Americans aren't the only one who use it.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
AFL Conferences & Fixturing
- Thread starter Fonetiks
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Is not an argument for anything.
I'm aware of that. They're always the first to draw comparisons from AFL fans.
Its fairer over the long term but not over a season as there will be sometimes a strong or weak conference giving an advantage/disadvantage but if you keep the same teams in the conferences then this will even out over time to a large degree. The main advantage is that is according to a formula rather than an arbitrary fixture where the perception of bias can be accused for a easy or hard schedule.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
All you need to know about reforming the fixture from a maths perspective is here:
FOOTYMATHS INSTITUTE
REFORM: THE FIXTURE
http://footymaths.blogspot.com.au/p/we-have-posted-before-on-this-blog.html
REFORM: THE FIXTURE
http://footymaths.blogspot.com.au/p/we-have-posted-before-on-this-blog.html
OUR PROPOSAL -SUMMARY:
The most effective way to create a balanced draw is to employ a 3 conference system of 6 teams in each group.
The conferences are selected by the previous seasons complete ladder, with each conference seeded for balance. Each conference has two of the top 6 teams, two of the middle 6 teams, and two of the bottom 6 teams in it.
Conference teams play within each conference home-and-away (10 games), and also 12 inter-conference games, for a 22 weeks season. The only ‘fixing’ of the draw is to ensure each Melbourne team travels approx 5 times per year and retains 11 home games per year.
Finalists are selected from the conference winners, and they are guaranteed finals places and double chance slots. The remainder of the 8 is filled by awarding ‘wild cards’ to the next best 5 teams, and continues as per the current final eight system.
At the end of each season, the conferences are combined into a complete 18 team ladder (as per now) and this ladder is used for
- re-drawing the following seasons conferences and,
- allocating the draft order for the next draft.
It has no influence on who is allocated to finals positions.
The most effective way to create a balanced draw is to employ a 3 conference system of 6 teams in each group.
The conferences are selected by the previous seasons complete ladder, with each conference seeded for balance. Each conference has two of the top 6 teams, two of the middle 6 teams, and two of the bottom 6 teams in it.
Conference teams play within each conference home-and-away (10 games), and also 12 inter-conference games, for a 22 weeks season. The only ‘fixing’ of the draw is to ensure each Melbourne team travels approx 5 times per year and retains 11 home games per year.
Finalists are selected from the conference winners, and they are guaranteed finals places and double chance slots. The remainder of the 8 is filled by awarding ‘wild cards’ to the next best 5 teams, and continues as per the current final eight system.
At the end of each season, the conferences are combined into a complete 18 team ladder (as per now) and this ladder is used for
- re-drawing the following seasons conferences and,
- allocating the draft order for the next draft.
It has no influence on who is allocated to finals positions.
- Banned
- #31
I know but still!
Change is necessary since we have gone from a 14 team comp to an 18 team comp. The bias in the draw of an 18 team competition with 23 rounds is ridiculous. With 14 teams it wasn't as bad as most teams still played everyone twice. But now any intelligent person struggles to watch the game because of such obvious unfairness in the draw. It needs to be fixed. The old McIntyre finals system was also a joke and everyone is happy that it has changed to the current format. Change can be good. Don't be scared of change.
5-17 fixture where you play double ups against the teams that finished with your team within either 1-6, 7-12 or 13-18 & be done with it. It's the fairest the comp is going to get without only playing each other once OR extending the season to play each other twice (which would cut into the cricket season).
This way instead of the 17-5 fixture idea we're not having "finals before finals". No conferences thank you. Yet another unwanted American tradition we don't need.
This way instead of the 17-5 fixture idea we're not having "finals before finals". No conferences thank you. Yet another unwanted American tradition we don't need.
- Aug 27, 2007
- 14,117
- 12,681
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Everton_East Freo_Atalanta_Tranmere
Two divisions! Gives team less incentive to finish bottom every year (except for the bottom division I guess)
- Banned
- #35
This happens every single year. The Super bowl rolls around and Australians want to replicate the NFL in every single way. There is absolutely no need and would ruin the history of this great league. It's creative but no. This is the AFL, not the NFL and we don't need to copy every single movement the league makes. Our league is finely run.
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,783
- 8,558
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
And the NFL is superior in every way.
- Banned
- #37
Why wouldn't they be and why shouldn't they be?
Fonetiks
Rookie
- Jan 31, 2016
- 25
- 15
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- EPL Newcastle United
- Thread starter
- #38
Sounds pretty convincing. How are the "wild card" entries drawn given a team could finish 2nd in a conference on percentage alone, be comfortably better than most other teams in the comp, and miss out on finals?
Maybe a top 2 in each conference automatic finals position and then the next best 2 across all conferences determined by points, win/loss, then percentage?
Simple idea, teams play every other team twice (minus the main rival) through a 4 year cycle, accounting for 4 of 5 teams you play twice each year and teams play their main rival (this could change for the Victorians if need be) twice every year accounting for the last team team's play twice.
No the afl is not fine and the fact the nfl (and every other American league, World Cup soccer, World Cup cricket etc)does it has nothing to do with why it will make our comp better.
Nope, only the top team can go through. I cannot see a situation where your scenario arises ... The system described takes care of the wild cards.
I quite like the 3 conference system as proposed by the Footymaths institute only I would keep conferences together for two years. This way the inter conference teams you play away year one you play at home in year two.
If the AFL tried a fixture with teams in groups of six you could keep the 18 team ladder and run the three conferences ladders as ghosts to see the if it is worth the change.
The biggest advantage of conferences is the distance between the top and bottom. If the top two automatically qualify for finals every team is only a few spots from playing finals.
If the AFL tried a fixture with teams in groups of six you could keep the 18 team ladder and run the three conferences ladders as ghosts to see the if it is worth the change.
The biggest advantage of conferences is the distance between the top and bottom. If the top two automatically qualify for finals every team is only a few spots from playing finals.
- Banned
- #43
It's easier to criticise than it is to praise.
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,783
- 8,558
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Because they go all out...why shouldn't we make the AFL grand final (for example) the best it can be as well...?? or we can just settle for mediocrity and never evolve.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #45
Don't see the improvements that can be made. The league isn't as loaded as other leagues.
It's easiest to state simplistic cliches. I've stated my reasons why it needs fixing. Do you have any reasons why it doesn't or just simplistic meaningless cliches?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
we had conferences once and it was called the WAFL, SANFL and VFL
let's not go back to conferences
let's not go back to conferences
Fonetiks
Rookie
- Jan 31, 2016
- 25
- 15
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- EPL Newcastle United
- Thread starter
- #48
Perhaps we need to do away with the term conferences then, given people's perceptions it has anything to do with the NFL. It is just a name. Call them groups, divisions, pools, whatever... But the AFL needs come up with a system that addresses most of the inequalities the current set-up has. Given we are unable to have a true Home and Away fixture (like the EPL), the next logical suggestion is to look at varying arrangements of possible groups, divisions, pool stages (World Cup), etc, like most other professional codes.
Suggesting the AFL's current system of 18 teams (8 interstate, 10 Victorian), into 23 rounds is the best we can possibly do, is quite frankly, laughable.
If we're not at least willing to discuss the options, how can the AFL ever hope to continue to grow domestically and globally as a sport?
Suggesting the AFL's current system of 18 teams (8 interstate, 10 Victorian), into 23 rounds is the best we can possibly do, is quite frankly, laughable.
If we're not at least willing to discuss the options, how can the AFL ever hope to continue to grow domestically and globally as a sport?
Last edited:
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,765
- 4,183
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The use of the term 'conferences' in Oz is what shits me. It is originally a US inter college athletic associations term where the universities have formally grouped to pursue their universities' athletic objectives - Pac 12, Big 12, SEC, etc.
Then you have the example such as the NFL where the two conferences are a by-product of two former leagues - the NFL and AFL - where the champions of each conference play off in the League decider.
For all intents and purposes in the AFL, any division of teams would merely be groupings, and they'd be in place to facilitate a better scheduling process. They wouldn't be used to segregate teams completely during the course of the season, or in finals.
North park
Team Captain
- Mar 2, 2015
- 364
- 585
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I am not a fan of the US-style conferences so was initially sceptical of your proposal. The main reason I don't like conferences is that it can stop the two best teams from meeting in the Grand Final if they happen to be from the same conference. This has happened in the NFL.
However, after reading your proposal in more detail, I can now see it is more akin to grouping teams to determine which ones they play twice and which ones they only play once during the season. It still retains a single ladder to determine finishing position and qualifying for finals.
It is a workable model with each team playing its nominated 'rival team' twice and the other 8 teams in its group or pool twice also. It then plays the 8 remaining teams once only for a total of 26 games. One of the obstacles will be fitting in the additional 4 games. Assuming there are 2 bye rounds, the home and away season will stretch to 28 weeks. Plus you have 4 weeks of finals bringing the total to 32 weeks. This means the season will need to start in the first week of March in order to finish in early or mid October. As mentioned, the availability of some cricket grounds (MCG, SCG, Gabba) in March may be a problem.
I have proposed an 18 game season where each team plays the other 17 once only, followed by a rivalry round where they play a 'rival team' a second time (eg. West Coast v Fremantle, Carlton v Collingwood) to try to address the inequalities of the draw. The problem with this model of course is that it reduces the current season by 4 games (or a month) which the AFL, TV stations or fans wouldn't be too happy about. This model probably works better in a 20-team competition where you would have 10 games each round over a 20 week season.
Similar threads
