Opinion How do we fix the compromised season fixture?

[The Tilt]

Remind me again how many games you would play after the split against teams in your group of 6

Under a 17-5 model, you would play 5 matches.

Under the 17-6 variant, you’d play 6. 5 against the other 5 teams in your group + an additional match against another team based on ladder position (e.g. 1st v 18th 2nd v 17th, 3rd v 16th), delivering a (weak) advantage to teams based on performance in the first 17 rounds.

 

[BomberManU]

It's never going to be 'fair' and I don't have an alternative that really helps, but they need to strip it back a bit.
18 teams, max.
No more bye, that goes on and on and on - get it done over one weekend.
No more 'opening round' nonsense. By all means, NSW/QLD teams have home games to kick off the season, but not stand alone.
No more 'floating fixture'. Why is this even required? Set the fixture and live with it.
No more double ups, on Friday night, at the expense of Sat afternoon.
Better distribution of Fri night games.

 

[HairyO]

Hmmmm, interesting point. Would this diminish the role of the ruckman? Would teams stop playing big, lumbering players and just employ another midfielder to get to the contest quickly?

Definitely keep the clock going. Maybe keep it snappy re: ball up.

They would still make it to a fair few of the ruck contests around the ground because they are generally either where the ball is, or where the ball is going.

And we already see one or 2 other talls who take the ruck duties from time to time.

But it cuts a lot of time where everyone stands around.

 

[Billy ray]

Always schedule a one off game midweek after final round. This is kinda fun

 

[The_Todd07]

Under a 17-5 model, you would play 5 matches.

Under the 17-6 variant, you’d play 6. 5 against the other 5 teams in your group + an additional match against another team based on ladder position (e.g. 1st v 18th 2nd v 17th, 3rd v 16th), delivering a (weak) advantage to teams based on performance in the first 17 rounds.

That extra game is nothing but trouble
Your example would leave the middle group playing each other for a 3rd time while other matchups only happen once.

You could do 1v9, 2v10 and so on but again the middle group is a mess. 7-12 are fighting it out for the last 2 places in the 8 but 7,8,9 get to play the bottom 3 while 10,11,12 play the top 3. That's not solving the problem of an unfair fixture

 

[bzparkes]

Get rid of all the 'marquee' games involving certain clubs, for starters. People will still watch them, no matter who's playing.

Yeah, numbers might drop a bit but the majority of fans won't give 2 shits as it doesn't involve their team.

 

[Hoops]

Exactly. Its so stupid but perfect.
The draw for double ups is done out in the open. It is what it is. Noone can complain. Because it isnt anything but random

But what if you draw teams that you have played away earlier in the year, do you get to play them at home?

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

I’d also like to understand why Geelong gets to play the 3 worst teams in the AFL 4x in 2024 and 4x in 2025, while the Pies only gets to play them 3x in both 2024 and 2025.

Cats have always got it easy.

Avacry

 

[Hoops]

Cut back to 12 teams and a 22 game per club season.

 

[Hoops]

Knowing that above will never be.
I say get rid of Gather Round and have a 22 game season with;
Every club plays every interstate club 10 times (5H & 5A) over 8 years
Every non-Vic club to compete in 2 derbies (1H & 1A) each year
Every Vic club to play every other Vic Club 4 times (2H & 2A) over 3 years

We should also keep the number of clubs at 18 and have 24 rounds with 8 games a round excluding showcase rounds like First round, Easter, Kings Birthday, Indigenous Round, Final Round and another one to make up the numbers which will have all teams playing.

 

[Whiskers]

It’s true Geelong want every home game in Geelong but as a Melbourne based Cat fan I would prefer the old 8 or 9 Geelong games and more at the G. Attending the G is much cheaper aswell.

We should get what we want but because other teams sell games it’ll never happen that way.
Since we are not given every game in Geelong of course the game against Collingwood as our home game is going to be the one at the G to minimise losses.

 

[Andyy]

Always schedule a one off game midweek after final round. This is kinda fun

Only for the wusscakes that are too scared to play in the rain

 

[LordLucifer]

And why is that better than splitting your double up matches relatively evenly across the ladder?

I've gone and looked through all of this thread & all you have done is taken potshots at EVERY idea that has been thrown up regardless of the fact that some of them are actually better than what we have right now.

Instead of being a condescending git, how about you offer up an idea for once ??

 

[moond0g]

20 teams everyone plays each other once.

Alternate who is home each year.

I mean I agree. But it will never happen.

That would mean the AFL would have to priorities fairness over the revenue of the 4/5 extra rounds. Gather round also throws a spanner in the works. e.g., is gather round on top of the 19 other games? If so, I want mine against WCE or North please.

 

[Underarm]

I've gone and looked through all of this thread & all you have done is taken potshots at EVERY idea that has been thrown up regardless of the fact that some of them are actually better than what we have right now.

Instead of being a condescending git, how about you offer up an idea for once ??

If I had an idea that I thought was better than what we've got I'd post it.

Play each team once, and then roughly 2 from each group of 6.

 

[BarbieITFC]

If we assume that the following three things are true then the rest is simply down to choice:

1) The broadcast deal is linked to the number of games, so we are never going back to 23 rounds, let alone less as some are advocating for. Now we've got $2m a year contracts there is no way the AFL can negotiate a smaller broadcast deal.

2) We are not going to feasibly grow the comp to 22-24 teams in the next decade.

3) We are not going to shorten game time enough to enable us to play a 30+ round H&A season

If you accept that these are fixed, then for mine the only fair way to fixture the league is to have a rolling fixture.

Year 1

• Everyone plays every once (I'm assuming we have a 20 team league - so that's 19 games)
• Rivalry round
• Everyone doubles up on another three teams.

Year 2

• Everyone plays every once (I'm assuming we have a 20 team league - so that's 19 games)
• Rivalry round
• Everyone doubles up on a different three teams to year 1.

Repeat for six years and then go back to the Year 1 fixture and start again.

It means over six seasons you will play every team bar your rivals seven times.

Add into that every year you alternate who is the home team and who is the away team - so you always play each other an equal amount of times at each other's home ground.

Schedule the three 'double up rounds' as gather rounds in SA, WA and Tasmania so there's some equity about travel - and intersperse them through the year.

 

[go_the_dockers]

No opening round.
Minimum 4 games at the MCG for all clubs (or even better gets a home grand final)
Thursday and Friday night games are allocated based on ladder last year. (Top 4 gets more games, than bottom 4)
First 17 rounds, every side plays all 17 teams. (Next 6 games can be based on finals position like it currently is)
Next year, the same occurs but the opposite team plays at home.

 

[The Tilt]

That extra game is nothing but trouble
Your example would leave the middle group playing each other for a 3rd time while other matchups only happen once.

You could do 1v9, 2v10 and so on but again the middle group is a mess. 7-12 are fighting it out for the last 2 places in the 8 but 7,8,9 get to play the bottom 3 while 10,11,12 play the top 3. That's not solving the problem of an unfair fixture

Keep in mind, there are any number of versions of a 17-6 model. The one often discussed (and that you have in mind) is where teams are separated into 3 segments of the ladder (1-6, 7-12, 13-18), with teams doubling up against those in their group. Under that version, you obviously couldn’t have the additional match determined by pure reverse order (1v18, 2v17 etc) without causing triple ups for the middle group. Still, the workaround is easy enough:

Additional matchups:
1 v 18
2 v 17
3 v 16
4 v 12
5 v 11
6 v 10
7 v 15
8 v 14
9 v 13

Focusing on the middle group: the top half of that group (7th, 8th and 9th) draw teams from the top of the bottom 6 (15th, 14th and 13th); the bottom half (10th, 11th and 12th) get 6th, 5th and 4th. I mean, it’s kind of uneven in that 12th spot has to double up against whoever is 4th and 7th gets 15th. Then again, that feels like just reward for being five places higher on the ladder after the initial 17 rounds.

That said, I don’t favour the “three separate ladder segments” approach. A better option is something like the following:

Group 1:
1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12

Group 2:
2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11

Group 3:
13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18

Each team gets double ups with others in their group. Teams in group 3 can’t ascend to a higher ladder position than 13th. That aside, the groups are formulated for fixturing purposes only (it doesn’t involve formal conferences with separate ladders or anything of that sort). Note: to demonstrate the evenness of the draw for the top 12 teams, the aggregate of group 1 and 2 (i.e. summing the ladder positions of each) is the same -39!!!
Also, on this version the extra matchup (sixth game) determined by reverse ladder position (at round 17) doesn’t deliver any triple-ups.

The are other options, but you get the idea. It’s a little complicated, but not that complicated. They should be able to produce the fixture for that stanza of games within a couple of hours (or maybe a day) of round 17 ending.

 

[Altum Volantes]

3 year rolling fixture , everyone plays each other, 4 times across the 3 seasons, alternating home and away.

No 'Quirks of the fixture' where teams go 10 years without playing a team at home - if you didn't play there last year, you'll be there the following year and so on.

The league/clubs/TV won't go for it though as it will mean less doubling up of your Coll-Carl/Ess/Richmond, Freo-WCE, Adelaide-Port etc.

The only real benefit is to improve the integrity of the competition which is not actually a priority at all....so here we are.

 

[JackFlash]

I don't think they can while the AFL want two Derby's, Showdowns, Q clashes and Battle of the bridge Sydney games, they also want Collingwood to play Carlton and Essendon twice. We're not reducing games so what is the answer?

 

[Speck]

There is literally only one real way to do this. 18 game season (including Tassie), play everyone once. Within a 4 year period you always play each team at home twice and away twice.

No Gather Round. No "rivalry" double ups.

You can get closer to equitable but you'll never fully get there with all those pieces. The AFL will never shorten the season either.

 

[The_Todd07]

Keep in mind, there are any number of versions of a 17-6 model. The one often discussed (and that you have in mind) is where teams are separated into 3 segments of the ladder (1-6, 7-12, 13-18), with teams doubling up against those in their group. Under that version, you obviously couldn’t have the additional match determined by pure reverse order (1v18, 2v17 etc) without causing triple ups for the middle group. Still, the workaround is easy enough:

Additional matchups:
1 v 18
2 v 17
3 v 16
4 v 12
5 v 11
6 v 10
7 v 15
8 v 14
9 v 13

Focusing on the middle group: the top half of that group (7th, 8th and 9th) draw teams from the top of the bottom 6 (15th, 14th and 13th); the bottom half (10th, 11th and 12th) get 6th, 5th and 4th. I mean, it’s kind of uneven in that 12th spot has to double up against whoever is 4th and 7th gets 15th. Then again, that feels like just reward for being five places higher on the ladder after the initial 17 rounds.

That said, I don’t favour the “three separate ladder segments” approach. A better option is something like the following:

Group 1:
1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12

Group 2:
2, 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11

Group 3:
13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18

Each team gets double ups with others in their group. Teams in group 3 can’t ascend to a higher ladder position than 13th. That aside, the groups are formulated for fixturing purposes only (it doesn’t involve formal conferences with separate ladders or anything of that sort). Note: to demonstrate the evenness of the draw for the top 12 teams, the aggregate of group 1 and 2 (i.e. summing the ladder positions of each) is the same -39!!!
Also, on this version the extra matchup (sixth game) determined by reverse ladder position (at round 17) doesn’t deliver any triple-ups.

The are other options, but you get the idea. It’s a little complicated, but not that complicated. They should be able to produce the fixture for that stanza of games within a couple of hours (or maybe a day) of round 17 ending.

Another big problem I see with all this is Gather Round.

Earlier you stated that it would count as neutral for everyone to give 8 home, 8 away and 1 neutral by round 17.

That isn't how Gather Round has worked for the 3 editions so far.
You've got 2 teams with a home game, 2 with an away game and 14 with neutral games.
Achieving the 8-8-1 split is only possible in one of 2 ways.

1. Gather Round always includes a Showdown. This is the fairest outcome regardless of the fixturing method because why should the SA teams get an extra home game and 2 other get an extra away game
Unfortunately this relies on the AFL to select fairness over money, so that's out.

2. The SA teams and their Gather Round opponents cross over and play at neutral venues. Using this year, Adelaide played Geelong and Port played Hawthorn. Therefore Geelong v Port and Adelaide v Hawthorn now happen somewhere neutral. You could try to bundle it a double header or something but I can't see that being successful unless it always involves certain teams and now we are moving away from fair again.

So Gather Round has its own issue but has to be included for the 17-6 model to even work

You also have the issue you have acknowledged concerning teams hosting the same team twice. There is no way every team can play 3 home - 3 away in the final 6 and grouped with teams they played 3 away and 3 home in the first 17. It just will not happen.

With these issues I don't see the benifit of a 17-6 model at all over what we currently have. It's seems to create more hassle than a few teams getting an easy double up because another team dropped down the ladder

 

[Altum Volantes]

I don't think they can while the AFL want two Derby's, Showdowns, Q clashes and Battle of the bridge Sydney games, they also want Collingwood to play Carlton and Essendon twice. We're not reducing games so what is the answer?

Would it make these games a little more special if they happened 4 times every 3 years instead of 6 times?

They could retain the ANZAC day fixture, just wouldn't be the less interestIng return fixture that everyone forgets about.

They'll never do it unfortunately - the crappy utterly manufactured and uneven fixture we have is the only way they can maximise those games.

Personally, I'd be fine with 1 Derby a year, 2 when we are scheduled to have a return fixture (every 3 seasons) but I know a lot of fans wouldn't like that, the TV wouldn't like it, the clubs would rather they get 1 home Derby each a year, guaranteed and the league want to make sure TV and crowds rise every season.

I think the main thing to remember is that the majority of stakeholders, including the fans, do not care about the integrity of the fixture, at all. Unfortunately.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Could they do the first 17 rounds and then based of standings then do the last 6 rounds evenly?

When it's so close at the top, it just doesnt work

 

[randyzany]

What happens is Geelong request 11 home games at KP and the AFL go well no how about 9 or maybe 10.

And Geelong go well if we have to have 1 or 2 at the MCG can it be against high drawing teams such as Coll so we don't lose as much money.

Yeah, that's how I've understood it's been for many years.