Fixture Fixture idea - rotating double-ups

[lewdogs]

Obviously the AFL don't want to reduce the number of games in a season. But what about just rotating the double-ups, so over a four year period every team would play double-ups against every other side. In the fourth year you'd start again, or the next four-years' double ups could be drawn at random so you know who you'll be doubling up against over that period.

There'd still be some discrepancies around fairness, but surely this makes more sense than the arbitrary fixture selection process we have now, and over time it should even out.

On top of that we should rotate home and away each time a team plays.

I understand that this means giving up some blockbusters, but surely some sacrifices need to be made to make the draw more fair. At the moment it is one of the more glaring flaws in the competition.

Could it work?

 

[Cleavy]

It would work, but the AFL are all about the coin.

 

[The 747]

Yes, this is obvious and the AFL won't do it.

 

[Sky]

They should wait till Round 15 or so until releasing the last 5 rounds. Floating fixture and all so we get the best games at the times we’re just trying to unwind.

 

[Danw0w]

I hope you aren’t trying to get a job at AFL HQ because you make too much sense.

 

[juss]

Obviously the AFL don't want to reduce the number of games in a season. But what about just rotating the double-ups, so over a four year period every team would play double-ups against every other side. In the fourth year you'd start again, or the next four-years' double ups could be drawn at random so you know who you'll be doubling up against over that period.

There'd still be some discrepancies around fairness, but surely this makes more sense than the arbitrary fixture selection process we have now, and over time it should even out.

On top of that we should rotate home and away each time a team plays.

I understand that this means giving up some blockbusters, but surely some sacrifices need to be made to make the draw more fair. At the moment it is one of the more glaring flaws in the competition.

Could it work?

I think I'm understanding correctly that the double ups are distributed so over the course of a certain amount of years you play every other club as double ups evenly, or as close as the maths allow with 17x other teams and 5x double up games each year.

To me that makes sense, there's a bit of luck of the draw but that happens to a degree anyway with 22 round seasons and the inability to predict exactly year on year improvement or decline.

It'd be really easy to get a view of it by spinning up a few random fixtures and seeing if there are any obvious major discrepancies without having to play any games.

 

[lewdogs]

I think I'm understanding correctly that the double ups are distributed so over the course of a certain amount of years you play every other club as double ups evenly, or as close as the maths allow with 17x other teams and 5x double up games each year.

To me that makes sense, there's a bit of luck of the draw but that happens to a degree anyway with 22 round seasons and the inability to predict exactly year on year improvement or decline.

It'd be really easy to get a view of it by spinning up a few random fixtures and seeing if there are any obvious major discrepancies without having to play any games.

Yep that's exactly it, the idea of the three tier system is so flawed because there are many reasons a team can have a down year and there is so much variance. If you just spread it out evenly and it cycles around you know you'll play every side the same amount of times over a four year period which just makes a lot more sense.

 

[Kwality]

It would work, but the AFL are all about the coin.

The clubs all spend more than they earn if you exclude money from the AFL .

 

[Captain_Bender]

If anything you shouldn't play any double ups until you have played every team

 

[pz5151]

The 17 and 5 model is easily the best with the ladder split into 3 groups of 6 after everyone plays each other once. The idea that "blockbusters" draw massive crowds when one or both of the teams are playing rubbish is a myth so the AFL wouldn't lose money. Playing the top 6 against each other will draw bigger crowds than Essendon and Collingwood when the Bombers are bottom 4

 

[marcmurphy3]

The 17 and 5 model is easily the best with the ladder split into 3 groups of 6 after everyone plays each other once. The idea that "blockbusters" draw massive crowds when one or both of the teams are playing rubbish is a myth so the AFL wouldn't lose money. Playing the top 6 against each other will draw bigger crowds than Essendon and Collingwood when the Bombers are bottom 4

Agree that is the best idea

 

[Zarrix]

Rotate home games for single fixture match ups too. The fact that we haven't played Collingwood in Victoria since 2013 is frankly ridiculous.

 

[catscratchfever]

Forget about all the other possible solutions to the uneven draw.

The best and easiest solution to the unfair, uneven draw would be to make games against opponents you play twice during a season worth 2 points each, while those you play once worth 4. That way, you could keep all the ‘marquee’ games and not give an advantage to whoever is playing the bunnies of the season (think Norf 2022) twice. Conversely, it would also not be a disadvantage for a weaker team (think Norf 2022 again, or anyone at the bottom end) to play a stronger team twice.

The total number of points a team could have at the end of the season would be the same, though lower than the current 4 x 22.

Easy, simple, clean and totally fair (and the AFL could keep all its high-rating double-ups without affecting the fairness of the competition).

Therefore, it won’t happen.

Because AFL Commission.

 

[deck]

I like the idea of a 27 game season where you would play everyone 3 times over 2 years plus 1 common opponent 4 times.

 

[Gunf]

Or you know have a 17 round season with no double ups and swapping home team every year

 

[catstorm]

The 17 and 5 model is easily the best with the ladder split into 3 groups of 6 after everyone plays each other once. The idea that "blockbusters" draw massive crowds when one or both of the teams are playing rubbish is a myth so the AFL wouldn't lose money. Playing the top 6 against each other will draw bigger crowds than Essendon and Collingwood when the Bombers are bottom 4

Yeah I can’t see how this works. There are two ways it can operate and neither are tenable. The first is split in 3 groups of 6 with the top 6 locked in as the top 6, this means that a team like Sydney or Carlton who could easily still make top 4 or even 2 are blocked with almost a quarter of the season remaining. The other is the positions aren’t locked then you have the 7th placed side getting a far easier final 5 games and probably going past several sides above them who are forced to play much harder opponents.

 

[pz5151]

Yeah I can’t see how this works. There are two ways it can operate and neither are tenable. The first is split in 3 groups of 6 with the top 6 locked in as the top 6, this means that a team like Sydney or Carlton who could easily still make top 4 or even 2 are blocked with almost a quarter of the season remaining. The other is the positions aren’t locked then you have the 7th placed side getting a far easier final 5 games and probably going past several sides above them who are forced to play much harder opponents.

The model locks the teams in their groups of 6 so you can't finish 7th and then win all your games against lower ranked teams and jump to top 4. The idea is that you have 6 teams competing for top 4, 6 more competing for the bottom 2 spots in the 8 and then some have suggested flipping the draft spots for bottom 6 to give them something to play for but I don't agree with that one.

 

[catstorm]

The model locks the teams in their groups of 6 so you can't finish 7th and then win all your games against lower ranked teams and jump to top 4. The idea is that you have 6 teams competing for top 4, 6 more competing for the bottom 2 spots in the 8 and then some have suggested flipping the draft spots for bottom 6 to give them something to play for but I don't agree with that one.

Yes I know how it works and it’s untenable as I already said.

 

[deck]

Or you know have a 17 round season with no double ups and swapping home team every year

Are you going to tell everyone to take a paycut or are going to pay more to attend games?

 

[Duskfire]

Is how it is now really that bad? Would things have changed massively?

I just don't see why they should change how it is.

 

[Coolangatta]

The 17 and 5 model is easily the best with the ladder split into 3 groups of 6 after everyone plays each other once. The idea that "blockbusters" draw massive crowds when one or both of the teams are playing rubbish is a myth so the AFL wouldn't lose money. Playing the top 6 against each other will draw bigger crowds than Essendon and Collingwood when the Bombers are bottom 4

I'd split the games as follows:

1-6: 1-6 (twice), 7-12 (twice), 13-18 (once)
7-12: 1-6 (twice), 7-12 (twice), 13-18 (once)
13-18 1-6 (once), 7-12 (once), 13-18 (three)

 

[footyfan1978]

Obviously the AFL don't want to reduce the number of games in a season. But what about just rotating the double-ups, so over a four year period every team would play double-ups against every other side. I

Too much stuffing around missing the obvious.
Everyone should play each other once up to round 17.
Then based on most fair system on computer models it decides whom plays each other a second time for last 5 rounds.
It is stupid as we have it now where some teams have meet twice in season before others have meet once.

To also have some teams in top part of ladder have some cellar team twice because twelve months earlier that team was a good team but shit now it ridiculous. The teams in top ten now that get to play Eagles or North twice is unfairly advantaged over teams only playing them once.
You pick the teams someone plays twice based on the current season, not the one before. That is what they should be doing.

 

[VolgaBoatman]

Basically to do this you'll need to get rid of some of the Marquee games like Anzac Day, Anzac Day eve, Dreamtime at the G, two Derbies, two Showdowns etc, as you will need more flexibility to move things around. Are fans and the AFL ready to accept this, I'm not so sure.

 

[deck]

Basically to do this you'll need to get rid of some of the Marquee games like Anzac Day, Anzac Day eve, Dreamtime at the G, two Derbies, two Showdowns etc, as you will need more flexibility to move things around. Are fans and the AFL ready to accept this, I'm not so sure.

Actually you don't. 5 return games a year gives you 20 games over 4 years and you only need 17. You still have the one regular double up if you want.

Also the marquee one off games have zero effect on this idea. Unless you have a fixture where you don't play everyone every year one off games don't change.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

If anything you shouldn't play any double ups until you have played every team

The before times did this