Calculating the perfect fixture

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

What rubbish.

2012 Round 2 - Coll v Rich - 57,268
2012 Round 3 - Rich v Melb - 49,826

2011 Round 10 - Melb v Ess - 53,077
2011 Round 16 - Ess v Rich - 55,442

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2010&t=R&h=A&s=A

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2011&t=R&h=A&s=A

As you can see even though we have been horrible on-field for the last couple of seasons we have still been drawing average crowds comparable with other teams such as Richmond and St. Kilda (bearing in mind that we also have played a home game in Darwin the last few years which typically draws only about 6-8K).

But this wasn't just about my team anyway. This is about the integrity of the competition and allowing all clubs to compete on equal footing. Fix the draw, give each team equal exposure and equal opportunities to maximise their attendances and get rid of the disequal funding, which is put in place to compensate those clubs who are screwed by the AFL's rigged FIXture but without the transparency that having a fair draw would have. Allow the teams to sink or swim based on their own merits instead of having certain clubs subservient to the AFL and beholden to their handouts and the risk that pissing them off will see them punished by the FIXturing. It is insane that the AFL uses the FIXture as a stick to punish certain clubs who don't tow the company line or don't just bend over to cop it from the league.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

I fail to see how it is bluster. It is quite simple to devise a fair draw for anyone inclined to take the time to do one. If you read the article the thread is based on you would have seen that other league's around the world are much EASIER for the company to devise schedules for because they are based on far fewer "rules" than the AFL demands they put in to manage their severely compromised FIXture.

"From a strictly mathematical point of view, the AFL is more difficult (than the 32-team NFL) -- by far," Stone told the Herald Sun.

"There are a lot of rules specific to the clubs, but there are also a lot of rules specific to stadiums and what the broadcasting partners are looking for. And every year they seem to come up with more rules and we assist them in defining the rules and translate that into software."

The article demonstrates another aspect of the AFL's severe short-sightedness;

New fixture "rules" for next year will see top four teams play fewer matches against bottom four sides.

The only exception will be for the Swans, who get two hitouts against Greater Western Sydney.

Another rule sees the non-finalists from this season play a maximum of two return matches against top eight sides from 2012.

While on the surface this seems like a good idea to have a "fairer" FIXture or at least closer games throughout the season due to opposing sides being more evenly matched, this is going to result in the "poorer" sides having easier FIXtures and therefore a higher probability of qualifying for the finals while the sides who finished top 8 this year will face tougher FIXtures and therefore less of a chance of qualifying for finals. So while it might make for closer/better games during the H&A season it is going to result in a poorer and more lop-sided finals series, something that has been evident the last couple of years with large blowouts in the early weeks of finals.

 

[Old Spice]

What rubbish.

2012 Round 2 - Coll v Rich - 57,268
2012 Round 3 - Rich v Melb - 49,826

2011 Round 10 - Melb v Ess - 53,077
2011 Round 16 - Ess v Rich - 55,442

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2010&t=R&h=A&s=A

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2011&t=R&h=A&s=A

Do you notice anything peculiar about the games you've alluded to? Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond are 1st, 2nd and 4th in attracting crowds, while you sit 11th in the AFL. The only Melbourne teams you sit above are North and the Dogs. You are flattered by association and your membership is 16th in the league.

I wouldn't be getting all cocksure, in that case, about you being bridled with 'low-drawing' teams when you are right down the bottom. Maybe thank the AFL for bank-rolling your whole operation.

Don't attack the socialist system that keeps you above water. Be proud and sink or say thank you squire for keeping me afloat.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Over x seasons you play each team y times
Simple

No CBF crap

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Do you notice anything peculiar about the games you've alluded to? Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond are 1st, 2nd and 4th in attracting crowds, while you sit 11th in the AFL. The only Melbourne teams you sit above are North and the Dogs. You are flattered by association and your membership is 16th in the league.

Right so the teams who sit 1st, 2nd & 4th in attracting crowds attract similar crowds against each other as they do against a "'low-drawing' team" who is "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."

All I was doing was pointing out the fallacy in your argument because we attracted similar crowds against supposed higher drawing teams as they do against each other.

I'm not trying to claim Melbourne is one of the power teams of the comp. I know where we sit, but what I'm trying to point out is that the AFL's claims of having to rig the FIXture lest the competition start having their arse hanging out of their trousers is incorrect. When you weigh up the costs of having a compromised competition against the supposed benefits of rigging the FIXture to the benefit of the more powerful teams it is clear it is not worth compromising the competitions integrity.

EDIT: Looking again at average crowds for home games in 2010 shows the difference between Melbourne, St. Kilda, Richmond, Geelong & Hawthorn to be negligible.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2010&t=R&h=H&s=A

 

[Old Spice]

EDIT: Looking again at average crowds for home games in 2010 shows the difference between Melbourne, St. Kilda, Richmond, Geelong & Hawthorn to be negligible.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2010&t=R&h=H&s=A

I like 2010 too, was one of my favourite years, but in 2012 you finished only above North and Doggies as I said.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2012&t=R&h=H&s=A

Over the season, you have average crowds and are flattered by Queen's Birthday.

If you got the 'fair' draws you state you want, TV and gate revenue would take a serious nosedive, and by association, so would the money the AFL pumps back into your leaky tyres. Maybe get your own house in order first and thank the AFL for the gratuity.

 

[Rack Watts]

There's no such thing, move on.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I like 2010 too, was one of my favourite years, but in 2012 you finished only above North and Doggies as I said.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/attendances?year=2012&t=R&h=H&s=A

Over the season, you have average crowds and are flattered by Queen's Birthday.

If you got the 'fair' draws you state you want, TV and gate revenue would take a serious nosedive, and by association, so would the money the AFL pumps back into your leaky tyres. Maybe get your own house in order first and thank the AFL for the gratuity.

Most teams would suffer after being so crap onfield for 6 years. This year was particularly bad considering our results (only beat Essendon, GWS & GC). Our attendances will improve again once our onfield performance improves.

Queens Birthday does inflate the figures somewhat (though not sure we would get too much less playing this game on any other Saturday arvo or Friday night) but this is offset by the fact we also play in Darwin. Keep in mind also that while we get a home game against the Pies each year we also generally don't get a home game against Essendon and in 2012 didn't get home games against Essendon or Carlton (the 2nd and 3rd highest drawing sides).

Giving us a fair draw would enable us to get our house in order by making sure we were competing on the same footing as all the other sides. Would it turn us into a monolith like Collingwood or WCE? Would we start getting crowds in the sphere of Carlton & Essendon on a consistent basis? Clearly no. However it would allow us to at least be on the same levels as sides like Richmond, St. Kilda, Hawthorn & Geelong. Clubs like North & Bulldogs also hurt from the same inequities we face which hurts their figures also though I acknowledge their problems are different to ours being handcuffed by the Etihad deal.

So providing a fair draw would mitigate the need for the AFL to "pump funds" into us. I also think that while the media rights may take a hit initially, in the long run the entire league will be better off. A fairer season results in more interesting matches, and also results in a much better overall perception of the league having some integrity to it's competition. People want to watch good games not just the same teams over and over again. After the last two seasons in particular I am utterly sick of watching Essendon and Carlton every other Friday & Saturday night. I would much rather watch North v Richmond or Hawthorn or Adel v Sydney, Freo or WCE than have to sit through BT going on and on about the Weapon and Hirdy for another season of Saturday nights and I can guarantee you that I'm not alone. People watch footy if its on regardless of who is playing. They don't look at the TV guide and think "oh North vs Sydney's on, I'm not gonna watch now, perhaps if it was Essendon v Sydney..."

The TV execs (who lets face it, in their broadcasting of the game this year have shown they have NFI) will learn soon enough that people want to watch footy, they don't just want to watch the same teams ad nauseam. Over-saturation of teams like Carlton & Essendon will drive people away in the end because they will just get sick of watching the same teams every single week.

 

[Old Spice]

Most teams would suffer after being so crap onfield for 6 years. This year was particularly bad considering our results (only beat Essendon, GWS & GC). Our attendances will improve again once our onfield performance improves.

Queens Birthday does inflate the figures somewhat (though not sure we would get too much less playing this game on any other Saturday arvo or Friday night) but this is offset by the fact we also play in Darwin. Keep in mind also that while we get a home game against the Pies each year we also generally don't get a home game against Essendon and in 2012 didn't get home games against Essendon or Carlton (the 2nd and 3rd highest drawing sides).

Giving us a fair draw would enable us to get our house in order by making sure we were competing on the same footing as all the other sides. Would it turn us into a monolith like Collingwood or WCE? Would we start getting crowds in the sphere of Carlton & Essendon on a consistent basis? Clearly no. However it would allow us to at least be on the same levels as sides like Richmond, St. Kilda, Hawthorn & Geelong. Clubs like North & Bulldogs also hurt from the same inequities we face which hurts their figures also though I acknowledge their problems are different to ours being handcuffed by the Etihad deal.

So providing a fair draw would mitigate the need for the AFL to "pump funds" into us. I also think that while the media rights may take a hit initially, in the long run the entire league will be better off. A fairer season results in more interesting matches, and also results in a much better overall perception of the league having some integrity to it's competition. People want to watch good games not just the same teams over and over again. After the last two seasons in particular I am utterly sick of watching Essendon and Carlton every other Friday & Saturday night. I would much rather watch North v Richmond or Hawthorn or Adel v Sydney, Freo or WCE than have to sit through BT going on and on about the Weapon and Hirdy for another season of Saturday nights and I can guarantee you that I'm not alone. People watch footy if its on regardless of who is playing. They don't look at the TV guide and think "oh North vs Sydney's on, I'm not gonna watch now, perhaps if it was Essendon v Sydney..."

The TV execs (who lets face it, in their broadcasting of the game this year have shown they have NFI) will learn soon enough that people want to watch footy, they don't just want to watch the same teams ad nauseam. Over-saturation of teams like Carlton & Essendon will drive people away in the end because they will just get sick of watching the same teams every single week.

Look my friend, I'd hate to be in your position, but you need to face facts.

Your average crowd was 28,101 and that includes the home Queen's Birthday crowd of 64,250 this year. I think your suffering under the illusion that if you were placed in prime-time, your crowds would balloon. But when you played the Hawks at home on Friday night, you attracted 36,430. Hawthorn's average H&A crowd in 2012 was 45,819.

You're not a draw-card in your own right. It's as plain as that.

You say people don't want to see the same teams over and over again, but evidently people are as sick of that type of repetition as they are of having sex.

You need to play well to see your team's membership spike, see 2000. The League can't premise it's fixtures on the hopes of some long-term strategy of high-exposure equating to high memberships and viewing. You need to prove you can get more than 40k on a regular basis to your games and high ratings. But in the absence of that, you should be grateful the AFL is handing you money from high-ratings so you can fireproof your team from insolvency.

With that largesse, 5.8 mil over 2012-14, you can make investments that can protect you from the vicissitudes of football fortune. Take it, kiss it and invest it in a way that makes you self-sufficient and capable of onfield success.

 

[big_e]

Has there ever been a fixturing thread not taken over by a Collingwood supporter who wants to engage in a pissing contest?

 

[MightyHawks]

I fail to see how it is bluster. It is quite simple to devise a fair draw for anyone inclined to take the time to do one. If you read the article the thread is based on you would have seen that other league's around the world are much EASIER for the company to devise schedules for because they are based on far fewer "rules" than the AFL demands they put in to manage their severely compromised FIXture.




The article demonstrates another aspect of the AFL's severe short-sightedness;



While on the surface this seems like a good idea to have a "fairer" FIXture or at least closer games throughout the season due to opposing sides being more evenly matched, this is going to result in the "poorer" sides having easier FIXtures and therefore a higher probability of qualifying for the finals while the sides who finished top 8 this year will face tougher FIXtures and therefore less of a chance of qualifying for finals. So while it might make for closer/better games during the H&A season it is going to result in a poorer and more lop-sided finals series, something that has been evident the last couple of years with large blowouts in the early weeks of finals.

The AFL would be happy if 4 teams who made the finals drop out of the 8 the next year (so long as the Swans aren't one of them)

 

[Old Spice]

Has there ever been a fixturing thread not taken over by a Collingwood supporter who wants to engage in a pissing contest?

Maybe if sad sacks stop pissing and moaning about their tough 'luck', the matter won't arise.

 

[Messenger]

Yeah 34 matches, plus four weeks of finals, gives us a 38 week season (without any byes). We'll start in mid-February and finish in mid-November.

Can't see how that'll cause any dramas.

Nah, it's ok. By the time you've expanded the list and salary cap six teams will go under anyways.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Maybe if sad sacks stop pissing and moaning about their tough 'luck', the matter won't arise.

You are missing the point. Probably not surprising as your club benefits the most from the crookedness of the fixture.

There is a suggestion that it would be better for the competition, and better fr all the clubs in te longer term, if the draw went back to being about luck rather than about wringing maximum short term dollars out of fixtured games. If clubs have an equally fair chance at time slots, opponents and venues, they have better capacity to grow membership, supporter base and sponsorship. Instead of now, when a few clubs get the chance to do that and the AFL then takes some of the money and hands it round.

Won't happen, but it's worth discussing properly.

 

[pazza]

The hardest job in the game no doubt would be getting the fixture right and fair for all.

Perhaps a formula whereby over a period of 5 years, every team must play an opponent twice in a season over that 5 year period could be part of the answer to it....

 

[flamethrower]

The reason that the NFL schedule is easier to calculate than the AFL is that the NFL has a formula each year that predetermines the opponents each team plays. Each team plays the other teams in their division home and away, and the rest of their schedule is based on where they finished the previous season. All that is left to do is to put the games in order.

This gives the NFL schedule transparency, a concept foreign to AFL House.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Your average crowd was 28,101 and that includes the home Queen's Birthday crowd of 64,250 this year.

It also includes a crowd of 6700 in Darwin.

I think your suffering under the illusion that if you were placed in prime-time, your crowds would balloon. But when you played the Hawks at home on Friday night, you attracted 36,430. Hawthorn's average H&A crowd in 2012 was 45,819.

I'm under no illusion. All I'm saying is give us the opportunity to grow in our own right instead of being disadvantaged and then thrown a bone by the AFL/big clubs and then told we are lucky to have that bone.

You say people don't want to see the same teams over and over again, but evidently people are as sick of that type of repetition as they are of having sex.

Clearly you lack the basic comprehension to understand the point that it is FOOTBALL people want to watch and good games at that. For the vast majority of viewers the participants are not as important as the quality of the contest.

 

[MaddAdam]

North getting Collingwood Rd1 is a great fixture for us. Not only does it draw a nice crowd and boost membership, but its nice to get a game first up against a side you comfortably accounted for the year before.

I'm hoping we get all the "big four" straight up.

 

[Doss]

North getting Collingwood Rd1 is a great fixture for us. Not only does it draw a nice crowd and boost membership, but its nice to get a game first up against a side you comfortably accounted for the year before.

I'm hoping we get all the "big four" straight up.

You've played Carlton around the Round 16-20 mark (excepting R.12 in 2010) on a Friday every year since 2008, so I don't like your chances there. Certain matchups seem to occur around the same time every year- North/Carlton is one in that category.

 

[seysearles]

You have a point. The only fair draw is for each team to play each other. Once would be preferable but the AFL wouldn't cop that for financial reasons. Twice, with the number of teams we have going around, would make for a long season even if it were to replace the NAB Cup. So we're going to have to continue with a fix rather than a draw.

How about mid-week fixtures in a 25 week 34rd H&A season?

 

[MaddAdam]

You've played Carlton around the Round 16-20 mark (excepting R.12 in 2010) on a Friday every year since 2008, so I don't like your chances there. Certain matchups seem to occur around the same time every year- North/Carlton is one in that category.

Yeah, I agree, though I'm thinking we might just, on the back of our FAST ATTACKING FOOTY and rising attendances, snag two Friday nights next year.

 

[pazza]

Okay here is how it should work.

Every team, no matter what, gets 1 guaranteed Friday night home game every season.
Every team, no matter what, gets 1 guaranteed Saturday night home game every season on FTA.

 

[RogersResults]

Yeah 34 matches, plus four weeks of finals, gives us a 38 week season (without any byes). We'll start in mid-February and finish in mid-November.

Can't see how that'll cause any dramas.

In the early years of the League there were full rounds of matches played on a Saturday with the next full round of matches played on the following Monday, with a rest just on the Sunday. In 1899 a full round was played Saturday 20 May, a full round on Wednesday 24 May and a full round on Saturday 27 May - and there were no reserves/substitutes let alone interchanges.

A 34 round fixture with 5 days between matches could be fitted from March to August. But the manhood of today is not what it was a century ago (apparently) - the playing list would probably have to be extended to 60 or more, the interchange/substitute bench to 9, the quarters reduced to 10 minutes and the the boundary line brought in 25 metres.

Result on the "fairness" of each team playing the other twice on the outcome of the premiership?
Nil. There is no evidence of the outcome of the premiership being affected by the fixture. The finals compensate for any perceived "unevenness".

However with every season ending as losers for all but the supporters of one club, the "uneven" fixture gives losers something to whinge about besides the ineptness of their current playing list and the deficiencies in the coaching and management of the club they support. A winning mentality looks to itself, a losing mentality looks outside of itself.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Result on the "fairness" of each team playing the other twice on the outcome of the premiership?
Nil. There is no evidence of the outcome of the premiership being affected by the fixture. The finals compensate for any perceived "unevenness".

The problem is more to do with finances rather than the premiership. No doubt the best team (or best group of teams) always end up at the pointy end. But it is difficult for clubs who receive poorer fixtures to grow their club and with less exposure they also get less for money through sponsorships etc.

 

[Old Spice]

People might think I'm being wilfully difficult, but if someone can nut out a full season fixture that is fair - revenue, home games, travel, space between games, repeat games, etc - I'd be interested to see it. Time to get-over the paronia.