Roast So we could have three tiers

[ansonholt]

This is an interesting discussion. I'll state my position first: I'm in favour of incremental change if it makes the competition better. I think this sort of proposal does.

It seems there are two camps here:

1. People who want a fairer draw and
2. People who don't want change.

I'll deal with point two first. There has actually been very little change to the draw, even since the VFL became the AFL. There are still 22 rounds. The finals system has been in place for 17 years, even with the addition of GWS and Gold Coast.

As for point 1: We have the situation where some clubs, whether by design or by accident, don't play other teams a lot at their home ground. FOr example, last week, Hawthorn played their first game at Brisbane in *eight* years. That is not evidence of a fair draw. There are almost certainly dozens of other examples for whoever wants to dig.

Playing 17 rounds, with each team playing each other once (alternating grounds each year - e.g. North v WC in Melbounre odd years, Perth even years) is the only way to make this completely fair.

Then the they play in 6s from their for the the next 5 rounds. Home grounds would be rotated under some sort of system where, say, the first team plays away v. teams 5 & 6, but home vs. 2, 3 and 4. And so on.

 

[czero]

This is an interesting discussion. I'll state my position first: I'm in favour of incremental change if it makes the competition better. I think this sort of proposal does.

It seems there are two camps here:

1. People who want a fairer draw and
2. People who don't want change.

I'll deal with point two first. There has actually been very little change to the draw, even since the VFL became the AFL. There are still 22 rounds. The finals system has been in place for 17 years, even with the addition of GWS and Gold Coast.

As for point 1: We have the situation where some clubs, whether by design or by accident, don't play other teams a lot at their home ground. FOr example, last week, Hawthorn played their first game at Brisbane in *eight* years. That is not evidence of a fair draw. There are almost certainly dozens of other examples for whoever wants to dig.

Playing 17 rounds, with each team playing each other once (alternating grounds each year - e.g. North v WC in Melbounre odd years, Perth even years) is the only way to make this completely fair.

Then the they play in 6s from their for the the next 5 rounds. Home grounds would be rotated under some sort of system where, say, the first team plays away v. teams 5 & 6, but home vs. 2, 3 and 4. And so on.

I'm only interested in tanking fixes.

The draw itself, while seemingly unfair with home game plays, is most likely done for the greater benefit of the clubs in conjunction with a myriad of other factors.

For your example - Brisbane are likely to get very few fans turning up to a game where they play in form hawks at home, and the home games they do play are much more likely to be the 'winnable' ones (that the AFL must calculate on prior season form).

Clubs that are starting a rebuild are likely to not want the 'fair' draw, where clubs at the peak of their powers are definitely wanting a 'fair' draw. In a way, a 'fair' draw increases the likelihood of a club going from bad to worse financially.

 

[shintemaster]

I'm only interested in tanking fixes.

Then the easiest fix is to remove the reverse draft order. I agree with the draft as an equalisation measure - in that I agree with equal opportunity. I don't agree that the worst teams deserve more chance than the best teams. Would prefer that the draft order simply rotates or as close to that as possible.

NM Year 1 - Pick 1
NM Year 2 - Pick 18
NM Year 3 - Pick 10
NM Year 3 - Pick 9

And so on. No tanking there, completely fair.

Not only that I believe that over time this will bring the teams closer together in performance and reduce wasted years / games for clubs. If you know you're getting the #4 pick either way from the start of the year then you have every incentive possible to perform as well as you can that year. Same thing if you're getting the #18 pick.

Clubs that are starting a rebuild are likely to not want the 'fair' draw, where clubs at the peak of their powers are definitely wanting a 'fair' draw. In a way, a 'fair' draw increases the likelihood of a club going from bad to worse financially.

Possibly, but I'm in the "so what?" category. The draw should be as fair as possible within the time and match constraints we have. If they insist on a 22 game H&A season something along the lines of the below is the simplest and fairest.

Y1 play every team H&A
Y2 play ever team H&A with home games against the away teams from last year
Y3 revert to year 1

Balance of games to be allocated semi-randomly. Random in allocation but reducing over the 3 years such that you play ever team the same amount of time over that 3 years. Simple. Neat. Fair. Clear.

 

[czero]

Then the easiest fix is to remove the reverse draft order. I agree with the draft as an equalisation measure - in that I agree with equal opportunity. I don't agree that the worst teams deserve more chance than the best teams. Would prefer that the draft order simply rotates or as close to that as possible.

NM Year 1 - Pick 1
NM Year 2 - Pick 18
NM Year 3 - Pick 10
NM Year 3 - Pick 9

And so on. No tanking there, completely fair.

Not only that I believe that over time this will bring the teams closer together in performance and reduce wasted years / games for clubs. If you know you're getting the #4 pick either way from the start of the year then you have every incentive possible to perform as well as you can that year. Same thing if you're getting the #18 pick.



Possibly, but I'm in the "so what?" category. The draw should be as fair as possible within the time and match constraints we have. If they insist on a 22 game H&A season something along the lines of the below is the simplest and fairest.

Y1 play every team H&A
Y2 play ever team H&A with home games against the away teams from last year
Y3 revert to year 1

Balance of games to be allocated semi-randomly. Random in allocation but reducing over the 3 years such that you play ever team the same amount of time over that 3 years. Simple. Neat. Fair. Clear.

The reason why I'm not sold on this, is because if you dont care about playing home/away due to fan attendance, and dont care about playing harder of easier teams based on the finishing position, then you could just make the draw 100% fair by playing every team then rotating the 5 clubs who you play extra each year... No other changes required.

Also - rotating the draft is a pretty out there concept because it carries a lot of risk. What if NM year 1 pick had a career ending injury and your team is still s**t. If you got unlucky you could possibly have a terrible situation in the draft, and no hope of it getting better for a long time.

 

[hilly]

Is there evidence of tanking outside of the farcical situation where teams under 5.5 wins receive an extra high selection?

Unless we move to playing every team twice during a year, the fixture is by definition inequitable.

 

[hilly]

The inequity of the draw and tanking. Pretty obvious I would have thought.

You don't need to take everything literally.

I've never seen a team use an easy draw to win a flag.

 

[shintemaster]

The reason why I'm not sold on this, is because if you dont care about playing home/away due to fan attendance, and dont care about playing harder of easier teams based on the finishing position, then you could just make the draw 100% fair by playing every team then rotating the 5 clubs who you play extra each year... No other changes required.

Also - rotating the draft is a pretty out there concept because it carries a lot of risk. What if NM year 1 pick had a career ending injury and your team is still s**t. If you got unlucky you could possibly have a terrible situation in the draft, and no hope of it getting better for a long time.

Perfectly happy with your fair option of just rotating. Agree, no other changes required.

As far as draft I've felt that way for a long time. If your team is s**t and you have a career ending injury - bad luck. Get better I guess. I'd prefer, particularly as expenditure on player income increases that the list sizes expand and AFL level football becomes less and less a development game for lesser teams. Personally I'm on the policy of equal and fair rather than equalisation as such. Teams should be rewarded for getting better, planning long term, spreading their risk - not for being s**t.

Edit: PS. I very much do NOT care about playing harder or easier teams due to finishing position. Hawthorns draw this year should - in theory - be no harder than Carlton's. Being better shouldn't mean you are handicapped in this sport. They already have to play until the last week of the year and play catchup in the season with injuries. What possible justification is there for making the task of winning a premiership harder?

BTW all of the above changes to draft / fixture / whatever are all predicated on the competition being run as fairly and evenly as possible. Tweaking one without the other defeats the purpose and unfortunately due to the introduction of GWS, GC I think we have effectively delayed the ability to make most of these changes for at least another decade. The ripple affects of these introductions go on for some time and I think you need to see the competition settle before changing things too much. It's unfortunate as I think we'd now be in a position post introduction of PA / Fremantle to properly even the competition about now...

You don't need to take everything literally.

I've never seen a team use an easy draw to win a flag.

You've yet to see the North Melbourne 2016 cup then...

 

[czero]

Is there evidence of tanking outside of the farcical situation where teams under 5.5 wins receive an extra high selection?

Unless we move to playing every team twice during a year, the fixture is by definition inequitable.

There are a lot of suspect games, but as far as hard evidence goes its pretty hard to get.

If you analysed games where players were taken off for extended lengths, not played, or played out of position in games where it could either decide a draft position directly (like last game of the year) or done over time during the last half of the year you could build up a base of evidence.

I don't know if its about getting hard evidence so much though - all sports understand the issue and work to prevent it because you don't have to be a genius to realise that its inevitable that the lure of better draft picks will lure clubs into situations where they wont be gunning for the win. I think the best way to avoid this is to remove the lure.

 

[hilly]

There are a lot of suspect games, but as far as hard evidence goes its pretty hard to get.

If you analysed games where players were taken off for extended lengths, not played, or played out of position in games where it could either decide a draft position directly (like last game of the year) or done over time during the last half of the year you could build up a base of evidence.

I don't know if its about getting hard evidence so much though - all sports understand the issue and work to prevent it because you don't have to be a genius to realise that its inevitable that the lure of better draft picks will lure clubs into situations where they wont be gunning for the win. I think the best way to avoid this is to remove the lure.

True but the above isn't just about improving draft position. Teams may well decide there is no point naming their best 22 and prefer to do other things i.e. give an extended run to blokes who may or may not be on the list the following season.

I wouldn't want North trying to lose games for the sake of moving from pick four to three, but if it was for another pick that early in the draft I'd be for it.

 

[Ocha905]

Third tier (13-18) is great. A rubbish team getting pick 6 should still improve with good team management whilst all games would be competitive and worth playing for. Sign me up 10/10.

Second tier (7-12) is the most problematic. A team in 11th or 12th after round 15 or so (Geelong and Port Adelaide last year) should tank for an easy number 1 or 2 pick, knowing they are no chance at a premiership and a long shot to even make finals. This tier would be awful to be in- An ok to slim chance to make up the numbers in finals whilst missing out on an opportunity to get the best 18yo. A hard pass 1/10.

The top tier seems pointless. 1-6 teams play each other so... they can play each other again but for real this time! Also the minor premiership means nothing so if a team won their first 4 games they'd be incentivised to rest players for the real finals series and still finish in the coveted top 4. Boring 4/10.

Overall it's okay but severely flawed. Current system though is much better even with a rigged fixture.