17-5 fixture still on the cards for 2018?

[FootyGeek]

An extra 2 home games might be 8 points won or lost. That's substantial, too. WCE are stronger at home than away, without doubt, and playing 12 home games would be better than 10.

You are correct with regards to who plays whom and groups being lopsided. That is why I have advocated a system which seeds the groups so they are more or less balanced - not strong, medium or weak, but a mix of the three. This has to be done before the season starts, though, to balance the H&A matches.

This 17-5 system isn't about fairness - that is not the rationale behind the proposed change - it is about ratings and money and making the last 5 games super exciting. Money, ratings and blockbusters is, ironically, how the current system is set up and why it is unfair and unbalanced. It is unfair because the AFL want to manipulate the teams and match-ups. Removing the unseen hand of the AFL from the process is what needs to happen to make things 'fair'.

Seeding is meaningless season to season. Teams go up and down the ladder every year.

Playing 17 games where every team plays each other once and every team is within one home game of each other is the second most fair system compared to the 34 game season.

The home game advantage/disadvantage you talk about is real, but the magnitude of it is much less than the unfair 22 game season where 5 random game can realistically mean a 12 point difference, in extreme examples can mean a 20 point difference in the ladder all on the whim of the 5 random games each season throws up.

Yes 17-5 is not perfect.

But as Winston Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

 

[FootyGeek]

Which 17-5?

Any of them. They are all superior in fairness to the lopsided 22 round season.

 

[Clems Knee]

Any of them. They are all superior in fairness to the lopsided 22 round season.

Really? So if Carlton gets 8 home games (travelling four or five times) and manages to finish 6th at the end of the 17 by winning 10 games then gets 5 away games to interstate teams (who made up the rest of the top 6), you would be okay with that?
Meanwhile a team finishing in 12th position with 4 wins after 17 rounds could leapfrog Carlton and get into the Finals, while Carlton end their season at Round 22.
That is not superior in fairness; it's far worse and more lopsided than what we currently have.

I do agree that what we have now is not fair enough. When Gold Coast and GWS were starting out (and easybeats), certain teams got to play them twice (cough Adelaide cough) while others never did (well until GWS came good). Since those teams have matured, that disparity is not as great, and teams appear to be getting more even. And the AFL is at least trying to match teamsbased on the previous years ladder. So now it's travel that is least fair.

At the moment there are no rules stipulating an evenness in travel arrangements. There is nothing stopping a situation where one Victorian team travels twice to Perth in one year, while others don't travel to Perth at all.

At the very least the 17 unique games need to be allocated fairly. Each Victorian team should travel to Perth, Sydney, Queensland and Adelaide once, and host a non-Victorian team once.

If you want fairness in the remaining 5 games, you need to consider travel and closeness on the ladder as well as trying to increase spectator interest in the last few games. Many of the 17-5 ideas don't do that.

 

[D-N-R]

Seeding is meaningless season to season. Teams go up and down the ladder every year.

Playing 17 games where every team plays each other once and every team is within one home game of each other is the second most fair system compared to the 34 game season.

The home game advantage/disadvantage you talk about is real, but the magnitude of it is much less than the unfair 22 game season where 5 random game can realistically mean a 12 point difference, in extreme examples can mean a 20 point difference in the ladder all on the whim of the 5 random games each season throws up.

Yes 17-5 is not perfect.

But as Winston Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

There is no point in discussing this with you. If you can't see that teams playing unequal H&A games is unfair then there is no point.

 

[FootyGeek]

There is no point in discussing this with you. If you can't see that teams playing unequal H&A games is unfair then there is no point.

Fairness is relative. If you can read. a 22 round season is less fair than a 17-5 season. Despite home games.

 

[FootyGeek]

Really? So if Carlton gets 8 home games (travelling four or five times) and manages to finish 6th at the end of the 17 by winning 10 games then gets 5 away games to interstate teams (who made up the rest of the top 6), you would be okay with that?
Meanwhile a team finishing in 12th position with 4 wins after 17 rounds could leapfrog Carlton and get into the Finals, while Carlton end their season at Round 22.
That is not superior in fairness; it's far worse and more lopsided than what we currently have.

I do agree that what we have now is not fair enough. When Gold Coast and GWS were starting out (and easybeats), certain teams got to play them twice (cough Adelaide cough) while others never did (well until GWS came good). Since those teams have matured, that disparity is not as great, and teams appear to be getting more even. And the AFL is at least trying to match teamsbased on the previous years ladder. So now it's travel that is least fair.

At the moment there are no rules stipulating an evenness in travel arrangements. There is nothing stopping a situation where one Victorian team travels twice to Perth in one year, while others don't travel to Perth at all.

At the very least the 17 unique games need to be allocated fairly. Each Victorian team should travel to Perth, Sydney, Queensland and Adelaide once, and host a non-Victorian team once.

If you want fairness in the remaining 5 games, you need to consider travel and closeness on the ladder as well as trying to increase spectator interest in the last few games. Many of the 17-5 ideas don't do that.

You bloviate for nothing.

17 games where everyone plays everyone else once is much much fairer than a season where we do this same thing, then add 5 random games on top of it to call it a season.

 

[Clems Knee]

You bloviate for nothing.

17 games where everyone plays everyone else once is much much fairer than a season where we do this same thing, then add 5 random games on top of it to call it a season.

Bloviate? I had to look it up. * you.

Do you want a 17 game season or a 17-5 season?

We have never had 5 random games to top it up. In the past, some teams always benefitted from the supposedly random allocation.
Since the intro of guidelines, the previous years performance determines the allocation.

 

[D-N-R]

Fairness is relative. If you can read. a 22 round season is less fair than a 17-5 season. Despite home games.

A 22 round season is a17-5 season. The unfairness or fairness is in how those 5 are selected.

If the draw came out and it transpired that Carlton had only 10 home games and had to travel away to WA twice to play the Eagles, any right-thinking person would think that this was unfair. If 6 teams had 10 home games, 6 had 12 and the rest 11 and 11, the AFL would be crucified, and rightly so.

Yet this is a real possibility in the system that you are proposing, almost a certainty every year, in fact. Many teams will miss out on home games in this system and those home games will be given to their opponents. Double whammy.

 

[NoobPie]

A 22 round season is a17-5 season. The unfairness or fairness is in how those 5 are selected.

If the draw came out and it transpired that Carlton had only 10 home games and had to travel away to WA twice to play the Eagles, any right-thinking person would think that this was unfair. If 6 teams had 10 home games, 6 had 12 and the rest 11 and 11, the AFL would be crucified, and rightly so.

Yet this is a real possibility in the system that you are proposing, almost a certainty every year, in fact. Many teams will miss out on home games in this system and those home games will be given to their opponents. Double whammy.

But 17-5 provides a balanced draw in the 17 every year except for the northern teams that would need to alternate derbies. This then decides who gets 3 or 2 home games in the second phase - analogous to teams getting home finals. Right now teams get 13 home games and 11 away if they finish top 2 and win their final.

Where the home game thing is an issue is more on the financial / members needs side. This is why I suspect we'll end up with 18-5 and all teams will play 9 home games with return derbies. A marginal compromise on draw balance but at least predictable and non manipulable

 

[Clems Knee]

But 17-5 provides a balanced draw in the 17 every year except for the northern teams that would need to alternate derbies. This then decides who gets 3 or 2 home games in the second phase - analogous to teams getting home finals. Right now teams get 13 home games and 11 away if they finish top 2 and win their final.

Where the home game thing is an issue is more on the financial / members needs side. This is why I suspect we'll end up with 18-5 and all teams will play 9 home games with return derbies. A marginal compromise on draw balance but at least predictable and non manipulable

Be clear which 17-5 or 18-5 fixture you are talking about. Because yours is just one of many.

 

[NoobPie]

Be clear which 17-5 or 18-5 fixture you are talking about. Because yours is just one of many.

What? It's very clear from my post which "17-5 or 18-5 fixture" I'm talking about. The details in the first paragraph clearly identifies it.

Besides, I will keep using 17-5 to describe the system where a whole of League single round robin determines and is followed by 3 6 team single round robins. If people want to use "17-5" to describe 22 round seasons where you play 5 teams twice (aka lip stick on a pig options), good luck to them

 

[Clems Knee]

What? It's very clear from my post which "17-5 or 18-5 fixture" I'm talking about. The details in the first paragraph clearly identifies it.

Besides, I will keep using 17-5 to describe the system where a whole of League single round robin determines and is followed by 3 6 team single round robins. If people want to use "17-5" to describe 22 round seasons where you play 5 teams twice (aka lip stick on a pig options), good luck to them

You are therefore deliberately obfuscating every thread you post on. Because by calling your method(s) 17-5 you are implying that that method is the only 17-5 method that has been suggested.

It wouldn't hurt you to differentiate. Eg start with "my 17-5" or "17-5 clean slate".

 

[FootyJunkie]

17 - 5 = 12

 

[Slax]

A 22 round season is a17-5 season. The unfairness or fairness is in how those 5 are selected.

If the draw came out and it transpired that Carlton had only 10 home games and had to travel away to WA twice to play the Eagles, any right-thinking person would think that this was unfair. If 6 teams had 10 home games, 6 had 12 and the rest 11 and 11, the AFL would be crucified, and rightly so.

Yet this is a real possibility in the system that you are proposing, almost a certainty every year, in fact. Many teams will miss out on home games in this system and those home games will be given to their opponents. Double whammy.

This is a very real issue and could see the AFL in trouble on multiple fronts, with clubs severely impacted financially if they were to only host 10 home games. It would also lead to demands for compensation from sponsors and fans due to the missed home game.

The first level of the issue is with ground agreements. The AFL has a number of agreements in place to play a certain number of games at various grounds. This would potentially lead to being broken with either the club or AFL incurring a financial penalty for not playing that game, which could also impact future ground deals.

The Trades Practices Act sits in the background here lurking silently and no doubt a fan group would go the AFL and/or a club for breaches of the Act if they were to only hold 10 games. You can't sell a ticket based on a price of 11 games or advertising 11 home games and only play 10. The AFL also can't promise future rectification of this problem as they may not be able to do that either the next year. This would mean messy compensation claims, a nightmare public relations disaster for the league.

Clubs will be demanding millions in compo from the AFL for not hosting the game. Clubs will be losing out on gate receipts and sponsorship dollars on top of the disgruntled fans. This means the AFL is looking at having to foot the bill of compensation to the tune of over $2m to each club that misses out on a home game. Given there will already be fewer blockbuster games this doesn't help things either.

I can't see how the number add up on this, I just can't. Whilst it makes sense for a fairer draw and some good games at the end of the season, you also create a lot of dead rubbers no-one cares about. Honestly how many casual supporters would be interested in watch 2 bottom 6 teams battle, potentially being 3 of your membership games? Attendances would be terrible. If you get the extra game it will boost your bottom line nicely, but can't see the AFL clawing that back either.

 

[FootyJunkie]

there is no way this gets approved

6x3 divisions is the way to go, Vic sides rotate into the (South West) WA/SA and (North East) NSW/QLD divisions each season... two cycles of that and we should be ready for 2 new sides (Joondalup, Tasmania) in 10 years time and a much better case for a fixed geographical alignment... or you could just keep rotating Vic sides around

East: SYD, GWS, HAW, RIC, MEL
North: BRI, GC, NM, CAR, COL
South: ADE, PA, GEE, STK, Tasmania
West: WC, FRE, Joondalup, WB, ESS

 

[NoobPie]

This is a very real issue and could see the AFL in trouble on multiple fronts, with clubs severely impacted financially if they were to only host 10 home games. It would also lead to demands for compensation from sponsors and fans due to the missed home game.

The first level of the issue is with ground agreements. The AFL has a number of agreements in place to play a certain number of games at various grounds. This would potentially lead to being broken with either the club or AFL incurring a financial penalty for not playing that game, which could also impact future ground deals.

The Trades Practices Act sits in the background here lurking silently and no doubt a fan group would go the AFL and/or a club for breaches of the Act if they were to only hold 10 games. You can't sell a ticket based on a price of 11 games or advertising 11 home games and only play 10. The AFL also can't promise future rectification of this problem as they may not be able to do that either the next year. This would mean messy compensation claims, a nightmare public relations disaster for the league.

Clubs will be demanding millions in compo from the AFL for not hosting the game. Clubs will be losing out on gate receipts and sponsorship dollars on top of the disgruntled fans. This means the AFL is looking at having to foot the bill of compensation to the tune of over $2m to each club that misses out on a home game. Given there will already be fewer blockbuster games this doesn't help things either.

I can't see how the number add up on this, I just can't. Whilst it makes sense for a fairer draw and some good games at the end of the season, you also create a lot of dead rubbers no-one cares about. Honestly how many casual supporters would be interested in watch 2 bottom 6 teams battle, potentially being 3 of your membership games? Attendances would be terrible. If you get the extra game it will boost your bottom line nicely, but can't see the AFL clawing that back either.

You make some good points here in parts but certainly compensations of $2 million are well over the top and TPA is irrelevant. Clubs won't be able to guarantee 10 home games in the first instance in their membership packages

The only-10-games-guaranteed is no doubt a hard sell though to both clubs and supporters. There are also contractual issues eg 22 home game agreement with Adelaide Oval. I think ultimately if this gets up it will be as an 18-5 with return derbies in the first phase and all teams will have 11 home games with the AFL "owning" 9 games in the second phase no matter whose home ground it is.

In my preferred model, this would "compensate" the AFL for the loss of the the first round of finals:

 

[Lensen]

definitely needed after this week. top 9 played bottom 9 and was obviously shithouse and uncompetitive


(pls kill it forever now)

 

[hawkman]

definitely needed after this week. top 9 played bottom 9 and was obviously shithouse and uncompetitive


(pls kill it forever now)

Probably the best week of footy for the year. 6 games were up for grabs with a couple of minutes left

 

[Balance]

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

To help this, you have to shorten the quarters to 15 mins. Put a cap on fitness training and regulate fitness trainers. It can be done, not sure you could go all the way with 34 but it would be possible to get it to 30. With all the extra revenue coming in the AFL could spend more on preventing injury.

 

[Underarm]

To help this, you have to shorten the quarters to 15 mins. Put a cap on fitness training and regulate fitness trainers. It can be done, not sure you could go all the way with 34 but it would be possible to get it to 30. With all the extra revenue coming in the AFL could spend more on preventing injury.

What's the point if you don't get to 34 games?