Fixing the Fixture

[hufus]

Most of us agree that the current fixture system is unfair and unprofessional, and not just in a 'Eddie's veto' way.

So I humbly present my ideas for improvement, and invite you to present your own.


Hufus' Fixture System:

*Each team plays 12 of the other teams once, 6 home games and 6 away.

As an even start, before determining the teams played twice:

---No problems

*Each team plays two teams twice, based on the previous year's ladder position: 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 15 v 16, 17 v 18 etc for one of those teams, and 1 v 18 2 v 17 etc for the other

This gives teams an incentive not to tank towards the end of the year, and also a lot of theoretically close games to keep interest up in the fourth quarter. It also is a fair way of ensuring double games between the top teams without overly disadvantaging them relative to their peers.

---Problem 1: 9 v 10 would occur twice, so in the 1 v 2 etc draw, it would need to be 9 v 11 and 10 v 12 for those games.
---Problem 2: 2 games between the two worst clubs...

*One team is played twice, based on rivalry.

Ensuring the Showdown etc non-Vic games are part of every fixture and bringing even more passion to the long-held Vic rivalries.

---Problem 1: Determining the rivalries, which would be best to be set for the future, not season by season
---Problem 2: If a rival already qualified for double games due to ladder position, you would need to disturb another rivalry to avoid 4 games...how do you choose which one, and is it necessary to have two specific rivalry rounds?

*The remaining two teams are played as part of a mid-season regional draw.

In the middle of the season, teams are grouped into threes and set to a regional area. So three teams would be sent to Cairns for three weeks, and a further three to Tassie, the Goldfields, Canberra, NT, Albany... whatever. The three would be different each season as would be the places. Team A would play team B in round 11, say, in Burnie; Team B would play team C in round 12 in Hobart, and team C and A would play in Launceston in round 13. This gives each team a mid-season bye, gets the AFL out of the big cities, and aids the development of the regional game :thumsu:

---Problem 1: Three weeks without footy in the big cities
---Problem 2: Three weeks without footy in Melbourne
---Problem 3: THREE WEEKS WITHOUT FOOTY IN MELBOURNE!!!11! (Could be solved, ish, by spreading them out in rounds 9, 11, and 13, perhaps)


This gives each team 20 games over 21 rounds.

If it was necessary to have at least 22 rounds, you could include a round between 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 17 v 18 etc for final ladder position regardless of points and percentages, held at the home ground of the odd-numbered team. This would be important not only for the finals draw, but also of interest for the bottom teams in preparation for the next season's fixture.

---Problem 1: Could end up playing a team 3 times in a season.
---Problem 2: Could end up with the two worst teams playing 3 ttimes in a season...

=====================

Thoughts? Obviously it isn't perfect, but the problems are broadly minor, and it's certainly fairer than the current system.

 

[caterina]

The fundamental problem with the fixture, as I see it, is that the determination of which teams play each other twice happens months before the start of the year and for spurious reasons to do with money, or last years results.
I present this as the simplest and best solution

1. Play 1st 17 rounds with each team playing each other once only so it is perfectly balanced, every team has played every other team once and the table at the end of round 17 is maximally reflective of the relative merit of each team.
2. At the end of that round 17, the table is divided into 3 groups of 6 teams
a. The top 6 have automatically qualified for the finals, but their positions to be determined over the next 5 rounds
b. The middle 6 (7-12) will play off for the last 2 final positions (7 and 8 elimination final positions) over the next 5 rounds
c. The bottom 6 (13-18) can’t make finals, but nor should they. They will play off for a bonus draft pick in the next 5 rounds
3. Rounds 18-22 therefore become play off round robins within each of the three groups of 6
a. The top group have been guaranteed a final berth as reward for their performance, but the round robin pits these good teams against each other to determine their relative table positions from 1-6 i.e. they are playing off for the double chance. 5 rounds of matched high quality games which all mean something
b. The middle 6 are playing off for positions 7 and 8, 5 rounds of matched medium quality games which all mean something
c. The bottom 6 play off for a winner takes all priority draft pick at start of draft i.e. they are effectively playing off for the best youngster in the country but it goes to the winner of the group, not the loser. 5 rounds of matched lower quality games which still all mean something, and no tanking. After this first draft pick the draft proceeds as usual. Some would say this is unfair to team finishing 18, but really what is the difference between 13 and 18, they are all well off the standard.
Who plays home and away in this round robin could be a reversal of what happened in round 1-17 so if you had that rival in the 1st period at home, you play them away in the round robin, but this is a minor point
4. Finals played as under current system, no change

I haven’t worked out whether at the start of round 18 the teams should start afresh or carry over points, but this is a pretty minor detail. There would be 3 possibilities
1. Start afresh with all teams at zero (maximises excitement)
2. Do what they previously have done in the cricket world cup so each team carries into their respective divisions only the points from rounds 1-17 that they scored against the other 5 teams in that division (maximises fairness)
3. Carry all points from rounds 1-17, this is probably the stupidest option, risks making the playoffs in rounds 18-22 potentially irrelevant if there are big differences in points between, say, positions 13 and 18 on the table after round 17

I think the merits of this plan are obvious
a. Fair – in the first 17 rounds every team plays every other team once only, and they are stratified at the end of that period so like plays like in rounds 18-22. No more ridiculous situations like this year where top teams like geelong and hawthorn get gold coast twice
b. Games up to round 22 mean something, so every team’s supporters are engaged to the end as they are all playing for something. Excellence over rounds 1-17 when you’ve played everyone else is rewarded with guaranteed finals, but the other 12 teams still play for something.
c. No incentive for tanking

Of course there are some problems but the benefits far outweigh the problems. There is no guarantee of two blockbuster rivalry games per year: Carlton v Collingwood, WCE v Freo may only happen once per year. The draw for rounds 18-22 can’t be done in advance so you’d probably need a bye between round 17 and 18 to sort it and you’d need to give the TV people time slots for when these games are played, but that’s pretty easy to do.

 

[Legendary Soundpost]

Too many influences to make any current fixture equitable. The fixture will never be fair unless we have an EPL style format - all teams play each other twice, one home game and one away game.

Will never happen though.

 

[tomr51]

a fair system would require 25 games.

all teams play each once in the 1st 17 rds.

to be fair to all teams on who they play twice, the teams are divided into 2 pools based on the previous years finishing order for the "second round"

pool A is the odd ranked teams, 1,3,5,7,9, etc

pool B is the even ranked teams 2,4,6,8,10 etc

teams play all teams in their pool twice

No system where all teams do not play each other twice is 100% fair, but I believe the above system that creates "2 even pools" is about as close as you can get

 

[Marklar_33]

The fundamental problem with the fixture, as I see it, is that the determination of which teams play each other twice happens months before the start of the year and for spurious reasons to do with money, or last years results.
I present this as the simplest and best solution

1. Play 1st 17 rounds with each team playing each other once only so it is perfectly balanced, every team has played every other team once and the table at the end of round 17 is maximally reflective of the relative merit of each team.
2. At the end of that round 17, the table is divided into 3 groups of 6 teams
a. The top 6 have automatically qualified for the finals, but their positions to be determined over the next 5 rounds
b. The middle 6 (7-12) will play off for the last 2 final positions (7 and 8 elimination final positions) over the next 5 rounds
c. The bottom 6 (13-18) can’t make finals, but nor should they. They will play off for a bonus draft pick in the next 5 rounds
3. Rounds 18-22 therefore become play off round robins within each of the three groups of 6
a. The top group have been guaranteed a final berth as reward for their performance, but the round robin pits these good teams against each other to determine their relative table positions from 1-6 i.e. they are playing off for the double chance. 5 rounds of matched high quality games which all mean something
b. The middle 6 are playing off for positions 7 and 8, 5 rounds of matched medium quality games which all mean something
c. The bottom 6 play off for a winner takes all priority draft pick at start of draft i.e. they are effectively playing off for the best youngster in the country but it goes to the winner of the group, not the loser. 5 rounds of matched lower quality games which still all mean something, and no tanking. After this first draft pick the draft proceeds as usual. Some would say this is unfair to team finishing 18, but really what is the difference between 13 and 18, they are all well off the standard.
Who plays home and away in this round robin could be a reversal of what happened in round 1-17 so if you had that rival in the 1st period at home, you play them away in the round robin, but this is a minor point4. Finals played as under current system, no change

I haven’t worked out whether at the start of round 18 the teams should start afresh or carry over points, but this is a pretty minor detail. There would be 3 possibilities
1. Start afresh with all teams at zero (maximises excitement)
2. Do what they previously have done in the cricket world cup so each team carries into their respective divisions only the points from rounds 1-17 that they scored against the other 5 teams in that division (maximises fairness)
3. Carry all points from rounds 1-17, this is probably the stupidest option, risks making the playoffs in rounds 18-22 potentially irrelevant if there are big differences in points between, say, positions 13 and 18 on the table after round 17
I think the merits of this plan are obvious
a. Fair – in the first 17 rounds every team plays every other team once only, and they are stratified at the end of that period so like plays like in rounds 18-22. No more ridiculous situations like this year where top teams like geelong and hawthorn get gold coast twice
b. Games up to round 22 mean something, so every team’s supporters are engaged to the end as they are all playing for something. Excellence over rounds 1-17 when you’ve played everyone else is rewarded with guaranteed finals, but the other 12 teams still play for something.
c. No incentive for tanking

Of course there are some problems but the benefits far outweigh the problems. There is no guarantee of two blockbuster rivalry games per year: Carlton v Collingwood, WCE v Freo may only happen once per year. The draw for rounds 18-22 can’t be done in advance so you’d probably need a bye between round 17 and 18 to sort it and you’d need to give the TV people time slots for when these games are played, but that’s pretty easy to do.

Bolded Point 1 - In this middle group, I suggest after the standings are set, 7v10 and 8v9 playoff for the final 2 spots. Keeps more teams interested for longer, and effectively adds 2 finals
Bolded Point 2 - The draft pick for the victor should be middle of Round 1. Thats incentive enough, and the worst team still gets the best youngster
Bolded Point 3 - This is not a minor point. If the Top 6 is, in order, WCE, Coll, Haw, StK, Carl and Ess, and WCE already played all of those other 5 teams at Subiaco, then they would be forced to travel for the last 5 weeks of the season, after finishing top of the ladder. Conversely, had they played all these teams in Melbourne, they'd get a charmed run of 5 home games to round out the year

Think there was a website created with this system...?

 

[Marklar_33]

a fair system would require 25 games.

all teams play each once in the 1st 17 rds.

to be fair to all teams on who they play twice, the teams are divided into 2 pools based on the previous years finishing order for the "second round"

pool A is the odd ranked teams, 1,3,5,7,9, etc

pool B is the even ranked teams 2,4,6,8,10 etc
teams play all teams in their pool twice

No system where all teams do not play each other twice is 100% fair, but I believe the above system that creates "2 even pools" is about as close as you can get

You realise there is more benefit being 2nd after Round 17 than 1st?

 

[tomr51]

rankings for teams to go into pool A or B are from the previous year, enabling fixtures to made well in advance

 

[Marklar_33]

rankings for teams to go into pool A or B are from the previous year, enabling fixtures to made well in advance

Sorry, misread that bit

Anyway, groupings should be

1,4,5,8,9,12,13,16,17

2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15,18

 

[hufus]

I really dislike the idea of resetting the fixture part-way through the system, and I think it is essential to have two games between the Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and QLD teams a year, so I'm not a big fan of the 17+pools idea. I don't actually think it's all that fair either, to be honest, because of the problems associated with having one half of the competition in one city.

Anyone want to actually respond to my idea?

 

[Marklar_33]

I really dislike the idea of resetting the fixture part-way through the system, and I think it is essential to have two games between the Adelaide, Perth, Sydney and QLD teams a year, so I'm not a big fan of the 17+pools idea. I don't actually think it's all that fair either, to be honest, because of the problems associated with having one half of the competition in one city.

Anyone want to actually respond to my idea?

Yeah, I'm willing to concede that

So, considering that to be the case, the best result is to play all teams once, play your main rival a second time every year, and then play every other team at least one extra time over a rolling 4 year cycle. This would work well for Interstate teams, playing their derbies etc twice a year, and the AFL could have a little leeway with this extra game between Melbourne teams, to keep 'blockbusters' when possible

The plus to this system is that you are assured to play every other team at least 5 times in 4 years.

 

[tomr51]

you are not resetting the system half way thru the year


the draw for each year is made at the conclusion of the previous year as it is done now!!

pls read the earlier post!!!

 

[blaze036]

The current fixture is fine...

 

[tomr51]

what you want in place is a mandatory system that sets next years draw.


this would take away "the perceived favouratismn to collingwood

 

[hufus]

Yes, I do want a mandatory fixture, obviously moveable in terms of which rounds yoju play teams, but fixed in terms of how those teams are decided. It's equal and professional and stops all this crud about how fair it is, if it's always fair. I was referring to Caterina's post regarding the reset.

Your system is fair, too, but even with 25 rounds (which the AFLPA would veto, same with Soundpost's idea) it doesn't ensure the schedules between the two teams in SA/WA/NSW/QLD.

Marklar's idea is popular, and with reason. It's a good plan in terms of equity - perfect in fact - but it also struggles with issues about the 2-game requirements. It benefits from being 'least possible change' and still fair, but misses out on some of the benefits my plan has. I'd support it if it was the option on the table, though.

I also like the fact that the fixture for the next year is set by strict rules, but isn't know until the last day of play in the previous year's H&A, which gives more excitement to games between lower-ranked teams. I also think it's a fair way of getting more blockbuster games (1 v 2, 3 v 4) without being unequitable.

The most important thing is to have a fixed system, whatever method is used, just not the current 'fixed' system

 

[doppleganger]

Conferencing is the way to go.

Introduce two more non-vic teams - Darwin, Central Coast NSW, North Qld, another from Perth....so there will be 20 teams, 10 vic and 10 non-vic

Then split the league into two conferences

Victoria & National

Within each Conference, split up the 10 into 2 Divisions

National West - WC, Freo, Adel, PA and new team from WA or Darwin
National East - Syd, GWS, BL, GC and a new team from NSW or QLD

Victoria West - Geel, WB, North, Essendon, Carlton
Victoria East - Melb, Coll, Rich, Haw, St.K

You play every team in your division twice - 8 games
Then play other division teams once each - 15 games

23 round season.

You have the exact same schedule as the team in your division, whom you are competing with for finals spots.

Finals system retains conferences....with final 6 from each conference, which is made up from best 3 from each division.

Finals week 1

National Conference, the four division winners get the week off.
It is the then 3 v 6 and 4 v 5, played between each conference

ie 4 games in week 1.

Finals week 2

The division winners return, the higher ranked division champ plays the lower ranked winner from week 1, and obviously the other division winner plays the higher ranked winner

4 games in week 2

Week 3

Conference finals, the winners of the two games in week 2 play off for the right to be National champion....and same in Victorian conference

Week 4

Grand Final.....to determine location, I suggest the introduction of a mid-season all star game....National v Vic, with the winning team the prize is that the conference will host the GF.

So you get an extra two finals, and all of them are knock out, with everything on the line....instead of a double chance, the division winners get a weeks rest.

It also means that the GF can be played all over Australia....ie if National team win the All-Star game, the GF will be played at the ground of the National Champion...could be Sydney, Gabba etc...which is fairer again.

 

[Marklar_33]

Doppleganger, you can't have one conference barely leaving Melbourne and the other jetsetting all over the country all year, then pitting themselves against each other in finals

Anyway, I think the point of this thread is to work with what we have currently to make it fair. Not against conferences though. My division setup is 2 divs of 9, but that creates a 25 week season, not viable

 

[doppleganger]

Doppleganger, you can't have one conference barely leaving Melbourne and the other jetsetting all over the country all year, then pitting themselves against each other in finals

???

You are only pitted against your conference in the finals.

Against teams that have exactly the same travel schedule as each other.

National West - WC, Freo, Port, Adel & Darwin/Another Perth team are competing to finish top 3 (with the massive advantage for the divisional winner). They all have the same travel schedule so it is an even playing field.

It is the only way you can make travel schedules fair, unless you get rid of teams in Melbourne.

Currently you have teams travelling 10 times, competing for ladder positions with teams that travel 5 times.

The conference means you are grouped with the same travel schedule.

 

[Marklar_33]

I stand corrected. It's quite the same as now, I guess!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

a fair system would require 25 games.

all teams play each once in the 1st 17 rds.

to be fair to all teams on who they play twice, the teams are divided into 2 pools based on the previous years finishing order for the "second round"

pool A is the odd ranked teams, 1,3,5,7,9, etc

pool B is the even ranked teams 2,4,6,8,10 etc

teams play all teams in their pool twice

No system where all teams do not play each other twice is 100% fair, but I believe the above system that creates "2 even pools" is about as close as you can get

You can do it with 22 games just divide the pools into 3 instead of 2 pools. therefore based on the previous years ladder 1,4,7,10,13,16 play twice, 2,5,8,11,14,17 & 3,6,9,12,15,18. Simple fair and transparent. Only problem is only 1 GF/PF rematch but they're likely to meet again in finals anyway.

 

[Marklar_33]

^^
you mean

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

 

[jko'neal]

You will never fix it until every club has their own home ground or share it with only one other club, and every club plays each other the same amount of times in a season.

 

[hufus]

You will never fix it until every club has their own home ground or share it with only one other club, and every club plays each other the same amount of times in a season.

Part one:M I like that idea, a lot, except that the realities of having 4-6 50,000+ seat stadiums in Melbourne make it impossible. As for part two, the AFLPA would never accept 34 games a season plus finals, and the broadcasters would never accept 17 rounds plus finals.

The sweet spot seems to be 20-25 games a year, plus finals, and preferably 22-24.

 

[Hoops]

Keeping in mind the AFL are going to keep the 22 rounds and 18 clubs for the forseable future. and derbies are an important part of this fixture I've devised a rolling draw that mathematically works out using the following criteria.

Every club plays every interstate club 10 times (5H & 5A) over 8 years
Every non-Vic club will compete in 2 derbies (1H & 1A) each year
Every Vic club wil play every other Vic Club 4 times (2H & 2A) over 3 years

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Part one:M I like that idea, a lot, except that the realities of having 4-6 50,000+ seat stadiums in Melbourne make it impossible. As for part two, the AFLPA would never accept 34 games a season plus finals, and the broadcasters would never accept 17 rounds plus finals.

The sweet spot seems to be 20-25 games a year, plus finals, and preferably 22-24.

So they'd rather try to please everyone and in the end please no-one.

The broadcasters will come to the party and I wouldn't be too worried about a decrease in the rights deal either. They will realise eventually that less games (and hence less air time for ads) means tat air-time becomes more valuable on a pro-rata basis, not less. Same will go for crowds, crowds per game will increase when there is less options to go to.

But most of all, it means as fair as you can get without having a H&A draw.

 

[Chiz]

1. Play 1st 17 rounds with each team playing each other once only so it is perfectly balanced, every team has played every other team once and the table at the end of round 17 is maximally reflective of the relative merit of each team.
2. At the end of that round 17, the table is divided into 3 groups of 6 teams
a. The top 6 have automatically qualified for the finals, but their positions to be determined over the next 5 rounds
b. The middle 6 (7-12) will play off for the last 2 final positions (7 and 8 elimination final positions) over the next 5 rounds
c. The bottom 6 (13-18) can’t make finals, but nor should they. They will play off for a bonus draft pick in the next 5 rounds
3. Rounds 18-22 therefore become play off round robins within each of the three groups of 6
4. Finals played as under current system, no change

I like the idea of dividing into 3 groups after 17 rounds - it fits perfectly into an 18 team, 22 round season. However, I think the above system can be improved upon:

Instead of the top 6 and middle 6, divide the top 12 into two even pools (e.g. 1,4,5,8,9,12 and 2,3,6,7,10,11), and eliminate the bottom 6 from finals contention (again, they could play for a priority pick). The final eight can be determined either by the overall ladder, or as the top 4 in each pool.

I haven’t worked out whether at the start of round 18 the teams should start afresh or carry over points

One possibility is to have teams carry over all points from rounds 1-17, but games in the last 5 rounds could be worth more (e.g. 6 points for a win, 3 for a draw). This is entirely fair, but rewards teams for playing well at the business end of the season. It gives teams like 11 and 12 a fair crack at the top 8, and possibly 5-8 a crack at the top 4 (unlike this season where the top 5 was well and truly determined by round 17)

I think the merits of this plan are obvious
a. Fair – in the first 17 rounds every team plays every other team once only, and they are stratified at the end of that period so like plays like in rounds 18-22. No more ridiculous situations like this year where top teams like geelong and hawthorn get gold coast twice
b. Games up to round 22 mean something, so every team’s supporters are engaged to the end as they are all playing for something. Excellence over rounds 1-17 when you’ve played everyone else is rewarded with guaranteed finals, but the other 12 teams still play for something.
c. No incentive for tanking

Under your system there are potentially more blockbuster games at the end of the season. But there is still potential for meaningless games (e.g. round 22, 1v6, with 1 knowing they are top regardless, and 6 knowing that they can't make the top 4, yet won't fall below 6). Under the system I've proposed the biggest differential would be 1v12. This season there were many boring matches between top and bottom teams at the end of the season.

I also think it's fairer that the top 8 begin the finals having each played 5 relatively similar matches, rather than having had the top 6 play off (5 difficult matches), whilst 7 and 8 have just played 5 relatively easy matches.

Of course there are some problems but the benefits far outweigh the problems. There is no guarantee of two blockbuster rivalry games per year: Carlton v Collingwood, WCE v Freo may only happen once per year. The draw for rounds 18-22 can’t be done in advance so you’d probably need a bye between round 17 and 18 to sort it and you’d need to give the TV people time slots for when these games are played, but that’s pretty easy to do.

Whilst there is no guarantee of having 2 of each blockbuster match, I think the revenue fallout from this would be minor, and the revenue gains substantial (there will be more high quality games between top teams that will attract supporters).

As for doing the draw, I actually don't think a bye would be necessary, particularly if the AFL used a floating fixture in round 17. Given that the ladder position is likely to be relatively rigid, the AFL should be able to plan for a number of alternatives, and have the round 18 fixture ready by the Sunday night of round 17.

I also like your idea about which team plays home/away the second time - just reverse it from the first time.