Proposed 17-5 three tier fixture

[GuruJosh]

I am saying it's contrived excitement. It is making the draw less even, not more.

As for Carlton, we Richmond supporters have been through it several times and keep coming back. Harden up. And if you dare stick your head out asking for a priority pick, I'm going to kick it off.

Funny Ron, I did read an article about priority pick for Carlton and there is plenty on threads about it! I don't think they need one either. Let the Blues fall into line and get their leadership & admin right.

It may be contrived excitement but at least it is excitement. So much footy so many boring games? Maybe the double up for the top 6 needs work but at least we are exploring options. Obviously 17 games wont happen.

 

[GuruJosh]

The talk about not having set games in place for the start of the season.... what happens now come finals time?

 

[Pessimistic]

Post above has a point. This discussion needs to also discuss finals. If the H&A becomes more relevnt, the first weeks of finals become less relevant

 

[mcgarnacle]

Nearly. Dallas ended up in the NFC East only after a lengthy meeting in early 1970 between all NFC team owners and the NFL commission. After possibly 200 realignments were discussed, five finalists were written down and put into individual envelopes, and the final winner was drawn by a secretary (the only guaranteed neutral person in the entire meeting). She drew the only plan of the five which put Dallas into the same division as the Eagles, Redskins and Giants, which was also the only one which didn't put Minnesota in the NFC East. The only constants for all five were the Giants v Eagles v Redskins, the Bears v Packers, and the Rams v 49ers. The Redskins v Cowboys grudge developed after this, and while it became big pretty quickly, it wasn't quite established enough for anyone to really vouch for it in 1970. Apparently, the main considerations for each owner, according to a tongue in cheek Pete Rozelle (head honcho of the NFL), was the chance to play a regular opponent in a sunny state, under a dome, and against teams with big season ticket sales...

It could have been even more mixed up if the Jets weren't the shock Superbowl winners in the previous season. Because of a new-found confidence in their product, which had always been labelled as inferior to the old NFL, the ten AFL teams made a pact that they would stay together no matter what, so after several meetings it took a $3m carrot each for the Steelers, Browns and Colts to jump from the NFL to the new thirteen team AFC...if the Jets had lost, it's believed there would have been little trouble dividing the AFL teams amongst the NFL ones....

Well, given Dallas played their first season in 1960 and the NFL's version became a reality due to the formation of Dallas Texans in the AFL, they couldn't have had a rivalry with Washington 'for decades' before this as my post seemed to imply. What I meant is that theirs has been the biggest rivalry in the modern-era NFL in the decades since merger. Still, there was a bit of sting between the two franchises when the NFL's Dallas were formed (as the Steers) due to Washington being the default team of 'Dixie' up until that point.

But I was unaware of that process that had them placed in the NFC East Division in 1970. I just thought that it was a continuation of them being a member of the original Capitol Division of the NFL's Eastern Conference in '66 or '67, which already had Washington & Philly in it.

This info comes from an article in the 2000-01 season preview Athlon Pro-Sports mag...the one with Kurt Warner on the cover after the Rams Superbowl win...good times...! It's also a fascinating look at another top sporting league who has argued exactly the same questions asked in this thread, but come up with uniquely American solutions...!

Great solutions indeed. They've managed to come up with solutions to the limitations of:

1 - having more teams than games available to play in the regular season;
2 - a transparent formula within this limitation of knowing who will be each team's opposition for every season, years in advance, which ensures each team plays every team over several years at home and away.
3 - qualification for finals fundamentally compares teams who play the same opponents in 14 of each team's 16 regular season games (including each other twice). That is, teams in the same group practically have the same fixture, and play the same teams twice.
4 - maintain pre-existing and promote new rivalries, such a cornerstone in the popularity and success of American Football at all of the High School, collegiate and professional levels.

the AFL don't have the first issue, but they have no transparency with the fixture and how the decision of where teams play each other is decided. Certain match ups could see one team play another at one team's home ground for 3 or 4 consecutive years. An absolute joke.

The third point is one that most Australian football supporters seem not too completely understand, and it can be modified for use in the AFL to ensure travel requirements and where teams are played are the same in most situations for all teams in the same group.

the fourth point is one in which the AFL is slowly for all except interstate teams and VIC teams that a flying high at the same time. With the League expanding to 18 teams, Vic rivalries don't appear to have the attraction they once did on their own standing, unless they are combined with a blockbuster theme or date.

 

[walhawk]

You sound horrible. State why.

Stupid, complicated, compromises the integrity of matches by attaching a lesser value to some.

 

[jackess]

Now that we're in the final 5 rounds what are peoples thoughts about the 3 tiered system?

As far as the bottom 6 teams; St Kilda, Melbourne, Essendon, Gold Coast, Carlton and Brisbane we have 3 of those teams; Essendon, Carlton and Brisbane just going through the motions, looking forward to the end of the season and tanking without tanking while the other 3 are actually playing some decent footy. If these 6 teams were playing each other in the battle for higher draft picks it would make the games involving them a lot more interesting for their fans and rule out tanking for the 6 clubs.

The only issue with tanking comes with clubs at about 11-14 midway through the season looking to get into the bottom 6 if they don't see themselves as a realistic finals chance and instead want to play for pick 1.

Also ATM we have 7 teams batting for the top 6 spots and a home final so it would have been harsh on the one team that misses out on the sixth position.

 

[RUNVS]

Now that we're in the final 5 rounds what are peoples thoughts about the 3 tiered system?

As far as the bottom 6 teams; St Kilda, Melbourne, Essendon, Gold Coast, Carlton and Brisbane we have 3 of those teams; Essendon, Carlton and Brisbane just going through the motions, looking forward to the end of the season and tanking without tanking while the other 3 are actually playing some decent footy. If these 6 teams were playing each other in the battle for higher draft picks it would make the games involving them a lot more interesting for their fans and rule out tanking for the 6 clubs.

The only issue with tanking comes with clubs at about 11-14 midway through the season looking to get into the bottom 6 if they don't see themselves as a realistic finals chance and instead want to play for pick 1.

Also ATM we have 7 teams batting for the top 6 spots and a home final so it would have been harsh on the one team that misses out on the sixth position.

My only problem with it is the bottom tier as Brisbane and Carlton genuinely need picks 1 and 2 and it would somehow feel wrong if a team like Essendon or Gold Coast got it.

 

[Pessimistic]

Once the freo eagles game is over, it will be crickets in the top three as they ho hum over the cannon fodder they get served up

Already carlton v hawthorn r23 has been demoted in the TV schedule

Imagine if there were three top six clashes each week instead of just one

Thats 12. On the one hand, one on the other

Not sure the battle for 6th spot compensates for the 11 missed cracking games

 

[jackess]

My only problem with it is the bottom tier as Brisbane and Carlton genuinely need picks 1 and 2 and it would somehow feel wrong if a team like Essendon or Gold Coast got it.

I was thinking about that as well. Brisbane and Carlton having picks 5 and 6 would hurt. Although the other teams don't need KPPs as much.

Maybe the points accrued by a team before the last 5 rounds still count but the fixture for the last 5 weeks are the bottom six teams playing each other.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

if they are going to split the league just create divisions and be done with it ffs.

its inevitable anyway you can't keep adding teams without fundamentally changing the draw and the AFL's expansion dream is nowhere near finished.

 

[RUNVS]

I was thinking about that as well. Brisbane and Carlton having picks 5 and 6 would hurt. Although the other teams don't need KPPs as much.

Maybe the points accrued by a team before the last 5 rounds still count but the fixture for the last 5 weeks are the bottom six teams playing each other.

Would it actually be bad if the AFL dropped the bottom 6 teams from the competition for the last 5 rounds?

I actually think it would increase the TV rights as well as it would mean a lot more high quality games in the last 5 rounds. It would also solve any potential problem of the bottom 6 draft picks and give the bottom teams more chance to recover and improve for the next season.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Would it actually be bad if the AFL dropped the bottom 6 teams from the competition for the last 5 rounds?

I actually think it would increase the TV rights as well as it would mean a lot more high quality games in the last 5 rounds. It would also solve any potential problem of the bottom 6 draft picks and give the bottom teams more chance to recover and improve for the next season.

hurts those teams financially by cutting off gate takings and reduces the tv rights dollar because less games is less games which hurts everyone.

 

[jackess]

Would it actually be bad if the AFL dropped the bottom 6 teams from the competition for the last 5 rounds?

I actually think it would increase the TV rights as well as it would mean a lot more high quality games in the last 5 rounds. It would also solve any potential problem of the bottom 6 draft picks and give the bottom teams more chance to recover and improve for the next season.

I was thinking that it would be interesting if they could somehow make it so once a team mathematically couldn't make the finals their season would be over.

Would be impossible to fixture though and the bottom teams would lose a lot of money.

 

[caitsith01]

Hang on, so if you're 7th and win all of your games can you overtake a team above you? If not this is the worst idea of all time. If so, it's the second worst...

 

[Pessimistic]

The idea doesnt revolve around the bottom six teams

Just sayng

 

[caitsith01]

Thats the dumbes thing Ive ever heard


Here let me fix the fixture in 1 minute -


A 6-6-6 format, using the ladder from the previous season -

Top 6 play each other twice
Middle 6 play each other twice
Bottom 6 play each other twice

Each team plays the other twelve teams once

Equals 22 games


Fixture solved without the need of stupid conferences or divisions.. this isn't America FFS

Very close to an actual fair draw.

Just tweak it so that each team plays the following twice: two from last year's top 6, two from last year's bottom 6, two from last year's middle 6.

That way the ladder is determined on pure merit.

 

[JackOutback]

I was thinking about that as well. Brisbane and Carlton having picks 5 and 6 would hurt. Although the other teams don't need KPPs as much.

Maybe the points accrued by a team before the last 5 rounds still count but the fixture for the last 5 weeks are the bottom six teams playing each other.

The number of stars selected at 5 or 6 is probably similar to those picked at 1. The number one pick is slightly overrated in that they are almost never the best player on the draft after a couple of years.

 

[Furn2]

Hang on, so if you're 7th and win all of your games can you overtake a team above you? If not this is the worst idea of all time. If so, it's the second worst...

No you cant finish higher than 7th.

 

[master bate]

Now that we're in the final 5 rounds what are peoples thoughts about the 3 tiered system?

As far as the bottom 6 teams; St Kilda, Melbourne, Essendon, Gold Coast, Carlton and Brisbane we have 3 of those teams; Essendon, Carlton and Brisbane just going through the motions, looking forward to the end of the season and tanking without tanking while the other 3 are actually playing some decent footy. If these 6 teams were playing each other in the battle for higher draft picks it would make the games involving them a lot more interesting for their fans and rule out tanking for the 6 clubs.

The only issue with tanking comes with clubs at about 11-14 midway through the season looking to get into the bottom 6 if they don't see themselves as a realistic finals chance and instead want to play for pick 1.

Also ATM we have 7 teams batting for the top 6 spots and a home final so it would have been harsh on the one team that misses out on the sixth position.

Is this the winner gets pick 1 situation, because that's ridiculous in my mind. Pick 1 needs to go to Carlton or Brisbane who need it. Winning pick 1 is crazy.

With respect to the Saints who brained us and to the other teams I don't want to be just playing the bottom 6 to finish out the year.

A crap start and finish but yesterday was a good game of footy to see Melbourne come back hard and serve it right up to North who are now 6th. I don't like our chances but I want to test some of our best young players against GWS, the Dogs and Freo as well as Carlton.

 

[Furn2]

Personally I would break it into two staggered groups, so say 1,4,5,8,9,12 and 2,3,6,7,10,11 and have them play each other, that way you don't have 7th getting cut off and you don't have too many blockbusters before the finals.

As for the bottom 6 a poster earlier had the idea of adding wins after the split to your losses before the split for the final draft order.

eg. Brisbane have 15 losses so that's 60 points, while the Saints have 11 that's 44 points. So for the Saints to overtake Brisbane they would need to win 5 games and Brisbane win 0. That way the worse teams will still get a decent pick but it still adds interest to the games.

 

[jackess]

The idea doesnt revolve around the bottom six teams

Just sayng

No but it's main aims would be to remove dead rubbers and to reduce the incentives for tanking.

 

[caitsith01]

No you cant finish higher than 7th.

That is absolutely idiotic.

So you could potentially have teams on the same win/loss ratio when this system starts. Then the one in 6th loses the next 5 straight, while the one in 7th wins the next 5 straight. You now have a team finishing lower on the ladder than a team it is 20 points ahead of in terms of wins recorded on the ladder.

This is actually quite likely because the team in 6th has to get fed to the lions playing the rest of the top 6 for 5 weeks, while the team in 7th gets to pound the teams from 8-12th.

 

[Furn2]

That is absolutely idiotic.

So you could potentially have teams on the same win/loss ratio when this system starts. Then the one in 6th loses the next 5 straight, while the one in 7th wins the next 5 straight. You now have a team finishing lower on the ladder than a team it is 20 points ahead of in terms of wins recorded on the ladder.

This is actually quite likely because the team in 6th has to get fed to the lions playing the rest of the top 6 for 5 weeks, while the team in 7th gets to pound the teams from 8-12th.

That's why you cant overtake 6th from 7th because you have the easier games.

Its not really any different to two teams on the same points that are 8th and 9th, 8th gets to play finals and 9ths season ends. If you want to make the top 4 you have to be at least 6th after having played each team.

Its no more idiotic than one team playing the bottom teams twice while another plays the top teams twice.

 

[caitsith01]

That's why you cant overtake 6th from 7th because you have the easier games.

Its not really any different to two teams on the same points that are 8th and 9th, 8th gets to play finals and 9ths season ends. If you want to make the top 4 you have to be at least 6th after having played each team.

Its no more idiotic than one team playing the bottom teams twice while another plays the top teams twice.

What I am not really seeing at the moment is this - what is the point of it at all? Why not just play finals after 17 rounds? Sounds like a strained way to force a few extra rounds into the season.

As posted above, I agree with you about the uneven draw.

That's why it should be:

1. Play everyone once

2. For the games where a club is played twice, that club is determined so that each team on average plays against the same quality of opposition based on last year's ladder

In other words, it should end up that every team's opponents for the year have an average finishing position from the previous year of 8.5 on the ladder.

 

[Pessimistic]

No but it's main aims would be to remove dead rubbers and to reduce the incentives for tanking.

I dont read that. I read it as having three primetime games each week in the atter rounds , and having the finals qualifiers in a pecking order which is fairer

The bottom 6 stuff comes when people say 'what about tanking' ? Who cares ?