Dangerfiel AFLPA view is games are too long!

[Obeanie1]

Interesting discussions this week about players having too much time off to prepare.

Dangerfield also came out with games should be shorter.

His argument is its too tough on players. And f we decrease supply then demand will go up. A basic economic principle that I'm not 100% convinced applies in this case.

What would be interesting is results and percentage for and against if say quarters were reduced by 3 minutes. A game is 12 minutes shorter.

We all know weaker teams can at times match stronger teams but not for as long. The "junk time goals" where mature established sides simply have more endurance and roll over sides in the final minutes of each quarter.

We likely would get more closer games and more upset results. Which is a good outcome for viewers and the game.

It would be interesting to see historically what results would have been if each quarter was 3 min shorter.

Would we have a closer competition with more close games?

 

[Colonial]

They going to take a pay cut?
Maybe cut costs for fans too?

 

[iameviljez]

To be fair, games were longer. Prior to 1994, quarters were 25 minutes plus time-on, but there was less time-on. In terms of player workload, it's fair to point out that players now run a hell of a lot further than they used to, even in the 2000s.

That said, the game is better to watch when players are tired and the space starts to open up a bit.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Interesting discussions this week about players having too much time off to prepare.

Dangerfield also came out with games should be shorter.

His argument is its too tough on players. And f we decrease supply then demand will go up. A basic economic principle that I'm not 100% convinced applies in this case.

What would be interesting is results and percentage for and against if say quarters were reduced by 3 minutes. A game is 12 minutes shorter.

We all know weaker teams can at times match stronger teams but not for as long. The "junk time goals" where mature established sides simply have more endurance and roll over sides in the final minutes of each quarter.

We likely would get more closer games and more upset results. Which is a good outcome for viewers and the game.

It would be interesting to see historically what results would have been if each quarter was 3 min shorter.

Would we have a closer competition with more close games?

The peak of Danger’s argument was “decrease supply and demand goes up”.

Errm…. No. Think Danger fell asleep in Year 10 economics.

Demand is independent of supply. Decreasing supply does not increase demand. Decreasing supply without changing demand just means increased prices.

He is also jumping between the “quarters are too long” thing to what he really seems to mean - that the season is too long.

He uses the example of the NBA (too long) and the NFL (much shorter and just right, apparently)

He’s saying if we reduce the supply of games then demand will go up.

Well, no. Demand will go up per individual game, but not overall across the season. The same number of people will still want to go to the footy. They’ll just have less chances to do so - more people crammed into less games, which will means prices per game will certainly go up.

Ultimately Danger wants less games (less work), but he and the AFL will absolutely, certainly want the same revenue, so prices per game (streaming and tickets) will go up.

Wanna go to one or two or five games per year? You still can, and you’ll pay more.

 

[maskmcgee]

Dangerfield is the biggest idiot in the game. Would be great if he would shut the **** up.

 

[stallon]

They can shorten games by reducing time between goals and the ball up in the middle, or by other rule changes other than reducing game length.

Danger specifically mentioned viewers attention spans as the reason for it, he is an idiot.
his supply/demand thing made 0 sense either.

Hes a low iq person who thinks hes smart because he has a platform and hes mates with higher ups in the AFL.

 

[g_TRAIN]

**** off Danger.

Maybe shorter the pre season and pre season games but don't mess with the fabric of our game.

Game length needs to stay the same. Covid games were awful

 

[Osho]

Danger could retire.

 

[iameviljez]

Demand is independent of supply. Decreasing supply does not increase demand. Decreasing supply without changing demand just means increased prices.

Demand and supply rules only apply when there are a finite number of items available on supply and demand directly removes those items from the pool. That makes literally zero sense for reducing game time.

It applies to, for example, playing in a smaller stadium than the anticipated crowd. THAT is supply and demand.

 

[blueboy25]

The peak of Danger’s argument was “decrease supply and demand goes up”.

Errm…. No. Think Danger fell asleep in Year 10 economics.

Demand is independent of supply. Decreasing supply does not increase demand. Decreasing supply without changing demand just means increased prices.

He is also jumping between the “quarters are too long” thing to what he really seems to mean - that the season is too long.

He uses the example of the NBA (too long) and the NFL (much shorter and just right, apparently)

He’s saying if we reduce the supply of games then demand will go up.

Well, no. Demand will go up per individual game, but not overall across the season. The same number of people will still want to go to the footy. They’ll just have less chances to do so - more people crammed into less games, which will means prices per game will certainly go up.

Ultimately Danger wants less games (less work), but he and the AFL will absolutely, certainly want the same revenue, so prices per game (streaming and tickets) will go up.

Wanna go to one or two or five games per year? You still can, and you’ll pay more.

Dangerfield is talking about attention spans wavering and using Adam Silver's comments about shortening the quarters of a NBA game to 10 minutes from 12 is not comparable to the AFL.

AFL and NRL for that matter don't have the issue of timeouts which turn a 48 minute NBA game into 3 hours.

 

[Obeanie1]

The peak of Danger’s argument was “decrease supply and demand goes up”.

Errm…. No. Think Danger fell asleep in Year 10 economics.

Demand is independent of supply. Decreasing supply does not increase demand. Decreasing supply without changing demand just means increased prices.

He is also jumping between the “quarters are too long” thing to what he really seems to mean - that the season is too long.

He uses the example of the NBA (too long) and the NFL (much shorter and just right, apparently)

He’s saying if we reduce the supply of games then demand will go up.

Well, no. Demand will go up per individual game, but not overall across the season. The same number of people will still want to go to the footy. They’ll just have less chances to do so - more people crammed into less games, which will means prices per game will certainly go up.

Ultimately Danger wants less games (less work), but he and the AFL will absolutely, certainly want the same revenue, so prices per game (streaming and tickets) will go up.

Wanna go to one or two or five games per year? You still can, and you’ll pay more.

I'm interested if the quality of games and results would improve with shorter games.

Closer games and more upset results IMO would increase demand.

Because more fans are engaged and interested in a closer competition.

 

[Obeanie1]

To be fair, games were longer. Prior to 1994, quarters were 25 minutes plus time-on, but there was less time-on. In terms of player workload, it's fair to point out that players now run a hell of a lot further than they used to, even in the 2000s.

That said, the game is better to watch when players are tired and the space starts to open up a bit.

It's not good to watch one side getting rolled and blown out of the park with multiple junk time goals.

 

[bradfisher14]

If they made games shorter while also making the season longer/fairer (all teams play each other home and away), I’d be all for it.

 

[iameviljez]

It's not good to watch one side getting rolled and blown out of the park with multiple junk time goals.

Yes, but on the other hand, there's nothing like a full-length game with multiple ebbs, flows, and lead changes.

That's what made the Brisbane/Geelong prelim so good IMO - the way that the game went through so many different phases, especially in the last quarter.

 

[Lia]

His argument is its too tough on players. And f we decrease supply then demand will go up. A basic economic principle that I'm not 100% convinced applies in this case.

His argument here relies on the product quality remaining the same or improving with less game time. Demand will not go up with lower quality.

The one sample we have, 2020, would indicate the opposite despite all of the mitigating circumstances of that season. There is a reason why the push for shorter quarters from some media types collapsed in a heap from 2021 onwards.

 

[Obeanie1]

Yes, but on the other hand, there's nothing like a full-length game with multiple ebbs, flows, and lead changes.

That's what made the Brisbane/Geelong prelim so good IMO - the way that the game went through so many different phases, especially in the last quarter.

Let's look at cricket.

The lessor teams can match it in 20 20 or one day games but not the longer tests.

Feel we would still get multiple lead changes etc with shorter games in AFL.

And less blow out floggings.

 

[mighty_lions]

The OP clearly has his ears painted on, the thread title is wrong, Dangerfield clearly said this was his opinion and NOT the view of the AFLPA

 

[Dom PC]

The way he explained his justification - just sounded like a greedy bastard who wants to squeeze fans out of more hard earned dollars. What a tosser.

 

[Bjo187]

I posted elsewhere 18 min is the perfect balance, 16 too short, 20 too long. Kids struggle to watch with their short attention spans and the tablet generation and the game will lose fans in the future.

If they wanted to do it by stealth, just keep the clock running during boundary throw ins, except for in the last 5 min of quarters. That takes it down from the 30s to about 27 min quarters which is about right, then can take a few mins off the 3 break times.

 

[iameviljez]

Let's look at cricket.

The lessor teams can match it in 20 20 or one day games but not the longer tests.

Feel we would still get multiple lead changes etc with shorter games in AFL.

And less blow out floggings.

Of course we would, but that doesn't make it necessarily better

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

It is for him. He's not getting any younger.
Not sure he should be using the AFLPA to lobby for personal wish list items though.

 

[bzparkes]

Can't wait until this bloke retires...

Also, he gonna take a paycut when the advertising revenue drops

There's your actual 'supply vs demand', Danger.

 

[Obeanie1]

Of course we would, but that doesn't make it necessarily better

Are closer games where either side could win better for viewers?

As opposed to games that end up easy wins and blow outs because the mature, fitter side rolls over the top and keeps going?

 

[Lsta062]

Are closer games where either side could win better for viewers?

As opposed to games that end up easy wins and blow outs because the mature, fitter side rolls over the top and keeps going?

I personally like watching blowout games. Puts a good team’s fitness and skills on full display.

In comparison, the COVID year with the shortened quarter was a terrible spectacle. The game just starts and before you know it, the siren goes. I didn’t like that tbh.

 

[Obeanie1]

I personally like watching blowout games. Puts a good team’s fitness and skills on full display.

In comparison, the COVID year with the shortened quarter was a terrible spectacle. The game just starts and before you know it, the siren goes. I didn’t like that tbh.

The entire covid set up was uninspiring.

Playing in Qld with greasy slippery conditions because of humidity and evening dew took much of the specticle away.

And we all could see many teams and players were not interested and just going through the motions