News The AFL will introduce a 24 round home and away season in 2028

[Rich]

The main problem with timing is the AFL are for whatever reason absolutely glued to the end of September. I suspect it’s a sweetheart understanding with racing authorities.

As a result they have taken over March and are moving into February. There’s absolutely no good reason for this. It’s too hot, which impacts the quality of games and has a big impact on players who are being asked to play more and more games. It’s far more uncomfortable for fans.

As I’ve started a thread about in the past, October is hugely cooler than March and and is the direction the AFL should logically go. Something has stopped them…

Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the betting agencies rather than the racing authorities sticking their beaks in and influencing the fixture. Might be both.

 

[Teen Wolf]

NFL broadcast deal (each team plays 17 games) is worth $10 Billion per year ($36.7 Million per match)

Each NFL team plays 17 games nowadays? Hmm, it was still 16 about five years ago. And it was only 14 back in the '70s! I wonder why they keep adding more...

 

[Dan26]

This is very stupid.

NFL model is valuable because the nature of their revenue generation comes from essentially each game selling out the entire stadium (not true of AFL), and the division between local broadcast (the games on a Sunday, except for a couple) and the national broadcast being distinct (couple of Sunday plus Thursday/Monday night) being distinct and two separate things that they raise money from and feeds into the economics of the league.

You claim in the NFL model works because it's fewer games and each match "matters". I disagree. I say it works is because an individual NFL game is a broadcast-worthy product unto itself into the home team's and away team's market, as are their home games with everyone getting 50,000+ crowds to every game.

This is not the financial model of the AFL. GWS get no crowds, is of no worth to broadcasters. You need to bring them into the fold of a national broadcast and a national competition where their "growth" matters. A GWS game isn't more valuable to its fans "mattering" because all of a sudden they only have 6 or 7 + "knockout" games to take to Western Sydney, for instance. Different sports, different leagues, different motivations, different countries.

No, the NFL operate with a scarcity model, which they have openly admitted to. That gives them a point of difference with the NBA who have 82 games each, where it's common for teams to rest their entire starting 5. And no wonder, with 82 games none of the games really matter. NFL players never (or rarely ) get rested unless it's the last round before the playoffs where they can't change seeding. All the games matter and they rate through the roof accordingly.

Baseball has 162 games per team where each game has almost no importance.

It's an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you increase the amount of games, that each individual game is less important and theoretically rates lower on TV (all other things being equal). That's not debatable. It's also an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you decrease the amount of games, that each individual game is more important and theoretically should rate higher on TV (all other things being equal)

If the NBA finals were just a single "best of 1" then that single game would rate much higher than the average of all games under a best of 7 series.

Where the debate starts is this: Is having less games that rate higher on TV worth more to broadcasters than having more games which rate lower? It's a complicated question, but more content is not always better if people aren't watching

 

[Dan26]

Each NFL team plays 17 games nowadays? Hmm, it was still 16 about five years ago. And it was only 14 back in the '70s! I wonder why they keep adding more...

I'll explain it like this.

More games are worth more.... up to a point. If there were, say a million games, with a thousand games on every day, no one would watch.

If there one single game, everyone watches.

More games equal more money up to a point where the curve on the graph peaks. The NFL could probably increase games beyond 18 before the curve starts to flatten. But at some point the curve on the graph starts to bend the other way and games become less valuable as audience decreases.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No, the NFL operate with a scarcity model, which they have openly admitted to. That gives them a point of difference with the NBA who have 82 games each, where it's common for teams to rest their entire starting 5. And no wonder, with 82 games none of the games really matter. NFL players never (or rarely ) get rested unless it's the last round before the playoffs where they can't change seeding. All the games matter and they rate through the roof accordingly.

Baseball has 162 games per team where each game has almost no importance.

It's an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you increase the amount of games, that each individual game is less important and theoretically rates lower on TV (all other things being equal). That's not debatable. It's also an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you decrease the amount of games, that each individual game is more important and theoretically should rate higher on TV (all other things being equal)

If the NBA finals were just a single "best of 1" then that single game would rate much higher than the average of all games under a best of 7 series.

Where the debate starts is this: Is having less games that rate higher on TV worth more to broadcasters than having more games which rate lower? It's a complicated question, but more content is not always better if people aren't watching

Do you honestly think that the AFL would be able to sell all the matches that a home team plays, such that they are more important, as a broadcast package? That's what the scarcity of the NFL creates. Demand within a local market for that team's matches on local TV.

 

[Dan26]

Do you honestly think that the AFL would be able to sell all the matches that a home team plays, such that they are more important, as a broadcast package? That's what the scarcity of the NFL creates. Demand within a local market for that team's matches on local TV.

Whether they are sold as home games for each team or as a package, less games equal more value individally. That can't be argued. It's simply a case of whether the increase of matches is worth more to the broadcaster even if the average ratings for each individual game is less.

 

[The Tilt]

Yes, the wooden spooner is missing out on Gather Round and also Round 24 - in return they get the #1 draft pick.

I agree that might take this approach, but why do people assume that clubs desperately want to be part of Gather round, and that they'd be disappointed to 'miss out'? Clubs don't gain directly from it in any obvious way.

Like, I know the 'vibe' is great and all the rest of it, but clubs aren't likely to care about that.

 

[maskmcgee]

No, the NFL operate with a scarcity model, which they have openly admitted to. That gives them a point of difference with the NBA who have 82 games each, where it's common for teams to rest their entire starting 5. And no wonder, with 82 games none of the games really matter. NFL players never (or rarely ) get rested unless it's the last round before the playoffs where they can't change seeding. All the games matter and they rate through the roof accordingly.

Baseball has 162 games per team where each game has almost no importance.

Basketball and Baseball both play long seasons because there's a massive amount of luck in the results. They need to play long seasons so the best teams actually finish at the top.

 

[Dan26]

Basketball and Baseball both play long seasons because there's a massive amount of luck in the results. They need to play long seasons so the best teams actually finish at the top.

True for baseball. It's not uncommon for the best team in MLB to only win 60% of their games.

NOT true in basketball. Teams have won 70+games in the NBA a couple of times and the best team each year is normally in the mid 60's. OKC went 64-18 (78%). No baseball team ever goes 78%. The NBA is unnecessarily bloated in a sport where the best teams usually win.

 

[ep2018]

Turning opening round into a neutral round where everyone plays in NSW/QLD is such a simple fix to the issue but I doubt either WA team signs off on it as it would be another forced away game.

 

[Dan26]

Turning opening round into a neutral round where everyone plays in NSW/QLD is such a simple fix to the issue but I doubt either WA team signs off on it as it would be another forced away game.

Here's an idea. Everyone plays 11 home and 11 away, we don't have gather round, and if teams want to hurt themselves by selling off a home game interstate that's up to them. Radical idea, I know.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I'll explain it like this.

More games are worth more.... up to a point. If there were, say a million games, with a thousand games on every day, no one would watch.

If there one single game, everyone watches.

More games equal more money up to a point where the curve on the graph peaks. The NFL could probably increase games beyond 18 before the curve starts to flatten. But at some point the curve on the graph starts to bend the other way and games become less valuable as audience decreases.

The NFL has added 3 regular season games per team in the past 50 years and have 3-4 weeks of proper pre-season. They've also added 6 matches to the playoffs.

In the same time the V/AFL has added 1 h/a game, while cutting 2-3 pre-season games. They've added 5 finals, while getting rid of the GF replay.

The two leagues appear to have a similar approach to adding more games, albeit the AFL is a little more conservative.

 

[Dan26]

The NFL has added 3 regular season games per team in the past 50 years and have 3-4 weeks of proper pre-season. They've also added 6 matches to the playoffs.

In the same time the V/AFL has added 1 h/a game, while cutting 2-3 pre-season games. They've added 5 finals, while getting rid of the GF replay.

The two leagues appear to have a similar approach to adding more games, albeit the AFL is a little more conservative.

I'm not against the idea of adding games. Up to a point. At some point you dilute your product to the point where you hurt it.

The question is, what number of games per team represents where the black arrow is?

 

[magpiemaniac44]

Could this work, a 11H 11A 2N split

Gather round works as it does currently, with 9 games and 1 team will get a bye

You then need to play 10 more neutral games throughout the season, where the team that gets the bye in Gather round still has 2 neutral games remaining and everyone else has 1, and these games can be played throughout the season

Additionally, whoever plays Adelaide and Port in Gather round that year, could 'host' a neutral game in return to make it fair.
For example, Adelaide played Carlton and Port played St Kilda in 'neutral games' this year at Adelaide Oval. Under this system St Kilda would play Adelaide in Melbourne as their second neutral game, and the same with Carlton and Port if that makes sense

 

[jdeezy]

Ignoring the "should they" element of it all, assuming they shoot for 24 games, I'm reasonably confident the maths in all this works out and is relatively straight forward and easy enough to understand as a viewer.


1. Timing:

You could start a 26 Round season, with 5 weeks of finals, on the 16th of March to finish on October 14, or start it on 9th of March - the long weekend - to finish with a grand final on the labour day long weekend. I like the first option better but suspect they'll go with the second.


2. Byes:

We need to account for 38 byes (all teams get 2). With 26 rounds there are an extra 12 byes to fit in. You could do this by having 6 rounds with only 8 games (3 byes per week) or 3 rounds with 7 games (5 byes) per week. Pick your poison, I reckon I prefer the 3x 7 game weeks. So 23 rounds with a full assortment of 9 matches and 3 rounds with 7 matches.

If you played the first 14 weeks as 9 game rounds, then on Round 15 you had a week of 7 games, with 5 teams on bye, that would mean that at that point every team has played exactly 14 games and had exactly one bye. This timing lines up neatly with when we normally have the bye rounds, in mid June.

From there, Rounds 16 through to 26 would feature everyone's second bye - 9 rounds with 9 games and 1 bye and 2 rounds with 7 games and 5 byes (could also be 7 rounds with 9 games and 4 rounds with 8 games). I'm assuming you would just do Rounds 16 and 17 as 7 game rounds, completing a run of 3 weeks of 7 game rounds but ultimately you've got scheduling options here if you want to get a bit funky with it.

Unfortunately there is always going to be some teams that get "better" byes than others. As others have said, you would probably lean towards last year's bottom couple of teams having those last couple of rounds bye so that likely finals teams weren't having that real stop start run of weeks on, weeks off. But there's always going to be some teams that get better scheduling than others and not really much you can do. Scheduling like this means likely no more than about 15 games in a row which feels about right.

3: 11 Home, 11 Away, 2 Neutral Games:
3a: Gather Round:

In 2028 Gather Round would be the days around Saturday 8th April, which is school holidays in Victoria but unfortunately not in SA. That's the week before Easter and two weeks before ANZAC round (ANZAC Day is a Tuesday that year).

The opening game of Gather Round would actually be a regular home and away match with an SA team and a low drawing team. This game would technically be part of the round before but would be held on Tuesday or Wednesday night. This would ensure every team is in SA for Friday for the preposed gather round parade or similar. You would lose the neutral crowd aspect of it, but I'm not sure you can do it any other way without making the 2nd neutral game another pseudo home game for the SA team.
A good example for this would be Adelaide v Brisbane, it's not locking out a huge fan base and should still draw a large crowd. Brisbane would get 2 neutral games later in the year as this wouldn't "use up" one.
Adelaide would then play their designated "neutral" Gather Round game against a different team on the Monday.

3b: The Other Neutral Games:

So then throughout the year, however you wanted to schedule it, you've got 10 other neutral games to schedule - Whoever was the true away team in Gather Round (in this example Brisbane) would be involved in 2, everyone else involved in 1. I'm a fan of these being regional showpiece games, within the national team's states (eg Freo, WC both have a game in WA, Syd, GWS in NSW, Bris, GC in QLD, Tas in Tas, that leaves 3 games which could be country Victoria with Vic teams). But it could be anything including 10 games in NT, 10 overseas, a combo of all of these or whatever. Whatever it is, they work better spread throughout the season, rather than trying to create a 2nd round with them all together. I also think it helps spread the spotlight on them individually anyway.

-------

Putting all that together you could have a schedule like this for 2028:

Round 1 - 16-19 March (1 team on bye)
Round 2 - 23-26 March (1 bye)
Round 3 - 30 March - 2 April (8 games Thursday through Sunday) and Adelaide v Brisbane on Wednesday 5 April (1 team on bye)
Round 4 Gather Round - 6-10 April (Brisbane on bye)
Round 5 Easter - 13-17 April (Adelaide on bye)
Round 6 ANZAC weekend up to Round 14 (weekend after Kings Birthday) (1 bye per week)
Round 15 - 22-25 June (7 games, 5 teams on bye) - at this point every team has had a bye once.
Round 16 - 29 June - 2 July (7 games, 5 byes)
Round 17 - 6-9 July (7 games, 5 byes)
Round 18 through to Round 26 (back to 1 bye per week)

Then it's:
7th-10th "wildcard" Finals - 15/16 September (1st-6th have week off)
Qualifying and Elimination Finals - 21 - 23 September
Semis - 29 & 30 September
Prelims - 6 & 7 October (Labour Day long weekend)
Grand Final - 14 October

 

[Walshawk]

But there will be 10 Victorian teams and 9 non-Vic teams.

So in your scenario, one Victorian team doesn't have anybody to play in their 12th away game. Not sure that's very sensible.

Incorrect. You don’t have to play all those games the same round, you spend them over the season. It works

 

[Teen Wolf]

Incorrect. You don’t have to play all those games the same round, you spend them over the season. It works

No, it certainly doesn't work in the scenario I was replying to.

There are going to be 19 games in addition to the standard 209 (19 teams x 22 games). If 9 of them are played during GR, that leaves 10 remaining. The remaining 10 can't simply be fixtured as one home game per non-Vic, given there will only be 9 non-Vic teams.

 

[The Tilt]

Could this work, a 11H 11A 2N split

Gather round works as it does currently, with 9 games and 1 team will get a bye

You then need to play 10 more neutral games throughout the season, where the team that gets the bye in Gather round still has 2 neutral games remaining and everyone else has 1, and these games can be played throughout the season

Additionally, whoever plays Adelaide and Port in Gather round that year, could 'host' a neutral game in return to make it fair.
For example, Adelaide played Carlton and Port played St Kilda in 'neutral games' this year at Adelaide Oval. Under this system St Kilda would play Adelaide in Melbourne as their second neutral game, and the same with Carlton and Port if that makes sense

Makes sense.

The other option is that Adelaide and Port's gather round matches count as standard H&A games, with those clubs then playing 'neutral' matches later in the season. So, this year you might have Adelaide v St Kilda at some regional venue later in the season (ditto Carlton v Port).

 

[GC2015]

Heard a rumour that the AFL are potentially looking to have a second Gather Round in 2028 and host it in Queensland. Presumably games would be split between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, with the potential to play a game or two up north in a city like Cairns or Townsville.

 

[M Malice]

No, the NFL operate with a scarcity model, which they have openly admitted to. That gives them a point of difference with the NBA who have 82 games each, where it's common for teams to rest their entire starting 5. And no wonder, with 82 games none of the games really matter. NFL players never (or rarely ) get rested unless it's the last round before the playoffs where they can't change seeding. All the games matter and they rate through the roof accordingly.

Baseball has 162 games per team where each game has almost no importance.

It's an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you increase the amount of games, that each individual game is less important and theoretically rates lower on TV (all other things being equal). That's not debatable. It's also an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you decrease the amount of games, that each individual game is more important and theoretically should rate higher on TV (all other things being equal)

If the NBA finals were just a single "best of 1" then that single game would rate much higher than the average of all games under a best of 7 series.

Where the debate starts is this: Is having less games that rate higher on TV worth more to broadcasters than having more games which rate lower? It's a complicated question, but more content is not always better if people aren't watching

I love the scarcity model, with soon to be 19(maybe 20 within the next 10 years) teams in our competition, play each other once + a rivalry round for the Derby, showdown etc and the big Victorian rivalries, + Gather round shared between the Interstate locations(except Tasmania) on a yearly rotation, the idea that Adelaide is the only city that can do it effectively is farcical.

Not ideal because there are 4-5 too many teams in Melbourne which spreads talent too sparsely thus lowering overall standard of play, no chance in hell the AFL is going to streamline the competition though. Quality over quantity every day of the week for me, if something is always accessible/available and is in saturated levels in the marketplace it inherently lowers it's appeal and value hence demand drops.

 

[randyzany]

No, the NFL operate with a scarcity model, which they have openly admitted to. That gives them a point of difference with the NBA who have 82 games each, where it's common for teams to rest their entire starting 5. And no wonder, with 82 games none of the games really matter. NFL players never (or rarely ) get rested unless it's the last round before the playoffs where they can't change seeding. All the games matter and they rate through the roof accordingly.

Baseball has 162 games per team where each game has almost no importance.

It's an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you increase the amount of games, that each individual game is less important and theoretically rates lower on TV (all other things being equal). That's not debatable. It's also an undeniable mathematical certainty that if you decrease the amount of games, that each individual game is more important and theoretically should rate higher on TV (all other things being equal)

If the NBA finals were just a single "best of 1" then that single game would rate much higher than the average of all games under a best of 7 series.

Where the debate starts is this: Is having less games that rate higher on TV worth more to broadcasters than having more games which rate lower? It's a complicated question, but more content is not always better if people aren't watching

The nfl 'scarcity model' is more out of necessity than anything else, it's not really a choice. A game as physically violent as gridiron is, they would struggle to field a team of healthy players if they were to increase the number of games to anything beyond 30.

For similar reasons why footy has only had 20 or so games since it's inception, it's just to physically taxing and demanding for players for the season to be longer than 30 games including finals.

 

[Freomaniac]

It's like they think the game is booming and better than ever yet if you added together the collective IQ's at AFL House you still wouldn't get an idiot.

I would not say the game is "booming" if you put it that way.

But that current TV rights deal from 2025 to 2031 is decent. 4.5 billion wasn't it?

So 20 AFL sides is viable under the current deal

 

[Freomaniac]

....
MLB broadcast deal (each team plays 162 games) is worth $2 Billion per year ($800,000 per match)
NBA broadcast deal (each team plays 82 games) is worth $7 billion per year ($5.6 Million per match)
NFL broadcast deal (each team plays 17 games) is worth $10 Billion per year ($36.7 Million per match)
...

Crazy how there's 30 NBA teams and each play 82 games each.

Thats 82 games in 6 months or 25 or 26 weeks.

 

[Scotland]

Basketball and Baseball both play long seasons because there's a massive amount of luck in the results. They need to play long seasons so the best teams actually finish at the top.

They play more games because they can. Michael Jordan at age 34/35 played all 82 games at 38 minutes a game and 21 playoff games at 41 minutes a game. Even Mark Blicavs who is possibly a robot isn't playing a max of 27 games at 90%+ game time.

Cavs/Raptors played on the 19th and the 21st in Cleveland, then the next two games are on the 24th and 27th in Toronto. That's just not feasible in the AFL or NFL. Soccer at a stretch you can play 2-3 games a week but a team like Man City has a squad of 26 and 14 players out on loan and a youth squad etc. They've had 20 players play 20+ games out of 50 odd so far this season.

The AFL this year is running a 25 week season and 18 teams each play 23 games. Clubs sook about 5 and 6 day breaks and travel etc. in a competition where teams play once a week. If the AFL could have best of 3 finals series with a straight knockout then a final they would, but the game is too physically taxing to do that. It would be a better competition if there were only 12-14 teams and a proper H&A fixture, but it's more profitable the way it is and there is nowhere for the other 4-6 clubs to go.

 

[LordLucifer]

I would not say the game is "booming" if you put it that way.

But that current TV rights deal from 2025 to 2031 is decent. 4.5 billion wasn't it?

So 20 AFL sides is viable under the current deal

I'd prefer :

22 teams

21 round season (i.e. play each other once)

April - September

5-week final series

Final 12

Bottom 10 (i.e. non finalists) all get an "equalisation" pick prior to the first round of the draft