telsor
Hall of Famer
I like the idea of divisions, but who goes where is always a major issue, especially in Vic, both from wanting to play some teams more, and for the $$$ from playing certain teams twice.
Proposed 17-5 three tier fixture
- Thread starter manboob
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I like the idea of divisions, but who goes where is always a major issue, especially in Vic, both from wanting to play some teams more, and for the $$$ from playing certain teams twice.
Rawthorn
Debutant
- Jul 19, 2015
- 99
- 77
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That is partly the reason I put the Hawks and North in the east, as they would prefer to play their instate games in Tassie, but I know it would be issue on which teams plays in the central division
Boy how we forget.
http://afltables.com/afl/seas/2013.html
In 2013 Essendon - a team that qualified for the finals - were relegated to 9th and were excluded from the finals.
How many teams would have been stopped from playing when they actually still had a chance of playing finals under your proposal?
I think that's kinda the whole point. Play every team and if you can't make the Top 6 during this time you don't deserve to.
Has a Premiership team ever come from outside the Top 6 after Round 17?
The 17-5 idea is flawed.... having the top 6 play each other in the last 5 weeks devalues the finals when they... yes, play each other again!
- Aug 10, 2005
- 46,545
- 42,486
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Not many. You're out when you need more wins to equal 8th place on points then there are matches remaining in a season. Carlton and others still would have been in the comp when Essendon were banned.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,815
- 4,215
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Due to the number of teams in Victoria, 3 of 6 doesn't work.
Rather 2 of 4 and 2 of 5 fits the club structure better.
ADE - FRE - PA - WCE
BL - GC - GWS - SYD
CAR - COL - MEL - RIC - STK
ESS - GEE - HAW - NM - WB
Can still maintain a 22 match per team season with this.
Clubs in the same group play the majority of games under the same h&a conditions, e.g, all teams in CAR group play all teams in ADE group at home. All teams in ADE group play all teams in ESS group at home, etc. This rolls each season and essentially each team will play every other team h&a over two seasons.
The main principle of the format is that teams in the same group share a majority of the same fixture and can be compared to each other for finals qualification. As such at least one team from each group would qualify for finals, but at the same time every team from one group can still make the finals if they're good enough.
Finals seeding is based on overall Season Record as it now, however, if two teams are on the same points then regular season head-to-head determines the higher seeding.
Finals structure can remain as it is now.
I agree with this division set up.
Hawks/North/Dogs were the 1925 expansion sides, so makes sense for them to be placed in the "expansion" divisions... them along with Geelong who are not based in Melbourne.
The central division is the foundation VFL division containing the so called Big 4 + Melbourne.
I would add a finals stipulation - 4th can not host a Prelim against a division winner.
If 4th upsets 1st in Week 1, they get the week off, but if they play 2nd/3rd in the Prelim (most likely), 2nd/3rd gets the home Prelim.
This ensures that division winners have some advantage over 4th in the Top 4.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,815
- 4,215
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Good luck getting the VIC 'expansion' teams to agree with that.
Could be a problem if the team was fixtured against the other five teams at home and then has to go on the road for five weeks! What if these were 6 teams from 5 different states?!?
The extra five games would have to be drawn again. 2 home 3 away or 3 home 2 away.
It would be hard, but if it was a compromise, why bother ?
If you pencilled in the previous years top six to play each other in the last five rounds, for the second time un the season, youd just have to swap the two or three teams which enters the top six
Thers still would be problems with the schedule, so allow an extra week with a rolling bye to account for thst
So called foundation division are up the creek at the moment. Not very competitive
telsor
Hall of Famer
So why not go straight to finals then?
Furn2
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 27, 2012
- 9,475
- 15,515
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Because everyone involved in the AFL would have to take a 20% paycut.
Poppacorn
Rookie
- Aug 11, 2015
- 27
- 23
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Regarding playing off for draft picks, sounds a bit like the proposal I had whereby 9th place earned first draft pick, then 10th second etc.
The idea was booed worse than Adam Goodes.
Now it appears the brains trust at AFL were reading my post.
The idea was booed worse than Adam Goodes.
Now it appears the brains trust at AFL were reading my post.
It would be finals. Just finish off with prelims and a grand final for the top 4 teams
Brock Lesnar
Senior List
- Sep 20, 2014
- 230
- 317
- AFL Club
- GWS
Can we please just get everyone playing each other once in a 17-round season then have the same finals format, except it's best of three matches for each final, cheers that would be great.
Only problem with that is that the winners of the QFs could get 3 weeks off, thats unworkable, sides would lose form.... doing a best of 3 for each final could only work if the finals were all knockout a la nba/nhl playoffs
Brock Lesnar
Senior List
- Sep 20, 2014
- 230
- 317
- AFL Club
- GWS
True good point. In that case we'd have to change it to 1v8 2v7 3v6 and 4v5. Best of three is a good format, that way even if 8 beats 1 you can't say it was a fluke given it would've happened twice.
I would still make the GF just one game though with replay if required.
Brock Lesnar
Senior List
- Sep 20, 2014
- 230
- 317
- AFL Club
- GWS
Was gonna say the same thing. Sorta like the champions league system, keep the final just one game.
