How to solve the fixture problem

[worthy]

I did mention that and admitted using the ladder from a previous season would be the most likely option.


This exact idea? I know there have been 1000 threads talking about fixturing but come on

Possible scenario:
Say North finish in 6 th place, Richmond in 7th, Hawthorn 8th, and Fitzroy 9th but equal on points.

North have the extra games against top 6 teams and lose with a 1 - 4 record

Richmond, Hawthorn and Fitzroy finish off with a 2 - 3 record.
Due to having the easier finish to the season and North having to play all top 6 teams again, they actually miss finals.

Sorry, but it has as many flaws as the real fixture, actually, it's even less fair.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

there needs to be a structure put in place with the fixture. 3 groups of 6 is the answer when trying to fit 18 teams into 22 rounds.

as per the OP the afl is currently floating the idea of having the season split into 2, 17 rounds where every plays each other once. the final 5 rounds will then be based on your position;

- 1-6 play for positions in the top 8,
- 7-12 play for the final two positions
- the bottom 6 continue to play for not much but at least they are playing teams of similar quality

the two obvious negatives to this model are the full fixture (and planning) is not known well in advance. the second is we forgo all the return derbies, coll v carl clashes

IF the above option is not workable then conferences is a valid option;

West conference - Eagles, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port, Geelong, Bulldogs
North conference - Lions, GC, Swans, Giants, Hawks, Saints
Victorian conference - Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Melbourne, North

 

[SBYM]

They need to workout a system where over a certain number of years every team plays each other equally. If it takes 10 years to do it then so be it.

North should play the same amount of games against Collingwood as it does against GWS.

If it means one derby or showdown some years then stiff.

Had this exact convo at the footy with the bloke next to me Satdee night...

Tough t***ies if Carlton/Cwood only play once a year, for example...an equitable draw can only enhance the competition and the fact that certain games may be less frequent will make them more of an event when they come around.

 

[seysearles]

Anyway, rant over.

That exact same system has been suggested ad nauseam on these boards. fwiw i think its a solid suggestion.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Now interestingly, I didn't take "business trip" over to America in order to come up with what I consider to be the best possible solution, I just used common sense.

i'm still amused by the continued assumption that 'equalisation' is with regard to issues concerning an even draw.

 

[mcgarnacle]

They need to workout a system where over a certain number of years every team plays each other equally. If it takes 10 years to do it then so be it.

North should play the same amount of games against Collingwood as it does against GWS.

If it means one derby or showdown some years then stiff.

what good is that for any given season where teams have different schedules, yet are all analysed under the same single ladder for finals qual?

 

[mcgarnacle]

there needs to be a structure put in place with the fixture. 3 groups of 6 is the answer when trying to fit 18 teams into 22 rounds.

as per the OP the afl is currently floating the idea of having the season split into 2, 17 rounds where every plays each other once. the final 5 rounds will then be based on your position;

- 1-6 play for positions in the top 8,
- 7-12 play for the final two positions
- the bottom 6 continue to play for not much but at least they are playing teams of similar quality

the two obvious negatives to this model are the full fixture (and planning) is not known well in advance. the second is we forgo all the return derbies, coll v carl clashes

IF the above option is not workable then conferences is a valid option;

West conference - Eagles, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port, Geelong, Bulldogs
North conference - Lions, GC, Swans, Giants, Hawks, Saints
Victorian conference - Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Melbourne, North

3 groups of 6 is the ideal all things being equal.

but the AFL has the issue of the actual composition of the league, the most difficult issue being how to split 10 clubs in VIC over 3 groups and maintain all the regional rivalries of all clubs in the league as well as the travel issues which some of the VIC clubs in your splits have been dealt. Seriously, GEE & WB in west because they are the most western-based clubs in the state? and HAW & STK in the east because of the same? Those four clubs have more resonance and rivalries with Victoria than those WA,SA, NSW & QLD

that's why if such a grouping system is used, it has to be 4 groups with two exclusive Victorian groups of 5 teams each and 2 interstate groups of 4 teams each. only way some VIC clubs will accept the terms under such a system and the AFL can maintain the major big ticket regional rivalries.

e.g.,
Group West-Central
ADE - FRE - PA - WCE

Group North-Eastern
BL - GC - GWS - SYD

Group Vic A
GEE - HAW - MEL - NM - WB

Group Vic B
CAR - COL - ESS - RIC - STK

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

Would be my 2nd preferred option if mine wasn't approved (play everyone once except the rival which gets played twice per year, and play everyone the 2nd time once every four years)

So I guess teams like North and St Kilda that don't have any rivals just get another team randomly drawn to play twice?

 

[longsuffreosupp]

So I guess teams like North and St Kilda that don't have any rivals just get another team randomly drawn to play twice?

North v Melbourne
St Kilda v Bulldogs

 

[FootyJunkie]

Group West-Central
ADE - FRE - PA - WCE

Group North-Eastern
BL - GC - GWS - SYD

Group Vic A
GEE - HAW - MEL - NM - WB

Group Vic B
CAR - COL - ESS - RIC - STK

Victoria - Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Melbourne, Richmond
Southern Cross - Geelong, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, St.Kilda, Western Bulldogs

Victoria division contain the top 5 Vic sides by flags, total runner up finishes used as a tiebreaker.

A smaller division for the non Vic sides can be considered compensation for all the travelling they do in comparison to the Victorian sides.

4 Division Winners - Ranked 1-4
Next Best 4 - Ranked 5-8

 

[NarniMagic]

- 1-6 play for positions in the top 8,
- 7-12 play for the final two positions
- the bottom 6 continue to play for not much but at least they are playing teams of similar quality

I think that would be the ideal solution and better than my idea. With the added idea (from the OP) that the home/away 9-8 ratio (from the first 17 rounds) alternate every year.

 

[jdeezy]

You're never going to get a 'fair' fixture, that much is certain. As has already been mentioned, the suggested solution potentially forgoes some return blockbusters, which while it might seem ok, will never happen.

Using last year's ladder isn't necessarily going to 'fix' anything (teams capitulate, or get a rocket up them, all the time), but it is at least a start.

My solution:
The league is split into 4 'quadrants', based on the previous year's ladder. A: 1-4, B: 5-8, C: 9-13, D: 14-18
One game against every other team in the league - 17 games (Easy enough)
One game against one team in each other 'quadrant' of the ladder - 3 games
Two games against teams in the same 'quadrant' as you - 2 games (one would be the final floating round. In theory, this should account for similar skilled teams to be playing each other in the final round, thus, in theory, allowing for maximum scheduling options for that round).

Of the double up 5 games, the necessary return blockbuster is scheduled in whatever spot it needs. So, for example, on this years ladder as it stands right now, a return Showdown would fall as Adelaide and Port's B vs C game, the NSW derby would fall as an A vs D game, and the Q Clash would fall as one of the two C vs C games.

Each team should, in theory, have a similar draw here. Obviously, as said, teams that shoot up or down change everything - for example, this year your team's scheduled 'vs. A' game(s) could have been against Hawthorn or Sydney, but could've also been against Adelaide - but its as 'fair' as you can get it.

 

[Riccardo11]

So I guess teams like North and St Kilda that don't have any rivals just get another team randomly drawn to play twice?

St Kilda has been in this competition since it began, for over 100 years. Just because the AFL doesn't beat up a plastic rivalry that goes back 6 years or invent a club from scratch to play against us doesn't mean we don't have long standing grudges against other sides.

 

[treefingers]

How about a 17 round season? I'd be all for it. It's the only way we'll have a fair fixture.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

How about a 17 round season? I'd be all for it. It's the only way we'll have a fair fixture.

yes it is...

now all you need to do is to get the players to agree to a 25% pay cut ... good luck

 

[walhawk]

what good is that for any given season where teams have different schedules, yet are all analysed under the same single ladder for finals qual?

What harm is there?
Why does it have to be even or fair?
Tennis tournaments are seeded.
World Cups are seeded and partly manipulated.
Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't.

All of the other systems proposed open up more inequalities that do not out weight the advantages of the current system.

 

[Agent93]

This is some ground breaking next level shit. I can't believe nobody's thought of this... wait. Nevermind.

 

[DarwinRoo]

what good is that for any given season where teams have different schedules, yet are all analysed under the same single ladder for finals qual?

Isn't that exactly what happens now?

 

[Dan26]

The reason why the AFL don't want a fair fixture is because it impairs their ability to schedule the matches in the most marketable way.

Essentially, the AFL try to maximise the number of "local vs local" matches every season. it is why we always see the two WA teams play each other twice, the two SA teams play each other twice, etc etc.

Is there a way to have a fair structure whilst also maintaining blockbusters.

I've posted this idea before, but never in a thread of it's own, and I've expanded on it a little.

Here's a possibility for the structure of the competition. I find it's always been a balancing act trying to create a fair fixture while maintaining the financial requirement of playing blockbuster matches, but this solves that.


FIXTURE

Three divisions of six teams:

NORTHERN
GWS
Sydney
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Vic team 1
Vic team 2

WESTERN
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
West Coast
Fremantle
Vic team 3
Vic team 4

SOUTHERN
Vic team 5
Vic team 6
Vic team 7
Vic team 8
Vic team 9
Vic team 10


You play the the teams in your own division twice and all other teams once for 22 games. Every team in a division has exactly the same fixture as every other side in their division. Exactly.

The draw rotates over 5 years.

Each year, the Victorian teams rotate, "two at a time." For instance, suppose Vic teams 1 and 2 are Essendon and Collingwood. They are in the Northern Division, right? The next year, they take spots "9 and 10" in the Southern division and all other Vic clubs move up. So Vic teams 3 and 4 (lets say Carlton and Richmond) move up into the Northern as "Vic teams 1 and 2." Teams 5 and 6 (say, Hawthorn and St.Kilda) move up into spots "3 and 4" in the Western division etc. And they rotate like that continuously. The reason I rotate them two at a time is to keep certain big clubs together.

Every Victorian club, therefore spends three years in the Southern and one year each in the western and Northern over the 5 years.

The Victorian teams in the Western and Northern divisions would travel 6 times a year, and the Victorian teams in the Southern division would travel 4 times a year. It would take 5 years to rotate the Victorian teams through all 10 spots. In that time, every Victorian side would play 24 away interstate games, an average of 4.8 travel games per year over the 5 year period.


So, it would take 5 years for the fixture to rotate totally through. In that time, every Victorian side would play 24 away interstate games, an average of 4.8 travel games per year over the 5 year period.

Importantly, the "advantage" and disadvantage games are IDENTICAL for every side EVERY year (not counting home games sold interstate.) for all 18 teams. "Advantage" games are whereyou host a travelling team and "disadvantage" is where you have to travel.

The Vic teams in the Northern and Western divisions would always have 6 "advantage" games (where they play a travelling non-Vic team) and they would have 6 travelling games and 10 neutral.

The Vic teams in in the Southern division would always have 4 "advantage" games (where they play a travelling non-Vic team) and they would have 4 travelling games and 14 neutral.

No Victorian side would ever, ever, ever have any advantage over a non-Vic side on any travel issue (unless they deliberately decide to play home games outside Victoria)

The net "travel advantage" is always exactly ZERO for all 18 teams every year, no exceptions.

Over the course of the 5 years, every side plays 110 games, the breakdown being:

Every Victorian side would play 24 home games versus a travelling opponent
Every Victoria side would play 24 away travelling games
Every Victorian side would play 62 neutral (31 home 31 away) against other Victorian teams
Net travel advantage: 24 minus 24 = zero

Every non-Vic side would play 50 home games versus a travelling opponent
Every non-Vic side would play 50 away travelling games
Every non-Vic side would play 10 neutral (5 home 5 away) against the other team from their state.
Net travel advantage: 50 minus 50 = zero

What I like about it, is that it combines the financial need to play blockbuster matches with the fairness of treating every side with the same travel advantages.

This year in 2013, there are 198 matches, and 67 of them are "local vs local" matches.

Under my suggestion, there would be 70 local vs local matches every year.

So, you get more local vs local matches AND a fairer fixture. Win-win

 

[Pottering]

They need to workout a system where over a certain number of years every team plays each other equally. If it takes 10 years to do it then so be it.

North should play the same amount of games against Collingwood as it does against GWS.

If it means one derby or showdown some years then stiff.

There is only one fair system with 18 teams and roughly 22 rounds.

Each team plays every other team 4 times over about a 3 year period (two 22 round seasons and one 23 round season).

First year you play the other 17 teams once and 5 of them twice, as happens now (though who you play twice is not randomly chosen). The next year you again play each team once plus a new group of 5 teams twice. Year three you play all once plus the 6 remaining teams (those you haven't yet played twice in a year) two times.

The simplest way to construct this would be to simply order teams in alphabetical order (though any order would suffice). Doing this in Year 1 Adelaide play all teams then have 2nd up clashes with Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Fremantle and Geelong. The following year they play all once then again play GWS, Gold Coast, Hawthorn, Melbourne and North. Third year they play all teams once then a second game against Port, Richmond, the Saints, Sydney, West Coast and the Dogs.

Three years have elapsed, Adelaide has played each team four times.

This system eliminates 2 Showdowns/Derbies/other assorted blockbusters, year in, year out. You'll get such games 1 in every three years. As an Eagles supporter I can live with that.

To stick with the fairness aspect when you enter the 2nd rotation of 3 years of fixtures reverse the home teams. This means that over 6 years each team plays each other team 8 times and each get 4 home games and 4 away games against each opponent.

The draw will be entirely random and have no relation to where teams finish the year before. Some years you'll get lucky, other years it will be tough. But the key is that because it is based on maths it is fair, there's no outside influence.

Of course the AFL would grumble at this because they can't schedule the games they want. But the overriding aim should be fairness, not entrenching the drawing power of the big clubs. I believe that such a fixture would assist the lesser supported and financial clubs to help themselves. As a West Coast supporter I know that the St Kilda's of the world seem to travel interstate way more than the Collingwood's of the world. Under the system I propose every team travels an appropriate amount over a 6 year period.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Isn't that exactly what happens now?

exactly. so what's the point of coming up with a new system that achieves nothing?

 

[jdeezy]

The problem with all these 'play every team over x years' ideas is that a premiership isn't played over multiple years, so you're still going to get certain teams getting lucky breaks on certain years, and other teams having years where they end up hitting all the top teams for return visits.

Also, for all the talk that double up fixtures against certain teams are 'unfair', the reality is that their necessary for club's bottom lines in many cases. In any so-called 'fair' fixturing solution where a team only gets a return match against each club every 4 years, or whatever, that would mean that every second year, a team like Port wouldn't get to host a home Showdown. That would, particularly in years like the last couple, where Port was down, significantly reduce their average crowds for the year, and thus, their takings. And with less takings, they would have less money to spend in their football department. That, in itself, is completely unfair. In this case, the attempts at being 'fair' would have done just the opposite.

 

[Jewbacca]

I've posted this idea before, but never in a thread of it's own, and I've expanded on it a little.

I've posted similar but prefer fixed divisions. It preserves existing rivalries (Essendon Carlton Richmond) (Hawthorn Geelong) plus the derbies and importantly will create new ones - division rivals. The games against teams outside your division rotate between home and away each year fixing situations such as now where hawthorn haven't played Brisbane at home in about 6 years. The creation of new rivalries will be great for teams like the bulldogs and north. A supporter of a team in the same division as the bulldogs is likely to travel to see their team play the bulldogs for example than the current set up where most people tend to travel to see their side play the big teams - Collingwood Geelong Carlton etc.

Top[ 2 in each division go into finals then the next two best records. Teams are seeded then it's the final 8 system as we know it.

It's also good for teams bottoming out. Think of GWS now, all they have to do is win more games than 4 sides in their division and they're in the finals, or beat three and hope for a wild card spot. It makes that climb up the ladder seem more achievable, and will likely encourage teams to have a crack now rather than plan for the long term.

 

[Pottering]

The problem with all these 'play every team over x years' ideas is that a premiership isn't played over multiple years, so you're still going to get certain teams getting lucky breaks on certain years, and other teams having years where they end up hitting all the top teams for return visits.

Also, for all the talk that double up fixtures against certain teams are 'unfair', the reality is that their necessary for club's bottom lines in many cases. In any so-called 'fair' fixturing solution where a team only gets a return match against each club every 4 years, or whatever, that would mean that every second year, a team like Port wouldn't get to host a home Showdown. That would, particularly in years like the last couple, where Port was down, significantly reduce their average crowds for the year, and thus, their takings. And with less takings, they would have less money to spend in their football department. That, in itself, is completely unfair. In this case, the attempts at being 'fair' would have done just the opposite.

A premiership is indeed only played over a single year, but unless you have a 17 round season (which has a home ground advantage bias in it) or a 34 round season (untenable), the only fair way is a rolling rotation over a period of years (seasons). Fairness should be the first priority, not sacrificed to manipulate the fixtures.

As I pointed out the system I propose means each team gets 4 home games (and 4 away) against every other team over a 6 year period. Who knows how the fortunes of those teams might fluctuate. That is the beauty of it, the fixture is completely without bias, teams' positions on the ladder doesn't come into it.

Your preference seems to be to concoct the most financially profitable fixtures first, which is more or less how it works now. Not surprisingly we have people complaining about unfair draws. That's because the draw is rigged. And that is a reason to complain. With a straight mathematical fixturing there is no rigging, it is chance that determines whether or not you think a particular team's draw is hard or soft.

Using your logic about Port missing out on revenue by not having a home Showdown I'm sure Kochie would take that in his stride and realise that no team has a god given right to the fixtures they want and take the approach business does, formulate a plan that accounts for this and works out ways to both reign in costs (while still being competitive) and increase revenue. Of course the best way to increase revenue is to have a successful team.

What you label as "completely unfair" is nothing of the sort, it's devising a fixture that delivers integrity to the competition

 

[Pottering]

I've posted similar but prefer fixed divisions. It preserves existing rivalries (Essendon Carlton Richmond) (Hawthorn Geelong) plus the derbies and importantly will create new ones - division rivals. The games against teams outside your division rotate between home and away each year fixing situations such as now where hawthorn haven't played Brisbane at home in about 6 years. The creation of new rivalries will be great for teams like the bulldogs and north. A supporter of a team in the same division as the bulldogs is likely to travel to see their team play the bulldogs for example than the current set up where most people tend to travel to see their side play the big teams - Collingwood Geelong Carlton etc.

Top[ 2 in each division go into finals then the next two best records. Teams are seeded then it's the final 8 system as we know it.

It's also good for teams bottoming out. Think of GWS now, all they have to do is win more games than 4 sides in their division and they're in the finals, or beat three and hope for a wild card spot. It makes that climb up the ladder seem more achievable, and will likely encourage teams to have a crack now rather than plan for the long term.

Sorry, but I don't like the idea of creating groups. Big fear is that one group will contain a collectively better set of teams than the other group. This then means the good group gets the big matches (and crowds) and the lesser group low key games and because of this maybe a good team from the strong group misses out on finals while a not so good team from the weak group gets in.

Of course this could happen in any system, but with a mathematical based rolling rotation (play every other team 8 times in 6 years, 4 home 4 away) there could be no cause for complaint because it is all random, not due to concocted groups.

Endless Carlton/Essendon/Collingwood/Richmond/Hawthorn/Geelong matches will attract all the attention while Saints/North/Dogs/Melbourne games will soon be seen as division 2. It will just feed on itself.

The foremost aim should be fairness. The competition as whole would benefit from a fairer fixture, every team would know that they in a system which theoretically as much chance as every other team. It is then up to them to make the most of that.