17-5 Imagined in 2018

[NoobPie]

After 15 games I think it is worth reflecting on the hypothetical of existing in a 17-5 season structure environment

Though things have gone quite on the 17-5 front with a focus on the #stateofthegame #codeincrisis, watching "the couch" this week, there was unanimity among the players (Dangerfield, Jones and Davis) in favour of moving to a 17-5 system.

I personally think an 18-5 is more likely (with return derbies) and have a previously stated preference for getting rid of the first week of the finals and have the top two teams in the top group qualify directly for prelims and the last semi final spot going to the top team in the middle group.

Anyway, assuming 17-5, the following presents the situation in what would otherwise be the last two rounds before the "5 phase"



Obviously the first thing to acknowledge is that this season likely has a higher number of teams that can move out of their groups than other years with two games to go in the middle and upper groups given there is only 10 points separating 2nd and 10th.

Notwithstanding this only the Tigers and the bottom 5 teams are unable to either move up or down out of their current group of 6.

This week, there would be 4 games where both teams are still playing for which group they will be in their next phase, 4 where one team is, and one "dead rubber". The last round is likely to have less following the results of the second last round.

 

[Suma Magic]

After 15 games I think it is worth reflecting on the hypothetical of existing in a 17-5 season structure environment

Though things have gone quite on the 17-5 front with a focus on the #stateofthegame #codeincrisis, watching "the couch" this week, there was unanimity among the players (Dangerfield, Jones and Davis) in favour of moving to a 17-5 system.

I personally think an 18-5 is more likely (with return derbies) and have a previously stated preference for getting rid of the first week of the finals and have the top two teams in the top group qualify directly for prelims and the last semi final spot going to the top team in the middle group.

Anyway, assuming 17-5, the following presents the situation in what would otherwise be the last two rounds before the "5 phase"

View attachment 525833

Obviously the first thing to acknowledge is that this season likely has a higher number of teams that can move out of their groups than other years with two games to go in the middle and upper groups given there is only 10 points separating 2nd and 10th.

Notwithstanding this only the Tigers and the bottom 5 teams are unable to either move up or down out of their current group of 6.

This week, there would be 4 games where both teams are still playing for which group they will be in their next phase, 4 where one team is, and one "dead rubber". The last round is likely to have less following the results of the second last round.

Wouldn't you need to remove the games where teams have already played each other for the second time for this to be accurate?

 

[NoobPie]

Wouldn't you need to remove the games where teams have already played each other for the second time for this to be accurate?

It's a hypothetical, it's certainly not accurate

Obviously in a "real" 17-5 every team would be playing the two teams they have not yet played in the last two weeks

Materially, if that were the case than some teams (i.e. Collingwood) might be back in the mix a little while others might be doing slightly better, but there would likely be the similar outcome

 

[Suma Magic]

It's a hypothetical, it's certainly not accurate

Obviously in a "real" 17-5 every team would be playing the two teams they have not yet played in the last two weeks

Materially, if that were the case than some teams (i.e. Collingwood) might be back in the mix a little while others might be doing slightly better, but there would likely be the similar outcome

Fair enough. I don't really like the 17-5 proposal.

I didn't see the show, but read the article about the players' discussion. It seems they might have misunderstood that the fixture is supposed to be unfair, as that is the intent of the 'Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6' policy.


I also found some of their comments about zones strange: “So before you judge it take a look at it first because I think there’s merit in it without a doubt.”

Except fans won't get a look at it unless they trial it in the preseason next year.


Overall i was surprised at the player's lack of awareness of the current policy and of the proposed process for change.

 

[NoobPie]

Another often overlooked factor of the flawed draw (that 17-5 largely overcomes) is the inequity of when you play other teams. Since we went to 18 teams, there have been something like 4 occasions in 60 odd attempts where a bottom 6 team has beaten a top 6 team in the last 5 rounds. The related factor is the relative intensity of matches heading into september

Of the top 10 teams still well in it, (noting that the Crows and Bombers still have an outside chance), these are the last 5 games mix



The poor Swans have the last 5 games against teams still fighting for the finals...north have 1 with another game at AO against the crows! Big game this week for the Swans

 

[NoobPie]

Fair enough. I don't really like the 17-5 proposal.

I didn't see the show, but read the article about the players' discussion. It seems they might have misunderstood that the fixture is supposed to be unfair, as that is the intent of the 'Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6' policy.

That's not the intent of the 17-5. The intent is to make it fair.

Essentially a single round robin seeds you into another single round robin based on finishing positions. No more handicapped and compromised fixtures.

I also found some of their comments about zones strange: “So before you judge it take a look at it first because I think there’s merit in it without a doubt.”

Except fans won't get a look at it unless they trial it in the preseason next year.


Overall i was surprised at the player's lack of awareness of the current policy and of the proposed process for change.

That's fair enough. I found it weird they didn't want to trial the rules in the dead rubber games but want it trialled before being introduced. Danger seemed more eager to pull trigger on it....he's also a game ambassador of course

 

[HTT]

I would love for the AFL to go a straight 17 game season. 8 home games, 8 away games, 1 neutral game with shared gate (not sure what the venue would be for NSW/QLD clubs).

I see why the AFL would want to go 18-5 or 18-4 and agree it is the most likely but I'm strongly against it - why radically change the fixture, only to end up with a similar issue? If Richmond or Collingwood got paired with say Carlton, it's basically an extra win, while Sydney and GWS draw each other.

Between the current set up and there 17-5 set up I'm kind of indifferent, maybe just leaning towards 17-5. My main issue with it would be that it might effectively become a 12 team finals series.

 

[Suma Magic]

That's not the intent of the 17-5. The intent is to make it fair.

Essentially a single round robin seeds you into another single round robin based on finishing positions. No more handicapped and compromised fixtures.




That's fair enough. I found it weird they didn't want to trial the rules in the dead rubber games but want it trialled before being introduced. Danger seemed more eager to pull trigger on it....he's also a game ambassador of course

You could make the fixture fairer by having the five double ups against a range of good/average/bad clubs.

I think the 17-5 is more about making the end of the season more exciting, more to play for. There are so many flaws with it though.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I would love for the AFL to go a straight 17 game season. 8 home games, 8 away games, 1 neutral game with shared gate (not sure what the venue would be for NSW/QLD clubs).

I see why the AFL would want to go 18-5 or 18-4 and agree it is the most likely but I'm strongly against it - why radically change the fixture, only to end up with a similar issue? If Richmond or Collingwood got paired with say Carlton, it's basically an extra win, while Sydney and GWS draw each other.

Between the current set up and there 17-5 set up I'm kind of indifferent, maybe just leaning towards 17-5. My main issue with it would be that it might effectively become a 12 team finals series.

Is the concept of 17-5 to have the 5 as a floating fixture? If so, the AFL wouldn’t pair a top team with a bottom team in the final 5 rounds. They’d rather it be against a “seeded” team ie another team already in the 8 or just out of at a push.

In terms of an extended finals period that’s exactly the attraction. It’s like having a wild card without having it.

 

[HTT]

Is the concept of 17-5 to have the 5 as a floating fixture? If so, the AFL wouldn’t pair a top team with a bottom team in the final 5 rounds. They’d rather it be against a “seeded” team ie another team already in the 8 or just out of at a push.

In terms of an extended finals period that’s exactly the attraction. It’s like having a wild card without having it.

After 17 rounds the ladder is split into 3 pools of 6 and you play a round robin within that 6 to determine final positions.
The pairing I was talking about was in the 18-5 or 18-4 proposal, where the first phase is a round robin plus 1 game (to allow double ups between rivals). Whoever you are paired with for that extra game creates the inequity we are trying to remove.

 

[RUNVS]

I wouldn't go 17 games. I would just have the games where teams only play each other once be worth 4 points, and teams that play each other twice each game is worth 2 points.

 

[NoobPie]

I would love for the AFL to go a straight 17 game season. 8 home games, 8 away games, 1 neutral game with shared gate (not sure what the venue would be for NSW/QLD clubs).

I see why the AFL would want to go 18-5 or 18-4 and agree it is the most likely but I'm strongly against it - why radically change the fixture, only to end up with a similar issue? If Richmond or Collingwood got paired with say Carlton, it's basically an extra win, while Sydney and GWS draw each other.

It certainly retains an element of imbalance but it is still far better than the status quo in terms of equity. Perhaps just as important it still completely removes arbitrary determination of who plays who twice....it is locked in in perpetuity

That said, I can certainly see why people would be reluctant

Between the current set up and there 17-5 set up I'm kind of indifferent, maybe just leaning towards 17-5. My main issue with it would be that it might effectively become a 12 team finals series.

It certainly could be characterised as a 12 team finals series. In reality though you have the top 6 effectively playing for the sheep stations in what essentially stretches the current qualifying finals across 5 weeks (Should note my preference is to get rid of the first week of the finals). The middle group is effectively a repechage group for the final spot

 

[NoobPie]

You could make the fixture fairer by having the five double ups against a range of good/average/bad clubs.

They do try to do that now (with a handicapping based on where you finished last year). The key is you could do it more equitably but you can only ever do it on the previous years finishing position and so it will never end up being "fair"

I think the 17-5 is more about making the end of the season more exciting, more to play for. There are so many flaws with it though.

It's a silver bullet - achieves a fairer system but with more exciting, high stakes games

 

[Blackhawk42]

I HATE the pools idea. With an absolute passion.
If 17-5 becomes a reality, hopefully common sense prevails and it simply means everyone plays each other once, then every club on the run home plays a mixture of good, average and bad sides.
Pools are a joke. The idea that a side sitting 6th on percentage after 17 rounds is guaranteed a finals spot but the team sitting 7th can still finish as low as 12th is just ridiculous. 6th could lose every game on the run home and play finals while 7th could win 2 or 3 games more and miss out completely dependent on other results. Just so not necessary.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Would love to know how you would incorporate the 5 games into each clubs membership packages that are sold prior to the season starting

Much more to a 17-5 than just the fixture.

 

[NoobPie]

If 17-5 becomes a reality, hopefully common sense prevails and it simply means everyone plays each other once, then every club on the run home plays a mixture of good, average and bad sides.
The idea that a side sitting 6th on percentage after 17 rounds is guaranteed a finals spot but the team sitting 7th can still finish as low as 12th is just ridiculous. 6th could lose every game on the run home and play finals while 7th could win 2 or 3 games more and miss out completely dependent on other results.

FWIW, my preference is that you would lose the first week of the finals and so teams in the top and middle group are qualifying for spots in the prelims or (what are currently called) semis



In terms of the 6th versus 7th thing, the necessary existence of thresh holds in determining pay offs in competitions that use round robin formats (i.e all competitions bar pure knock out competitions) are the key to creating tension in those competitions

-Melbourne finished 9th by half a percentage point last year missing the finals. Was that ridiculously unfair?
-Clubs can get relegated on goal difference in soccer leagues with P&R. Is that ridiculously unfair?

 

[Underarm]

In terms of the 6th versus 7th thing, the necessary existence of thresh holds in determining pay offs in competitions that use round robin formats (i.e all competitions bar pure knock out competitions) are the key to creating tension in those competitions

True, but the AFL should never go to a format where 6th can't possibly make the Grand Final, but 7th can. If that was the case I would be tanking hard if I was Melbourne.

I'm glad 17-5 is being re looked at though. I think it deserves to be looked at and analysed if its needed or not. There's plenty of logistical minefields to solve as well.

 

[NoobPie]

True, but the AFL should never go to a format where 6th can't possibly make the Grand Final, but 7th can. If that was the case I would be tanking hard if I was Melbourne.

I'm glad 17-5 is being re looked at though. I think it deserves to be looked at and analysed if its needed or not. There's plenty of logistical minefields to solve as well.

But think this through. Why on earth would Melbourne possibly want to be in the middle group rather than the top group?

In the top group they would have the chance to go directly to a home prelim. To make the last 6 they would only need to avoid finishing last in that group.

In the middle group they would be essentially in a crap shoot to top the group to likely play a semi final on the road. This middle group, off current ladder positions, would also include 5 of Hawthorn, Geelong, North, Giants, Crows and the Bombers

 

[NoobPie]

Would love to know how you would incorporate the 5 games into each clubs membership packages that are sold prior to the season starting

Much more to a 17-5 than just the fixture.

Memberships would be restructured no doubt, I am sure there would be options to buy full season memberships where there would be uncertainty on whether you got 2 or 3 games in the "5 phase"

 

[Bardo State]

How AWESOME would it be to have Richmond, West Coast, Sydney, Port Adelaide, Geelong and Collingwood all playing each other over the last 5 rounds?

Ditto Melbourne, North, Hawthorn, GWS, Adelaide and Essendon battling it out for 2 finals spots.

With a 17/5 split, you get GUARANTEED great, interesting, high stakes games at the end of the season as well as a fairer fixture.

 

[Bardo State]

I HATE the pools idea. With an absolute passion.
If 17-5 becomes a reality, hopefully common sense prevails and it simply means everyone plays each other once, then every club on the run home plays a mixture of good, average and bad sides.
Pools are a joke. The idea that a side sitting 6th on percentage after 17 rounds is guaranteed a finals spot but the team sitting 7th can still finish as low as 12th is just ridiculous. 6th could lose every game on the run home and play finals while 7th could win 2 or 3 games more and miss out completely dependent on other results. Just so not necessary.

More ridiculous than a team missing the 8 on percentage after doubling up on 4 top 8 teams while 8th only doubled up on one after 22 games?

That 7th placed team would also have to lose to all the teams below them in the last 5 games, so maybe they deserve 12th.

 

[Blackhawk42]

More ridiculous than a team missing the 8 on percentage after doubling up on 4 top 8 teams while 8th only doubled up on one after 22 games?

That 7th placed team would also have to lose to all the teams below them in the last 5 games, so maybe they deserve 12th.

Yes. If you consider the current method to be ridiculous why change it to another, arguably more ridiculous structure?

 

[NoobPie]

Yes. If you consider the current method to be ridiculous why change it to another, arguably more ridiculous structure?

I don't find the fact that you can miss the 8 on percentage the least bit ridiculous

What is ridiculous is you can miss out on the 8 on percentage to a team that had a much easier draw than you

It is the existence of these arbitrary thresholds that give a competition life

 

[Bardo State]

Yes. If you consider the current method to be ridiculous why change it to another, arguably more ridiculous structure?

Because it's far less ridiculous. Right now it's easy to miss finals based on a hard draw. By playing every team once, you're much closer to a level playing field.

Plus the games at the end of the season would be awesome, with way fewer meaningless blowouts.

St Kilda vs Richmond
Sydney vs Gold Coast
Carlton vs Hawthorn
West Coast vs Western Bulldogs
Essendon vs Sydney
Geelong vs Brisbane
GWS vs St Kilda
Melbourne vs Gold Coast
Gold Coast vs Richmond
Geelong vs Fremantle
St Kilda vs Hawthorn
Geelong vs Gold Coast
Richmond vs Western Bulldogs

How many shithouse games do you reckon will be amongst that lot? That's what we have to look forward to in the last 5 rounds.

 

[Underarm]

But think this through. Why on earth would Melbourne possibly want to be in the middle group rather than the top group?

In the top group they would have the chance to go directly to a home prelim. To make the last 6 they would only need to avoid finishing last in that group.

In the middle group they would be essentially in a crap shoot to top the group to likely play a semi final on the road. This middle group, off current ladder positions, would also include 5 of Hawthorn, Geelong, North, Giants, Crows and the Bombers

If the final 5 games is a fresh start it could be. But then I would argue that disadvantages the team in First. 5 games isn't enough to really rank the teams for finals.

Who gets the home games? Richmond have played 4/5 top tier opponents as the away team, West Coast have played 4/5 opponents as the home team. Do you play the team at the opposite ground to your previous game? or does the teams higher on the ladder get the 3 home games, and who cares if a team has to travel to perth to play West Coast twice (or travel to Melbourne and play Collingwood twice)?