The 17-5 system is, in fact, a 9-week "final-12" finals system. Help expose it for the farce it is.

[LordLucifer]

If teams want to get off the bottom of the ladder they have to improve enough to beat the teams above them, regardless of the system you use. I understand what you are suggesting - give the bottom teams some wins to give them confidence - but I think it is giving them a false impression of their real standing and, with your system, creates a yo-yo effect of pushing them up one year and then reality bringing them back down the next when they have a harder draw.

Totally agree with the bolded sentence.

I understand your points after that but you are not factoring in a teams improvement from year to year, no-one can predict how or when that will kick in. The playing lists change every year and teams can also plummet on the back of retirements & long-term injuries.

I just don't see the point of having the top teams playing the bottom teams a second time because the result is a foregone conclusion already. At least under my system, you can see how much a team has improved or not relative to the teams that are normally around them.

 

[D-N-R]

Totally agree with the bolded sentence.

I understand your points after that but you are not factoring in a teams improvement from year to year, no-one can predict how or when that will kick in. The playing lists change every year and teams can also plummet on the back of retirements & long-term injuries.

I just don't see the point of having the top teams playing the bottom teams a second time because the result is a foregone conclusion already. At least under my system, you can see how much a team has improved or not relative to the teams that are normally around them.

I think both systems give an indication of the teams' relative strengths, but in a slightly different way. Yours would highlight their strength against each other with multiple double-up games. On mine, bottom 3 teams can compare their standing after twice playing teams 3,6,9,12, and 15 places higher than them on the ladder. The top 3 after playing teams 3,6,9,12, and 15 places lower on the ladder and so on.

Anyway, it's been a good discussion. Cheers.

 

[LordLucifer]

I think both systems give an indication of the teams' relative strengths, but in a slightly different way. Yours would highlight their strength against each other with multiple double-up games. On mine, bottom 3 teams can compare their standing after twice playing teams 3,6,9,12, and 15 places higher than them on the ladder. The top 3 after playing teams 3,6,9,12, and 15 places lower on the ladder and so on.

Anyway, it's been a good discussion. Cheers.

I think we are in agreeance in principle, just a different method on how you create the groups of six, both have their plusses & minuses.

 

[ParapMarkets]

I really hate this 17-5 idea of locking teams into groups 5 weeks from finals. Say WC are 7th at the end of 17 rounds and are only out of 4th spot by percentage, having only played 8 home games. That's it for them, they have no chance of a top 4 finish, stuck in mediocreville.

It sounds like 5 weeks of boredom to me, aspirations of a lot of teams gone, their destiny already decided to a large degree just so some people can try and make more money from killing the players of the top teams in the lead up to finals.

Some of the inequities of the draw could easily be fixed but it's clear that generating revenue is deemed more important. The genuine contenders generally get a tough draw under the current system anyway, playing more top teams twice, so they are in a close to level playing field with their main competitors who are also playing tough teams twice. If they are good enough they will make it anyway.

 

[Richoman Tigers]

Two examples that make the 17-5 idea incredibly stupid from different stand points are North 2016 (stuck in top 6 group when they won 2 of their last 11 games) where they almost missed finals to st Kilda / the chasing pack and Richmond 2014 who were 13th after 17 rounds but made finals after that 9 game winning streak including the last round in Sydney who were minor premiers

 

[NoobPie]

Two examples that make the 17-5 idea incredibly stupid from different stand points are North 2016 (stuck in top 6 group when they won 2 of their last 11 games) where they almost missed finals to st Kilda / the chasing pack and Richmond 2014 who were 13th after 17 rounds but made finals after that 9 game winning streak including the last round in Sydney who were minor premiers

Except neither of those examples are correct. North were 8th after 17 games in 2016 and richmond were 12th are 17 games

Even if they were true they'd hardly mean the idea is "incredibly stupid"

 

[Clems Knee]

Why should there be "2 derbies guaranteed" ??

If the parameters that get implemented mean that there is only one in a season then so be it. It's a bit like Coll V Ess who will always have the ANZAC match but that doesn't mean they should always play each other twice either.

The league need to stop putting profits ahead of an equitable system.

Because 2 derbies guaranteed reduces the travel requirements of the WA teams by about 5000km. Because unlike the Melbourne market, there are limited number of blockbusters over the course of the year. If two derbies can be fitted into a fairer system than we currently have, why not?

 

[mcgarnacle]

Because 2 derbies guaranteed reduces the travel requirements of the WA teams by about 5000km. Because unlike the Melbourne market, there are limited number of blockbusters over the course of the year. If two derbies can be fitted into a fairer system than we currently have, why not?

Adelaide - Fremantle - Port Adelaide - Eagles
Lions - Gold Coast - Sydney - Giants
Carlton - Collingwood - Melbourne - Richmond - St Kilda
Essendon - Geelong - Hawthorn - North - Bulldogs

- 22-match per club season maintained
- intra-group x 2 home and away
- each team in same group play each team in other groups under the same home & away conditions --> common schedules for each group
- bigger rivalry games in Melbourne --> frequent regional rivalry games --> fixed groups develop enduring long-term rivalries
- 4 separate tables --> group winner auto qualify for finals ranked 1-8 --> 4 best group non-winners qualify ranked 2-8
- all teams in each group can still qualify for and play each other at any stage of finals
- format becomes competitions within the overall competition --> bragging rights for group winners during regular season --> GF and premiership still the ultimate prize!
- scheduling transparency with opponents and home and away conditions of the majority of matches known seasons in advance --> no draw manipulation and ridiculous situations such as Lions not hosting Hawthorn for 6 seasons straight

 

[Clems Knee]

Adelaide - Fremantle - Port Adelaide - Eagles
Lions - Gold Coast - Sydney - Giants
Carlton - Collingwood - Melbourne - Richmond - St Kilda
Essendon - Geelong - Hawthorn - North - Bulldogs

- 22-match per club season maintained
- intra-group x 2 home and away
- each team in same group play each team in other groups under the same home & away conditions --> common schedules for each group
- bigger rivalry games in Melbourne --> frequent regional rivalry games --> fixed groups develop enduring long-term rivalries
- 4 separate tables --> group winner auto qualify for finals ranked 1-8 --> 4 best group non-winners qualify ranked 2-8
- all teams in each group can still qualify for and play each other at any stage of finals
- format becomes competitions within the overall competition --> bragging rights for group winners during regular season --> GF and premiership still the ultimate prize!
- scheduling transparency with opponents and home and away conditions of the majority of matches known seasons in advance --> no draw manipulation and ridiculous situations such as Lions not hosting Hawthorn for 6 seasons straight

Eg Adelaide plays Port, Freo, WC twice. Other 14 teams once. Adds up to 20 games.
Carlton plays Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond, St.Kilda twice. Other 13 teams once. Adds up to 21 games.

How do you get a 22 game season out of this?

It might work if we had 20 teams. But I see no appetite for another team in WA. Maybe the NT for the Western group and somewhere along the Eastern Seaboard for the Qld Nsw group. Tassie?

I do agree that scheduling transparency must be fixed. Some teams get shafted almost every year, while others get a dream ride.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Eg Adelaide plays Port, Freo, WC twice. Other 14 teams once. Adds up to 20 games.
Carlton plays Collingwood, Melbourne, Richmond, St.Kilda twice. Other 13 teams once. Adds up to 21 games.

How do you get a 22 game season out of this?

It might work if we had 20 teams. But I see no appetite for another team in WA. Maybe the NT for the Western group and somewhere along the Eastern Seaboard for the Qld Nsw group. Tassie?

I do agree that scheduling transparency must be fixed. Some teams get shafted almost every year, while others get a dream ride.

that's why I said 'majority' of matches in my final sentence.

make up the games with a return fixture(s) from another group. the 4 group teams will need two, the 5 group teams will need 1.

 

[Clems Knee]

that's why I said 'majority' of matches in my final sentence.

make up the games with a return fixture(s) from another group. the 4 group teams will need two, the 5 group teams will need 1.

fair enough. That would be an opportunity for the kind of manipulation that you complained about. But at least it's only one or two games, I guess.

 

[chiwigi]

I really hate this 17-5 idea of locking teams into groups 5 weeks from finals. Say WC are 7th at the end of 17 rounds and are only out of 4th spot by percentage, having only played 8 home games. That's it for them, they have no chance of a top 4 finish, stuck in mediocreville.

It sounds like 5 weeks of boredom to me, aspirations of a lot of teams gone, their destiny already decided to a large degree just so some people can try and make more money from killing the players of the top teams in the lead up to finals.

Some of the inequities of the draw could easily be fixed but it's clear that generating revenue is deemed more important. The genuine contenders generally get a tough draw under the current system anyway, playing more top teams twice, so they are in a close to level playing field with their main competitors who are also playing tough teams twice. If they are good enough they will make it anyway.

There is always a cut off for eligibility, where that is is currently just as arbitrary.

 

[ParapMarkets]

There is always a cut off for eligibility, where that is is currently just as arbitrary.

Completely and utterly disagree!!!!!!!!! They want to cut off eligibility at least five weeks prior to finals commencing, we all understand there has to be some cut off but that should be done directly before finals start. Arbitrary my arse, there is no league in the world that has a cut off five weeks prior to finals commencing where teams are stuck. They are talking about a five week period that is kinda like finals but without the importance and without the chance of winning anything, just some nothing five week period which will end up having probably as many "dead rubbers" as it currently does.

 

[FootyJunkie]

North East
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS Giants

Victoria (MCG)
Carlton
Collingwood
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Richmond

Southern Cross (Etihad Stadium/Simonds Stadium)
Essendon
Geelong
North Melbourne
St.Kilda
Western Bulldogs

South West
Adelaide
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
West Coast

North East - 6 division games, 6 games vs. South West, 10 games vs. Victoria -OR- Southern Cross = 22 games
Victoria - 8 division games, 6 games vs. Southern Cross, 8 games vs. North East -OR- South West = 22 games
Southern Cross - 8 division games, 6 games vs. Victoria, 8 games vs. North East -OR- South West = 22 games
South West - 6 division games, 6 games vs. North East, 10 games vs. Victoria -OR- Southern Cross = 22 games

NSW sides travel 10 times
- QLD twice
- SA twice/WA once -OR- SA once/WA twice
- VIC 5 times

QLD sides travel 10 times
- NSW twice
- SA twice/WA once -OR- SA once/WA twice
- VIC 5 times

SA sides travel 10 times
- WA twice
- QLD twice/NSW once -OR- QLD once/NSW twice
- VIC 5 times

WA sides travel 10 times
- SA twice
- QLD twice/NSW once -OR- QLD once/NSW twice
- VIC 5 times

VIC sides travel 4 times
- WA twice/SA twice -OR- NSW twice/QLD twice

Division Winners are ranked 1st-4th.
Next best 4, regardless of division, are ranked 5th-8th.

 

[NoobPie]

Completely and utterly disagree!!!!!!!!! They want to cut off eligibility at least five weeks prior to finals commencing, we all understand there has to be some cut off but that should be done directly before finals start. Arbitrary my arse, there is no league in the world that has a cut off five weeks prior to finals commencing where teams are stuck. They are talking about a five week period that is kinda like finals but without the importance and without the chance of winning anything, just some nothing five week period which will end up having probably as many "dead rubbers" as it currently does.

-No other league in the world (apart from Australian ones that copy the AFL) have a disjointed 1 & 5/17ths round robin to determine finals selection
-the 17-5 involves a single round robin that determines entry to pools based on ladder positions which then determine finals qualifications.
-The 5 week period will hardly have any dead rubbers in it for the top and middle groups

 

[ParapMarkets]

-No other league in the world (apart from Australian ones that copy the AFL) have a disjointed 1 & 5/17ths round robin to determine finals selection
-the 17-5 involves a single round robin that determines entry to pools based on ladder positions which then determine finals qualifications.
-The 5 week period will hardly have any dead rubbers in it for the top and middle groups

Now you're being silly, and the 1 and 5/17ths argument could be made for what you are proposing, the only way to avoid that is to cut the season to 17 games (which they obviously won't do).

There will be plenty of dead rubbers in the top groups, unless they wipe the slate clean after the 17 rounds which creates its own problem of not rewarding the full 22 home and away rounds and penalising teams that may have injuries/form issues from rounds 17-22 as opposed to rounds 4-9.

The problem with trying to duplicate "blockbusters" as much as possible is it diminishes their worth. The 5 week nothing period even for the top teams will see teams rest their best players, not give anything away to their opposition in preparation for the finals. This will impact crowds and they will do this more under the proposed 17-5 than they would currently do for the simple fact that they won't want to continually smash their players against the best teams and because the worst they can finish is sixth.

 

[DemonTim]

-No other league in the world (apart from Australian ones that copy the AFL) have a disjointed 1 & 5/17ths round robin to determine finals selection
-the 17-5 involves a single round robin that determines entry to pools based on ladder positions which then determine finals qualifications.
-The 5 week period will hardly have any dead rubbers in it for the top and middle groups

Are you really suggesting that your scenario is the only true 17-5 and any other scenario that sees a 17-5 based on "x" factor isn't a 17-5 because only your system is a 17-5? this thread has just become arguing for the sake of arguing now.

 

[NoobPie]

Are you really suggesting that your scenario is the only true 17-5 and any other scenario that sees a 17-5 based on "x" factor isn't a 17-5 because only your system is a 17-5? this thread has just become arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Where have you got that from my quote? You can call the current system 17-5 where "x" is "whatever the afl feels like within a 2-2-1 constraint"- it's just semantics really.

17-5 as a label has become identified with the two phase model that splits the season in to 17 and 5 game single round robins though.

You can call any of them 17-5 if you like but is a 22 game league table with 18 teams then you have yourself a 1&5/17ths round robin I'm afraid. This one is based on a rolling draw, that one a seeding from last season. They are all 1&5/17 round robins

 

[DemonTim]

Where have you got that from my quote? You can call the current system 17-5 where "x" is "whatever the afl feels like within a 2-2-1 constraint"- it's just semantics really.

17-5 as a label has become identified with the two phase model that splits the season in to 17 and 5 game single round robins though.

You can call any of them 17-5 if you like but is a 22 game league table with 18 teams then you have yourself a 1&5/17ths round robin I'm afraid. This one is based on a rolling draw, that one a seeding from last season. They are all 1&5/17 round robins

Lol "where have you got that from my quote"

Proceeds to make the exact point I said

You're the only one who has determine that 17-5 must be a specific thing otherwise it's 1&5/17ths

Any model based on playing each opponent once and then playing 5 games based on x logic is literally 17 and 5.

 

[NoobPie]

Lol "where have you got that from my quote"

Proceeds to make the exact point I said

No I didn't. I said you can call whatever you like a 17-5, including the current system which fits your definition. I noted, though, that "17-5" has become identified with the the 17 phase single round robin followed by the 5 phase single round robin with three groups of six. That doesn't stop you being able to call a 22 game season with 5 return games a 17-5 though...free country an all

You're the only one who has determine that 17-5 must be a specific thing otherwise it's 1&5/17ths

No i didn't. But any 22 round season where 18 teams play eachother once and then another 5 twice is not a single round robin and its not a double round robin its a 1&5/17ths round robin. Calling it 17-5 doesn't stop it being an incomplete round robin

Any model based on playing each opponent once and then playing 5 games based on x logic is literally 17 and 5.

Like I said, go for it. Call whatever 1 and 5/17ths round robin you can come up with a 17-5. I care, not

 

[swiftdog]

North East
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS Giants

Victoria (MCG)
Carlton
Collingwood
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Richmond

Southern Cross (Etihad Stadium/Simonds Stadium)
Essendon
Geelong
North Melbourne
St.Kilda
Western Bulldogs

South West
Adelaide
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
West Coast

North East - 6 division games, 6 games vs. South West, 10 games vs. Victoria -OR- Southern Cross = 22 games
Victoria - 8 division games, 6 games vs. Southern Cross, 8 games vs. North East -OR- South West = 22 games
Southern Cross - 8 division games, 6 games vs. Victoria, 8 games vs. North East -OR- South West = 22 games
South West - 6 division games, 6 games vs. North East, 10 games vs. Victoria -OR- Southern Cross = 22 games

NSW sides travel 10 times
- QLD twice
- SA twice/WA once -OR- SA once/WA twice
- VIC 5 times

QLD sides travel 10 times
- NSW twice
- SA twice/WA once -OR- SA once/WA twice
- VIC 5 times

SA sides travel 10 times
- WA twice
- QLD twice/NSW once -OR- QLD once/NSW twice
- VIC 5 times

WA sides travel 10 times
- SA twice
- QLD twice/NSW once -OR- QLD once/NSW twice
- VIC 5 times

VIC sides travel 4 times
- WA twice/SA twice -OR- NSW twice/QLD twice

Division Winners are ranked 1st-4th.
Next best 4, regardless of division, are ranked 5th-8th.

I don't mind this, it makes sense and there are clear benefits to topping a division. Still think I prefer a three division system (West, Central and North) with amendments to the current finals system. West would be WA and SA based, Central NSW based and North QLD based. Vic teams populating the remaining spots (I think it would have to be done on a rotation). Also, maybe there's an argument that the SA teams rotate around the divisions also (not sure what the SA to WA travel burden is like for SA teams)? So for the matter of a discussion I'll randomise Vic teams into the divisions:

West Division
Fremantle
West Coast
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Collingwood
Western Bulldogs

Central Division
Greater Western Sydney
Sydney
Melbourne
Carlton
Essendon
Hawthorn

North Division
Brisbane
Gold Coast
North Melbourne
St.Kilda
Richmond
Geelong

Home and away matches within division and against every other team once for 22 games. I'd like to see a single-elimination final 10 (I can understand arguments against a final 10 and teams with losing records making finals, it doesn't bother me personally and how many teams should make finals is ultimately a subjective opinion) as I think it could fit relatively nicely among 3 divisions. I'd like top 2 of each division guaranteed finals with the next four best records regardless of division (wildcards 1 to 4 if you like) making up the rest of the finals.

Finals Week 1 - Qualifying Finals
Wildcard 1 vs Wildcard 4
Wildcard 2 vs Wildcard 3

The top 2 from each division would have the week off hence a benefit for finishing top 6. From here a "re-seeding" from 1 to 8 but with a twist on H&A record. We're normally used to seeding teams purely on wins and losses. The biggest benefit of a conference-style system is that a team's capacity to make finals is normally determined within-conference. Example, NBA basketball and top 8 from each conference who have similar draws (in this case teams within-division would have identical draws in regards to who plays who). For this model, the ability to get week 1 of finals off is determined within-division (plus wildcards). The problem now with seeding between-divisions is that a team in a weaker division might have a better record than a team in a stronger division simply due to the relative strength of each division. I'd like us to adapt an NHL-style (I believe) model to determine seeds 1 to 3 (your 3 division winners). I believe that for teams that finish with the same record in the NHL, that the higher-ranked team is determined by the results of matches between the two teams. I think seeds 1 to 3 could be determined the same way here (given that there's an inherent advantage to being seed 1 or seed 2 as you'll play against a wildcard team where seed 3 will play seed 6, who also had the week 1 bye). In matches between the three division leaders, the team with the best record gets seed 1 down to team with the worst record getting seed 3. This could certainly increase interest in between-division matches. Arguably, you could do this for seeds 4 to 6 as well but I don't like that personally. From here, finals would just be straight elimination

Finals Week 2 - Semi Finals
Seed 1 vs Seed 8
Seed 2 vs Seed 7
Seed 3 vs Seed 6
Seed 4 vs Seed 5

Finals Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
PF1 - Highest remaining seed vs Lowest remaining seed
PF2 - Second highest remaining seed vs Second lowest remaining seed

Finals Week 4 - Grand Final
Winner PF1 vs Winner PF2

I think the benefits for different finishing positions flows pretty well:

Tier 1:
Seed 1 and Seed 2 - Week 1 bye, Week 2 match against team that played in Week 1, Home finals until GF

Tier 2:
Seed 3 and Seed 4 - Week 1 bye, Home Week 2 match, possible Home Week 3 match

Tier 3:
Seed 5 and Seed 6 - Week 1 bye, possible home week 3 match

Tier 4:
Wildcard 1 and Wildcard 2 - finals entry, Home match in Week 1

Tier 5:
Wildcard 3 and Wildcard 4 - finals entry


Just an example based on last years ladder + above randomisations as to how it could play out (not taking into account what the fixture would be in the divisions, just using records + results):

West Division:
1. Adelaide - 16W, 6L, 138.3%
2. West Coast - 16W, 6L, 130.0%
3. Western Bulldogs - 15W, 7L, 115.4%
4. Port Adelaide - 10W, 12L, 106.0%
5. Collingwood - 9W, 13L, 95.6%
6. Fremantle - 4W, 18L, 74.3%

Central Division:
1. Sydney - 17W, 5L, 151.2%
2. Hawthorn - 17W, 5L, 118.6%
3. GWS - 16W, 6L, 143.1%
4. Melbourne - 10W, 12L, 97.6%
5. Carlton - 7W, 15L, 79.3%
6. Essendon - 3W, 19L, 61.0%

North Division:
1. Geelong - 17W, 5L, 143.8%
2. North Melbourne - 12W, 10L, 105.2%
3. St.Kilda - 12W, 10L, 95.7%
4. Richmond - 8W, 14L, 79.5%
5. Gold Coast - 6W, 16L, 78.2%
6. Brisbane - 3W, 19L, 61.6%

Finals Week 1 - Qualifying Finals
GWS (W1) 22.19.151 def Port Adelaide (W4) 9.11.65
Western Bulldogs (W2) 9.6.60 def by St.Kilda (W3) 11.9.75

Seeding
1. Sydney 17/5 - Central division winner (1W, 1L, 116.19% vs division winners)
2. Geelong 17/5 - North division winner (1W, 1L, 93.83% vs division winners)
3. Adelaide 16/6 - West division winner (1W, 1L, 90.77% vs division winners)
4. Hawthorn 17/5 - Central runner-up
5. West Coast 16/6 - West runner-up
6. North Melbourne 12/10 - North runner-up
7. GWS 16/6 - Wildcard 1
8. St.Kilda 12/10 - Wildcard 3

Finals Week 2 - Semi Finals
Sydney (S1) 23.8.146 def St.Kilda (S8) 11.10.76
Geelong (S2) 14.14.98 def GWS (S7) 14.4.88
Adelaide (S3) 21.15.141 def North Melbourne (S6) 12.7.79
Hawthorn (S4) 14.15.99 def West Coast (S5) 7.11.53

Finals Week 3 - Preliminary Finals
Sydney (S1) 10.10.70 def by Hawthorn (S4) 11.9.75
Geelong (S2) 12.13.85 def Adelaide (S3) 7.13.55

Finals Week 4 - Grand Final
Geelong (S2) 12.13.85 def Hawthorn (S4) 12.11.83

 

[chiwigi]

Completely and utterly disagree!!!!!!!!! They want to cut off eligibility at least five weeks prior to finals commencing, we all understand there has to be some cut off but that should be done directly before finals start. Arbitrary my arse, there is no league in the world that has a cut off five weeks prior to finals commencing where teams are stuck. They are talking about a five week period that is kinda like finals but without the importance and without the chance of winning anything, just some nothing five week period which will end up having probably as many "dead rubbers" as it currently does.

Scotland soccer, European Super league, to name but two that immediately spring to mind.
The fact remains that any cut off date unless it's a home and away season is arbritrary. You don't need to agree for it to be true.

 

[Clems Knee]

Are you really suggesting that your scenario is the only true 17-5 and any other scenario that sees a 17-5 based on "x" factor isn't a 17-5 because only your system is a 17-5? this thread has just become arguing for the sake of arguing now.

Agreed.

17-5 means 17 games followed by 5 games (double ups)
This distinguishes it from the current 22 round system where double ups start around round 12 and can be completed before round 22. It also distinguishes it from most conference schemes where it doesn't matter when the double ups occur.
It doesn't distinguish all the possible types of 17-5, and certainly doesn't just describe the options championed by NoobPie. He is deluded to think so.

From what I can see, shorthand descriptions of the methods promoted on this board include
17-5 clean slate. All points wiped after 17 rounds leading to a mini series of 5 rounds to determine finals. The 5 games are between members of a group of 6 determined according to ladder position.
17-5 8 points. Points are retained after 17 rounds, but the last 5 rounds are worth 8 points. The 5 games are similarly within each group of 6.
17-5 1,3,1. The last 5 games fit into guidelines determined after 17 games in the same way that double ups are now determined based on the previous seasons ladder. Points are retained and worth 4 points in all rounds.
17-5 rotating. From year to year the teams in each group of 6 rotate at a pre-determined schedule, independent of results that year.
17-5 conference. The last 5 games are always played between 6 teams in a conference, usually based on geography, though because there are 10 Victorian teams and 8 non-Victorian teams this is problematic, and the double ups don't need to be all after the first 17 games.

Only the first two are NoobPie's babies.
He has also promoted an 18-5 season, either clean slate or 8 point, where the 18th game is a derby/blockbuster every year. 23 rounds, like 22 rounds is arbitrary.

I am sure I've missed others.

Some have said 5-17: get the double ups out of the way early, before the season proper. 22 rounds is a historical artefact. Why not a 17-1-8 season or 8-1-17 where half of all teams play each other twice each year, and rotate (except for derby matches)? That would remove the preseason practice rounds and allow the AFL to truly compete with the early start that the NRL has, although early matches may need to be shorter or played for fewer points.

 

[DemonTim]

No I didn't. I said you can call whatever you like a 17-5, including the current system which fits your definition. I noted, though, that "17-5" has become identified with the the 17 phase single round robin followed by the 5 phase single round robin with three groups of six. That doesn't stop you being able to call a 22 game season with 5 return games a 17-5 though...free country an all




No i didn't. But any 22 round season where 18 teams play eachother once and then another 5 twice is not a single round robin and its not a double round robin its a 1&5/17ths round robin. Calling it 17-5 doesn't stop it being an incomplete round robin



Like I said, go for it. Call whatever 1 and 5/17ths round robin you can come up with a 17-5. I care, not

You threw a tanty, because "THIS IS A 17-5 thread" when the shiek made a 17=5 suggestion, you told him to make a new thread for it. So if his suggestion was 17-5 why wasn't his suggestion allowed here?

You're spinning your tyres and arguing for the sake of it. You can't seem to handle dissent.

 

[mcgarnacle]

fair enough. That would be an opportunity for the kind of manipulation that you complained about. But at least it's only one or two games, I guess.

those one or two matches can still be scheduled in a transparent way.

using the central/west group as an example, if Adelaide win their group in year x1, they would be scheduled against the winner of North/east group and winner of one of the melbourne groups (it switches each season) in x2 for those two matches in question.

having a transparent schedule (under this system, the bulk of games to be played for the season are known years in advance) and comparing teams against others who have played the same teams twice and played the same teams under the same home and away conditions (20 out of 22 games) for finals primary finals qualification, is the major objective of the format. it modifies the tradtional double round robin 34-game home and away season and single ladder to the 4 or 5 teams in each group. teams who play the same season are compared to each other first and foremost, and in a transparent schedule. that's what we're all after.