17-5 Imagined in 2018

[D-N-R]

1) That assumes every game has to be designated ‘home’ or ‘away’. Teams should play 8 Home, 8 away, and 1 completely neutral game. This is a bit of a headache in NSW and QLD because there is no neutral ground there, but we just have to live with that

3) Top 3 in each section get 3 home, bottom 3 get 2 Home. Simple.

17 games won't cut it for a season and what is a 'neutral' game? Where is the neutral ground in WA and SA? Or anywhere? Do we have Eagles playing Collingwood in Queensland? So even fewer home games?

Teams not receiving 11 home games would be a problem, for both revenue and sponsors (and fans). Wouldn't it be simpler to set the fixture at the beginning of the year and avoid all the unfairness and imbalance, which would be the point of doing it in the first place?

 

[_RT_]

Reading the article about Dangerfield and co saying how the current draw is farcical because some sides have an easier run into the finals than others and the main complaint seemed to be around Richmond apparently having an easier run than sides like GWS and Geelong.

For the record the Tigers in the second half of this season were drawn to play based on 2017 ladder positions:

1st (currently 11th)
2nd(twice) (currently 7th)
4th (currently 10th)
5th (currently 4th)
6th (currently 5th)
7th(twice) (currently 12th)
10th (currently 14th)
11th (currently 15th)
13th(currently 2nd)
17th (currently 17th)

Not our fault some of those teams have dropped away and aren't contenders anymore.

Finally just going to leave this here regarding draw difficulty before the season started.

 

[HTT]

17 games won't cut it for a season and what is a 'neutral' game? Where is the neutral ground in WA and SA? Or anywhere? Do we have Eagles playing Collingwood in Queensland? So even fewer home games?

Teams not receiving 11 home games would be a problem, for both revenue and sponsors (and fans). Wouldn't it be simpler to set the fixture at the beginning of the year and avoid all the unfairness and imbalance, which would be the point of doing it in the first place?

You know how there’s two teams and 1 ground in both SA and WA right? Kinda makes a neutral game doesn’t it?

 

[telsor]

For the record the Tigers in the second half of this season were drawn to play based on 2017 ladder positions:

1st (currently 11th)
2nd(twice) (currently 7th)
4th (currently 10th)
5th (currently 4th)
6th (currently 5th)
7th(twice) (currently 12th)
10th (currently 14th)
11th (currently 15th)
13th(currently 2nd)
17th (currently 17th)

Damn us for not playing the team that came 3rd!

 

[Bardo State]

Wouldnt the useless games just move up? In a 17 game season finals would just be deiced earlier.
After round 10 Bulldogs for example would have to make up 3 games on the 8th in the last 6 games.

Yes if it was a clean 17 game a year fixture but that leaves too much money on the table.

With the 17-5 scenario teams only have to make up to 12th by the end of round 17 to be alive. With 2 games to play this season until round 17 is finished, only Brisbane, Carlton, St Kilda and the Gold Coast would be dead, which they pretty much are in the current system anyway.

 

[NoobPie]

The system is so flawed you have to add 'rival games' to make it work then some jiggery-pokery to try justify why some teams get more home games than others. The problem with the current system IS the blockbusters and guaranteed match-ups. .

No, you are just too quick to anger and slow to though to get it.

You don’t NEED to add ‘rival games’. They may be necessary to get buy in from particular from the non Vic clubs.

There’s no “jiggery pokery”. The system rewards teams who finished higher with the extra home games. Just like home qualifying finals are awarded to the higher ranking teams

“Blockbusters” is not a problem with the current system. The arbitraryness and lopsided ness is the problem with current draw.

 

[doppleganger]

Clearly a key selling point of the 17/18-5 is it significantly increases the number of high stakes games between teams of equal quality. It does this by design and removes the ability to arbitrarily fix the fixture. I would personally call arbitrarily paring teams in a lopsided draw "manufacturing" things rather than designing a system that removes that fiddling

It is pretty hard to make a case against someone who thinks that having more "high stakes games between teams of equal quality" all else being equal, is actually a bad thing.

In terms of seeding, that is what is called an is-ought fallacy. You've not made an argument against a three phased season you've made an assertion. As it is, we do already have an extra layer of seeding in the existing qualifying finals.

The extra 5 games is not just about creating more "blockbusters". Given a 26 week season constraint, it somewhat elegantly solves the dual problems of a manufactured lopsided draw and the trail of dead rubbers and (even worse) one sided games towards the end of the season

It doesn’t increase high stakes games, it just has additional qualifying games that don’t mean anything.

Ok Richmond, you are first after the home and away game phase, now you have to play 2,3,4,5 and 6th to determine if you are really the number 1 rank.

Will be like the Collingwood v Geelong R23 game in 2011, despite it being a 1v2 ‘high stakes’ blockbuster...it meant nothing and was a flop.

The point of 1 playing 2,3,4,5 and 6 is just to manufacture ‘high stakes’ blockbusters. But people will quickly realise they don’t mean anything, just like the old qualifying finals. All you are doing is swapping partners until the actual finals, there is nothing ‘high stakes’ about them.

 

[NoobPie]

It doesn’t increase high stakes games, it just has additional qualifying games that don’t mean anything.

Ok Richmond, you are first after the home and away game phase, now you have to play 2,3,4,5 and 6th to determine if you are really the number 1 rank.

Will be like the Collingwood v Geelong R23 game in 2011, despite it being a 1v2 ‘high stakes’ blockbuster...it meant nothing and was a flop.

The point of 1 playing 2,3,4,5 and 6 is just to manufacture ‘high stakes’ blockbusters. But people will quickly realise they don’t mean anything, just like the old qualifying finals. All you are doing is swapping partners until the actual finals, there is nothing ‘high stakes’ about them.

They are high stakes and far more so if you get rid of the first week of the finals and have direct qualification to prelim finals for the top 2

It is not the same as the middle four teams in the old final 8 system. Teams can change positions

 

[Paul Kersey]

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.

17 games is where it needs to be.

 

[BEaston]

No, you are just too quick to anger and slow to though to get it.

You have repeatedly misunderstood his points and you call him slow....

What happens if the top team played the rest of the top 6 all at home during the season? They are now rewarded with 3 homes games in the final 5 games... so they get to play 3 of the top 5 opposition teams at home twice. That's dumb. Actually, it's irrelevant where the teams end up, a single team should not have two home games against another club twice in a season and in your system this could happen fairly regularly.

 

[NoobPie]

You have repeatedly misunderstood his points and you call him slow....

What happens if the top team played the rest of the top 6 all at home during the season? They are now rewarded with 3 homes games in the final 5 games... so they get to play 3 of the top 5 opposition teams at home twice. That's dumb. Actually, it's irrelevant where the teams end up, a single team should not have two home games against another club twice in a season and in your system this could happen fairly regularly.

No, you just don't grasp it either

 

[dylan93]

Just do 5-17 so people don't sook about "finals before finals" and tanking.

 

[JohnZ]

17 games is where it needs to be.

34 with bigger lists, rolling byes throughout the season (36 rounds, 2 byes, 7 or 8 games a round) mandatory caps on games played per player (say 30, so miss 4 games + 2 byes over 36 weeks. Final 4 series over 2 weeks

 

[BringBackTorps]

Can't do that when clubs sell both home only and home & away memberships which do not include your road games. I have brought this up before but a 17-5 has so many holes in it that it would not work, firstly clubs not getting equal amount of home games is the killer and is why it will never happen.

Can you expand, with more details, why you believe the 17-5 system (or similar) has fundamental flaws re selling memberships etc?

I agree with the principle we need to keep the season " interesting" for as many teams as possible, for as long as possible.

Also, the AFL says it cant do a floating fixture ( 4-5 weeks in advance) to ensure the best games (ie top teams) are scheduled on Fri.nights. I recall the AFL saying short notice of fixture times makes it very difficult & expensive for interstate fans who might wish to travel to go to a re-arranged fixture interstate (late booking of airfares can be very expensive etc.); & problems for stadium operators. The NRL, however, did a floating fixture for years -but not now.
Has this issue of the practical problems associated with arranging a new fixture after week 17 been considered in these discussions, by anyone?
(And over to you, NoobPie)

 

[NoobPie]

Can you expand, with more details, why you believe the 17-5 system (or similar) has fundamental flaws re selling memberships etc?

I agree with the principle we need to keep the season " interesting" for as many teams as possible, for as long as possible.

Also, the AFL says it cant do a floating fixture ( 4-5 weeks in advance) to ensure the best games (ie top teams) are scheduled on Fri.nights. I recall the AFL saying short notice of fixture times makes it very difficult & expensive for interstate fans who might wish to travel to go to a re-arranged fixture interstate (late booking of airfares can be very expensive etc.); & problems for stadium operators. The NRL, however, did a floating fixture for years -but not now.
Has this issue of the practical problems associated with arranging a new fixture after week 17 been considered in these discussions, by anyone?
(And over to you, NoobPie)

The floating fixture comes at the cost of having a fixed fixture. It means people would need to plan 2 to 6 weeks ahead rather than ~26 weeks for those games or 1 week for finals. This effects, at the margins, certainty for fans as well as clubs

IMHO the benefits would far far out-way these costs.

It is certainly absurd to say that it has fundamental flaws for selling of memberships.

 

[Taylor]

If the top six are all playing a home final, either hosting a qualifying final/elim final or hosting a semi, what purpose does it serve bashing each other up for a month before the finals when 7th and 8th come in knowing they played 3 or 4 games against sides that have put their guns away for the year?

I'm sure there would be acute complaints about nuances of the system, such as Richmond/Collingwood/Carlton playing all of West Coast, GWS, Sydney, Geelong and Port Adelaide in Melbourne that regular season, now having to play them all away in the last 5 games because of it.

Broadcasters aren't going to enjoy a third of the games each week being completely dead rubbers just so the opposite third are top teams. That would impact foxtel a lot more than 7 who would get to pick and choose which games it cared to show.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

The other thing to keep in mind is the following

- stadium management
- corporate hospitality
- staffing for stadium and hospitality needs
- impacts on VFL, SANFL, WAFL NEAFL fixturing
- TV rights & distribution
- the usual dikheads making their baseless accusations of 'tanking'

 

[NoobPie]

Just want to dispel a fallacy that there is a discreet amount of "intensity" to be had in a season and so introducing 17-5 would just see the home and away and or finals robbed of their intensity. This is almost totally nonsense (beyond the margins)

1. The first 17 will go down to the wire each year (certainly relative to the current home and away season)

In addition to the OP of this season, here is last years hypothetical situation with 2 games to go.



Basically all teams, but for the bottom 3 can improve of lose their current outcomes going in to the next phase. This can be done for each of the years since we've had 18 teams for the same outcome.


2. The 5 phase will see epic contests

I do think though, and this was based on i think Pessimistic 's feedback to an earlier thread, that direct entry to the prelims greatly enhances the relative payoffs in this phase. I think it "muffles" the intensity of this phase to have the top 4 to then go off and play qualifying finals.

3. The finals would be as big as ever. If you qualify straight into prelims / semis you will actually lose a bit of a lull we sometimes get in the second week (like last year) with losing qual finalists hosting. Teams are 1 to 2 wins from a grand final appearance.

Teams already play eachother in the last weeks of the year before the finals. This does not detract at all from the intensity of their finals matches. What does detract is the other teams that get through playing bottom teams that have already put their cue back in the rack

 

[HairyO]

Its a terrible idea. As are all of the ideas around the draw that dont involve either culling teams or having the teams play more games.

 

[BEaston]

No, you just don't grasp it either

Explain the situation I described then.

Are you saying it's impossible for one team in a group to have ended up playing 4 or 5 of the other teams at home in the first 17 games?

 

[NoobPie]

If the top six are all playing a home final, either hosting a qualifying final/elim final or hosting a semi, what purpose does it serve bashing each other up for a month before the finals when 7th and 8th come in knowing they played 3 or 4 games against sides that have put their guns away for the year?

Well, a home qual is better than a home elimination. If you think that teams would be indifferent under such arrangements you'd have to wonder why teams are so desperate to finish top 2 or top 4 now. Under my preferred approach the payoffs are greater again - home prelims at the top 2 and goneski for the team that finishes bottom

I'm sure there would be acute complaints about nuances of the system, such as Richmond/Collingwood/Carlton playing all of West Coast, GWS, Sydney, Geelong and Port Adelaide in Melbourne that regular season, now having to play them all away in the last 5 games because of it.

The home and away would alternate each year. It is so far superior to the status quo it is beyond needing to explain further. The 5 phase is a new phase based on qualification in the first phase. Just like The crows played the Giants in the qual final last year at AO having played them them there in their one H&A match.

Broadcasters aren't going to enjoy a third of the games each week being completely dead rubbers just so the opposite third are top teams. That would impact foxtel a lot more than 7 who would get to pick and choose which games it cared to show.

The key is, is the overall offer superior? If it is than the AFL should be able to negotiate an outcome where both win because the games overall will be far better.

 

[NoobPie]

Its a terrible idea. As are all of the ideas around the draw that dont involve either culling teams or having the teams play more games.

As in, all the feasible ideas?

 

[NoobPie]

Explain the situation I described then.

Are you saying it's impossible for one team in a group to have ended up playing 4 or 5 of the other teams at home in the first 17 games?

No, that is very possible. I'm saying it is just not a problem. It probably seems like a problem if you don't grasp the concept

 

[Taylor]

The home and away would alternate each year. It is so far superior to the status quo it is beyond needing to explain further. The 5 phase is a new phase based on qualification in the first phase. Just like The crows played the Giants in the qual final last year at AO having played them them there in their one H&A match.

There are 2xWA, 2xSA, 2xNSW, 2xQLD teams. There will eventually be a time when a top six Melbourne club has played the other top six teams at home that year so the rest of their five games are away. Five interstate trips in a row before the finals.

It won't be a problem, because all clubs will be interstate every second week or so anyway but a Melbourne club and their supporters will be very upset over it

 

[BEaston]

No, that is very possible. I'm saying it is just not a problem. It probably seems like a problem if you don't grasp the concept

I grasp the concept perfectly you condescending flog. I get it, you think you're being some type of groundbreaking revolutionary here but I guarantee you, you just have an inflated sense of ego.

Having one team play another team twice in the season as the home team is unfair and worse than the current fixture.