Alternative fixture idea

(Log in to remove this ad.)

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
16,461
7,865
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
What's inconsistent about it though, it's a fair system in that the best teams double up against other best teams and less against the bottom teams and vice versa which has seen teams come from the bottom to top 4 in recent years,

Richmond and Collingwood, Geelong have a 3-1-1 set up which is totally fair IMO
I find it quite amusing that fans have actually accepted the introduction of deliberate handicapping as ‘fair’!

Absolute nonsense.

It would be as if the Olympics changed the 100m sprint to a Stawell Gift style handicap event where some runners had to run further just because they won some races last year.

The handicapping is a nonsense and ain’t ‘fair’

As for reduced season, as a fan the off season is already too long and people want to make it longer in the quest for fairness...fu** that.
You didn’t read my suggestion, you can still keep the actual season to be 22 weeks.

It just means that you normally only have 7 games per week, ie more byes spread through the season. Players will love that.

Conferences would lead to same same year in year out and god forbid one conference becomes stronger than the other and an unworthy team makes finals because of it. Look at AFLW with blues and cats making finals despite winning less games than those who missed finals in the stronger group.
You don’t have a joined finals system, each conference has its own finals...that is the point.

You are ranked purely against teams who actually play the same schedule as each other - which again is ‘fair’.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
16,461
7,865
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Who is getting favoured, system is much better than having the premiers double up against multiple bottom teams which is what used to happen in the past.

Or we could go back to how is was done in the past if that is your preference, take 1999 into 2000 as an example.

Richmond finished 12th out of 16 teams and were fixtured double up games for 2000 against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th 10th, 14th and 15th.

North Melbourne who won the 1999 flag were fixtured double up games for 2000 against 5th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th and 16th


Something tells me the current system is fine because under the current system you will never see a repeat of that ^^^
Why is that a bad thing?

Why should the premier of 1999 be handicapped for 2000?

They should start with the exact same opportunity to win the GF as everyone else.

And if we have a stupid 5 team double up schedule it should be completely random, or a rule in place that just locks in the double up games based on ladder position, a standard matrix that never changes.

But the AFL can’t manipulate that the get the two showdowns etc. so will never happen.
 

kranky al

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2009
16,168
19,670
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
you do realise Richmond dont negotiate the GF venue dont you, so not sure how it's cheating...




you are the beneficiary of a system rigged to give you an advantage


And before you get on your high horse, I am from WA so don't cry the Vic bias bullsh!t...
You do realise, if it wasn't for Subi oval, WCE wouldn't have made half as many finals series as they have...
Lolarama

why would that be.
 

Ghost Patrol

All Australian
Sep 17, 2019
684
938
AFL Club
Richmond
Why is that a bad thing?

Why should the premier of 1999 be handicapped for 2000?

They should start with the exact same opportunity to win the GF as everyone else.

And if we have a stupid 5 team double up schedule it should be completely random, or a rule in place that just locks in the double up games based on ladder position, a standard matrix that never changes.

But the AFL can’t manipulate that the get the two showdowns etc. so will never happen.
Two showdowns are a good thing, especially regarding the interstate teams.

It means there's less chance of having two Sydneys, two Perths and/or two Adelaides clogging up the prelims.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
16,461
7,865
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Two showdowns are a good thing, especially regarding the interstate teams.
I agree.
That is why conferences should be introduced.
Put all the non-Melbourne teams in one conference, they can all deal with the travel and actual home and away games keep all their showdowns..and be fairly ranked against teams who play the same schedule.

And then have the Melbourne teams in a seperate conference.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
16,461
7,865
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Ive got to admit - im off my idea

needs a modifier for the second round to make it work as teams could conceivably travel for all 7 games

until thats sorted fairly im off it
Yeah pretty clearly a flawed concept from the get go

If you are playing 17 teams home and away, 9 home and 8 away, but then splinter the league there is no check on where your opponents have finished.

So a team may finish in 7th position, but of the other 7 teams making up the top 8 they already played 6 at home and just 1 away.

So that team then plays 6 away games which are basically pointless as you are saying the top 8 roll into the normal finals anyway!

With the current number of teams, the safest most palatable for majority of fans option is each team plays 18 games - 17 H&A and the geographical double up

WA, SA, QLD, NSW battles

Vic it would be geographic matches too (people can complain and soon it up about these but
Geel v WB - the ‘Geelong Road’ rumble
NM v ESS - Mt Alexander road rampage
Carl v Melb - inner city silver tail cup
Coll v Rich - Hoddle St / Punt Rd smackdown
Stk v Haw - Moorabbin v Dingley south east square off

To make it even fairer, the local derby clashes can only be worth 2 points (2x2 = 4 points) to avoid the cries of it being unfair that a team like BL would have got a leg-up recently being the only team with the two games against the Suns.

The key then is to keep the 22 week season, but make every game a stand-alone game so only playing 7 actual games a week, introduce more byes.

WA teams would love that, as it means only 8 trips across the Nullarbor and more byes to help the players recover from such arduous travel loads

With teams playing 18 games it means there would be 162 H&A games.

A 22 week season with 7 games a week takes us to 154 games.

So a normal fixture would just be Thursday night, (teams coming off the bye would get the Thursday clash), Friday night, Sat arvo, Sat Twilight, Sat night, Sun early, Sun late

So then have 8 additional games to slot in, which can take advantage of certain public holidays etc would want Rd 22 to be all 9 games.

That way the TV broadcaster win with 22 Thursday night, 22 Friday night (more than the 30 odd they currently have) and Foxtel could push for the triple header Saturday line up, and then two standalone games on the Sunday, would imagine the Sunday late would also often push later to drift closer to prime time in Eastern markets.

The losers would be the regional cities and Tassie, as with only 9 home games...Melbourne teams wouldn’t sell them to Tassie, NT or Ballarat anymore.

That is how you set up a fair fixture, that keeps players happy, broadcasters happy and footy tragics are able to still watch the same amount of live footy each weekend.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tiger Toffee

🏆🏆🏆🏆
May 22, 2014
12,381
39,177
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
I find it quite amusing that fans have actually accepted the introduction of deliberate handicapping as ‘fair’!

Absolute nonsense.

It would be as if the Olympics changed the 100m sprint to a Stawell Gift style handicap event where some runners had to run further just because they won some races last year.

The handicapping is a nonsense and ain’t ‘fair’


You didn’t read my suggestion, you can still keep the actual season to be 22 weeks.

It just means that you normally only have 7 games per week, ie more byes spread through the season. Players will love that.


You don’t have a joined finals system, each conference has its own finals...that is the point.

You are ranked purely against teams who actually play the same schedule as each other - which again is ‘fair’.
1. It's totally fair and has teams playing 2 or 3 double up's from their group of 6 and less from the other groups. It's why teams like lions, pies, hawks, tigers have been able to go from bottom 6 to top 6 in a single season or would you prefer the same teams occupy the top spots forever by being given an easier fixture than that of a team down the bottom because that is what used to happen before this weighted fixture was introduced.

2. LOL, 17 in 22 is still a shorter season and will players love the reduced pay packet, will the AFL love the reduced TV rights money, will the clubs love the reduced money by needing to offer reduced priced memberships. Will fans love the increased entry costs to games clubs will enforce to recover said membership money losses, will fans also love the increased finals tickets prices the AFL will enforce to recover lost TV rights money losses etc etc

3. Seperate finals series LOL, why don't we just go back to the VFL and invite Brisbane to come back as Fitzroy and Sydney as South Melbourne.
West Coast and Freo can join the WAFL, Adelaide and Port can just convert their reserves to seniors in the SANFL, giants and suns can do whatever, join the NEAFL or just fold or do both winners of each conference play off in the Superbowl.

Why is that a bad thing?

Why should the premier of 1999 be handicapped for 2000?

They should start with the exact same opportunity to win the GF as everyone else.

And if we have a stupid 5 team double up schedule it should be completely random, or a rule in place that just locks in the double up games based on ladder position, a standard matrix that never changes.

But the AFL can’t manipulate that the get the two showdowns etc. so will never happen.
See point 1 above. It's fair, only those who want things handed to them a silver platter see things as unfair when it's not.

One final thing, 17 games over 22 weeks with 5 byes....fu** that, i want to see my team play every week not every 3 out of 4 weeks. Most people can't stand the pre finals bye and you want to introduce 5 extra byes on top of that.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
31,250
27,395
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
1. It's totally fair and has teams playing 2 or 3 double up's from their group of 6 and less from the other groups. It's why teams like lions, pies, hawks, tigers have been able to go from bottom 6 to top 6 in a single season or would you prefer the same teams occupy the top spots forever by being given an easier fixture than that of a team down the bottom because that is what used to happen before this weighted fixture was introduced.

2. LOL, 17 in 22 is still a shorter season and will players love the reduced pay packet, will the AFL love the reduced TV rights money, will the clubs love the reduced money by needing to offer reduced priced memberships. Will fans love the increased entry costs to games clubs will enforce to recover said membership money losses, will fans also love the increased finals tickets prices the AFL will enforce to recover lost TV rights money losses etc etc

3. Seperate finals series LOL, why don't we just go back to the VFL and invite Brisbane to come back as Fitzroy and Sydney as South Melbourne.
West Coast and Freo can join the WAFL, Adelaide and Port can just convert their reserves to seniors in the SANFL, giants and suns can do whatever, join the NEAFL or just fold or do both winners of each conference play off in the Superbowl.


See point 1 above. It's fair, only those who want things handed to them a silver platter see things as unfair when it's not.

One final thing, 17 games over 22 weeks with 5 byes....fu** that, i want to see my team play every week not every 3 out of 4 weeks. Most people can't stand the pre finals bye and you want to introduce 5 extra byes on top of that.
Please ban this poster for being an utter idiot.
 

doppleganger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2005
16,461
7,865
Putney
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
1. It's totally fair and has teams playing 2 or 3 double up's from their group of 6 and less from the other groups. It's why teams like lions, pies, hawks, tigers have been able to go from bottom 6 to top 6 in a single season or would you prefer the same teams occupy the top spots forever by being given an easier fixture than that of a team down the bottom because that is what used to happen before this weighted fixture was introduced.
You are confusing fair with making it a more equal event.

The 100m sprint in the Olympics is fair, all competitors just run 100m the fastest is the winner.

The Stawell gift isn’t fair, it is a handicapped event to try and make the event closer. The fastest runners go from scratch, but slower runners get a head start.

Why people have accepted the AFL attempting to handicap the best sides as being ‘fair’ is beyond me.

Going to 18 games, 16 H&A, and then a double up against a geographic rival (for 2 points per game) is actually a fair fixture.

2. LOL, 17 in 22 is still a shorter season and will players love the reduced pay packet, will the AFL love the reduced TV rights money, will the clubs love the reduced money by needing to offer reduced priced memberships. Will fans love the increased entry costs to games clubs will enforce to recover said membership money losses, will fans also love the increased finals tickets prices the AFL will enforce to recover lost TV rights money losses etc etc

One final thing, 17 games over 22 weeks with 5 byes....fu** that, i want to see my team play every week not every 3 out of 4 weeks. Most people can't stand the pre finals bye and you want to introduce 5 extra byes on top of that.
Players already want less games, and more byes.
Plenty of Melbourne clubs already sell ‘home’ games or lose money on them.
Non-vic clubs complain travel is too hard.
TV won’t pay big $$ for games played on sat and Sunday arvo as nobody watching, they want prime time games.

And yeah the scarcity of games means you can charge a premium. Pies home season ticket is $210 for 11 games now, would still be able to charge that for 9 games.

With byes scattered throughout the season, players won’t be ‘managed’ and every game is big. You also could get rid of the pre finals bye which is a momentum killer.

And yes, the compromise would be that Thursday night football becomes a fixture each week...broadcasters get the extra prime time game, so TV actually getting more prime time games so $$ won’t drop. And the byes throughout the season enable the Thursday games as teams won’t have 4 or 5 day breaks.

Also means more equitable spread of prime time games, as more teams get the Thursday and Friday prime time exposure after coming off a bye.

3. Seperate finals series LOL, why don't we just go back to the VFL and invite Brisbane to come back as Fitzroy and Sydney as South Melbourne.
West Coast and Freo can join the WAFL, Adelaide and Port can just convert their reserves to seniors in the SANFL, giants and suns can do whatever, join the NEAFL or just fold or do both winners of each conference play off in the Superbowl.
If you have conferences, then of course you have to have individual conference finals. That is the entire point, you break the league into smaller groups who all have the same schedule and compete against each other.

Go back to final 4 or 5 for each conference.

And yes, you could also introduce an additional final where the two conference premiers play off. A potential way to have that game moved around the country, the MCG always hosts the Melbourne Grand Final.

But yes, that is too ‘American’ for many people to embrace, so the 18 games per team across a 22 week season is the better solution if you actually want a ‘fair’ fixture with the current 18 teams.

The current 22 round season, with 5 double ups and attempted handicapping isn’t fair, and the lack of prime time exposure for poorer clubs is an issue.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
6,051
3,465
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
3. Seperate finals series LOL, why don't we just go back to the VFL and invite Brisbane to come back as Fitzroy and Sydney as South Melbourne.
West Coast and Freo can join the WAFL, Adelaide and Port can just convert their reserves to seniors in the SANFL, giants and suns can do whatever, join the NEAFL or just fold
This would even up all of those comps, probably the only way we could get close to true equity. National comp can never be truly national or equitable.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
6,051
3,465
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
If you have conferences, then of course you have to have individual conference finals. That is the entire point, you break the league into smaller groups who all have the same schedule and compete against each other.
The problem with this is that the VFL would be biggest comp again - over and above the "national playoff" (if there were to be one) - just as it was before it was nationalised. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that - it would even up the fixture's and of course I'd follow the VFL:thumbsu:
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,082
6,911
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
The problem with this is that the VFL would be biggest comp again - over and above the "national playoff" (if there were to be one) - just as it was before it was nationalised. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that - it would even up the fixture's and of course I'd follow the VFL:thumbsu:
& Origin would be back, Origin would be king, another plus would be the NRL not owning 4 out of 5 top sports telecast ratings.

Imagine following the VFL in the 70/80s when the best player (s) you didnt see them play, bit like when Polly rewrote ruck work in the VFL in the 60s by introducing the WA playbook from the 50s .... would Indigenous players play in the VFL, rarely did .... no problem, kid yourself it is the equivalent of the AFL !!!

You could even kid yourself the likes of Polly didnt play senior footy until he came to Geelong, had 3 x AAs but hadnt played senior footy, could you keep a straight face?
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
6,051
3,465
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
& Origin would be back, Origin would be king
How so? There is no incentive for players and clubs alike to invest injury risk to play - that's why it died in the first place.

Unless the public (market) dictates that it wants SOO to be king then it won't.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,082
6,911
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
How so? There is no incentive for players and clubs alike to invest injury risk to play - that's why it died in the first place.

Unless the public (market) dictates that it wants SOO to be king then it won't.
When State Leagues were king BUT bleeding money, origin was king, TV pays premium dollars for premium content & 3 x NRL Origin games are in the top 5 sport ratings (only AFL game in the top 5 is the GF).
Media rights fund the game & they will DEMAND premium content.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
6,051
3,465
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
When State Leagues were king BUT bleeding money, origin was king, TV pays premium dollars for premium content & 3 x NRL Origin games are in the top 5 sport ratings (only AFL game in the top 5 is the GF).
Media rights fund the game & they will DEMAND premium content.
Ok by that logic the football public plus you are more interested in SOO than if their team has a shot at the flag. I must be in the minority.

RL SOO is king in RL the premiership is not. That's why it's a tv giant because the fans want it.

In AFL the premiership is king not SOO - never has been, sure there was interest from the fans since the late 70's but there was no incentive for the clubs to risk injury to their players and it died. Premierships were still king.

Until such time as the public demands SOO and HQ give incentive to compete in it. It is dead.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,082
6,911
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
Ok by that logic the football public plus you are more interested in SOO than if their team has a shot at the flag. I must be in the minority.

RL SOO is king in RL the premiership is not. That's why it's a tv giant because the fans want it.

In AFL the premiership is king not SOO - never has been, sure there was interest from the fans since the late 70's but there was no incentive for the clubs to risk injury to their players and it died. Premierships were still king.

Until such time as the public demands SOO and HQ give incentive to compete in it. It is dead.
Its dead in the AFL, if you regress to State Leagues TV money will demand it, its premium, not the VFL outside Vic.
 

Carringbush2010

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
6,051
3,465
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Its dead in the AFL, if you regress to State Leagues TV money will demand it, its premium, not the VFL outside Vic.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "TV money will demand it". Needs two things for that to happen.

  1. The market will need to drive it i:e it needs public demand. There's no guarantee that IF state leagues did return that that would be the case. Before the league went national SOO certainly wasn't king - not in vic anyway. May have been in WA, SA and TAS but growing up in vic when SOO was popular - the premiership race was still king. Bragging rights for your club trumped bragging rights for the state in the school yard back then.
  2. There needs to be incentive for clubs to risk their star cattle playing SOO, it was only bragging rights back in the day. I don't imagine WC would allow Gaff and Schuey etc. to don the big V for the sake of state bragging rights. For point one to happen point two needs to happen 1st.
 

Kwality

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
20,082
6,911
Tootgarook
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Renault F1
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "TV money will demand it". Needs two things for that to happen.

  1. The market will need to drive it i:e it needs public demand. There's no guarantee that IF state leagues did return that that would be the case. Before the league went national SOO certainly wasn't king - not in vic anyway. May have been in WA, SA and TAS but growing up in vic when SOO was popular - the premiership race was still king. Bragging rights for your club trumped bragging rights for the state in the school yard back then.
  2. There needs to be incentive for clubs to risk their star cattle playing SOO, it was only bragging rights back in the day. I don't imagine WC would allow Gaff and Schuey etc. to don the big V for the sake of state bragging rights. For point one to happen point two needs to happen 1st.
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.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
31,250
27,395
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
AFL and C7 agree with this utter idiot hahahahahahahahaha

There will be no reduced season, no stupid conferences, no separate finals series, no stupid 17-5 system. I'm right and you all know it.
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
 

Top Bottom