Opinion What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? - Part 2

[jatz14]

Seemingly unpopular, couldn’t care less when the teams are named, could name them 1 hr before the match and it wouldn’t make a difference .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I usually figure out the teams by watching who runs out on the ground.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[edgie]

IF (and I stress IF) there is some commercial agreement that Eddie Maguire, the other clubs and AFL signed which bars Port from using the prison bars, or allows them to wear them on condition of certain rules to follow which Port haven't followed or in certain times which don't exist anymore, then I don't think Port have a leg to stand on. I don't think it's purely about tradition; it will come down to legal agreements. I've been listening to Eddie talk about this and IF he is right that there's legal papers about this, then he's got a point, and I used to be pro Port wearing the prison bars whenever.

IF two of the parties that signed it were fully aware of future plans that meant the contract would never have to be honoured for the third party, then surely that contract is fraudulent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[PAFC66]

All this prison bar guernsey talk I actually think on looks of a guernsey Ports V looks a million times better.

The PBs looks fugly.

Anyway I get its tradition etc but yeah.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah - nah

 

[Slysh]

All this prison bar guernsey talk I actually think on looks of a guernsey Ports V looks a million times better.

The PBs looks fugly.

Anyway I get its tradition etc but yeah.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Bring back these beauties

 

[edgie]

Bring back these beauties

View attachment 1123178

I agree.

Primus and Tredrea would be more dominant now than before.

 

[ID Card]

IF two of the parties that signed it were fully aware of future plans that meant the contract would never have to be honoured for the third party, then surely that contract is fraudulent.

You're joking right? That's not how contracts work.
You're supposed to do your due diligence before you sign a contract. If things don't work out your way, you can't just turn around and say the contract was invalid.

unless it was signed under duress or something...

 

[ID Card]

UNPOPULAR OPINION: More reward and prestige should be given to the Club that finishes top of the ladder than winning the Grand Final. It shows breadth and consistency over a whole season rather than just winning a few matches in a row.

 

[CarnTheScray]

UNPOPULAR OPINION: More reward and prestige should be given to the Club that finishes top of the ladder than winning the Grand Final. It shows breadth and consistency over a whole season rather than just winning a few matches in a row.

Is that so you can feel better about Geelongs last few years?

 

[ID Card]

Is that so you can feel better about Geelongs last few years?

Correct. Really, it was only 1 year in 2019 though.

But my point is that the AFL is old enough and has enough history and maturity to not need an american style playoffs system to bring 'excitement' to the game. I'm not saying we get rid of the finals system, but it would be better if every game mattered - train our players to have that mentality, to focus in every game and not just towards the end of the season. Also it's more fair across the season as you'd expect Club injuries to even out over 22 weeks... but if you lose 4 of your top players at the start of the finals, you're toast. Imagine playing your best across the season and finishing first but then being knocked out of the finals because of injuries. Maybe prize money is distributed to all clubs based on their success and ladder position as an incentive... who knows.>?

Also, another probably unpopular opinion: State of Origin should come back, but make it every 3 or 4 years, and have a proper State of Origin competition over 5 weeks like the World Cup. Not just a few matches that don't mean anything. Then that season you have a 17 game H&A season.

 

[edgie]

You're joking right? That's not how contracts work.
You're supposed to do your due diligence before you sign a contract. If things don't work out your way, you can't just turn around and say the contract was invalid.

unless it was signed under duress or something...

Due diligence? Like the AFL 2ic tilling you to just sign it anyway because it's the last time they intend on running said round?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Richo83]

Correct. Really, it was only 1 year in 2019 though.

But my point is that the AFL is old enough and has enough history and maturity to not need an american style playoffs system to bring 'excitement' to the game. I'm not saying we get rid of the finals system, but it would be better if every game mattered - train our players to have that mentality, to focus in every game and not just towards the end of the season. Also it's more fair across the season as you'd expect Club injuries to even out over 22 weeks... but if you lose 4 of your top players at the start of the finals, you're toast. Imagine playing your best across the season and finishing first but then being knocked out of the finals because of injuries. Maybe prize money is distributed to all clubs based on their success and ladder position as an incentive... who knows.>?

Also, another probably unpopular opinion: State of Origin should come back, but make it every 3 or 4 years, and have a proper State of Origin competition over 5 weeks like the World Cup. Not just a few matches that don't mean anything. Then that season you have a 17 game H&A season.

Problem with the AFL is that the draw is horribly compromised by the amount of teams and the amount of games played in each season not adding up right. It's also compromised by the MCG deals but that's another issue.

To me, the only reasons when you get rid of finals is a) there's so many games that it's hard not to figure out who is best (IMO MLB doesn't need a world series) or b) the fixture is fair like European soccer leagues where everyone plays each other once home and once away. If the AFL had 17 or 34 rounds where every team played each other once, maybe getting rid of finals would make sense. But even then, playing each other once would still lead to arguments about how you played x at home and y away.

The finals series tends to figure out who is genuinely the best and who has benefitted from an easy draw.

 

[Big Crow]

UNPOPULAR OPINION: More reward and prestige should be given to the Club that finishes top of the ladder than winning the Grand Final. It shows breadth and consistency over a whole season rather than just winning a few matches in a row.

Agreed. Finals are great and exciting, but the current system devalues finishing top - and by extension devalues the minor round games.

For example Port beat Richmond a few weeks back. Even if they finish top and the Tigers were to just sneak into finals but they end up facing off in the Grand Final, the whole season is decided based on a match at Richmond’s home ground. So what was the point of those 22 matches prior? Complete waste of time.

 

[Sterge]

Agreed. Finals are great and exciting, but the current system devalues finishing top - and by extension devalues the minor round games.

For example Port beat Richmond a few weeks back. Even if they finish top and the Tigers just sneak into finals then they end up facing off in the Grand Final, the whole season is decided based on a match at Richmond’s home ground. So what was the point of those 22 matches prior? Complete waste of time.

This is more an argument for a best of 3 playoff for the 2 grandfinalists than anything else

Highest placed gets home game for games 1 and 3

 

[Big Crow]

This more more an argument for a best of 3 playoff for the 2 grandfinalists than anything else

Highest placed gets home game for games 1 and 3

Don’t mind it as a possible fix. Certainly an approach that works well in other leagues around the world.

That said, I’m not arguing for any particular solution. I just think the current system is heavily compromised to the point of being broken, and like I said devalues the 22 minor round games.

 

[Sterge]

Don’t mind it as a possible fix. Certainly an approach that works well in other leagues around the world.

That said, I’m not arguing for any particular solution. I just think the current system is heavily compromised to the point of being broken, and like I said devalues the 22 minor round games.

The unfortunate problem is the mcg contract but i'm not sure if it states all grand finals need to be played there if there is more than one game.

 

[Big Crow]

The unfortunate problem is the mcg contract but i'm not sure if it states all grand finals need to be played there if there is more than one game.

The fact that an organisation representing a national competition recently extended the deal, when it had ages to run still blows my mind.

 

[windyhill]

Always iffy when you’re promoting games 2-3 weeks out from the playing date. Queens birthday big freeze ? Perfect ammunition for your up coming opponents.

 

[Vaccination]

Also, another probably unpopular opinion: State of Origin should come back, but make it every 3 or 4 years, and have a proper State of Origin competition over 5 weeks like the World Cup. Not just a few matches that don't mean anything. Then that season you have a 17 game H&A season.

The way I would do state of origin will probably be unpopular, but essentially as a round robin/tournament style over 4 years. 4 teams, Vics, SA, WA and Allies. Each state plays 2 games a year and over a 3 year period plays each other state twice, once home and once away. After this is done, the top 2 play each other in a grand final in the 4th year (Hosted in state which comes first).

 

[Dan26]

I know this opinion is unpopular, but I hate the father son rule.

1. It's nepotism.
2. it compromises the draft.
3. It allows a young player to have the advantage if playing for the team he barracks for, whilst another player of equal ability can end up anywhere.

The argument of , "Oh, but the fans have an emotional attachment to the father" I find a crap argument. The son is a 17 year old kid who is his own person, who the fans know nothing about. If the son plays somewhere else that doesn't change the memories the fans had of the father one iota.

The rule will never go, but it should. It's stupid.

 

[All Aust]

UNPOPULAR OPINION: More reward and prestige should be given to the Club that finishes top of the ladder than winning the Grand Final. It shows breadth and consistency over a whole season rather than just winning a few matches in a row.

There ya Go.

 

[ID Card]

Problem with the AFL is that the draw is horribly compromised by the amount of teams and the amount of games played in each season not adding up right. It's also compromised by the MCG deals but that's another issue.

To me, the only reasons when you get rid of finals is a) there's so many games that it's hard not to figure out who is best (IMO MLB doesn't need a world series) or b) the fixture is fair like European soccer leagues where everyone plays each other once home and once away. If the AFL had 17 or 34 rounds where every team played each other once, maybe getting rid of finals would make sense. But even then, playing each other once would still lead to arguments about how you played x at home and y away.

The finals series tends to figure out who is genuinely the best and who has benefitted from an easy draw.

You're right here. The compromised fixture does distort the fairness of finishing top of the ladder. Having said that though, generally the top 4 do play in the prelims, so it's not necessarily the case of benefitting from an easy draw.

I don't think we should get rid of the finals, but maybe winning the McClelland trophy needs to be more of a spectacle or something.

 

[Richo83]

I know this opinion is unpopular, but I hate the father son rule.

1. It's nepotism.
2. it compromises the draft.
3. It allows a young player to have the advantage if playing for the team he barracks for, whilst another player of equal ability can end up anywhere.

The argument of , "Oh, but the fans have an emotional attachment to the father" I find a crap argument. The son is a 17 year old kid who is his own person, who the fans know nothing about. If the son plays somewhere else that doesn't change the memories the fans had of the father one iota.

The rule will never go, but it should. It's stupid.

I agree and the AFL needs to do everything it can to make the draft as least as compromised as it can. As it stands, it's horribly compromised.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

I know this opinion is unpopular, but I hate the father son rule.

1. It's nepotism.
2. it compromises the draft.
3. It allows a young player to have the advantage if playing for the team he barracks for, whilst another player of equal ability can end up anywhere.

The argument of , "Oh, but the fans have an emotional attachment to the father" I find a crap argument. The son is a 17 year old kid who is his own person, who the fans know nothing about. If the son plays somewhere else that doesn't change the memories the fans had of the father one iota.

The rule will never go, but it should. It's stupid.

Fully agree with you and worth considering the clubs’ position too. Drafting a kid because his dad once played for the club is stupid and a misguided sense of loyalty and fan appeasement as well.
Clubs should draft the best kid available or the one who fills a position of greatest need, regardless of if/who the father played for.

 

[Luv_our_club]

There are two twenty-something Americans on Youtube who discovered AFL and started watching it two weeks before the start of the 2021 season. Since then they have watched every game and they give a review on each game, as well as a tipping preview of games. I recommend checking them out... if you think watching foreigners discover the game can be good times.

They seem legit to me - link is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9o2-go9i-DHHkQaCxe3gLQ

Why is this an unpopular opinion? IDK... perhaps one way is because there are lots of AFL reaction videos on youtube from Americans pretending to be into our sport so they can grow their subscriber base, but they never watch an actual game- it is foul. But as i said, these guys look different - they look legit.

 

[Engimal v3]

There are two twenty-something Americans on Youtube who discovered AFL and started watching it two weeks before the start of the 2021 season. Since then they have watched every game and they give a review on each game, as well as a tipping preview of games. I recommend checking them out... if you think watching foreigners discover the game can be good times.

They seem legit to me - link is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9o2-go9i-DHHkQaCxe3gLQ

Why is this an unpopular opinion? IDK... perhaps one way is because there are lots of AFL reaction videos on youtube from Americans pretending to be into our sport so they can grow their subscriber base, but they never watch an actual game- it is foul. But as i said, these guys look different - they look legit.

"American reacts to AFL's GREATEST hits!"