17-5 fixture still on the cards for 2018?

[Underarm]

Would love to know how a different year looks, last year was a bit of an outlier in terms of evenness and the last 5 rounds were great because of it.

 

[Clems Knee]

No it is not. People have asserted that there will be more dead rubbers in the lead up to the end of the 17th round under a 17-5 than there is currently in the lead up to round 22 (23 actually). I demonstrated this is false by comparing the 5 years since we went to 18 teams. Apples with apples to challenge a defined myth.

You demonstrated nothing with your figures. You compared the 5 years since we went to 18 teams with what? The years before we went to 18 teams?
Assuming you were actually trying to gain evidence that there would be fewer dead rubbers in a 17-5(clean slate) system than the current system, you didn't go close to showing that.

Did you make sure that you compared the first 17 unique games (ie a reflection of 17-5) in each year with the last 5 double up games? And did you factor in the chances of dead rubbers towards the end of rounds 1-17 when the position at round 17 would determine the 5 game mini series?
Or did you just look at rounds 15-17 and compare them to rounds 21-23, without any recognition that we currently operate in a very different system? Most or all of the difference is due to the number of games already played - try and compare round 10-12 with 15-17 over the last 5 years - I bet that you will find more live rubbers in the early rounds than the late. It's pretty basic stuff.

Your premise that 17 games is enough to start again with a 5 game de facto final series that somehow is a valid way of determining the positions in the real finals is flawed at best.
17 games with an uneven number of home and always will give a skewed result in the lead up to the 5 mini series.
5 games will be given way too much significance given that teams don't get the chance to play 12 others in this mini series. The chances of a fair distribution of games is both low and critically important, given the increased significance of these 5 games.

I am disappointed that you can't see what is wrong with your thinking. You claim to disprove a myth, but have just shown yourself incapable of clear reasoning.

I'll try to put it in words of few syllables for you.
End of any series has more dead rubbers, because it's almost over.
Splitting a season into two series means dead rubbers towards the end of both series.

I'll just add that shorter series must have fewer dead rubbers, but they are also less valid because of the smaller sample size.

 

[NoobPie]

Doing the same thing with the second group, well, things havent panned out to well for the dearly beloveds and the your dees.



Assuming that the top two qualify, Collingwood and Melbourne are shot and two games involve only one team with "skin in the game". The other is a belter.

 

[NoobPie]

And then with one round left we have our first dead rubber between the hapless pies and dees.

The other 2 games are 8 point games, albeit north and st kilda need the power to beat the dogs (and the saints need them to do so by a hefty margin)

 

[Clems Knee]

I disagree on the first point. I got narky because someone accused me of making shyt up. I'm glad you are amused. That's a consolation for your lack of learning from my insights

The following demonstrates that you indeed made stuff up:

So, there you have it. Once and for all we can put paid to the assertion that the lead up to round 17 will be as bad as or, as some have asserted, worse than the status quo. With 17-5 we get a superior finish to the regular season (in a balanced draw) and far more exciting last five weeks before the finals than the red and brown sludge presented above

Your pretty graphs showed nothing of the sort, yet you made a grand statement that there would be fewer dead rubbers in the lead up to round 17, the 5 games would be balanced somehow. That's making s**t up.

FFS.......*takes breath....ffs...

Teams will play a balanced number of home and away games each year except for Sydney and qld teams who alternate derby. Teams currently get awarded home elimination and qualification finals based on a skewed home and away season

I can't find anywhere where you say that all teams will play 11 home and 11 away games (except the Northern teams) with your 17-5 (clean slate) system or even your 17-5 (8pts in the last 5) system.
You made this s**t up too.

But keep being snarky, or actually try to understand what you are promoting.

 

[HTT]

A few things that may/may not have been discussed
1) Home game distribution. An anomaly of this fixture is that there could be some teams getting 10 home games and others that get 12. To distribute home games in the 17 round phase, I would give 8 home games to each team, plus 1 shared gate rivalry round. Then, in the 5 round phase, I'd simply give the top 3 teams of each pool 3 home games, and the bottom 3 teams 2 home games. I reckon that's a pretty fair distribution

2) Carryover of premiership points. One thing that needs to be decided is whether or not premiership points are carried over. It is my opinion that carrying over all points defeats the purpose of the exercise, but you shouldn't be able to win 5-6 games, sneak into 12th, then dominate the pool stage and end up 7th. I reckon the points should be weighted. If you halved points of the 2016 table after 17 games (admittedly, this isn't a completely accurate reflection, but gives an idea of scaling), there would be 1 game separating 1st from 6th, and 2 games separating 7th from 12th. In 2015, you get 2 and 1/2 respectively, for 2014 it's 1 1/2 each.

 

[NoobPie]

Sorry dude you think you know what your are talking about but you don't.

You demonstrated nothing with your figures. You compared the 5 years since we went to 18 teams with what? The years before we went to 18 teams?
Assuming you were actually trying to gain evidence that there would be fewer dead rubbers in a 17-5(clean slate) system than the current system, you didn't go close to showing that.

Yes I did.

Did you make sure that you compared the first 17 unique games (ie a reflection of 17-5) in each year with the last 5 double up games?

I didn't need to, it is immaterial

And did you factor in the chances of dead rubbers towards the end of rounds 1-17 when the position at round 17 would determine the 5 game mini series?

Yes i did

Or did you just look at rounds 15-17 and compare them to rounds 21-23, without any recognition that we currently operate in a very different system? Most or all of the difference is due to the number of games already played - try and compare round 10-12 with 15-17 over the last 5 years - I bet that you will find more live rubbers in the early rounds than the late. It's pretty basic stuff.

That is correct. The reasons there are far less dead rubbers are
1) There are 5 less rounds for the ladder to "stretch"
2) There are 12 spots at that stage that will see you survive

Going back another 5 rounds would see the ladder tighter still. That would be silly place to stop though as you haven't even completed a single round robin. It is only worthwhile going past a single round robin if you are going to complete another. To do so without is ridiculous when you have brilliant options like 17-5 available. The only reason people are argueing otherwise is classic is-ought thinking

Your premise that 17 games is enough to start again with a 5 game de facto final series that somehow is a valid way of determining the positions in the real finals is flawed at best.
17 games with an uneven number of home and always will give a skewed result in the lead up to the 5 mini series.
5 games will be given way too much significance given that teams don't get the chance to play 12 others in this mini series. The chances of a fair distribution of games is both low and critically important, given the increased significance of these 5 games.

This is incorrect and has been explained to you several times.

I am disappointed that you can't see what is wrong with your thinking. You claim to disprove a myth, but have just shown yourself incapable of clear reasoning.

I'll try to put it in words of few syllables for you.
End of any series has more dead rubbers, because it's almost over.
Splitting a season into two series means dead rubbers towards the end of both series.

You should reserve your disappointment for yourself. There are far less games with at least one team with nothing to play for under 17-5 as I have now clearly demonstrated

If your reasoning doesn't align with the evidence then it is surely your reasoning that is wrong

I'll just add that shorter series must have fewer dead rubbers, but they are also less valid because of the smaller sample size.

Yes and no. They are more valid if the teams in it have been determined by a completed round robin than a 1 and 5/17ths imbalanced round robin

 

[NoobPie]

The following demonstrates that you indeed made stuff up:



Your pretty graphs showed nothing of the sort, yet you made a grand statement that there would be fewer dead rubbers in the lead up to round 17, the 5 games would be balanced somehow. That's making s**t up.



I can't find anywhere where you say that all teams will play 11 home and 11 away games (except the Northern teams) with your 17-5 (clean slate) system or even your 17-5 (8pts in the last 5) system.
You made this s**t up too.

But keep being snarky, or actually try to understand what you are promoting.

No, I haven't claimed all teams will play 11 home games. I've claimed that all teams bar the sydney ann QLD teams play a balanced draw in the first 17 games and that from this balanced draw the home games in the 5 round second phase are determined.

I know very well what I'm "promoting". You are like many of the nay sayers on this thread. Full of hot air but very light on in reason and analysis

 

[Clems Knee]

Sorry dude you think you know what your are talking about but you don't.



Yes I did.


I didn't need to, it is immaterial



Yes i did



That is correct. The reasons there are far less dead rubbers are
1) There are 5 less rounds for the ladder to "stretch"
2) There are 12 spots at that stage that will see you survive

Going back another 5 rounds would see the ladder tighter still. That would be silly place to stop though as you haven't even completed a single round robin. It is only worthwhile going past a single round robin if you are going to complete another. To do so without is ridiculous when you have brilliant options like 17-5 available. The only reason people are argueing otherwise is classic is-ought thinking




This is incorrect and has been explained to you several times.



You should reserve your disappointment for yourself. There are far less games with at least one team with nothing to play for under 17-5 as I have now clearly demonstrated

If your reasoning doesn't align with the evidence then it is surely your reasoning that is wrong



Yes and no. They are more valid if the teams in it have been determined by a completed round robin than a 1 and 5/17ths imbalanced round robin

You say you have explained things multiple times but you haven't. Because you can't. Just because you say you have doesn't mean you have.
The sad thing is that even after all the arguments that have been forward to show you that your system is the stupidest of all stupid systems, you continue with the stupidity.
Every thread on 17-5 systems ends up being another vehicle for you to promote your stupid system. Which means other ideas get no oxygen. It is very frustrating.

 

[Clems Knee]

No, I haven't claimed all teams will play 11 home games. I've claimed that all teams bar the sydney ann QLD teams play a balanced draw in the first 17 games and that from this balanced draw the home games in the 5 round second phase are determined.

I know very well what I'm "promoting". You are like many of the nay sayers on this thread. Full of hot air but very light on in reason and analysis

Mate, you are incapable of reason.
How can you have a balanced draw with an odd number of games?

 

[NoobPie]

A few things that may/may not have been discussed
1) Home game distribution. An anomaly of this fixture is that there could be some teams getting 10 home games and others that get 12. To distribute home games in the 17 round phase, I would give 8 home games to each team, plus 1 shared gate rivalry round. Then, in the 5 round phase, I'd simply give the top 3 teams of each pool 3 home games, and the bottom 3 teams 2 home games. I reckon that's a pretty fair distribution

Brilliant!

2) Carryover of premiership points. One thing that needs to be decided is whether or not premiership points are carried over. It is my opinion that carrying over all points defeats the purpose of the exercise, but you shouldn't be able to win 5-6 games, sneak into 12th, then dominate the pool stage and end up 7th. I reckon the points should be weighted. If you halved points of the 2016 table after 17 games (admittedly, this isn't a completely accurate reflection, but gives an idea of scaling), there would be 1 game separating 1st from 6th, and 2 games separating 7th from 12th. In 2015, you get 2 and 1/2 respectively, for 2014 it's 1 1/2 each.

I went in the other direction (making the second phase 8 point games) as the "carry over points" option

I have increasingly developed a mild to strong preference for the "clean slate" option. I think the principle is that once qualified, if you dominate the pool stage then you are deserving of progression to finals. You have beaten all the other teams aspiring to the position.

 

[NoobPie]

Mate, you are incapable of reason.
How can you have a balanced draw with an odd number of games?

The compromise 18-5 option (which makes it a single round robin plus one...

 

[D-N-R]

...

But none of this answers the question about what happens to the dead rubbers before Round 17.

If, as you say, all points are wiped, then there is little incentive for teams to finish higher. And you can argue they get more home games, but the example teams you have used from last year, 5 of them are Vic teams and 1 is from Adelaide.

Each of those Victorian teams will play 4 games at 'home' (i.e. no travel) and one away - some all 5 games at home with the sole interstate team visiting them. So really, there is little incentive for them to bust a nut before this 'mini-finals' series comes once they are 'safe' in that group of 6. The dead rubbers just get moved to a different part of the season.

There seems to be a lot of angst, too, about these 'dead rubbers'. Some teams, regardless of who they're playing or where they are on the table, will give their all. Some managers think that 'winning form is good form' and will play right up to R22 in this way. It's only been recently that Freo and NM have 'tanked' games before finals and to good effect. Other teams in the bottom half of the table might want to finish the season off well against good opposition. Others play the kids.

Assuming that a game is a dud because one of the teams 'doesn't have skin in it' is a pretty bold claim. Some games are duds because of the teams. You only have to witness the last couple of seasons when Carlton and Richmond had the lion's share of Friday night games - games that were important but were god awful to watch. There are no guarantees.

I understand why you like the concept, but with the changes that need to be made to H&A games and 'sharing' Derbies and the uncertainty fans will have at the start of the season with memberships and teams will have with travel, I don't see it being worth it.

And that brings me to my final point on this topic. How many good games a week do we actually need? By that, I mean, how many games are actually broadcast a week in each market? If only 4 games a week are shown live (which is, I think, how it is in WA), then wouldn't it be better to let the networks adjust their schedule a bit and change a dead-rubber game to one that has a bearing on final 8 positions? Or they could try and get the AFL to schedule games in the last few rounds between teams that are more 'likely' to be playing finals.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Because it is true. There is zero chance that there will be nothing but dead rubbers in the last two rounds in either the middle or top group whatever your finals system. This is another thing you are wrong on and, no doubt once you have been proven so (which I will shortly do oyou the honors yet again - the bill is in the mail), will change tact and make no adjustment to your ironic penchant for calling others idiotic

Of course there's a chance it could happen. If the points carry over from round 17 then the position may already be split. Add another 4 games between each of the teams competing for the same spots (ie "8 point games") and there's every chance positions will be locked by round 21 (game 20).

I never called others idiotic, I said the AFL's suggestion of changing to a 17-5 fixture was idiotic and the worst of any of the potential options.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And here is the first post in a series dismissing the second myth, that the second phase will result in a stack of dead rubbers as teams "settle in to position"

The following has used a fixture and ladder generator to produce a fixture for the second phase of the top group. I have populated the first three rounds with the actual results in the first matches between the teams from 2016

With two games to go you'll notice that everyone can still finish anywhere

View attachment 338402

Going in to round 4, every games is an "8 point game" by the measure I used previously. Of course if a team was undefeated and another team did not have a win, this would not be the case. It would not be a dead rubber as both teams could still move (either up or down)

I'll be back in a tick with the ladder after 4 rounds

Thats assuming
1) The points don't carry over which is highly unlikely to be the case if the AFL adopts this model
2) The results go the way you've predicted which is completely arbitrary

You also haven't accounted for the middle 6 bracket which is more likely to have teams locked out of finals contention and the bottom 6 who have absolutely no reason to turn up and play after round 17.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

that is correct. The reasons there are far less dead rubbers are
1) There are 5 less rounds for the ladder to "stretch"
2) There are 12 spots at that stage that will see you survive

You're advocating a points get wiped system yet are unable to see how there might be many dead rubbers heading into that stage - it's fanciful.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You say you have explained things multiple times but you haven't. Because you can't. Just because you say you have doesn't mean you have.
The sad thing is that even after all the arguments that have been forward to show you that your system is the stupidest of all stupid systems, you continue with the stupidity.
Every thread on 17-5 systems ends up being another vehicle for you to promote your stupid system. Which means other ideas get no oxygen. It is very frustrating.

He's expressed an opinion repeatedly and thinks that counts as analysis. It's not its his opinion. He prefers a 17-5 fixture fair enough that's his prerogative. But it doesn't make it irrefutable evidence of the superiority of that method as he likes to claim over and over.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Easy, a team could be the away team to the same team TWICE in a season under this 17-5 system, something that has never ever happened before, please tell me how that is not a disadvantage.

Example: Geelong for example had home games against Fre, Bris, GC, WCE, NM, Syd, Melb and Rich.
Geelong finishes in the same group as the bolded along with GWS and Adelaide who they played away.
Geelong finished top 3 in their group and are guaranteed 3 home games.
Please tell me who out of Fre, WCE and Syd draws the unlucky short straw and has to travel to KP twice in the same season for the first time in history.

I keep reading from the usual suspect how this 17-5 is a fairer system, i have just shown in 1 example how it is not.

I'm still waiting for a response Seeds or maybe noobpie can answer it

Also i have had a call from the Adelaide Oval trustee's and they are demanding Adelaide and Port Adelaide fulfill their ground agreement of 11 home games each, does that mean the AFL will have to manipulate the last 5 games to get this which in turn will piss off every other club who will demand they also get 11 home games, can't do that under a 17-5 system because you would need 3 teams each who have played 9 and 8 home games landing in each group.

 

[Seeds]

I'm still waiting for a response Seeds or maybe noobpie can answer it

Also i have had a call from the Adelaide Oval trustee's and they are demanding Adelaide and Port Adelaide fulfill their ground agreement of 11 home games each, does that mean the AFL will have to manipulate the last 5 games to get this which in turn will piss off every other club who will dexmand they also get 11 home games, can't do that under a 17-5 system because you would need 3 teams each who have played 9 and 8 home games landing in each group.

And you get that evens out right? If a team plays two games away to one team then they have a net home advantage against the others. This bias is nothing compared to the biases in the current system.

The fact you raise this as an issue suggests you are thinking about the system wrong. Under the 17-5 system the home and away is only 17 rounds. Rounds 18-22 are effectively mini finals. They are different leagues and should not be compared. Do you complain about teams today who play an away game against a team in the home and away and then play an away game against them in a final? Nope I bet it hasn't even crossed your mind.

 

[NoobPie]

You're advocating a points get wiped system yet are unable to see how there might be many dead rubbers heading into that stage - it's fanciful.

No I'm arguing a points get wiped system and have empirically demonstrated that there are not many dead rubbers leading in to that stage.

 

[NoobPie]

I'm still waiting for a response Seeds or maybe noobpie can answer it

Also i have had a call from the Adelaide Oval trustee's and they are demanding Adelaide and Port Adelaide fulfill their ground agreement of 11 home games each, does that mean the AFL will have to manipulate the last 5 games to get this which in turn will piss off every other club who will demand they also get 11 home games, can't do that under a 17-5 system because you would need 3 teams each who have played 9 and 8 home games landing in each group.

What is critical is that:
-the 17 is balanced from year to year (that the teams you played home in that phase one year are the teams you will play away in that phase the next year
-that the determination of home and away games in the second phase are based on a clear set of rules that primarily, if they are to favour some teams over others, are advantageous to the teams that finished higher in the group

I can see that it is a concern held by multiple people that a team could play another team away both in the 17 phase and the 5 phase. It is true that this is unavoidable on occasion without creating other "problems". I think it is certainly debatable that this is a problem at all. A team having to play away twice to the same team over the two phases still has a balanced draw in both over all.

As to the contractual issues, these would need to be renegotiated. I suspect ultimately we will end up with an 18-5 system though with return derbies that would guarantee ever team at least 11 home games

 

[NoobPie]

Of course there's a chance it could happen. If the points carry over from round 17 then the position may already be split. Add another 4 games between each of the teams competing for the same spots (ie "8 point games") and there's every chance positions will be locked by round 21 (game 20).

I never called others idiotic, I said the AFL's suggestion of changing to a 17-5 fixture was idiotic and the worst of any of the potential options.

If points don't carry over then every game in the first 3 rounds will be 8 point games (by the definition I used earlier) and there is no chance that there will be the odd dead rubber in the last two (depending on the "pay offs") in the top and middle groups

If points do carry over than, without actually having done the analysis, there will more chance of dead rubbers in the late rounds than the no carry over option - nobody has disagreed with this.

 

[Hallstrom]

I'd like to see 17-5 at least trialed for a season or two to see if the clubs can "game the system" so to speak.

Most of the detracting points are valid but are not insurmountable.

Uneven home games: I'm sure AFL can pay clubs some sort of compensation if clubs get less home games, membership packages can be easily restructured to allow for the uncertainty, it will possibly mean extra travel for interstate teams but lots of travel for them is the way it is now one extra aint going to make too much difference (and if you're lucky enough could mean less).

Dead rubbers: there are plenty of dead rubbers now but I don't think the new system is going to make it significantly more, this could be helped by using the clean slate but giving higher finishers in each group a premiership point head start. (maybe 1&2 get 8 premiership points, 3&4 get 4 and 5&6 get none). I would also have a wildcard weekend (essentially a top 10 finals with 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 on the bye week before finals)

So is 17-5 perfect, no, far from it, but is it better than what we have now? I'd like to see a trial to find out.

 

[NoobPie]

Good respectful post (Clem and Demonic take note)

But none of this answers the question about what happens to the dead rubbers before Round 17.

If, as you say, all points are wiped, then there is little incentive for teams to finish higher. And you can argue they get more home games, but the example teams you have used from last year, 5 of them are Vic teams and 1 is from Adelaide.

Each of those Victorian teams will play 4 games at 'home' (i.e. no travel) and one away - some all 5 games at home with the sole interstate team visiting them. So really, there is little incentive for them to bust a nut before this 'mini-finals' series comes once they are 'safe' in that group of 6. The dead rubbers just get moved to a different part of the season.

This is true on this example. As it is, it will be uncommon for only one non vic team in a group of 6 (By my calcs the chances are about 1/7 that there would be one or zero vic teams in a group), but that certainly would muffle the advantage of finishing higher or lower. It should be remembered though that teams in the lead up to round 17 cannot be sure of who is in their group. After 15 games GWS were in 7th spot (not the dogs) and after 16 games it was the Eagles)

As it is though most teams can still either go up to the top 6 or down to the bottom 6

In this example, after 15 games, every team can still move




North and the Giants can still go up and the other 4 can still drop out. It is only in the lead up to the hypothetical last round where two teams (North and Port) cannot move



From memory, there were only a couple of years where teams could not mathematically move out their group of 6 (excluding the top 3) before the last round

There seems to be a lot of angst, too, about these 'dead rubbers'. Some teams, regardless of who they're playing or where they are on the table, will give their all. Some managers think that 'winning form is good form' and will play right up to R22 in this way. It's only been recently that Freo and NM have 'tanked' games before finals and to good effect. Other teams in the bottom half of the table might want to finish the season off well against good opposition. Others play the kids.

Assuming that a game is a dud because one of the teams 'doesn't have skin in it' is a pretty bold claim. Some games are duds because of the teams. You only have to witness the last couple of seasons when Carlton and Richmond had the lion's share of Friday night games - games that were important but were god awful to watch. There are no guarantees.

That could be true but I think the system should be designed with an objective to that aims to minimise the number of dead rubbers. Games are can also be crap if both teams have skin in it (ie they both are crap, or perhaps worse, one of the teams are crap).

I understand why you like the concept, but with the changes that need to be made to H&A games and 'sharing' Derbies and the uncertainty fans will have at the start of the season with memberships and teams will have with travel, I don't see it being worth it.

And, as you have identified, this of course where the subjective (either based on what value people place on things or speculation about unknowns). I think the uncertainty in the 5 phase, which will undoubtedly come at financial cost and inconvenience, will overwhelmingly be paid for in spades by a far better finish to the season.

And that brings me to my final point on this topic. How many good games a week do we actually need? By that, I mean, how many games are actually broadcast a week in each market? If only 4 games a week are shown live (which is, I think, how it is in WA), then wouldn't it be better to let the networks adjust their schedule a bit and change a dead-rubber game to one that has a bearing on final 8 positions? Or they could try and get the AFL to schedule games in the last few rounds between teams that are more 'likely' to be playing finals.

I think part of the challenge here is that you are robbing peter (Foxtel) to pay Paul (CH 7). You are also still creating planning uncertainty (presuming the good games need to be moved to prime time) and, finally, if you go through the last rounds of recent seasons you'll find that the interesting games are few and far between.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

And you get that evens out right? If a team plays two games away to one team then they have a net home advantage against the others. This bias is nothing compared to the biases in the current system.

The fact you raise this as an issue suggests you are thinking about the system wrong. Under the 17-5 system the home and away is only 17 rounds. Rounds 18-22 are effectively mini finals. They are different leagues and should not be compared. Do you complain about teams today who play an away game against a team in the home and away and then play an away game against them in a final? Nope I bet it hasn't even crossed your mind.

Do you not think there would be bias under a 17-5 system, holy s**t the AFL would manipulate who plays home and away in the first 17 games and the final five games, if you think they wouldn't then you need to get your head out of the sand.

What is critical is that:
-the 17 is balanced from year to year (that the teams you played home in that phase one year are the teams you will play away in that phase the next year
-that the determination of home and away games in the second phase are based on a clear set of rules that primarily, if they are to favour some teams over others, are advantageous to the teams that finished higher in the group

I can see that it is a concern held by multiple people that a team could play another team away both in the 17 phase and the 5 phase. It is true that this is unavoidable on occasion without creating other "problems". I think it is certainly debatable that this is a problem at all. A team having to play away twice to the same team over the two phases still has a balanced draw in both over all.

As to the contractual issues, these would need to be renegotiated. I suspect ultimately we will end up with an 18-5 system though with return derbies that would guarantee ever team at least 11 home games

Not going to happen in both instances and either will this stupid 17-5 system that has too many flaws.

Do you really think clubs are going to give up current agreements for this system, not a chance in hell.

And if by some fluke this system does get introduced then i'll bet it is scrapped after just 1 season and we revert back to the current system which is fine but with just a few adjustments.

Memberships would need to be re modelled for all clubs, home game, home and away games, reserved seating, coterie groups etc it goes on and on, there is more to it than just the fixture.

1. All marquee games that involve the same 2 clubs year in year out are scrapped and shared around.
2. A club never plays more than 2 home games in a row against another club.
3. A clubs twice games change every year and in instances off unavoidability, a club never plays more than 2 seasons against the same opponent twice in a season which means local derbies played twice in a season stop.