Fixture for 18 team competition

[Chiz]

I recently wrote a letter to the AFL outlining an idea for a change in the fixture once the Gold Coast and GWS teams enter the league. I've decided to outline the idea here to see what people think; please let me know if you think it would work or not, whether it would add more interest to the competition, and any suggestions as to how it might be improved. Here it is:

With 18 teams in the league, each team plays each other once in the first 17 rounds. At the conclusion of round 17, the bottom six sides are no longer in premiership contention. The top 12 are divided into two evenly matched groups of 6 (this could be 1,4,6,7,9,12 in group A, and 2,3,5,8,10,11 in group B), and in the remaining five rounds (I have called these the 'super rounds'), each team plays the other five teams within their respective group, with the final 8 playing off under the current system.

I have suggested a couple of extra measures that may create additional interest in the super rounds. Firstly, winning a game in the 'super rounds' is worth 6 points rather than 4 (points are carried over from the first 17 rounds). Secondly, the top 8 is determined by the top 4 within groups A and B, with the top 4 determined by the top 2 within each group. Thus, at the conclusion of the super rounds, the qualifying finals will be A1 v B2, B1 v A2, and elimination finals A3 v B4, B3 v A4.

Of course, supporters of the bottom six sides would mostly prefer to see their teams playing the full 22 rounds. An idea here is that after round 17, the bottom six form group C and play each other over the last five rounds (points are not carried over); at the conclusion of the five rounds, the top 2 of the bottom six play off (alongside week 1 of the finals), with the winner earning a priority draft pick (rather than tanking to receive one). After the first draft pick, the ladder at round 17 determines the order of the national draft (i.e. the bottom team at round 17 receives pick 2, second bottom pick 3 and so on). This at least ensures that each of the bottom sides has something to play for (other than pride).

There are some questions that arise under this system, which I have tried to consider and come up with a solution. For example, which team plays a home game in the super rounds? One possible solution is that the home team in a super round game was the away team when the teams met during rounds 1-17; e.g. if St Kilda played Fremantle in Melbourne in round 10, then if they play each other in the super rounds, they would then play at Subiaco.

That's basically it. Questions? Comments? Any feedback is appreciated.

 

[Bowhunterx1]

Its so simple that the AFL wont do it.
Everyone plays each other once.
The top six after home and away play each other twice.
The middle 6 play each other twice.
The bottom 6 play each other twice.
The new teams are put in at the bottom this is fair,
this gives bottom sides a chance to improve
And it stays at 22 rounds

 

[richo1982]

I think it sounds fantastic, especially the bit about the bottom 6 playing off for higher draft picks. It would bring some integrity back to the system. Unfortunately I'm sure the AFL couldn't do it for commercial reasons or something like that.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Tanking for 7th spot sounds like a plan...........

Stupid idea. Why have finals before the finals? Why reward out-of-form teams with softer opponents just before the finals and give them a launching pad into the top six, knowing that half the top six sides are guaranteed to lose three of their last five games?

A finals series before the finals, where the top six teams have to fight to the death for no prize, and teams placed 7th8th 9th have it pretty easy, playing teams who obviously are weaker than those in the top six.

Makes no sense at all.

Not to mention the financial disaster looming for any club who ends up in the bottom six........

 

[MF]

Any system that is fair, even and doesn't cater for numerous blockbusters and maximum revenue will not be adopted by the AFL. Unfortunately it's as simple as that.

 

[stevebull]

Cash Cash Cash

And unusually for the afl what people want will kill it off

No definite 2 games between

WCE - Freo

Port - Adelaide

Swans - GWS

GC - Brisbane

Carlton - Pies

Pies - Dons

Carlton - Dons

Under any draw the afl puts together those teams will always play each other x 2, mthe TV cash & the gate for the teams involved is to massive to ignore

 

[Chiz]

Tanking for 7th spot sounds like a plan...........

Stupid idea. Why have finals before the finals? Why reward out-of-form teams with softer opponents just before the finals and give them a launching pad into the top six, knowing that half the top six sides are guaranteed to lose three of their last five games?

A finals series before the finals.

Makes no sense at all

You misunderstand. The top 12 are divided into 2 equally balanced groups (as I mentioned, something like 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th and 12th would be one group), not divided into the top 6, then the next 6. So it's not an unfair system at all. In fact, it is actually a much fairer system than the current draw because each teams plays each other only once; there is no position you can finish after round 17 that gives you a 'softer' draw, except for on top, because then the highest ranked side you play is 4th.

 

[Duffman95]

I think it sounds fantastic, especially the bit about the bottom 6 playing off for higher draft picks. It would bring some integrity back to the system. Unfortunately I'm sure the AFL couldn't do it for commercial reasons or something like that.

I don't know how playing for draft picks could ever be seen to bring integrity back to the system. If anything, putting such a high price on draft picks as to play for them detracts from the home & away season even more.

The only thing that needs to happen to remove the incentive to lose is that priority picks need to be abolished. If a club then decides that they would so much rather pick 1 than pick 2 that they'll lose games for it, then they can live with that embarrassment.

As for the original idea, with a competition as large as the AFL, with contracts with grounds, broadcasters, clubs etc. to have the last 5 weeks of the season still up in the air after round 16 is probably quite impractical.

 

[Bowhunterx1]

My draw is on the the last years result, and if you think there is any way of preventing tanking by a draw you are DUMB use the NBA system if you want to fix tanking
Unlike the first option this still gives 13th with 5 rounds to go still has a chance. To make finals then go out

IF YOU WANT AN EVEN COMP YOU WILL GIVE THE WEAKER SIDES A CHANCE WE ARE ALL GOING TO GET A CHANCE AT BOTTOM SIX WITH THE NEW TEAMS IN THE MIX AND ALL THERE CONCESSIONS

 

[Chiz]

Cash Cash Cash

And unusually for the afl what people want will kill it off

No definite 2 games between

WCE - Freo

Port - Adelaide

Swans - GWS

GC - Brisbane

Carlton - Pies

Pies - Dons

Carlton - Dons

Under any draw the afl puts together those teams will always play each other x 2, mthe TV cash & the gate for the teams involved is to massive to ignore

A fair point, but you could also consider the extra revenue because there will be more games between higher ranked sides. And it should be popular with the free to air TV stations too, because they are more likely to get a game between two quality sides. No longer will there be pointless end of season games between say Geelong and Richmond which no one is interested in because there's nothing riding on it. And at least the games between the bottom six sides are likely to be close

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sorry, I did misunderstand.

Still, its a bit too over-the-top as a suggestion.

I'd simply base the "who plays who twice" it off the previous year's ladder position and evenly spread it that way. In other words, teams 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 16 from 2010 play each other ttwice in 2011.

That way the draw is set in stone at the start of the year. Whether your draw is good or bad is subject to the vagaries of whether your opponent has improved from last year or not. Having an open schedule that cant be drawn up until the conclusion of Round 17 is not only nonsensical, its also impractical.

All this of course is assuming that the AFL cares about equalising the draw and is prepared to get rid of guartanteed twice a year blockbusters. Theres no reason to believe that, anyway. If they were genuine about equalising the draw they'd already be doing it.

 

[Chiz]

Sorry, I did misunderstand.
Having an open schedule that cant be drawn up until the conclusion of Round 17 is not only nonsensical, its also impractical.

I don't know that I agree with you here; currently the AFL cannot determine the finals matches until the end of round 22 - it would be exactly the same here in that the wait until the end of round 17 to determine rounds 18-22; I'm sure they could use a template or something to make this easier.

As for your idea using last year's ladder to determine who plays each other twice, I'm all for equalising the draw, but as you say, it means getting rid of guaranteed blockbusters. The system I've suggested has the same obstacle, but at least there will guaranteed matches between top teams played twice (for instance, 2 vs 3, 1 vs 4, 3 vs 5 etc., and then the first week of the finals will be played between teams who have only played once). These games are very likely to be popular and draw crowds regardless of who the teams are.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't know that I agree with you here; currently the AFL cannot determine the finals matches until the end of round 22 - it would be exactly the same here in that the wait until the end of round 17 to determine rounds 18-22; I'm sure they could use a template or something to make this easier.

There are only four games in Round 1 of the finals. Scheduling finals is not that difficult compared to scheduling 40 games over five rounds with a few days notice.

My suggestion is a million times simpler than yours and achieves more or less the same result but without the diabolical scheduling hassles.

But as agreed, it does require the AFL to be committed to equalisation. Theres no point even suggesting anything to them because clearly they are committed to two Derbies/Showdowns/Collingwood-Essendon games etc etc etc every year.

 

[FootyJunkie]

NAB Cup starts the same week it started this year, with 20/20 Footy, followed by 3 weeks of standard footy. NAB Cup Final is on a Friday Night with season opener the following Friday Night.

Then 24 rounds with a split round for Round 12. So 7 return games.
Final 9 starts in September, lasting 5 weeks, with the GF on the first Saturday in October.

 

[Chiz]

I don't know how playing for draft picks could ever be seen to bring integrity back to the system. If anything, putting such a high price on draft picks as to play for them detracts from the home & away season even more.

The bottom six have got to have something to play for. And let's face it, even if still in the finals race, if you're in the bottom six after round 17, you're not going to make the top 8. And if teams are prepared to lose games to receive a priority pick under the current system, then they would definitely play to win a priority pick. One thing I like about it is that the number one pick is likely to be shared around a bit more, rather than the same bottom side getting it 2 or 3 times, like Carlton has done.

The only thing that needs to happen to remove the incentive to lose is that priority picks need to be abolished. If a club then decides that they would so much rather pick 1 than pick 2 that they'll lose games for it, then they can live with that embarrassment.

Agree with this; the difference between pick 1 and 2 is not that great, but receiving both picks 1 and 2 (or picks 1 and 17 or whatever) is much greater. So either remove the priority pick completely, or have it as a reward for winning games, not for losing.

 

[Chiz]

NAB Cup starts the same week it started this year, with 20/20 Footy, followed by 3 weeks of standard footy. NAB Cup Final is on a Friday Night with season opener the following Friday Night.

Then 24 rounds with a split round for Round 12. So 7 return games.
Final 9 starts in September, lasting 5 weeks, with the GF on the first Saturday in October.

The final 9 system is a joke. I'm not sure which system they intend to go with, but all the ones I've seen have similar problems to the old final 8 system.

 

[Chiz]

There are only four games in Round 1 of the finals. Scheduling finals is not that difficult compared to scheduling 40 games over five rounds with a few days notice.

Consider though that games between the top 12 are priority over the bottom 6; thus, the AFL only need to schedule 6 games at the immediate conclusion of round 17 (these would get the priority time slots and ground allocations), followed by 3 games between the bottom six; as usual with the finals, the announcement of next weeks games would be soon after the last match of round 17; possibly even earlier if the result will not affect the ladder. Then the draw for the remaining four rounds could be published during the week. It's not that hard; I could do it myself.

My suggestion is a million times simpler than yours and achieves more or less the same result but without the diabolical scheduling hassles.

Simpler perhaps, but yours only achieves equality in the fixture. Mine achieves equality, but also results in more matches between teams of a similar standard and much fewer one-sided games (such as 1 vs 16) creating more interest (also the games are worth more: 6 points) in the final five rounds; an interest level somewhere between the current home and away season and the current finals system.

 

[Brad Roo]

You could virtually guarantee that Freo, West Coast, GWS, Gold Coast and Port would be the 5 clubs that North would play twice every season.

Start from there.

 

[Giants FC]

NAB Cup starts the same week it started this year, with 20/20 Footy, followed by 3 weeks of standard footy. NAB Cup Final is on a Friday Night with season opener the following Friday Night.

Then 24 rounds with a split round for Round 12. So 7 return games.
Final 9 starts in September, lasting 5 weeks, with the GF on the first Saturday in October.

I'd agree with that as being the most likely scenario. Possibly they could play the 20-20 footy and NAB Cup a week earlier and keep the break between the pre-season and the season opener.

I think we can lock in 24 home & away rounds as a virtual certainty. The extra home game for each club will add value (and price) to memberships as well as boosting the value of the TV rights.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Simpler perhaps, but yours only achieves equality in the fixture. Mine achieves equality, but also results in more matches between teams of a similar standard and much fewer one-sided games (such as 1 vs 16) creating more interest (also the games are worth more: 6 points) in the final five rounds; an interest level somewhere between the current home and away season and the current finals system.

You dont know that for sure. Certain games attract interest no matter what the ladder position. Other games will never attract interest. Thats the reason we have blockbusters in the first place.

I applaud your strategy but I think you're going too far in trying to manufacture interest in the game. It doesnt need that degree of manufacture - the game stand up well on its own. My model is simpler than yours and will generate just as many interesting games in the last five rounds as yours.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

I like and support the OP. I've been trying to formulate a draw myself but struggling. The one the OP suggests is both simple and elegant.

 

[Chiz]

You dont know that for sure. Certain games attract interest no matter what the ladder position. Other games will never attract interest. Thats the reason we have blockbusters in the first place.

I applaud your strategy but I think you're going too far in trying to manufacture interest in the game. It doesnt need that degree of manufacture - the game stand up well on its own. My model is simpler than yours and will generate just as many interesting games in the last five rounds as yours.

Explain how.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Couldnt be bothered digging much further into this argument because we are closer to agreement than you know.. but I think by your system you believe it guarantees interesting games. In other words you're assuming games are only interesting if they involve top sides. It doesnt work that way. There are certain games that will attract crowds and publicity, and others that wont, and it has little to do with ladder position.

I fail to see how 2010's 1 vs 4 is an interesting game but last years 1 vs 4 (even if this year they might be 2 and 6) isnt going to be an interesting game. Its a great game. There are good games every week. You dont need to engineer the draw based on current form to achieve that. Its simply trying too hard. History will tell you that last years ladder is never very far away from this years ladder. Very few teams leap or drop more than 4-5 spots.

Like I said, I think using last years ladder to schedule the final five rounds is just as good a method as using this years ladder, and it removes most of the scheduling hassle that your proposal introduces.

Scheduling isnt just about grounds - its about travel, five day breaks, memberships, ensuring there is a game every week in Adelaide and Perth (not zero, not two) and most of all satisfying the TV networks that they are going to get rateable games in prime time to justify their investments. What happens if the Eagles opponents are all teams they have played "away" in the first 17 rounds - does that mean they get their last 5 games at home for a total of up to 16? It needs to be mapped out well in advance so they can sell advertising slots knowing who is playing who. I think you're underestimating the complexity of scheduling 45 games at short notice and keeping everybody happy.

 

[The Sultan]

Going off of last years finishing position is the most equitable in the 1,3,5... play each other twice and they play once agst 2,4,6 etc.

18 teams equals a 25 round season, get rid off the nab cup and their you have it..


Another thought from left field and this will NEVER HAPPEN, and this is assuming a vic side (Hawthorn)move to Tassie...

Have all the vic sides in one league (VFL??)

Have all the interstates in another (AFL??)

Two leagues of nine teams, 25 rounds

All the vic sides play each other twice and all the interstates sides once and vice versa.

The top four from each league go into the finals, and are ranked 1-8 according to points and percentage and play the finals out as per usual.

 

[eskimo]

I've been saying for ages the most fair way to do a draw is to play the 7 other teams that finished in the same half of the ladder as you the following year i.e if you finished in the top 8, you play the other 7 teams that finished in the top 8 twice.

Forget the ANZAC day game, forget the Queens Birthday game, rotate them. The season opener should ALWAYS be a grand final replay. These constant blockbusters are just limiting the oportunities for a new rivalry or blockbuster to be created. Make the fixture fair.

So for example, in round 1 this year Geelong and Saint Kilda should have played the season opener. Then Collingwood and the Dogs, then 5v6, 7v8, 9v10, 11v12, 13v14, and 15v16. It would initiate a closer start to the year than we usually have, obviously a few anomalies, but far less than we have now. We could then come up with a basic fixture by numbers, and just fill in the teams and then then grounds. We might end up with a few difficult ones, but that could be worked out.

The AFL should realise by now that no matter what, more than anything, the public wants to see good games of footy. Apart from Collingwood and Essendon fans, how many people watched the ANZAC day game after 1/2 time? I would think that far more people watched the end of the Queens Birthday game on Monday, and at the start of the year the AFL would have thought that was going to be a nothing match.

It is the AFL who tries to "create" a blockbuster, but if you have 2 evenly matched sides playing more often, then a blockbuster is more likely to eventuate, rather be manufactured.