"Drawing A Long Bow On Fairness In Football" - THE AGE

[GreaterWeStener]

I'm not really opposed to the idea.

I see risks in decentralising control in that the AFL would not be able to support clubs who get into trouble, and I think that's what you're suggesting.
It would require a restructure of some clubs governance, ours for instance requires the AFL to input money from time to time as it determines is necessary. Doesn't really mean much except it can decide to provide funding but it wont work if some clubs are supported and not others.

The Swans, Suns and GWS have the AFL as owners that I know of and there may be others in Victoria I dont know about. We would all have to move to member ownership I think. The WA arrangement where WA football holds the AFL licences might be sustainable.

There would also have to be a significant period where the AFL made payments to clubs it has commitments to assist. Or a large payment to sell the obligations to clubs and then look after yourselves.

Be interesting to see if clubs need AFL assistance through mis-governance if they know there 's no safety net. And presumably guaranteed sufficient income. There will always be opportunitues to spend money to get a competitive advantage one way or the other.

I'm not being flippant but if you're suggesting change for a fairer comp (more spread among the states would be necessary) then merging or culling teams is not negotiable.

The general context of my statement is merely a change in the current scheduling to a set rotating conference system. For me it would see each team play each other team H&A 5 times over 8 seasons and non-Victorian team interstate on an alternating basis.

This was a reply to a 'No hope' response because of the AFL's money first attitude. It's not about pulling the money out from under anyone but adjusting scheduling to better allow individual clubs to maximise their long term income, rather than accept the current status quo and just accept the AFL's handouts.

That's not to say the AFL wont always have their own significant income to supplement struggling clubs.

More about scheduling equity a mindset change for the longer term. No doubt if not managed well thing could go awry.

 

[citizen-erased]

Not easy to put a fair fixture together with 5 double up games, and travel.

Best i've been able to come up with
After 17 rounds, do the 6-6-6 thing, but;

Top 6 cant drop out. Just reorder themselves in the top 6.
Top 2 from 7-12 go into the finals
Bottom 6 play off for draft order (13th gets Pick 1, 18th gets pick 6).

creates a bit of incentive in those final 5 weeks for teams to go all out.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I agree the draw should be even from year to year. Not a fan of the weighted draw again the top teams - not just Eagles are copping it this year (Pies and Demons got it worse too). I'm long on record on here against the idea.

The best idea for a draw IMO (and I've posted this multiple times before) Is to create 6 pods. (Pod A: 1st ,2nd ,3rd), (Pod B: 4th, 5th, 6th)..... (Pod F: 16th, 17th, 18th). Take 1 team from each pod, and those are your 5 double ups. Easy peasy.

Come the next season maybe you'd have doubled up against teams that went better than expected given you a tougher draw (and it goes without staying the opposite is possible) but that is not foreseeable in advance. The best you can hope for is the draw is as even as possible when it is made - at the moment it' far from it.

The difference in travel distances and centralised Melbourne home games* are not things the AFL can change but the strength of your opposition double-ups can and should be even (based on the knowledge you have at the time).

* One thing the AFL should look at is changing the way tenancy is decided in Melbourne. The 9 Melbourne clubs should split their home games 6/5** between MCG/Etihad, and the away teams at the MCG and Etihad should be split evenly between all 18 clubs in the competition.

** Taken into account before home games are moved interstate (Tassie, NT etc)

Yeah okay, and you can play half your games at Fremantle Oval?

 

[Forward Press]

All teams must play each other H&A. Simples as that. Extra revenue lift the players wages to play the extra games. Lethargy? That's what the 44 man squad is for. Clubs can use it.

Having a 34 week season (excluding byes and finals, so effectively the season will run for 10 months a year) might be popular with idealists and TV broadcasters but there is no way the players association would go for that.

Soccer can do it but the physical demands of it are different compared to AFL.

 

[Russian Demon]

17 rounds.

Case closed.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jackenny]

17 rounds.

Case closed.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Really is this simple. One year it's at your home ground. The next year it's at theirs. Repeat.

But money, of course.

 

[sprockets]

Really is this simple. One year it's at your home ground. The next year it's at theirs. Repeat.

But money, of course.

It's not that simple. There's nothing fair about not having a return match. Plus one year a team might be average but be good the next with some clever recruiting in the off season. A premiership is decided at the end of EACH season so EACH season should be fair.

Face it, unless each team plays each other twice it'll always be biased.

 

[falcons2]

Face it, unless each team plays each other twice it'll always be biased.

Not biased, just containing some irregularity that has never been proven to have any effect on the premiership.

 

[99cents]

Certainly not while 23 rounds (accounting for byes) is so heavily tied to TV rights

TV/ streaming rights is the number 1 priority for the AFL

 

[Forethought]

Not easy to put a fair fixture together with 5 double up games, and travel.

Best i've been able to come up with
After 17 rounds, do the 6-6-6 thing, but;

Top 6 cant drop out. Just reorder themselves in the top 6.
Top 2 from 7-12 go into the finals
Bottom 6 play off for draft order (13th gets Pick 1, 18th gets pick 6).

creates a bit of incentive in those final 5 weeks for teams to go all out.

I reckon your spot on with this draw scenario. Every team playing for something and no real blow out games. Stops players going for early end of seasons once they can’t gain anything.

I’d just ad that should the bottom 2 teams be really bad and only get picks 5&6 in the draft they should get 2X Mature age top ups like this year with the Suns and the Blues.

 

[Bostonian]

What insecurity. We're in a great place.

If you like having the absolute shitest, corrupt governments running the show for you then NSW is the place to be.

Is that what's considered a "in a great place" up there?

 

[Russian Demon]

It's not that simple. There's nothing fair about not having a return match. Plus one year a team might be average but be good the next with some clever recruiting in the off season. A premiership is decided at the end of EACH season so EACH season should be fair.

Face it, unless each team plays each other twice it'll always be biased.

I disagree. For every bolter there is a slider. Year on year any unfairness gets lost in the statistical noise.

Its the fairest way to do it without diluting the quality. If you go twice, games will need to be cut back to 12 or 15 min quarters, lists expanded ect ect.

 

[jackenny]

It's not that simple. There's nothing fair about not having a return match. Plus one year a team might be average but be good the next with some clever recruiting in the off season. A premiership is decided at the end of EACH season so EACH season should be fair.

Face it, unless each team plays each other twice it'll always be biased.

I agree that playing each other twice a year is the fairest way to fixture a season, although I think 17 rounds is a lot more feasible while still being a lot more fair than the current regime.

 

[citizen-erased]

I reckon your spot on with this draw scenario. Every team playing for something and no real blow out games. Stops players going for early end of seasons once they can’t gain anything.

I’d just ad that should the bottom 2 teams be really bad and only get picks 5&6 in the draft they should get 2X Mature age top ups like this year with the Suns and the Blues.

Or even free crack at the DFA's.
Have a draft for them instead of free agency and all DFA and mature talent end up in a separate draft based on 18-1 on the ladder at the conclusion of the 17 rounds/season

 

[Pykie]

The definition of insanity is having a national competition with 10 teams in a pissant, and ultimately minor state. Victoria is neither the biggest or the most dynamic state with potential for growth.

Wrong.

Victoria is the fastest growing state in the country and has been for years.

In the late 90's it flipped from historically being NSW/Sydney as the place most migrants and Australian's moving interstate moved to.

Now it's overwhelming Victoria/Melbourne and has been for almost 2 decades.


Victoria will be the largest state in the country by population inside of 20 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Based on the current population growth rate of Melbourne, it will hit the six million mark in 2025, the same year that Sydney will reach that milestone.

Melbourne will then overtake Sydney to be Australia’s largest city in 2026. Based on the current growth rate, Melbourne will reach seven million in 2031 and eight million in 2037 (with Sydney not reaching eight million until 2040).

Victoria is also Australia’s fastest growing state. Last year the state added 143,400 people which is larger than the growth of NSW, SA, TAS, NT and ACT combined.

While Victoria has just over a quarter of Australia’s population, it currently accounts for more than a third (37%) of Australia’s annual population growth.

Victoria also accounts for 35% of Australia’s Net Overseas Migration and 29% of Australia’s natural increase.

Unlike most other states and territories, Victoria has all three factors contributing to its growth; Net Overseas Migration, Natural Increase and Net Interstate Migration.

Only Queensland is gaining more people from the other states than Victoria.

New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia are losing more people than they are gaining from the other states."

 

[kreglze]

Wrong.

Victoria is the fastest growing state in the country and has been for years.

In the late 90's it flipped from historically being NSW/Sydney as the place most migrants and Australian's moving interstate moved to.

Now it's overwhelming Victoria/Melbourne and has been for almost 2 decades.


Victoria will be the largest state in the country by population inside of 20 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Based on the current population growth rate of Melbourne, it will hit the six million mark in 2025, the same year that Sydney will reach that milestone.

Melbourne will then overtake Sydney to be Australia’s largest city in 2026. Based on the current growth rate, Melbourne will reach seven million in 2031 and eight million in 2037 (with Sydney not reaching eight million until 2040).

Victoria is also Australia’s fastest growing state. Last year the state added 143,400 people which is larger than the growth of NSW, SA, TAS, NT and ACT combined.

While Victoria has just over a quarter of Australia’s population, it currently accounts for more than a third (37%) of Australia’s annual population growth.

Victoria also accounts for 35% of Australia’s Net Overseas Migration and 29% of Australia’s natural increase.

Unlike most other states and territories, Victoria has all three factors contributing to its growth; Net Overseas Migration, Natural Increase and Net Interstate Migration.

Only Queensland is gaining more people from the other states than Victoria.

New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia are losing more people than they are gaining from the other states."

How long have you been sitting on that article mate?

 

[Mr B]

I'd rather have 5 extra rounds and a slightly less "even" fixture than 5 weeks less of footy a year.

Every 4 years thats an entire season of Footy we lose... to be replaced by what?

Football is entertainment, it doesn't have to be PERFECTLY even as long as all 18 clubs have a reasonable chance to win the premiership... which they do. Stop crying and enjoy the game

Yes, but you support one of the clubs which tends to win out of the "slightly less even fixture".