Finally some fixture sense from the AFL

[Herne Hill Hammer]

They are thinking of having it an incentive that the team that wins it's way to the top of the bottom group, gets first pick. This is just stupid, as the bottom side, is there because they are the worst. They need the most help to turn it around, and the first pick helps this.

And yet St Kilda beat Freo, GWS beat Sydney, Melbourne beat Essendon etc etc

 

[Pessimistic]

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?

I dont agree neccesarily with extra teams, but the dilition is a furphy. Half of each squad is reserve grade, so the four extra plyers is at the bottom of the list

Also the average afl career is maybe four years. 790 players by four years is 3186. Eighty extra players by four years is another 320 years. about 10%. If half the existing 800 players get an extra year on contract, the shortfall is more than covered. Over simplified I know.

But the experience since gws an gc came in is the numbers taken on in the national draft is the same or down in numbers since those compromised drafts. Id guess careers are now slightly longer

 

[DNine]

And yet St Kilda beat Freo, GWS beat Sydney, Melbourne beat Essendon etc etc

A Blip. That has been happening since the beginning of time, but that doesn't mean that is sustainable or an indication on how the lower side will go in the future.

 

[Babylove]

Love the fixture idea. One thing I would add to that, to avoid the bottom 6 becoming a tank fest, is maybe have the draft order be a reverse order for the first 6 picks. I.e the top team of the bottom 6 gets the number 1 through to the wooden spoon getting pick 6 with the rest of the order reverting to the traditional. This would the create competition for the 5 games between the cellar as they would be still playing to improve their ladder position to improve their place in the draft, and they are playing teams at their level.

I'd also leave it open for a team to be able to increase their position above the top of their group. They playing teams at their level, so they will still have to earn their ladder position, but if say a team from the middle six can get on a role they can still jump up into one of the first 6 places if they win enough games.

 

[TheKITC]

What about where you have a situation where a couple of teams around the 12th/13th/14th realise they can't make the finals or as it may be realistically do anything in them and they start tanking at round 15 for a shot at the #1 pick when all they have to do is beat up on teams weaker than them?

Not to mention all the other logical problems already brought up in this thread. Crap proposal.

 

[Zarrix]

Make it 17+1. The +1 being the state derbies plus big victorian matchups.

Then split the table into three, but make it so 1-6 cant fall lower and sixth and are fighting for spots among their group, same for 7-12 and 13-18. Though some of the matches in the lower bracket would be of questionable quality if tanking comes into play.

 

[Pessimistic]

My suggestion in another forum is to split the top 8 out after 17 rounds, then have them play seven more

The finals is then a top four, prelims and grand final.

The other 12 play five more seeded games and the top 4 play off for an under 25 trophy. It becomes a time to try out young players anyway. A certain amount of over 25 s can still play but thats not the focus

If you cant make the top 8 after playing each other team once, your not going to be a realistic flag chance


One thin it would produce is four really good games per week in the latter stages, "mini finals" if you like. Currently you are lucky to get two such games per week

 

[D-N-R]

All teams do have a fair chance at the beginning of the year. Points and percentage are zero for everyone with 17 rounds in front of them with one game against each of the other sides. What can be fairer than that?

Perhaps we could go back to a top 4 with a challenge rule.

Things evolve, we've had the above, a straight out top 4, top 5, top 6 and now a top 8. There's been years with less than 12 teams, 12 teams, 14 teams, 15 teams, 16 teams, 17 teams and now 18 teams. There's been 18 round seasons, 20 round seasons and now 22 round seasons.

I'm sure there has been opposition to nearly every one of these changes.

Things get introduced and if need be they get refined with experience, it was done with the draft and it's been done with the top 8 finals format.

Bring it on.

I'm responding to a poster who said that the groups of 6 should be based on the ladder positions at the end of the season, not after 17 rounds, meaning that this season WCE would have played Melbourne, GWS, GC, Bulldogs and St Kilda twice.

Do you think this would have been fair? No advantage to WC over other teams?

My problems with the proposed system I have outlined in other posts. Organising schedules and booking grounds etc, the problems with H&A - who plays whom where - and the bottom 6 playing for picks when the whole point of the draft is to give the best picks to the worst teams, amongst some of the gaping flaws.

 

[Armchair Critic]

The battle for draft pool would be wonderful.In that pool they should be giving the four points to the team that loses

 

[Gibbke]

What does Eddie think?

Collingwood were out of the top six in R17. You can bet any money that if this system were in place, he'd be on the soapbox bemoaning the sudden loss of an opportunity to improve Collingwood's position, realistically the pursuit of a home final, even though history has since made it a long shot for them to even stay in the eight as the last round approaches...

And he, for once, would be totally spot on.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Anything is better than the current set up.
Wouldn't bother me if was just a 17 round season( obviously won't happen)
Or there was big televised draw where clubs pulled the round. 18-22 rounds from a bloody barrel.
It's still better than today's.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

Before getting too bogged down on the five games against the teams you play twice, let's get who you play once right first.

Assuming you play the other 17 teams in the first 17 rounds, everyone's fixture should be roughly the same and here is how you do it.

If you play Adelaide at home, you play Port Adelaide away.
If you play Fremantle at home, you play West Coast away.
If you play Gold Coast at home, you play Brisbane away.
If you play GWS Giants at home, you play Sydney away.
If you play Collingwood at home, you play Essendon away.
If you play Richmond at home, you play Carlton away.
If you play Geelong at home, you play Hawthorn away.
If you play North Melbourne at home, you play St.Kilda away.
If you play Melbourne at home, you play Western Bulldogs away.

Victorian teams travel the same amount of times and host non-Victorian teams the same amount of times whether they have 8 or 9 home games in the first 17 rounds.

 

[MarkT2]

Victorian teams travel the same amount of times and host non-Victorian teams the same amount of times whether they have 8 or 9 home games in the first 17 rounds.

Unless games are sold to Tasminia, Canberra, NT, NZ etc.

 

[Hoops]

Just bring in Tassie and each team plays 18 games a season.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

sounds like a revenue maker to me.

making the top 6 play each other would be brutal. loads of injuries and fatigue

 

[Pessimistic]

sounds like a revenue maker to me.

making the top 6 play each other would be brutal. loads of injuries and fatigue

Except they do that now to $some$ top six teams and not others, then call the final seedings "fair"

 

[Pessimistic]

Anything is better than the current set up.
Wouldn't bother me if was just a 17 round season( obviously won't happen)
Or there was big televised draw where clubs pulled the round. 18-22 rounds from a bloody barrel.
It's still better than today's.

Has merit. Could be done after round 14 when the pecking order is becoming established.

Place teams 1 to 6 in one bag, 7 to 12 in another and the rest in a third.

They then get moved into another three bags, where each bag has two from each if the first three.

Then each team plays the others in its bag once, at the opposite venue from the first 17 rounds


Or start with six bags of three teams, pick one from each to go into three baga. Thred be no incentive to tank because you get a random seeded selection across the ladder

 

[Pottering]

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.

Nothing will eliminate "anomalies" when you have 18 teams playing 22 rounds, but using my system any such anomalies are purely random and therefore you cannot blame anyone if you get a tough draw. As it is now you can definitely find a culprit.

 

[Pottering]

But that in itself is not fair. Imagine if just by any year you end up playing the 6 bottom teams twice and it gifts you a top 4 draw and you can rest players all through the season. The end result is you get a major leg up to win the premiership that year.

Making it seeded each year makes it fairer because then each team is on some sort of level playing ground than making a rolling fixture.

Divisions are the other way to make it fair but you have to be confident that there isn't ingrained inequity in the divisions. With 18 teams and 10 based in Melbourne that's pretty hard to do.

The problem I have with your method is that you say have a "seeded" draw, but then say that's fairer because it's a "level playing field". The only true "level playing ground" with 18 teams and 22 rounds is the one I proposed, anything else is a concocted system that will always contain flaws. You postulate one possible flaw in mine, but it is a purely random flaw and by that alone it is fairer.

 

[Iron]

The OP is basically like having a pre-finals finals series. It would also be a mess to statistically present the season via first the ladder after Round 17, then the five-round "pools", then the finals series. Not only that, but clubs would miss out on the second big rivalry clash. Forget TV and money deals, the fans would hate that.

What an awful idea.

 

[Pottering]

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.

My solution won't "fix" things, what it will do is take out the manipulation of the draw that gets people up in arms. An 18 team, 22 round fixture will never be fair to all teams in any one year, but why not try to even things out over time ?

 

[Pottering]

^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 rivalries will still be there, though instead of 2 Derbies per year, 2 Showdowns, 2 Q clashes etc that will happen once every 3 years and in between just 1 rivalry match per year. I can't see an issue with that and will make that once a year rivalry match even more important.

My system contains absolutely no qualifiers, it is purely based on the maths. Once you start to tinker you'll simply end up back where we are or with some wild hybrid divsion/wild card/relegation shocker.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

The rivalries will still be there, though instead of 2 Derbies per year, 2 Showdowns, 2 Q clashes etc that will happen once every 3 years and in between just 1 rivalry match per year. I can't see an issue with that and will make that once a year rivalry match even more important.

My system contains absolutely no qualifiers, it is purely based on the maths. Once you start to tinker you'll simply end up back where we are or with some wild hybrid divsion/wild card/relegation shocker.

Except your system changes the number of games between 22 and 23 each season - that just isn't workable

 

[Pottering]

Except your system changes the number of games between 22 and 23 each season - that just isn't workable

How is that unworkable? It's eminently workable; play 22 rounds one year then 23 rounds the next and another 23 rounds the next, then repeat the process. What is the difficulty?

 

[Billy ray]

I am sure this has been posted before, but in a nutshell:
- all teams play all other teams round 1-17.
- the first 5 games are repeated at the end to get 22 all up. (1 of these games is a guaranteed 2nd game v a rival, and the method of the choosing the other 4 can be left to someone else to determine, so long as it rotates over the years so that teams don't go 8-10 years between playing at a venue.)
- the first 5 games, and last 5 games are played for 2 points.
- the middle 12 games are played for 4 points.

In this way the ladder always makes sense (As the first 5 games can yield a maximum 10 points (5 wins) for a team. the middle 12 games are 4 point games, the one off games which yield 48 points if you win all 12. the last 5 games are again 2 point games yielding at most 10 points. if you will all games you only get 68 points - like you do now).
And no team is gifted 8 points if they happen to get the luck of a draw and play a low team twice.
And conversely, no team is shafted by losing 8 points if they happen to get a good team twice.

quirks of the draw/fixture are this removed.
finals series should have the best teams for the year.