Not Worth A Thread - Random Bulldog Discussion

[TheHoneyBadger]

Another BF stalker...

I have a response to this, but people around here have certain skillsets that would render said response moot within hours.

 

[timtamWB]

Champion. Thanks for managing to chase him down.

Haha, yeah, what else did he say I've probably been a bit of a pest over the year. Good on him for bothering to remember my name

Not much else really, only grabbed him quickly cause he was going out with Greenwood and a couple of other guys. Seemed happy that someone came up to him though.

You owe me now, because I hate going up to people. I did this... for da Rock.

Why do I imagine him saying that in an exasperated tone after a deep sigh?

He actually sounded excited. A little too excited...

 

[immortalmike]

Not much else really, only grabbed him quickly cause he was going out with Greenwood and a couple of other guys. Seemed happy that someone came up to him though.

You owe me now, because I hate going up to people. I did this... for da Rock.

He actually sounded excited. A little too excited...

I did it for da people.

The excitement is worrying.

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

I sincerely hope they don't read this board.

 

[immortalmike]

Another BF stalker...

Stop being a fuddy duddy. Stalking is what the kids do these days.

 

[littlenails]

Can anybody tell me about Phillip O'Keeffe.
Played 9 games for Footscray in 1989. Wore jumper #31.
He played just the one season.
Height:187 cm Weight:83 kg
Recruited from: East Ballarat Football Club
Born:17-Dec-1966 (Debut:22y 105d)
In his 9 games he kicked 19 goals, his mode kicking was 3 goals per game.
He played the last 3 games in 1989 and kicked 8 goals.
Why did he leave? Is he related to Ryan O'Keefe (one f), or to Lionel Ryan?

 

[StringyDog]

Cross 5th in Melbourne's B&F despite missing nearly quarter of season, led for nearly first half of year and also takes best Team man award

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

Cross 5th in Melbourne's B&F despite missing nearly quarter of season, led for nearly first half of year and also takes best Team man award

This came to mind before anything else.

 

[Nightowl]

Cross 5th in Melbourne's B&F despite missing nearly quarter of season, led for nearly first half of year and also takes best Team man award

What a champ.

 

[immortalmike]

This came to mind before anything else.

Legal Disclaimer: Mr. Cross' opinions do not reflect those of the Western Bulldogs, who don't consider the Melbourne Best and Fairest an award at all

 

[fronkalicious]

Can you please explain? (People phoning me during 360 ) Is it anything like Malthouse's divisions?

Everyone plays each other once. After 17 rounds, the ladder is split into 3 groups of 6.

The top 6 teams then play each other to determine final ladder positions. The middle 6 teams play each other for a place in the 8 (ie spots 7 and 8). And the bottom 6 teams play each other for the number 1 draft pick.

Comes to 22 games.

I love it. The fighting to get into the groups as we went into round 17 would be a mini finals build up in itself.

And then the bonus of eliminating tanking. Imagine us playing that game on Sunday vs gws with the winner to get the number 1 pick. Add more spice to that game??? Hell yes.

 

[Mutt]

Everyone plays each other once. After 17 rounds, the ladder is split into 3 groups of 6.

The top 6 teams then play each other to determine final ladder positions. The middle 6 teams play each other for a place in the 8 (ie spots 7 and 8). And the bottom 6 teams play each other for the number 1 draft pick.

Comes to 22 games.

I love it. The fighting to get into the groups as we went into round 17 would be a mini finals build up in itself.

And then the bonus of eliminating tanking. Imagine us playing that game on Sunday vs gws with the winner to get the number 1 pick. Add more spice to that game??? Hell yes.

I also love the concept Fronk - especially the notion of the team finishing 18th getting draft pick 6; 17th gets pick 5; 16th gets pick 4; 15th gets pick 3; 14th gets pick 2 and 13th gets pick 1.

A possible downside is that the grouping of teams in the final 5 games makes it easier (albeit unlikely) for a team from the lowest group to end up playing finals because they have an easy draw for the final rounds, given they only play the other bottom ranked teams. I guess if that was considered to be a problem you could stipulate that only teams from the middle 6 grouping can finish the season in positions 7 and 8.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Can anybody tell me about Phillip O'Keeffe.
Played 9 games for Footscray in 1989. Wore jumper #31.
He played just the one season.
Height:187 cm Weight:83 kg
Recruited from: East Ballarat Football Club
Born:17-Dec-1966 (Debut:22y 105d)
In his 9 games he kicked 19 goals, his mode kicking was 3 goals per game.
He played the last 3 games in 1989 and kicked 8 goals.
Why did he leave? Is he related to Ryan O'Keefe (one f), or to Lionel Ryan?

I remember Phil playing, if he was a few cm taller would have been a half-decent KP, but was too short for KP and too tall for flanker. Not related to Ryan, I'm pretty sure Ryan's father is Brian (played 3 games in 1980). Phil was one of many players tried in 1989, when we were financially shot, and Matlhouse was trying anyone from anywhere (see Allday, Mark Williams ex-Carlton, Shane Williams ex-Geel/Rich) and others. Not sure he would have been a long-term player, but wasn't the worst that played for us in that era. I think from memory he had some ink on his arms when it wasn't that common, but not 100% sure on that point.

 

[dogwatch]

I also love the concept Fronk - especially the notion of the team finishing 18th getting draft pick 6; 17th gets pick 5; 16th gets pick 4; 15th gets pick 3; 14th gets pick 2 and 13th gets pick 1.

A possible downside is that the grouping of teams in the final 5 games makes it easier (albeit unlikely) for a team from the lowest group to end up playing finals because they have an easy draw for the final rounds, given they only play the other bottom ranked teams. I guess if that was considered to be a problem you could stipulate that only teams from the middle 6 grouping can finish the season in positions 7 and 8.

Yes, it's an excellent idea ... so it almost certainly will be ignored by the AFL. No seriously, there are some problems that might prevent serious consideration of it (see below).

The idea would surely be that each division of six can only finish within that range (i.e. 1-6, 7-12, 13-18). So effectively you run three new mini-ladders (with carry-over competition points) for each division. It does mean that some sides around 13-14th after 17 rounds who would theoretically still have a chance at the finals under the current arrangements would have that door closed to them. But that's fine. If they aren't good enough to make the top 12 after playing every club once then they don't deserve any more chances at the top 8.

The biggest problem with it would probably be scheduling and TV, since the game is virtually run to the whims of the broadcasters these days. However they cope with this sort of situation with the finals series and they would be guaranteed some top-six blockbusters for the final five rounds so you'd think they could be readily appeased. Another side of that problem is people make travel plans for certain games after seeing the fixture anything up to 9 months earlier. So if for example fronkalicious was planning a family or business trip down from Sydney and trying to schedule it to coincide with a WB game he wouldn't know the final five-week fixture until after Rd 17. It might turn out we are playing West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide away in 3 of those 5 weeks!

Yet another difficulty is devising a draw - you only have 5 days to publish it and do all the preparatory work for games between Rds 17 and 18. This could lead to major ground scheduling and also ticketing problems. One approach to this would be to have the split round over two weeks for rounds 18 and do some early scheduling of the certainties in each division. Say play 3 games the first weekend and 6 games the following weekend (e.g. after round 16 the teams placed 1v2, 9v10 and 17v18 would be announced to play each other for the first weekend of Rd 18). That way ticketing and ground planning could commence nearly two weeks ahead.

The final problem I can think of revolves around balancing the H&A matches. Some clubs might end up playing 12 home games and 10 away (or vice versa) or you might have to play another club away (or at home) twice in one season. This would of course have a major impact on season ticket holders. An example is after 17 rounds each club should have played either 9-8 or 8-9 home-away matches. But what if the Rds 1-17 results mean that five clubs in one division have played 9 home and 8 away matches (with corresponding imbalances in other divisions?) You simply can't even that out by playing teams only within your division. Another example: we could play GCS at Metricon in May and then due to the exigencies of the division draw we have to play them away again (otherwise we get too many home games for the season and they get too many away games).

These are not in themselves reasons to abandon the idea but they are a good enough excuse for the AFL to throw up their hands and say "too hard!"

 

[fronkalicious]

Yes, it's an excellent idea ... so it almost certainly will be ignored by the AFL. No seriously, there are some problems that might prevent serious consideration of it (see below).

The idea would surely be that each division of six can only finish within that range (i.e. 1-6, 7-12, 13-18). So effectively you run three new mini-ladders (with carry-over competition points) for each division. It does mean that some sides around 13-14th after 17 rounds who would theoretically still have a chance at the finals under the current arrangements would have that door closed to them. But that's fine. If they aren't good enough to make the top 12 after playing every club once then they don't deserve any more chances at the top 8.

The biggest problem with it would probably be scheduling and TV, since the game is virtually run to the whims of the broadcasters these days. However they cope with this sort of situation with the finals series and they would be guaranteed some top-six blockbusters for the final five rounds so you'd think they could be readily appeased. Another side of that problem is people make travel plans for certain games after seeing the fixture anything up to 9 months earlier. So if for example fronkalicious was planning a family or business trip down from Sydney and trying to schedule it to coincide with a WB game he wouldn't know the final five-week fixture until after Rd 17. It might turn out we are playing West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide away in 3 of those 5 weeks!

Yet another difficulty is devising a draw - you only have 5 days to publish it and do all the preparatory work for games between Rds 17 and 18. This could lead to major ground scheduling and also ticketing problems. One approach to this would be to have the split round over two weeks for rounds 18 and do some early scheduling of the certainties in each division. Say play 3 games the first weekend and 6 games the following weekend (e.g. after round 16 the teams placed 1v2, 9v10 and 17v18 would be announced to play each other for the first weekend of Rd 18). That way ticketing and ground planning could commence nearly two weeks ahead.

The final problem I can think of revolves around balancing the H&A matches. Some clubs might end up playing 12 home games and 10 away (or vice versa) or you might have to play another club away (or at home) twice in one season. This would of course have a major impact on season ticket holders. An example is after 17 rounds each club should have played either 9-8 or 8-9 home-away matches. But what if the Rds 1-17 results mean that five clubs in one division have played 9 home and 8 away matches (with corresponding imbalances in other divisions?) You simply can't even that out by playing teams only within your division. Another example: we could play GCS at Metricon in May and then due to the exigencies of the division draw we have to play them away again (otherwise we get too many home games for the season and they get too many away games).

These are not in themselves reasons to abandon the idea but they are a good enough excuse for the AFL to throw up their hands and say "too hard!"

Correct. You can only finish inside your group of 6. So if you finish round 17 in the bottom group, you can kiss finals goodbye. So that would create serious interest/excitement around that part of the ladder as we approached round 17. I love it.

Massive blockbusters at the top end of the ladder. A cut throat playoff for positions 7 and 8, and the bottom 6 teams going hammer and tongs to continue to win right through to round 22. No more kreuzer cups. No more scully tanks. We want Peter wright? Well he's up for grabs.

Get it done afl.

 

[dogwatch]

Just a hypothetical on this. Say you are running 13th after 16 rounds and you are scheduled t play the bottom side in rd 17 BUT you are so far off 8th spot that it's virtually impossible to make the finals...

... wouldn't it still be tempting to lose rd 17 so as to remain in the bottom division (all of who you'd be confident of beating) and finish with draft pick #1 rather than the alternative of pick#7 at the very best? That's a big shift at the high end of the draft order!

Just pointing out that where there's a devious will, there's usually a way. It wouldn't totally eliminate the incentive to tank.

 

[Mutt]

Yes, it's an excellent idea ... so it almost certainly will be ignored by the AFL. No seriously, there are some problems that might prevent serious consideration of it (see below).

The idea would surely be that each division of six can only finish within that range (i.e. 1-6, 7-12, 13-18). So effectively you run three new mini-ladders (with carry-over competition points) for each division. It does mean that some sides around 13-14th after 17 rounds who would theoretically still have a chance at the finals under the current arrangements would have that door closed to them. But that's fine. If they aren't good enough to make the top 12 after playing every club once then they don't deserve any more chances at the top 8.

The biggest problem with it would probably be scheduling and TV, since the game is virtually run to the whims of the broadcasters these days. However they cope with this sort of situation with the finals series and they would be guaranteed some top-six blockbusters for the final five rounds so you'd think they could be readily appeased. Another side of that problem is people make travel plans for certain games after seeing the fixture anything up to 9 months earlier. So if for example fronkalicious was planning a family or business trip down from Sydney and trying to schedule it to coincide with a WB game he wouldn't know the final five-week fixture until after Rd 17. It might turn out we are playing West Coast, Brisbane and Adelaide away in 3 of those 5 weeks!

Yet another difficulty is devising a draw - you only have 5 days to publish it and do all the preparatory work for games between Rds 17 and 18. This could lead to major ground scheduling and also ticketing problems. One approach to this would be to have the split round over two weeks for rounds 18 and do some early scheduling of the certainties in each division. Say play 3 games the first weekend and 6 games the following weekend (e.g. after round 16 the teams placed 1v2, 9v10 and 17v18 would be announced to play each other for the first weekend of Rd 18). That way ticketing and ground planning could commence nearly two weeks ahead.

The final problem I can think of revolves around balancing the H&A matches. Some clubs might end up playing 12 home games and 10 away (or vice versa) or you might have to play another club away (or at home) twice in one season. This would of course have a major impact on season ticket holders. An example is after 17 rounds each club should have played either 9-8 or 8-9 home-away matches. But what if the Rds 1-17 results mean that five clubs in one division have played 9 home and 8 away matches (with corresponding imbalances in other divisions?) You simply can't even that out by playing teams only within your division. Another example: we could play GCS at Metricon in May and then due to the exigencies of the division draw we have to play them away again (otherwise we get too many home games for the season and they get too many away games).

These are not in themselves reasons to abandon the idea but they are a good enough excuse for the AFL to throw up their hands and say "too hard!"

Excellent analysis Dogwatch!

There are potential problems with the proposed system but what we have now is FUBAR.

Any alternative to the current balls-up of a draw will have some challenges and won't be perfect, however that is no excuse to keep what we have now. I'm sure that all of the issues we've identified with Whateley's proposal can be ironed out and, whilst not completely perfect, we'd end up with something much better than we have now.

 

[Mutt]

Just a hypothetical on this. Say you are running 13th after 16 rounds and you are scheduled t play the bottom side in rd 17 BUT you are so far off 8th spot that it's virtually impossible to make the finals...

... wouldn't it still be tempting to lose rd 17 so as to remain in the bottom division (all of who you'd be confident of beating) and finish with draft pick #1 rather than the alternative of pick#7 at the very best? That's a big shift at the high end of the draft order!

Just pointing out that where there's a devious will, there's usually a way. It wouldn't totally eliminate the incentive to tank.

Unless we randomly assign the draft order, or draw draftees in a lottery, there will always be an incentive to tank. Whateley's proposal minimizes that risk and means that a team may try to lose for only one or two games but thereafter has to try like hell to win for the next 5 games. No system will be perfect.

 

[dogwatch]

Another thought on tanking and draft order. This should be fairly obvious but I haven't heard much discussion of it:

Under current rules the draft order remains the same in every round of the draft. So if you finish 18th you get first pick and then you get 19th and 37th and so on. So improving your natural ranking (ie finishing lower on the ladder) has a ripple effect through every round, not just at the top end of the draft where most of the debate is centred. This surely increases the incentive to tank, but in fact it is not absolutely essential for delivering a balanced competition.

What I'm suggesting is that some other allocation technique could be used for draft rounds after the first round (eg a random draw for sides outside the top 8, possibly with some inbuilt checks to make sure no club gets too many "lucky" higher picks or "unlucky" lower picks over the entirety of the draft).

Thoughts?

 

[Mutt]

Another thought on tanking and draft order. This should be fairly obvious but I haven't heard much discussion of it:

Under current rules the draft order remains the same in every round of the draft. So if you finish 18th you get first pick and then you get 19th and 37th and so on. So improving your natural ranking (ie finishing lower on the ladder) has a ripple effect through every round, not just at the top end of the draft where most of the debate is centred. This surely increases the incentive to tank, but in fact it is not absolutely essential for delivering a balanced competition.

What I'm suggesting is that some other allocation technique could be used for draft rounds after the first round (eg a random draw for sides outside the top 8, possibly with some inbuilt checks to make sure no club gets too many higher picks or lower picks over the entirety of the draft).

Thoughts?

The NBA system reduces the incentive somewhat to tank without eliminating it altogether and yet still has an equalisation bias. We might pinch something from their system:

• Each team is allocated a number of lotto balls determined by their ladder position for the allocation of the draft order for the second and subsequent rounds.
• The team finishing 18th might be allocated 18 lotto balls in the barrel, the 17th team gets 17 balls and so on, with the Premier team only allocated 1 ball. So the team finishing 18th is 18 times more likely to draw the first pick than are the Premiers.
• Random balls are drawn from the barrel until each team is allocated a draft order from 1 to 18.

 

[littlenails]

I remember Phil playing, if he was a few cm taller would have been a half-decent KP, but was too short for KP and too tall for flanker. Not related to Ryan, I'm pretty sure Ryan's father is Brian (played 3 games in 1980). Phil was one of many players tried in 1989, when we were financially shot, and Matlhouse was trying anyone from anywhere (see Allday, Mark Williams ex-Carlton, Shane Williams ex-Geel/Rich) and others. Not sure he would have been a long-term player, but wasn't the worst that played for us in that era. I think from memory he had some ink on his arms when it wasn't that common, but not 100% sure on that point.

Thanks Ivan. I missed all of 1989 having moved to Perth, but still kept my membership going. I remember Ivan Rasmussen (one double s only) from the 70's, kicked a few goals for us. Is that you?

 

[dogwatch]

The NBA system reduces the incentive somewhat to tank without eliminating it altogether and yet still has an equalisation bias. We might pinch something from their system:

• Each team is allocated a number of lotto balls determined by their ladder position for the allocation of the draft order for the second and subsequent rounds.
• The team finishing 18th might be allocated 18 lotto balls in the barrel, the 17th team gets 17 balls and so on, with the Premier team only allocated 1 ball. So the team finishing 18th is 18 times more likely to draw the first pick than are the Premiers.
• Random balls are drawn from the barrel until each team is allocated a draft order from 1 to 18.

Yeah I don't mind that sort of thing, even if we only applied it after Round 1 of the draft. But it would definitely reduce the incentive to tank if applied to all rounds!

 

[fronkalicious]

I'm against lotteries. I really think making the bottom 6 teams fight for the top picks is the way to go.

 

[Mutt]

Yeah I don't mind that sort of thing, even if we only applied it after Round 1 of the draft. But it would definitely reduce the incentive to tank if applied to all rounds!

If we don't go with Whateley's idea, then at least the NBA lottery system adds some theater to the draft and also diminishes a bit of the incentive to tank. It also means that even the top teams have a slim chance of landing a really good draft pick - even the first pick. It does however somewhat compromise the utility of the draft as an equilisation tool.

How much you diminish the incentive to tank versus utilising the draft for equalisation can be tweaked by the respective weightings allocated in the lottery to each ladder position.

...now let's move on to solve the political situation in the Middle East, which according to the AFL is a whole lot easier to fix than the AFL Draw and Draft.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Thanks Ivan. I missed all of 1989 having moved to Perth, but still kept my membership going. I remember Ivan Rasmussen (one double s only) from the 70's, kicked a few goals for us. Is that you?

Nah mate, I'm not the real Ivan (he was a Gippsland boy). I stuffed up when creating the user, even though I knew there was only one double 's'! The real Ivan played in the first game I ever saw live, and I sort of latched onto him briefly as a favourite player- he was a rangy half forward who looked likely, but never kicked on - if I ever meet him, I'd like to buy him a beer though. He was a fair kick, and fed off Quinlan, Sandilands, Round and Welsh as the big bodies in the forward line. Not sure why he left, often wonder what he is up to these days. I loved the 70s, so many great footballers, but sadly so little success, unfulfilled as far as I am concerned, as our onfield talent matched any team at the time, but a combination of administration and coach shortcomings, lack of finances and lack of commitment prevented any success.