Proposed 17-5 three tier fixture

[ItsAllAboutMe]

best of 3 finals could only work if it was single elimination... you couldn't keep the current system because the winners of the QFs would end up with 3 weeks off

A home & away finals series is not the dumbest idea, but need to stop a 3rd game from happening. Could use a model like soccer does for away goals, or perhaps % of the 2 fixtures or the tie breaker might be who won the game during the season.

 

[Seeds]

amateur crap

Amateur crap that the World Cup soccer system has adopted. Every sport in America also has conferences. What is amateur is having a biased draw every year like we currently do.

 

[Seeds]

This whole thing reeks of the AFL trying to squeeze even more money out of the sport. Think about it, if the top teams are all playing each other in the last five weeks then attendances will be high. So revenue will be high. If anyone thinks the AFL Commission does anything for the good of the game over making a profit then they're very naive. They have to pay those big executive salaries at AFL house somehow. Our sport is being changed so much in the name of squeezing every last dollar out of it these days I feel sorry for one day they may just kill AFL football altogether

Are you kidding? They are giving up their money games for a fairer system. Getting rid of the two interstate derbies each year. Getting rid of the double up games between the vic top four. Last year the clubs ceos was lukewarm to this system because they were worried about less revenue. This is the opposite of doing something for money.

 

[Seeds]

Getting sick and tired of all the monkey brained comments complaining about perceived weaknesses of the 17-5 that are actually its strengths. Will people actually think for a change. Use your brains.

 

[Billy ray]

A home & away finals series is not the dumbest idea, but need to stop a 3rd game from happening. Could use a model like soccer does for away goals, or perhaps % of the 2 fixtures or the tie breaker might be who won the game during the season.

I like this. Home and away finals with the tiebreaker being who won in season game with percentage the second deciding factor, most goals the third deciding factor, away goals next, ... other optios.. and flip of coin the last resort.

This would be 17 game season + 6 weeks for home and away finals + grand final. 24 weeks. + 1 or 2 byes. Simples

 

[NoobPie]

No it isn't and no it isn't.





So you agree that 2 is valuable only if 1 holds? Therefore my statement is perfectly sensible because I assert 1 does not hold.



Again with the reversion to the personal. And what's your obsession with Ballarat?

Ok dude, I was mocking you because you made this claim...

"I can definitively say you are not more qualified than me when it comes to quantitative analysis."

....on an anonymous internet forum. That was deserving of mockery I'm afraid. You've barely posted anything of substance but have repeatedly questioned my analytical competence and then you made that ridiculous claim. I have found that disrespectful

Like I said, I'm happy to discuss either (1) or (2) with you. But again you "assert" that 1 does not hold without doing anything to demonstrate it. A poorly designed 17-5 could indeed encourage teams to "tank" into the bottom group, I agreed with that.

Seriously? They encourage the bottom 6 to try and lose every one of the last 5 games because the only reward for them is draft pick 1.

But that is their incentive now. Right now teams that can't make the 8 are better off losing, if you strip it back to the basic incentives, to finish lower and improve their draft position. Do you acknowledge this?

If you seriously want to engage with this as a discussion, how many games do you think a team needs to win to qualify for the top 6?

Well over the last 5 years the team in 6th after 17 games has been on...
2016 - 12 wins
2015 - 11 wins
2014 - 10 wins
2013 - 9 wins
2012 - 11 wins

I would presume generally 10 or 11 but occasionally 9 or 12....

Assuming they make the top 6, how many of the last 5 to guarantee top 4 in this group?

I would presume generally 2 wins. Occasionally 1 win and percentage or 3 wins

I'll note though that my preferred model does not have the top 4 play off in a qualifying final. In a previous discussion, someone convinced me that having qualifying finals in addition to the "qualifying" phase reduces the meaning of the qualifying phase

This is my preferred model

Under this approach, in the top group finishing first or second would send you through to home preliminary finals. The second group plays off for the last spot in the semi final with a playoff game between the top two in that group.

To finish top two, again intuitively, would need at least 3 wins and at most a minimum of 4 wins.

 

[NoobPie]

Getting sick and tired of all the monkey brained comments complaining about perceived weaknesses of the 17-5 that are actually its strengths. Will people actually think for a change. Use your brains.

It's frustrating

"you just want to create a far more engaging and exciting competition to make more money"

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

I like this. Home and away finals with the tiebreaker being who won in season game with percentage the second deciding factor, most goals the third deciding factor, away goals next, ... other optios.. and flip of coin the last resort.

This would be 17 game season + 6 weeks for home and away finals + grand final. 24 weeks. + 1 or 2 byes. Simples

Using the seasons game as the decider is perhaps problematic because eg Coll V Carl, Carl win season match & then win first final.. final 2 becomes a dead rubber. So perhaps points for & against in the finals should be the deciding factor. Either way i think this is probably a better solution than the 17/5.

 

[The_Ru]

Ok dude, I was mocking you because you made this claim...

"I can definitively say you are not more qualified than me when it comes to quantitative analysis."

....on an anonymous internet forum. That was deserving of mockery I'm afraid. You've barely posted anything of substance but have repeatedly questioned my analytical competence and then you made that ridiculous claim. I have found that disrespectful

There is nothing disrespectful about what I said. If you think hard, there might be a perfectly logical explanation for my carefully selected words. You can PM me if it's too hard.

Like I said, I'm happy to discuss either (1) or (2) with you. But again you "assert" that 1 does not hold without doing anything to demonstrate it. A poorly designed 17-5 could indeed encourage teams to "tank" into the bottom group, I agreed with that.




But that is their incentive now. Right now teams that can't make the 8 are better off losing, if you strip it back to the basic incentives, to finish lower and improve their draft position. Do you acknowledge this?

Yes, but here's the ultimate downfall in the system you advocate; when does this incentive kick in, and for whom?

Well over the last 5 years the team in 6th after 17 games has been on...
2016 - 12 wins
2015 - 11 wins
2014 - 10 wins
2013 - 9 wins
2012 - 11 wins

I would presume generally 10 or 11 but occasionally 9 or 12....

Now we're getting somewhere. Let's call it 11. What happens when a side gets to 11 wins? There's is no longer any incentive to keep winning. Every game for that team until the end of round 17 is a dead rubber. This is why your logic is flawed. You've assumed changing position is important. It's not. Only changing category is important. 1st and 6th are identical positions after round 17 in most models put forward. Your attempt to address this in your model with an "8 point game" is both complicated and strange.

I would presume generally 2 wins. Occasionally 1 win and percentage or 3 wins

Same again. In most models, once you've got 2 wins you can switch off.

I'll note though that my preferred model does not have the top 4 play off in a qualifying final. In a previous discussion, someone convinced me that having qualifying finals in addition to the "qualifying" phase reduces the meaning of the qualifying phase

In this model I am much better off finishing 7th than 3rd.


Go back and run some scenarios from the last 5 years and see how much manipulation of position is encouraged under these 17-5 division models. That's where the problems lie.

 

[catscratchfever]

Let's just have a final 18 - problem solved!

What a stupid idea - tiers, divisions, play-offs, etc. FFS it's a competition - by definition some teams will end up on top, some on the bottom. And why bother trying your guts out during the home and away season if you were to have a reasonable chance of getting a finals wildcard (for example)?

What a stupid, STUPID idea. One of THE stupidest ideas to come out of the football community in a long time.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Anyone who complains about either the league becoming to money focused, being unfair or boring in the second half of the season but then rejects the 17-5 concept in favour of the current system is either a hypocrite or a moron. Take you pick.

The current system is flawed. No one denies that. However there are several other logical ways to determine the fixture that would be fair and maintain integrity in the competition.

The 17-5 model is inherently flawed for a variety of factors already outlined multiple times in this thread. Claiming that this is the only solution to the problem is disingenuous at best. It's similar to how Howard handled the republic debate, vote for the current system or vote for change, as long as the change is the only other option we've allowed you to consider.

Using 17-5 as the solution to the fixturing problem is like setting a feral cat free in your home to take care of the mice problem. It creates more problems than it solves.

The competition has tried round robin/sectional games in the past and ditched them after a season or two each time. Why? Because they're completely idiotic, especially so now in a professional national competition

 

[NoobPie]

I like a lot of what you are saying an not many that put as much thought into it before commenting, however i think the biggest flaw in your proposal is that there simply is not advantage to finishing the season on top of the ladder. May as well fall into 6th place because you start the pre-finals equal with first. You will have the stronger teams simply start there season later particularly if they have a soft draw early.

IMO the points need to carry over because the bulk of your work ie the seasons needs to mean something.

Thanks for your respectful response

I was once a points carry over man myself but looked into it further and discovered that, apart from when there is a bolter, it is rare that teams are locked into a group more than two games out. If the top 3 in each group get an extra home game - which to me seems the obvious way to go - teams rarely cannot move out of a group of 3 until the 17th game

In terms of incentive to finish top, my suggestion is to have the top two teams play a game for 8 points at the start of the 2nd phase....

 

[FootyJunkie]

Amateur crap that the World Cup soccer system has adopted. Every sport in America also has conferences. What is amateur is having a biased draw every year like we currently do.

i agree that the fixture needs to change, but 17-5 is not the answer. I'm all for 6x3 divisions.

 

[dockshark]

Play everyone once round 1-17 then do a huge live broadcast with dancing girls and throwaway analysis by former players and media while drawing your teams to play for the last 5 rounds out of a lotto barrel.
It would be riveting tv to see who you play.

HAs a chuckle at funny idea then realises: 'I would totally tune in to that'...

 

[dockshark]

And all you fixture experts want to keep the 18, well it is so damned hard to win an AFL premiership, these days, that some clubs may all do a ST KILDA or a doggies and wait 50 to 60 years, with the dilution of player numbers and quality all you got is corporate boxes for rich people, and long time losers in big numbers and winners in little numbers.

I always find this kind of binary thinking to be odd. It's not in my opinion a black and white state where winning premierships is good and all else is bad. What do supporters gain from seasons of footy where their club doesn't win the flag? Probably lots, the games still bring communities together and give us something to look forward to, still brings the excitement of unexpected wins and the disappointment of unexpected losses.

I look back on the 2013 season and don't see failure and I frankly couldn't give a * what folks want to read into that. 2013 was still a pretty awesome season, filled with strong wins at home, away wins in Melbourne, Adelaide, and Gold Coast, the awesome final win at Kardinya Park and Qualifying Final at home. Would it have been better if we won the flag? Well of course, but the season still delivered much fun, joy, excitement and heartache and that is what makes footy great. I think we need to stop viewing success as binary and just enjoy the ride.

 

[Underarm]

Getting sick and tired of all the monkey brained comments complaining about perceived weaknesses of the 17-5 that are actually its strengths. Will people actually think for a change. Use your brains.

Uneven home/away matches is a strength? Lack of guaranteed blockbusters is a strength?

 

[JackOutback]

Let's just have a final 18 - problem solved!

What a stupid idea - tiers, divisions, play-offs, etc. FFS it's a competition - by definition some teams will end up on top, some on the bottom. And why bother trying your guts out during the home and away season if you were to have a reasonable chance of getting a finals wildcard (for example)?

What a stupid, STUPID idea. One of THE stupidest ideas to come out of the football community in a long time.

I actually quite like the idea of 20 teams and two divisions, with promotion and relegation, though I vaguely recall a post that identified some of the problems with it.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

i agree that the fixture needs to change, but 17-5 is not the answer. I'm all for 6x3 divisions.

I think this is the best way. You play your own conference home and away, then another conference only at home, the third only away. Each year those alternate.

I'd seperate to not have both Perth, Adelaide teams etc in the same conference but I know the afl wouldn't do that to want double ups on the big games, which would severely hurt the system as it'd mean some teams doing two trips to Perth every year, then others from alternating two then zero trips to Perth.

Id also have a ladder independent of conferencing - so it's still a top 8 without preferencing winning a division.

 

[doppleganger]

Correct. I don't think a full points carry over is the way to go.

But nowhere near as many as now, as has been demonstrated

Where have you demonstrated this?

The 17-5 system you have created, creates 3 dead games per week for the last five weeks with the bottom six.

Currently in rd 18 your avg shows there is on average 1 dead game.

And as your round robin progresses, there will also be dead games in rd 21 and 22 from the other groupings.

Come Rd 22, the middle group may be locked in...so all three games are dead rubbers, then you have the three bottom six games that people don't care about....heaven forbid the top teams are also steady as you could have 7 or more games that are meaningless.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Amateur crap that the World Cup soccer system has adopted. Every sport in America also has conferences. What is amateur is having a biased draw every year like we currently do.

World Cup is a knockout representative comp. The proposed system is not conferences or divisions, that would see the schedule set at the start of every season with separate ladders.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Are you kidding? They are giving up their money games for a fairer system. Getting rid of the two interstate derbies each year. Getting rid of the double up games between the vic top four. Last year the clubs ceos was lukewarm to this system because they were worried about less revenue. This is the opposite of doing something for money.

Channel 7 wants this system to ensure Friday night games at the end of the year aren't dead rubbers. It's to do with ratings and TV revenue. It's solely about money.

 

[The_Ru]

Are you kidding? They are giving up their money games for a fairer system. Getting rid of the two interstate derbies each year. Getting rid of the double up games between the vic top four. Last year the clubs ceos was lukewarm to this system because they were worried about less revenue. This is the opposite of doing something for money.

If you want an unbiased, fairer system then top 6, middle 6, bottom 6 makes things worse not better.

You can balance the fixture at the end of game 17 without reverting to these ludicrous fixed groups.

 

[NoobPie]

There is nothing disrespectful about what I said. If you think hard, there might be a perfectly logical explanation for my carefully selected words. You can PM me if it's too hard.

"I can definitively say you are not more qualified than me when it comes to quantitative analysis."

Perhaps by "qualified" you are making a credentialist claim and you have a PHD in statistics or econometrics?

In terms of applying this, thus far you have:

1. implied that an average does not classify as statistical analysis
2. first recommended that I calculate standard errors but then later agreed that they would be of little meaning

After all your posts where you progressively attacked my competency, you still have not clearly set out what you think is incorrect about the conclusion I have drawn:

i.e. under 17-5 there are significantly less games where at least one team has no skin it in the last few rounds than the status quo

I have concluded this by referencing the 5 years since we have had 18 teams. I have not claimed my analysis is worthy of publishing in an academic journal however it is superior to all the quantitative assertions made with out in reference to numbers at all.

Yes, but here's the ultimate downfall in the system you advocate; when does this incentive kick in, and for whom?




Now we're getting somewhere. Let's call it 11. What happens when a side gets to 11 wins? There's is no longer any incentive to keep winning. Every game for that team until the end of round 17 is a dead rubber. This is why your logic is flawed. You've assumed changing position is important. It's not. Only changing category is important. 1st and 6th are identical positions after round 17 in most models put forward. Your attempt to address this in your model with an "8 point game" is both complicated and strange.

I have not assumed changing position is important, that is incorrect. If the top 3 in each group get 3 home games, as most advocates assume, then 1st is not identical to 6th. Teams would want to finish in the top 3 rather than 4th to 6th.

My analysis, which you have dismissed but largely avoided engaging hitherto, established that teams "locked in" to position in over the last five years are not common until the last round. Occasionally there is a "bolter", like there is under the current system.

The 8 point game is not complicated. "Strange" is very subjective. More the cheap rhetoric of an arts grad with no technical training than a quant PHD. It is no doubt a bit of a radical idea

Same again. In most models, once you've got 2 wins you can switch off.

Not true. You cannot be sure you will make the top 4 with 2 wins and, even with the current finals system, you cannot avoid travelling for the QF unless you finish top 2. You would need to assume you needed 3 wins until that was mathematically not the case and that's before percentage comes into it.

In this model I am much better off finishing 7th than 3rd.

How? Again, am I supposed to now second guess every incorrect argument and respond to each?

You are definitely better off finishing in the top 6 than the middle 6 in this system

Go back and run some scenarios from the last 5 years and see how much manipulation of position is encouraged under these 17-5 division models. That's where the problems lie.

Umm, that's what I've done



With three rounds to go, the only games where both teams are not live involve games where teams can no longer make the second group from the bottom.
With two rounds to go, occasionally the team on top could not drop out of the top 3 if they lost the last two games - all teams in the middle of the ladder can still either win both games and move up and/or lose both games and go down. In fact, most teams can still move out of their "6"
With one round to go we get more teams that cannot move out of their "3"

 

[Nugett]

Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if mentioned before. If there a 17-5 fixture, think the super six strategy in the cricket World Cup would be worth looking at. The top 6 re play each other for a top 4 berth, the middle 6 play for the last 2 spots in the 8. The bottom 6 can play for the #1 draft pick, so finish 13th you get #1, finish 18th you get pick 6. Points and percentages are only against your group, so team A beat team B in season, team A gets the points at start of next round, even if team B finished higher on the ladder. Then just have the normal finals fixture.

 

[NoobPie]

Where have you demonstrated this?

The 17-5 system you have created, creates 3 dead games per week for the last five weeks with the bottom six.

It does. Currently though there are shyte load of, arguably worse in terms of competition integrity, games where one team' season is shot but the other team still has skin in the game

What I have demonstrated is there are far less of these games in the last few rounds in the first phase of 17-5 (assuming points reset) than there are currently.

Currently in rd 18 your avg shows there is on average 1 dead game.

And as your round robin progresses, there will also be dead games in rd 21 and 22 from the other groupings.

There will rarely be any in the first group with my proposed model. Very occasionally a team might be 2 games clear on top or at the bottom with one game left.

In the second group, a team would need to have lost their first 3 games to be mathematically unable to still get top two with two games left. In the second last round there would normally be one game with a team that mathematically cannot make top two. Very occasionally there would be two if there were two teams on zero wins who weren't playing each-other and if they played eachother it would be a dead rubber and 2 "both live" games

Across the 30 games, you might get 5 games where both teams aren't live in a bad year. Most of the other 25 would be "8 point games"

Come Rd 22, the middle group may be locked in...so all three games are dead rubbers, then you have the three bottom six games that people don't care about....heaven forbid the top teams are also steady as you could have 7 or more games that are meaningless.

There would be very few games that are "meaningless" for both teams and up to a handful that are meaningful for only one team. Unless the top two teams are from the same state, I can't see how the middle group could be locked in before the last round - there have only been 4 games played. It is possible that the top two are both on 4-0 and the third team would have to be on 2 wins.

No-one has claimed it completely eliminates "meaningless" games or games where only one team has skin it - it just reduces these games drastically