Opinion If you could, would you reward the side who finishes top of the ladder as the grand final host?

[kaiserchief13]

Well the team who finishes 1st might not even make it, but I see the point in 1. Making trying to finish 1st a big advantage over 2nd and 2. A fair system.

AFL has shown this year that their argument of most spectators is a lie and it's at the MCG just to suit the Victorian clubs

 

[Coolangatta]

There's an alternative. 18 teams, 10 are Victorian, so you have the grand final at the MCG 10 years out of 18, every second year with a double-up. WA, SA, NSW and QLD get the GF twice every 18 years with 8-year intervals. The problems, of course, are GF standard grounds and NSW/QLD being non-football states, so perhaps NSW and QLD would get the GF once every 18 years and WA/SA three times every 18 years.

I think Adelaide Oval and Optus are grand final-worthy, but the Gabba and the SCG require upgrades or the states build new 60-80k capacity stadiums. All that said, I can't see the 2057 contract ever being ripped up, and it's a shame because while I agree there's a convincing case for the MCG hosting the grand final, it doesn't have to be every year. 18-year contracts where they host it 10 times, renewed if/when Tassie/NT enters the league and they get it 50% of the time, every two decades doesn't seem so bad to me.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Yes

In practice, it just couldn't be moved around on such short notice

MLB, NBA and NHL manage every year "on such short notice".

 

[oak79]

Or would you rotate the grand final among the states, where Victoria gets it every second year, WA and SA every six years, and NSW and QLD every 12 years. My only objection to rotating would be that it'd be a shame if a grand final between Fremantle and West Coast fell at the SCG, Adelaide vs. Port GF at the Gabba etc., instead of the teams home state.

You could argue the same for two Victorian sides at the MCG, but at the latest, you'd have to determine the GF venue before the first round of finals.

NSW and QLD have same number of teams as WA and SA, no reason they should have it less (unless stadium size is a factor).

Based on the number of teams it should be Victoria ever 2nd year, alternate years WA, SA, QLD and NSW.

In the event of a local Derby GF (2 teams from 1 state) - it can be shifted to that state. But that counts as that state's GF over an 8 year period, and other years are shifted according.

The MCG contract is so Victorian centric, it's a disgrace it was signed.
Most people will never get a grandfinal in their state in their liftetime - despite it being a national competition, with teams in only 5 states.

 

[Coolangatta]

NSW and QLD have same number of teams as WA and SA, no reason they should have it less (unless stadium size is a factor).

Based on the number of teams it should be Victoria ever 2nd year, alternate years WA, SA, QLD and NSW.

In the event of a local Derby GF (2 teams from 1 state) - it can be shifted to that state. But that counts as that state's GF over an 8 year period, and other years are shifted according.

The MCG contract is so Victorian centric, it's a disgrace it was signed.
Most people will never get a grandfinal in their state in their liftetime - despite it being a national competition, with teams in only 5 states.

I agree with all of that but based on comments here and elsewhere, they can't change the GF venue that late. It'd be a damn shame if Freo and West Coast had to play each other in a GF in QLD instead of WA but unless something could be worked out, they'd have to.

 

[PowerForGood]

And yet interstate clubs win GFs in which they take part exactly 50% of the time. It’s almost like if you look at the actual evidence there is no GF HGA

There is not enough data to make a claim of "actual evidence" but if you assume there is, then why do non Vic teams have half the winning margin of Vic teams in GF's?
Nothing to do with HGA of course....

V v NV avg marg 55pts
119 pts (Still hurts!)
89 pts
63 pts
53 pts
48 pts
46 pts
43 pts
22 pts
15 pts

V v V avg marg 36 pts
61 pts
60 pts
56 pts
44 pts
38 pts
35 pts
26 pts
12 pts
0 pts

NV v V avg marg 30 pts
80 pts
50 pts
35 pts
31 pts
28 pts
26 pts
10 pts
9 pts
5 pts

NV v NV avg marg 15 pts
40 pts
4 pts
1 pt

 

[PowerForGood]

NSW and QLD have same number of teams as WA and SA, no reason they should have it less (unless stadium size is a factor).

Based on the number of teams it should be Victoria ever 2nd year, alternate years WA, SA, QLD and NSW.

In the event of a local Derby GF (2 teams from 1 state) - it can be shifted to that state. But that counts as that state's GF over an 8 year period, and other years are shifted according.

The MCG contract is so Victorian centric, it's a disgrace it was signed.
Most people will never get a grandfinal in their state in their liftetime - despite it being a national competition, with teams in only 5 states.

And that's a point that gets missed in discussing this topic, that Vics think it's 100% fair that fans from other states have to stump up 1000's of $$ and 3-4 days and time off work etc to go to a GF, and not just buy your ticket and catch a tram in the morning.

 

[Big Crow]

Of course yes. Holding the deciding match at a team’s home ground regardless of merit is a joke, and makes a mockery of the minor round.

Completely devalues results in the minor round. For example - Who cares if West Coast belt Collingwood in the regular season? When it comes to the GF the pies will be awarded home ground advantage.

 

[Big Crow]

If the Grand Final absolutely must be guaranteed to be at the MCG regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder, then preliminary finals should be held outside of Victoria regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder.

Or just do the sensible thing and give some actual value to the minor round by rewarding the higher ranked team with a home GF.

In any case, it is well and truly time for the AFL to grow into a truly national comp. It’s not (meant to be) the VFL anymore. They need to act like it.

 

[kickazz]

I'd prefer rotation over going to the top finishing team.

 

[Bostonian]

Nope.

Ratings and money coming into the league would take a hammering if it started to be shown at meaningless stadiums in AFL terms like the GABBA.

 

[Bostonian]

This is the way forward for the AFL if it wants to fully embrace a fair and equitable football competition.

The AFL needs to pull in as much money as they can from the event.

This won't happen if you hold it in a penniless state like SA.

 

[The 747]

If the Grand Final absolutely must be guaranteed to be at the MCG regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder, then preliminary finals should be held outside of Victoria regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder.

Or just do the sensible thing and give some actual value to the minor round by rewarding the higher ranked team with a home GF.

In any case, it is well and truly time for the AFL to grow into a truly national comp. It’s not (meant to be) the VFL anymore. They need to act like it.

So the mighty Cats get to host the GF? With two weeks' notice?

 

[Big Crow]

So the mighty Cats get to host the GF? With two weeks' notice?

Of course.

 

[The Goon]

Well the team who finishes 1st might not even make it, but I see the point in 1. Making trying to finish 1st a big advantage over 2nd and 2. A fair system.

AFL has shown this year that their argument of most spectators is a lie and it's at the MCG just to suit the Victorian clubs

Genuine question, is this a statement the AFL has made or just Victorian supporters on a web forum?

 

[The Goon]

NSW and QLD have same number of teams as WA and SA, no reason they should have it less (unless stadium size is a factor).

Based on the number of teams it should be Victoria ever 2nd year, alternate years WA, SA, QLD and NSW.

In the event of a local Derby GF (2 teams from 1 state) - it can be shifted to that state. But that counts as that state's GF over an 8 year period, and other years are shifted according.

The MCG contract is so Victorian centric, it's a disgrace it was signed.
Most people will never get a grandfinal in their state in their liftetime - despite it being a national competition, with teams in only 5 states.

I agree with all of that but based on comments here and elsewhere, they can't change the GF venue that late. It'd be a damn shame if Freo and West Coast had to play each other in a GF in QLD instead of WA but unless something could be worked out, they'd have to.

Don't mind the rotation but with a minimum stadium standard. Not sure what metrics would be to evaluate stadiums, but despite what others have said I don't mind the Gabba and SCG (Homebush is a total soulless shithole though), so they might only be excluded on capacity.

 

[telsor]

Don't mind the rotation but with a minimum stadium standard. Not sure what metrics would be to evaluate stadiums, but despite what others have said I don't mind the Gabba and SCG (Homebush is a total soulless shithole though), so they might only be excluded on capacity.

but if you're going to move it around 'for fairness', then you can't put a line on that. (after all, the very point is that 100K Vs 50 or 60K doesn't matter, and if 50K is OK, then why not 30?)

Personally, I look forward to the screams about how no fans are allowed into the GF at Metricon because all the seats are allocated already.

 

[Numero Uno]

If the Grand Final absolutely must be guaranteed to be at the MCG regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder, then preliminary finals should be held outside of Victoria regardless of who finishes higher on the ladder.

Or just do the sensible thing and give some actual value to the minor round by rewarding the higher ranked team with a home GF.

In any case, it is well and truly time for the AFL to grow into a truly national comp. It’s not (meant to be) the VFL anymore. They need to act like it.

absolutely this ! I have been saying it for years
if a non Vic side qualifies for a prelim, it automatically gets played at their home ground

completely fair when comparing it to the GF contract.

 

[bomberclifford]

I'm ok with it being at the MCG as long as something is done to relocate the clubs who use it as a home ground and give non-Vic clubs more games there during the home and away round.

 

[The Goon]

but if you're going to move it around 'for fairness', then you can't put a line on that. (after all, the very point is that 100K Vs 50 or 60K doesn't matter, and if 50K is OK, then why not 30?)

Personally, I look forward to the screams about how no fans are allowed into the GF at Metricon because all the seats are allocated already.

Take your point, but like most things there would be a lot of angst the first year (that it wasn't in Melbourne), less the next time, and almost none the third. Let's face it, while plenty of fans get into a MGC GF, many more miss out.

Why I don't mind rotation is I think if it moved around like that the GF would be an even bigger deal than now. Every 1.5-2 years at the 'G would be consistent enough to retain the heritage and tradition, but with just enough gap to whet the appetite that much more. Every 6 years or so in places like Perth or Adelaide, would be (to quote a certain orange individual) YUGE!

It's all a bit of a futile discussion though given the contract in place.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Who'd have thought the Victorians are against it.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Moving the grand final from place to place makes the grand final of an individual season no fairer. The best way to do that is make the grand final venue as neutral as possible. Given all clubs usually play at least a handful of games at the mcg each season it is in the box seat to be the one that can be the most neutral.

Superbowl.

Decide in advance. If you are the home team and it coincides, you earnt it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The GF at the G is one of if not the best event Australia has to offer. If you have never gone to experience it then I would say do yourself a favour one day.
I have seen my side lose there, win there and seen half a dozen neutral GF and they have all been great experiences for me. The cost is expensive and that the AFL actually encourage scalping through the branding of corporate packages is something that should be looked at. But it costs me a lot to go see Wimbledon, go see the US masters etc etc.
I am happy for the GF to stay at the G, it’s a special place whether some want to admit it or not. Is it totally fair for a non Vic club playing against a Vic club? Of course it’s not, but this league is not set up to be fair. It’s set up to maximise revenue. The MCG provides lots of revenue.
So the answer is NO from me and it will be until another stadium can hold 80k plus after the existing contract expires. I won’t be around to see what happens so don’t really care.

 

[Angus Young]

Gws are *ing horrible

 

[RichLeMonde]

There is not enough data to make a claim of "actual evidence" but if you assume there is, then why do non Vic teams have half the winning margin of Vic teams in GF's?
Nothing to do with HGA of course....

V v NV avg marg 55pts
119 pts (Still hurts!)
89 pts
63 pts
53 pts
48 pts
46 pts
43 pts
22 pts
15 pts

V v V avg marg 36 pts
61 pts
60 pts
56 pts
44 pts
38 pts
35 pts
26 pts
12 pts
0 pts

NV v V avg marg 30 pts
80 pts
50 pts
35 pts
31 pts
28 pts
26 pts
10 pts
9 pts
5 pts

NV v NV avg marg 15 pts
40 pts
4 pts
1 pt

The numbers are skewed because your mob turned in the single most embarrassing performance in GF history. Take that disaster out and the figures aren’t so different.