No to AFLXavier.

[ghostdog]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-23/could-be-time-for-shorter-afl-games-dons-ceo

"Is there other ways to add more value at front and end of the game for fans, for broadcast?" Campbell said.

"It's all different thinking, I'm not necessarily saying it's right or wrong, but it's a good time to challenge the way we consume our game and the way we present our game."

Dear Xavier,

I wait close to five months for footy season to start. I'm not interested in a watered down, half-a****, sanitised, square field, basketball-looking, hybridised, frankensteined version of football.

I'm not a consumer, I'm a fan. I'm not interested in 'value before and at the end of the game' - I'm interested in the game itself. I want more football, not less. Every year the AFL f***s with the rules just a little bit more. I would appreciate it, as a member, if you didn't feed them the imperative they are searching for. I became an AFL fan in the 90s, only because the Rugby League f***** up their own game. I don't watch cricket anymore for many of the same reasons.

The game is being 'consumed' already; crowd attendances are always increasing and the market is always growing, and that's because it's already a great game. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Sincerely,
increasingly disillusioned ghostdog.

 

[BrunoV]

Agree with that. Either have the balls to call out bullshit or say nothing but dont be diplomatic if that involves even a tacit support.

The best thing we could do for the consumption of the game is rid ourselves of the fossils and halfwits who cover it without even the faintest appreciation for the way in which the game is being played.

That's where the negativity surrounding consumption comes from.

Ifyou dilute the game to satisfy the attention spans of people who done really care about the game you'll lose.

As had been pointed out elsewhere 2020 is cricket's answer to reducing a 10 hour game to a game which is the length of football.

 

[yodellinhank]

Sack.

 

[quotemokc]

Very stupid comment indeed

 

[Big John Studd]

Will our membership costs decrease if games were shortened? I highly doubt it

 

[Mercurial89]

So we cant even raise it as a discussion?

Dont think there is anything wrong with looking at shortening games, which is what his actual point is originally at the start of the article. He then goes on to say AFLX as a concept has merit, which it does.

What are we losing by shortening AFL games?
It may mean more games in the season, more timeslots, less injuries.

Why wouldnt we explore it?

 

[AcuteWhistle]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-23/could-be-time-for-shorter-afl-games-dons-ceo

"Is there other ways to add more value at front and end of the game for fans, for broadcast?" Campbell said.

"It's all different thinking, I'm not necessarily saying it's right or wrong, but it's a good time to challenge the way we consume our game and the way we present our game."

Dear Xavier,

I wait close to five months for footy season to start. I'm not interested in a watered down, half-a****, sanitised, square field, basketball-looking, hybridised, frankensteined version of football.

I'm not a consumer, I'm a fan. I'm not interested in 'value before and at the end of the game' - I'm interested in the game itself. I want more football, not less. Every year the AFL f***s with the rules just a little bit more. I would appreciate it, as a member, if you didn't feed them the imperative they are searching for. I became an AFL fan in the 90s, only because the Rugby League f***** up their own game. I don't watch cricket anymore for many of the same reasons.

The game is being 'consumed' already; crowd attendances are always increasing and the market is always growing, and that's because it's already a great game. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Sincerely,
increasingly disillusioned ghostdog.

Hear hear

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

So we cant even raise it as a discussion?

Dont think there is anything wrong with looking at shortening games, which is what his actual point is originally at the start of the article. He then goes on to say AFLX as a concept has merit, which it does.

What are we losing by shortening AFL games?
It may mean more games in the season, more timeslots, less injuries.

Why wouldnt we explore it?

Problem with the AFL is, how often have you seen them raise a discussion point without already having decided what they want? The AFL use it to allow the public to get used to the idea they already intend to implement rather than treating it purely as a point of debate.

 

[quotemokc]

So we cant even raise it as a discussion?

Dont think there is anything wrong with looking at shortening games, which is what his actual point is originally at the start of the article. He then goes on to say AFLX as a concept has merit, which it does.

What are we losing by shortening AFL games?
It may mean more games in the season, more timeslots, less injuries.

Why wouldnt we explore it?

The reason he gives is because he seems to think that people want shorter games.

"Consumer trends are showing that shorter games are being better received by the public, according to Campbell, and he said it was important to challenge the norms. "

What besides 20/20 cricket has shown this example?

And then in this quote he says something and takes a pause based on the "..." after he says attendance is up, so he obviously realised he said something stupid and needed to come up with something to reaffirm his position

""Although our attendance numbers are probably saying we're still increasing attendance-wise, ... I think now's the time to look at what we think potential change could look like in that space. "

So because NFL has 15 minute quarters it might be good in AFL? I love the NFL but sometimes they have quarters that go for an hour.

"Campbell was among the AFL club officials who recently attended the Super Bowl in Minnesota and said he took some key learnings out of the event.

He said 15-minute quarters plus time-on was about the right formula, but was at pains to say that the existing schedule was not broken. "\


I also doubt that we will ever get more games in a season, they already took away 1 JLT match this year in lieu of AFLX

 

[Mercurial89]

Problem with the AFL is, how often have you seen them raise a discussion point without already having decided what they want? The AFL use it to allow the public to get used to the idea they already intend to implement rather than treating it purely as a point of debate.

If they intend to shorten the length of games they will be looking it from more angles than that of Some fans that will get upset because a game runs 20mins shorter than the past. As they Should.

Possible positives achieved by reducing the length of games=
allows less demands on the players
Allows changes to the fixture to make them more fair, or put on more games
Increase in revenue from these additional games that they can put back into the game

Realistically they are talking about limiting quarters due to stoppages etc by like 5 minutes. It does not detract from the game, but it does open up possibilities.
The fact that we would stamp our feet and stick our heads in the stand that we cant even consider the possibility of changing something so inconsequential to the game itself is weird.

 

[Lore]

So we cant even raise it as a discussion?

Dont think there is anything wrong with looking at shortening games, which is what his actual point is originally at the start of the article. He then goes on to say AFLX as a concept has merit, which it does.

What are we losing by shortening AFL games?
It may mean more games in the season, more timeslots, less injuries.

Why wouldnt we explore it?

Why does it need to be raised? What are the potential benefits of screwing with the regular H&A season games?

More games, more timeslots and less injuries sound like mumbo jumbo to me, if that's why they want to consider it. You're still only selling one ticket if you're going to back2back games at the same venue. I guess in that case we'd also need more teams, so instead of 18 teams playing 9 games per weekend, we might have 32 with 20 players per squad and 10 on the field or something, maybe more bye weekends and 16 games per week, spread over the week or something.

That's not football!

..

It sounds more like baseball

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

If they intend to shorten the length of games they will be looking it from more angles than that of Some fans that will get upset because a game runs 20mins shorter than the past. As they Should.

Possible positives achieved by reducing the length of games=
allows less demands on the players
Allows changes to the fixture to make them more fair, or put on more games
Increase in revenue from these additional games that they can put back into the game

Realistically they are talking about limiting quarters due to stoppages etc by like 5 minutes. It does not detract from the game, but it does open up possibilities.
The fact that we would stamp our feet and stick our heads in the stand that we cant even consider the possibility of changing something so inconsequential to the game itself is weird.

I think the public can entertain it, but a lot know that when the industry starts talking about it it's more than entertaining it. If they were doing it to increase number of games to have a full and fair home and away then I'd be more behind the idea, I highly doubt fairness will be behind any decision however.

 

[quotemokc]

If they intend to shorten the length of games they will be looking it from more angles than that of Some fans that will get upset because a game runs 20mins shorter than the past. As they Should.

Possible positives achieved by reducing the length of games=
allows less demands on the players
Allows changes to the fixture to make them more fair, or put on more games
Increase in revenue from these additional games that they can put back into the game

Realistically they are talking about limiting quarters due to stoppages etc by like 5 minutes. It does not detract from the game, but it does open up possibilities.
The fact that we would stamp our feet and stick our heads in the stand that we cant even consider the possibility of changing something so inconsequential to the game itself is weird.

The whole point of professional sports is that it is demanding... shorter games would mean the players would be expected to play harder and faster anyway.

Taking 5 minutes off each quarter is a big deal, that would mean we are losing almost an entire quarter of game play.

You say positive = more revenue, but the negative of that will be punters will be expected to pay the same for less product.

 

[Mercurial89]

The reason he gives is because he seems to think that people want shorter games.

"Consumer trends are showing that shorter games are being better received by the public, according to Campbell, and he said it was important to challenge the norms. "

What besides 20/20 cricket has shown this example?

And then in this quote he says something and takes a pause based on the "..." after he says attendance is up, so he obviously realised he said something stupid and needed to come up with something to reaffirm his position

""Although our attendance numbers are probably saying we're still increasing attendance-wise, ... I think now's the time to look at what we think potential change could look like in that space. "

So because NFL has 15 minute quarters it might be good in AFL? I love the NFL but sometimes they have quarters that go for an hour.

"Campbell was among the AFL club officials who recently attended the Super Bowl in Minnesota and said he took some key learnings out of the event.

He said 15-minute quarters plus time-on was about the right formula, but was at pains to say that the existing schedule was not broken. "\


I also doubt that we will ever get more games in a season, they already took away 1 JLT match this year in lieu of AFLX

I don't think he said something stupid though, he stated a fact, and instead of let you question "oh if things are improving why should we do anything" he qualified that we should still look at the potential to change. We also don't understand where the increase is coming from? If its in the same demographics it always has been its probably to do with the population increasing.

The figures he's probably referencing are in demographics they probably want to target, young men, women, young families.

When you look at growing in these demographics you may need to look (and that is all he is suggesting) to what we can do to help reach these groups.

Another thing though,

Australian Sport Commission did an intergenerational study last year looking at how our sporting landscape would be by 2036 if we do not change anything.
Whilst the huge commercial organisations like AFL, Cricket, NRL would be doing fine financially, Aussie participation and obesity is set to erode. So measures are going to be taken to boost these other areas, our Olympics based sports etc.
AFL aren't stupid, if things stay the same, they don't need to do anything, they can keep growing bigger while other sports wither and die.
But things aren't going to be staying the same, and so they need to be proactive (like any good well run business should be) and explore how they can reach the most amount of people.

By doing so they can help people from different backgrounds, situations enjoy the game like those who are already here do (and of course make more money, im not ignoring that fact).
However It's a selfish way of thinking that the game must stay exactly how I like it because I don't like change. Especially when changes aren't made to the fundamental rules of the game but more how long a game may go for.

As to your point of us not getting more games. If they are looking at changing the length of a game, money as I said does come into it. If they cant sell it for as much or sell advertising as much then they will simply schedule more games to offset that. They can have their cake and eat it too by offering a shorter product whilst increasing the time during the year they are relevant (by product of this is perhaps a more equal fixture)

 

[Blind Turn]

Dear Xavier,

If you ever refer to us as ‘consumers’ of the game again I will personally come over and consume your soul. I’ll suck it straight out through your eyeballs and imprison it within my fiery belly with all the other misdirected souls I have consumed.

Regards

Un_Eggs

 

[Mercurial89]

Why does it need to be raised? What are the potential benefits of screwing with the regular H&A season games?

More games, more timeslots and less injuries sound like mumbo jumbo to me, if that's why they want to consider it. You're still only selling one ticket if you're going to back2back games at the same venue. I guess in that case we'd also need more teams, so instead of 18 teams playing 9 games per weekend, we might have 32 with 20 players per squad and 10 on the field or something, maybe more bye weekends and 16 games per week, spread over the week or something.

That's not football!

..

It sounds more like baseball

Why does anything get raised?

To review, analyse and move forward.
Its a very basic concept and one that is exercised in business, entertainment, and our own lives.

Why would we need more teams? if the demands of individual games are less, then more of these games can be scheduled.
One of the arguments against a longer season is that the physical demands are just too high. If the games are less demanding then the season can go longer.

As to your example with 10 on the field, I don't think that has been suggested for regular season AFL ever. So its not really relevant. They aren't talking about changing AFL. They are looking at how it is presented.

I think people have really gotten spooked by AFLX as if it is going to replace AFL as they know it. Which is just wrong.

 

[Mercurial89]

I think the public can entertain it, but a lot know that when the industry starts talking about it it's more than entertaining it. If they were doing it to increase number of games to have a full and fair home and away then I'd be more behind the idea, I highly doubt fairness will be behind any decision however.

It wouldn't be the sole reason behind the idea, but it is a by-product of a possible change. Who cares if the number 1 reason they do it is to make more money if the number 2 reason means a fair draw?

We should never be afraid of having a conversation about change, is my main point.

 

[Mercurial89]

The whole point of professional sports is that it is demanding... shorter games would mean the players would be expected to play harder and faster anyway.

Taking 5 minutes off each quarter is a big deal, that would mean we are losing almost an entire quarter of game play.

You say positive = more revenue, but the negative of that will be punters will be expected to pay the same for less product.

The game would still be demanding if the season got longer. It would still be a professional sport, they would still be elite, getting paid and your average person would not be on their level.

As to less of a product. It all depends how you value the product. If it is by time, then yes, you are losing 20minutes of value, probably the 20 mins a game that the ball is dead, or some time out of the half time break where you are getting some food.

However you may gain value in the quality of the product with regards to congestion, speed, skill level or the fairness of the product if it created a more favourable fixture etc.

 

[Mercurial89]

/yaco

 

[DapperDon]

Take off 5mins a quarter then we can play 20mins of NBL after the match, but you can only watch it if you buy the E-Sports App off CH7 for $19.95 a every 3 days.

Consume it ALL

*Donate to the Consumption Plan

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

It wouldn't be the sole reason behind the idea, but it is a by-product of a possible change. Who cares if the number 1 reason they do it is to make more money if the number 2 reason means a fair draw?

We should never be afraid of having a conversation about change, is my main point.

On a purely theoretical level intelligent people should always be able to entertain ideas even if they don't like it. I have no issue with the ability to entertain ideas in general. However if the ideas are raised by an entity you don't trust with the power to change something you love an intelligent person would question why it is being raised given the said entity's history. It doesn't stop individuals entertaining the idea, but it doesn't mean they have to agree with it, like it or trust the reason it's being raised.

We should never be afraid of having a conversation about change. Socialism and communism should be a better system. We shouldn't be in a position where we are afraid of having a conversation about change. The theories always break down because of the corruption of people. Those in power have abused our trust many times before leaving us wary.

 

[Howard Moon]

this sucks

we as a society are giving into the tl;dr generation

catering everything to them...modifying everything

fight back ffs!!

if you don't have an attention span? stiff.

go watch something else or flick your twitter feed elsewhere. The game goes for 120 minutes, deal with it

People can call me a dh, and idiot, any insult under the sun, I don't mind...dosent offend me

But calling me one thing does, a 'consumer'

Sickens me, I'm not a consumer, I'm not a commodity, I'm not a driver or factor on a spreadsheet. I'm a human and prefer to be treated as such.

Consumer. Pfft

 

[Lore]

Why does anything get raised?

To review, analyse and move forward.
Its a very basic concept and one that is exercised in business, entertainment, and our own lives.

Why would we need more teams? if the demands of individual games are less, then more of these games can be scheduled.
One of the arguments against a longer season is that the physical demands are just too high. If the games are less demanding then the season can go longer.

As to your example with 10 on the field, I don't think that has been suggested for regular season AFL ever. So its not really relevant. They aren't talking about changing AFL. They are looking at how it is presented.

I think people have really gotten spooked by AFLX as if it is going to replace AFL as they know it. Which is just wrong.

well you said more games. So I was speculating as to how that would be achieved. Knocking 20 minutes off a game isn't going to make it more feasible for a team to play two games a week, unless you're looking at heavy rotations and reduced quality of players across the selected team. The only other way I can see to increase the number of games is to simply have more teams (which we don't have the talent for across the country even for the 18 teams we have).


As far as review, analyse, etc. Yes, of course. But now it's gone past that, it's being hinted at publicly.

 

[Mercurial89]

this sucks

we as a society are giving into the tl;dr generation

catering everything to them...modifying everything

fight back ffs!!

if you don't have an attention span? stiff.

go watch something else or flick your twitter feed elsewhere. The game goes for 120 minutes, deal with it

People can call me a dh, and idiot, any insult under the sun, I don't mind...dosent offend me

But calling me one thing does, a 'consumer'

Sickens me, I'm not a consumer, I'm not a commodity, I'm not a driver or factor on a spreadsheet. I'm a human and prefer to be treated as such.

Consumer. Pfft

I agree with you.

 

[Howard Moon]

I agree with you.

The Howard Moon anger index has risen sharply today off the back of weaker than expected comments from club CEO