Imagine if the AFL structured the season this way ?

[Dan26]

There has been a lot of talk about how the AFL may structure the season, especially from Pessimistic, and others.

Well, imagine this :

* The Ansett Cup gets scrapped

* A 30 round season is played with everyone playing each other twice.

* 25 mans squads are used, with 7 on the bench for each team. The incresed workload of players (30 rounds) makes this a good idea.

* A handful of the 240 Home and Away matches (say four or five) were played in Tasmania, and Canberra to promote the game. Ansett Cup matches are played at these venues, and with 64 more matches, a club could easily sacrifive one of their 15 home matches to play a "real" match at these venues. Pessimistic was against the 30 round season, as it would mean the Ansett Cup would be scrapped, meaning no promotional practice matches around the country. This does not have to be the case. There is absolutely NO reason why one of the 240 Home and Away matches couldn't be played in Auckland.

* Alternate Jumpers for away teams when jumpers clash. No fancy designs that still clash with the opposition. What's the point ? The AFL should force the away team, when uniforms clash to wear an alternate jumper, that actually can be distinguished from the opposition.

* As the Home and Away season would be pefectly fair, top spot to get more recognition, and the top team to be declared premiers (premiers of the home and away season), with a trophy presented ON THE GROUND after the home and away match in which top spot is sealed.

* The final series to be played over 3 weeks (not 4 as it is now). This shortens the season by a further week. As top spot would be declared premiers, the final series could easily be a SEPERATE tournament, played with quarter-finals, semi-finals, then the Grand Final. This would be over three weeks. A completely knockout tournament, SEPERATE from the home and away. The premiers would have already been decided in the Home and Away. This would allow the finals series to become an FA CUP style tournament to conclude the season, with the winner being the champions of the 4 week finals series. The winner of top spot would be home and away premiers, and nothing could change that. This would allow the years best team to be rewarded for their efforts.

* A week off for state of origin after round 15 (the half way point). it is still imporatnt that the players can aspire to play at the highest level.

* A best-fit strategy used, where no games expected to get under 40,000 are played at the MCG. It is not cost effective. The break even point at the MCG is about 28,000, and the break-even point at Colonial is 10,000. This means a Hawthorn-Brisbane match (for example), or a Hawthorn-Melbourne match (for example) are played at Colonial, with the potential to be transferred if they were to become unexpected big games. Waverley to be used when appropriate. Optus Oval to no longer be used

* AFL restricted members to be able to attend the preliminary final. Since the MCG began hosting the preliminary final in 1992, there have been 11 preliminary finals at the MCG in that time (sometimes two a year), and the AFL reserve has NEVER been full because 15,000 restricted members can't go. When will the AFL realise that the Grand Final is really the only game where demand outweighs supply. If the AFL members wasn't full for Ess-Carl then it will never be. Allow restricted members to attend. The AFL can always limit the sale of guest passes in the unlikely event of a full AFL reserve on preliminary final day

* Some games in Brisbane and Sydney and Perth to be played on Monday nights and telecast Australia wide. A couple of years ago Melbourne-Sydney drew 52,000 to the MCG on a Monday night. In Perth in 1997, Fremantle and Adelaide drew 23,000 to Subiaco on a Monday night. The local WAFL fremantle derby was being played at the same time, yet the Dockers and the Crows still drew 23,000. This is about 5,000 more than the average for a Dockers game, and was achieved DESPITE the local derby in club footy being played in direct competition. In Rugby League, people in Brisbane and Sydney have turened up in huge numbers for Monday night footy. They love it in Brisbane. Must be the lifestyle up there. People in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth love their entertainment at night. That's a fact ! Sell-out Gabba games beamed live around the country on a Monday night when people are home is a ratings winner.

* Optus Oval to be DISCONTINUED as an AFL venue. Three venues used for 10 Melbourne clubs. Those venues being the MCG, Colonial, and Waverley. This would leave the smallest Victorian stadium being Colonial still with a massive 52,000. Games to be played with a best-fit strategy at the most appropriate venues.

* That Stupid finals contract with the MCC thrown out. When will the AFL realise that they didn't need to make this deal. 4-5 finals a year were going to be played at the MCG anyway, regardless of any contract. Why tie your own hands with a contract that didn't need to be made ? The teams that qualify for the SEPERATE, 8 team, knockout finals series to be given home finals if they finish in the top 4. if 1st loses to 8th they are out. Bad luck. That's what finals are about ! Finals are not about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day. Although with top spot getting recognised, 1st losing to 8th wouldn't be so bad. It would be like going out in the first Round of the FA Cup.

This is how I would like to see the AFL structure the competition.

Any other things to add, that woud make the AFL better ?

 

[Longjohn]

What a load of crap, if you want an FA Cup, I say go live in England.

 

[Pessimistic]

You have some good points, Dan 24. I don't think the AFL will go for a 30 round season, unless they can 'evolve' to it (say by going to 26 rounds first if the ansett cup dies the same way the state of origin did.

On the interchange, you could argue that a larger interchange allows coaches to rotate lesser players on better opponents, and the class players stay on the whole time. This has been the case so far. prhaps some restrictions should be employed like in the premier league. Older or semi-injured players might be rested if a game became a blow-out (but remember saints-hawks last year ? you can never rest)

My suggestion (4groups x 4teams x 4 years) is merely an attempt to put structure and predictability in the current system. And, more important, to stop th AFL using the draw to 'punish' clubs as they see fit - this in my opinion is the biggest compromise with the draw.

I especially like your comment about waverley. I think we need to keep it so we can build a high-tech, 150,000 plus capacity stadium sometime in the next century.

Did you see the graphic where the colonial holds 52,000 but the back row is roughly equivalent to front row, Great southern stand. That means that 150,000 capacity is feasable without having seats much worse than those at the back of the GSS.

As a matter of fact the upper deck at waverley is a lot better than you would imagine. And, unlike soccer, AFL is a game which lends itself to a 'panoramic' view.

I obviously haven't been to colonial (or is that commonwealth) stadioum yet but some fans may prefer the top deck, baack row to get that panoramic view.

It's a pity about those supporting beams though, they could be a bit annoying.

 

[Arch]

dan leave the finals alone.
the minor premier will never get the recognition you want . The event of the Grand final would be completely killed by your idea. the finals wouldnt have the do or die pressure because the premier was already decided (and crowned with some crappy ceremony after a regular season game- wow). Dont you enjoy watching finals, just to see the players playing for their lives. Your post season tournament would be totally lame because the prems had already been decided.The way the premier league does it, is totally stupid. The NFL has the right idea. You play all season to earn your spot in a knockout tournament. If You lose your out no matter where you finished. 12 teams make the tournament and the top 4 get the first week off and home ground advantage all thru. it should be more like that in the AFL. screw the double chances. just give the top two teams home advantage and a week off.
I think your idea reduces the clutch nature of finals- the pressure to perform when it counts. You'll miss those epic games (like the f*ckin prelim last year) becasue they wont matter.
anyway- you know my opinion by now.
also think 30 games is WAY too much for an AFL season (although id like to be watching footy for that long of the year), but do we really need 30 games to decide the finals teams ????
anyway cya dan- hope it goes well tonite !!!

 

[Dan26]

Arch,

How good were the Bombers ? What a performance. I was down on the bottom level on the wing, then I moved behing the goals for the second quarter so I could give Sh1t to all the Port Supporters !

In repsonse to your comment, the knockout finals series wouldn't become "lame", as you say.

You might be interested to know something.

In Englad, the FA CUP is the last match of the season. We already know who has won the premiership (by finishing top). The FA CUP is held AFTER the premier league champion has been decided.

Now, does this take away from the FA Cup ? NO !!!! It doesn't take away from it at all. It's still the biggest match of the year. (How many times can I stress this !)

The GF will always be the individual biggest One-off match for the year and a great conclusion to the season. it always will be.

But, it should NEVER EVER represent a teams season. Imagine if a team went 22-0 and lost the GF ! Everyone would know this team was the best. EVERYONE ! And yet a lesser team would be crowned premiers. It's all about giving recognition to what is good and fair, and right. If a team wins the GF, fine. Make them premiers of the 4 week finals series. If another team wins top spot, make them Home and away premiers. Its very simple, really.

 

[Nick]

While playing for 30 rounds is a great way of making the draw fairer - the fact that remains that these 30 weeks of football can be made totally redundant by one bad performance in the finals (ie Prelim last year). So if you are going to bother extending the Home and Away season by 8 weeks, at least recognise the best performing team over that period as premiers.
However, i can't see this happenning for a few reasons.
1) The Ansett Cup is ideal for providing practice matches for clubs. No club would want to leap straight into the season proper with only 1 or 2 practice matches.
2) If players are asked to play 8 more senior games, they will inevitably demand higher salaries - and clubs will need to screw even more money out of their supporters (there is a limit to how much a fan can take)
3) The AFL will never want to change the way the Premiers are decided from the Finals format, because that is when they achieve the highest attendances and ratings.

While it will be good to have the league structured how you suggest, i don't think there is much chance of it ever happening.

By the way, i still don't think 3 grounds are enough for 10 teams. If Carlton want to play at Optus, let them. At least they had the vision to build up their own stadium, and it is a major asset to them. Clubs should be able to decide where they play their home games (like in every other major sport), and not let the AFL decide in their own interests.

 

[Dan26]

NICK,

If the Home and Away season was given more recognition (as it deserves), would you not forsee an increase in attendances over the home and away season ?

Currently, the home and away is meaningless. It is PERCEIVED as a means to an end, yet it averages over 30,000 a games. Imagine the average if the home and away premiership was something to aspire to in its own right !!!

Make no mistake. The home and away series (176 games) and the various spinoffs (TV etc), make infinitely more money than the 4 week final series does. That's a fact. It takes up 90% of the season for christs sake !

And Nick, like I said, you would still get the huge interest and ratings for finals. Like in England, the FA CUP concludes the season and is a huge event, even though the "top spot" premiers have already been decided.

The football public would OBVIOUSLY want both the home and away premier and the final series premeirs recognised ! Who wouldn't ! Why not reward two great teams for two seperate acheivements !

Also, clubs are doing pre-seaosn training since NOVEMBER. They do not need practive matches. In Rugby this year there was no pre-season competition, and Cantebury went into their first match having had no practice matches. They won. Were you aware of this ? Well, now you know.

AFL clubs are playing intra-club matches against each other and have been playing footy over the pre-season since NOVEMBER, so there is no excuse for not being ready for a 30 round season. It's certainly workable, although that doesn't necessarily mean it will happen.

Everything you argued has a logical comeback. I am sorry Nick, but I am right.

I mean, you are even wrong on the "higher salaries" issue. They may get mote money, but so would the AFL with 8 extra rounds. There would be more money to give to the players. It's all relative. If they played a ten game season, players would get less, as there was be less cash to go around from only 10 home and away rounds. it's all relative.

 

[Nick]

DAN24,
Like i said, i don't think your idea is a bad one, simply that there are too many obstacles for it to become reality. For example, the AFL has an agreement to play the Grand Final at the MCG for the next 30 years or so. I'm not sure that they would agree to this being replaced by the final of an Ansett Cup-style knockout series.
Also, whether or not clubs need practice matches is beside the point (looking at Port's form on Thursday - i think they definitely do!) - what matters is that the clubs and coaches want them, and are very unlikely to do away with these full scale practice matches.
Although there willbe no pre-season competition, the extra 8 rounds entail an extra 64 home and away matches (at least half of which would be in Melbourne). The MCG already struggles with its workload of matches, and i'm yet to be convinced that Colonial will do any better with its patchwork system. This is all the more reason for more than 2 grounds being maintained in Melbourne.
I think you missed my point about players salries. Although i think its certain that they would make another grab for more money if the season were extended - i still believe that they are too high in the first place. It is the clubs who have to pay players, not the AFL (who will reap most of any additional benefit from extending the season). Football is a much more physically draining game then soccer - and even they have to rotate their players in order to make it through a long season.
Also, do you really believe the AFL (and clubs) would be that much better off financially?? Because of its current rigged draw, the extra games would not be blockbusters, as these are already played twice a year. Add to this the additional travelling cost, injury treatment costs (due to a higher workload), and the fact that club members will be unwilling to cop a huge increase in membership prices (even if there are more games). Also, do you believe that channel 7 will dig deep into its pockets that much for the priviledge of covering 8 extra rounds when the Ansett Cup (essentially a TV comp.) is scrapped, the ratings rich finals system is dramatically altered, when there is the possibility of many 'dead rubbers' towards the end of the season in terms of the premiership race, and when some have argued that there is already too much football on TV?
Finally, i don't belive that the average crowds will go up that much because the prospect of the ladder leader becoming premiers. Firstly, the icreased number of injuries and perhaps the possibility of players being rested may reduce the attraction of some games by robbing them of their stars. Sure, crowds would be larger in games involving the top few clubs, but these will be in the minority, and already draw a large crowd anyway. (Maybe we could play them at Colonial and Channel 7 could pay extra to televise them to those fans locked out!) And i don't think that Your end-of-season comp will have anywhere near the prestige of the FA cup (which is older than the League and is open to all clubs in England - the fairytale succes story factor). It will be seen more like the League Cup - something to concentrate on if you don't have much chance in the real thing.
Nick

 

[Shinboners]

Dan24

The idea of deciding the AFL champion in the same way as the European soccer leagues would not work, and in fact, would probably send a handful of clubs to the wall.

You cannot compare European soccer leagues to Australia. Take England for instance. Every club has something to play for. A handful of clubs have a realistic chance of winning the title, a handful more aim to qualify for European competition (by finishing anywhere from 2nd to 5th or 6th). And a few aim to avoid relegation by finishing in the last three. With so many clubs trying to achieve different things, people will go to games.

Now, in the AFL, the only aim is to win the premiership. We don't get a prize of entering an "elite" football competition by finishing 2nd or third. Clubs don't get relegated by finishing last.

So, what will happen in your system. By about round 10, out of 16 clubs, maybe 3 or 4 will realise they have no hope of being champions. Their attendences will start to drop. By round 20, another half dozen clubs will have no hope. By round 26, maybe only two or three clubs will have any hope...but that means that out of a round of 8 games, up to 5 games could effectively be meaningless. What will happen to attendences then? And if there are no attendences, what will happen to club revenues, tv revenues, advertising revenues?

And what happens if a club has top spot tied up well before the final round? More meaningless matches.

Another thing. I love football, but a 30 game season is a little bit too much of a good thing.

Comparing your "finals" system to the FA Cup is also a red herring. The FA Cup is a totally separate competition to the Premier League. It's an important competition because of its history. In England, they also have the League Cup. It's been running for about 30 years, but no-one takes any serious note of it. Your finals system will have all the tension and drama of the League Cup rather than the FA Cup.

The unfair draw. For most of the years when the VFL was a 12 team competition, there were only 18 rounds. But does this devalue the achievements of Essendon in the 40s and 50s? Melbourne in the 60s? The Footscray and Hawthorn premiership sides? I don't think so.

For most of the last one hundred years, we've been brought up in a football culture that thrives on finals. Do you remember the joy of the Melbourne fans in '87 when they made the finals for the first time since '64? Don't you remember in '81 when Essendon made the finals for the first time in many a year? How did you feel about the achievement of making the finals? Or how about Richmond in '95....their banner read, "We're Back". There are two great feelings in football for me. The first is walking to the MCG for round one. And the other is walking to the MCG for a finals game....the feeling is magical. We don't want to lose that.

 

[Dan26]

Shinboner,

Couple of things :

First of all, if top spot was already sealed, the Home and away season would not become meaningless for the last few rounds.

You would notice, that to qualify to compete in the finals series tournament, you would have to finish in the top 8 teams. The top 4 teams would get home ground advantage.

So, for those teams that can't finish top, they would still be striving to get into the finals. Remember Melbournes 1987 season ? That can still happen. There can still be a dramatic last final round where a team makes the finals.

Look, it's not really a hell of a lot different to the way they do it now.

Two-thirds of the way through last season, it was pointless for about 12 clubs to bother aiming to win the McClelland trophy. It was too far out of their reach. But these clubs were still aiming to make the finals.

All I'm really proposing is for top spot to get more recognition. This is one of the most logical, and common-sense things to do, and from what I've heard back from Wayne Jackson, more recognition may be introduced next year.

You mention Richmonds 1995 finals baner :"We're back". That will still happen. Finals still exist my friend. The Grand Final wil still be the last day of the football year. That will keep you happy.

You can still have that "special" feeling of walking to the "G" for a finals match. They will still be called finals matches. You've got A.) The home and away season to win, then B.) the final series to win.

I don't think you have realised this.

The finals would become more exciting becasue they would be completely knockout. I am a big believer that finals are about being the best ON THE DAY. Therefore, no double chance should exist. If you lose, you are out. That's how it should be.

Yet, at the same time, I believe that if you do lose a one-off finals match, this should have nothing to do with the home and away season, which a team may have finished top.

I love finals. They are a great part of our game, and always will be. But please tell me, where is the justice if a team strives for 6 monmths to finish top, and then that is regarded as maningless. It all starts from scratch when the finals start. No, I'm sorry, but they should be seperate tournaments.

In a way, they are seperate anyway. The McClelland trophy is awarded to top spot, and the premiership Cup is awarded to the team that wins the Grand Final. But unfortunatley, one of them is given much more recognition than the other.

So, rememember, this would not change much. Great Round 22 (or Round 30 if the seaosn was extended) miracles can still happen so that a team sneaks into 8th place. All finals would be knockout. And, like I said, there would still be a lot to strive for, for those teams that can't finish top. Namely, a spot in the top 8.

A lot of English soccer clubs strive to finish in the top 3 so they can go to Europe. This is a very good comparison. You won't get to compete in the seperate 4 week finals series knockout tournament (culiminating with the Grand Final) unless you are one of the top 8 performing teams through the premiership season.

The prospect of only being allowed to enter the elite finals series (which only features the top 8 teams) would be very enticing for clubs.

Make no mistake, I'm not de-valuing finals at all. I'm just increasing the value of top spot.

The finals series would still be, and always will be a very prestigious and difficult thing to win. Similar (in a way) to soccer clubs being allowed to compete in European competition. You are only allowed to compete if you are among the best in the premiership season.

And no, it wouldn't devalue the efforts of Essendon inthe 40's, Melboiurne in the 50's. I'd like for the AFL to regard the history of the clubs as follows :

COLLINGWOOD : 14 Grand Final victorys. 17 home and away premiersships.

CARLTON : 16 Grand Final victory. 17 Home and away premeirships

ESSENDON : 15 of each

ST.KILDA : 1 GF victory. 2 Home and away premeirships (1965 and 1997)

etc etc.


You;ve got to actually READ what I say, rather than coming up with emotion charged responses, that clearly have overlooked what I say.

I am sorry, but top spot deserves more recognition. This is not an opinion. It's just the way it should be.

 

[staggy]

interesting idea mate...but by playing a fa cup style thing at the end and declaring the premiers at the end of the year...while a practical idea, actually ends up devaluing both the premiers and the team that wins the finals series. It also may have the effect of people not really being interested in the finals because the premiership has already been decided.

however, it's a bold idea and one of the best ones i've heard. While it poabbly won't work, it's not a bad try. I guess we'll have to keep trying!!

cheers
staggy

------------------
2000: year of the bomber

 

[Shinboners]

Dan24

You've just destroyed your own argument. Any system that rewards Collingwood with more premierships cannot possibly be a good one.

Cheers

p.s. Loved the bit about "emotion charged". Remove the emotion bit and you'll end up taking out a lot of the fun.


[This message has been edited by Shinboners (edited 14 March 2000).]

 

[Nick]

DAN24,
Don't i get a reply from you??
Nick

 

[Dan26]

Staggy,

Thankyou for your words.

In response, just see some of my above posts. The finals series wouldn't be devalued at all. Sure, the home and away premiers would already be decided. But that's the case already ! When the 1999 finals series started, Essendon had already won the McClelland trophy. It was over, and had been won.

My idea is simply to increase the value of the home and away season, while still retaining the finals as something to win and to aspire to in theor own right. Currently the McClelland trophy is grossly undervalued. Make no mistake it is harder to be the best over 6 months than to win a 4 week tournament.

Remember, the FA CUP is played AFTER the premiership (top spot) has been decided. Does this take away from the FA CUP ? NO !! The FA Cup is still the biggest one-off match of the season. But the FA Cup tournament as a whole is not as big as the premiership (won by finishing on top)

There is no question in my mind that the AFL finals series would work better and would be more exciting and emotion charged if it was a knockout format (as finals should be)

Teams can still play to get into the finals series, even if they can't win the home and away premiership (by finishin top), so matches would still be important through the season

 

[Dan26]

Nick,

You mention a couple of points.

First of all you say they AFL wouldn't want the GF replaced by an Ansett Cup knockout series. This is nothing like the Ansett Cup. Nothing is replacing anything. The Grand Final will always be the Grabd Final. This is the same Grand Final we have always had. The only thing is, that if you win it, you are the premiers of the 4 week finals series, as distinct from premiers of the 22 week home and away season.

Secondly, you mention the MCG would struggle with the workload. With no curtain raisers, I doubt thios would be a proble. I was also proposing in my original post that 3 ground be used in Melbourne. the 100,000 MCG, the 75,000 Waverley Park, and the 52,000 Colonial Stadium.

You also ask whether the clubs would be better off financially. I don't think there would be any difference. The yplay more games, but operating costs would exist for more gmaes per season. it works out even in the end. This is not really the point. The point is to provide the perfect playing field to decide the years best team.

There are quite a few blockbusters that get missed out from being played each year. Collingwood only play Richmond oncw this year. Essendon only play North Melbourne once. Essendon only play St.Kilda once.

etc etc

 

[Nick]

Dan24,
Just a few points.
* I did overlook that you advocated the retention of Waverley. However, i don't think the AFL could ever be persuaded to keep it (especially now that they have a $30million bill to pay for the Docklands)
* The finals series would not be the same as before. If it was a knockout comp., it would only involve 3 weeks of games. And, for example, if 1st and 8th place come from the same city (ie Melbourne), than they would effectively be on an equal footing under the knockout system.
* My argument about blockbuster games wasn't meant to show that no blockbuster games would be among the 8 extra rounds; just that on average, the extra games are not of the same crowd-pulling standard as the present line-up of matches. And by the way, Essendon v Kangaroos in Round 13 is viewed by the AFL as such a blockbuster, they have scheduled it for Colonial Stadium! Dickheads!

 

[StabPass]

Dan, you're absolutely right. That would be the most sensible and fairest way of running the competition. But who ever said sense and fairness was a factor here ?

Greed, and hidebound conservatism rule. Oh, its OK to discard a foundation member who held the unique distinction of being premiers without winning a single game in the h&a, to relocate proud clubs like South Melbourne and to take the game, nourished for so long by the grassroots supporter and hand it over, giftwrapped, to big business. To take the country's oldest competition and turn it into a pale clone of itself. But where it comes to really moving forward (at the cost of dollars realized) you're living in a fantasy world if you think the AFL will come at that.

Sorry. Another good idea sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

 

[Dan26]

True

 

[sbagman]

I like the idea Dan.

Wish I could believe it could come to fruition.

 

[WCE2000]

Dan:

The only good think i can think of your system is that the home and away draw is fair.
The problems with it are;
The most basic problem, and i can't believe no-ones mentioned it, is that there is a big chance of clashing with the Sheffield Shield. Which would mean the ACB and AFL are going to have to enter time consuming talks over their draws.
Another problem is that your 3 week final series would not be popular. Do you know why the FA Cup is popular in England? Think, its not really that hard. The FA Cup has been played for since 1872. This year is the 130th FA Cup final. The AFL are not going to create 130 years of history and tradition overnight. Do you know why the AFL/VFL final's series have been popular. Exactly the same reason as the FA Cup has been. There is over 100 years of history to the finals and the fact that the finals have decided the premiers for 100 years.
The English Soccer Fans would riot for years if the FA Cup was abandoned and a finals series was introduced. The AFL fans (excluding you) would riot because our way of doing things has been changed.

Now, what if the AFL Premiers had been decided by Round 25. What do teams aim for the last 5 rounds. To qualify for a tournament that fans absoultely hate.

You say that the competition hasn't changed because all we are doing is giving the minor premiers more recognition.
True, to a certain extent. Your changing the whole format of the competition. People dont want the Grand Final to decide the winner of a 3 week tournament. The want the GF to be the end.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/

 

[Carl]

I think most people agree we need a even draw.So it's either:
1-split the league into 2 groups,where you play your group teams twice and the other group once.(i don't like this idea)
2-Play 30 games a year
3-Make some teams merge
4-Recruit some new teams and have 2 divisions of 10 or 12 teams.

Finals have to stay and the winner of the grand final is our champion.This game gets world wide coverage and is good for the sport.But also the minor premiers should get some award.A cup and medals for the players.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by WCE2000:
Another problem is that your 3 week final series would not be popular. Do you know why the FA Cup is popular in England? Think, its not really that hard. The FA Cup has been played for since 1872. This year is the 130th FA Cup final. The AFL are not going to create 130 years of history and tradition overnight. Do you know why the AFL/VFL final's series have been popular. Exactly the same reason as the FA Cup has been. There is over 100 years of history to the finals and the fact that the finals have decided the premiers for 100 years.

No, that is total crap. Did you know that when the VFL began in 1897, they introduced a Grand Final as the "new" way of deciding the champions. Previously, in all other competitions, the teams that finished on top was the champions. Even though the Grand Final was traditionless, the public accpeted it immediately. Did you know this? THE PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNITION.

Our Grand Final is not necessarily big becasue it decideds the premiers. It is big because it is an event. It is the last match of the season; a celebration of sorts. The FA CUP, similarly, is the LAST match of the season. It is an event. It doesn't matter that it doesn't decide the whole seaosn champions. The clubs want to win it for the glory.

In the AFL, a lot of clubs would just want to win the Grand Final under my system to have the "glory" of wining that one special match on the last football day of the year.

Don't presume what the public will like/hate all the time. From my experience, I find that the PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER IS GIVEN RECOGNITION.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Poor comparison Dan. How old was Aussie Rules in 1897? About 40 years? 40 years of a confusing constantly evolving code. It was still relatively speaking in its formative years. This is not the same now. Australian Rules football has won over the fans because of the way it had developed in time. You are no longer talking about a game that cricketers play to keep fit in the off-season. You equate the educated football public of today with the supporters of 1897. The game is NOT the same. We will not accept anything!!! Absolute tripe!

If we decree that Essendon players have to play in clown suits with buckets of manure on their feet, would you accept it? No! It offends your senses! We're not bloody sheep, you know?

I don't care about the GF as an event. I don't care for the hype and celebrities singing and parades and crap. I care about the GF because of what is riding on it. The magnitude of THE GAME!!! Oh sure, the networks package it over many hours. I watch it to build my anticipation for the actual football. How are the players feeling? This is it, make or break. Which way will the ball bounce? All those little equations that you sweat on until the first bounce. Take away all the glitz and I would be just as passionate about the GF as ever.

I suspect you are rehashing old lines despite all arguments to the contrary to impress newcomers who weren't privy to this before.

It's a pretty obvious attempt at beating all our heads against a brick wall again by bringing another version back to the top.

You are a desperate man. I stand by for the usual abuse and "this is the new winner of the most stupid statement award" comeback.
------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

[This message has been edited by The Old Dark Navy's (edited 02 February 2001).]

 

[CJH]

Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!

I read Dan's opening statement and I agree with almost every point!

Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!


Those that I do not agree with are:

1. I do not want the Finals series to be diminished. By all means increase the value of the Minor Premiership to be something worth aspiring to, but it should always remain as the Minor premiership. That is, minor to the Grand Final.
2. Waverley is a dead duck. You have as much chance of playing AFL their as you do at Bruce Stadium in Canberra, and for ultmately similar motives.
   [/list=a]
   
   I have not read any of the subsequent posts - I will do so now - so sorry If I may have copied what someone else has written.
   
   BTW, this constitutes the first words I have uttered on the godforsaken minor premiership topic aside from a humble 'yes' in Grendel's ballot. Hopefully they will be the last!
   
   ------------------
   This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
Poor comparison Dan. How old was Aussie Rules in 1897? About 40 years? 40 years of a confusing constantly evolving code. It was still relatively speaking in its formative years. This is not the same now. Australian Rules football has won over the fans because of the way it had developed in time. You are no longer talking about a game that cricketers play to keep fit in the off-season. You equate the educated football public of today with the supporters of 1897. The game is NOT the same. We will not accept anything!!! Absolute tripe!

If we decree that Essendon players have to play in clown suits with buckets of manure on their feet, would you accept it? No! It offends your senses! We're not bloody sheep, you know?

The clown suit thing is a stupid thing to say. Stupid. I mean, it's not relevant at all. At least use some common-sense.

The code was 40 years old, correct. The NBA isn America is about 50 years old. 40 years is still a pretty long time.

People need to understand that if the winner of the Grand Final was "only" called Grand Final champions, that this wouldn't diminish the popularity of the Grand Final at all.

First of all, it would increase the popularity of the 176 game H&A season. Given that this comprises 95% of the season, I believe this is vitally important.

Secondly, the Grand Final has NEVER decided the years best teams anyway. We have always "called" the Grand Final winner premiers, but deep down we all knew that this doesn't mean they were the best team. The great thing about winning the Grand Final was NOT the title of premiers. The great thing was the "glory" of winning on that one special day.

Make no mistake, under my system the Grand Final would still be the biggest individual one-of match. The H&A premiership as a whole would be bigger, but as far as one-off matches go, the GF would stll be the biggest. Simlarly, in England, the FA CUP is the biggest individual one-off match, even though the league championship as a "whole" is bigger.

The Grand Final will still be do-or-die. It will still be the last match of the season, and hence, will still carry the "event-status" that it does now.

It's just so stupid right now. You fight all season to win as many games as you can, yet the premeirship is decided through a finals lottery tournament over 4 weeks, that disregards everything that happened in the previous 6 months. Apparently, that's good for football.