Should the season go for 30 games?

[Carl]

When will this league become truely equal?Every team needs to play each other twice so you can truely find where your team should end up before finals.If that means playing 30 games then they should.They are pro sports people arn't they?They could also have 4 single week breaks in the year for a cup competition.So if your team gets knocked out they can have some rest at this time.Only problem is the season will go for too long.Maybe scrap the cup games.Or get rid of 2 teams and have it a 26 game year.

 

[Catman]

I don't think it's a bad idea Carl. playing 30 games.
But you will need to include a 1 or 2 weeks break sometime throughout the year.
But playing longer seasons mean that pretty much straight of the seasons over, pre-season starts up. meaning playing will burn out quicker than before and players careers will be smaller in length than before.

 

[AlfAndrews]

Yeah ... 30 games ... sod the Ansett Cup ... sod the finals ... just have each team play each other twice. The team with the most premiership points after 30 games wins the premiership ... end of story.

I'm sure Dan will appreciate that.

Better still ... just have 15 games. Each team plays each other ONCE. As for who plays at home, you alternate it year by year ... no Ansett Cup ... no finals ... just a nice short season of 15 weeks ... so that we BigFooty people can get back to discussing music, politics, Dodongo's speech pattern, Sandie's dog and all those other much more important issues ...

------------------
**floreat pica**

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Maybe so, but the bastards will probably cut the quarters back to 5 minutes each to protect the players from overwork. I wouldn't want to shorten the game any more to get more games. In America the baseballers play 162 games plus playoffs every year but then they have a player rotation. The game is not as physical also. Basketballers play about 72 games a year in the NBA plus playoffs and they usually have the same five players on the court most of the time and that is some serious exertion. The gridiron players only play 15 games plus playoffs though and they have huge rotations and time for a picnic and a nap between their next call up on the field! We don't want to be overworking our players and risk injuring our stars. Maybe the league could enforce a maximum of 25 games per player during a 30 game H&A season so that the clubs had to rest their stars occasionally. Let's face it the fans go to watch the stars and if they are out injured, it hurts the clubs and the league.

------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[dees01]

It might be OK if they get rid of the Ansett Cup. That is a complete waste of time.

 

[Dan26]

Yeah, i wouldn't mid getting rid of the Ansett Cup.

We can have the "finals" as our exciting knockout tournament. 8 teams knockout over 3 weeks with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5.

The winner of this comp (hence the Grand Final) is champions of the "ELITE" knockout cup to conclude the season, while the team that finished on top over 30 weeks is the premiers.

Common-sensical, logical, and fair. And most importantly, the home and away season wouldn't be rendered meaningless when the finals start, like it STUPIDLY is now.

 

[croode]

The Ansett Cup is here to stay. There is too much money in it, I'm afraid.

 

[croode]

Originally posted by Dan24:

We can have the "finals" as our exciting knockout tournament. 8 teams knockout over 3 weeks with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5.

The winner of this comp (hence the Grand Final) is champions of the "ELITE" knockout cup to conclude the season, while the team that finished on top over 30 weeks is the premiers.

B]

Problem with this system is that there is no reward for finishing higher up, especially on top.

You may argue that 1 gets home ground advantage but this is irrelevant if it is two teams from same town.

I prefer the old final five system b/c then there is less crap teams in the finals. But, as I alluded to previously, money talks

 

[Richmondfan#1]

30 games would make it fairer. Richmond have to play Essendon, Kangaroos, Melbourne, Bulldogs, Brisbane and West Coast, oh Collingwood aswell TWICE.
But how is that for unfair?

That is one way to look at it but if a team really is dominant and great, they will kick any teams butt.
I don't think the Ansett Cup is very important but their needs to be a few practice matches to give the young guys a feel for it and to get prepared for the season ahead.
30 weeks is long and players could probably lose interest. Of course there should be a few weeks break in the middle of the season. But would 30 games drag out the season too long? Eventually, would the crowd lose interest and not turn up? I guess true supporters wouldn't but it is important.


------------------
Everyday is a gift, that is why it is called the present

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by croode:
[B ... money talks.[/B]

Money doesn't talk. It swears.



------------------
**floreat pica**

 

[carb70]

30 games a season will never happen, its just too many especially with the reduced player list we have today.

The best idea is to have 2 conferencs of 8 teams each. these conference could be worked out from the previous years ladder positions or you could just keep the same teams in each conference for every season.

This would still allow you to play 22 games, where you could play every team in your conference twice (14 games) and the team from the other conference once (8 games). You could then go back to the old final four system for each conference with the 2 conference champions then playing in the Grand Final.

Some people will say this system is too American but its a lot fairer system especially the way we could revert back to the old final 4 system in each conference and it would mean we could still keep the season at 22 games instead of 30.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by croode:
Problem with this system is that there is no reward for finishing higher up, especially on top.

You may argue that 1 gets home ground advantage but this is irrelevant if it is two teams from same town.

I prefer the old final five system b/c then there is less crap teams in the finals. But, as I alluded to previously, money talks

The reward for finishing on top is that you win the premiership. Now that's what I call a reward !!!

The knockout finas series would be a "SEPERATE TOURNAMENT" (a bit like winning the FA CUP)

Anyway, under the current system, the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF or GF. So, why even have a double chance ? The top team in 2000 (Essendon) faced elimination after one loss on PF day and GF day. So, why can't they be eliminated in the first week too ??? (if it was 1v8). Same diff.

 

[Levy]

30 games is pathetic.
Everything is fine how it is. It draws crowds, players love it and so on. So what if it is unfair if teams have to play better teams than themselves twice. Cos then the next year, they could play the other teams twice.
That's all that needs to be changed.

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Levy:
So what if it is unfair if teams have to play better teams than themselves twice. Cos then the next year, they could play the other teams twice.
That's all that needs to be changed.

Good point. The problem is that they DON'T rotate the fixtures so that you meet different teams twice each year. They've got this stupid "blockbuster" mentality. So Collingwood ALWAYS plays Essendon and Carlton twice. Adelaide always plays Port twice ... likewise Freo-West Coast ... and so on.

It's just the AFL filling up its coffers ... and to hell with fairness.



------------------
**floreat pica**

 

[sainter]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews:
Good point. The problem is that they DON'T rotate the fixtures so that you meet different teams twice each year. They've got this stupid "blockbuster" mentality. So Collingwood ALWAYS plays Essendon and Carlton twice. Adelaide always plays Port twice ... likewise Freo-West Coast ... and so on.

It's just the AFL filling up its coffers ... and to hell with fairness.

Couldn't agree with you more Alf.

I am a strong advocate for the 30 game season but sadly it doesn't seem to be viable.

Playing each side twice, one home and one away, is the only way we will have a fair and equitable draw. The current system is terribly biased and unfortunately that is what we are stuck with.



------------------
Fortius Quo Fidelius