Fixture 2026 Fixture Discussion

[lachy]

It is simply a final 10 with a different format for the first week before reverting to the final 8 format for the last 4 weeks. Clearly done for TV revenue and broadcasting rights.

Personally not a fan but can't stand Thursday night football which is also a broadcasting rights thing being spruiked by the AFL as something supporters want, when clearly by attendances they do not, like the floating fixture after round 15. Broadcast rights fund the game so of course they have a major influence, round 0 being another case in point.

I still hate the stand rule followed by the interpretation of restrictive space and the associated penalties more than this change, in fact most changes Hocking brought in as they negatively impacted the playing of the game itself.

Reality is we still need to aim for top 4, with top 6 being acceptable now not top 8.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Not surprising the AFL keeps f***ing up the game more and more with every decision they make. The current head honcho is useless, has no feel for the game, is probably utterly compromised by the broadcasters, has the personality of a dung beetle, but has a host of "connections", including by marriage. I suspect someone at Corio has compromising photos of him too, given appointments under his tenure.

Mick Warner needs an updated edition of his book, or possibly a sequel....

 

[Guido]

From 1931 to 1971 there was just a final four (Page-McIntyre system) in a 12 team competition. That's 33% of the teams making the finals. But of course that was pre-TV for the first 25 years and only grainy B&W TV for the rest of its duration. The comp was popular but largely uncommercialised. It was unrecognisable compared to today's slick presentation from which a large portion of the AFL's revenue comes via TV & streaming rights.

From 1972 to 1990 (the year the AFL was formed) it was a top 5 system which for most of that time was 5/12ths or 42% of the teams. West Coast and Brisbane joined for the last few years of that era so it was briefly back to only 35% of teams.

Then from 1991 to 1993 it was a final six but Adelaide had joined as part of the national expansion. So it was 6/15 or 40% of teams.

From 1994 to 2025 it has been a final 8 as the competition has steadily increased.
1994 - 15 teams - 53%
1995 - 16 teams - 50% (Fitzroy exited after the 1996 season but Port Adelaide replaced them)
2011 - 17 teams - 47%
2012 - 18 teams - 44%
In 2026 it looks like it's going to be a final 10 out of 18 teams (56%) but reducing slightly to 53% when Tasmania joins the comp.

So in half a century since 1972 it has been 40% or more except for a few short years as the expansion was taking off in the late 1980s.


(I had tried to post a much longer response but for some reason I kept getting the Oops! error message)

I understand that it's been much more cut throat over the journey, but my question was, for those who remember, was there so much uproar when a similar change happened and over 50% teams qualified for finals in 1994?

If the argument/fan anger is against rewarding mediocrity, would a move to a final 6 over the weekend (rather than a final 10) have been celebrated? Or would there have been similar uproar at that change, despite it being a clear move away from rewarding mediocrity?

 

[lachy]

I understand that it's been much more cut throat over the journey, but my question was, for those who remember, was there so much uproar when a similar change happened and over 50% teams qualified for finals in 1994?

If the argument/fan anger is against rewarding mediocrity, would a move to a final 6 over the weekend (rather than a final 10) have been celebrated? Or would there have been similar uproar at that change, despite it being a clear move away from rewarding mediocrity?

Most of the uproar was how the original final 8 worked, particularly after 1997 when the 5th placed Crows lost the first final yet won the flag

 

[dogwatch]

I understand that it's been much more cut throat over the journey, but my question was, for those who remember, was there so much uproar when a similar change happened and over 50% teams qualified for finals in 1994?

If the argument/fan anger is against rewarding mediocrity, would a move to a final 6 over the weekend (rather than a final 10) have been celebrated? Or would there have been similar uproar at that change, despite it being a clear move away from rewarding mediocrity?

Yes I did try to answer your question specifically but my longish post repeatedly failed to load. So I cut it down. The first bit loaded but the rest still wouldn’t load. I’ll try again.

EDIT: Nope, it still won't load. No graphics, nothing offensive in it. No idea why.

 

[dogwatch]

Here we go Guido

(Part 2)

Fan reactions
My recollection is that nobody apart from a few die-hard traditionalists minded the introduction of the final five system in 1972. And the final six (up to 1993) was a logical step when the expansion was happening. So no complaints there.

There were certainly a few eyebrows raised when the final 8 system was introduced (my own among them). It was seen by a lot of people as a cynical grab for more finals revenue. That's been the defining theme of the AFL era, after all.

But it's important to understand that while the competition size was only growing very gradually, the introduction of colour TV, progressively more sophisticated broadcast technologies and production techniques, and the arrival of the internet and streaming has meant that the commercialisation of footy as a consumer product was growing exponentially. The changes to the finals system need to be seen in this context.

 

[dogwatch]

(Part 3) I'm breaking it into smaller and smaller chunks to see what won't load!

There was also a lot of turmoil in the footy industry for a decade from around the time of Footscray's Fightback right through the period of mooted mergers. Apart from Footscray-Fitzroy there was also a strong push for a Melbourne-Hawthorn merger for a year or two, and I think maybe even one involving Richmond (?) This and the national expansion was all part of the backdrop to the changing finals systems. This turmoil and commercialisation was also a key factor in the introduction of equalisation mechanisms (mainly the draft & salary cap). The TV networks could no longer tolerate non-competitive fixtures if they wanted viewers to keep watching. And the AFL didn't want financial basket cases of clubs creating uncertainty while they were trying to negotiate the next big payday from TV rights.

 

[dogwatch]

(Part 4)

So giving clubs more chance of making the finals made a lot of sense. Under a final 8 system it wasn't just that more clubs played finals and there were more of those viewer-grabbing finals matches played every year. It was also that more clubs - and importantly their fans - thought they had a chance of playing finals right up to the middle of August. Previously - let's take 1980 as a random example - there would be four clubs (Melbourne, Footscray, StKilda, Fitzroy in this example) who won no more than 5 of their 22 H&A games. So their supporters knew by about June they were not going to make the finals. That's a third of the clubs whose fans would stop going to matches half way through the season. Who would be switching off their TV sets when the replays or live matches were broadcast. That's not good for the TV business and not good for the AFL's revenue stream.

 

[dogwatch]

(Part 5)

<redacted bit ... it said something to the effect of "we quickly got used to the idea of a final 8, despite the concerns lachy raised about the mechanics of it. They got fixed in 2000.">

Now back to the future
Even though the new proportion in 2026 will rise to only 56% (not much more than in 1994), once again the AFL has upset the traditionalists with its move to 10/18 in the finals. Once again it is seen (correctly) as a grab for more revenue and sustained interest in the outcomes of matches right up to August.

But surely we'll come to terms with it quickly, yeah?
I don't think so.

What is different this time is that in my view the finals system is already at peak carrying capacity. It can't accommodate expansion and continue to work as a viable system for the clubs in its lower reaches.

While clubs in the top 4 have won most of the premierships since 1994 as you'd expect, there were enough instances every few years of clubs that finished 5th-8th either winning a flag or at least making a Grand Final that they gave every finalist some realistic hope each year.

However now I fear the AFL has killed the golden-egg laying goose. As many have pointed out the challenge for a club finishing 7th-10th is to win 5 finals in a row and do that without the benefit of a bye that higher placed teams will get. I hope I'm wrong but it just seems an impossible task. Another angle is that the 9th and 10th placed teams would in most cases be too far off the standard of the top 4 to be competitive, even if they were to be given an equitable finals draw (which they won't). You couldn't say that with a final 6, or even a final 8 in most years.

So in terms of the competition all this does is hold out hope for the mid-tier teams in the league to get a consolation prize for trying. It all but kills off the slender hope of a flag that the 7th and 8th teams used to have.

On the other hand it ticks off all the boxes for the commercial networks and streaming services.

Is there a viable alternative?

I can think of two ways that might make an increased number of finals teams (or at least an increased number of highly anticipated games) more meaningful, while still achieving the commercial benefits:

1. Develop some sort of additional title or trophy that is genuinely valued and competed for by all clubs and their fans. I'm thinking along the lines of English soccer which has the EPL as its premier competition, but also has the League Cup and the FA Cup as highly sought after trophies. I can't provide any solid proposal at this point but it's worth contemplating if it can be traded off against having a dysfunctional top 10 system.​

​

2. A much maligned idea, for reasons I've never really got*, is to have two conferences. When we get to 20 teams they would become two conferences of 10, each with a top 4 or 5 - or hell - even a top 6 if you want to be extravagant. The resulting top two (after a few intra-conference finals) in each conference could then play off in some format (there are various options). A subsidiary benefit is that there's a certain amount of prestige in being a conference winner - it could be enhanced with a nice trophy and some fanfare. It's more silverware in the cabinet after all. But the main benefit is that the finals could be spun out over as much as two months if they want, with more finals matches than the currently proposed top 10.​

​

* One criticism is that Conferences would become stale or unbalanced due to a fixed composition - I don't agree at all. They could change the mix of clubs every year if they like, although there may be some appealing geographical practicalities - eg Fremantle and WC might be in the same conference together for most years. Same with GC and Brisbane.​

 

[dogwatch]

[Weird. There was one small innocuous paragraph that wouldn't load. I even retyped it in case there was an undisplayed control character. Still wouldn't load.]

 

[nnuckzz]

Has anything been announced for Ballarat games next year?

 

[lachy]

(Part 5)

<redacted bit ... it said something to the effect of "we quickly got used to the idea of a final 8, despite the concerns lachy raised about the mechanics of it. They got fixed in 2000.">

Now back to the future
Even though the new proportion in 2026 will rise to only 56% (not much more than in 1994), once again the AFL has upset the traditionalists with its move to 10/18 in the finals. Once again it is seen (correctly) as a grab for more revenue and sustained interest in the outcomes of matches right up to August.

But surely we'll come to terms with it quickly, yeah?
I don't think so.

What is different this time is that in my view the finals system is already at peak carrying capacity. It can't accommodate expansion and continue to work as a viable system for the clubs in its lower reaches.

While clubs in the top 4 have won most of the premierships since 1994 as you'd expect, there were enough instances every few years of clubs that finished 5th-8th either winning a flag or at least making a Grand Final that they gave every finalist some realistic hope each year.

However now I fear the AFL has killed the golden-egg laying goose. As many have pointed out the challenge for a club finishing 7th-10th is to win 5 finals in a row and do that without the benefit of a bye that higher placed teams will get. I hope I'm wrong but it just seems an impossible task. Another angle is that the 9th and 10th placed teams would in most cases be too far off the standard of the top 4 to be competitive, even if they were to be given an equitable finals draw (which they won't). You couldn't say that with a final 6, or even a final 8 in most years.

So in terms of the competition all this does is hold out hope for the mid-tier teams in the league to get a consolation prize for trying. It all but kills off the slender hope of a flag that the 7th and 8th teams used to have.

On the other hand it ticks off all the boxes for the commercial networks and streaming services.

Is there a viable alternative?

I can think of two ways that might make an increased number of finals teams (or at least an increased number of highly anticipated games) more meaningful, while still achieving the commercial benefits:

1. Develop some sort of additional title or trophy that is genuinely valued and competed for by all clubs and their fans. I'm thinking along the lines of English soccer which has the EPL as its premier competition, but also has the League Cup and the FA Cup as highly sought after trophies. I can't provide any solid proposal at this point but it's worth contemplating if it can be traded off against having a dysfunctional top 10 system.​

​

2. A much maligned idea, for reasons I've never really got*, is to have two conferences. When we get to 20 teams they would become two conferences of 10, each with a top 4 or 5 - or hell - even a top 6 if you want to be extravagant. The resulting top two (after a few intra-conference finals) in each conference could then play off in some format (there are various options). A subsidiary benefit is that there's a certain amount of prestige in being a conference winner - it could be enhanced with a nice trophy and some fanfare. It's more silverware in the cabinet after all. But the main benefit is that the finals could be spun out over as much as two months if they want, with more finals matches than the currently proposed top 10.​

​

* One criticism is that Conferences would become stale or unbalanced due to a fixed composition - I don't agree at all. They could change the mix of clubs every year if they like, although there may be some appealing geographical practicalities - eg Fremantle and WC might be in the same conference together for most years. Same with GC and Brisbane.​

Excellent summation Dogwatch.

All alternatives are flawed, however a conference system does provide an element of fairness and opportunity and can be reset each year particularly when a 20 team competition comes into play (an abridged version for 19 teams)

2 conference of 10 teams each set each year so it does not get stale. Each team plays each home and away and have gather round. Two final 5s, where you can start switching through conferences or have the winner of each conference play off for the Grand Final. Provides more content for TV and some modicum of fairness. By adjusting the conferences each year you reduce the likely hood of one dominant conference whilst still catering for 2 team state rivalries.

 

[ossie_21]

Has anything been announced for Ballarat games next year?

Won’t be until the fixtures are out on Thursday

 

[Bulldog Brent]

Playing Bombers Easter Sunday.

 

[WAbulldog]

Playing Bombers Easter Sunday.

Night fixture?

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Playing Bombers Easter Sunday.

Anzac day is a Saturday in 2026 so can get away with it this year

 

[Guido]

Anzac day is a Saturday in 2026 so can get away with it this year

With sufficient clearance to Anzac Day most seasons, I think we can get away with it for 22 out of the next 25 years!



On FTA and being early season (both team's still in finals contention), I think TV ratings will take care of themselves.

If the crowd is 45k plus next year, I think we should be locking Easter Sunday night vs Essendon as our permanent blockbuster.

 

[Libbaaaa]

With sufficient clearance to Anzac Day most seasons, I think we can get away with it for 22 out of the next 25 years!

View attachment 2474935

On FTA and being early season (both team's still in finals contention), I think TV ratings will take care of themselves.

If the crowd is 45k plus next year, I think we should be locking Easter Sunday night vs Essendon as our permanent blockbuster.

Will get 45k easy, Bombers fans while delusional still rock up.

 

[grassman75]

Will get 45k easy, Bombers fans while delusional still rock up.

I thought they were dumping them from prime time

 

[Libbaaaa]

I thought they were dumping them from prime time

Thursday/Friday yes.

 

[Bulldog Brent]

Confirmed - no Ballarat games in 2026.

 

[Libbaaaa]

3 preseason games will be played there (I assume not all by us) to make up for it.

 

[Doggy]

Confirmed - no Ballarat games in 2026.

Crap result. We are more likely to win there and losing these games makes it harder.

 

[Mofra]

Confirmed - no Ballarat games in 2026.

Disappointing

 

[Libbaaaa]

Confirmed - no Ballarat games in 2026.

We were probably due to play Gold Coast down there this year which would have been handy.