Fairness in the fixture

[brockparty]

With the introduction of GWS next year the AFL needs to address the inequality in the current fixture system. For the AFL fixture to be 100% fair, each team would have to play each other the same amount of times as any other team. With 18 teams this would mean a 17 game season.

Now I know the AFL would never allow this because they are fully committed to the current 22 round fixture. But this system is flawed.


My solution is based upon the current NFL fixture system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NFL_Schedule_Sample.PNG

In the NFL, if a team finishes fourth in their division, they play the teams that finished fourth in the other divisions of their conference the next year.

The AFL could adopt a similar approach (Don't worry I am not suggesting we divide the competition into divisions). Basically the teams who finish in the top 6 the previous year play each other twice the next year. The same goes for the middle 6 and the last 6.

So that makes it 17 games where everyone plays each other once, then 5 more games when the team plays the the team in their respective six from the previous year.

If this sounds confusing I will use Collingwood as an example:

So for 2012 Collingwood would obviously play every team once, then play 5 games against the other top 6 from 2011, being Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast, Carlton and St.Kilda (as the ladder currently stands).

This would even out the competition a bit as it would allow the sides that finished in the lower spots the season before to have a chance to win more games against teams that are on their level. I find it ridiculous that the Gold Coast played Collingwood, Geelong, Bulldogs and Hawthorn; 4 teams out of last years top 8 with 3 of them being in the top 4. I know the AFL is trying to promote the game in the Gold Coast so playing the big teams there this year is understandable, but for the AFL to have a fair fixture to give every team a better chance of winning, a revamp is needed.

 

[Air_Chester]

By that logic Melbourne could double their wins and, say, St.Kilda could have half as many.

Is Melbourne better than St.Kilda? Or did Melbourne just get gimme games against the flunkie teams?

Let us not reward mediocrity any further, shall we?

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

With your Gold Coast example , Collingwood only played them once this year , Hawthorn Geelong Bulldogs played them twice.

Using this criteria that you put forward , how different do you think that this years final ladder would look as opposed to how it currently looks ?

Would Port Adelaide , Gold Coast , Brisbane , Melbourne really have won many more games than they already have ?

 

[Jack2Johnston]

It's an idea that has been used many times and actually has merit

I'll use the Swans as an example

1 Collingwood
2 Geelong
3 St Kilda
4 Western Bulldogs
5 Sydney
6 Fremantle

This is last years top 6, and in 2011 the Swans have had 2 games against

Essendon
Geelong
Carlton
Western Bulldogs
Brisbane
Richmond

Only 2 of the other top 5
Our Record out of these Return matches is currently
5w 4L with a final game against Brisbane next round

Had we played 2 games against the Saints, Collingwood, Fremantle and Hawthorn
instead of Brisbane/Carlton/Essendon/Richmond, we'd likely end up around the same mark with 2 losses to both Collingwood and Hawthorn, and 1W1L vs both StKilda and Freo to leave us 5-5, kinda hard to say as it would depend on when we got each team, and form at different times of the year, could easily be the same as we are currently, 5-4 with a match to play vs either Freo or the Saints.


The system however makes a lot more sense in terms of fixturing than the current setup, even if it simply because their is a system...

The Major problem as I see it, is that 6th > 13th is usually closer than 1st > 6th
So the team that finished 7th would invariably have an easier draw than the team that finished 6th despite their maybe being only percentage between them on the ladder at the end of the previous year.

 

[TedDougChris]

I have a revolutionary idea. Every team, plays every other team, home and away, an equal number of times over a certain time period.

Each team, also plays an equal number of 'promotional' games in locations like Cairns, Canberra, Darwin etc.

Now, that may mean that some years you play lots of good teams and some years you play lots of bad teams. But if gives you equality in the fixture over a certain time period.

It also means that sometimes you don't get the two Coll - Ess type fixtures in a given year. Tough. It's about time some honesty and integrity was restored to the system. I have no problems with the fixture being 'flexible', to allow there to be an ANZAC Day match each year (as there should be at least one Ess-Coll game per year), just not the currently guaranteed 2 per year.

 

[telsor]

OK, 5 'extra' games.

1 'special' ...Each team can choose a 'rivalry pair' ... both teams need to agree...This is mostly to allow 2 derbies/showdowns/etc. Same team, every year.

For the other 4...We have 16 teams left. Look at the previous years ladder, take 1 team from the top 4, one from the next 4 (etc). Which teams is worked out to balance travel as far as is reasonably possible.

Apart from the rivalry team, teams get no say in who they play (taking away the collingwood excuse for never travelling, as nobody gets to ask to play them). The only requests possible are for timing.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

OK, 5 'extra' games.

1 'special' ...Each team can choose a 'rivalry pair' ... both teams need to agree...This is mostly to allow 2 derbies/showdowns/etc. Same team, every year.

For the other 4...We have 16 teams left. Look at the previous years ladder, take 1 team from the top 4, one from the next 4 (etc). Which teams is worked out to balance travel as far as is reasonably possible.

Apart from the rivalry team, teams get no say in who they play (taking away the collingwood excuse for never travelling, as nobody gets to ask to play them). The only requests possible are for timing.

Um you seem to forget that had Richmond not sold 2 of their games interstate , that they would only have travelled 4 times , like Collingwood instead of 6.

Add those 2 to your 12 games at the MCG and your 4 at Docklands and you have the same Vic/interstate travel as Collingwood.

 

[EssendonNick]

Why not play everyone once and then use a super computer to completely randomise a draw? That way it mightn't be fair, but at least its down to luck, not cashola.

 

[flamethrower]

The season is too long making games in the last few weeks meaningless for the majority of teams, and providing extra opportunity for injuries to marque players due to fatigue.

I believe we should go back to an 18 game season, where each team plays the other 17 once, and one extra game against their rival.

 

[brockparty]

Would Port Adelaide , Gold Coast , Brisbane , Melbourne really have won many more games than they already have ?

Well if they play each other twice instead of playing teams in the top 4 twice, they are more likely to at least have a chance at winning. If Collingwood played any of those teams twice next year, that is pretty much a given that Collingwood would win. If they are playing teams around their same level then there is more of a chance that any team could win and it would make the game much better to watch.

 

[SaintLuko]

Why not just have everyone play each other once, then break the ladder into the three groups:

1 - 6
7 -12
13-18

The teams in each group play each other once in "rd 18-22"

1-6 play for ladder position for finals (top 4 get the double chance)
7-12 play for the final two spots in the eight
13-18 play for pride, or draft picks. Or just dont play at all..

 

[telsor]

Um you seem to forget that had Richmond not sold 2 of their games interstate , that they would only have travelled 4 times , like Collingwood instead of 6.

Add those 2 to your 12 games at the MCG and your 4 at Docklands and you have the same Vic/interstate travel as Collingwood.

When people complain about Collingwood not travelling enough, the reply is always that it's because other teams request it. I was just removing that option to help make the draw fairer. It's not just directed at Collingwood, they're just the clearest example.

 

[Bomberman86]

Oh yay another "I have a solution" OP. I'll put this one aside with the "fairness of finance distribution" and " The fairness of Anzac Day" threads.

Incase it isn't painfully obvious, it's not a very important pile.

 

[Kwality]

Some clubs can offer 18 game memberships, others a max of 10. Thats fair?

 

[red+black]

Some clubs can offer 18 game memberships, others a max of 10. Thats fair?

Well that's never going to change is it, no matter how the fixture is?

 

[Kwality]

Yep some clubs expect to be favoured in the fixture & they are accomodated.

 

[Vaughan]

For anything like this to actually be fair, you would need to play 17 rounds, and then set the draw for the last 5 rounds after that, based on ladder positions. If you use ladder positions from the year before, then teams on the way up will actually get an easier draw. Use West Coast as an example. If last years ladder positions were used, and assuming western sydney and gold coast are 17th and 18th, WCE would have played richmond, essendon, brisbane, gold coast and GWS twice, and probably finished top 2.

I don't think anybody likes the idea of the whole year's draw isn't already set, so, If ladder piositions are going to be used to set the draw for the next year, it needs to at least try and spread the five games more equitably. eg, teams that finish 1-6 play 2 from that group, 2 from 7-12, and 1 from 13 -18 the next year ( 2,2,1). teams that finish 7-12 play 2,1,2. teams that finish 13-18 play 1,2,2. Surely within those parameters derbies and rivalries can still be fixtured.

 

[eastfreo75]

I have a revolutionary idea. Every team, plays every other team, home and away, an equal number of times over a certain time period.

Each team, also plays an equal number of 'promotional' games in locations like Cairns, Canberra, Darwin etc.

Now, that may mean that some years you play lots of good teams and some years you play lots of bad teams. But if gives you equality in the fixture over a certain time period.

It also means that sometimes you don't get the two Coll - Ess type fixtures in a given year. Tough. It's about time some honesty and integrity was restored to the system. I have no problems with the fixture being 'flexible', to allow there to be an ANZAC Day match each year (as there should be at least one Ess-Coll game per year), just not the currently guaranteed 2 per year.

The AFL don't force the Dogs, Port, Tigers, Demons, Hawks and Roos into Promotional games, the clubs requested due to financial benefits.

So stop complaining about.

 

[Oliver09]

A way to figure out a fair draw is so easy its not funny. Everyone plays each other once, thats a given. The extra 5 games are still required as the players wouldn't accept a paycut for a shorter season it would be fair to assume.

All you need to do for these extra 5 games is break the ladder down into 6 groups going by the previous seasons ladder. These would be 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18. Teams wouldn't play each other twice if they're in the same group. The premier would play 4,7,10,13 & 16. The runner-up would play 5,8,11,14 & 17. 3rd placed team would play 6,9,12,15 & 18. It's easy to figure out who else play who as I have grouped them already. This is by far the fairest draw possible & is also better than the scenarios of the top 6, middle 6 & bottom 6 playing each other twice going by the the previous years ladder because that just makes the comp a handicap event & nobody should want that. It also stops the hard draw/easy draw crap that happens every year.

The system that I propose doesn't allow for 2 derbies or showdowns or the Ess/Coll/Carl monopoly each year but really who cares? There will be enough good games come about naturally that will draw big crowds & that will mean that interest will always be up. When the derbies, showdowns etc games happen twice a year it will be special, not just going through the motions because its always the way its been.

It should always be made sure that when teams are matched up the home team is swapped over every year. As an example Essendon went from r.1 06 to r.20 this year between home games against Sydney. Thats 6 games in a row that Sydney had the home ground advantage against Essendon & thats just a joke.

A weakness in my system for some is that the previous years grand finalists will always only play each other once a year but that shouldn't be a big deal. What should happen though is that its a massive build up. Maybe have it as the season opener or the first Friday night game of the year if the Carl v Rich game continues on. The home team should be the premier & if this clashes with the home game rotation it will get balanced out in the following few years.

Pick out flaws people, i'm sure people will think its a terrible plan.

 

[borgsta2006]

why doesn't everyone just play each other once? We get roughly 16 rounds or something..... Players complain they have too many rounds, now's a good time to reduce it

 

[Black Falcon]

Here's my take on this.
18 teams - 17 rds + Rivalry = 18 rounds

Throw in two wildcard rds like NFL = 20 rds
Rd 1 wildcard v similar pos start of prev year
Rd 18 wildcard v closest pos as at rd 18 prev year

Also, to extend the season to 23 weeks (end March to end Aug)
* State of Origin QldvNSW, NT v ACT, WA v Vic v SA v Tas - to alternate
Rd 8 Split round after SOO

Rd 16 Rivalry rd
Rd 17 Split round TBA
Rd 18 Wildcard 2 TBA
Rd 19 TBA venue/day/night
Rd 20 TBA venue/day/night

The above allows for the SOO that so many fans crave, with the best players assured of a bye the following fortnight. Same after Rivalry 2 (Rd 16)

The 16-20 rounds allow for a finals build up where the AFL can maximise crowd revenue. Each team has a rest during the split round 17, a month out from the finals.

The 23 week duration is the same as is usual (22 rds + split round)
It has 20 x 9 = 180 games Plus 4 humungus SOO
Every team would have three non-playing wkds.
Each player has at least two non-playing wkds.