Cheers. If they keep it at 22 rounds but shorten the quarters, it’ll be very disappointing. No doubt they won’t lower their admissions prices.Bottom of this article. Will be more than 16 but won't commit to what it will be
AFL CEO details current state of play for 2021 season, quarter-length and crowds
AFL CEO reveals plans for 2021 season formatwww.foxsports.com.au
18 minute quarters
- Thread starter Whiskers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
hawkman
Hall of Famer
Well they are kindly freezing finals ticket prices this year. Of course you get 20% less footy for that price
Roby power rankings' time have come
Players and umpires need a break to catch their breath.
To a problem no one had nor asked to be fixed maybe...
telsor
Hall of Famer
There used to be 1 umpire covering the whole ground. They'll cope.
As for the players...Good! Maybe it'll mean one fewer player contributing to the congestion around the ball.
Wonder how far and how fast players ran back in those days compared to now...
You complain about the umpiring now? Imagine them trying to make decisions when they're so tired they can barely run.
18 minutes and stop the clock for set-shots at goal. 5 or 6 of these per quarter and there's your 20-30 secs each saved, and it prevents icing of the clock.
There is no way the players association would agree to a season with no bye.
Why not just wait until March to make the decision?
IMO shorter games will lead to less crowds, especially if not accompanied by reduced costs. The time taken to get there, public transport, get to your seat, get out of the stadium is all still annoying, but you'd pay the same for less of the actual product you are there to see. You'd think it would be big risk not to lower prices.
They did this season.
Aaaah the Dunning-Kruger effect. It was as inevitable as it is ironic that it would be assimilated into the phenomena that it describes.
I am almost certain you have no credible expertise in either.
I was trying to teach you. I overestimated your capacity to learn. Primarily I was demonstrating the relationship between the field of economics and the interdisciplinary field referred to as "political economy"
No I did not. The fact you are asserting this is symbolic of your limitations (to which you are completely blind)
When did I not?
Aaah, there you go again. It must get all so confusing when you are unable to separate a point somebody is making from the monkey mind making up reasons for why the point was made.
Wow, a whole book!
By "formalised" I meant that there was some kind of broad acceptance in some coherent school of thought. You know, the kind of thing that might have been referenced in the "theory" section of the wikilink you have subsequently agreed is rubbish
I haven't been "spouting off that everything about the shock doctrine is nonsense". In the last post I suggested I would read a digest if you provided me it.
Anyway, I just read the wiki to the book. These kind of pop intellectual books are not my thing. I'm sure they serve a purpose but they shouldn't be confused with having academic merit
Interestingly NK had Joe Stiglitz write a review for it's website. It is rather positive for essentially its journalistic merit but includes some pretty important things you should reflect on
"Klein is not an academic and cannot be judged as one. There are many places in her book where she oversimplifies. "
Bleakonomics | Naomi Klein
The topic of the thread is about the prospect of not going back to 20 minute quarters next season. The topic of our discussion is the conflation of "neoliberalism" and "shock doctrine" with the AFL decision making
The statement that "all the literature on neoliberalism in the last 10 years has revealed" shows me you are engaging with all this without any formal intellectual facility and just how much self parody it was referencing the Dunning-Kruger effort above.
Neoliberalism is defined in so many ways in so many fields, even if you'd spent the last decade buried in the concept to be able to claim you were across all the literature let-a-lone that you could sum it up in such a way would be absurd.
The "neo" in neo-liberalism should be enough to intuit the the underlying ideas of what is called neo-liberalism (whether it is describing a paradigm, development model, ideology or public policy prescription set) date back a long time (eg 18th century Laissez faire, 19th century classical liberalism). Likewise the observation that "free market" capitalism actually requires an interventionist state to facilitate it is not new and has no doubt been observed through the perspectives of many schools of economics / political science / sociology etc
Yes, I suspect it would take a considerable amount of work to try to characterise it as "neo-liberal". Don't strain yourself
And again, the self parody.
So:
-in the first instance, you are essentially trying to establish that commercial or financial considerations informing AFL decision making is an example of "neo-liberalism". You've defined the term neo-liberalism as "the ideology of preferring the free market" but now it apparently just means financial considerations / increasing revenue
-in the second instance you are basically then describing all the AFL decisions as being ultimately financially motivated and allowing yourself a bow of any-length to achieve it.
Comedy.
The more subtle of mind / logically skilled would observe that you can flip this reductionist pap and say that essentially any increase in revenue provides more resources for things like game development, grass roots community support, jobs for people in the game, inclusion programs etc.
The vast majority of institutions on the planet would involved some degree of hierarchical structure in decision making and administration. Mug-ocracy barely exists anywhere functional
I'm sure that won't clear anything up
ShadeyP
Premiership Player
- Jul 1, 2017
- 4,686
- 5,835
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
AFL XXX - How Kinky !
eggtardo
Team Captain
- Dec 16, 2012
- 489
- 1,112
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Pre this year I have dragged my sorry arse to every game year after year irrespective of weather, form, etc. I have a feeling it will be so much easier to stay at home and just watch on the tv with the reduction in product.
I also don't get Gil's obsession of having a month of footy frenzy or whatever nonsense name they want to give it. Friday, Sat and Sun suited me fine....throw in the odd Thurs or Monday. It just feels to me like one game and round merges into another and the impact is diluted.
I dont mind the frenzy at the moment as under lockdown and curphew there's nothing else for me to do, in a normal year it would be interesting to see how much I watched.
Thurs-Sunday is still my preference though. Id like to see more Sunday night games on TV actually.
I could understand going to shorter quarters this year, since there was a shorter gap between games, because lockdown sucked so much time away. But what's the excuse for next year? There's no need for this "festival of footy" garbage, because we can have the usual 6-7 month season without any gap, although it may require abandoning Victoria again. So why is there any need for less than 20 minute quarters? It stinks of an instruction from Channel 7.
Are high-scoring games automatically more interesting and low-scoring games automatically worse?
Automatically - no.
But generally speaking - yes, a 100-98 game is generally more exciting and interesting than a 36-34 game.
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
Type in "neoliberal" AND "shock therapy" into Google Scholar. I stopped looking after 10 pages, but can confirm the first 100 entries are all academic journal articles that rely upon the concept (out of 6880 results). I also searched for "neoliberal" AND "shock therapy" through the University of Sydney library and turned up 1648 articles/chapters/books. But keeping telling yourself it's just a single book, or a couple of journal articles. I know it's unimaginable for a concept to be in wide use and for you to not have heard of it, since you are the sole font of wisdom on anything related to economics and political economy lol. Let me guess. You've done an MBA and think you know it all.
That's not what "formalised" means. "Formalised" in no way implies or necessarily entails broad acceptance. A concept is formalised if scholars in an academic field can deploy it and count on others in the field to know what it means. "Shock therapy" is formalised in political economy but probably not in mainstream economics, to the extent that it has been straighforwardly deployed in 100s, perhaps 1000s, of articles, and no longer requires the publication of purely theoretical expositions of the concept.
Wow, what a surprise. You read the wiki for the book after writing two long posts dismissing the associated ideas.
It is largely beside the point which name we attach to the decision-making and associated logic in question. The point is how we understand and evaluate the associated decision-making.
My points are these:
-Gil brought in significant changes during this covid-affected season - of most interest in this context are: shortened 1/4s, extension of mid-week games, night GF.
-These changes clearly are not solely dictated by the exigencies of the covid crisis.
-Gil has already flagged that, for at least some of these changes, we will not revert to the pre-covid state of affairs once the crisis is past.
-The logic of these changes is oriented to maximising revenue, largely by seeking to maximise TV ratings and advertising.
-These changes seem to be at odds with what the majority of fans want, and think is in the best interests of the game (of course this has not actually been demonstrated empirically yet, but let's accept the premise for now).
-What matters is that the decision-making is more than just taking "financial considerations" into account. It is more than just trying to "increase revenue".
-The decision-making in question aims at increasing revenue even where the means by which this is done detrimentally changes the substantive core of the activity (I won't say 'product') that the revenue is supposed to support.
-It matters little whether we call this an example of 'neoliberalism', or (on a tiny scale) 'shock therapy' (although these concepts can help us better understand what is happening in the AFL).
-The assumption standing behind this decision-making is that increasing revenue is a superordinate priority to matters relating to the substance of the game, such as its length.
-It is not "subtle of mind" or "logically skilled" to mindlessly accept this assumption, and justify it on the basis that increased revenue can be pumped into game development, grassroots etc.
-It is far more subtle of mind to always critically question how the twin priorities of the long term financial viability of the game, and the maintenance of its essence, can best be balanced.
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,858
- AFL Club
- Essendon
AFL games would probably never clash again if shorter quarters become permanent.
Right, but a game that's 150-48 has the same number of points as 100-98 but sounds far less exciting for a neutral. That's my point.
Fair point, but how much football can one person watch in a row?
My question to the AFL is 'How much time-on should a quarter of footy have?' Given 60 seconds after each goal "I'd cut it to 35" - "replay, 15 sec commercial, short commentary, bounce."
Last night 1st Q 2 goals that's 16 min + 2 min for goals + 5 min 12 secs.
2nd Q - 3 goals 16 + 3 + 4 min 14 secs
3rd Q - 2 goals 16 + 2 + 4 min 17 secs
4th Q - 4 goals 16 + 4 +6 min 52 secs
64 minutes of play, 11 minutes time-on after goals 20 min 35 secs of ball-ups and ball-ins, OOF and kick-ins and few bits and pieces. Total time-on 31.35
In simple terms for every minute of play, 30 seconds time-on or 33% of game time is wait time.
This is where the investigation should be.
Last night 1st Q 2 goals that's 16 min + 2 min for goals + 5 min 12 secs.
2nd Q - 3 goals 16 + 3 + 4 min 14 secs
3rd Q - 2 goals 16 + 2 + 4 min 17 secs
4th Q - 4 goals 16 + 4 +6 min 52 secs
64 minutes of play, 11 minutes time-on after goals 20 min 35 secs of ball-ups and ball-ins, OOF and kick-ins and few bits and pieces. Total time-on 31.35
In simple terms for every minute of play, 30 seconds time-on or 33% of game time is wait time.
This is where the investigation should be.
- Banned
- #100
If soccer changed halves from 45 to 40 minutes what would it achieve really?
Has a sporting body on the planet fiddled with the laws of a game more than the AFL? Ever?
This is a game that sells itself to supporters based on 120 years of tradition. The AFL has absolutely nothing to do with the growth of the game. GWS and the Gold Coast are the AFL's pet projects and look how much of a disaster they have been. They'll require hundreds of millions in subsidies over the next decade to stay afloat.
Gil could go to spring break on the Gold Coast every August and it would make no discernible difference to the product.
Has a sporting body on the planet fiddled with the laws of a game more than the AFL? Ever?
This is a game that sells itself to supporters based on 120 years of tradition. The AFL has absolutely nothing to do with the growth of the game. GWS and the Gold Coast are the AFL's pet projects and look how much of a disaster they have been. They'll require hundreds of millions in subsidies over the next decade to stay afloat.
Gil could go to spring break on the Gold Coast every August and it would make no discernible difference to the product.
Similar threads
