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

[kaiserchief13]

Ladder reflects the state of the comp perfectly. Richmond the best team in the league by a bit, Carlton the worst by a mile with a smile , the rest are good but inconsistent (wc,melb,hawks etc)or shite but can win a game if they throw everything into it (STK,GC,bris). If you're good enough you make the top 4, finals, stop moaning.

Says the fan of a team who has beaten 1 top 8 team but could make top 4...

 

[BEaston]

How?

In every year there is inequity statistically guaranteed in the outcome. There is a 13% that a team that finishes top 6 one year plays no double up matches against a top 6 team in the following year. Crudely, every two years a top 4 team one year will play no team from that years top 6 in the following year.

Even if we suspend better judgement and think this is ok because it will "even out over time", statistically a team could be at the wrong end of a random draw pretty consistently over the whole career of players. Certainly they could be easily screwed over a 3/4 year premiership window when it really matters

The current approach is more fair in outcome, though less "procedurally fair". I personally would stick with the current approach over a randomised option

If you were going to go down the randomised route I would at least build an algorthim that balances the return 5 games based on previous years finishing positions

The likelihood of a highly favourable draw is balanced by the likelihood of a highly unfavourable one. Realistically though most teams draws will be fairly closely distributed around a mean difficultly. The more (un)favourable the result the less likely it is to happen.
Regarding the finishing positions of the previous year, it's already been shown that using the previous year's finishing positions is a source of unfairness currently as nobody can predict how the next season's results will pan out.

I disagree that a player would be at the wrong end of a randomised draw more than he could be in the current system, which I think is more likely to have difficulty unevenly distributed between teams.

 

[The King!]

Ends at the g. So who cares

 

[BEaston]

This is the key. Process should be more important than outcome. Otherwise you get manipulation to manufacture outcomes. Random has issues in terms of ensuring that it is random (afl are sneaky and all)

You could do a lottery system run independently similar to the NBA draft.

 

[iameviljez]

You've effectively hit the nail on the head with your opening paragraph - that it has been this way since 1987, when we expanded from 12 teams to 14.

Besides, you haven't even touched on the biggest fixturing inequality - that due to the VFL origins of the team distribution, some sides have to play 10 games per year interstate every year, others just three or four - and then the Grand Final is always played on the same ground regardless of ladder position.

I reckon we would have seen two different results in the last two grand finals had they been played according to ladder position.

 

[roacheee]

Too many teams, ideally our league should have no more than 14 teams allowing for 26 matches to be played in the regular season. The game needed to be more ruthless back in 80's/90's and fully embrace a national competition not some half arse expanded VFL.

soooooooooooooo why didn't the interstate flogs start their own comp instead?
lets ditch gws + gold coast or merge and move to tassie

merge freo n wce
merge crows n port

no history, plastic franchises the lot of them*



















* now imagine your teams had 100 years of history before you continue sooking and ask other supporters to endure what you are currently telling yourself is stupid and unthinkable

 

[Rabman]

soooooooooooooo why didn't the interstate flogs start their own comp instead?
lets ditch gws + gold coast or merge and move to tassie

merge freo n wce
merge crows n port

no history, plastic franchises the lot of them*



















* now imagine your teams had 100 years of history before you continue sooking and ask other supporters to endure what you are currently telling yourself is stupid and unthinkable

Will do that and within a year, half your vic sides will be in debt and bitching and moaning throwing the toys out the pram begging for us to come back. There’s a reason why the game expanded back in the 80s to bail out your sorry broke arses.

 

[thejester]

No grand final, why bother at all.

I'm not saying it's a good idea but pretty clearly if you want the fairest/most accurate way to find the best team you'd do it like soccer and play a league campaign with no finals.

 

[tony__montana]

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.

Over 2 years its equal. Its the only true way to have a fair draw. 34 rounds is not possible.

 

[Blue1980]

Because we lose against whoever we play

 

[Seeds]

if they're randomly fixtured games it can't get any fairer

Not true. Youve taken away deliberate unfairness but there still exists significant unnecessary unfairness. A team could still randomly play 4 out of its 5 double up games against top eight sides whilst another plays only 1. 17-5 removes this random unfairness as well.

 

[DrEvil_]

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 have to go by last year's teams results. At the time of the fixture, Essendon was a top 8 team and Hawthorn Melbourne were not, so Geelong's fixture isn't that much harder than Collingwood's. Both play Richmond and a top 8 side.

 

[DrEvil_]

Not true. Youve taken away deliberate unfairness but there still exists significant unnecessary unfairness. A team could still randomly play 4 out of its 5 double up games against top eight sides whilst another plays only 1. 17-5 removes this random unfairness as well.

There is nothing unfair about randomness. It evens out over the seasons. Removing randomness only introduces more unfairness. 17-5 is a pathetic idea talked up by people who don't understand what true fairness means.

 

[Seeds]

Over time it is.

Over many many multiple seasons it may be fair but within individual seasons it can be quite unfair. 17-5 is relatively fair across many and within single seasons and is therefore vastly superior.

 

[kaiserchief13]

There is nothing unfair about randomness. It evens out over the seasons. Removing randomness only introduces more unfairness. 17-5 is a pathetic idea talked up by people who don't understand what true fairness means.

17-5 makes the competition closer, not fairer

 

[doransport]

What do you think about shortening the games and having everyone play each other twice?

 

[kaiserchief13]

What do you think about shortening the games and having everyone play each other twice?

Are you an employee of the AFL?

 

[Seeds]

17-5 makes the competition closer, not fairer

No it makes it vastly fairer. We essentially have a 17 round comp where everyone plays each other once before finals. We then have a two stage finals series.

 

[doransport]

I think that it would be good to see shorter games, but thirty-four games.

 

[FootyJunkie]

18 game home and away (play one rival twice), week break, then top 8 single elimination finals series (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5) but each final is a best of 3

 

[Seeds]

There is nothing unfair about randomness. It evens out over the seasons. Removing randomness only introduces more unfairness. 17-5 is a pathetic idea talked up by people who don't understand what true fairness means.

This shows a very poor understanding of probability. Randomness only becomes fair with many many observations. A single random coin toss won’t come up 50 percent heads or 50 percent tails. It will come up either a head or tail. 2 coin tosses only have a 50 percent chance of an equal outcome. 50 percent chance of being biased to either two tails or two heads.

 

[Seeds]

18 game home and away (play one rival twice), week break, then top 8 single elimination finals series (1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5) but each final is a best of 3

Why would you play one rival twice?

 

[kaiserchief13]

Why would you play one rival twice?

17+1

 

[DrEvil_]

This shows a very poor understanding of probability. Randomness only becomes fair with many many observations. A single random coin toss won’t come up 50 percent heads or 50 percent tails. It will come up either a head or tail. 2 coin tosses only have a 50 percent chance of an equal outcome. 50 percent chance of being biased to either two tails or two heads.

Your problem is thinking you can do better than randomness. If you impose a coin to come up exactly one head and one tail every two tosses, that's a rigged coin and isn't fair at all. Your idea of 'fairness in outcome' is level 0 mistake made by statistics students.

 

[speedpeck23]

We should have more games so more teams play each other twice

seems like a good idea..but this would effectively invalidate the logic of having a final series....If all teams played each other twice then the Premiership should go to the team who finishes on top at the conclusion of the home and away games...like EPL