Fair fixture, yet more big games

[Chiz]

While many are calling for a fair draw (e.g. by reducing the season to 17 rounds), it seems unlikely to happen due to the lower revenue the AFL would make. If it is possible to make the fixture fairer without increasing/decreasing the number of games and especially the number of blockbuster games, then it is something the AFL should definitely consider.

I believe I have a solution. I actually sent this to the AFL two years ago in anticipation of the 18-team competition - this year I think it would've worked well. Here is the system:

Each team plays each other once (rounds 1-17, or more if split rounds) - 8 home games each, and one `rivalry' game with shared gate revenue (or rotated each year. For non-Vic sides, this would obviously be WC v Freo, Adel v Port, etc.)

After round 17, the bottom six are excluded from premiership contention - they play each other in a round-robin over the last 5 rounds, with the highest ranked team awarded a priority pick (e.g. pick 7 - the draft order, however, it determined at round 17). This year, it is fair to say that six teams were out of contention at round 17. I would argue that supporters of these teams are more likely to attend these games, as their team has a greater chance of winning, and has something to play for.

The top 12 play five more games amongst themselves. These could be randomly allocated, or teams could be divided into two equal groups (e.g. 1,4,6,7,9,12 and 2,3,5,8,10,11). Points are carried over from round 17, with the final eight decided at round 22. This ensures that teams in contention play against other teams in contention (more blockbusters = better crowds and higher TV ratings).

Issues:

• home ground advantage over last 5 rounds. I think there are two options - one is to give the higher placed teams 3 home games and the lower placed 2 home games. Alternatively, the home team in each game is the away team from the previous meeting during rounds 1-17.
• no guarantee of two blockbuster games between big four VIC clubs and non-vic same state teams. Personally, I think the greater potential for blockbuster matches between top teams would be enough to counter this in terms of crowd numbers, TV ratings and revenue.

Thought?

 

[Colonial]

It would stop tanking thats for sure.

The main problem with our code, and any without a 2nd divison, is what do clubs have to play for if they are out of finals contention. And with the draft handing the best picks to the lowest it does open up the game to "mixing the list" to end up lower to get the better players the following year.

 

[boncer34]

Brilliant.

So the AFL will never use it.

 

[workhorse]

Interesting concept dude. I don't mind it but there are some issues that could come from this.

* The team that finishes 6th (13) bottom, while unlikely, may be still mathematically in contention for finals. For Example: Let's say they are 7 wins, 10 losses, and win their final 5 games against those lesser teams, thus finishing 12 wins and 10 losses and a bigger %. Yet let say the 12th team (7th bottom) has a record of 7 wins 10 losses, teams 11th, 10th and 9th have 8 wins and 9 losses. They all play other top 12 teams and lets say that 12th and 11th win two games and 10th and 9th win 3 games. 12th finishes with 9 wins 13 losses, 11th has 10 wins and 12 losses, 9th and 10th have 11 wins and 11 losses. Therefore the team that was originally 13th, now moves into 9th (or potentially finals if team 8th had a similar record to those above) and has more wins than the other 'finals contenders'.

I'd like to also see the 17 rounds against every other team first. Then have the ladder broken into thirds. Each team plays an addition 6 games, 2 against a team from each third. Therefore everybody plays everybody, and then no one has an unfair advantage over who they play in the final 6 rounds.

For example, Collingwood at the moment are 4th, so they are put into the top third. We would then play two teams from the top third (West Coast and Hawthorn for example) than two teams from the second third (St.Kilda and Richmond for example) and than two teams from the bottom third (Gold Coast and Western Bulldogs for Example).

Now obviously it's going to be tough to make sure everyone has an equal amount of interstate games in that period but there is no reason why a system like this couldn't work.

Just my two bobs worth.

 

[RogersResults]

​

2011 final ladder with second meetings removed - 2011 final ladder with the 'unfair' second meetings included.​

The significant differences in how the Premiership would be decided if each had only played each other once compared to the fixture with limited return matches decided largely by revenue concerns would have been actually what?​

 

[Stopher]

Unreal. A well thought-out piece written over a day ago has a handful of responses. It's a fairly sound idea, which, like anything new, would need a bit of tweeking to iron out a few issues, but overall it's very good. It removes, by and large, the 'junk' games at season's end and the need or want to tank.

One issue though- You should have titled it 'Player X' is overrated/best ever/soft.

Would have had about 3,000,000 views and 200,000 replies by now

 

[Chiz]

* The team that finishes 6th (13) bottom, while unlikely, may be still mathematically in contention for finals. For Example: Let's say they are 7 wins, 10 losses, and win their final 5 games against those lesser teams, thus finishing 12 wins and 10 losses and a bigger %. Yet let say the 12th team (7th bottom) has a record of 7 wins 10 losses, teams 11th, 10th and 9th have 8 wins and 9 losses. They all play other top 12 teams and lets say that 12th and 11th win two games and 10th and 9th win 3 games. 12th finishes with 9 wins 13 losses, 11th has 10 wins and 12 losses, 9th and 10th have 11 wins and 11 losses. Therefore the team that was originally 13th, now moves into 9th (or potentially finals if team 8th had a similar record to those above) and has more wins than the other 'finals contenders'.

The point is, if a team is not in the top 12 after 17 rounds, they are officially out of contention - the final ladder is decided between the top 12. The bottom 6 have their own pool (the slate is wiped cleaned).

I'd like to also see the 17 rounds against every other team first. Then have the ladder broken into thirds. Each team plays an addition 6 games, 2 against a team from each third. Therefore everybody plays everybody, and then no one has an unfair advantage over who they play in the final 6 rounds.

This would be another way of making the fixture fairer. However, it would be more difficult to convince the AFL as there would be fewer blockbusters and more junk games at the end of the season.

The significant differences in how the Premiership would be decided if each had only played each other once compared to the fixture with limited return matches decided largely by revenue concerns would have been actually what?​

I agree - I don't think having an unbalanced fixture has that much of an impact on who wins the premiership. But the point is, this way you eliminate the one-sided games at the end of the season and get more games between top sides, without compromising the draw.

Unreal. A well thought-out piece written over a day ago has a handful of responses. It's a fairly sound idea, which, like anything new, would need a bit of tweeking to iron out a few issues, but overall it's very good. It removes, by and large, the 'junk' games at season's end and the need or want to tank.

Glad you can see the key benefit of this system.

One issue though- You should have titled it 'Player X' is overrated/best ever/soft.

Would have had about 3,000,000 views and 200,000 replies by now

Of course - this is bigfooty...

 

[Gibbke]

Nope. The Four-Conference System still beats this.

 

[RogersResults]

Round 20 2009
Collingwood 3rd v Richmond 14th
Attendance 63,366.

How to convince the League that Richmond should have been playing round robins or something against Fremantle and Nth Melbourne instead?

Would Richmond think the loss of revenue 'fair'?

 

[Chiz]

Round 20 2009
Collingwood 3rd v Richmond 14th
Attendance 63,366.

How to convince the League that Richmond should have been playing round robins or something against Fremantle and Nth Melbourne instead?

Would Richmond think the loss of revenue 'fair'?

Not a great crowd for Coll v Rich anyway - would expect to get 70k+ early in the season, and 80k+ if both were top sides. Your example is also flawed - Richmond actually played North in round 16 of that year only got 30k - I imagine the crowd would be similar if they were playing for a priority pick (as opposed to playing for nothing). Will be interesting to see the crowd in North vs Freo this week since they actually have finals to play for.

You could also consider the crowd in Collingwood v Hawthorn this season (83,714), teams with traditionally lower crowds than Coll v Rich. Ladder position and relative ladder position between the two teams playing both have a strong impact on crowd numbers - I would argue these factors are stronger than traditional rivalry, especially later in the season. And as for TV ratings, few neutrals would tune into a game between 3rd and 14th, but plenty would watch games between potentially finalists.

As for `loss of revenue', at least it would be a strong incentive against tanking to get into the bottom 6. However, I doubt that there would be a huge difference between finishing low under the current system and the proposed system. But I would argue that total revenue would increase - that's what the AFL care about, right...

 

[RogersResults]

Not a great crowd for Coll v Rich anyway - would expect to get 70k+ early in the season, and 80k+ if both were top sides.

The attendance at the Richmond v Collingwood match round 2 2009 was 57,268. The round 20 match between the two was 6th highest attendance ever recorded where there were 11 places difference between the two teams.

Your example is also flawed - Richmond actually played North in round 16 of that year only got 30k - I imagine the crowd would be similar if they were playing for a priority pick (as opposed to playing for nothing). Will be interesting to see the crowd in North vs Freo this week since they actually have finals to play for.

Indicates Richmond's drawing power but the revenue from twice as many in attendance with Collingwood as the opponent might be better than a 'priority' or higher draft pick. Difficult to quantify.

Nth Melbourne with crowds of 15 and 16 thousand in Melbourne against the Dockers and the Demons in 2009 might have preferred a 38-40 thousand attendance at Docklands v Collingwood or Carlton than playing against money losing crowds for picks with other cellar dwellers - if such a system was in operation. No good having a pick of some teen-aged 'might-be' if you are bankrupt.

When the uneven fixture was discussed after the competition was increased to 12 teams in 1925, one suggestion was that after each team had played each other once, there would be a re-draw with the bottom teams dropping out to save them losing any further money that season!

As for draft picks - again difficult to quantify. Geelong never having finished lower than 12th in a 16 or more team competition and never having won less than 30% of their matches since the draft was introduced (or since 1973) , seem to have done alright without the highest draft picks. As well as the three premierships, since the draft was introduced Geelong have won a higher percentage of their matches than any other club. Is developing a winning culture a better strategy than 'tanking' for draft picks?

 

[Chiz]

The attendance at the Richmond v Collingwood match round 2 2009 was 57,268. The round 20 match between the two was 6th highest attendance ever recorded where there were 11 places difference between the two teams.
Indicates Richmond's drawing power but the revenue from twice as many in attendance with Collingwood as the opponent might be better than a 'priority' or higher draft pick. Difficult to quantify.

That was this year's crowd. In the same round, Geelong v Hawthorn drew 69k - clearly, anticipation at the quality and expected closeness of the game is a major drawcard.

As for your second point, you need to consider that under either system just as many teams will play home games against Collingwood as they would against GWS. To boost crowd numbers, the AFL are better off scheduling more games between Collingwood and other higher placed teams, and more games between GWS and lower placed teams.

As for whether Richmond would prefer playing Collingwood twice (which they actually don't) or the chance at a priority pick, who knows. But if they are interested in revenue, they would need to win enough games to ensure they finish in the top 12.

Nth Melbourne with crowds of 15 and 16 thousand in Melbourne against the Dockers and the Demons in 2009 might have preferred a 38-40 thousand attendance at Docklands v Collingwood or Carlton than playing against money losing crowds for picks with other cellar dwellers - if such a system was in operation. No good having a pick of some teen-aged 'might-be' if you are bankrupt.

In a few years time, Collingwood and/or Carlton might also be celler dwellers! Would your point be valid if that was the case?

Clearly, many of the fans had switched off their team by this stage. Personally, if my team was struggling at round 17 and was clearly not going to make the finals, I'd be more inclined to attend games we have a good chance at winning then games against top sides where we're expected to get thrashed. Also, having something to play for, other than pride, also increases the likelihood of attendance. The issue is not whether a poor team would get a bigger crowd against Collingwood (in most cases they would), but about whether the total crowd numbers would increase under such a system.

When the uneven fixture was discussed after the competition was increased to 12 teams in 1925, one suggestion was that after each team had played each other once, there would be a re-draw with the bottom teams dropping out to save them losing any further money that season!

The system I'm proposing is, in a sense, kind of similar - clearly the games between the bottom six will draw lower crowds at the expense of higher crowds for the top teams (but, as I argue, an overall increase in crowd numbers). As is the way the AFL currently works, the rich teams subsidise the poorer teams. At least the prospect of a priority pick (that you have to `win' to receive) will help struggling teams to break out of their losing culture and climb the ladder.

As for draft picks - again difficult to quantify. Geelong never having finished lower than 12th in a 16 or more team competition and never having won less than 30% of their matches since the draft was introduced (or since 1973) , seem to have done alright without the highest draft picks. As well as the three premierships, since the draft was introduced Geelong have won a higher percentage of their matches than any other club. Is developing a winning culture a better strategy than 'tanking' for draft picks?

Relevance?

 

[RogersResults]

In essence I think you may have a solution looking for a problem, not a solution to an actual problem.
I've yet to see concrete evidence that an uneven fixture has a detrimental effect on the outcome of the Premiership nor that the so called 'tanking' for draft picks unfairly compromises the competition.

What evidence can be provided that a relegated competition playing for a priority draft pick would be of interest to football followers and that overall attendances would not be affected? That would have to be convincingly made before any such scheme could receive any consideration from the League.

There could be followers of bottom six teams who'd rather see their team upset one of the leaders and compromise their finals chances (especially a traditional rival) in the later rounds than playing another weak team for a chance at the next Jack Watts. But assumptions are not evidence nor do they make the essence of an argument.

Finally if the scheme was in operation this year, on the form of this year Brisbane who have won all their six matches against the other current bottom five would most likely easily win the priority pick. Would supporters of the really weakest teams think this fair?

Footnote:
Collingwood's average home and away attendance in the last 10 seasons against teams placed 1 to 6 on the ladder at the time of the match: 55,483 - average home and away attendance against teams played 12th or below - 50,137.
What would weaker clubs actually choose; give up the possibility of a 2nd match v Collingwood or play off in a potentially more uneven competition than the top six for one draft pick?

 

[Chiz]

I'm not looking for a solution to a problem, I'm suggesting a system which I believe would enhance the competition. Of course I can't provide evidence that fans would be interested in a competition for a priority pick (I personally would find this more interesting) - obviously the AFL would run their own research into this before adopting such a system. What we do know, however, is that games later in the season between a top and a bottom side typically draw low crowds and little interest in the game. Most of the time the results are heavily one-sided. While you make a fair point that supporters of a bottom side might like to see their team upset a top side, you have to also consider that supporters of a top side are more likely to want to watch their team play another top side than have an easy win over a bottom side.

I agree that Brisbane would have been favourites to win the priority pick if the system was in place this season, but by no means would they have been definites to win. I would suggest that at the end of the 6-team round robin, the two highest teams play off in a mini grand final for the priority pick, played alongside the first week of the finals series (the highest placed team plays at home) - this would give every chance of an upset victory. Is this fair? Of course it is - every team had an equal chance of winning the priority pick. Do the very bottom sides lose anything? Not really, the team on the bottom at round 17 still receives pick 1, second bottom pick 2, etc. it's just that one team receives an extra pick (pick 7), which would help to propel them out of the bottom 6 in the subsequent seasons. Obviously the 2nd round picks are moved one spot down.

A point on your footnote - sure, that's not a huge difference. But is the difference greater towards the end of the season? Perhaps you could give the average crowd figures for rounds 15-22, once the top and bottom 6 are more established. Also, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond, the teams that Collingwood traditionally draws its largest crowds against, have spent a lot of time in the bottom 6 over the last 10 years - I'm sure this has skewed the results somewhat.