My idea for an 18 team competition

[nick1408]

I still feel the easiest and fairest way is to copy the Scottish Premier League system. They have 12 teams and split the table into groups of six part way through the season for the final games of the season.

For the AFL I see the system working as such:

Everyone plays eachother once (17 games). After this, the ladder is split into three groups of six. They then play a further five games against the teams in their group of six to make up the 22 games. A team cannot go higher or lower than their group of six in ladder position. The top six will play for the double-chance top four positions, the middle six play for the last two finals positions and the bottom six play for draft picks with the top position of the bottom six (13th) getting pick one and 18th getting pick six. The last bit here would stop tanking and really this model should keep all games competitive (i.e. no tanking). I hate the idea of a lottery as it still gives the top team achance to get the #1 pick. With this mini-ladder it makes teams win the right. You could even say that only the last five games count towards the draft ladder for group three but at least make the teasm earn it.

Disadvantages are that only 17 games are locked in for the first 17 weeks then the last five after the 17th game. A potential loss of marquee games as you will no longer be able to program Collingwood-Carlton twice. This may (or will?) be enough for the AFL to dismiss it straight out I feel.

To me, this model is the fairest to keep 22 games, a top 8 and make all 22 games mean something for the season. Others may see some things in it I cannot so feel free to pick apart. I am not after alternate comps, just to discuss the merit of this setup with the draw and drafting situation.

 

[hcd199]

I still feel the easiest and fairest way is to copy the Scottish Premier League system. They have 12 teams and split the table into groups of six part way through the season for the final games of the season.

For the AFL I see the system working as such:

Everyone plays eachother once (17 games). After this, the ladder is split into three groups of six. They then play a further five games against the teams in their group of six to make up the 22 games. A team cannot go higher or lower than their group of six in ladder position. The top six will play for the double-chance top four positions, the middle six play for the last two finals positions and the bottom six play for draft picks with the top position of the bottom six (13th) getting pick one and 18th getting pick six. The last bit here would stop tanking and really this model should keep all games competitive (i.e. no tanking). I hate the idea of a lottery as it still gives the top team achance to get the #1 pick. With this mini-ladder it makes teams win the right. You could even say that only the last five games count towards the draft ladder for group three but at least make the teasm earn it.

Disadvantages are that only 17 games are locked in for the first 17 weeks then the last five after the 17th game. A potential loss of marquee games as you will no longer be able to program Collingwood-Carlton twice. This may (or will?) be enough for the AFL to dismiss it straight out I feel.

To me, this model is the fairest to keep 22 games, a top 8 and make all 22 games mean something for the season. Others may see some things in it I cannot so feel free to pick apart. I am not after alternate comps, just to discuss the merit of this setup with the draw and drafting situation.

Don't like this system - has its merits, most of which you've outlined, but a couple of drawbacks.

For starters, presumably at the end of 17 rounds, half the teams will have had 8 home games, and others 9. When they split into groups, what if too many of them in one group have had 9 home games, or only 8? The home game spread can't be maintained at 11 each under this system.

The second question is why the team in 7th can't go any higher than the team in 6th, when there could be as little as percentage between them (especially if 7th has had less home games than 6th): likewise with 12th/13th - there could be little between them, but one has been eliminated from any meaningful contention whilst the other hasn't.

Another issue is "playing for draft picks". The very reason the draft is in reverse order to the finished ladder is so that the teams that are struggling the most get the first opportunity to select the players they feel would help. If we assume Port Adelaide maintain their current level of ability next year, and this was implemented, they would be highly unlikely to get a reasonable pick, whereas whoever finished 13th after 17 rounds, a team who potentially just missed out on 12th, gets a strong chance at pick #1. It might eliminate tanking, but it also eliminates the point of the order of the draft in the first place - to aid the struggling before the thriving.

Also, one thing isn't clear - when it goes to the three groups after 17 rounds, do the teams start anew? That is, do 7th and 12th both have an equal chance of finishing in the top eight, or are the wins from the previous seven rounds as they were before? There are detractions to either idea, imo.

1 - If they don't reset the win count, then seventh could potentially end the season with more wins that 6th, but still be consigned to seventh. Teams are restricted to their groups just because, almost: they could have a superior win ratio by season's end, but not be able to improve. Tanking isn't completely eliminated: if a team is in 12th, and knows they're too far behind 8th to make it, it might appeal to them to drop a couple of games to be the strongest team competing for a top draft pick.
Alternatively:
2 - If they do reset the win count, then the first seventeen rounds are almost meaningless - all they exist for is to separate teams into their three groups. Teams who finish 13th are pushed into the lowest group when they could have been 12th and had the same chance as 7th to make the eight. 7th could've been assured a finals spot, and be competing for top four.

In short, it doesn't really work. The current system, flawed as it is, at least maintains the home-and-away season as one distinct group of matches, each of which contributes equally to ladder position. Each match has the same importance.

 

[nick1408]

I will go over a few points but you do raise some very good points.

- You would need to count the first 17 rounds into the equation otherwise as you said it is pointless playing the first 17 games

- The reason I went with the option of playing for draft picks was purely to eliminate tanking. In this system it is the easiest way to do it and as I said I don't like/trust a lottery to be effective. At the end of the day the AFL will need to keep some sort of ability to 'give out' a priority pick if a club deserves it, not if they win it by losing games.

- The reason I chose to not let the teams out of thier group of six was I felt it was unfair on the top group to possibly fall out of finals contention simply because they have been the best all year. It is a mirror of what the SPL does and often they have teams that finish with higher points than teams above them. This is due to the lower teams having easier games against poorer teams. To take this year's ladder into consideration as of now a team like St Kilda gets Geelong, Carlton, Collingwood, West Coast and Hawthorn. All very tough games coming into finals. On the other hand Sydney gets both Melbourne and North Melbourne. With this it will be important to have good wins all year to have a nice percentage to gaurantee finals.

- As for 8/9 home games; you would need to give teams the opposite to the first year. i.e. in year one team A gets 8 home games, in year 2 they get 9. The AFL may need to look at splitting all gates 50/50 but that is a debate for another area as I feel the big clubs like Collingwood would be very dirty while Port Adelaide would be very happy. I do see what you are saying about the 11/11 split though. the AFL may need to compensate teams who miss out on home games possibly or have only the final five games as 50/50 gates.

I must say, I didn't think of any of what you said so cheers for pointing it out.

 

[____]

For the bit after 17 rounds, say Brisbane Lions, Sydney, Fremantle, West Coast, Geelong and Bulldogs finish Top 6 and Bulldogs hosted Lions in the first 17 rounds bit, it needs to be reversed, Lions hosting Bulldogs sometime in those last 5 rounds, even if the Bulldogs have a higher ladder position. That way regardless of ladder position every team has equal home/away games (excluding finals). I like your idea.

 

[nick1408]

Agreed. You shouldn't be able to play the same team twice at home/away. It does allow the option of playing five away games for your last five rounds but I think it is highly unlikely.

You could also set it up so the teams in the top group play on Friday night and Saturday, second group plays Saturday and third group gets Sunday all to themselves. No bitching about 5-6 day breaks then.

I guess every system has it's ups and downs but it is trying to find the happy balance where the good outweighs the bad by heaps.

 

[Larry the Liquidator]

Op, I like your idea. It is probably the fairest way for 18 teams to play 22 games. hcd199 made the point that it would be tough on a team finishing 13th by percentage only. IMO that's no different to a team which finishes 9th on percentage only after round 22. I would also add, what about if team 13 is on a roll, has won its last 7 games after starting poorly, and has its sights firmly set on 8th spot with 5 games to go? I suppose all the clubs would then have to see the premiership season in 3 stages. Stage 1: 17 home and away matches. If you finish 13th after round 17, so be it. Stage 2: 5 group games where teams jostle for higher positions within the group. Stage 3: finals.

I agree that premiership points and percentage acquired in rounds 1-17 must be carried over into the group stage.

I do agree with hcd that you can't reward the team which finishes top in group 3 with the first draft pick, it's only going to strengthen the already stronger team and weaken the already weaker team. I see your point about it eliminating tanking by giving them incentive to win their group 3 games, but I don't think it's in the best interests of the AFL as a whole. Maybe keep the the priority pick process the way it is and provide some other reward for winning your group games. Maybe give the top three teams a guaranteed home game against teams 4, 5 and 6 the following season. But this would compromise the draw the following season, so there's no easy fix to the tanking matter.

 

[Lolaser]

I like this idea, except for the way the 1st round draft picks are assigned. I think that if you finish last in the overall competition you should get the first draft pick (however there should be NO priority picks). Then you still have the 3 groups of 6, however they are playing for finals and order of the second round draft picks. The second round would go something like this.

1st: 13th
2nd: 14th
3rd: 15th
4th: 16th
5th: 17th
6th: 18th
7th: 9th
8th: 10th
9th: 11th
10th: 12th
11th: 8th
12th: 7th
13th: 6th
14th: 5th
15th: 4th
16th: 3rd
17th: 2nd
18th: 1st

This way teams that miss out on finals get draft picks however tanking may be avoided due to the desire of wanting a good second pick as well.

 

[The_Reaper]

I think that all this talk about adopting the SPL is amusing, because the SPL is itself considering a competition restructure.

 

[scooter600x]

This should be brought in for 2012

Better idea than anything the AFL could come up with.


I does raise the spectre of priority picks, however.

If a team is really bad and finishes last they get pick 6. How do they ever get better?

I am dead against priority picks but they might be needed in this format, but certainly not after just one bad year.


Unless you get really radical and drop the bottom 6 off after round 17! I know I want this year to end!

 

[nick1408]

At the end of the day if the drafting is not a workable option it doesn't need to be used. It was only an option to stop tanking.

 

[JM71]

Op, I like your idea. It is probably the fairest way for 18 teams to play 22 games. hcd199 made the point that it would be tough on a team finishing 13th by percentage only. IMO that's no different to a team which finishes 9th on percentage only after round 22.

The difference being that one restriction on finishing position is once the regular season is completed, as opposed to a mystical restriction which would prevent a team from rising up the ladder despite potentially being better than a team in a higher group and despite the team not having completed all their matches yet.

 

[Blue and Silver]

I've been working on a system like this. My major difference is your ladder position after 17 rounds determines who plays home and away for the rest of the fixture, which at the very least is financial incentive. Except for the last group with the three teams that finish higher ending up with 3 home games vs 2 home games for the other three.

Basically the finals series would work out like this (based on current ladder, assuming GWS would be 18th):

Week 18

Collingwood vs St Kilda
Geelong vs West Coast
Hawthorn vs Carlton
Essendon vs Western Bulldogs
Sydney vs Melbourne
Fremantle vs North Melbourne
Richmond vs Port Adelaide
Gold Coast vs Adelaide
Brisbane vs Greater Western Sydney

Week 19
Collingwood vs West Coast
Geelong vs Carlton
Hawthorn vs St Kilda
Essendon vs Melbourne
Sydney vs North Melbourne
Fremantle vs Western Bulldogs
Adelaide vs Port Adelaide
Greater Western Sydney vs Gold Coast
Brisbane vs Richmond

Week 20
Collingwood vs Hawthorn
Geelong vs St Kilda
Carlton vs West Coast
Essendon vs Fremantle
Sydney vs Western Bulldogs
North Melbourne vs Melbourne
Richmond vs Gold Coast
Greater Western Sydney vs Adelaide
Port Adelaide vs Brisbane

Week 21
Collingwood vs Carlton
Geelong vs Hawthorn
West Coast vs St Kilda
Essendon vs North Melbourne
Sydney vs Fremantle
Melbourne vs Western Bulldogs
Richmond vs Greater Western Sydney
Gold Coast vs Port Adelaide
Adelaide vs Brisbane

Week 22
Collingwood vs Geelong
Hawthorn vs West Coast
Carlton vs St Kilda
Essendon vs Sydney
Fremantle vs Melbourne
North Melbourne vs Western Bulldogs
Port Adelaide vs Greater Western Sydney
Adelaide vs Richmond
Brisbane vs Gold Coast

Draft compo for the last group works like this:

The draft order for the last group remains the same, however they participate in an extra draft round whose order is decided by the outcome of the last 5 games.

So hypothetically the draft would look like this

Pick 18 - 1st
Pick 19 - 1st in last group
Pick 20 - 2nd in last group
Pick 21 - 3rd in last group
Pick 22 - 4th in last group
Pick 23 - 5th in last group
Pick 24 - 6th in last group
Pick 25 - 18th as of Round 17


Given that 18th (at the end of round 17) could of had any of the picks in that round, it gives them an incentive to try in the last 5 games instead of putting the cue in the rack