17-5 Imagined in 2018

May 27, 2017
6,351
9,773
AFL Club
St Kilda
It's a great idea in terms of finals and what options teams 1-12 have.

But on the flipside, it creates an awful scenario for teams that finish 13-18.

Team 13 cannot make the finals even if they were close to Team 12 after round 17 and win all of their remaining games.

The rest of them essentially enter a lottery for draft picks where there would be no incentive to win.

The bottom 6 teams may as well just go on holiday after round 17.

Interested to hear how you think that might unfold, OP?
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
There are 2xWA, 2xSA, 2xNSW, 2xQLD teams. There will eventually be a time when a top six Melbourne club has played the other top six teams at home that year so the rest of their five games are away. Five interstate trips in a row before the finals.

It won't be a problem, because all clubs will be interstate every second week or so anyway but a Melbourne club and their supporters will be very upset over it

The most you could travel is 3 times
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's a great idea in terms of finals and what options teams 1-12 have.

But on the flipside, it creates an awful scenario for teams that finish 13-18.

Team 13 cannot make the finals even if they were close to Team 12 after round 17 and win all of their remaining games.

The rest of them essentially enter a lottery for draft picks where there would be no incentive to win.

The bottom 6 teams may as well just go on holiday after round 17.

Interested to hear how you think that might unfold, OP?

Right now we are 7 games from the end of the season and according to footymatch 12th (essendon 4%) and 11 the (Adelaide 1%) have a combined 5% chance of making the finals

The 6 below have no chance. What are the playing for from now on?

Tomorrow night we have Carlton playing St Kilda in what some bright spark at AFL House or 7 must have envisioned was going to be a fight for a spot in the 8 at the start of the year (though admittedly that could still happen under the current system

Under the current system the season largely fizzles out with most games being dead rubbers or one sided contests. This is basically replaced with 6 "8 point games" a week.

There are a range of options to create an incentive for the the bottom 6 (which is more than they have now) but they are all contentious. I like the idea of them playing off for 4 points in the next season but i'm sure most won't!
 
The most you could travel is 3 times

Not unless the system is compromised to protect a club from the possibility of being in a group with five interstate clubs they have already played at home.

If they have played their five opponents already at home, why should they get to play any of them again at home?

It isn't a common nuance of the system but it will eventually happen, it shouldn't be something that would stop the system coming in but be prepared that it could result in five away games in a row unless the system is compromised, which it shouldn't be
 
May 27, 2017
6,351
9,773
AFL Club
St Kilda
Right now we are 7 games from the end of the season and according to footymatch 12th (essendon 4%) and 11 the (Adelaide 1%) have a combined 5% chance of making the finals

The 6 below have no chance. What are the playing for from now on?

Tomorrow night we have Carlton playing St Kilda in what some bright spark at AFL House or 7 must have envisioned was going to be a fight for a spot in the 8 at the start of the year (though admittedly that could still happen under the current system

Under the current system the season largely fizzles out with most games being dead rubbers or one sided contests. This is basically replaced with 6 "8 point games" a week.

There are a range of options to create an incentive for the the bottom 6 (which is more than they have now) but they are all contentious. I like the idea of them playing off for 4 points in the next season but i'm sure most won't!

They're not playing for anything that is true. But most of the games the bottom 6 teams are involved in right now are against teams that are in finals contention (St Kilda v Carlton aside). They are good games for bottom 6 teams to play (to learn from) and important games for the better teams (because points and percentage are important). If you turn it into a round-robin between the bottom 6 teams they have absolutely nothing to play for and every game is a dead rubber.

Having them play for four points next season isn't a bad idea, but you will inevitably have a scenario where a team manipulates results to drop into the bottom group if they don't think they have a chance of finals, to push for that advantage next season.

This is all interesting thinking though - thanks for the thread :thumbsu:
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
Not unless the system is compromised to protect a club from the possibility of being in a group with five interstate clubs they have already played at home.

If they have played their five opponents already at home, why should they get to play any of them again at home?

It isn't a common nuance of the system but it will eventually happen, it shouldn't be something that would stop the system coming in but be prepared that it could result in five away games in a row unless the system is compromised, which it shouldn't be

The system would not be compromised.

You play everyone in the first phase once (assuming 17). This qualifies you for the second phase where you play 3 or 2 home games depending on where you finished.

The current system sees everyone play each once, plus 5 teams twice. This seeds teams into qualifying or elimination finals where they can host, or play away, to a team they played once at the same venue earlier in the year.


upload_2018-7-12_14-22-13.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-7-12_14-20-9.png
    upload_2018-7-12_14-20-9.png
    33.4 KB · Views: 4

hoianbulldog

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 2, 2006
5,550
6,289
Hoi An, Vietnam. I am off the grid.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
The pairing I was talking about was in the 18-5 or 18-4 proposal, where the first phase is a round robin plus 1 game (to allow double ups between rivals).
You can't have 2 dogs in the fight. If you are trying to make the comp fairer then the mandatory double ups have to go.
 
Jun 4, 2005
20,726
14,014
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
They are high stakes and far more so if you get rid of the first week of the finals and have direct qualification to prelim finals for the top 2

It is not the same as the middle four teams in the old final 8 system. Teams can change positions
Teams won’t always be able to change positions...especially if points carry over.

But if points don’t carry over, then you are just starting finals early.

So you create a few more ‘high stakes’ games, but also create a situation where six teams completely stop and even the middle rung the top of the group could be sorted with 3 games left!

It is just as inane as the AFL currently ruining the integrity by handicapping the fixture.

If the 22 game season is a non-negotiable, and conferences aren’t allowed the best way to determine the 5 double up games is by being completely random...do away with the ‘blockbusters’ and home state derby’s, just make it random.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,999
3,443
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
The proposed changes to the fixture are predicated on the idea that the current system is 'unfair' and 'some teams get easier draws than others', as hi-lighted by Dangerfield.
No, you are just too quick to anger and slow to though to get it.

You don’t NEED to add ‘rival games’. They may be necessary to get buy in from particular from the non Vic clubs.
You added an extra game to your 17 rounds to make it 18 games so that the teams would have an equal amount of H&A games before the ladder is split. Without this extra rival game the system you are supporting would leave some teams with fewer home games at the split. Then you have teams receiving more home games in the 5 phase, thus imbalancing it all over again.

There’s no “jiggery pokery”. The system rewards teams who finished higher with the extra home games. Just like home qualifying finals are awarded to the higher ranking teams
Having teams receive extra home games during the H&A season is unfair, and if the top teams in the groups of 6 have achieved their position because they played more home games in the first 17 rounds, then the unfairness of that gets doubled down. So teams could go into the last five rounds with 9 home games (compared to eight) and then receive 3 more to take their home games to 12 and their opponents to 10.

“Blockbusters” is not a problem with the current system. The arbitraryness and lopsided ness is the problem with current draw.
Blockbusters and the need for the AFL to match up certain teams together (WCE and Freo to play twice every year, Collingwood and Carlton and Essendon often being matched up to play twice a year to inflate ticket sales and attendance, etc) are EXACTLY why the draw is lopsided. My team nearly always plays one of the SA teams twice every year, that isn't some random event. When teams flog their games to Tassie it's the 'interstate' teams which invariably make up the numbers. Freo should sell memberships in Tassie they play there so often.

Whilst your system is transparent, it doesn't rectify any of the unfairness - it actually compounds it to the point where I would prefer to keep the current system.
 
Feb 18, 2016
1,020
1,509
AFL Club
Melbourne
17-5 doesn’t work.

I’m not a fan of conferences but it would certainly make a more even fixture.

Victorian conference - Richmond, Collingwood , Carlton , Hawthorn, Geelong and Essendon

Western Conference - Eagles, freo, port , crows , dogs , saints

Eastern Conference- swans, gws, Gold Coast , brissy , dees , North

Double up games against teams in your conference , play the other teams once. Play one of the other conferences all at home , the other all away. Other a 2 year period you play every team at home and away. You also know more than a year ahead what your clubs fixture will be for the following season.

Each team in a conference would have the exact same fixture and you are competing against them teams for finals births. Top 2 qualify for finals. Top ranked teams finish 1,2,3. Second place teams finish 4,5,6. Best 2 third place finishers get 7 and 8. Keep current finals system.

Every 2 years you could swap which vic teams are in the east and west conferences.

Ps - I hate the word conference but this would be the fairest system
 
May 27, 2017
6,351
9,773
AFL Club
St Kilda
17-5 doesn’t work.

I’m not a fan of conferences but it would certainly make a more even fixture.

Victorian conference - Richmond, Collingwood , Carlton , Hawthorn, Geelong and Essendon

Western Conference - Eagles, freo, port , crows , dogs , saints

Eastern Conference- swans, gws, Gold Coast , brissy , dees , North

Double up games against teams in your conference , play the other teams once. Play one of the other conferences all at home , the other all away. Other a 2 year period you play every team at home and away. You also know more than a year ahead what your clubs fixture will be for the following season.

Each team in a conference would have the exact same fixture and you are competing against them teams for finals births. Top 2 qualify for finals. Top ranked teams finish 1,2,3. Second place teams finish 4,5,6. Best 2 third place finishers get 7 and 8. Keep current finals system.

Every 2 years you could swap which vic teams are in the east and west conferences.

Ps - I hate the word conference but this would be the fairest system

How you've split those teams into those conferences makes no sense at all. Why would St Kilda be in a Western conference but not Geelong or Essendon? They're west of St Kilda. Ditto why would Melbourne not play in the Victorian conference given it's the capital.

Perhaps a better idea would be 2 conferences: East and West, or Vic + Not Vic. To be honest I don't think that would work either, because there would be large differences in who has to travel making it unfair. Australia is probably too big and with too large a concentration of teams in Victoria for conferences to work.
 
Mar 19, 2001
6,661
6,173
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
S.A Spurs, Liverpool
There is nothing stopping the AFL reducing teams or adding more rounds.

You talk about reducing teams as ‘nothing’, like it’s the same as posting a Facebook status or opining about reducing teams on a footy message board.

There is not ‘nothing’ stopping it. There are tens of thousands of people and a massive amount of historical inertia.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,294
40,453
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You talk about reducing teams as ‘nothing’, like it’s the same as posting a Facebook status or opining about reducing teams on a footy message board.

There is not ‘nothing’ stopping it. There are tens of thousands of people and a massive amount of historical inertia.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

GWS and GCS having *SO* much inertia.
 
Jul 1, 2005
3,310
3,486
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Wildcats, Subiaco Lions, Bulls
The system would not be compromised.

You play everyone in the first phase once (assuming 17). This qualifies you for the second phase where you play 3 or 2 home games depending on where you finished.

The current system sees everyone play each once, plus 5 teams twice. This seeds teams into qualifying or elimination finals where they can host, or play away, to a team they played once at the same venue earlier in the year.


View attachment 526332
The 17-5 system is NOT fair.

Who you are drawn to play Home vs Away can make a massive difference where you finish.

Example - Team A (average non-vic team).
Scenario 1
*Plays 9 poor teams away
*Plays 8 good teams at home.
As a average team, they lose most away games and most home games.
Finish towards bottom of ladder.

Scenario 2
*Plays 8 good teams away
*Plays 9 poor teams at home.
As a average team, they lose most away games but win all home games.
Finish towards top of ladder.

If it's not a full H/A fixture - it's not a fair fixture.
 
Jul 1, 2005
3,310
3,486
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Wildcats, Subiaco Lions, Bulls
How it should be:
* Full H/A fixture (34 rounds)

To achieve this:
* scrap pre-season games completely (clubs are free or organise there own hitouts)
* Start season 1 month earlier (during existing pre-season games)
* shorten matches (5 min shorter each quarter - total game will be close to 30 min shorter after stoppage time is considered )
* More 5 day & 6 days breaks
* more weeknight games.
* Larger player lists so teams can manage the season (players will not be expected to play all games)
* Mid season 'draft' - players can be drafted from VFL, WAFL, SANFL etc to cover injuries, deficienies (min 18 mnth contract)
* Final 8 (as is)

Ideally the competition size would revert back to 14-16 teams, but not going to happen.
 

NoobPie

Cancelled
Sep 21, 2016
7,356
5,255
AFL Club
Collingwood
What a great round of footy. Under the 17/5 system the only 2 matches that we would of seen would’ve been Hawthorn and Essendon and St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs

No, we would have seen 6 x 8 point games
 
Back