17-5 fixture still on the cards for 2018?

[MWPP]

A radical fixture overhaul remains on the AFL's agenda after it was revealed a working party met in late January to discuss the logistics of moving to a 17-5 fixture model in 2018.

The 17-5 model would see all 18 teams play each other once in the first 17 rounds before the League is broken into three groups of six for five weeks of playoff rounds.

The top six teams would play for top-four spots, the middle six teams play for seventh and eighth spot, and the bottom six would play to determine the draft order.

It's come under consideration as the AFL examines ways to keep the season alive for all teams for as long as possible.

http://www.westcoasteagles.com.au/news/2017-02-08/fixture-shakeup-on-the-cards
I prefer it to the current fixture , as long as the first 17 games are broken down into 8 home, 8 away and 1 *derby*
A 34 round fixture would be ideal, but practically, it's a pipe-dream
Mods feel free to merge with an existing thread if preferred (as I know this idea crops up a lot- but it usually isn't from an official source!)

 

[LittleG]

How about we just have 17 rounds? Shorter season, more excitement per game and an even draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bokonon_]

Works for me.
The Swans dont seem to be as keen to play us twice as they have in previous years though.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

How about we just have 17 rounds? Shorter season, more excitement per game and an even draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TV Rights.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Shorter fixture is my preferred option

Cut it back to 20 games

22 games a bit too long and pointless towards the end

 

[Kram]

18 rounds, play each other once plus a rivalry round.

Less games will never happen though.

 

[00Stinger]

17 & 5 is so stupid, I can't believe the AFL are actually considering this.

But then again this is the same organisation that thought 3 interchange and 1 sub was a good idea or have goal line replays without the correct equipment to be able to definately make the correct call

 

[MWPP]

How about we just have 17 rounds? Shorter season, more excitement per game and an even draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No arguments from me. But unfortunately $$$ means it won't happen.
As with the 17-5 model, the unequal number of home v. away games could be mitigated by the derby game being a *neutral* /*gate-share* game (like finals)
A 34 round season would be perfect
A 30 round season (when it was still 16 teams) would've been more achievable though

 

[wal]

This is very good. Only thing i don't like is it is theoretically possible for a club to end up with only 8 home games, unlikely but it
is highly probable to finish with only 10 home games.
Not really a problem for supporters of Victorian clubs supporters, but is for supporters of interstate clubs, especially the WA clubs.

 

[The Punter]

The "derby" option for evening the home and away games may work for the first 17 games, but what happens when Gold Coast, Geelong, Sydney, Adelaide, West Coast and Hawthorn all finish in the same group of six on the ladder?

This. Is. Unworkable.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

18 rounds, play each other once plus a rivalry round.

Less games will never happen though.

Season is short as it is. I'm bored for to long.

 

[RUNVS]

I have no problem with the 17-5 format to be honest as it means having 3 big games every week for the last 5 rounds. It also means getting to see the bad clubs play each other a lot which is reasonably interesting as well. It stops 17th from playing 1st and 1st needing a percentage boost so they really put their foot on the 17th teams neck. That is never interesting to watch.

 

[MWPP]

The "derby" option for evening the home and away games may work for the first 17 games, but what happens when Gold Coast, Geelong, Sydney, Adelaide, West Coast and Hawthorn all finish in the same group of six on the ladder?

This. Is. Unworkable.

That would be great actually as it means everyone in the group travels to an almost equal extent over that period. It would be worse if eg there were 5 victorian sides and 1 non-vic side (as half of the victorian sides would avoid having to travel at all, whilst the non vic side might end up with only 2 home games over that period)

This is very good. Only thing i don't like is it is theoretically possible for a club to end up with only 8 home games, unlikely but it
is highly probable to finish with only 10 home games.
Not really a problem for supporters of Victorian clubs supporters, but is for supporters of interstate clubs, especially the WA clubs.

As an Eagles fan I see your point, but in the name of fairness, I would prefer to reward teams who finished higher within each group with the extra home game ,even if it means my team might only end up with 10 home games + 1 derby (instead of 11 home games +1 derby)

 

[Dr Tigris]

In some ways it is a great system. Keeps interest alive as big important games are guaranteed at the end of the season.
But it is also inherently unfair. You can easily end up with 'wrong' home game numbers (10 or 12). Also teams on the cusp - e.g. 6 and 7 - will get very different end of year fixtures. You'd want to be 7th and not 6th after 17 rounds. A late season charge could easily happen purely due to ladder position. It isn't hard to imagine a packed ladder and a team being 7th by % and then winning the last 5 games to rocket into the top 4. Dodgy.

 

[MWPP]

It isn't hard to imagine a packed ladder and a team being 7th by % and then winning the last 5 games to rocket into the top 4. Dodgy.

I assumed 7th wouldn't be able to overtake anyone in the top 6 and would simply be playing for 7th/8th spot (along with the rest of the teams in that group) , but who knows what the AFL will end up doing haha

 

[schmuttt]

I assumed 7th wouldn't be able to overtake anyone in the top 6 and would simply be playing for 7th/8th spot (along with the rest of the teams in that group) , but who knows what the AFL will end up doing haha

You'd have to do it that way, would be grossly unfair otherwise.

 

[chiwigi]

Season is short as it is. I'm bored for to long.

The season is ridiculously short, 22 games is not enough, habe the GF in November and even out the fixture.

 

[MWPP]

You'd have to do it that way, would be grossly unfair otherwise.

Agreed, but as the AFL don't seem to be *primarily* motivated by fairness , we'll have to wait and see

 

[Ressies runner]

Increase the playing list size and play 34 games, player management would be the crucial deal in that senario

 

[RUNVS]

In some ways it is a great system. Keeps interest alive as big important games are guaranteed at the end of the season.
But it is also inherently unfair. You can easily end up with 'wrong' home game numbers (10 or 12). Also teams on the cusp - e.g. 6 and 7 - will get very different end of year fixtures. You'd want to be 7th and not 6th after 17 rounds. A late season charge could easily happen purely due to ladder position. It isn't hard to imagine a packed ladder and a team being 7th by % and then winning the last 5 games to rocket into the top 4. Dodgy.

I could be wrong but I don't think that is how it works. I think when the competition is split up into 3 groups

Group 1
1st to 6th

Group 2
7th to 12th

Group 3
13th to 18th

that it is not possible to move out of those groups. So the worst a team in group 1 can finish after 22 rounds is 6th, while the best a team that is in group 2 can finish is 7th.

 

[adammania9]

The season is ridiculously short, 22 games is not enough, habe the GF in November and even out the fixture.

Are the players getting a break at all? 22 games is pretty bang on I think, 20 minimum, 24 maximum for a H&A season.

 

[chiwigi]

Are the players getting a break at all? 22 games is pretty bang on I think, 20 minimum, 24 maximum for a H&A season.

Rotate the squads and create a reserves league, we have players not getting a game for three to four years!

 

[Underarm]

There are a few issues with this plan.
1. Some teams will get only 10 home games, other 12. This affects all clubs and their deals with each stadium.
2. Some clubs will still get better fixtures than others. Certain clubs will still travel less to Perth than others for example.
3. The AFL will be fixturing games 6 days before they occur, which does affect crowds.
4. Whilst you get 3 high profile games each week, the bottom 3rd will get significantly lower crowds, and lower quality games than before. The system means more matches where weak teams are both trying to lose.
5. Any awards will likely be affected based on the quality of opposition. top 6 teams might monopolise the AA team, A bottom 6 team would more likely do well in Brownlow in the last 5 matches.
6. It IMPROVES the chances of the teams in 6th, 7th and 8th playing dead rubbers at the end of the season.

But aside from these issues, I think the fixture can create exciting finishes to the season without trying to manufacture it. Last year was amazing. the Richmond comeback in 2014 was incredible, and this season threatens the ability of both those finishes from happening.

 

[Sherrinator]

How about we just have 17 rounds? Shorter season, more excitement per game and an even draw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn't be bad. I'm usually sick of it by round 10.

 

[adammania9]

Rotate the squads and create a reserves league, we have players not getting a game for three to four years!

If they're good enough, they'll get a game. More games and larger lists makes lower quality footy and a lot more dead rubbers. I don't like.