Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[sr36]

So instead they screwed the WA and SA clubs over, instead of giving them a small advantage.

So 1 more advantage to the vic clubs, to add to 20 other advantages they already have.

How was it an advantage to the Vic clubs? You can argue the SA and WA metroploitan kids were disadvsantaged, but the clubs weren't. It was priority access to an equal number of qualifying kids. It was equal in terms of clubs. It's now a significant advantage. I actually like the current system more- it's better for the game. But it is a clear advantage whichever way you look at it. But you're still whinging about your advantage.

 

[go_the_dockers]

How was it an advantage to the Vic clubs? It was priority access to an equal number of qualifying kids. It was equal. It's now a significant advantage. I actually like the current system more- it's better for the game. But it is a clear advantage whichever way you look at it.

WA and SA clubs getting players from pick 40 is not equal to Vic clubs getting top 10 talent.



WA player development is so bad at the moment, I don't see it being an advantage for WA clubs.

QLD has produced more top 20 talent in the last 3 years (including this year) than WA has.

 

[sr36]

WA and SA clubs getting players from pick 40 is not equal to Vic clubs getting top 10 talent.

No wonder you are so convinced of this bias - what you believe is wrong.

The matching rules were the same. Mack Andrew is at GC rather than Melbourne because Vic clubs didn't have access within the top 40 either.

In the early days it was unfettered access - their were 4 high drafted kids matched - JUH, IQ, Tarryn Thomas and Henry matched by Fremantle. They then changed it to no matching inside the top 40 for any NGA kids. They've now changed it back to unfettered access - which is a signifcant advantage to the teams with the academies that have the most potential - WA and SA academies. Essendon will probably do well too due to the demographic within their academy zone.

 

[go_the_dockers]

No wonder you are so convinced of this bias - what you believe is wrong.

The matching rules were the same. Mack Andrew is at GC rather than Melbourne because Vic clubs didn't have access within the top 40 either.

In the early days it was unfettered access - their were 4 high drafted kids matched - JUH, IQ, Tarryn Thomas and Henry matched by Fremantle. They then changed it to no matching inside the top 40 for any NGA kids. They've now changed it back to unfettered access - which is a signifcant advantage to the teams with the academies that have the most potential - WA and SA academies. Essendon will probably do well too due to the demographic within their academy zone.

If the rules were the same, then why didn't Motlop get selected through the NGA in 2021?


If you want to the answer, it is because SA and WA clubs could only pick players after pick 40.

otherwise, put your head in the sand and keep saying I am wrong.





In 2021, the main change to AFL Next Generation Academy (NGA) rules was that clubs could no longer match bids on NGA prospects in the top 20 selections of the national draft. This "Jamarra Rule" was implemented after a series of high draft picks were made by NGA-aligned clubs, and it meant clubs could only match bids for their NGA players from pick 21 onwards. Other rule changes for 2021 included a reduction in player interchange cap from 90 to 75, and a change to the mark's location during kick-ins.

 

[sr36]

If the rules were the same, then why didn't Motlop get selected through the NGA in 2021?


If you want to the answer, it is because SA and WA clubs could only pick players after pick 40.

otherwise, put your head in the sand and keep saying I am wrong.





In 2021, the main change to AFL Next Generation Academy (NGA) rules was that clubs could no longer match bids on NGA prospects in the top 20 selections of the national draft. This "Jamarra Rule" was implemented after a series of high draft picks were made by NGA-aligned clubs, and it meant clubs could only match bids for their NGA players from pick 21 onwards. Other rule changes for 2021 included a reduction in player interchange cap from 90 to 75, and a change to the mark's location during kick-ins.



View attachment 2473551
View attachment 2473552

It's because they've changed the rules multiple times.

Originally, metroplitan areas in SA and WA weren't part of NGA zones in order to have relatively equal zones.

Change 1
Metropolitan areas became part of NGA zones in SA and WA, but they only had matching access after pick 40.
Change 2
All other SA, WA and Vic NGA kids changed from unfettered access to access after pick 20.
Change 3
All NGA kids access changed to pick 40
Change 4
Back to unlimited access with no distinction between SA and WA metropolitan areas.

Or in other words, through a series of rule changes, they've gone from attempting to have equal NGA zones to giving WA teams advantageous zones. Yet WA fans for some unknown reason feel victimised by this ...

Meanwhile - Isaac Quaynor is currently the only decent senior player who was picked up through NGA matching. The net sum of what WA fans bizarrely think was a Vic rort. That will change though - WA and SA teams will pick up some rippers through their academies - as the vast majority of the Aboriginal stars of the game come through SA and WA - with only 4 teams having access to them.

 

[jannissary]

how can you watch and enjoy football if you have such a dour and defeatist mentality towards both the game itself and the competition. if the "whole AFL league" was against teams as some folks suggest, they'd be sitting in the shit with essendon, instead of choking in finals (aka adelaide and fremantle) or having some finals success in the past (aka port's consistent appearances in finals or west coast winning in 2018).

i just don't understand why you'd bother caring about the game if everything in your mind screams "i'm being oppressed!!!!!" while still performing better than these teams: Essendon, North Melbourne, St Kilda, Carlton, Gold Coast (sans making finals this year), all of which apparently "benefit" from the alleged vicbias, or "easternbias"

 

[ReturningHawk]

Look at this year with Adelaide and Hawks. Both similar lists, but Hawks had their pick of Petracca and Merrett. Adelaide could not get either.

Wtf kind of statement is this? Neither club got either of those players.

 

[sr36]

Look at this year with Adelaide and Hawks. Both similar lists, but Hawks had their pick of Petracca and Merrett. Adelaide could not get either.

Have you watched Rankine and Dawson play? Pretty handy recruits don't you think? Not many clubs can top those two in terms of blokes recruited from other clubs.

 

[jannissary]

Have you watched Rankine and Dawson play? Pretty handy recruits don't you think? Not many clubs can top those two in terms of blokes recruited from other clubs.

they don't count, actually. because they came across after 2022!

 

[go_the_dockers]

Wtf kind of statement is this? Neither club got either of those players.

Yeah, but which club did both players want to go to.

SA and WA clubs can't get good players to want to join them, who were not born in their state.

 

[go_the_dockers]

It's because they've changed the rules multiple times.

Originally, metroplitan areas in SA and WA weren't part of NGA zones in order to have relatively equal zones.

Change 1
Metropolitan areas became part of NGA zones in SA and WA, but they only had matching access after pick 40.
Change 2
All other SA, WA and Vic NGA kids changed from unfettered access to access after pick 20.
Change 3
All NGA kids access changed to pick 40
Change 4
Back to unlimited access with no distinction between SA and WA metropolitan areas.

Or in other words, through a series of rule changes, they've gone from attempting to have equal NGA zones to giving WA teams advantageous zones. Yet WA fans for some unknown reason feel victimised by this ...

Meanwhile - Isaac Quaynor is currently the only decent senior player who was picked up through NGA matching. The net sum of what WA fans bizarrely think was a Vic rort. That will change though - WA and SA teams will pick up some rippers through their academies - as the vast majority of the Aboriginal stars of the game come through SA and WA - with only 4 teams having access to them.

Change 2 is incorrect. During that period SA and WA clubs only got access after pick 40. This is why Motlop went to Cartlon.

The rest is correct.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Have you watched Rankine and Dawson play? Pretty handy recruits don't you think? Not many clubs can top those two in terms of blokes recruited from other clubs.

It is all a balancing act.

Crows have lost Dangerfield, Gunstan, Lever, ..........

and got Dawson and Rankine and .......................

--------

It just depends which clubs have got more players than they have lost, and got them cheaper than they should have.

Also it is the timing of when you get players. If you get into a premiership window, and can add 3 or 4 players easily then you have a massive advantage.

Vic clubs can do this very easily, when WA and SA clubs do not access to the same quantity of players.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Spose we should change the title to east coast bias now.

 

[doppleganger]

Your third point - “advantageous H&A fixture and undeserving SA finals”.

Please explain.

13 games at home ground, 11 with genuine home ground advantage against their opponents.

They then also don't play away games at the actual home ground of their opponent.

And they travel less than many supposed Melbourne based teams.

The big leg-up in H&A is evident in results as Adelaide and Port have combined for 11 top 2 finishes after H&A season in the 21st century.

And then they usually lose finals to "lower ranked" teams again in SA.

 

[sr36]

Change 2 is incorrect. During that period SA and WA clubs only got access after pick 40. This is why Motlop went to Cartlon.

The rest is correct.

After 40 in that draft was only for the metro kids. Jesse was metropolitan Perth and thus he was Post pick 40 matchable - as opposed to the original NGA zoned areas which in that draft were post pick 20 matchable - whether that was a vic, Sa or wa zone.

 

[Senor M]

You forget Gunston, Lake, Burgoyne - this has been a huge impact.

None of the players you mentioned above were Free agents.

• In 2009, Port Adelaide traded Shaun Burgoyne to Hawthorn in a complex deal that involved Pick 9, Mark Williams and others between four clubs.
• In 2011 Adelaide traded Jack Gunston, Pick 53 & Pick 71 to Hawthorn for for Pick 24, 46 & 64.
• In 2012 the Western Bulldogs traded Brian Lake & Pick 27 to Hawthorn for Pick 21 & 41.

Hawthorn didn't obtain any of those players via Free Agency; just because you say it is, doesn't make it true.

Marquee time slots = extra player sponsorship, which is free salary cap.

If one clubs players can get 5 million in sponsorship, and the other club can only get 3 million then first club virtually gets 2 million in extra salary cap space.

Of course the clubs with more marquee time slots will get more sponsorship, and only the big Vic clubs get good marquee games.

Equating marquee timeslots with sponsorship $$$ is a false equivalency based on inaccurate assumptions.

Sponsorship money is based on eyeballs on the content. If I was an advertiser I’d prefer to see my brand on FTA every week—- therefore a club like WCE or Freo is preferable as they are on Ch 7 Perth every week; while a team like Richmond might be behind a paywall on Foxtel for over a month at a time.

 

[My_Username]

Marquee time slots = extra player sponsorship, which is free salary cap.

If one clubs players can get 5 million in sponsorship, and the other club can only get 3 million then first club virtually gets 2 million in extra salary cap space.

Of course the clubs with more marquee time slots will get more sponsorship, and only the big Vic clubs get good marquee games.

You forget Gunston, Lake, Burgoyne - this has been a huge impact. The ability to attract other clubs players. We can only target WA players, Vic clubs can attract 75% of players and when they are in the top 4 with a young list players line up to join.

Look at this year with Adelaide and Hawks. Both similar lists, but Hawks had their pick of Petracca and Merrett. Adelaide could not get either.

How does the number of games played at Subiaco impact a home grand final ??

Petracca came to Gold Coast, choosing it over Adelaide.

Are you suggesting that playing for the Suns will offer him more sponsorship opportunities than playing for the Crows, and/or gets to play in better timeslots?

As for the 'home grand final' argument, the MCG is a more neutral ground than any other.
It's the only ground where all clubs can play every year. (nb. CAN. I fully agree the AFL could do the fixture better in this regard).

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is less imperfect than the other options.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Petracca came to Gold Coast, choosing it over Adelaide.

Are you suggesting that playing for the Suns will offer him more sponsorship opportunities than playing for the Crows, and/or gets to play in better timeslots?

As for the 'home grand final' argument, the MCG is a more neutral ground than any other.
It's the only ground where all clubs can play every year. (nb. CAN. I fully agree the AFL could do the fixture better in this regard).

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is less imperfect than the other options.

I was suggesting that Petracca only chose Gold Coast, after hawks picked Merrett.

 

[go_the_dockers]

• In 2009, Port Adelaide traded Shaun Burgoyne to Hawthorn in a complex deal that involved Pick 9, Mark Williams and others between four clubs.
• In 2011 Adelaide traded Jack Gunston, Pick 53 & Pick 71 to Hawthorn for for Pick 24, 46 & 64.
• In 2012 the Western Bulldogs traded Brian Lake & Pick 27 to Hawthorn for Pick 21 & 41.

Hawthorn didn't obtain any of those players via Free Agency; just because you say it is, doesn't make it true.

I never said they were free agents, just highlighting the ability for Vic clubs to easily top up.

 

[go_the_dockers]

After 40 in that draft was only for the metro kids. Jesse was metropolitan Perth and thus he was Post pick 40 matchable - as opposed to the original NGA zoned areas which in that draft were post pick 20 matchable - whether that was a vic, Sa or wa zone.

The metro rule only applied to SA and WA, not vic players.

 

[My_Username]

I was suggesting that Petracca only chose Gold Coast, after hawks picked Merrett.

Even if you want to accept that Hawthorn was his first choice (highly debatable).

He then had a choice between Adelaide and Gold Coast.

By the criteria you think favors Vic clubs by so much that it would have driven his decision towards Hawthorn, he should of chosen Adelaide.

So that he chose Gold Coast instead demonstrates that those criteria you used to justify your victim mentality don't actually matter that much.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Even if you want to accept that Hawthorn was his first choice (highly debatable).

He then had a choice between Adelaide and Gold Coast.

By the criteria you think favors Vic clubs by so much that it would have driven his decision towards Hawthorn, he should of chosen Adelaide.

So that he chose Gold Coast instead demonstrates that those criteria you used to justify your victim mentality don't actually matter that much.

What I said was WA and SA clubs can't get players who weren't born in their state of they have other options.

A few exceptions but normally these are b and C graders.

 

[sr36]

The metro rule only applied to SA and WA, not vic players.





View attachment 2473818

Yes. When they moved away from equal zones and added WA metro areas, those new areas had lesser matching rights for a year or two than the original zones had. They

At no time have WA teams been disadvantaged by NGA. It's gone from an attempt to have equal zones to WA clubs having far better zones. About 8 times as much potential to produce players as the Vic zones are. Yet still you complain and feel disadvantaged.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

How was it an advantage to the Vic clubs? You can argue the SA and WA metroploitan kids were disadvsantaged, but the clubs weren't. It was priority access to an equal number of qualifying kids. It was equal in terms of clubs. It's now a significant advantage. I actually like the current system more- it's better for the game. But it is a clear advantage whichever way you look at it. But you're still whinging about your advantage.

How did you they come to this 'equal' number of qualifying kids?

Obviously whatever method they used didn't work very well.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Yes. When they moved away from equal zones and added WA metro areas, those new areas had lesser matching rights for a year or two than the original zones had. They

At no time have WA teams been disadvantaged by NGA. It's gone from an attempt to have equal zones to WA clubs having far better zones. About 8 times as much potential to produce players as the Vic zones are. Yet still you complain and feel disadvantaged.

Vic clubs get players from pick 1.

WA clubs get players from pick 40, yet no disadvantage.

That is some clever maths. Agree to disagree then

Yes. When they moved away from equal zones and added WA metro areas, those new areas had lesser matching rights for a year or two than the original zones had. They

At no time have WA teams been disadvantaged by NGA. It's gone from an attempt to have equal zones to WA clubs having far better zones. About 8 times as much potential to produce players as the Vic zones are. Yet still you complain and feel disadvantaged.

Haha - equal zones.

Makes me laugh.