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.
Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion
- Thread starter Hank Heavenly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I feel you're a bit simple so I'll disengage.
Take the L bro, it's getting embarrassing
Or debate the flaw in your "system", which you've avoided in every single post so far
Last edited:
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,803
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!
- Jul 14, 2005
- 18,723
- 29,560
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC
- Banned
- #1,805
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?
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?
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,806
Because it’s an extension of the VFL competition is the argument.
If it were up to me it’d be a clear cutoff, AFL Premierships on their own, but there’s plenty of victories I’d rather have on the battleground of sporting integrity before we get to premiership count.
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
That the blind may see ......
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
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.
TBH I didnt think the post was worth checking, still havent .... to some extent that might suggest I believe you, based on your earlier posts when facts were quoted.
- Apr 26, 2014
- 816
- 2,107
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
West Coast have this weird need to be both David and Goliath.
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,812
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. GWS have only played eight seasons, and they've been to Tassie seven times - more than any Victorian club, 'big' or 'small', has in a much longer period of time.
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 for four years, became a head coach, lost a Grand Final then won a Grand Final three years later, all 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.
Last edited:
HardcoreGeelongFan
Club Legend
- Dec 31, 2019
- 1,279
- 903
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #1,813
We need to fix the core problems before we start catering to the expansion problems.
Out of curiosity what would Those core problems be in your opinion.
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
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)
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,816
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.
Last edited:
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,817
Answering this part in a second quote because my Tassie stats post was way too long and I don’t want to repeat that.
Being forced to play home games at an opponent’s home ground that is not your own is a disadvantage. This is an example of a disadvantage to Richmond. Every club has some advantages, every club has some disadvantages. This is one of Richmond’s.
Clubs with a unique home ground as such, absolutely get a home ground advantage. The flip side is, they also get an away game disadvantage. If Eagles at Optus is a +1 advantage, Eagles at MCG is surely a -1? Derbies aside, that levels out over a season.
Yes, that Richmond vs North case is a disadvantage for Richmond. They do exist. At the same time, how many “away” games do they get at their home venue? How many times to they travel to Geelong, who have won 90 of their last 100 games at GMHBA? How many times do Collingwood, or Essendon?
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.
HardcoreGeelongFan
Club Legend
- Dec 31, 2019
- 1,279
- 903
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- St Kilda
- Banned
- #1,818
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. 1st/2nd gets swapped to 3rd/4th on the ladder and 3rd/4th becomes 1st/2nd. It's ridiculous and the entire difference between a premiership
Last edited:
Senor M
SFAEW World Heavyweight Champion
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.
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,820
This is why I can never quite understand Geelong fans who criticise Non-Vic fans asking for change. Not saying you’re one of those, just saying there’s issue that affect Non-Vics and Geelong specifically, it would make sense to be aligned on it.
The Cats should play home finals at GMHBA. I’ve already gone into detail as to why it’s the hardest road trip in footy, 90 wins in the last 100 games there. If you come first, you should have every reasonable advantage you’ve earned. Playing at your home ground is one.
Would it lock some fans out? Yes. Would it fail to maximise revenue? Yes.
The question is do you want to pursue revenue above all else with sporting integrity where possible, or so you want to pursue sporting integrity above all else with revenue where possible.
My preference is Option B. I can’t be critical if someone’s is Option A, that’s their right to choose as much, but for me the ideal sporting comp puts integrity over revenue at every turn. Geelong, who win 90% of their home games, should host finals at GMHBA regardless of opponent if they’ve earned that right.
HoneyBadger35
The Big Kahuna
- Aug 11, 2011
- 26,515
- 72,105
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Moderator
- #1,821
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.
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
Staff & contractors get paid by the hour, you mightn't have to double their hours, but you'd be close.
Stadium would need to be cleaned more during/between matches. People are pigs, and by the end of the second game you'd have the health inspectors in the stands. That people don't need to leave would make this harder (and thus, require even more staff).
Stadium rent wouldn't save that much either...The stadium still needs it's revenue, so if you're cutting them elsewhere, they'll just up the rent.
You'd save some money, but really 2 matches would probably cost about 175% what one match would cost, and it's not like revenue would double.
Overall, you'd make a little bit more profit, but it'd be a long way from being a windfall.
telsor
Hall of Famer
But where is the problem with it?
You play away games at an away ground.
You travel effectively the same distance.
Why does it matter if you play in Tas, or Vic?
- May 14, 2012
- 8,176
- 12,893
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Chairman of the AFL - from Western Australia
CEO of the AFL - from South Australia
If there was inherent Vic bias, surely they would change it.
CEO of the AFL - from South Australia
If there was inherent Vic bias, surely they would change it.
telsor
Hall of Famer
It exists, but as you say, there are also advantages to being a non Vic side.
If you look at the overall stats, then the non Vic sides actually have the best of it. Sure it's close enough to call that statistical error margin, but it's clearly NOT a huge bias either way.
As you said, people seem to be using it as a crutch and excuse. I find it amazing that the biggest complainers on this topic seem to be WCE fans...If winning 4 out of every 7 games over the clubs history and 4 flags in 33 years is #VICBIAS, then I imagine most clubs would love to be treated as badly.
I also find it curious that requests for proof of bias either gets unanswered or the replies are of little substance or can be easily explained with other reasons.
Similar threads
- Poll
