New system for AFL fixtures?

[NetworkNerd]

The weighted fixture could be altered slightly. 1-6, 7-12, 13-18. You play four teams from your group + one rival club. This works out easily for next seasons fixture with the current ladder.

1. Geelong. Swap Brisbane with Hawthorn.
2. Melbourne. Swap Fremantle with Richmond.
3. Sydney. Swap Collingwood with GWS.
4. Collingwood. Swap Sydney with Carlton.
5. Fremantle. Swap Melbourne with West Coast.
6. Brisbane. Swap Geelong with Gold Coast.
7. Richmond. Swap Gold Coast with Melbourne.
8. Western Bulldogs. Swap Port Adelaide with Essendon.
9. Carlton. Swap St Kilda with Collingwood.
10. St Kilda. Swap Carlton with North.
11. Port Adelaide. Swap Western Bulldogs with Adelaide.
12. Gold Coast. Swap Richmond with Brisbane.
13. Hawthorn. Swap North with Geelong.
14. Adelaide. Swap West Coast with Port.
15. Essendon. Swap GWS with Western Bulldogs.
16. GWS. Swap Essendon with Sydney.
17. West Coast. Swap Adelaide with Freo.
18. North. Swap Hawthorn with St Kilda.

This. Been saying this exact thing for years too.

People may sook that the 7th and 13th sides have a good base to shoot up the ladder the following year... but its about as fair as you get

 

[HairyO]

After having a good first 18 rounds and making the top 6 you get rewarded by being forced to play other too 6 teams. Seems pretty bullshit to me and it would encourage teams to tank to get an easy draw for last 5 rounds.

Yep, aim to be 7th if you can. Or if 12th in R17, see if you can finish 13th in R18, then get 5 easy games to push for the top 8.

 

[Underarm]

The weighted fixture could be altered slightly. 1-6, 7-12, 13-18. You play four teams from your group + one rival club. This works out easily for next seasons fixture with the current ladder.

1. Geelong. Swap Brisbane with Hawthorn.
2. Melbourne. Swap Fremantle with Richmond.
3. Sydney. Swap Collingwood with GWS.
4. Collingwood. Swap Sydney with Carlton.
5. Fremantle. Swap Melbourne with West Coast.
6. Brisbane. Swap Geelong with Gold Coast.
7. Richmond. Swap Gold Coast with Melbourne.
8. Western Bulldogs. Swap Port Adelaide with Essendon.
9. Carlton. Swap St Kilda with Collingwood.
10. St Kilda. Swap Carlton with North.
11. Port Adelaide. Swap Western Bulldogs with Adelaide.
12. Gold Coast. Swap Richmond with Brisbane.
13. Hawthorn. Swap North with Geelong.
14. Adelaide. Swap West Coast with Port.
15. Essendon. Swap GWS with Western Bulldogs.
16. GWS. Swap Essendon with Sydney.
17. West Coast. Swap Adelaide with Freo.
18. North. Swap Hawthorn with St Kilda.

How could this possibly be better than at least trying to spread it around?

 

[JohnZ]

Interested in any comments.

By playing 17 games and then 5, you will end up with some teams playing 12 home games and others 10. Some 11. That alone demolishes the idea

 

[JohnZ]

Yep, aim to be 7th if you can. Or if 12th in R17, see if you can finish 13th in R18, then get 5 easy games to push for the top 8.

Missing the point here. Once you qualify for top 6, you can’t finish below 6th. So 13th could only finish as high as 13

 

[Dazzler9]

17-5 has a lot of merit. It seems clear that some posters don't understand quite how it works.

The concern around home games is valid. As is the concern that the top 6 play each other immediately before finals and then do it all over again. But otherwise, it's an elegant solution to an inequitable fixture.

 

[Dazzler9]

Yep, aim to be 7th if you can. Or if 12th in R17, see if you can finish 13th in R18, then get 5 easy games to push for the top 8.

That's not how it works mate. If you finish outside the top 6 after R 18, you're locked out of the top 6.

 

[HairyO]

Missing the point here. Once you qualify for top 6, you can’t finish below 6th. So 13th could only finish as high as 13

Why both even having those games?

6th place could lose all 5 games and still be 6th. 13th could win all 5 but still only be 13th.

Sound simply terrible.

 

[Kwality]

How could this possibly be better than at least trying to spread it around?

What is it you want spread around ?

 

[JohnZ]

Why both even having those games?

6th place could lose all 5 games and still be 6th. 13th could win all 5 but still only be 13th.

Sound simply terrible.

I agree, but people always get that confused. Cant argue against a system you don’t understand

 

[Dazzler9]

Why both even having those games?

6th place could lose all 5 games and still be 6th. 13th could win all 5 but still only be 13th.

Sound simply terrible.

The theory behind it is that after 17 rounds, everyone's played each other once, so that's as fair as it gets (without having 34 rounds). However the AFL consists of 22 rounds, so to keep things fair, you're locked into your block of 6.

The top 6 jockey for top 4 positions, the middle 6 battle it out for the last two finals spots, and the bottom 6...ummm... play for draft picks or something.

Yes, the 7th team could get more wins than the 6th placed teams, but that is because they have an easier draw between rounds 18 and 22.

It works quite well and is a nice theory. But it's too much for the footy public to handle.

 

[Joose]

Bring in Tasmania and another team in Perth.
Makes 20.
Each team plays each other once.
19 game season.
Top 10 play off in an extended 5 week finals.

Problemo solved.

 

[Coolangatta]

Bring in Tasmania and another team in Canberra.
Makes 20.
Each team plays each other once plus one rival club.
20 game season.
Top 10 play off in an extended 5 week finals.

Problemo solved.

 

[Underarm]

What is it you want spread around ?

the tough/soft fixtures.

 

[HairyO]

The theory behind it is that after 17 rounds, everyone's played each other once, so that's as fair as it gets (without having 34 rounds). However the AFL consists of 22 rounds, so to keep things fair, you're locked into your block of 6.

The top 6 jockey for top 4 positions, the middle 6 battle it out for the last two finals spots, and the bottom 6...ummm... play for draft picks or something.

Yes, the 7th team could get more wins than the 6th placed teams, but that is because they have an easier draw between rounds 18 and 22.

It works quite well and is a nice theory. But it's too much for the footy public to handle.

So the bottom 6 with zero chance all tank 5 games because the only thing to play for is pick 1 in the draft.

In this system Carlton would be 6th. In the real world they are 9th.

The real world is better than this bad fantasy.

 

[Dazzler9]

So the bottom 6 with zero chance all tank 5 games because the only thing to play for is pick 1 in the draft.

No. You could have it so that whoever finishes higher gets the better draft picks. Or something.

In this system Carlton would be 6th. In the real world they are 9th.

Well after 17 rounds, where everybody played everybody once, you could argue that that is fair enough. Maybe they have just missed out on finals because they had three of their 5 double-up matches against top 8 sides?


I'm not wedded to this 17-5 concept, but it certainly has a lot of merit. As long as one can understand the reasoning, and how it works.

 

[Son_Of_God29]

By playing 17 games and then 5, you will end up with some teams playing 12 home games and others 10. Some 11. That alone demolishes the idea

or if your Geelong Less than that at your HOME Ground

 

[Hoges64]

About eight years ago I came up with an idea for AFL fixtures, which I emailed to Gerard Whately who was then at the ABC, but never heard anything back. I was thinking about it again and thought maybe this is a good place to raise it.

It's a way to give all teams something to play for towards the end of the season, and also create better quality matches leading into the finals.

Rounds 1 to 18 involve each team playing every other team, plus one bye per team. After round 18, the top six, middle six and bottom six would be set in stone, although not the positions within each set of six.

Maybe at that point you have the second bye for each team, rather than after round 23? Maybe you launch the AFLW season then? Whatever.

Then during rounds 19 to 23, each set of six teams play against each other. The top six are trying to get double chances and home finals. The middle six are competing for the final two positions in the eight, and the bottom six are competing for a draft advantage of some kind. Maybe you don't just give the top draft pick to the bottom team, but to the best performing team in the bottom six. Or maybe an additional second or third round pick to the best performing bottom six team. Something. I'm not sure how it would look, but something.

This would mean that in the last month before finals, all games should theoretically be between relatively evenly matched sides, and many would have a direct bearing on the finals. For example, you wouldn't have Geelong playing West Coast at Kardinia Park in round 23, as is happening this week.

Another advantage is that it eliminates the unfairness of the current draw. The Cats play both West Coast and North twice this season, which gives them a huge leg-up.

Interested in any comments.

Nope.

 

[FRUMPY]

About eight years ago I came up with an idea for AFL fixtures, which I emailed to Gerard Whately who was then at the ABC, but never heard anything back. I was thinking about it again and thought maybe this is a good place to raise it.

It's a way to give all teams something to play for towards the end of the season, and also create better quality matches leading into the finals.

Rounds 1 to 18 involve each team playing every other team, plus one bye per team. After round 18, the top six, middle six and bottom six would be set in stone, although not the positions within each set of six.

Maybe at that point you have the second bye for each team, rather than after round 23? Maybe you launch the AFLW season then? Whatever.

Then during rounds 19 to 23, each set of six teams play against each other. The top six are trying to get double chances and home finals. The middle six are competing for the final two positions in the eight, and the bottom six are competing for a draft advantage of some kind. Maybe you don't just give the top draft pick to the bottom team, but to the best performing team in the bottom six. Or maybe an additional second or third round pick to the best performing bottom six team. Something. I'm not sure how it would look, but something.

This would mean that in the last month before finals, all games should theoretically be between relatively evenly matched sides, and many would have a direct bearing on the finals. For example, you wouldn't have Geelong playing West Coast at Kardinia Park in round 23, as is happening this week.

Another advantage is that it eliminates the unfairness of the current draw. The Cats play both West Coast and North twice this season, which gives them a huge leg-up.

Interested in any comments.

I can see why Gerard didn't reply

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

About eight years ago I came up with an idea for AFL fixtures, which I emailed to Gerard Whately who was then at the ABC, but never heard anything back. I was thinking about it again and thought maybe this is a good place to raise it.

It's a way to give all teams something to play for towards the end of the season, and also create better quality matches leading into the finals.

Rounds 1 to 18 involve each team playing every other team, plus one bye per team. After round 18, the top six, middle six and bottom six would be set in stone, although not the positions within each set of six.

Maybe at that point you have the second bye for each team, rather than after round 23? Maybe you launch the AFLW season then? Whatever.

Then during rounds 19 to 23, each set of six teams play against each other. The top six are trying to get double chances and home finals. The middle six are competing for the final two positions in the eight, and the bottom six are competing for a draft advantage of some kind. Maybe you don't just give the top draft pick to the bottom team, but to the best performing team in the bottom six. Or maybe an additional second or third round pick to the best performing bottom six team. Something. I'm not sure how it would look, but something.

This would mean that in the last month before finals, all games should theoretically be between relatively evenly matched sides, and many would have a direct bearing on the finals. For example, you wouldn't have Geelong playing West Coast at Kardinia Park in round 23, as is happening this week.

Another advantage is that it eliminates the unfairness of the current draw. The Cats play both West Coast and North twice this season, which gives them a huge leg-up.

Interested in any comments.

Question....why the f**k would you email something to Gerard Whateley??

WTF is that dweeb gonna do?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The theory behind it is that after 17 rounds, everyone's played each other once, so that's as fair as it gets (without having 34 rounds). However the AFL consists of 22 rounds, so to keep things fair, you're locked into your block of 6.

The top 6 jockey for top 4 positions, the middle 6 battle it out for the last two finals spots, and the bottom 6...ummm... play for draft picks or something.

Yes, the 7th team could get more wins than the 6th placed teams, but that is because they have an easier draw between rounds 18 and 22.

It works quite well and is a nice theory. But it's too much for the footy public to handle.

Buy why?

What's the point?


Isn't it just like saying 'after 22 rounds, the top 8 teams jockey for the premiership'?


Unless you have a 34 game season, it's never going to be fair (and even then, teams with a home ground will get an advantage).
You can tweak it any way you like, but it's still not fair.

So why bother?

Accept that it's not fair, accept that some teams get an advantage, and just milk it from a financial perspective so as many games can be watched possible.

A fair fixture is a white whale.

Let it go.

 

[Kwality]

Buy why?

What's the point?


Isn't it just like saying 'after 22 rounds, the top 8 teams jockey for the premiership'?


Unless you have a 34 game season, it's never going to be fair (and even then, teams with a home ground will get an advantage).
You can tweak it any way you like, but it's still not fair.

So why bother?

Accept that it's not fair, accept that some teams get an advantage, and just milk it from a financial perspective so as many games can be watched possible.

A fair fixture is a white whale.

Let it go.

& continues to use home & away as the basis of the competition ...... the FIX part of FIXture does not include fairness in its aims.

IF you want fairness to be a concept (?), you will need to start with a blank sheet of paper, not start with the old State based concept of home & away.

 

[My_Username]

& continues to use home & away as the basis of the competition ...... the FIX part of FIXture does not include fairness in its aims.

IF you want fairness to be a concept (?), you will need to start with a blank sheet of paper, not start with the old State based concept of home & away.

Agreed.

Base all teams in Melbourne (the largest market), so that such concepts become irrelevant.

They can FIFO into smaller markets as required.

 

[FRUMPY]

Question....why the f**k would you email something to Gerard Whateley??

WTF is that dweeb gonna do?

i presume this is what nuffies do

 

[My_Username]

i presume this is what nuffies do

When they're not posting on BF....