Opinion VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[Eagleboy2011]

Answers in red....

But this is the classic case I like to highlight, nearly none of that (I may give the ok to COLA going) is any form of BIAS at all...
Its just you whinging about sh*t you don't like...
None of this hampers the ability or outcome of an non-vic team at all...

To quote George Costanza "Its not a lie if you believe it"

 

[telsor]

Nga system

What is this?

Mcg grand final

Give me another practical alternative that suits all the AFL's requirements. ($$$, equivalent access for corporates, AFL members and fans, including them all getting to the ground) and we can talk.

Effect of cumulative travel

Which is?
There is lots of talk about it, but no actual evidence it has any significant effect.

Non Vic sides forced to travel further so the afl nake more money

When/where?

and minor things like

All umpires except 2 or 3 bases in Vic

Where would you base them?

Presidents lunch

Again, how would you practically do this any differently?

Most committees made up of Victorians

Most of the game is Victorians. (teams, fans, etc)
If you have 100 people and 55-60 are from one group, then odds are those 55-60 will make up the majority of any committee

All executives get bonus based on profit, which continue the disadvantage.

Get rid of that money, and you get rid of the things that money gets spent on...Which would hurt non-Vic (NSW & QLD particularly) a lot more than Vic.

 

[Rich01]

Well the thing is that is the main reasons why Gold coast will survive. AFL knows that Victoria draws ratings and so does NSW and Queensland. They also Know WA draws lots of money too despite only 2.6-2.7 million people live there.

I actually want the Smaller Vic Clubs in Saints, North and Dogs play in Suburban grounds.

I have said it was Stupid to get rid of princes park as an Alternative AFL venue.

Its funny the AFL dont play games at Suburban grounds, even it they held 25,000 seats. But no, their priority is to pay off Docklands. Not suprising, North, Dogs and Saints got a raw end of the Docklands deal as they were solid false promises.

Geelong at least had Kardinia Park.

How will moving those clubs to princes park make them and the afl better off?

 

[doppleganger]

I know I am going to go a bit off topic here.

In the Start of the 1990s, you had a few Vic Sides playing at their suburban home grounds. Just a few examples

-Collingwood played at Victoria Park
-Essendon Played at Windy hill
-Bulldogs played at Western Oval/Whitten oval.
-Carlton played at Princes Park
-Saints playing at Moorabbin

The point was I can understand why the likes of Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton moved to the MCG and Docklands perminently After 2000. All 3 sides were too big for their Suburban grounds that held 20-25,000 people. There were more incentives to play more games at the MCG and Docklands. Bigger crowds is one of them, More corporate money is the other reason.

Saints, North and Dogs were screwed financially when it came to the docklands deal. Even if they got 20-25,000 a game at docklands, they were still losing money due to high rent prices. But those 3 clubs are helped with the AFLs tv rights money.

I sort of missed Princes Park/ optus oval/ IKON park as another Alternative AFL ground, Strangle how its owned by the Melbourne city council. I thought it was owned by Carlton. Personally it should be used for AFL games. But due to Conflict of interest, the AFLs Priority is to Buy out Docklands.

Geelong have been lucky as They have a fair deal in Kardinia Park compared to Docklands as Kardinia Parks rent is Dirt cheap.

Saying that.... A few saints fans on Bigfooty have said if the AFL Paid 100 million to redevelop Moorabbin Oval into a 30-35,000 seat stadium like Kardinia Park, they would be as well off as Geelong.

All clubs would be better off if they had their own basically clean 35K stadium like Geelong enjoy.

But the league is better off by having the two big stadiums, and selling things like AFL memberships that directly undercut and compete with Victoria club memberships etc.

The league basically took control of the Melbourne clubs and forced them into the current situation.

Carlton didn’t want to leave PP, they already were investing to redevelop it.
Collingwood had a long running feud with the local council in relation to VicPark...so redevelopment was never really an option.
Saints and Hawks were both happy at Waverley.

But the AFL wanted the second inner city stadium.

 

[dockerfemme]

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?

There are 2 issues with playing in Tasmania. One is that the HGA appears to be far higher for Hawthorn and North when playing in Tas, so it becomes a more challenging fixture. Secondly, it takes the travelling team away from Melbourne and the MCG, where the GF is held.

When the MCG GF extension was signed there were comments about ensuring non-vic teams got more MCG games. I don’t think the original 2020 fixture delivered on that comment. Constantly sending non-vic teams to tas and NT reduces their MCG exposure.

 

[telsor]

There are 2 issues with playing in Tasmania. One is that the HGA appears to be far higher for Hawthorn and North when playing in Tas, so it becomes a more challenging fixture. Secondly, it takes the travelling team away from Melbourne and the MCG, where the GF is held.

When the MCG GF extension was signed there were comments about ensuring non-vic teams got more MCG games. I don’t think the original 2020 fixture delivered on that comment. Constantly sending non-vic teams to tas and NT reduces their MCG exposure.

Yes, Hawthorn and North would get a HGA there...just like non Vic teams get 10 games every year.

As for not playing at the MCG...You wouldn't be playing these games there anyway.

MCG has a maximum number of games that can be played on it in order to maintain it's surface (same for Docklands). Less games in Tas (or where ever) doesn't mean more games would be any more played at MCG, and if other games were to be shuffled around, you can bet the lower drawing ones (such as those that get played in Tas) would end up at Docklands, so doesn't change the 'MCG exposure' at all.

It is interesting however that non-Vic clubs want exposure to the GF ground, so the HGA is reduced, but the VICBIAS crowd constantly ignore the higher benefit their clubs get from HGA compared to Vic clubs...

 

[go_the_dockers]

What is this?

All indigenous accademy.

Where would you base them?

Spread them out through out aus.

Which is?
There is lots of talk about it, but no actual evidence it has any significant effect.

There is various articles on this. Some posted in this thread.

Again, how would you practically do this any differently?

Travel to Perth, qld, sa and syd and have lunch.

me another practical alternative that suits all the AFL's requirements. ($$$, equivalent access for corporates, AFL members and fans, including them all getting to the ground) and we can talk.

Sell gf to highest bidder.

Perth, adelaide etc would pay a lot to host it.

 

[blue harvest]

There are 2 issues with playing in Tasmania. One is that the HGA appears to be far higher for Hawthorn and North when playing in Tas, so it becomes a more challenging fixture. Secondly, it takes the travelling team away from Melbourne and the MCG, where the GF is held.

When the MCG GF extension was signed there were comments about ensuring non-vic teams got more MCG games. I don’t think the original 2020 fixture delivered on that comment. Constantly sending non-vic teams to tas and NT reduces their MCG exposure.

I don't think our HGA in Tassie is higher, our record might be better but that's due to us generally playing the crapper sides there. They try and give us 1 Vic side, lately it's been Carlton and Saints. The non Vic opponents tend to be the lesser ones too. We got Brisbane last year but they came good and beat us, this year that one got scheduled at the G. Playing there means we also have to travel, that evens things up a bit too. I believe playing there increases the chances of the opponent compared with playing in Melbourne.

 

[telsor]

All indigenous accademy.

How is this Vicbias?
Academies have been in NSW & QLD for years now.

Spread them out through out aus.

1) how would that work for training them?
2) How does having them all in Vic constitute Vic bias? What benefit does it bring?

There is various articles on this. Some posted in this thread.

There are a variety of opinions expressed. No actual evidence though.

Travel to Perth, qld, sa and syd and have lunch.

Wouldn't it be easier for those presidents to fly to Melbourne?
8 people fly Vs 17 (depending on how many form the AFL attend).
Seems like a no brainer....

Sell gf to highest bidder.

They did.

and like most such sales, in order to bid you needed to meet certain criteria.

Perth, adelaide etc would pay a lot to host it.

Except they can't meet the criteria.
~15-20K AFL members, 15-20K corporate seats, 15-20K AFL seats (inc those given to clubs), then seats for fans.
All need to be able to get to the ground (fly in from where they are) as well as getting seats.

Bidding starts at ~10Million/year.

What's that, only the MCG is bidding?

 

[go_the_dockers]

ey did.

and like most such sales, in order to bid you needed to meet certain criteria.

But they only let one person bid.

Was the criteria be based in Victoria??

ow is this Vicbias

When an indigenous kid in Melbourne is eligible, but not Adel or Perth

 

[telsor]

But they only let one person bid.

Was the criteria be based in Victoria??

No, probably more like what you edited out.....

~15-20K AFL members, 15-20K corporate seats, 15-20K AFL seats (inc those given to clubs), then seats for fans.
All need to be able to get to the ground (fly in from where they are) as well as getting seats.

Bidding starts at ~10Million/year.

When an indigenous kid in Melbourne is eligible, but not Adel or Perth

How is that VIC bias when NSW & QLD get the same (really better)?

The problem is the practicality...How to ensure all clubs get a similar result rather than yet another massive #wabias.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

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.

You find it curious that proof of bias go unanswered or the answers aren’t to your satisfaction.

Then when I say Geelong have won 90 of their last 100 games at GMHBA, and the same teams get sent there while a core group of Victorian team have either never been there or haven’t been there in over a decade, you turn around and say “well it’s a similar distance, it’s an away game at an away venue, what difference does it make”. That’s very disingenuous.

When 65 of the games that are hosted in Tassie have a non-Vic opponent, and six of the games that are hosted in Tassie have a “Big Vic” opponent, and you hand wave it away, that’s very disingenuous.

The Grand Final is at the MCG. You need to play the MCG well to have any chance of meaningful success. Richmond played more consecutive games at the G last year than Fremantle have played in total since 2015. Yet Freo get sent to Tassie 10 times. That’s an imbalance that could be easily addressed.

The answers seemingly aren’t convincing because when people tell you there’s a problem your default response seems to be “no there isn’t”. There’s no “complaining” on my behalf, I can’t speak for everyone else, but I’ve been in this thread for a day and found it to have more genuine discussion than any other thread on the topic I’ve seen. But when people raise an issue and you turn around and go nah that’s not a big deal, then also go ‘man you guys never have an answer’...well there’s your answer.

 

[go_the_dockers]

elbourne?
8 people fly Vs 17 (depending on how many form the AFL attend).
Seems like a no brainer....

I was thinking of the afl head coaches lunch at the CEO house.

I think this is out dated, and would be better if the two travelled to all states to hear all views.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

I don't think our HGA in Tassie is higher, our record might be better but that's due to us generally playing the crapper sides there.

That could be tested very easily. You’d just need the AFL to be willing to sacrifice some gate receipts in the interest of sporting integrity, and be willing to send all opponents to a venue, not shield a group of teams from a trip faced by the rest of the comp.

 

[Senor M]

Then when I say Geelong have won 90 of their last 100 games at GMHBA, and the same teams get sent there while a core group of Victorian team have either never been there or haven’t been there in over a decade,

Which “core group of Victorian teams” are you discussing here?

In the past 3 seasons a team from the traditional “Big 4” have played in Geelong with Richmond in 2017 & Carlton in 2018 & 2019.

 

[telsor]

You find it curious that proof of bias go unanswered or the answers aren’t to your satisfaction.

Then when I say Geelong have won 90 of their last 100 games at GMHBA, and the same teams get sent there while a core group of Victorian team have either never been there or haven’t been there in over a decade, you turn around and say “well it’s a similar distance, it’s an away game at an away venue, what difference does it make”. That’s very disingenuous.

When 65 of the games that are hosted in Tassie have a non-Vic opponent, and six of the games that are hosted in Tassie have a “Big Vic” opponent, and you hand wave it away, that’s very disingenuous.

The answers seemingly aren’t convincing because when people tell you there’s a problem your default response seems to be “no there isn’t”.

Answers are very rarely backup up with factual information (like you just provided).

The other problem is that they're not usually evidence of *VICBIAS* so much as other reason (usually money or simple practicality).

e.g Clubs not playing in Geelong is more usually due to expected crowd numbers (and thus money)...Smaller vic clubs play there regularly after all. Is this a concern, sure, but it's not VICBIAS. Remember, the AFL makes big money from high crowds at the MCG (nb. the AFL, not the clubs).

Same is true to a degree for Tas, although in that case it's not just the AFL wanting the money, it's the Tas government(s). Richmond made it clear that they were happy to play there regularly for example, but the Hobart council said they didn't want us (seems we filled the ground with locals, which cut into their hoped for tourism revenue...People from interstate who couldn't get a ticket to the game didn't feel inclined to come visit Tas anyway and spend their money it seems...).

So if you want to make a case for #moneybias, those are good examples, but as evidence of #VICBIAS, they don't really hold up. (indeed, given the AFL money disproportionately flows out of Vic, if anything such money bias would indicate non-Vic bias).

Also, as mentioned, the large scale evidence (such as long term H&A results) shows that overall, any 'cons' are at least matched by 'pros', which makes it hard to conclude that there is a big nasty, deep seated bias against non Vic clubs (or at least that if there was, it's incompetently implemented and ineffectual)

 

[go_the_dockers]

The problem is the practicality...How to ensure all clubs get a similar result rather than yet another massive #wabias

How is this balance. ??

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Answers are very rarely backup up with factual information (like you just provided).

The other problem is that they're not usually evidence of *VICBIAS* so much as other reason (usually money or simple practicality).

e.g Clubs not playing in Geelong is more usually due to expected crowd numbers (and thus money)...Smaller vic clubs play there regularly after all. Is this a concern, sure, but it's not VICBIAS. Remember, the AFL makes big money from high crowds at the MCG (nb. the AFL, not the clubs).

Same is true to a degree for Tas, although in that case it's not just the AFL wanting the money, it's the Tas government(s). Richmond made it clear that they were happy to play there regularly for example, but the Hobart council said they didn't want us (seems we filled the ground with locals, which cut into their hoped for tourism revenue...People from interstate who couldn't get a ticket to the game didn't feel inclined to come visit Tas anyway and spend their money it seems...).

So if you want to make a case for #moneybias, those are good examples, but as evidence of #VICBIAS, they don't really hold up. (indeed, given the AFL money disproportionately flows out of Vic, if anything such money bias would indicate non-Vic bias).

Also, as mentioned, the large scale evidence (such as long term H&A results) shows that overall, any 'cons' are at least matched by 'pros', which makes it hard to conclude that there is a big nasty, deep seated bias against non Vic clubs (or at least that if there was, it's incompetently implemented and ineffectual)

Again, I can’t speak for other posters.

I’m not saying there’s back room somewhere that the execs all gather and figure out how they can screw the Non Vics. I don’t believe there’s any malice to it. I don’t believe there’s forethought to it. I believe the issues arise because a lack of consideration of how things might affect teams differently.

You’re right in pointing out it’s a money bias more than a “Vic” bias as such, but with the way the league is set up right now the two amount to the same. The AFL make a lot of their sporting decisions for financial reasons and, more often than not, those decisions created unintended imbalances in the fixture, exacerbate the already existing gulf in the travel load, or in some way, without meaning to, give a group of teams a sporting advantage that is not enjoyed by the rest of the clubs (some of whom are the “smaller” Victorian clubs at times).

It is a money bias, but with the competition as it exists the two are effectively interchangeable.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Which “core group of Victorian teams” are you discussing here?

In the past 3 seasons a team from the traditional “Big 4” have played in Geelong with Richmond in 2017 & Carlton in 2018 & 2019.

Essendon haven’t been since 1993, Collingwood haven’t been since 1999 for example. Hawthorn haven’t been since 2006. Richmond have been twice this decade.

In what is effectively the hardest trip in football, to play a team who have won more games at a venue in a 100 game span than any team in the history of football, to have teams that seldom, if ever, make the trip is a sporting integrity issue.

There are multiple players in the Hall of Fame now who weren’t even drafted the last time several clubs went to Geelong. Brent Harvey hadn’t debuted the last time clubs went to Geelong. That’s an issue, and one that is so easily solvable.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Again, I understand the financial realities. I know why Geelong play some clubs at the MCG and the rest at GMHBA. Nobody is naive to that. Nobody is saying there’s malice in it.

All the (reasonable) posters want is for people to say, “huh, I guess I can see how that’s a sporting imbalance”.

It doesn’t invalidate what your club has done. It doesn’t minimise how hard your club worked to achieve success. It doesn’t mean there’s a grand conspiracy against my club, or that your club hasn’t earned anything. All most people want is a recognition that, look we know they make these decisions for money, but I can see how that would result in a sporting imbalance.

Whether or not they do something about it isn’t controlled by posters on BigFooty, but the attitude towards it is. Acknowledging that “yep, I see why you think that’s an issue” is pretty much the only goal here.

 

[Pomsta]

It's your mates "system"

Change it to minus 6 then...

Well then you will have reduce it further as every Vic Club that travels back from interstate will then have a disadvantage, due to travel, if they play a team that didn't have to travel the previous week. Therefore as Richmond played against Freo in WA last year and then the next week played Hawthorn at the MCG there is an advantage to Hawthorn as they didn't have to travel as far. Is that what you're arguing?

 

[Senor M]

Essendon haven’t been since 1993, Collingwood haven’t been since 1999 for example. Hawthorn haven’t been since 2006. Richmond have been twice this decade.

In what is effectively the hardest trip in football, to play a team who have won more games at a venue in a 100 game span than any team in the history of football, to have teams that seldom, if ever, make the trip is a sporting integrity issue.

There are multiple players in the Hall of Fame now who weren’t even drafted the last time several clubs went to Geelong. Brent Harvey hadn’t debuted the last time clubs went to Geelong. That’s an issue, and one that is so easily solvable.

....and West Coast has been there 3 times in the past decade. Is ONE more game in Geelong across 10 years than Richmond really an example of dastardly #VICBIAS?

Yesterday it appeared you might actually be capable of discussing this rationally but now you’re trying to draw at straws to play victim.

This is the exact thing I was saying last night—#VicBias loses its meaning when it’s attached to Petty complaints

 

[blue harvest]

Essendon haven’t been since 1993, Collingwood haven’t been since 1999 for example. Hawthorn haven’t been since 2006. Richmond have been twice this decade.

In what is effectively the hardest trip in football, to play a team who have won more games at a venue in a 100 game span than any team in the history of football, to have teams that seldom, if ever, make the trip is a sporting integrity issue.

There are multiple players in the Hall of Fame now who weren’t even drafted the last time several clubs went to Geelong. Brent Harvey hadn’t debuted the last time clubs went to Geelong. That’s an issue, and one that is so easily solvable.

Sure it might be an advantage to some clubs not having to go to Geelong but that other poster is arguing the bigger picture, that the overall results from 30 years of data don't seem to indicate any sort of Vic/NonVic advantage in the results, top8, top4, GFs, premierships etc. Maybe there are other things which offset some of the individual advantages, like a bigger HGA for NonVic sides, more derbies and blockbuster fatigue for Vic sides, or for example Tigers finishing top of the ladder in 2018 but getting no HGA in any of their finals.

 

[Pomsta]

Essendon haven’t been since 1993, Collingwood haven’t been since 1999 for example. Hawthorn haven’t been since 2006. Richmond have been twice this decade.

In what is effectively the hardest trip in football, to play a team who have won more games at a venue in a 100 game span than any team in the history of football, to have teams that seldom, if ever, make the trip is a sporting integrity issue.

There are multiple players in the Hall of Fame now who weren’t even drafted the last time several clubs went to Geelong. Brent Harvey hadn’t debuted the last time clubs went to Geelong. That’s an issue, and one that is so easily solvable.

I don't have an issue with Geelong playing all their home games at Kardinia Park. But if they say that want the Easter Monday game against Hawthorn at the G as their home game then they have nothing to whinge about and are a pack of hypocrites. If you have a chance of HGA then you need to take it. The question then would be how often Geelong got a home game against any of the larger Melbourne clubs.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

....and West Coast has been there 3 times in the past decade. Is ONE more game in Geelong across 10 years than Richmond really an example of dastardly #VICBIAS?

Yesterday it appeared you might actually be capable of discussing this rationally but now you’re trying to draw at straws to play victim.

This is the exact thing I was saying last night—#VicBias loses its meaning when it’s attached to Petty complaints

This is what people do to try and hand wave reasonable points away. Divide and conquer.

It's not about my team. It's not about your team. its about how the current system affects one set of teams, and how it affects another set of teams.

The "Big Four" - Essendon, Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood - have combined to make 10 trips to GMHBA since 2000. Essendon (0), Collingwood (0), Carlton (2), Richmond (8!). If you change the parameters to since 2010, the number is four (Richmond 2, Carlton 2).

Brisbane have made the trip 15 times since 2000, six since 2010. More than the entire "Big Four" combined.
Sydney have made it 15 times since 2000, nine times this decade. Again, more than the entire "Big Four" combined.
Adelaide alone have made the trip 14 times since 2000, seven since 2010. More than the entire "Big Four" combined.
Fremantle have made 13 trips since 2000, six since 2010. Same again.
Port Adelaide have made it 12 times since 2000, five since 2010. Same again.
West Coast 12 and four. More since 2000 and the same as the combined "Big Four" this decade.
GWS have made the trip five times since inception in 2012, alone more than the "Big Four" have this decade and they haven't even been around for all of it.
Gold Coast the same, five trips this decade.

No matter how you divide it, no matter which group of teams you grab from the "interstate" list, they are overly represented in Geelong games when compared to the "Big Four" (plus Hawthorn for that matter).

I'm not trying to asterisk your teams success or claim triumph in the face of an evil regime when my team has some of their own. It is just clear that the AFL has some teams they're happy to send to Geelong, and some they're not. We know why, money, but I don't see how anyone can actually contest that there is an unintended sporting merit consequence to that decision.

I don't think anything I've said has been unreasonable, overly emotive or anything other than good faith examples I assumed everyone would agree on. I certainly don't think anything I've said is clutching at straws or not backed up with black and white fact. Apparently I was wrong.