Calculating the perfect fixture

[Old Spice]

A seventeen round draw would be the goal. I could even live with an 18 round draw with one return fixture. Everyone would point to the potential lose of revenue the AFL would suffer, but that's only a short-term hit for a potential long-term major payoff.

Look at the NFL. Every game matters. Every game is huge and there's a real sense of "I can't miss this" simply because every game has ramifications. With a 24 round season, games get lost in the shuffle as people get into the mentality of "there's always next week." That just doesn't exist in the NFL.

Of course, the AFL would never do this as they would have to accept a $1.2bn or less in the next TV rights and they treat that as a massive pissing contest with the NRL.

It's not just some pissing contest, the revenue helps the AFL to shovel money toward clubs like North. When you skip another 4-5 games, that is a massive hit. Would you expect 7 and Foxtel to pay the same amount for 4-5 less games per season?

 

[headache1]

18 rounds.
9 home and 9 away.
Play every body once + a rivalry round.
Vic teams travel to each state once.
Other clubs travel to each other state once and Victoria (or stand in venue eg Tassie) 5 times.
Alternates each year.

This is about as fair as it can possibly get with the current layout of the league.

 

[Stamos]

This is about as fair as it can possibly get with the current layout of the league.

And from going from an 16 team competition 2 years ago to an 18 team competition now, you would only lose 14 games.
Given less dead rubbers, surely this is a good compromise?

 

[headache1]

And from going from an 16 team competition 2 years ago to an 18 team competition now, you would only lose 14 games.
Given less dead rubbers, surely this is a good compromise?

I certainly think so. Unfortunately, the AFL has committed to having those 14 games in their TV rights deal.

 

[THRILLHO]

It's not just some pissing contest, the revenue helps the AFL to shovel money toward clubs like North. When you skip another 4-5 games, that is a massive hit. Would you expect 7 and Foxtel to pay the same amount for 4-5 less games per season?

52% ($1.1bn) of AFL revenue is redistributed to clubs over a five year period. North takes $10m of that. Not that big a figure.

North only gets $6m more than Collingwood over a five year period. Hardly makes up for North being one of the main teams paying off Etihad for the AFL for a crap stadium deal, being on FTA 8 times in a season, and constantly being shunted to Sunday twilights.

I mention that the AFL would have to expect a small, short-term drop-off in revenue, but this would be countered in the short-term by naturally higher audience figures as each game becomes more critical to the season and long-term it would cease to be a problem because those games take on greater importance and the figures will once again realign.

 

[Stamos]

They've committed to 36 more games than what you would get with an 18 round season.

 

[Old Spice]

This is about as fair as it can possibly get with the current layout of the league.

So give me the hypothetical Crows draw based on this scenario.

 

[headache1]

So give me the hypothetical Crows draw based on this scenario.

I don't have the time, nor the motivation to sit down and work that out.

 

[Old Spice]

52% ($1.1bn) of AFL revenue is redistributed to clubs over a five year period. North takes $10m of that. Not that big a figure.

North only gets $6m more than Collingwood over a five year period. Hardly makes up for North being one of the main teams paying off Etihad for the AFL for a crap stadium deal, being on FTA 8 times in a season, and constantly being shunted to Sunday twilights.

I mention that the AFL would have to expect a small, short-term drop-off in revenue, but this would be countered in the short-term by naturally higher audience figures as each game becomes more critical to the season and long-term it would cease to be a problem because those games take on greater importance and the figures will once again realign.

I'm afraid you're not quite right.

The committed funding to bottom club sustainability in the guise of the Club Future Fund is not evenly distributed. In 2011 there was 7 million earmarked for the Dogs and North, 5.8 for Melbourne, 5.7 for Richmond down to zero for the Crows etc.

 

[Old Spice]

I don't have the time, nor the motivation to sit down and work that out.

And therein lies the issue. You don't like what they've drawn up, but you just take on face value that a post nails it very pithily, athough to me it didn't make much sense.

 

[THRILLHO]

I'm afraid you're not quite right.

The committed funding to bottom club sustainability in the guise of the Club Future Fund is not evenly distributed. In 2011 there was 7 million earmarked for the Dogs and North, 5.8 for Melbourne, 5.7 for Richmond down to zero for the Crows etc.

What's wrong about it?

Equal funding: all clubs get $3.25m
Disequal funding: Nth Melb $7m, Collingwood $1m

Ergo, Nth get about $6m more than Collingwood in funding.

And it's not over one year. Nth get $7m disequal from 2012-2014.

 

[Dagger]

Really hope the fixture is fairer next year, don't want another club like Adelaide gifted a top four spot

 

[Stamos]

And therein lies the issue. You don't like what they've drawn up, but you just take on face value that a post nails it very pithily, athough to me it didn't make much sense.

In any given year, Adelaide would play Port twice.
They would play (eg) West Coast, Brisbane and GWS at home, and Freo, GC and Swans away
They would play 5 Vic teams at home and 5 away.
The teams they play at home would alternate each year, eg play Swans at home year 1, and away year 2.
Over a 2 year cycle, each team would play each other team at home once, and away once, except for their 'Rival' whom they would play home twice and away twice.

 

[Meow]

What is this 'fixturing software' that the AFL use? 1000 monkeys working at 1000 computers?

 

[headache1]

And therein lies the issue. You don't like what they've drawn up, but you just take on face value that a post nails it very pithily, athough to me it didn't make much sense.

I never said I had a huge problem with the current fixture. But one that sees each team play each other once per season, with a rivalry round seems to be reasonably fair to me. Making it work is obviously the hard part

 

[Hodge is God]

What is this 'fixturing software' that the AFL use? 1000 monkeys working at 1000 computers?

They would have more brains than Vlad and his croonies.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

They are trying to make us understand just how hard it is to do the fixture and for us all to back off and accept it better.

But the fixture is not difficult at all, they have made it difficult themselves because they put all of these parameters in.

Take them out and a better and fairer fixture is not hard at all. Football fixtures should have zero parameters in them.
But they like to sell to us it is hard because we have to have them.

Just another load of crap from the AFL.

Yep. This quote just shows the arrogance of Andy D and his complete misunderstanding of what the footy supporting public wants;

"The draw is absolutely compromised, it's unashamedly comprised, but what's really bizarre about the whole thing, and I can't give you any logical explanation, it appears that the best four teams make the top four every year," AFL boss Andrew Demetriou said last year.

Ensuring teams don't "over-achieve" based on their fixture is only one aspect. What about clubs who lose money because they are consistently drawn to play low-drawing opponents at home? What about teams who lose out on sponsorship revenue because they are consistently put into the worst time-slots? What about teams who find it difficult to maintain, let alone grow, their supporter base due to these factors? The list goes on but the AFL is far too arrogant and blind-sided by the immediate dollars to bother comprehending anything other than their own KPI's.

Of course this doesn't even take into account the perception of fairness and equality that a sports competition should have if it wants to have any semblance of integrity.

 

[HappyChappy35]

What is this 'fixturing software' that the AFL use? 1000 monkeys working at 1000 computers?

That is really unfair on those monkeys, claiming they are less intelligent than Vlad and co. BTW they don't work at computers, they work at typewriters:

 

[Old Spice]

What's wrong about it?

Equal funding: all clubs get $3.25m
Disequal funding: Nth Melb $7m, Collingwood $1m

Ergo, Nth get about $6m more than Collingwood in funding.

And it's not over one year. Nth get $7m disequal from 2012-2014.

I would have thought an extra 2.3 mil per year from the AFL was nothing to sneeze at for North compared to the Pies 330k, but maybe I've got it all wrong.

If you think reducing the season to 18 games is not going to shrink the alms to poorer clubs, I think you're grossly mistaken. A reduction of games by @20% will reduce the revenue, no question. And that doesn't mean that the dispensation to poorer clubs will automatically reduce by 20%. There are costs which are fixed and growing. Take a look at cap growth over the next EA. A reduced tv rights deal will hit discretionary spending a lot harder.

But even if it didn't and North received 2 million per year and the Pies 300k through 20% less games (against inflation), that is still a hit to you because as wages and costs go up, your war-chest is shrinking. That's hardly a situation I'd be desiring when the revenue streams and footy dept spending gulfs are already enormous.

 

[Old Spice]

In any given year, Adelaide would play Port twice.
They would play (eg) West Coast, Brisbane and GWS at home, and Freo, GC and Swans away
They would play 5 Vic teams at home and 5 away.
The teams they play at home would alternate each year, eg play Swans at home year 1, and away year 2.
Over a 2 year cycle, each team would play each other team at home once, and away once, except for their 'Rival' whom they would play home twice and away twice.

I've gone through the tv rights deal and an expectation of a reduced revenue to be pumped back in, just from that quarter, if the season is reduced by 4 games.

It's also blindingly apparent that both tv viewing and gate receipts are heavily weighted toward the blockbuster teams. You can slay the golden goose, but you cut your own neck in the process.

 

[final fight]

Is there any other fixture like the AFL's anywhere in the world? Incredible how complex it is. Why not draw teams out of a hat and televise it on TV. Would be more exciting than the Brownlow.

 

[Elvis]

Apart from playing everyone once or twice, the only possible way of having an even draw these days would be over the course of the season to play every team for four points, eg having 2 point games for the teams you play twice

 

[Old Spice]

Ensuring teams don't "over-achieve" based on their fixture is only one aspect. What about clubs who lose money because they are consistently drawn to play low-drawing opponents at home? What about teams who lose out on sponsorship revenue because they are consistently put into the worst time-slots? What about teams who find it difficult to maintain, let alone grow, their supporter base due to these factors? The list goes on but the AFL is far too arrogant and blind-sided by the immediate dollars to bother comprehending anything other than their own KPI's.

Of course this doesn't even take into account the perception of fairness and equality that a sports competition should have if it wants to have any semblance of integrity.

Are you for real? You ARE one of the 'low-drawing' teams. You are one of the teams most don't want to play because you drag down TV viewer numbers and gate receipts. The reason you are in the worst time slots is because you attract little interest.

If the AFL did as you suggested and put you in prime-time, 200 thousand people would start watching Inspector Morse. Face facts, until you build up your membership, you'll never be a top biller. Don't blame the AFL for your appeal.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It's a bloody hard task to even it out.

Some supporters say they want a big gate from the big games and play the Pies, then another supporter from the same club will say they are disadvantaged by playing a top side twice.

It's easy to attack it, but I'd be interested to see what people put up as an ideal draw for 2013. I'm 100% certain that one persons proposal would be lucky to get near 50% support.

18 rounds
Play each team once (17 games)
1 bye per team
Alternate H&A each year
Each team plays away to WA, SA, NSW, QLD once each year
Each team plays away at Geelong at least once every 4 years
Each team has one home game on a Friday night and one home game on a Saturday night each year
Each team plays one home game on a Sunday twilight each year

You could still keep the Season Opener/ANZAC Day/Easter Monday/Queens Birthday games though it would be preferable to rotate these - I would be more then willing to give up the Queens Birthday game if it meant the payoff was a fair draw - in the interests of trying to appease Collingwood/Essendon & Richmond/Carlton though I'd be happy to let them keep ANZAC Day & Season Opener and perhaps even Geelong/Hawthorn on Easter Monday though really these should be rotated between all the clubs (not just Victorian clubs - it is a national game after all)

There is also potential to add in an extra mid-season break for either U18 Championships or State of Origin (or perhaps even state league representative matches eg VFL/SANFL/WAFL/NEAFL playing each other or some kind of Foxtel Cup type matches between state league clubs) - this is not necessary but could be an addition to the draw to extend the season. State of Origin would be the preference and it could be over two weekends split through the season.

They could also make the NAB Cup more lucrative by offering greater prizemoney for the winner and top 4 as well.

 

[Old Spice]

So much bluster to be perfectly frank.

Until I see someone give a full-fixture, with teams, travel, revenue, breaks and finishing position, it's all just predictable hot-dogma that means nothing.