Imagine if the AFL structured the season this way ?

[Dan26]

Originally posted by CJH:
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!

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

Aaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!

OK, calm down. I'm scared too !

 

[jod23]

Oh Dan. Well what can i say i thought most of the things you said were quite right but PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE UP ON THE MINOR PREMIERSHIP BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

All the other things you said were great but top of the ladder is top of the ladder then the finals is what its all about. If the AFL ever changed to the shocking Premier League setup i would absolutly hate it.

And is it true that that stupid MCG contract that one finals game must be played at the MCG every weekend. If the Eagles finished top of the ladder and they made the Grand Final would the final be played at the MCG!!
Thats ludicrous!!!!!

Anyway im Kent Brockman and thats my two cents.

------------------
I can handle the fighting, its the affection i cant stand and i dont mind us talking just dont try to touch my hand.

 

[dees01]

Yes, it is true a final has to be played every week at the MCG. Remember 1999, Carlton v West Coast was played at the G despite W. Coast winning the week before and Carlton losing. History shows us the Blues went on to play in the Grand Final.

 

[Hawkforce.]

Originally posted by jod23:


And is it true that that stupid MCG contract that one finals game must be played at the MCG every weekend. If the Eagles finished top of the ladder and they made the Grand Final would the final be played at the MCG!!
Thats ludicrous!!!!!

What's your alternative Jod? Playing the GF at a ground with half the capacity?

This game is televised to the whole world for God's sake!

It's not a question of bias. The GF will be played in Sydney in the not too distant future.

Build a stadium with the capacity of the G and the Olympic stadium and West Coast will get to play GF's in WA.

 

[Dan26]

Obviously, the GF always will (and should) be played at the "G". But it's the first three weeks of the finals series, that have the problems. The 1999 Carlton-West Coast final was a perfect example. Even if this final was played in Perth (meaning NO second week final at the MCG), there still would have been SIX finals at the MCG in 1999 - 2 more than the minimum. As it was, there were SEVEN MCG finals in 1999.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Hawkforce.:
What's your alternative Jod? Playing the GF at a ground with half the capacity?

This game is televised to the whole world for God's sake!

It's not a question of bias. The GF will be played in Sydney in the not too distant future.

Build a stadium with the capacity of the G and the Olympic stadium and West Coast will get to play GF's in WA.

What's the difference? Most of the "real" supporters can't get in to the grand final anyway. Thus, the grounds like Subaico would be "perfect".

[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 03 February 2001).]

 

[jod23]

Hawkforce - pull your finger out. If WC played hard all year to cement top spot then had to travel to Melbourne and play in front of a parachoial Melbourne crowd to win is just stupid. That contract better be changed.


------------------
I can handle the fighting, its the affection i cant stand and i dont mind us talking just dont try to touch my hand.

 

[Dan26]

I agree Jod23,

Some people are so biased, it's unbelievable.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by Dan24:

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.

People need to understand this you say??? So, obviously people are having a hard time believing this. In the MANY threads you brought this up in, there have been a large percentage of people disagree with this statement. They must have trouble understanding? Yet, I thought that it was the people that are the market the AFL and the media are aiming at to make their product a success. If the people don't agree, then the GF will not be as big a success as it is now. If they all agreed with you then it may be. You are telling the doubters that if it happened they would see that the GF would be no different, however without their support, it most certainly would.

We have told you time and time again that we like the idea of the season riding on that last game of the year. The unknown element. Saying we support it merely because it is an event (hype, parades etc) and the last game of the year is not exactly accurate. It is the sense of excitement knowing what is riding on that game that creates the atmosphere and the anticipation. Others have said it. I believe it myself. You can't dismiss it as not being true for a lot of people.


------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Dan26]

ODN's

FA cup, mate.....FA Cup. Season doesn't ride on it, but it is huge. You're assuming again. You might claim I am assuming, but you are assuming too. Don't presume how things would be if this was adopted. It would be done for the betterment of the game. I wouldn't be doing it just for the sake of it !

 

[Dan26]

ODN's

What I mean is that the public want to see their team have the glory of winning on that one special day. The title of premiers is not really that important. It's the glory of winning on Grand Final day.

The FA CUP winner isn't called "premiers" (nor should they be). The FA CUP winner isn't the best. Does this affect the FA CUP? No, it doesn't. Currently, the footy public don't care if their team isn't the best. They just want the glory of winning the Grand Final. Since the word "premiers" means best, it is really stupid to call the GF winner premiers. They should just be called Grand Final winners.

If the final series was a separate tournament, the "glory" of being able to win the Grand Final will still be there......FA CUP style. It will be the ONLY match of the year, where the result of that one match determines a trophy. i.e the winner of the GF would be "finals series" champions.

Making the GF override the 22 weeks before hand does nothing to enhance the game. It just serves to make the H&A season a waste of time. The most important thing about GF day, is the "glory" and "event status" that it carries. The fact that the winner is called "premiers' is not what teams play for. They play for the glory of winning the Grand Final........similar to winning the FA CUP. It does NOT NEED to override the whole season and decide the whole season champions. It doesn't need to do this to be big. It is the biggest match of the year anyway......and always will be. Always.

 

[Hawkforce.]

Originally posted by jod23:
Hawkforce - pull your finger out. If WC played hard all year to cement top spot then had to travel to Melbourne and play in front of a parachoial Melbourne crowd to win is just stupid. That contract better be changed.

I am not commenting on the fairness of it Jod. The reality is that you won't get a home Grandfinal until the WA Government build a stadium worthy of hosting it.

Do that and I, for one, would be happy to see West Coast get a home Grandfinal.

In my opinion the Grand Final has ALREADY been played at Subi before.

Remember 1992?

 

[jod23]

HAwkforce - always about the money never about the game.

 

[raftersmob]

The revenue raised in all finals match per round is equal.If a match is played at the Gabba its dearer than the G.
So if 2 interstate teams made a GF.
It would be better for the supporters of those 2 clubs to have the game played interstate. The AFL still generates the same amount of money for that game.
Works for me.
AS long as the AFL dont lose money, so we the clubs dont have our dividend decreased, whats the harm.
The MCG lease needs to be re negotiated fast.
Cause when the day comes that 2 interstate teams make a GF or prelim, the 2 interstate teams will undoubtedly take legal action.Thats will cost all clubs .
Also I would prefer to watch my nighty Lions play the Swans in Sydney or Brisbane .Where the crowd would be awesome, instaed of in Melbourne, where the crowd would be mostly be hangers on types, not real supporters of my team.

 

[gocatsgo]

First off, a few technical notes.

Dan24, Scrap Optus Oval, and retain Waverley for 10 Victorian teams along with Colonial and the MCG - I think you might have forgotten about another ground in Victoria - What would you do with that one?

Also, the finals HAVE to stay, simple as that. It's the Australian way. Do you think the cricket team are happy that they have to play finals this week? I seriously doubt it. 8 wins in a row, and their opponents have won 3! Suddenly if they lose 2 of the next 3 games, they lose the competition, you think that's fair? but it's the way it's always been, it what people look forward to every year.

Jod23, Since when have you lot in Perth worried about a home Grand Final? The fact remains that in 1991 you were given a home final and blew it, 1992 and 1994 you were given home Finals and won, and hence won the Premierships - remember 1994, a 2 point win over the 8th team - COLLINGWOOD - at home, a week off and a home Preliminary Final, what more do you want? And in the Grand Finals, 1991 you were playing against the home team - no debate, 1992 and 1994 you were playing aginst a home crowd, but not on the oppositions home ground. Anyway, If I were you, I wouldn't be worrying about a home final in the next few years, I wouldn't even be worrying about finals.

Ok, now to the topic.

A 30 week season sounds good, but personally I think a bit long, I'd much prefer to a see either a 26 week competition with 14 teams - merge a few clubs - or 2 divisions of 8.

Personally, I think the latter could be a bit of fun. You could televise the draw every year, and make it a bit like a lottery, and the Grand Final could be like a superbowl.

For example

The top 8 from the previous year in one barrel, the bottom 8 in a different barrel. Get one of the legends of the game to make the draw.

Barrel 1 - Essendon, Melbourne, Carlton, North Melbourne, Brisbane, Hawthorn, Geelong, Bulldogs.

Barrel 2 - Richmond, Sydney, Adelaide, Fremantle, West Coast, Port Power, Collingwood, StKilda.

You draw 4 teams from Barrel 1, eg Essendon, Carlton, North, Geelong, 4 from Barrel 2, ie Richmond, Port, West Coast, StKilda. They form division 1, the other 8 teams form division 2.

From here, the draw can be randomly done by computer as the teams know who they will play twice and who they will play only once. Thus leaving 16 teams and a 22 week season.

Finals are played between the top four sides of each division, similar to the old final 4 system.

eg Qualifying Final 1 v 2 - winner to Division Final loser to Semi - week 1

Elimination Final 3 v 4 - Loser eliminated, winner to semi final - week 1

Semi Final - Loser Qual V Winner Elim - Loser eliminated, winner to Division Final - week 2

Division Final - Winner Qual V Winner Semi, winner to championship game. - week 3

The beauty of this system is that every year, the draw will change so you are not locked in with the same 8 teams.

 

[Dan26]

 

[RogerC]

Dan24, your recommendations are, on the whole, pointless. I leave the question of how to structure the season alone for the moment, but you may as well admit now that the FA Cup comparison is no comparison at all. The FA Cup comprises the entire Football Association, and the minor leagues as well. For each round, the names are drawn from a hat, so it would be possible, for instance, for Manchester United and Arsenal to meet in Round 3, when Divisions I an II are introduced. Which would be like Essendon and Carlton meeting in the first round of the finals last year.

One of the considerable charms of the FA Cup is that a minor league team can make a fairy tale run through to the semis or whatever. It is a massive competition with the capacity for all kinds of upsets.

What you propose, however, is a finals series under another name. Or under the same name. I'm not clear here on exactly what you are proposing. But it has no resemblance to the FA Cup. To put it another way: in the FA Cup, all teams start from scratch - it is a new competition, conducted concurrently to the premiership season. Under your proposal, the teams that finish 1-8 in one competition play off to decide the winner of a separate competition.
Am I right?

Let's assume for a moment that that is your proposition. OK. Then we have our premiers decided BEFORE the finals. The finals don't decide the premiers. They decide the winners of the finals. By my thinking, these finals are a separate competition. If they come to be less important to the clubs than the home and away season, we are one step away from calls from the clubs for the abolition of the finals series (on the time honoured argument of reducing wear and tear on the players).

If, on the other hand, they end up being more important to the clubs than the home and away season, what we have is the same situation as now, with a crappier finals system. Honestly, 1 vs 8 in a knock out final. Who's going to buy that? If , for example, Hawthorn beat Essendon in the first final last year (not that they would have), and knocked Essendon out, it would have been a farce. People would have said, "What's the point?" I know I would have.

You might have sat back and smiled and said, "It doesn't matter, Essendon are the premiers anyway." Everyone else would have said, "This system is stupid."

It is possible that the home and away season and the finals will carry equal weight. Unlikely, but possible. Even if it did happen, though, the entire season would be schizophrenic. We stop at round 22/30, cheer our winners, and then start all over again. I just don't think fans will accept that idea. (this is usually the point at which you bring up the FA Cup comparison, so just remember there is no comparison - separate competitions, remember?)

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by RogerC:
Honestly, 1 vs 8 in a knock out final. Who's going to buy that? If , for example, Hawthorn beat Essendon in the first final last year (not that they would have), and knocked Essendon out, it would have been a farce. People would have said, "What's the point?" I know I would have.

No, no, no. Listen here.

Currently, under the CURRENT system, the top of the ladder team can be eliminated after ONE (yes one) loss in the preliminary final. The top team can also be eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final itself. In 1999, Essendon finished on top, but were eliminated after one loss.

So, if the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF, or the Grand Final NOW, then why can't they be eliminated after one loss in the first week too? Same diff. SEE ?? See what I mean. Same diff.

Finals are NOT about getting second chances, they are about performing on the day. Having said that, if you lose a knockout final, you should still be called premeirs if you finished on top. The 8 team knockout finals series tournament should be a "separate" tournament encompassing the best 8 teams in the country.

Oh, by the way, do you conisder it a face that Essendon was eliminated in 1999 after one loss? You said if ist lost to the 8th placed team in my tournament, you would consider it a farce. As far as I'm concerned, finals are about performing "ON THE DAY". If you lose.....bad luck. The teams would be seeded, so that 1st plays 8th etc etc. This means 1st and 2nd will meet in the GF if they keep on winning.

GOCATSGO

Where in the bloody hell did I say I wanted to get rid of finals? Please explain. I'm confused.

All I want is for the winner of the "finals" to be called "finals series premiers". They should NOT be called Whole season champs. Why should your performance in one match override and deem irrelevant 22 weeks of hard work? What's the point of playing?

 

[RogerC]

I can see I'm going to have to spell it out for you.

In 1999, Essendon were beaten by Carlton in the PRELIMINARY FINAL. They weren't (and couldn't be) knocked out in the FIRST week by the EIGHTH placed team. That's the point I was making when I used the Hawthorn vs Essendon example. See the difference between my "First Week" and your "One Week"? You and I are arguing different points.

I think people like the current finals system. Your proposal is merely a version of the Ansett Cup format (before the new round robin stuff), except that the teams are seeded, more or less, and only half of them compete. If, for example, the most important title was Premiers (regardless of the finals that follow the announcement of the Premiers), then there would have been little incentive for Essendon to compete in the finals series in 1999. They've done their work, they've won their prize. Anything that follows is just icing on the cake. What would probably happen, IMHO, is that the competing teams would immediately focus on pre-season, rest their best players to save them from injury, and treat the finals as a post season Ansett Cup. Perhaps not immediately, but inevitably. No matter what prestige is supposed to be attached to it.

No matter what spin you put on it, your proposal is to devalue the current finals system. You've already said that finals should be knockout games - not about second chances. Well, taking away the double chance from teams 1-4 takes away some of the advantage of finishing in the top 4. What do they have left? Home ground advantage, if they are lucky enough to be playing an interstate side. If not, no advantage. It would certainly be more spartan. It could also be a raffle.

Right now, in the current finals system, teams 1 and 2 have an advantage over teams 3 and 4, who in turn have an advantage over teams 5 and 6, etc. What with double chances thrown in, etc. It is a vast improvement on the previous final 8 system.
Under yours, teams 1 and 2 don't necessarily have any advantage - depends who they're playing and where. It reduces the finals to a knockout comp. I just worry that it wouldn't be taken as seriously by the clubs as the current finals are.

And yes, I do think it was a farce that Essendon were beaten by Carlton in the preliminary final in 1999. It was a farcical effort by an arrogant, overconfident team. 2000 shows what you can do if you keep your minds on the job.

 

[jod23]

Gocatsgo - you think Geelong are in the hunt this year or any other for that matter? WCE might not be in the picture for a few years but im sorry to tell you neither will Geelong.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by Dan24:
No, no, no. Listen here.

Currently, under the CURRENT system, the top of the ladder team can be eliminated after ONE (yes one) loss in the preliminary final. The top team can also be eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final itself. In 1999, Essendon finished on top, but were eliminated after one loss.B]

Yep this is what every Dim24 post comes back to - the Dons loss in 99 to the Blues. The psychological damage it has done is incredible. We can't take any of the Dim's suggestions seriously because it all comes back to that outrageous, unfair loss in 99. It's simple Dan - that game would have been like the final game of the premier league in a season where that game made the difference between first and second...(ie the year Blackburn got over the line) and the Dons choked.

They made up for it the following year but it obviously still hurts you.

I empathise with you - I was pretty set on the AFL introducing a rule that prevented Geelong from contesting GF's after they beat NM in 94 (in not dissimilar fashion to McEsadun losing in 99) and then got murdered (again) in a GF. I've been able to move on and enjoy life again - you should too Daniel.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by RogerC:
If, for example, the most important title was Premiers (regardless of the finals that follow the announcement of the Premiers), then there would have been little incentive for Essendon to compete in the finals series in 1999. They've done their work, they've won their prize. Anything that follows is just icing on the cake. What would probably happen, IMHO, is that the competing teams would immediately focus on pre-season, rest their best players to save them from injury, and treat the finals as a post season Ansett Cup. Perhaps not immediately, but inevitably. No matter what prestige is supposed to be attached to it.

What a load of rubbish. I suppose you think the teams left in the FA CUP aren't going to give 100% because they can't finish on top and win the premiership.

The Grand Final will be HUGE. It doesn't NEED to decide the premeirship to be big. It is an event. It is the LAST match of the season. The winner of the FA CUP is not the premiers, they are simply called "FA CUP Champions". Does this detract from it? NO ! It doesn't detract from it, because the FA CUP is an event. It is the LAST match of the season......a celebration of sorts.

Nothing will ever compare to the "glory" of winning that one-off FA CUP, or "Grand Final match" on the last Saturday in September. The "glory" of that one special day will always be there. Even if a team has finished on top and won the premeirship, I can assure you, they - and every other team for that matter - would LOVE to do the "double" and add a Grand Final victory as the lasting memory of the season.

The Grand Final will still be the only match where a "one-off" match will decide a trophy. This is not some pre-seaosn competiton, this is part of the actual seaosn. It is an ELITE knockout cup, played between the best 8 teams in the country, concluding with the biggest day on the football calendar.

Jesus, they way you speak, you probably reckon ManU would only field a half-strengthh team in the FA CUP final if they made it (I know they've been eliminated), because they have already wrapped up top spot.

I can assure you, the Gramd Final will always be huge. Even nowadays, the Grand Final only decided the premier in name only. No only actually beleivesthat the GF is always the best (i.e premier) team, by definition. Teams don't want to win the GF for the title of premiers. They wnt to wion the GF for the "glory" of victoy on that one special day. This is why the GF won't lack anything. And it's also why the FA CUP doesn't lack anything either, even though the real premiership has already been decided.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Originally posted by Dan24:
Even nowadays, the Grand Final only decided the premier in name only.

Then don't get so worked up about it all!

I think you might be in an army of one that actually believes that the GF has such little significance.

Wallis takes on Brown and...he's GONE!!!!!!!

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by RogerC:


In 1999, Essendon were beaten by Carlton in the PRELIMINARY FINAL. They weren't (and couldn't be) knocked out in the FIRST week by the EIGHTH placed team. That's the point I was making when I used the Hawthorn vs Essendon example. See the difference between my "First Week" and your "One Week"? You and I are arguing different points.

My point is, the top team (whoever it happens to be) can be eliminated after ONE loss NOW, under the currentsystem. The top team ONLY gets a double chance if they LOSE in the first week. If they do the good thing and win then they get put into a knockout preliminary final.

There should be no double chances. It's silly. North got a second chance in 2000, yet if top placed Essendon lost the PF or the GF, they would have been eliminated. Treat all 8 teams eqiually, and seed them so that 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5.

7 of the 9 finals are knockout anyway. Did you know this? Might as well make the all knockout over 7 matches.

It still comes back to the point : Currently, if the top team can be elimianted after one loss in the 3rd and 4th weeks, then why can;t they be eliminated after one loss in the first week too ? I mean, they can be eliminated after one loss anyway, right? So, what difference does it make if the one loss that eliminated them is in the 1st week, or the 3rd week (or the 4th week)

Finals are NOT about getting second chances. They are about performing on the day. Giving teams a second chance just devalues the finals system.

 

[The invisible mullet]

You're right Dan - the top team can be knocked out with just one loss whether it be the prelim final or the GF - but if that side is the truly dominant side in the competition they won't. Quit sooking about 99 now - the Dons weren't the best side in 99 - they were the 3rd or 4th best.