No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs Only - Part 6

[Mr. Walker]

I know this is a forum, the purpose of which is to facilitate discussion between Bulldogs fans. But why are we debating the reason for expanding the number of finals participants so much? As with all things AFL the sole answer is MONEY.
More finals participants means more finals games means more TV rights - more MONEY.
More games means more people watching ( performance bonus criteria 1 met - tick - means more MONEY)
More games means greater AFL brand recognition ( performance bonus criteria 2 met - tick - means more MONEY)
More games means numbers watching AFL increases over same numbers for NRL. ( performance bonus criteria 3met - tick - means more MONEY)
And on it goes

 

[grassman75]

Honestly think this is being a bit hysterical.

The AFL's terminology, yes a bit dumb.

Having a five-week finals series (as opposed to a 24-game season or whatever), perhaps a bit dumb.

Giving six teams byes in the first week in a five-week finals series, instead of two, or four? Yes a bit dumb.

Is the AFL making the decision so they can generate more money through the games? Yes, a bit dumb.

A preference for fans for sporting reasons to have fewer teams make finals, though the AFL wants more teams making finals so late-season home-and-away games don't appear to be dead rubbers? Yes a bit dumb.

But if we're talking about "fairness and ethics", this is not the issue at all. It's still a finals series where you want to finish as highly as possible to give yourself the best mathematical chance to make finals. Does the difference between 6th and 7th get exaggerated more? Sure, but one could argue the very distinct difference between 4th and 5th under the current system was far too great anyway.

Is it "unfair" that a bottom half team can make finals, maybe one with 9-11 wins? Yeah sure, but that's a matter of preference, not an absolute truth - finals systems can have any number of teams in it relative to the league, and for instance over the 90s and 2000s the WAFL and SANFL carried on with 5 team finals series from 9 teams, though not to everyone's preference, nobody really called it unfair, lacking integrity, or against the spirit of football or whatever.

In any case I wouldn't necessarily call it more unfair if a 9 wins 14 loss team makes finals from 10th any more unfair than a 14 win 9 loss team missing finals from 9th ... hang on...

If we want to talk league integrity that ship has loooong sailed. Adelaide and Port have purchased a 12th home game for the last 3 years, meaning six teams have played a 12th away game ... and guess who one of those teams are. Freo were able to also buy a 12th home game (meaning North played 10) ... and they won by 6 points over North to make finals, where the difference in home ground advantage would have meant that they lost and we would have made finals, you know, in a league with integrity where you actually prevented teams from simply buying an advantage from another. We finished above Hawthorn in 2024, but had to play our home final at their home ground. etc. etc. etc. All of greater sporting lack of integrity driven by commercialism than merely redistributing some of the benefit of finishing 6th and 7th to 9th and 10th toward winning a flag, while still maintaining the fact that it's still always more beneficial to finish as high on the ladder as possible in finals permutations (just where you put the cut-off points with double chances and number of rounds is arbitrary and blocky).

Hang on…I thought it was the VFL and all the instate sides were hard done by? 3 of them get a better deal than the rest of us….

I see your logic but, don’t agree. No way should a team that’s gone 9-14 with a sub 100% take the place of a side that went 14-9 and had a 120+% - that would be grossly unfair - yes we missed with 14-9 and 130+% but that is the beauty of the ladder and taking your chances during the season. We needed 1 more win and got robbed in a couple and shat the bed in others

With a fixture that is completely unequal….see Geel and their rest the old boys run home every year, a Wild Card has no place. Some may argue that a wild card evens things up but in reality the only fair way of doing things is remove all forced blockbusters, play everyone once first - which in itself can be unfair given the time of year you play certain teams (see GC v Ess this year….could Essendon have knocked them off in OR with a fully fit list? They were certainly no chance in RD 25 or closing round or whatever you want to call the debacle.

I’ve said it before, but it needs to be 17 rounds, potentially an extra rivalry round with showdowns and others as a double up game and then a “new” fixture for the back half of the season

Top 6 locked into finals - new ladder, all play each other for the coveted top 4 spot (should be cracking games)
Middle 6 - all play each other for the last two spots in the 8 - effectively 5 wild card weeks on a reset ladder
Bottom 6 play off for the first time 6 picks in the draft and these picks can’t be traded or moved. To spice it up further, the team that finishes top of this round robin could get a priority pick at pick 7 so they will try to win to get 2 picks in the top 7

I’m sure it has faults but it’s better than what we currently have

 

[weltschmerz]

Didn’t they just delist him?

 

[Libbaaaa]

Didn’t they just delist him?

He’ll be able to hold Bont to 24 touches and 2 goals again next year.