Remove this Banner Ad

Finally some fixture sense from the AFL

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If you're going to have a 22 round season where 17 rounds are devoted to each team playing each other once, and the remaining 5 rounds are for the top six to face each other again to determine order in the final 8, with two 'wild card' entries from the next best 6, then the finals system MUST become a seeded knockout format.

No wasting time with double chances in finals. The last five rounds determine finals seeding and if you lose to eighth or whatever from there - too bad.
 
Playing everyone once isnt fair anyway.

Certain teams (you know who you are) will get to play the top 9 teams at home and the bottom 8 away every year.
 
Yikes. So Carlton would collect the #1 draft pick this year, while Melbourne, who battled hard but couldn't hold it together for the whole season, would get pick #4 - #6.

Not necessarily.

They effectively play off for pick position after round 17 so Carlton may end up where they are pick 6.

Keeping in mind Melb, GWS and Lions all knocked Carlton off during the year.

I don't like locking in the rest of the top spots though.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The bottom six "play off" for draft picks?

I assume that means you compete for the highest pick, in which case #1 is going to go to the 13th/14th placed team every year. It's generally only the bottom three or four that are truly uncompetitive.

Turn the draft into a lottery and play off for extra balls perhaps?

Your team lost to melb, gws and lions during the year so no not always.

It would essentially create a finals series for the bottom 6, everyone at the club would be willing the team on for every win to improve position from supporters to the board members.

As of now a lot of supporters boards and coachs almost want to lose for the better picks.
 
Stupid idea

The issue is unbalanced fixturing, not competitive fixturing

Stop giving the double up games to the same sides each yr, and stop putti the sands sides in the prime timeslots

Problem solved

Wait, that's too logical, and too fair
Spot on. You cannot have top 6 teams playing each other four the last five rounds. Imagine if North had Swans and Freo in rounds 16 & 17, then had to play Hawks, Freo, Cats, Port and Swans going into a finals season. Huge disadvantage.

But part of the idea is good.
Start with the 17 games v each club - you play them home one year, way the next.
That will give some more fairness for a start. You then fiddle around with the other 5 matches.
 
Lol

TV networks will say no

Agree. if they seriously think people would want to see the WB v Saint Kilda v Melbourne v GWS all in one block of time they are dreaming. People will just not watch as it means nothing, with no chance for a fairy tale. The unique aspect of our game is hope. If there is a slight chance, even the smallest chance there side might make it, people watch. This new system removes that for the bottom 6 sides as they are now playing for picks only.
 
I would have a 20 round season.
17 rounds - play each team once (one year home, next year away), then three games v rivals.
Top six then get a week off and 7 - 10 play off for a spot in the Top 8 we have now (7 v 10, 8 v 9).
Gives the top teams a chance to freshen up without having to rest players in the run home, and gives more teams the chance make the finals and host a final or play-off. Marginally increases the chances of 5 & 6 and decreases 7 & 8.
Would make this week even more exciting with GC still in it and a battle for home play-offs.
So the season is shortened by two games for most clubs and one game for 7 - 10.
 
What if 7th place is percentage out of the top 6 after round 17, does that mean the highest they can finish is 7th?

Dislike it for this very reason. 7th could be knocking on the door of the top 4.

Just another manufactured fixture in the end.
 
So the top 6 will play each other after 17 rounds, then play each other again in the finals? Seems a bit silly.

I'd just prefer they either did a rolling draw over 4 years so everyone plays everyone else 5 times (with one 'rival' they play twice a year), or simply pick the double up matches at random.
Nice idea, I like it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Only having 1 Derby/showdown/etc each year would affect both the bottom line and the happiness of the clubs/supporters (especially true of non-vic clubs, but applies elsewhere).

I would like to nominate West Coast to do the noble thing and generously forgo a second derby each season for the time being. How about we play...oh, let's say Melbourne again instead???
 
Jesus the AFL are a bunch of absolute morons - if they're even considering this they have no idea whatsoever. Just implement a fair fixture and be done with it, this rubbish about splitting the ladder 2/3 of the way through the season is a joke and would be an amateur step reinforcing the view that the AFL is a backwater competition.

Either have a 17 game season or create a fair fixture based on the previous years ladder - either way you must know the schedule going into the season.

I seriously am at an absolute loss that they are even considering this asinine idea, and I am not surprised to see it thrown up by the media and applauded by some of the nuffies on here.
 
You'd still get the derbies. Its a really good system. 17rds every team plays each other once. Then 1 derby round. Then the conferences based on ladder position (top 6/middle 6/bottom 6). I am happy that theyre looking at this at last.

I fail to see how this would really be radically different from what we have now, with 2 derbies, everyone playing each other once, and the additional games based on last year's finish.

The same distortions apply, in that with the current system a team that underperformed last year gets a more favourable draw (see: West Coast), whereas with the proposed system a team that underperformed early in the season gets a more favourable draw (see: Richmond). You're swapping one downside for a slightly different but still as-impactful one.

More generally, as for the point of 'making sure the last couple of rounds still mean something', I think that's a ludicrous suggestion given the top 5 are still in flux, and there are still theoretically 4 teams battling for 8th.
 
So if you are 13th after round 17 the best you can achieve is better draft picks since your finals hopes are dusted?
That's about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard from the AFL. Richmond might make the finals this year after a horror start and if the AFL aim of artifical equalisation through handicapping actually works that should not be a rare event.
 
We should have only one of those matches a year.

It's ridiculous that the sport rigs its fixture so they appear twice each season.

Damn straight the AFL needs to get over this idea that certain return matches are sacrosanct makes absolutely no sense in a supposedly professional competition. Who gives a shit if Carlton/Collingwood only happens once a season, just makes that one game all the bigger.

17 round season can work, someone on here suggested a while ago 8 home 8 away and one neutral game that both clubs can market. Non-vic clubs this would obviously be the derbies and showdowns, for the Vic clubs this could be ANZAC Eve/Day, Easter Monday, Good Friday, Queens Bday etc with every club given one blockbuster to market.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Really, unless we have a random or rolling draw it isn't possible to get anything near an equitable AND sensible draw. The only problem with a random or rolling draw is makes a lot less money. It isn't just the TV deal, the caterring revenue and the ground rental agreements are compromised because both have attendance criteria and that is ignoring sponsorships sold with the lure of blokbuster publicity. Interestingly the proposal of a 17 game then reset season has similar implications albeit watered down. It would still allow for pre set features like ANZAC day or Dreamtime.
 
Really, unless we have a random or rolling draw it isn't possible to get anything near an equitable AND sensible draw. The only problem with a random or rolling draw is makes a lot less money. It isn't just the TV deal, the caterring revenue and the ground rental agreements are compromised because both have attendance criteria and that is ignoring sponsorships sold with the lure of blokbuster publicity. Interestingly the proposal of a 17 game then reset season has similar implications albeit watered down. It would still allow for pre set features like ANZAC day or Dreamtime.

random or rolling is such a pipe dream, i can't believe it still gets mentioned as many times as it does. it does not improve, make fairer or more equitable the schedule in any given season.

the AFL is better off manipulating the fixture as it does now, but bumping down percentage and making head-to-head results, strength of victory and strength of schedule the higher tier tie breakers for teams on the same competition points.
 
I fail to see how this would really be radically different from what we have now, with 2 derbies, everyone playing each other once, and the additional games based on last year's finish.

The same distortions apply, in that with the current system a team that underperformed last year gets a more favourable draw (see: West Coast), whereas with the proposed system a team that underperformed early in the season gets a more favourable draw (see: Richmond). You're swapping one downside for a slightly different but still as-impactful one.

More generally, as for the point of 'making sure the last couple of rounds still mean something', I think that's a ludicrous suggestion given the top 5 are still in flux, and there are still theoretically 4 teams battling for 8th.

First of all, the second round of matchups is determined by to the ladder position after the 17rds (once everyone has played each other once) not the position of the ladder the previous season. So in a sense you may say that the 17rds is the football season. They then split into the divisions which will allow them to better qualify for their respective goals ("Top six" for the double chance, "Middle six" for the last 2 spots in the finals and "Bottom six"" playing off for the #1 draft pick or a "team on the rise" cup of sorts).

It is a very even system with the only compromise being the rivalry round which I think most of us would be able to swallow and would presumably even itself out over time.
 
You could have just stopped at the bolded part. It was obviously the reason you posted, given that everything after it added absolutely nothing new to the conversation.

Eh? I was giving an example that just because they are bottom 4 does not mean they are incapable of competing with a bottom 6 team whether Carlton or otherwise.
 
random or rolling is such a pipe dream, i can't believe it still gets mentioned as many times as it does. it does not improve, make fairer or more equitable the schedule in any given season.
Depends how you define fair I guess. The way I see it, it is 100% fair/equitable if all teams have equal chance of being advantaged or disadvantaged and that equals out over time. It isn't even for all every year and frankly it can't be but it is 100% fair.

There is a fundamental difference between fairness/equity and sameness/evenness. The latter is just not possible, even if a 34 week season wasn't impractical because even that has vagaries of form and timing. As soon as you introduce a sold game or a venue contract that over rides home venue you further erode evenness and arguable equity as well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Finally some fixture sense from the AFL


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top