first round player in, deduct that from the over leave.

Also if say Brisbane revived 19 first round picks and 10 leaves an another club receives 9 first round picks and 4 leave comparing the numbers leaving isn't the thing it;s number leaves/per first round pick. Nice graphic but sloppy statistics.

i'd allso check the leaving rate of say bottom 4 clubs and compare that , it could be a factor.

 

[dlanod]

refusal to face the facts can be annoying. You guys never go go we hadn't thought of that good piont, now you first response is your post is invalid, you are crazy, bais, or whatever, you just attack the man and ignore the argument.

brisbane may have experienced more interstate players "going home: but with far more interstate players on the list you are not comparing apples with apples.

there is a leaving rate for all players. that has to be factor in. OS work out the retention rate league wide for all players, then compare that to Brisbane leaving rate.

The graphic is bad statistics because there are so many more interstate players of course Brisbane all have more leave, even if they were leaving at the exact same rate as hime grown players.

Also during the period Brisbane was receiving zone concession outside the draft. calculate each 150 game player recieved as a first round player in, deduct that from the over leave.

Also if say Brisbane revived 19 first round picks and 10 leaves an another club receives 9 first round picks and 4 leave comparing the numbers leaving isn't the thing it;s number leaves/per first round pick. Nice graphic but sloppy statistics.

If it's that bad, surely it's pretty simple to come up with the counter-stats, right?

I don't understand why you expect others to come up with stats to suit your argument. In any other context the onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

The claim re: players leaving was made, and statistics produced to indicate the scale of the problem. You're claiming it's not an issue - please provide proof to support that claim, don't point and whinge about others not producing proof for your claim.

You've got some great ideas there about how the statistics might be invalid, but they're only ideas. Until you actually produce results showing that it's just a claim with zero proof, unlike the claims about those leaving.

i'd allso check the leaving rate of say bottom 4 clubs and compare that , it could be a factor.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You'd just want others to do so for you.

 

[DanA]

There's definitely an argument to say those graphics are misleading.
1. The period covered shortly follows the merger with Fitzroy, that built a super list and naturally, there's going to be a squeeze-out.
2. Significant more 1st round picks means the raw number of players leaving will be higher
3. There are 16 clubs where "homesickness" can be claimed. Victorian clubs only have 8.

For the record, I'm not against Brisbane getting assistance, and I don't dispute that there is a retention problem. But the scale of that graphic isn't right.

 

[Giant Strides]

'The graphic is bad statistics because there are so many more interstate players of course Brisbane all have more leave, even if they were leaving at the exact same rate as hime grown players.'

No, that's exactly the point the Brisbane posters are making on the need for an academy to build up home grown players. If you are reliant on drafting interstate players such that they make up a higher percentage of your list, even the normal rate of loss is a much greater number leaving each year, and when the number of players is capped the same as all other clubs, that means a higher percentage of your list and greater instability and an inability to develop the playing list coherently.

From the VFL perspective, that is equal opportunity and poor club management. From a national competition perspective it's an inequity that needs to be resolved.

 

[pugsville]

'The graphic is bad statistics because there are so many more interstate players of course Brisbane all have more leave, even if they were leaving at the exact same rate as hime grown players.'

No, that's exactly the point the Brisbane posters are making on the need for an academy to build up home grown players.
.

thats the piont you exactly failing to understand, and what is totally lacking in the graphic stats. non-interstate players leave to, if brisbane are being disadvantaged you at the right homegrown players leave clubs across the competition compared to the rate interstate players leave clubs

IF they leave at the sam exact rate then there is no disadvantage at all for recruiting interstate players (which I personally doubt) but the disadvantage is not how many instate players leave but how many interstate players leave comparing to the rate homegrown players leave, if instate players leave at the rate of 4 out of every 10 drafted and homegrown at 2 for very 10 drafted for example then the disadvantage is the 2 extra players leaching rather than the 4. The Graphic fails to account and establish a baseline that the go home factor is operating against. And you have totally failed to grasp the concept.

They may well be other factors at work, i would lookout data from players leaving bottom 4 clubs and say clubs that have been bottom 4 for say 3 years running see off there is some co-relation, players may be leaving underperforming clubs at a higher rate.

Just whinging and pointing that X top 10 draft picks left Brisbane over Y years we must be screwed is not a very careful analysis, what the average for all player homegrown or not, what are other possible factors,

 

[pugsville]

I
You've got some great ideas there about how the statistics might be invalid, but they're only ideas. Until you actually produce results showing that it's just a claim with zero proof, unlike the claims about those leaving.

sure the stats are not proven invalid burt there are probable problems with their methodogly. Thats enough toot accept them at face value. Sure /i haven't proven a counter argument, i have only pointed out some flaws in the statistics presented, and unless those factors are addressed then what relevance do those statistics have, they do not prove the case you are arguing.

Again you have the burden of proof you guys are arguing for exceptional rules to be applied to your clubs. You have been throwing some statistics around without stopping and thinking what they mean. Sure I haven't disproved the statistics, but they are not through or conclusive ,as they lack real context.

You guys pretending that those statistics are some argument clincher is just poor thinking. You want to prove your case you will have to do better. You want special treatment the onus of NTTAWWT is on you, saying that there is no evidence that you don't deserve special treatment or there are some flawed statistics suggesting you might be operating at a significant disadvantage surely isn't enough.

 

[BloodySwan]

refusal to face the facts can be annoying. You guys never go go we hadn't thought of that good piont, now you first response is your post is invalid, you are crazy, bais, or whatever, you just attack the man and ignore the argument.

brisbane may have experienced more interstate players "going home: but with far more interstate players on the list you are not comparing apples with apples.

there is a leaving rate for all players. that has to be factor in. OS work out the retention rate league wide for all players, then compare that to Brisbane leaving rate.

The graphic is bad statistics because there are so many more interstate players of course Brisbane all have more leave, even if they were leaving at the exact same rate as hime grown players.

Also during the period Brisbane was receiving zone concession outside the draft. calculate each 150 game player recieved as a first round player in, deduct that from the over leave.

Also if say Brisbane revived 19 first round picks and 10 leaves an another club receives 9 first round picks and 4 leave comparing the numbers leaving isn't the thing it;s number leaves/per first round pick. Nice graphic but sloppy statistics.

i'd allso check the leaving rate of say bottom 4 clubs and compare that , it could be a factor.

You really just don't get it or refuse to. There is not enough AFL grade players in Queensland. So they have to draft interstate players in order to stay competitive. The academies is the first successful attempt in changing that

 

[BloodySwan]

There's definitely an argument to say those graphics are misleading.
1. The period covered shortly follows the merger with Fitzroy, that built a super list and naturally, there's going to be a squeeze-out.
2. Significant more 1st round picks means the raw number of players leaving will be higher
3. There are 16 clubs where "homesickness" can be claimed. Victorian clubs only have 8.

For the record, I'm not against Brisbane getting assistance, and I don't dispute that there is a retention problem. But the scale of that graphic isn't right.

1. After this period it got worse. It doesn't cover that huge exodus just after
2. It doesn't matter how many picks there are. More than half the picks you claim shouldn't claim homesickness
3. Just compare Queensland to Victoria for homesickness. It's just as bad when you compare by state

 

[dlanod]

sure the stats are not proven invalid burt there are probable problems with their methodogly. Thats enough toot accept them at face value. Sure /i haven't proven a counter argument, i have only pointed out some flaws in the statistics presented, and unless those factors are addressed then what relevance do those statistics have, they do not prove the case you are arguing.

Again you have the burden of proof you guys are arguing for exceptional rules to be applied to your clubs. You have been throwing some statistics around without stopping and thinking what they mean. Sure I haven't disproved the statistics, but they are not through or conclusive ,as they lack real context.

You guys pretending that those statistics are some argument clincher is just poor thinking. You want to prove your case you will have to do better. You want special treatment the onus of NTTAWWT is on you, saying that there is no evidence that you don't deserve special treatment or there are some flawed statistics suggesting you might be operating at a significant disadvantage surely isn't enough.

You haven't "pointed out" flaws. You claim those are flaws but you haven't provided any evidence to support that claim, specifically that they affect the result in a significant fashion.

 

[DanA]

1. After this period it got worse. It doesn't cover that huge exodus just after
2. It doesn't matter how many picks there are. More than half the picks you claim shouldn't claim homesickness
3. Just compare Queensland to Victoria for homesickness. It's just as bad when you compare by state

I just think there's a lot of evidence that makes it an apples to oranges comparison. I don't dispute that something needs to be done but I look at those graphics and dismiss them as irrelevant because of the mitigating factors. Give me evidence that is accurate

 

[pugsville]

You really just don't get it or refuse to. There is not enough AFL grade players in Queensland. So they have to draft interstate players in order to stay competitive. The academies is the first successful attempt in changing that

To make the claim that Brisbane is disadvantaged by having to draft interstate players, the absolute rate of players leaving Brisbane isn't enough, any statistical analysis that is relevant has to lookout the comparison of homegrown players leaving clubs in general, compared to to interstate players leaving, to say that Brisbane is disadvantged because N players leave that has tone placed in context of the likely lost rate would be if there was the same mix of homegrown and interstate players that the average league club has, and this is singularly missing form the statistics provided.

if Brisbane loses 10 out of 20 players drafted. The disadvantage is different if the average is 5 or the average 8 across the league. It's not enough to have the the Brisbane stats in isolation. And if just isolate the interstate states, it's also missing the paper context. You also have to consider the number of players draft din the period, if a club drafts twice as many and loses twice as many then there is no actual difference.

it the proportion of homegrown players time the relative difference between home ground and interstate players sort of thing.

 

[dlanod]

I just think there's a lot of evidence that makes it an apples to oranges comparison. I don't dispute that something needs to be done but I look at those graphics and dismiss them as irrelevant because of the mitigating factors. Give me evidence that is accurate

Give the evidence that it isn't accurate. You raised some points that might be valid. Are you able to demonstrate that they are actually valid, by calculating the numbers on the points you demonstrated?

FWIW I can answer #1 off the top of my head - no first round players were "squeezed out" from the Brisbane Lions post-merger. The only departures were at the player's demand to move, e.g. Des Headland.

 

[pugsville]

You haven't "pointed out" flaws. You claim those are flaws but you haven't provided any evidence to support that claim, specifically that they affect the result in a significant fashion.

really. you haven't refuted my points you just say any argument is rubbish, without actually entering the actual debate, there is more to debating than just chanting "I'm so good" and "you are shite".

 

[dlanod]

really. you haven't refuted my points

You've raised points with no evidence to back them up. I could make up all sorts of pro-academy arguments too if I didn't want to bother actually having reality play a part either.

• Academies make all Australians sexier.
• Academies feed the world poor.
• Academies are working to fight global warming.

After all you haven't provided evidence that these aren't the case.

you just say any argument is rubbish, without actually entering the actual debate,

I'm trying to raise the level of this to an actual debate. As it is it's just a sad back and forth that never treads new ground and when examples are provided the goal posts magically change yet again.

there is more to debating

I know. Debates need facts. One side has attempted to provide some. I'm waiting for the statistics on the reverse, instead of demands for others to do your work for you.

than just chanting "I'm so good" and "you are shite".

Childish.

 

[DanA]

Give the evidence that it isn't accurate. You raised some points that might be valid. Are you able to demonstrate that they are actually valid, by calculating the numbers on the points you demonstrated?

FWIW I can answer #1 off the top of my head - no first round players were "squeezed out" from the Brisbane Lions post-merger. The only departures were at the player's demand to move, e.g. Des Headland.

1.Jason Gram
2. Shane O'bree
3.Damian Cupido
4. Dez Headland

Is that 4/10 of the "homesick" players? A cursory glance suggests 40% of the list is dodgy. All those guys were 1st rounders and no way do they break into Brisbane's Premiership side. Seems to me that you are full of crap, they were definitely squeezed out. Geelong didn't want to lose Prismall when he demanded to leave Geelong, and it wasn't because he was homesick for Essendon. He just wasn't good enough to break into a quality side.

 

[dlanod]

1.Jason Gram
2. Shane O'bree
3.Damian Cupido
4. Dez Headland

Is that 4/10 of the "homesick" players? A cursory glance suggests 40% of the list is dodge. Those guys just couldn't break into the team.

Headland averaged 20 games in his last two seasons with the Lions, including 16 Brownlow votes in his final year. Amazing stats for someone unable to break into the team and a terrible inclusion for your theory.

The Lions were desperate to keep O'Bree and the only reason he left was homesickness, in his own words. He'd been picked in the team for the two finals to ended that year. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/25/1032734223443.html

By my count Cupido wasn't counted as nominating that he wanted to leave. That was a club initiated trade IIRC.

Gram left after a whole two years so I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to have been best 22 at that point but he's the only one that even slightly fits your theory.

 

[pugsville]

You've raised points with no evidence to back them up. I could make up all sorts of pro-academy arguments too if I didn't want to bother actually having reality play a part either
Childish.

I have raised a number of points about the statistics and talked about how better statistics could be structured. But I'm really reluctant to go away and do the work when you dismiss EVERYTHING without the slightest consideration.

I've started dong some analysis but without some discussion it's hardly goingtoi move the conversation forward e.g. of the 200 players drafted 1996-2005 in the first 20 draft picks 56% of interstate players changed clubs, with the figure for homegrown players was 47% but there are a lot of players changing clubs late which isn't what we're talking about really i don't think thats a great metric, but I'd rather have the debate before I do the work. e.g. one metric to consider is players who leave before 100 games but go on to play at least 50 elsewhere the argument being 100 is a reasonable return on drafting and the 50 shows they had some career afterwards.

But I raise some points about the statistics and all i get is abuse rather than any sort of constructive comment, which is telling me I do some more work and you will just dismiss with whatever comes out of it. I have other things I could be doing rather the wrestling with these stats. I'll do it but only if someone's actually going talk about it.

 

[dlanod]

I have raised a number of points about the statistics and talked about how better statistics could be structured. But I'm really reluctant to go away and do the work when you dismiss EVERYTHING without the slightest consideration.

There are plenty of examples in this and previous threads where I've engaged in a decent discussion back and forth. It's just your posts that I dismiss because, as I've mentioned, you just make claims without providing any evidence.

I do find that pointless to engage with because you try to put the burden, effort and time on those who engage with you. When someone does do that under a misguided effort you just shift the goalposts and make new claims that you expect others to do the work for again.

Until you show yourself willing to contribute the same effort you expect of others I will continue to point out that you don't provide any evidence to support your claims.

I disagree with Dan A, but he at least put effort into producing some counterexamples for a single one of his three claims (though the other two remain unverified) so I spent some effort digging up references as to why he was incorrect. That's a debate.