Fixture for 18 team competition

[CF]

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......

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

I like it.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Quite Simply.

Play every team once.

Play 7 sides twice

24 Games!

Rotate which games each team has on a yearly basis, whilst the precsious "big 4" can keep their mockbusters.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The AFL should realise by now that no matter what, more than anything, the public wants to see good games of footy.

I'm pretty sure the AFL know what the public want. Record crowds year upon year are testament to that. The question is whether they are prepared to give that up. I doubt it.

 

[FootyJunkie]

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.

A 5 week Final 9 would have....

Week 1
1st - Bye
First Primary Final - 2 v 7
Second Primary Final - 3 v 6
Third Primary Final - 4 v 5
Wild Card Playoff - 8 v 9

Winners of the Primaries join 1st in the Qualifying Finals in Week 2.
Losers of the Primaries join WCP Winner in the Elimination Finals in Week 2.

From Week 2, its the current Final 8, except that the crossover happens during the Semi Finals in Week 3. One repeat final from Week 1 is allowed in Week 5 for the prelim, but another crossover happens to avoid two repeat finals in the prelims.

 

[Chiz]

A 5 week Final 9 would have....

Week 1
1st - Bye
First Primary Final - 2 v 7
Second Primary Final - 3 v 6
Third Primary Final - 4 v 5
Wild Card Playoff - 8 v 9

Winners of the Primaries join 1st in the Qualifying Finals in Week 2.
Losers of the Primaries join WCP Winner in the Elimination Finals in Week 2.

From Week 2, its the current Final 8, except that the crossover happens during the Semi Finals in Week 3. One repeat final from Week 1 is allowed in Week 5 for the prelim, but another crossover happens to avoid two repeat finals in the prelims.

So teams 2 to 7 have the same chance? Hasn't got my vote; 2nd should have a clear advantage over 7 (more than a home ground), though I like that 1 has a week off, and therefore an advantage over the rest. Current system is still better though

 

[FootyJunkie]

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.

Or the split round is removed in place for the bye in Round 0.

 

[Chiz]

There are certain games that will attract crowds and publicity, and others that wont, and it has little to do with ladder position.

There will always be blockbusters regardless of ladder position, and there will always be blockbusters because of the ladder position. And think about it; Essendon and Collingwood for instance always draw a huge crowd on ANZAC day, but the second time they meet usually it's about 70-80,000. Of course, if both sides were doing really well, you'd expect it to sell out the second time. If North Melbourne and the Bulldogs were the top two sides, even they would probably manage to get a large crowd to a game. I don't think you can say it has nothing 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.

I agree, but under your system we would also have 1 vs 16, 2 vs 17, 3 vs 18 (and more of these games that generate little interest).
While I like your idea in terms of equality, it does not address the blockbuster problem. Mine does, because there will be more games between the top sides who are still in finals contention, and hardly any of these where only one team is still in contention.

As for the scheduling, it would be for the AFL to consider whether or not it is feasible. Personally, I think it can be done; if it is that much of an issue, perhaps it would be ideal to take a break after round 17 (in addition to a split round say round 9) to allow time to get the fixture up.

 

[FootyJunkie]

FINAL 9

WEEK 1

FIRST PRIMARY FINAL
2ND V 7TH

SECOND PRIMARY FINAL
3RD V 6TH

THIRD PRIMARY FINAL
4TH V 5TH

WILD CARD PLAYOFF
8TH V 9TH

WEEK 2

FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL
1ST V WINNER OF THIRD PRIMARY FINAL

SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL (HIGHER SEEDED TEAM HAS HOME GROUND ADVANTAGE)
WINNER OF FIRST PRIMARY FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND PRIMARY FINAL

FIRST ELIMINATION FINAL (HIGHER SEEDED TEAM HAS HOME GROUND ADVANTAGE)
LOSER OF FIRST PRIMARY FINAL V LOSER OF SECOND PRIMARY FINAL

SECOND ELIMINATION FINAL
LOSER OF THIRD PRIMARY FINAL V WINNER OF WILD CARD PLAYOFF

WEEK 3

FIRST SEMI FINAL
LOSER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST ELIMINATION FINAL

SECOND SEMI FINAL
LOSER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND ELIMINATION FINAL

WEEK 4

FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND SEMI FINAL

SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST SEMI FINAL

However, if there are repeat match-ups from Week 1 and switching Semi Final
Winners does not create repeat match-ups from Week 2, then a switch is performed.

FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF FIRST SEMI FINAL

SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL
WINNER OF SECOND QUALIFYING FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND SEMI FINAL

WEEK 5

GRAND FINAL
WINNER OF FIRST PRELIMINARY FINAL V WINNER OF SECOND PRELIMINARY FINAL

 

[cammo78]

Looks like they were listening, Chiz...

Wonders will never cease.

 

[muttley45]

At the conclusion of round 17, the bottom six sides are no longer in premiership contention.

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

who knows for sure if premiership contention is over for bottom 6 sides,bit of a long bow to draw,apart from that not a bad plan

 

[kfleong2000]

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.

I'm sorry, I don't like the current priority pick system either, but the reason why the 16th placed team gets the first priority pick is because they are the most crud, tanking issues aside. If you have a system where the 13th best team gets a better pick over the 18th placed team, then that only serves to widen the gulf between the two teams, which is what the priority pick is meant to rectify in the first place.

 

[thebiff]

Why change something thats not broke? People say "oh the fixture is not fair blah blah blah". BS it is not fair, the best team will still win the grandfinal. Sure maybe one team might potentially miss out on a top eight position cause they had a tough draw all year but a the end of the day your not going to lose a premiership beacause you had a tough draw. If your good enough you will win it.

Why not just scrap nab cup play a few more rounds and keep the top eight? Do we need a top 9 or top 10 or 12? Why? Just have a top 8 in an 18 team comp. Would be fine. Demetriou has already ruined a lot of things, numerous rule changes to the detriment of the game, ruining a great part of the game (the bump) the list goes on. The game is now way too fast that he is contemplating bringing in more rules to fix a problem he basically created. Why not just bloody keep it how it is? Add the two teams and play a couple more rounds and get rid of that ridiculous pre season rubbish that everyone hates.

 

[1873 United]

I like the idea of Melbourne conference and National confrence, it's only for the ladder. The season might be stretched to 25 rounds but the finals could be condensed.

9+9

Play each team in you league home and away 16 matches, then cross over matches to make up the reaming fixtures. Winners of both competition play in the GF????

To much detail for me to bother with.

 

[KUNG FU]

Love the principle. Would need to trial and error some of the details, but a very good contribution. Would create a much more competitive league, more interesting games and a fairer distribution.

 

[Chiz]

Similar models on the AFL website, with a re-structured draw after round 17; my suggestion is a combination between the 2nd and 3rd model.

I like the idea of eliminating the bottom six from finals contention (as long as they have something to play for, such as a priority pick), but not the idea of having the top 6, middle 6, even though the 7th team can't get any higher; the team finishing 7th will have an easy run of games going into the finals compared to the top 6 who will have just played all the hardest games.

But on the other hand, the system with 3 divisions where all teams are still in finals contention seems to me to be just too complicated; and how can you determine a final 8 from three divisions? (take 3 from one, 2 from another - doesn't add up).

After round 17, drop the bottom 6 from contention, and break the top 12 into two evenly balanced groups of 6, with the top 4 from each making up the final 8. It makes so much more sense than the other models.

 

[KUNG FU]

I like the idea of Melbourne conference and National confrence, it's only for the ladder. The season might be stretched to 25 rounds but the finals could be condensed.

9+9

Play each team in you league home and away 16 matches, then cross over matches to make up the reaming fixtures. Winners of both competition play in the GF????

To much detail for me to bother with.

So the interstate sides have to travel even more than they already do? And what about Melbourne-based supporters of interstate teams? Or vice versa? Yeah, great

 

[Chiz]

Love the principle. Would need to trial and error some of the details, but a very good contribution. Would create a much more competitive league, more interesting games and a fairer distribution.

Thank you - I'm glad someone understands what this system is trying to acheive

 

[TheGoatBaron]

If we do go for a conference system, I wouldn't mind going for this system, which would make for some interesting viewing, late in the season and could possibly end tanking.

• All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions (top six, middle six and bottom six). The top six play each other in the last five games and jostle for ladder positions. The middle six play each other in the last five games and battle for the last available places in the finals (a final eight or 10 could be used). The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention.

 

[Chiz]

I'm sorry, I don't like the current priority pick system either, but the reason why the 16th placed team gets the first priority pick is because they are the most crud, tanking issues aside. If you have a system where the 13th best team gets a better pick over the 18th placed team, then that only serves to widen the gulf between the two teams, which is what the priority pick is meant to rectify in the first place.

If you scrapped the priority pick rule, then the bottom team still receives pick 1. If they instead received pick 2, there wouldn't be a huge difference. Handing out a priority pick to the winner of the bottom six competition is not so much widening the gap as it is giving one of the bottom teams a leg up.

 

[eskimo]

Perhaps the bottom 6 teams play for a priority pick at the start of the second round, effectively getting pick 17, plus whatever picks they would normally end up with. It doesn't hurt the bottom placed team as much, but still provides a reasonable insentive.

Teams will effectively still tank for the first pick, but that is nothing new, irrespective of a priority pick. But the bottom 6 teams would need to be playing for something more than a draft pick, otherwise why would anyone even go to the games. I'm not sure what, but there needs to be more insentive to perform than just that.

 

[kfleong2000]

If you scrapped the priority pick rule, then the bottom team still receives pick 1. If they instead received pick 2, there wouldn't be a huge difference. Handing out a priority pick to the winner of the bottom six competition is not so much widening the gap as it is giving one of the bottom teams a leg up.

I would prefer to just scrap it altogether tbh with the way modern day drafting works (it's more of an exact science nowadays, and thus there is more of a chance that your number 1 pick turns out to be a better player for your club's needss than the next side's number 2 for example)

The gap I mentioned though is the gulf between 13th and 18th. Sure, giving a better pick to 13th will bridge it to the next group of clubs more effectively, but what about the team in 18th then?

 

[Speck]

Perhaps the bottom 6 teams play for a priority pick at the start of the second round, effectively getting pick 17, plus whatever picks they would normally end up with. It doesn't hurt the bottom placed team as much, but still provides a reasonable insentive.

Teams will effectively still tank for the first pick, but that is nothing new, irrespective of a priority pick. But the bottom 6 teams would need to be playing for something more than a draft pick, otherwise why would anyone even go to the games. I'm not sure what, but there needs to be more insentive to perform than just that.

Pick 17 would be the most fair.

Is that incentive enough though?

 

[richoatthedisco]

I like the idea of two leagues, as mentioned by someone else - the VFL and the NFL. Nine in each, with Victorian teams taking it in turns to have a year in the NFL. 25 game season, playing the other eight in your league home and away, and the nine from the other league once. At least that way the fixture is as fair as possible - pretty much identical for every team within their league, against whom they are competing for a finals spot. You'd also create two championships that would gain prestige over time.

Working out how the finals operate is the challenge. Top four from each league into a final eight, crossing over to ensure teams from the same league can play off in the grand final if they're the best two sides.

So the interstate sides have to travel even more than they already do? And what about Melbourne-based supporters of interstate teams? Or vice versa? Yeah, great

Non-Victorian sides currently travel 10 times a year. If they hosted five of the nine teams in the VFL that would make 11 trips from 25 games. Percentage-wise, that's a better deal. Melbourne-based supporters of interstate teams would still get more opportunity to see their team live (five games a year - four in the crossover and one against the nominal Victorian NFL team) than interstate supporters of Melbourne teams. I lived in Byron Bay for two years once and the Tiges didn't play a single game in Brisbane or the Gold Coast. Would have been better off in Perth - we play there twice every year. (Does Collingwood ever play in Perth?)

If we want to return fairness to the fixture I can't see a better solution. It maintains blockbusters, derbies and showdowns and most importantly, it's the same for everyone - bar the difference in travel that exists today anyway. At least this way the teams you're competing against for finals spots have the same deal as you. And let's face it, it's always been the Vics against the rest - this just makes it official. And what a character-building year it would be for the one Vic side in the NFL!

The OP's idea has merit but 12th and 13th could be separated only by percentage, which could be influenced by who you played where. The danger with playing for a priority pick (which should be done away with altogether) is the incentive for a team knowing it has no chance of the flag to ensure it is in the bottom six and 'win' that pick. That could still happen if they just played off for pick one. You can imagine Brett Ratten or Dean Bailey, with their team sitting 10th, having the devil on their shoulder whispering, "go on, tank it, another number one pick in the offing". (Sorry, couldn't resist that dig.)

 

[utility]

22 rounds.

Final 8.

How many ways will the AFL try and **** up something so simple for a few extra dollars.

 

[FootyJunkie]

The Vic team in the National Conference should be the Vic Premier from the previous season... this year being Geelong.

Still, I don't see something like that happening. National Conference teams travelling all over the country while Vic teams just hang out in Melbourne most of the time.