Why are supporters not more upset about the sham of the AFL fixture?

[maskmcgee]

If the mens AFL was moved to 17 weeks + finals they could then address the sham of the women's league draw and make that comp 9 weeks + finals.

Everyone's a winner.

Who wants to see a sport with fewer goals scored than soccer played at all?

 

[maskmcgee]

Also remove the salary cap floor. No reason why Carlton should be paying a minimum of 95% of the cap to its undeserving list. If they were allowed to pay what they are worth (say 75%) they should be able to bank that money for future years. The way it is at the moment, they can only ever have a maximum of 500k more to spend than Richmond, which isn't enough to attract a few big names to the club. Instead Tom Lynch is going to accept maybe 100-200k less to play in front of 90k every week and a chance to win flags.

That's not how the salary cap floor works. You can leave whatever money in the cap you want, but if you are paying less than 95% of the cap, every player gets a extra % for that year on top of their payments to pay 95%.

 

[projectv]

Does anybody in here have the ability to use their brain? The TV rights is for 22 + finals. The rest is rubbish. Playing each other once each is not equal unless the venue is a neutral ground.

So because of TV rights deals we have to have a crap fixture? What a cop out.

Who plays home and away can easily be alternated each year for each matchup.

 

[projectv]

Who wants to see a sport with fewer goals scored than soccer played at all?

Yawn.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

Does anybody in here have the ability to use their brain? The TV rights is for 22 + finals. The rest is rubbish. Playing each other once each is not equal unless the venue is a neutral ground.

Imagine this- you play 8 teams at home one year (the ground of your choice) and 9 games away (the ground of their choice). The following season its flipped- the teams you were away, you now play at home.

Each team plays 17 games over 22 weeks, which allows more flexibility with fixturing stand alone games (tv stations will love it) Also means we see the best players more rested, and each game has a lot more riding on it.

If the tv rights go down, now the players $ are linked to a % of revenue so their pay packets go down as well.

 

[Gone Critical]

You are right to an extent, especially in regards to Richmond as they are good enough to win anyway.

But basing your double ups on last years results absolutely does effect the chances of making the finals.

Geelong for instance has double ups against Melb, Hawthorn, Richmond, Sydney and Gold Coast (4 sides in the running for finals). Whereas Collingwood has double ups against Essendon, Brisbane, Carlton, Freo and Richmond (one side will play finals). When teams are around the same mark and battling for a spot in the finals to ignore that that is a massive benefit for Collingwood.

This is a great example od the inequality.

Collingwoods draw as it has panned out this year is a great advantage compared to Geelongs and is inequitable on any grounds in a comp wanting an even playing field. I would love the AFL to give attention to this but they wont unless supporters force them to financially. We wont though because we love the game and walking away is not going to happen.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Should have a rolling fixture, so say, if the Eagles play every team once, after round 17 this repeats and goes into the next season. Playing some teams once before even playing other teams is a head scratcher.

 

[JayJ20]

False. All teams lose. Nearly all have lost multiple games in a season. Not one team has won a flag without losing. Thus if teams can be the best and still lose a couple of games then fixturing can make a difference. This is not an argument, it’s is an identity like 1+1 =2. Not up for debate.

We have double ups against Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Port Adelaide and Fremantle. Not many fixtures are harder than that.

Is that why we're outside of the 8 though? Absolutely not. Who cares if North are cruising to finals with an easy fixture. We're not making it because we're not good enough.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

That's not how the salary cap floor works. You can leave whatever money in the cap you want, but if you are paying less than 95% of the cap, every player gets a extra % for that year on top of their payments to pay 95%.

Ok, wasn't aware, but my point still stands. The players get what they are worth, not topped up to hit an underserving minimum.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

We have double ups against Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Port Adelaide and Fremantle. Not many fixtures are harder than that.

Is that why we're outside of the 8 though? Absolutely not. Who cares if North are cruising to finals with an easy fixture. We're not making it because we're not good enough.

It would definitely be a factor as to why you're currently behind North. If you are comfortable with the AFL handicapping the comp then great!

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

If fixturing makes a difference, then your team isn't a contender anyway.

If a team cruises into final without beating top teams, then they'll be exposed.

I don't understand that line of thinking.

If it doesn't make a difference, why not have Richmond play Carlton every week? That way if another team somehow manages win the premiership you know they're definitely the best team.

 

[Blackas87]

Need a 34 game season.

Currently a 23 round season, scrap club by’s. Scrap the pre season, There are 4 pre season weeks and another week with no games before the season, that brings it to 28 weeks.

Need to find 6 more games. Reading articles from Anzac week where the clubs playing in those fixtures, sports scientists at those clubs say with the current recovery process and getting the right proteins in after a game AFL players are fully recovered and can play another game within 4 days. Only knocks, corkies and slight injuries could take 6-7 days to recover, but the amount of running and muscle tear during a game of AFL will be fully recovered within 4 days. Other sports such as basketball can back up after 1 day, soccer can back up after 2-3 days, AFL a bit longer but only 4 days. Back in the day when players were drinking slabs of beer after a game they wouldn’t recover in time but those are over, for some reason we still hear complaining every week about having 6 day breaks which is BS for today’s game.

Clubs could play 6 mid week games a year to get to 34 games. We already have Thursday night and Monday night football, bring in Wednesday night footy or even Tuesday. Clubs on occasion could play Friday, Wednesday then the Monday before getting back to weekend football for the next few weeks. More money in the game, more exposure for clubs that don’t get exposure.

Players are presious about having by’s during the season. Have a rule no player can play more than 30 games during the season and every player must be given 2 seperate weeks off by the club during the season.

With more games is more money, potentially having larger lists as there would be more players getting games.

 

[NoobPie]

Equality (17 game fixture) or revenue (22 games). There can be only one and we all know what the AFL are most concerned with.

No, 17-5 gives you both

 

[D-N-R]

17 games means half of the teams get 9 home games and others 8. It couldn't be more fundamentally flawed if it tried.

Any system where teams are paired up because of 'rivalry' or 'ratings' is flawed.

Drawing names out of a hat would be a fairer system, in that it would literally be 'the luck of the draw'. Although you could get some very lopsided draws.

A seeded draw would be the fairest, IMHO, but then the AFL couldn't rig the attendance numbers by pairing up big Vic clubs together and shuffling small Vic clubs non-Vic clubs off the Tassie, Bendifo and elsewhere. So, it won't happen.

 

[maskmcgee]

Yawn.

Yawn all you want, you can be pathetic enough to pretend to like a hopeless s**t sport just because women are playing it and you don't want to appear sexist, but it still dosen't change the fact that 95% of people hate it and will never watch it.

 

[dean33]

You are right to an extent, especially in regards to Richmond as they are good enough to win anyway.

But basing your double ups on last years results absolutely does effect the chances of making the finals.

Geelong for instance has double ups against Melb, Hawthorn, Richmond, Sydney and Gold Coast (4 sides in the running for finals). Whereas Collingwood has double ups against Essendon, Brisbane, Carlton, Freo and Richmond (one side will play finals). When teams are around the same mark and battling for a spot in the finals to ignore that that is a massive benefit for Collingwood.

You get a harder fixture due to finishing higher on the ladder last season, just like Richmond received a harder fixture due to winning the flag. Best system we have.

 

[SumTingWong]

Imagine this- you play 8 teams at home one year (the ground of your choice) and 9 games away (the ground of their choice). The following season its flipped- the teams you were away, you now play at home.

Each team plays 17 games over 22 weeks, which allows more flexibility with fixturing stand alone games (tv stations will love it) Also means we see the best players more rested, and each game has a lot more riding on it.

If the tv rights go down, now the players $ are linked to a % of revenue so their pay packets go down as well.

So because of TV rights deals we have to have a crap fixture? What a cop out.

Who plays home and away can easily be alternated each year for each matchup.

This is just as unfair as what we have now. A teams form can completely turn year on year so nice try but that's a fail.

 

[Firestarter]

We have double ups against Richmond, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Port Adelaide and Fremantle. Not many fixtures are harder than that.

Is that why we're outside of the 8 though? Absolutely not. Who cares if North are cruising to finals with an easy fixture. We're not making it because we're not good enough.

We aren't making it either ....

Beating the likes of Hawthorn and Sydney in the first half set us up okay but our second halves of the season leave us wanting.

Ignoring that people who rate Carlton far too highly had us as spooners based on nothing....

 

[Andrew Mc]

Just need a rolling fixture from year to year. No guaranteed double-ups. But it'll never happen because the AFL want the revenue.

 

[kaiserchief13]

This is more true than most fans will accept.

Richmond are not top of the table because of an easy draw. Sydney are not battling to stay in the 8 because of a tough draw.

Not sure if serious. Richmond are 0-4 away from Melbourne. Imagine if they had to play every non Vic team away

 

[Danger!Selwood]

This is just as unfair as what we have now. A teams form can completely turn year on year so nice try but that's a fail.

The whole point of what you are saying regarding teams turning their form around is why its unfair that Collingwood are in the 8 despite having a far easier double up fixture than Geelong. That has been produced by the AFL to try and even out the competition, and isn't a true reflection of how good the teams actually are.

That's precisely why we should play every team once, teams wont be gifted wins depending on how good (or bad) they were 12 months earlier.

 

[STPer18]

You get a harder fixture due to finishing higher on the ladder last season, just like Richmond received a harder fixture due to winning the flag. Best system we have.

In an ideal world though 'equalisation' wouldn't seep into the fixturing. The point of a finals system is to have all the best teams playing, and not have situations where a 'lesser' team that's managed to win more games simply due to finishing lower the previous year displacing a higher quality team.

With the competition becoming more and more even over the last few seasons, the difficulty of ones draw is having too much of an impact on where teams finish. When one win can be the difference between sitting top 4 or 10th, a team for example that gets to play Carlton and Gold Coast twice, whilst another only gets them once, essentially takes an 8 point advantage into the season before a ball is bounced. That's the difference between 12th and 4th at the moment, with just three games left to be played.

 

[rocket18]

The best solution is often the easiest.

Get back to 14 teams, everyone plays each other home and away for a 26 game season.

Has the added benefit of making the competition better (talent not spread so thin) and fairer.

Deep down in places Victorians dont like to talk about they know there are too many sides from the one state in whats meant to be an elite national competition.

TV rights wouldn't go down much and the money lost would be saved by not having to prop up 4 suburban clubs - who shouldn't be in the national competition anyway.

GC and 3 of the Vic minnows be gone.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

You get a harder fixture due to finishing higher on the ladder last season, just like Richmond received a harder fixture due to winning the flag. Best system we have.

Its the system we have, but its not the best. Its the AFL handicapping the competition to make it harder for higher placed teams to win, and easier for lower placed sides to win. Its not a true reflection of how good teams actually are, especially as the comp is so tight this year.

 

[DemonZombie_001]

Just need a rolling fixture from year to year. No guaranteed double-ups. But it'll never happen because the AFL want the revenue.

Well yes it is a business for everyone involved in running the game.

My preference would be an 18 Round season then finals if it was going to change.

The 1 Round on top of the 17 is just to ensure that a 2nd rival round takes place (that's good entertainment and money).

Though there will be some scratch your head rivalry games of course in Victoria.