SA Footy

Read this for some discussion from a (professional) statisticians perspective on the perceived biases towards non-Victorian teams.

http://blogs.mbs.edu/fishing-in-the-bay/?p=167#more-167

Sounds like he is saying that the statiscal possibility of the last 6 premierships being won by 1 of the 6 non-Victorian teams (vs 10 Victorian-based) is so low that they must be enjoying some sort of privelege or advantage. Couldn't see any list of what those advantages actually were.

If 10 of the 16 clubs are from one state they should win 5/8 of the premierships over a period of time seems his base premise.

Maybe having too many teams in 1 state is creating a disadvantage for those teams is one suggestion I can offer

If 10 Vic sides becomes 6 (and therefore 6 from Vic and 6 from outside Vic), they will potentially have more supporters, more members, more money, better facilities and have a better chance of success.

The draw would be even, and everyone (INCLUDING COLLINGWOOD) would play everyone both home and away in an even home and away season of 22 rounds.

We could have a Final 5 (or 6 at the most) and the competition would be fairer for all teams.

Instead we have too many teams from Victoria because Jack Hamilton and Ross Oakley and their cronies insisted on a power-hungry regime that would implement a national league that would benefit Victorian clubs at the expense of the game nationwide.

Maybe the other states at the time should have been more aggressive in the way a national league was formed, but the SANFL was (rightly) more concerned about their own backyard and the WAFL should have resisted the VFL's advances and stuck to their guns to get a better deal. A national comp would have eventuated by the mid-1990s but the idea was implemented badly and too soon for the interests of supporters nationwide.

If only we could turn back time to 1985!

Shame Hamilton and Oakley, Shame!

Benchwarmer wrote:If 10 Vic sides becomes 6 (and therefore 6 from Vic and 6 from outside Vic), they will potentially have more supporters, more members, more money, better facilities and have a better chance of success.

The draw would be even, and everyone (INCLUDING COLLINGWOOD) would play everyone both home and away in an even home and away season of 22 rounds.

We could have a Final 5 (or 6 at the most) and the competition would be fairer for all teams.

Instead we have too many teams from Victoria because Jack Hamilton and Ross Oakley and their cronies insisted on a power-hungry regime that would implement a national league that would benefit Victorian clubs at the expense of the game nationwide.

Maybe the other states at the time should have been more aggressive in the way a national league was formed, but the SANFL was (rightly) more concerned about their own backyard and the WAFL should have resisted the VFL's advances and stuck to their guns to get a better deal. A national comp would have eventuated by the mid-1990s but the idea was implemented badly and too soon for the interests of supporters nationwide.

If only we could turn back time to 1985!

Shame Hamilton and Oakley, Shame!

That would be a fair call if the AFL was a new competition started from scratch, but it is in reality an expanded VFL, not a new comp.

hondo71 wrote:Sounds like he is saying that the statiscal possibility of the last 6 premierships being won by 1 of the 6 non-Victorian teams (vs 10 Victorian-based) is so low that they must be enjoying some sort of privelege or advantage. Couldn't see any list of what those advantages actually were.

If 10 of the 16 clubs are from one state they should win 5/8 of the premierships over a period of time seems his base premise.

The guy who wrote that entry is using that example as a way that non-statisticians abuse data.
The fault he is pointing out in that argument is that performances are correlated from year to year, so the chance that non-Victorian teams would win 6 premierships in a row would be much higher than 0.003.

pafc1870 wrote:That would be a fair call if the AFL was a new competition started from scratch, but it is in reality an expanded VFL, not a new comp.

Yes, that is the reality. The AFL was the way out of financial doom for the VFL in the mid 80s. The old VFL is still largely intact in 2007 (minus Fitzroy).

Ecky wrote:The guy who wrote that entry is using that example as a way that non-statisticians abuse data.
The fault he is pointing out in that argument is that performances are correlated from year to year, so the chance that non-Victorian teams would win 6 premierships in a row would be much higher than 0.003.

That makes sense thanks Ecky - I thought 0.003 was way too low for such a short period of time. On that logic how improbable was Hawthorn winning 6 premierships in 15 years from 1977 to 1991?

I am sure Tim Lane would answer that one Hondo...

They were just too good!

But that couldn't possibly be the case with non-Victorian sides.

P.S. It appears that blog has become an unofficial thread on SA Footy...

smac wrote:P.S. It appears that blog has become an unofficial thread on SA Footy...

Yeah, the guy who writes it would be wondering what has happened to his quiet little blog!

Even geeks are entitled to their 15 minutes of fame (no offence intended).

smac wrote:I am sure Tim Lane would answer that one Hondo...

They were just too good!

But that couldn't possibly be the case with non-Victorian sides.

You summed it up perfectly Smac!