Conference System

[MG Swannie]

Detail on the Daniel Walker proposal (17 rounds then split in 3 for 5 games, top six guaranteed finals, mid six compete for 2 places, bottom six compete for extra draft pick):

http://www.thefixture.com.au/

This does create a problem for those wanting to travel in the last five games and for club memberships. I like the playing each team once and alternating home and away. I can't see the AFL going with it because it will not have repeats of the big drawing games each year.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

This does create a problem for those wanting to travel in the last five games and for club memberships. I like the playing each team once and alternating home and away. I can't see the AFL going with it because it will not have repeats of the big drawing games each year.

It's an awful system imo because of how it separates the teams into mini-groups. You have 6 teams that are ruled out no matter how close they may be. It could be a really even year where 2 games separate the top from the bottom and you are ruling 6 teams out with a quarter of the season to go.

Hate the idea that you are basically having a 5 week mini-playoff for the other 12 teams also. I just really don't like the idea that you are saying the last 5 weeks mean less than the rest, you punish teams that "plan for finals". You give disproportionate worth to the first 3 quarters of the season. You effectively create 5 weeks of nothing for those teams locked in, 5 weeks over everything for the next 6 and 5 weeks of absolute nothing for the last 6. So basically if you don't support one of those 6 teams actually playing for something you have 5 weeks of nothingness as a fan.

I don't have a solution I can readily see but this is one of the "worst" that I've seen offered up. I honestly think that 22 weeks is not a good number for 18 teams. I think 24 or 25 makes far more sense and at least creates better options.

 

[BarneyBent]

It's an awful system imo because of how it separates the teams into mini-groups. You have 6 teams that are ruled out no matter how close they may be. It could be a really even year where 2 games separate the top from the bottom and you are ruling 6 teams out with a quarter of the season to go.

Hate the idea that you are basically having a 5 week mini-playoff for the other 12 teams also. I just really don't like the idea that you are saying the last 5 weeks mean less than the rest, you punish teams that "plan for finals". You give disproportionate worth to the first 3 quarters of the season. You effectively create 5 weeks of nothing for those teams locked in, 5 weeks over everything for the next 6 and 5 weeks of absolute nothing for the last 6. So basically if you don't support one of those 6 teams actually playing for something you have 5 weeks of nothingness as a fan.

I don't have a solution I can readily see but this is one of the "worst" that I've seen offered up. I honestly think that 22 weeks is not a good number for 18 teams. I think 24 or 25 makes far more sense and at least creates better options.

Could you not argue that the first three quarters ARE more important, by virtue of the fact that you play each team once, and as such, it is inherently more even and deserves more weight? Then the last quarter is essentially a miniature play-off, played against teams of a similar level to you. I agree it poses problems in an even competition, but so does the current separation of 8th and 9th in an even season. Any fixed cut-off will be somewhat arbitrary, and even seasons will always make it more significant.

I like the idea of this system because it is inherently more balanced. You play each team once, and then your level is determined. You then play the last 5 games against teams of your level, whatever that may be, to determine your position within that level. It's far more even. And it's not unfair to higher placed teams because while they play more challenging opposition at the end than the lower placed teams, the levels are set, so they won't suffer. The only teams they can move in relation to are teams of their own level, who play the same opposition.

One problem is that 5 games don't split evenly into home and away, and neither does 17. Because the last 5 games aren't determined until after the first 17, it would not always be possible to design the fixture such that an even split of H&A games could be played. It would have to be done for each grouping. A possible solution would be to introduce "neutral" games. One neutral round (or 8 neutral games spread over the season) played in places like Darwin, Canberra, Tassie, rural NSW, etc. So 8 home, 8 away, 1 neutral. The same thing could happen for the last 5 games, or alternatively, the teams could be split up differently: top 5, middle 8, bottom 5. The top 5 play each other once, each team gets a bye, 1st gets the bye last (right before finals), 5th gets the bye first, 4th gets it second, etc. That's 4 games over 5 weeks, each team gets a rest before finals. The middle 8 could each play 4 randomly allocated other teams. They all get a bye in the first week, and then play on. Bottom 5 has same setup as top 5 (with byes arranged however you want, doesn't really matter). So in the first week, there are 4 games, second-fifth week have 8. Works out fairly well in the end.

 

[Dirrrty South]

This may sound like a crazy idea but, how about the AFL... JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS! No conferences, no final 10 or 12 or whatever. Just have the 18 teams play 22 or 24 rounds and keep the final 8. It's ridiculous that half the league makes the finals. I mean honestly will teams 6,7,8 this season really give the flag a shake? Please AFL, for once, don't mess around with the game in the offseason. Just leave it as it is.

 

[WoGiTaLiA]

Could you not argue that the first three quarters ARE more important, by virtue of the fact that you play each team once, and as such, it is inherently more even and deserves more weight? Then the last quarter is essentially a miniature play-off, played against teams of a similar level to you. I agree it poses problems in an even competition, but so does the current separation of 8th and 9th in an even season. Any fixed cut-off will be somewhat arbitrary, and even seasons will always make it more significant.

I don't like the change from more important to all important. Why bother having those last 5 games is my problem? Another problem is that you are taking away the lure of the finals, it will mean possibly playing a team 3 times in the last 10 weeks of the season, variety is nice in my opinion.

I also don't think that playing teams once only makes it any more equitable because there is still the whole geographical issue. It is very possible to play the same schedule as a team have vastly differing degrees of difficulty. How do you ensure it is balanced, it is very possible that teams don't leave Victoria, whilst others have to go insterate 8 times. Doesn't seem remotely fair, not to mention, what happens if like for the majority of the 2000s the interstate sides dominate. What if you get a final group with Brisbane, Adelaide, Port, WCE, Freo and Melbourne and that is the top 6, so basically as a reward for being one of the better teams Melbourne's finals leadup is to fly all over the country for a month copping the wear and tear.

Don't like any system that puts more worth to certain games. Not to mention the bottom 6 that get told at the 3/4 mark that there season is over and that they may as well put their players in for surgery and begin tanking. Instead of one or 2 teams you have 6 tanking as none of them have any reason to play better and if you put a draft pick up for grabs it doesn't change a whole lot, still better preparing for next year without an extra pick.

 

[MG Swannie]

Why bother having those last 5 games is my problem?

Isn't this the situation now? 22 rounds is an arbitrary number but when combined with 4 weeks of finals makes 26 - half a year.

Another problem is that you are taking away the lure of the finals, it will mean possibly playing a team 3 times in the last 10 weeks of the season, variety is nice in my opinion.

Can happen in the current system! Wasn't there a final last year that was a repeat of a round 22 game.

I also don't think that playing teams once only makes it any more equitable because there is still the whole geographical issue. It is very possible to play the same schedule as a team have vastly differing degrees of difficulty. How do you ensure it is balanced, it is very possible that teams don't leave Victoria, whilst others have to go insterate 8 times. .

Freo and the Weagles travel lots. Freo's travel schedule this year has been hugely unfair. Collingwood always get to stay in Victoria more than the other Victorian teams and they cop plenty but the almighty dollar drafts the current fixture whereas the proposed gets rid of the bias created by the AFL trying to squeeze as much out the fixture as possible. Under the current system even Collingwood have to travel to Perth, Sydney and Brisbane at least once a year (poor things – couldn't help myself).

Doesn't seem remotely fair, not to mention, what happens if like for the majority of the 2000s the interstate sides dominate. What if you get a final group with Brisbane, Adelaide, Port, WCE, Freo and Melbourne and that is the top 6, so basically as a reward for being one of the better teams Melbourne's finals leadup is to fly all over the country for a month copping the wear and tear.

In the final 5 games each team would would have two or three home games. Travelling would be similar to Freo and the Weagles now. Worst case scenario for an East Coast team would be travelling to Perth in rounds 17, 18, 20 and first week of finals but note that this is not that different to the potential travel schedule for Freo or Weagles now.

Don't like any system that puts more worth to certain games. Not to mention the bottom 6 that get told at the 3/4 mark that there season is over and that they may as well put their players in for surgery and begin tanking. Instead of one or 2 teams you have 6 tanking as none of them have any reason to play better and if you put a draft pick up for grabs it doesn't change a whole lot, still better preparing for next year without an extra pick.

Under the current system, at about round 11 each year you start to get media on the final 8 noting how it is very unusual for those outside at round 11 to break in. Doesn't that mean the bottom 6 in the current system have little to play for after round 11? They keep playing because they're professionals. Realistically if a team is not top 4 they are very unlikely to win the cup. (I think) the proposed system means the bottom 6 are playing for not only an extra pick but also the draft order in reverse order to the current system. Instead of rewarding tanking, you would be rewarding results from the final 5 games. If this system was in now and the Swans were at the bottom of the ladder I think more people would go and see them in the final 5 weeks playing the Weagles or Melbourne than Collingwood or Geelong because they would be more competitive.

 

[BarneyBent]

I don't like the change from more important to all important. Why bother having those last 5 games is my problem? Another problem is that you are taking away the lure of the finals, it will mean possibly playing a team 3 times in the last 10 weeks of the season, variety is nice in my opinion.

You don't think there's a significant difference between 1st and 6th?

I also don't think that playing teams once only makes it any more equitable because there is still the whole geographical issue. It is very possible to play the same schedule as a team have vastly differing degrees of difficulty. How do you ensure it is balanced, it is very possible that teams don't leave Victoria, whilst others have to go insterate 8 times. Doesn't seem remotely fair, not to mention, what happens if like for the majority of the 2000s the interstate sides dominate. What if you get a final group with Brisbane, Adelaide, Port, WCE, Freo and Melbourne and that is the top 6, so basically as a reward for being one of the better teams Melbourne's finals leadup is to fly all over the country for a month copping the wear and tear.

One thing that some people seem to miss is that even if interstate teams play interstate half the time, it means that half the time, teams have to travel interstate to play THEM. The greater away disadvantage is cancelled out by a greater home advantage.

Don't like any system that puts more worth to certain games. Not to mention the bottom 6 that get told at the 3/4 mark that there season is over and that they may as well put their players in for surgery and begin tanking. Instead of one or 2 teams you have 6 tanking as none of them have any reason to play better and if you put a draft pick up for grabs it doesn't change a whole lot, still better preparing for next year without an extra pick.

Giving some games more importance is bad? Guess you must hate the finals system then.

Stop thinking about it in terms of stopping the season 3/4 of the way through, and instead think of it as a 17 round H&A season, 5 rounds of pre-finals, and then finals.

And I actually like the implications for the bottom 6/5/whatever. For one thing, it stops them tanking up to round 17, as sneaking into that middle group means decent form over the last 5 games can secure a finals berth. Secondly, I think they could introduce a draft lottery, weighted or otherwise, for the bottom group, to further remove the incentive to tank. It could actually work very well.