Alternative fixture idea

[FootyJunkie]

I wouldn't mind seeing a variation of the 17-5 format where the three groups of 6 in the "5 phase" are only used for the purposes of scheduling (we still end up keeping the one monolithic ladder up to Round 22) and are spread evenly amongst the whole ladder after Round 17 so that each group has a varying range of good to weak sides. Set up the groups in a way to ensure that by simply reversing the draw from the previous 17 rounds within each group will result in all sides getting 11 home games and 11 away games in the end.

Perhaps release the "5 phase" schedule on the Monday Night after Round 17 to give the league 24 hours to finalize the fixture taking into account the latest Round 17 results from the Sunday. Have a week's break between Rounds 17 and 18 to accommodate the transition.

Could set up in snake format, but again make adjustments as needed to ensure that all sides end up with 11 home and 11 away games.

Group A: 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18
Group B: 2, 5, 8 11, 14, 17,
Group C: 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16,

 

[Tiger Toffee]

You think an unbiased weighted draw is totally fair and balanced but have a problem with an even draw because it requires a neutral round. Nothing more to say. You are trying to argue 1 plus 1 equals 3

The season is never going to be reduced or extended so the current weighted system is totally fair but you can't see that so you can just keep chucking a tantrum and oh by the way i'm still waiting for answers to a system that you think is so genius

I have a heap of questions that continue to pump holes through the stupid 17-5 idea, like who gets 9 home games in the 17 game part and who plays who and where in the 5 game part, are stadium deals squashed, how are memberships structured etc i could keep going but seeing as you think 17-5 is so genius how about you answer those questions for me.

but instead of providing solutions to my questions, all you have done is provide this trash below.

Seriously you are still arguing over this point even though you have been told the solution to it and want to reject the solution because having a solution means what exactly?

Please ban this poster for being an utter idiot.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm saying no Origin, no big TV value for State based AFL footy, no national appeal. Yes, I'm basing my view on Origin in RL & its domination of the top 5 TV sports telecasts, big dollars for the TV industry.
Detail on how the best players play, I'll leave that to the money .... not disputing your take on Origin in Aussie Rules.

Ok I'm assuming you mean if there is no origin or for want of a better term: representation footy, then there is no national appeal? I'd agree, there is more appeal for the footy fan at a club level as opposed to representation level.

 

[Kwality]

Ok I'm assuming you mean if there is no origin or for want of a better term: representation footy, then there is no national appeal? I'd agree, there is more appeal for the footy fan at a club level as opposed to representation level.

No I'm saying the money is from the media rights, State based comps wont pull AFL numbers - the only way media will pay is if there is Origin to pull a national high rating audience. to pull premium advertising revenue.
Under the State based comps you are suggesting, would Aussie Rules even feature in the top 5 rated sports (media)?

Guess you didnt live thru the role of Origin in Aussie Rules, the concept came out of Subi (Leon Larkin), the NRL were quick to follow/perfect.

 

[Carringbush2010]

No I'm saying the money is from the media rights, State based comps wont pull AFL numbers - the only way media will pay is if there is Origin to pull a national high rating audience. to pull premium advertising revenue.
Under the State based comps you are suggesting, would Aussie Rules even feature in the top 5 rated sports (media)?

Guess you didnt live thru the role of Origin in Aussie Rules, the concept came out of Subi (Leon Larkin), the NRL were quick to follow/perfect.

Not doubting that money comes from media rights. State based comps WILL pull numbers IF there is no national comp and won't need SOO to bail it out.

You're looking at state comps as they are now. If there is no national comp where do you think the media and the fans will head? That's right to the state comps.

Using RL SOO is not a good indicator because it is king in RL but never was in Aus Footy - not in vic anyway when I grew up in the 70's - so yes I lived through SOO and like I've stated previously club success was more important to the fan than SOO (at least in Vic anyway).

 

[Kwality]

Not doubting that money comes from media rights. State based comps WILL pull numbers IF there is no national comp and won't need SOO to bail it out.

You're looking at state comps as they are now. If there is no national comp where do you think the media and the fans will head? That's right to the state comps.

Using RL SOO is not a good indicator because it is king in RL but never was in Aus Footy - not in vic anyway when I grew up in the 70's - so yes I lived through SOO and like I've stated previously club success was more important to the fan than SOO (at least in Vic anyway).

Guess we have to agree to disagree. Having worked/lived in Perth, Adelaide & Melbourne in the first 10 years of Origin, I think you underestimate the climate outside Melbourne then, probably believe the VFL was the be all & end all, not a good position to judge IMHO.
The idea a Fri night VFL game between North & the Saints say in the bottom 4 would pull a national audience ... lets agree to disagree.
Origin is the only way a State based comp would survive, no AFL guarantee & so many Vic clubs would close the door before day one. Probably WA & SA too.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Guess we have to agree to disagree. Having worked/lived in Perth, Adelaide & Melbourne in the first 10 years of Origin, I think you underestimate the climate outside Melbourne then, probably believe the VFL was the be all & end all, not a good position to judge IMHO.

The VFL be all and end all? When did I state this? I was only talking about Melbourne because at the time of Origins popularity that's all I knew - so I can't comment on outside of vic at the time.

Just because vic did and still has more population than all other footy heartland combined doesn't mean I think the VFL was the be all and end all. It was just the largest competition, not an insult.

The idea a Fri night VFL game between North & the Saints say in the bottom 4 would pull a national audience ... lets agree to disagree.

I never stated this, howver, if North and Saints were top 4 on the ladder then yeah it'd probably draw a large audience, last time would've been in the 90's. Wouldn't think so now though.

Origin is the only way a State based comp would survive, no AFL guarantee & so many Vic clubs would close the door before day one. Probably WA & SA too.

You're suggesting that because there'd be no national comp that all the vic clubs would die off? Really? Most vic clubs in the AFL have teams in the VFL - guess where their fans are gonna go? Nah the VFL would be fine.

As far as the WAFL and SANFL goes I'd be surprised if the public in those states wouldn't find more interest those leagues and clubs.

If there's no national comp are they just gonna forget footy altogether are they? I doubt it, my guess is they'd be fine.

For mine State comps would be the way to even up the fixture problem with the quasi national comp we have now. SOO yeah if there's incentive for clubs to play their players.

 

[Kwality]

The VFL be all and end all? When did I state this? I was only talking about Melbourne because at the time of Origins popularity that's all I knew - so I can't comment on outside of vic at the time.

Just because vic did and still has more population than all other footy heartland combined doesn't mean I think the VFL was the be all and end all. It was just the largest competition, not an insult.



I never stated this, howver, if North and Saints were top 4 on the ladder then yeah it'd probably draw a large audience, last time would've been in the 90's. Wouldn't think so now though.



You're suggesting that because there'd be no national comp that all the vic clubs would die off? Really? Most vic clubs in the AFL have teams in the VFL - guess where their fans are gonna go? Nah the VFL would be fine.

As far as the WAFL and SANFL goes I'd be surprised if the public in those states wouldn't find more interest those leagues and clubs.

If there's no national comp are they just gonna forget footy altogether are they? I doubt it, my guess is they'd be fine.

For mine State comps would be the way to even up the fixture problem with the quasi national comp we have now. SOO yeah if there's incentive for clubs to play their players.

Come on, my comments were in the context of a return to State Leagues, turning away from a national comp* in the current market. Yes the State League clubs would have a rebirth, the State comps would be better attended. A number of lower rating TV audiences wont (IMHO) inherit the dollars the national comp draws, advertisers wont be paying premium dollars.

I still follow Subi, was there when they won the 86 flag, saw the first Origin game, watched it flourish & the birth of the national comp started the demise of Origin. Its a different time, going back doesnt make any sense to me, its not an answer to the inequities of the national comp.

Origin will be a demand by the media is my point.

* that is what you are floating yes/no?

 

[Carringbush2010]

* that is what you are floating yes/no?

Yes Kwality, I'm a firm believer the only way to even the fixture is to go back to state leagues. We can't get much improvement in the current national league.

A number of lower rating TV audiences wont (IMHO) inherit the dollars the national comp draws, advertisers wont be paying premium dollars.

I don't understand this way of thinking, if there is no national comp - footy fans are still gonna go to the footy, the interest in the game wouldn't change for the fans (or barely). They'll still wanna watch footy, there'd be still as many fans, they'll follow their club.

There are only 5 clubs with affiliates in their corresponding state leagues:

Carlton - Northern Blues (would probably revert back to Carlton)
Fremantle - Peel Thunder (may change to Freo - Peel may be relegated from the WAFL or join Freo)
Hawthorn - Box Hill Hawks (would probably revert to Hawthorn)
Melbourne - Casey Demons (would probably revert to Melbourne)
St Kilda - Sandringham Dragons ( Sandy would probably be relegated from the VFL or join saints)

Every other current AFL club has a stand alone reserve team in their state leagues, no reason for fans to drop away. Footy will still be on TV in prime time because the market is there the fans teams still exist.

Just because the league isn't "national" anymore doesn't mean the fans are gonna up and walk, so long as their clubs still exist they'll watch. The market is still there. Unless you're suggesting that the fans are gonna leave footy altogether?

Origin will be a demand by the media is my point.

Origin will only be a demand if there is demand for it, that is unlikely unless:

• There is enough public demand for it.
• There is incentive for clubs to risk their players.

 

[Kwality]

Just because the league isn't "national" anymore doesn't mean the fans are gonna up and walk, so long as their clubs still exist they'll watch. The market is still there. Unless you're suggesting that the fans are gonna leave footy altogether?

I'm not making any claims about crowds, its media money that drives the AFL, & going back to State Leagues would fragment the value, e.g say a different game in each State on Friday night, not a national market, big markets (NRL Origin) earn premium bucks for the media.

I well remember year one of the Eagles, people were interested but it took time to build the base, the WAFL crowds were down, in my case 8 from our 1986 premiership team were still playing at Subi Ovsal , just not in Subi guernseys.

The national comp evolved from failing State Leagues, its why John Elliot & Dick Seddon were looking to reshape the VFL in 1984, clubs were to go, a mix of purging and restructuring, all leading towards a new national competition.

 

[Kwality]

the fans are gonna up and walk

I've not said that.

 

[Matt_TY]

I wouldn't mind seeing a variation of the 17-5 format where the three groups of 6 in the "5 phase" are only used for the purposes of scheduling (we still end up keeping the one monolithic ladder up to Round 22) and are spread evenly amongst the whole ladder after Round 17 so that each group has a varying range of good to weak sides. Set up the groups in a way to ensure that by simply reversing the draw from the previous 17 rounds within each group will result in all sides getting 11 home games and 11 away games in the end.

Perhaps release the "5 phase" schedule on the Monday Night after Round 17 to give the league 24 hours to finalize the fixture taking into account the latest Round 17 results from the Sunday. Have a week's break between Rounds 17 and 18 to accommodate the transition.

Could set up in snake format, but again make adjustments as needed to ensure that all sides end up with 11 home and 11 away games.

Group A: 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18
Group B: 2, 5, 8 11, 14, 17,
Group C: 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16,

This actually isn't a bad idea (and neatly solves the issue that people advocating for a full-year divisional system don't get, which is that however accurately you divide the teams based on last year's ladder position, there's no way to accurately predict the next year's performance in advance)

Of course it won't entirely silence the complaining (especially, heaven forbid, should 3rd place be a Melbourne team that wins the premiership after 4th, 9th and 10th all also being Melbourne teams) but all in all I'd get behind this change.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not making any claims about crowds, its media money that drives the AFL, & going back to State Leagues would fragment the value, e.g say a different game in each State on Friday night, not a national market, big markets (NRL Origin) earn premium bucks for the media.

Yeah can't dispute this, the tv revenue will be divided between the leagues instead of the one national comp.

However it's either this model or the model we the one we have currently, seems neither is ideal for many.

 

[Kwality]

Yeah can't dispute this, the tv revenue will be divided between the leagues instead of the one national comp.

However it's either this model or the model we the one we have currently, seems neither is ideal for many.

Is it really one or other? I'd like to think not.

My view on chucking out the H&A concept is criticised for making Vic clubs travel more, the travel factor that is denied when it comes to GF day. With H & A is the old, well gone, home ground advantage, but NO, its the cornerstone of objection.

The solution to fairness is outside the square, perhaps a mod of the Kranky Al concept? No I dont have anything to offer here & now.

 

[Coaster2012]

I see the off season is alive and well.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Is it really one or other? I'd like to think not.

My view on chucking out the H&A concept is criticised for making Vic clubs travel more, the travel factor that is denied when it comes to GF day. With H & A is the old, well gone, home ground advantage, but NO, its the cornerstone of objection.

The solution to fairness is outside the square, perhaps a mod of the Kranky Al concept? No I dont have anything to offer here & now.

Well ask yourself could the current landscape be evened up more? Not much, however I like the idea of less Tas games and more G games for non vic clubs and throw vic clubs down there to face hawks / north. But they're not going to put big drawing clubs like tiges/ pies down there - so maybe saints / dogs? Then those fans will get their noses out of joint. (Saints already travel there IIRC)

Can't please everyone all of the time.

The problem with making vic clubs travel more is their fans can't attend as many games so they get their nose out of joint.

Nah what we have now there isn't much improvement to be made in a fixture sense.

 

[kranger]

I figured I would bump the most recent thread, rather than starting the 900th thread on future fixture ideas.

So big considerations are:

• Enough games to keep up the value of broadcasting rights;
• A fair fixture;
• Introducing a Tasmanian team;
• Consideration for the AFLW fixtures and limiting the overlap with their finals;
• Maximising possible revenue for clubs.

Then there are lots of other smaller things.

So currently in the H&A season the 18 teams play 198 games with each team having 11 home, 11 away games and 1 bye. And then have a final 8 finals system over 4 weeks.

What if we introduce Tasmania, so there is 19 teams, where everyone only plays each team once in the season. Whether you play that opposition at home or away, will swap each year. Imagine the excitement in Adelaide or Perth if there was only one Showdown or Derby respectively each season. Each Vic team could be drawn to only go to QLD, NSW, SA and WA once a year rotating between home and away games for those local teams.

This results in the H&A season having 171 games where each team has 9 home games, 9 away games and 2 byes. One bye is randomly through the season, the second bye is during one of the middle three weeks of the season like at present.

So we are currently down 27 games from the old system which is a negative to the value of the broadcast deals.

The team that has the bye each week, will play the next Thursday night match against one of the teams from the previous Friday night. This gives the broadcasters an additional valuable game each week (instead of a ‘nothing’ time slot on a Saturday) to compensate for less games. So hopefully with 21 Thursday night games this absorbs a lot of the devaluation of the 27 less fixtures games.

But as a little cherry on top, the finals are expanded to a top 10 in a 5 week system.

Weeks 2-5 is exactly the same as our current top 8 finals system. And remove the bye between the H&A and the finals.

But Week 1 - 1st and 2nd get a bye.

The rest play off for their final position, so that:
3rd v 5th - the winner in week 2 goes into a qualifying final, loser hosts an elimination final
4th v 6th - the winner in week 2 goes into a qualifying final, loser hosts an elimination final
7th v 9th - the winner in week 2 goes into an elimination final, the loser is knocked out
8th v 10th - the winner in week 2 goes into an elimination final, the loser is knocked out

This means more teams can make finals and keep the second half of the season interesting for some lower teams, so hopefully more attendance and tv viewers. It also means 4 more finals matches to sell broadcast rights for, which again hopefully makes the broadcasters happy for the less games in the season.

In all this reduces the AFL season from 28 weeks down to 25 which also removes some of the overlap with the AFLW games as well.

 

[MadMundy]

As long as they give Fremantle benefits I don't care if other teams are disadvantaged

 

[Carringbush2010]

I figured I would bump the most recent thread, rather than starting the 900th thread on future fixture ideas.

So big considerations are:

• Enough games to keep up the value of broadcasting rights;
• A fair fixture;
• Introducing a Tasmanian team;
• Consideration for the AFLW fixtures and limiting the overlap with their finals;
• Maximising possible revenue for clubs.

Then there are lots of other smaller things.

So currently in the H&A season the 18 teams play 198 games with each team having 11 home, 11 away games and 1 bye. And then have a final 8 finals system over 4 weeks.

What if we introduce Tasmania, so there is 19 teams, where everyone only plays each team once in the season. Whether you play that opposition at home or away, will swap each year. Imagine the excitement in Adelaide or Perth if there was only one Showdown or Derby respectively each season. Each Vic team could be drawn to only go to QLD, NSW, SA and WA once a year rotating between home and away games for those local teams.

This results in the H&A season having 171 games where each team has 9 home games, 9 away games and 2 byes. One bye is randomly through the season, the second bye is during one of the middle three weeks of the season like at present.

So we are currently down 27 games from the old system which is a negative to the value of the broadcast deals.

The team that has the bye each week, will play the next Thursday night match against one of the teams from the previous Friday night. This gives the broadcasters an additional valuable game each week (instead of a ‘nothing’ time slot on a Saturday) to compensate for less games. So hopefully with 21 Thursday night games this absorbs a lot of the devaluation of the 27 less fixtures games.

But as a little cherry on top, the finals are expanded to a top 10 in a 5 week system.

Weeks 2-5 is exactly the same as our current top 8 finals system. And remove the bye between the H&A and the finals.

But Week 1 - 1st and 2nd get a bye.

The rest play off for their final position, so that:
3rd v 5th - the winner in week 2 goes into a qualifying final, loser hosts an elimination final
4th v 6th - the winner in week 2 goes into a qualifying final, loser hosts an elimination final
7th v 9th - the winner in week 2 goes into an elimination final, the loser is knocked out
8th v 10th - the winner in week 2 goes into an elimination final, the loser is knocked out

This means more teams can make finals and keep the second half of the season interesting for some lower teams, so hopefully more attendance and tv viewers. It also means 4 more finals matches to sell broadcast rights for, which again hopefully makes the broadcasters happy for the less games in the season.

In all this reduces the AFL season from 28 weeks down to 25 which also removes some of the overlap with the AFLW games as well.

Having 10 teams in finals is rewarding mediocrity even if there are 19 teams. The 17-5 models are better in that sense.

I do like the idea of the Thur / Fri come off the bye idea - I'd imagine if and when the Tas club comes in that would get the majority vote.

I don't think there is currently a way to equalise the fixture without upsetting the market, marquee games, Fri and Thur night games all attract larger TV and crowd audiences and unless the market deviates away from the current. What we got is what we got.