Enlighten me!!!
Effectively the MCC wanted Collingwood at the G, they went, PFs were no longer locked it to the G. Its a bit more complicated because the AFL were involved, but Eddie made it happen IMHO.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Enlighten me!!!
The current draft system has been bastardised so much it doesn't do much for equalisation atmDraft picks based on wins doesnt do much for equalisation.
I find it quite amusing that fans have actually accepted the introduction of deliberate handicapping as ‘fair’!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
You didn’t read my suggestion, you can still keep the actual season to be 22 weeks.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 don’t have a joined finals system, each conference has its own finals...that is the point.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.
Why is that a bad thing?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 ^^^
you do realise Richmond dont negotiate the GF venue dont you, so not sure how it's cheating...
LolaramaAnd 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...
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.
Cmon - be realisticTwo 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.
Cmon - be realistic
like freo are going to clog anything up bar the race for the spoon
Dont associate me with those pusillanimous purples you blithering ninnygoose!!!Yeah but if we left you out, we wouldn't hear the end of it.
I agree.Two showdowns are a good thing, especially regarding the interstate teams.
Yeah pretty clearly a flawed concept from the get goIve 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
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’.
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.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.
Please ban this poster for being an utter idiot.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.
You are confusing fair with making it a more equal event.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.
Players already want less games, and more byes.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.
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.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.
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
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
& 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.
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.
Its dead in the AFL, if you regress to State Leagues TV money will demand it, its premium, not the VFL outside Vic.
AFL and C7 agree with this utter idiot hahahahahahahahahaPlease ban this poster for being an utter idiot.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "TV money will demand it". Needs two things for that to happen.
- 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.
- 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.
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 3AFL 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.