Tasmania set to apply for a provisional AFL licence (aiming to enter competition by 2025)

[Gigantor]

Getting a lecture from a GWS fan about things being made up. Your club is one of the reasons why the 22 round season doesn't work anymore.

It stopped working back in 1987.
Actually, it's only ever worked as you wish it to work for about one quarter of the VFL/AFL's existence.
That is, it's a complete non-issue.
As I said earlier, 18 clubs is plenty, don't need any divisions or conferences or whatever other crap ideas people are pinching from wherever.

 

[JohnZ]

Actually, it's only ever worked as you wish it to work for about one quarter of the VFL/AFL's existence.
That is, it's a complete non-issue.

I disagree. Why lose a good thing just because? The VFL/AFL should have continued to add rounds as new teams were introduced to the competition.

As I said earlier, 18 clubs is plenty, don't need any divisions or conferences or whatever other crap ideas people are pinching from wherever.

12 was plenty, 16 was plenty. 18/20 is too many for competition. You can't run a full H+A season with this many teams, otherwise you're basically the EPL and the season is 40 weeks long. We either need to cull the deadwood of the comp now and get the numbers of teams back down so we can get a full H+A season, or we need to add more so that divisions work. All I'm looking for is some fairness in the comp.

 

[big_e]

I disagree. Why lose a good thing just because? The VFL/AFL should have continued to add rounds as new teams were introduced to the competition.


12 was plenty, 16 was plenty. 18/20 is too many for competition. You can't run a full H+A season with this many teams, otherwise you're basically the EPL and the season is 40 weeks long. We either need to cull the deadwood of the comp now and get the numbers of teams back down so we can get a full H+A season, or we need to add more so that divisions work. All I'm looking for is some fairness in the comp.

Twenty teams means 19 games. Which is as close to perfect as we will ever get.

 

[NoobPie]

I disagree. Why lose a good thing just because? The VFL/AFL should have continued to add rounds as new teams were introduced to the competition.


12 was plenty, 16 was plenty. 18/20 is too many for competition. You can't run a full H+A season with this many teams, otherwise you're basically the EPL and the season is 40 weeks long. We either need to cull the deadwood of the comp now and get the numbers of teams back down so we can get a full H+A season, or we need to add more so that divisions work. All I'm looking for is some fairness in the comp.

It seems all you are looking for is a full home and away season without consideration for anything else

 

[JohnZ]

Twenty teams means 19 games. Which is as close to perfect as we will ever get.

That's home or away. Not home and away

It seems all you are looking for is a full home and away season without consideration for anything else

We want a fair fixture no? Is that too much to ask for? What other considerations should come before a fair and uncompromised fixture?

 

[NoobPie]

That's home or away. Not home and away


We want a fair fixture no? Is that too much to ask for? What other considerations should come before a fair and uncompromised fixture?

I think most of us just want the best and most fair system.....but not to the point of obsession with one particular concept

The AFL's best and fairest system will inevitably be a single round robin.

 

[JohnZ]

I think most of us just want the best and most fair system.....but not to the point of obsession with one particular concept

The AFL's best and fairest system will inevitably be a single round robin.

You can't give me the excuse of considerations then not list any? It's not just one concept, it's the most fundamental concept in sport. Home and Away. Fairness across the board.

 

[big_e]

That's home or away. Not home and away


We want a fair fixture no? Is that too much to ask for? What other considerations should come before a fair and uncompromised fixture?

Arguing for "fair and uncompromised fixtures" and for demoting clubs to a second division at the same time is quite a stretch.

 

[NoobPie]

You can't give me the excuse of considerations then not list any?

1) Aus football has a grueling 3 hour game of which there is a limit on how many games an individual can play sustainably in a season
2) Stadium sharing contracts (i.e. with Cricket effect 4 of majority of the tier 1 stadiums) which constrain the season length
3) Optimal number of clubs required to maximise interest and reach of code too high for double round robin (i.e full home and away)
4) Highly successful competitive balance measures that are completely incompatible with pro/rel that would be needed to have full home and away

It's not just one concept, it's the most fundamental concept in sport. Home and Away. Fairness across the board.

It is just one concept. The fact you think it is "the most fundamental concept in sport" just demonstrates the shallowness of your understanding

The AFL's current fixture is far from ideal. I am personally a big proponent of the 17-5 which isn't going to happen. Ultimately though the AFL has a home and away season which seeds into a finals which ultimately determines the best team when the chips are down. This is the Australian system which has worked well for over a century.

 

[JohnZ]

It is just one concept. The fact you think it is "the most fundamental concept in sport" just demonstrates the shallowness of your understanding

The AFL's current fixture is far from ideal. I am personally a big proponent of the 17-5 which isn't going to happen. Ultimately though the AFL has a home and away season which seeds into a finals which ultimately determines the best team when the chips are down. This is the Australian system which has worked well for over a century.

Still find it amusing that you think it's shallow to want a full H+A season. Nothing is fairer.

17-5 is just an extended finals series with mini conferences for the last 5 games. It's not more fair then guessing which teams will be good and deciding the 5 double ups. Unless you're saying that team 7 can beat up teams 8-12 then finish 1st, whilst 1st has to beat teams 2 thru 6 just to maintain their top of the table status.

1) Aus football has a grueling 3 hour game of which there is a limit on how many games an individual can play sustainably in a season
2) Stadium sharing contracts (i.e. with Cricket effect 4 of majority of the tier 1 stadiums) which constrain the season length
3) Optimal number of clubs required to maximise interest and reach of code too high for double round robin (i.e full home and away)
4) Highly successful competitive balance measures that are completely incompatible with pro/rel that would be needed to have full home and away

1. Sure is, which is why players can take weeks off. Not sure why we need Dusty or Danger to necessarily play a full season if it's 34 weeks. Workers get time off, players can get a 2 week holiday during the seaon.
2. As long as the MCG/SCG/AO/OS/GABBA are available for international cricket (Nov-Jan), no one would stand in the AFLs way to expand the season. Why pour money into the Junction Oval? Because the MCG is too big a stadium for the state comps. Too expensive, too many seats, can be put to better use with events that will fill it
3. Optimal is 12, because it gives you a 22 week season like we currently have. We have 18 clubs, so you either delete 6 clubs or add 6 clubs to get there (a comp with 12 teams, or a comp with 24 teams and 2 divisions). Or we stick with the 18/20 clubs and go to 34/38 weeks seasons. Both solutions have problems to overcome.
4. Pro/rel has issues. The EPL has 15% movement each season. I'm proposing 33% movement, which should ensure that more teams get their chance in Div 1 and that each season is kept fresh (not the same teams every year). A div 2 flag is nothing to sneeze at, means a lot more than a VFL flag atm that's for sure. Having divisions is a minor pay off for a full H+A fixture.

Arguing for "fair and uncompromised fixtures" and for demoting clubs to a second division at the same time is quite a stretch.

If it were up to me, we'd delete 6 teams and go back to 12. Not gonna happen. The benefits of playing division 2 is that North can develop their players without being smashed by the top teams every week. They're more competitive, build some confidence and get promoted back up when their list is ready. I guarantee you that a good player will be lost because their confidence will be shat on and never recover. Also, afaic, a full H+A season trumps all. No picking and choosing 2nd matchups based on crowds, money and history. If you play a team at home, you play them away too.

 

[NoobPie]

17-5 is just an extended finals series with mini conferences for the last 5 games. It's not more fair then guessing which teams will be good and deciding the 5 double ups. Unless you're saying that team 7 can beat up teams 8-12 then finish 1st, whilst 1st has to beat teams 2 thru 6 just to maintain their top of the table status.

The fact you think that demonstrates why I am wasting my time even responding to you. You have no idea

1. Sure is, which is why players can take weeks off. Not sure why we need Dusty or Danger to necessarily play a full season if it's 34 weeks. Workers get time off, players can get a 2 week holiday during the seaon.

So a watered down season with the best players only playing a third of the games....not to mention what happens when finals seedings are determined 8 weeks out (or, please don't tell me you want to get rid of finals?)

2. As long as the MCG/SCG/AO/OS/GABBA are available for international cricket (Nov-Jan), no one would stand in the AFLs way to expand the season. Why pour money into the Junction Oval? Because the MCG is too big a stadium for the state comps. Too expensive, too many seats, can be put to better use with events that will fill it

So long term contracts the AFL has signed with stadiums, cricket authorities and governments the AFL can effortlessly tear up because "noone will stand in its way"???

If only life was a simple as just being able to baselessly assert things to suit your arguments

3. Optimal is 12, because it gives you a 22 week season like we currently have. We have 18 clubs, so you either delete 6 clubs or add 6 clubs to get there (a comp with 12 teams, or a comp with 24 teams and 2 divisions). Or we stick with the 18/20 clubs and go to 34/38 weeks seasons. Both solutions have problems to overcome.

Again, the level of obtuseness to think that optimality is wholly determined by the need for a double round robin is breathtaking


4. Pro/rel has issues. The EPL has 15% movement each season. I'm proposing 33% movement, which should ensure that more teams get their chance in Div 1 and that each season is kept fresh (not the same teams every year
). A div 2 flag is nothing to sneeze at, means a lot more than a VFL flag atm that's for sure. Having divisions is a minor pay off for a full H+A fixture.
[/QUOTE]

What do you mean it's nothing to sneeze at? It doesn't even exist!

That's the thing, you are suggesting something that could have drastic ramifications for how clubs maintain sponsors and members and all you have is a fantasy that peoplewill give a shyt

If it were up to me, we'd delete 6 teams and go back to 12.Not gonna happen.

That's right, because it would be nuts

The benefits of playing division 2 is that North can develop their players without being smashed by the top teams every week. They're more competitive, build some confidence and get promoted back up when their list is ready. I guarantee you that a good player will be lost because their confidence will be shat on and never recover.

Please, you can't guarantee anything

Also, afaic, a full H+A season trumps all. No picking and choosing 2nd matchups based on crowds, money and history. If you play a team at home, you play them away too.

Which we've gathered and subsequently demonstrated means you thinking is to rigid and self confirming to offer much else to the conversation