Remove this Banner Ad

Finally some fixture sense from the AFL

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It is broken though. The fixture, as it currently stands, is rigged. I agree that it's not likely to have a massive impact on the ladder, but you can't argue that it has some impact. For that reason it needs to change if the AFL values integrity at all.
It's true, it's not perfect. However, I don't see that this proposed solution is going to do any better. It won't lead to more equity or more excitement. The current system may need to change, but certainly not to this model.
 
It's true, it's not perfect. However, I don't see that this proposed solution is going to do any better. It won't lead to more equity or more excitement. The current system may need to change, but certainly not to this model.

I agree that there are too many problems for the model proposed in the OP to be implemented.

But why not come up with something better - this is a forum after all.
 
Love how people take a concept and take an incredibly unlikely event and use it to suit an argument.

I love this idea.

Play everyone once and have positions sorted in brackets is perfect. Play teams in your bracket again to jostle for positions. There is no flaw in this system because whatever argument you have is ended by the statement 'everyone has played everyone once and it is fair as of that time'.

If we must have 22 rounds this is as fair as you'd want it.

Complaining that you might be 13th and start a crazy run to the finals only happens now because of the uneven draw

Eliminates the whole 'soft' draw rubbish that goes on.

Huge thumbs up from me and only bettered by having a 17 round season.

The statement 'everyone has played everyone once and it is fair as of that time' is incorrect. That ignores the fact that you'll play every team either at home or away and how that is configured can be a major determinant. Ideally you'd want to play the weaker teams away and the stronger ones at home to maximise your chances of winning. Play the softies at home and the strong away and it's much harder.
 
The statement 'everyone has played everyone once and it is fair as of that time' is incorrect. That ignores the fact that you'll play every team either at home or away and how that is configured can be a major determinant. Ideally you'd want to play the weaker teams away and the stronger ones at home to maximise your chances of winning. Play the softies at home and the strong away and it's much harder.

Oh dear and next we'll look at who wins the coin toss and who gets to wear their white shorts.

I'm sure the AFL will look at this also and it will flip the following year anyway.

Playing everyone once is fairer then some teams having played certain teams twice before others even once.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

With an 18 team competition and 22 rounds there's 17 matches of round robin and 5 double-ups.

Allocate the double-ups thus:
  • One "rivalry" match - eg two Showdowns, two Derbies
  • Split the teams into top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 but based on last years ladder
  • Allocate 2 games against teams in your own group, 1 game each against teams from other groups.
Not the most even way to do it, your team will suffer or benefit depending on the form of your allocated rival. But that's only 1 game out of 22.
 
This idea is crazy. Leave it as it is. I like what the AFL did last year that of the return games most have to come from the region of the ladder you finished last year- I like that it gives the possibility of a team rising in one year, and gives the best draws to the lowest-ranked teams.

Also don't mind the rolling fixture idea- would be happy with that also
 
I agree that there are too many problems for the model proposed in the OP to be implemented.

But why not come up with something better - this is a forum after all.

There is only one fair system with 18 teams and roughly 22 rounds.

Each team plays every other team 4 times over a 3 year period (two 23 round seasons and one 22 round season).

First year you play the other 17 teams once and then 5 of them once more, as happens now (though who you play twice is not randomly chosen). The next year you again play each team once plus a new group of 6 teams twice. Year three you play all once plus the 6 remaining teams (those you haven't yet played twice in a year) two times.

To stick with the fairness aspect when you enter the 2nd rotation of 3 years of fixtures you reverse the home teams. This means that over 6 years each team plays each other team 8 times and each gets 4 home games and 4 away games against each opponent.

The simplest way to construct this would be to simply order teams in alphabetical order (though any order would suffice, based on geography so Vic teams don't get lumped with an overabundance or shortage of interstate trips). Doing this in Year 1 Adelaide play all teams then have 2nd up clashes with Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Fremantle. The following year they play all once then again play Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Melbourne and North. Third year they play all teams once then a second game against Port, Richmond, the Saints, Sydney, West Coast and the Dogs. Three years have elapsed, Adelaide has played each team four times.

Just looking at that draw, which is completely determined alphabetically, Adelaide get by my reckoning 3 neutral years worth of draws, maybe year 3 a bit tough. Based on current ladder position they get 2 below and 3 above in year 1, 3 above and 3 below year 2 and 4 above and 2 below year 3.

The draw system is fixed and has no relation to where teams finish the year before. Some years you'll get lucky and have a "soft" draw, other years it will be "tough" and most likely it will be neutral. But the key is that because it is based on maths it is totally fair because there's no outside input. There can be no real complaint about the draw because it is what it is, and if you want you can work out years in advance who you'll be playing who.

As it stands now supporters look in trepidation at the following year's draw when it's released hoping for a dream run, but fearing a horror draw. If it's bad they blame the AFL, if it's good they say "fair enough, we've copped it sweet before". My way you can grumble or be happy, but it's completely unbiased and for once truly "the luck of the draw".
 
Oh dear and next we'll look at who wins the coin toss and who gets to wear their white shorts.

I'm sure the AFL will look at this also and it will flip the following year anyway.

Playing everyone once is fairer then some teams having played certain teams twice before others even once.

Nobody likes the idea of not playing all other teams before you have a second match against anyone. And I doubt the league would countenance the idea of reducing the TV rights by a quarter due to the diminshed product, let alone the advantage that the NRL and Rugby would take of the AFL absence on the scene.

And as West Coast man I'm still fuming that we had to wear white shorts and our awaty jumper against the Tigers at Subi, cost us the match for sure!
 
There is only one fair system with 18 teams and roughly 22 rounds.

Each team plays every other team 4 times over a 3 year period (two 23 round seasons and one 22 round season).

First year you play the other 17 teams once and then 5 of them once more, as happens now (though who you play twice is not randomly chosen). The next year you again play each team once plus a new group of 6 teams twice. Year three you play all once plus the 6 remaining teams (those you haven't yet played twice in a year) two times.

To stick with the fairness aspect when you enter the 2nd rotation of 3 years of fixtures you reverse the home teams. This means that over 6 years each team plays each other team 8 times and each gets 4 home games and 4 away games against each opponent.

The simplest way to construct this would be to simply order teams in alphabetical order (though any order would suffice, based on geography so Vic teams don't get lumped with an overabundance or shortage of interstate trips). Doing this in Year 1 Adelaide play all teams then have 2nd up clashes with Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Fremantle. The following year they play all once then again play Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Melbourne and North. Third year they play all teams once then a second game against Port, Richmond, the Saints, Sydney, West Coast and the Dogs. Three years have elapsed, Adelaide has played each team four times.

Just looking at that draw, which is completely determined alphabetically, Adelaide get by my reckoning 3 neutral years worth of draws, maybe year 3 a bit tough. Based on current ladder position they get 2 below and 3 above in year 1, 3 above and 3 below year 2 and 4 above and 2 below year 3.

The draw system is fixed and has no relation to where teams finish the year before. Some years you'll get lucky and have a "soft" draw, other years it will be "tough" and most likely it will be neutral. But the key is that because it is based on maths it is totally fair because there's no outside input. There can be no real complaint about the draw because it is what it is, and if you want you can work out years in advance who you'll be playing who.

As it stands now supporters look in trepidation at the following year's draw when it's released hoping for a dream run, but fearing a horror draw. If it's bad they blame the AFL, if it's good they say "fair enough, we've copped it sweet before". My way you can grumble or be happy, but it's completely unbiased and for once truly "the luck of the draw".

So what if you happen to keep getting a group of teams on the improve? How is that fair?

Only a few years ago Saints and Pies were playing off in a GF. You'd hate to have had them twice in that year. In that same year you may have had Port once and now have them twice, so again how is that fair?

For someone who spoke about home games v away games in my post, this is idiotic to just suggest playing all teams 4 times over a 3 year period is the only fair way.

Plus doesn't take out your argument about my post of home games v away games with weak or strong teams?
 
So what if you happen to keep getting a group of teams on the improve? How is that fair?

Only a few years ago Saints and Pies were playing off in a GF. You'd hate to have had them twice in that year. In that same year you may have had Port once and now have them twice, so again how is that fair?

For someone who spoke about home games v away games in my post, this is idiotic to just suggest playing all teams 4 times over a 3 year period is the only fair way.

Plus doesn't take out your argument about my post of home games v away games with weak or strong teams?

It IS the only fair way with 18 teams and around 22 rounds. Just ask any mathematician and they'll concur. Why should the draw rely solely on the maths? So that it is unbiased and free from influence, unlike now.

Whatever draw you get from my system is fair. You are hung up on getting a tough draw but that is as likely as getting a soft draw and I beleive a neutral draw is even more likey and no system can deliver a draw that is equitable for 18 teams and 22 rounds. It isn't about trying to even things out, it's about fairness and clarity. The strength of the teams is irrelevant to my draw.

Any other system you or anyone else devise will always draw complaints that some team is getting short changed, it's inevitable. To make it truly fair it needs to be clear from the outset and not something like a team that maybe 7th after 17 rounds being told they are barred from trying for top 4.

The strength of the teams is irrelevant to my draw. Most teams will go up and down, some will be continually higher and others continually lower and Richmond will finish 9th.
 
Love how people take a concept and take an incredibly unlikely event and use it to suit an argument.

I love this idea.

Play everyone once and have positions sorted in brackets is perfect. Play teams in your bracket again to jostle for positions. There is no flaw in this system because whatever argument you have is ended by the statement 'everyone has played everyone once and it is fair as of that time'.

If we must have 22 rounds this is as fair as you'd want it.

Complaining that you might be 13th and start a crazy run to the finals only happens now because of the uneven draw

Eliminates the whole 'soft' draw rubbish that goes on.

Huge thumbs up from me and only bettered by having a 17 round season.
There are plenty of flaws.
1 - How do you sort out H&A for the extra fixtures? The fair solution would be to play these matches in the opposite venue that was played during the first 17 rounds. However, this could lead to teams playing 5 games away (all in other states, for example), or another 5 games at home. This could mean instead of having 11 H&A games, your club and fans could have only 8 or 9 home games which you played in the first 17 rounds.
2 - The scheduling for the last 5 games. Booking airlines and hotels - much better deals if they were booked in advance - sorting out venues for starters. Teams manage their training based on whether they are playing home or away, have 6 day breaks etc.
3 - The top 6 play off against each other, then the top 4 play each other in the finals (same teams). Then the semi finals and the GF usually have at least 3 of these teams featured. It will be boring seeing these teams play each other again and again for 9 weeks.
4 - The bottom 6 group is a battle over draft picks that fans outside the bottom six will take little or no interest in. At least in the current system they play against teams heading for finals and may have a bearing on ladder positions. And the strongest of those teams will probably win the top draft pick totally destroying the concept of the draft by giving worst team the help it needs.

Not having soft draws could be sorted out by putting teams in groups of equal strength before the season begins. That way, you could have 11 games H&A worked out before the season starts. This new system will create new inequalities which will be worked out at the convenience of bigger clubs.
 
There is only one fair system with 18 teams and roughly 22 rounds.

Each team plays every other team 4 times over a 3 year period (two 23 round seasons and one 22 round season).
This may even things out over 3 years as far as H&A results go, but the finals system is based on what happens in a single year, not on what happens over an average of 3 years. It is the anomalies in any of these single years which can have a bearing on finals, and it is a problem we have already which your solution doesn't fix.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Here's a solution the AFL will like:

17 rounds - all play each other once.
Round 18 - rivalry round for derbies, showdowns, etc.
Then 15 teams split into three groups - top 5 play each other, middle five play each other, bottom five play each other.
The other three teams - "randomly" selected every single year as Swans, Giants and Suns - play against NEAFL teams, to improve their ladder positions.
Then the top 5 teams plus the "randomly selected" teams play in the finals. Then five of the teams are eliminated.
Then Sydney plays either Suns or Giants in the GF.

Perfect for the AFL.
 
20 teams, 20 rounds, 10 games a weekend including thurs and Monday games. Home/away reverses each year.

TV is fine with it as extra games a week make up for lost rounds.

Sorted.
 
The statement 'everyone has played everyone once and it is fair as of that time' is incorrect. That ignores the fact that you'll play every team either at home or away and how that is configured can be a major determinant. Ideally you'd want to play the weaker teams away and the stronger ones at home to maximise your chances of winning. Play the softies at home and the strong away and it's much harder.

This is the only element that would need to be "fixtured" but i am guessing it would just be a variation of what we see today where you alternate home and away games and they would need to weight the games so that you don't play for example Sydney, Freo, Port and Adelaide all away in one season.
 
Just a counter argument for the 4-7th split by percentage conundrum.

End of the day, if you are 7th and your percentage isn't as good as the guys ahead of you then yes, it is stiff s#$t. Remember, you've had 17 rounds, a game against every other team like everyone else, to get the highest position possible. I mean after 22 games, if you are in the same position then you don't get a double chance under the current system do you, so why is it such a worry after 17??

So why bother having rounds 18-22? Why not just have a 17 game season and play finals based on the ladder at that point. Its essentially the exact same thing.
 
West coast finished last season in 13th place, so our 'double-up' games would have been against GC, GWS, St Kilda, Melbourne and WB. That's almost 10 wins guaranteed. Let's say we drop a couple, so 8 wins without breaking sweat. Currently, 11 wins gets you a top 8 spot. So we would just have to find 3 more wins to get a spot in the finals. Assuming we won all 10, it would all but guarantee us a spot in the final 8.

Better to have seeded groups,
1 4 7 10 13 16
2 5 8 11 14 17
3 6 9 12 15 18

No group is much stronger or weaker than another.

I've been pushing this one for a while - it will never get up because it is far too logical and fair for the AFL.
 
So why bother having rounds 18-22? Why not just have a 17 game season and play finals based on the ladder at that point. Its essentially the exact same thing.

Because the AFL have committed to 22 games/23 rounds. Channel 7/Foxtel will never let it drop less than that during the current TV deal.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

20 teams, 20 rounds, 10 games a weekend including thurs and Monday games. Home/away reverses each year.

TV is fine with it as extra games a week make up for lost rounds.

Sorted.

There's already a dearth of talent with the introduction of the new teams meaning an extra 80 players who weren't getting games 3 years ago and you want to bring in another 2 teams and another 80 players?
 
Because the AFL have committed to 22 games/23 rounds. Channel 7/Foxtel will never let it drop less than that during the current TV deal.

The current TV deal is up in a couple of years let it run then change. Or implement a fair fixture as outlined above by DNR - this half arsed idea the AFL is pushing is ludicrous and just stupid enough to have originated from some government department think-tank or the brain of Luke Darcy.
 
scheduling 9 matches per week for 5 weeks at 6-7 venues per week and allocating schedule spots and broadcasters in a short period of time.

won't be any problems there. sounds like a great way to operate the regular season and a business. o_O

a fair deal of certainty goes out the window for clubs and the league, with huge costs in resources to put it together during the middle of the season.
 
There is only one fair system with 18 teams and roughly 22 rounds.

Each team plays every other team 4 times over a 3 year period (two 23 round seasons and one 22 round season).

First year you play the other 17 teams once and then 5 of them once more, as happens now (though who you play twice is not randomly chosen). The next year you again play each team once plus a new group of 6 teams twice. Year three you play all once plus the 6 remaining teams (those you haven't yet played twice in a year) two times.

To stick with the fairness aspect when you enter the 2nd rotation of 3 years of fixtures you reverse the home teams. This means that over 6 years each team plays each other team 8 times and each gets 4 home games and 4 away games against each opponent.

The simplest way to construct this would be to simply order teams in alphabetical order (though any order would suffice, based on geography so Vic teams don't get lumped with an overabundance or shortage of interstate trips). Doing this in Year 1 Adelaide play all teams then have 2nd up clashes with Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Fremantle. The following year they play all once then again play Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Melbourne and North. Third year they play all teams once then a second game against Port, Richmond, the Saints, Sydney, West Coast and the Dogs. Three years have elapsed, Adelaide has played each team four times.

Just looking at that draw, which is completely determined alphabetically, Adelaide get by my reckoning 3 neutral years worth of draws, maybe year 3 a bit tough. Based on current ladder position they get 2 below and 3 above in year 1, 3 above and 3 below year 2 and 4 above and 2 below year 3.

The draw system is fixed and has no relation to where teams finish the year before. Some years you'll get lucky and have a "soft" draw, other years it will be "tough" and most likely it will be neutral. But the key is that because it is based on maths it is totally fair because there's no outside input. There can be no real complaint about the draw because it is what it is, and if you want you can work out years in advance who you'll be playing who.

As it stands now supporters look in trepidation at the following year's draw when it's released hoping for a dream run, but fearing a horror draw. If it's bad they blame the AFL, if it's good they say "fair enough, we've copped it sweet before". My way you can grumble or be happy, but it's completely unbiased and for once truly "the luck of the draw".

^this. It is the only fair solution - short of going for a 17- or 34-round season.

Although the only change I suggest is that to keep rivalries - you have one "rival" that you play twice every year (not as "equal" but at the expense of only 1 game/year - will keep the excitement of double derbies/showdowns etc) - and have a roll-over system of the other 16 teams. (keeping the standard 22 round system - play each other once extra per 4-year period).

Any other system of trying to divide teams up based on ladder position is just fraught with irregularities- and can lead to some pretty unfair draws. It is even more problematic if you do it midseason... changing the draw at round 17 and dividing it up by ladder position is a horrible idea IMO.
Just considering this year (without looking at the actual ladder position at round 17) - you could have had Richmond or WCE still in the Bottom 6 while they were still more than capable to make a run for the 8 - or a team like Collingwood might have still been in the Top 6 even though it was clear they were out of form and dropping quickly... in that situation, we would not have deserved to make the 8 automatically, and Richmond/WCE would not deserve to miss out... and if you don't garauntee that a team will stay in their "group"... then a team in 6th at R17 would be in a horrible position compared to the team in 7th (or even the team in 13th)
 
the focus in much of this thread is misplaced.

teams playing each other once at home or away in a 17 round season doesn't improve or even out anything in a given season.

every team playing each other twice over x number of years doesn't improve or even out anything in a given season. as an example, you'd rather get St Kilda twice in 2013-14 rather than 2010-11.

the main issue will still exist. the comparison of teams which play different opponents and/or different home and away conditions, but are still compared to each other in the same ladder.
 

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