Finally some fixture sense from the AFL

[TheMcManusNose]

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).

Yeah. None of which contradicts anything that i've said.

 

[VolgaBoatman]

I think it would be unreasonable for teams outside of Victoria to forgo 12 weeks of games in their home states in some seasons, given they already have a large travel burden.

E.g In the first 15 weeks Freo plays 8 home games including a home Derby, West Coast plays 7 home games + 1 Away Derby. West Coast would still be owed 4 home games to take their tally to 11 home, Freo would be owed 3 home games to bring their tally to 11. In this particular scenario Freo should be given another home game if they don't happen to play West Coast to ensure they a minimum of 12 games in their home state.

This home game would taken away from a Victorian team, who all play at least 17 matches (except if they give them away to Tassie or Darwin) in their home state, reducing their Victorian matches to 16.

 

[Mazza44]

Would be better of splitting into 3 divisions with teams as such.

1 4 7 10 13 16
2 5 8 11 14 17
3 6 9 12 15 18

That way the fixture is as close to fair as possible. You could even split each group of 3 up randomly and hold a draw for who plays who so first isn't necessarily penalised by playing higher ranked teams.

Of course this method doesn't set up for as many end of season blockbusters and so money will win over fairness and there will be no chance of this happening.

 

[the big lebowski]

At the end of round 16, richmond was only outside the bottom six on %. Under this proposed system, their great run would almost be for nothing.

 

[hcd199]

Would be better of splitting into 3 divisions with teams as such.

1 4 7 10 13 16
2 5 8 11 14 17
3 6 9 12 15 18

That way the fixture is as close to fair as possible. You could even split each group of 3 up randomly and hold a draw for who plays who so first isn't necessarily penalised by playing higher ranked teams.

Of course this method doesn't set up for as many end of season blockbusters and so money will win over fairness and there will be no chance of this happening.

Has the same problems with uneven home game distribution that the actual proposal does. Would be just as fair, and without the home game difficulties, to have a rolling draw over three seasons. Unfortunately, like you say, fairness doesn't seem to be especially high on the AFL's minds...

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I am all for playing every side once in the first 17 rounds. If its at home this year the next year is away.

Then round 18 you have all the Derby's, showdowns, Big 4 games etc etc.
A national tv event for the last 4-5 rounds where it is simply a lotto draw for the last remaining rounds.

All of this could happen now for the start of next year.

It could be a huge tv event announcing the fixture for the first 17 rounds and then the lotto draw for the remaining rounds.

Of course a rolling concurrent draw over 4-5 years would be the best solution but the slow learners at AFL house won't do it. Still not seen one ounce of proof that a rolling concurrent draw would bring in less money.

 

[lewdogs]

The draw the way it is done at the moment is so flawed that it's ridiculous.

Quick example. We finished 3rd from bottom last season. And yet, this year we only played Melbourne and GWS, the two sides below us, once each?!

Maybe it should just be 17 rounds then finals, or as someone just suggested 17 rounds then random for the rest?

Whatever it is, the way it is done at the moment is utter ludicrous and needs to be changed.

 

[Pessimistic]

I don't mind the idea actually. Sounds good, as for the top 4 you basically get a finals series before the finals but sucks for the bottom 6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the run the tigers have made this year wouldn't have been possible under this system??

Its only just possible with the current one

 

[Pessimistic]

Ps if you go to the trouble of trying to make it as equal as possible, then tag on a rivalry round its all a big waste of time, why bother if it ends up half arsed ?

 

[simba_]

sounds terrible.. I don't want a totally fixed last third of the season, I mean I know the whole thing is fixed but this is just boring

 

[Tas]

So if you are in 7th spot on equal 4th but out on percentage at the end of round 17 you can't finish any higher than 5th. What a load of bollocks.

 

[hawksalltheway]

hate it


why not just use the rolling fixture - ie play everyteam in order - next season just pick up where you left off the season before

too much f'in around with the game....i vote no to divisions


its not hard to make it a fairer system , without screwing with the game too much

 

[Tas]

4x 15min quarters + time on for major stoppages (goal, injuries, blood rule), stop blowing the whistle at every stoppage, so about 25 minute max for a quarter. 5min quarter time break, 10min half time break, 5 min 3/4 time break. 6 on the bench, limit rotations to 80. Extend list from 40 senior players to 50. Extend season so every team plays each other home and away.

Piss off score review, mistakes will happen, tough shit. Give umpires earpiece which cuts crowd noise out and they can only hear eachother talk through their mic system so we don't constantly get sucked in umpires giving dodgy free kicks to the home side.

Incorrectly disposing of the ball should override any other factors and be a free kick.

 

[Pottering]

This concept is just another silly idea to go with all the others.

All it does is use the reality TV concept of adding a "twist" to maintain interest. Just wait till a team gets on a late season roll, a la Richmond, only to miss out on the middle 6 grouping by percentage while another team that is totally cooked, a la Collingwood, squeaks in ahead of it only to be cannon fodder. The first cry will be that the system needs tweaking and we'll get the footy equivalent of a "Big Brother intruder" entering the mix (ie a team in the bottom 6 who's started winning replacing the non-performer in the middle 6). And you'll also get the "we played all the weak teams at home, which we could have won away, and got the strong teams away which gave us no chance" cry.

There is only ONE way to make the fixture fair, have it done mathematically. My system has every team play every other 8 times over a 6 year period with 4 at home and 4 away against each team over that time. The essence of a fair competition is a fair draw and that should be the priority, not inventing all manner of conferences, wild cards, etc which like reality TV shows never last and require never ending tinkering.

 

[Pessimistic]

Seems gillons thought bubble is only slightly better than mine

But if you seperate the teams into sixes or eight after 17 rounds, each new fixture HAS to be the opposite of the game in the first 17 rounds. What happens if this cant be fixed for all teams, that would be unfair too

You could mitigate this by designing the first 17 rounds with equality in mind, seed them slighty

Eg sydney play stk,bris, carl, adel, coll, ess, port, geel away
And melb, wb, gcfc, wce, rich, nmfc, freo, haw at home. GWS is neutral (rotatong if ground not shared)

That one works out well as they have five vic clubs home and five away, but they get two trips to SA and only one to WA.
I suppose you couls swap adel and wce or port and freo as they are similar strength.

That fixed, it then has to work out when reversed the following season, when ladder positions change. And suppose it doesnt work out exactlly for each team



So then supose weve played the 17 rounds and the ladder is a bit like it is now, we go into the last five rounds

Sydney is in with haw, geel, freo, port, north.

Port and geelong are at home, and haw, freo, north are away. If sydney only had eight home games in the 17 rounds, and two here its ten in total. A financial shortfall. And some in the top six will have had 12. Thers equity and then theres earnings

My system where the top eight play each other for position would at least give all teams a minimim 11 home games, and any extra could be AFL funded for equalisation purposes

Sydney would also play ess home and richmond away

 

[Gibbke]

This is a shit idea if things are divided as has been mooted. A team finishes 7th, and then spends the next five weeks defending that position with no hope of advancement. Meanwhile a team finishes sixth and enjoys complete safety despite enduring a draw finishing with the top five teams in the comp. Five weeks of arbitrary bullshit - and then it counts. GC and Collingwood must feel ripped off that this system hasn't been enacted this year, while WC and Richmond count their lucky stars as they take on St Kilda and Melbourne in the last rounds...

Here's what you do. The biggest gripe is that the run home gives some teams a mountain range to climb, while their peers get chauffered and take spots, all based upon a lack of clairvoyance each preceding November when the draw is created. Instead, divide the ladder into quarters (bottom six is an unbalanced division, but who gives a f###!), give everyone a game from each other quarter and two from their own (someone else said all this before), and simply continue the ladder knowing everyone has close enough to a similar difficulty of draw going home. The top teams get two tough games, two mediums and a gimme, and so on. This should stop all the grizzling...he says naively...

You get the arbitrary 22 rounds we all know and love and crave, and a lot of evenly matched footy based upon the here and now (not on last year's ladder, which is completely irrelevant). You also ensure that every team is in with a shot for anything as far as mathematics will allow by R17, without transgressing into a 5 week limbo void created by an artificial line on the ladder...

 

[LeverPuller]

1) You're ending the season with five weeks to play. What happens if 4-7 are separated only by percentage? Tough **** for 7th?
2) You're disabling the bottom end of the table. The team in 13th is often not too far removed from the team in 12th (this year notwithstanding). 13th is normally not far off the 8 and yet you're possibly giving a team already in finals contention pick 1 in the National Draft to go with a list that's already increasingly competitive. In the meantime, you're also taking it off the bottom teams and consigning them to a pick at 5 or 6.

I actually like what the AFL has instituted with the new system. They need to be harsher on it though.

1-6: Minimum 4 games against other sides finishing 1-6.
7-12: Minimum 4 games against other sides finishing 7-12.
13-18: Minimum 4 games against other sides finishing 13-18.

You get one rivalry game a year. Doesn't have to be nominated particularly, as you can get away with it in a side finishing in the same bracket as you (eg Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond this year). But it means the Derbies still get their double-up. But most of your fixture is dictated by your previous ladder position.

 

[Square Peg]

The essence of a fair competition is a fair draw and that should be the priority.

I completely agree, as I'm sure most people do

There is only ONE way to make the fixture fair, have it done mathematically. My system has every team play every other 8 times over a 6 year period with 4 at home and 4 away against each team over that time.

No, the ONLY way to make it completely fair is to have 34 games, which isn't going to happen. Your system is also a compromise, so is the AFL suggestion, the current system and nearly every other suggestion on here. Any system with 22 games and 18 teams will be flawed.

To me the advantages of the AFL suggestion outweigh the disadvantages. In essence it improves the current system because currently they try and divvy up the five double up games based in part on performances in the previous year (as well as a whole bunch of other crap that has nothing to do with performance). At least here the double ups are entirely based on performances in the current year.

 

[Pottering]

I completely agree, as I'm sure most people do



No, the ONLY way to make it completely fair is to have 34 games, which isn't going to happen. Your system is also a compromise, so is the AFL suggestion, the current system and nearly every other suggestion on here. Any system with 22 games and 18 teams will be flawed.

To me the advantages of the AFL suggestion outweigh the disadvantages. In essence it improves the current system because currently they try and divvy up the five double up games based in part on performances in the previous year (as well as a whole bunch of other crap that has nothing to do with performance). At least here the double ups are entirely based on performances in the current year.

Agreed that the 22/23 game season is flawed becuse of the number of teams, but given a 34 week season will never, ever eventuate it gets removed from the equation and we have to work with 18 teams and somewhere between 17 and 25 game seasons. That's the reality.

I'm against the draw being based on team performance, either the current or past years. The moment you start considering that, the draw gets compromised. Under my scheme over a set period all teams play all other teams an equal number of times both home and away. That's as close to a fair draw as we'll ever get under the current structure.

 

[final fight]

if ever implemented the AFL would find a way to f^&k it up

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

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??

 

[Square Peg]

Agreed that the 22/23 game season is flawed becuse of the number of teams, but given a 34 week season will never, ever eventuate it gets removed from the equation and we have to work with 18 teams and somewhere between 17 and 25 game seasons. That's the reality.

I'm against the draw being based on team performance, either the current or past years. The moment you start considering that, the draw gets compromised. Under my scheme over a set period all teams play all other teams an equal number of times both home and away. That's as close to a fair draw as we'll ever get under the current structure.

To some extent the AFL proposal does create a 17 game season, because if you finish 1-6 after 17 rounds you're a guaranteed finalist, and finish 13-18 you have no chance to play finals, and nor should you
I think when you say your system is "fair" you really mean it is given over to random chance. All sorts of anomalies will arise and over a six year cycle some teams will get very favourable draws and others unfavourable. That could be written off as random luck but is it fair?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Love it.

I've been advocating something a little similar on these boards for years and been mostly laughed at, particularly with the bottom teams playing for draft picks.

Teams, in particular the bottom echelon would play the season right out and it would keep their supporters engaged right until the end.

Or just set the draft order at the end of round 17 when everyone played twice.

Maybe it proves gillon or the person advising him is here on bigfooty?

 

[Crankyhawk]

The point of playing for draft picks has never made sense to me. We want the worst team to get the best pick.

In recent years has there been much real difference between picks 1 to 6? Or maybe use the draft order from the bottom 6 echelon for the 2nd and subsequent draft rounds.

 

[Balance]

Playing for draft picks is a strange idea. The top teams in that pool are likely to get the best players, that might or might not be fair, but what will the struggling/depth players be thinking? They will be playing so that good players can come into the team and replace them?