Why doesnt the AFL goto 30 game seasons?

QT

Premiership Player
Suspended
Joined
Dec 14, 2000
Posts
3,364
Likes
6
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
Thread starter #1
Each team plays eachother twice, 30 games, for the season.
-this will see the season extended, shorter pre season for us supporters..
- and stop mark williams from bitching about the draw
For example the season could start in Jan/Feb and end september

And ansett cup play during december, and end january. That means the players still have like a 2 month break....(which is still alot!)



------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

daddy_4_eyes

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2000
Posts
9,229
Likes
1,068
Location
Victoria home of football
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Eagles
#3
Have either of you ever played a footy match? It's damn tiring, and playing every week for 30 weeks followed by intense finals footy would finish players careers before they would turn 28.

And don't say " they're fit, they can handle it", because the fitter they are the faster the game is. The beauty of the ansett cup is coaches can try out new players and new tactics.

A better solution is to either reduce the league to 14 teams over say 10years, or make two conferences, let a few more teams enter the league as to make the conferences bigger and have the top 4 from each conference play off in the finals. I'm sure Tasmania, ACT and even NZ would like to have a team in the AFL.

Just my humble opinion.

Go eagles!!!!



------------------
"Copy one person and you're cheating, copy two and you're researching"
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#4
Just done a quick check. With no breaks for interstate matches, the 30 week season would start on Feb 10, with the Grand Final at its current date, last Saturday in September. That'd be OK. Or - you could shift the GF a couple of weeks, say to October 13, and start the season on Feb 24. This weekend. Wouldn't that have been good. 18 weeks between seasons, not too much footy in the hottest part of the year.

I'm all for it.
 

WCE2000

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Posts
2,639
Likes
10
Location
the pub
#6
GD:
Do you seriously think the fans are just going to let 4 teams dissapear or merge with other clubs. Doubtful.

RogerC:
I dont think starting on Feb10 is all that bad. ANd also I dont think the AFL would move the GF out of September.

CJH:
go to a 30 games season and drop the Ansett Cup. Sounds good in theory - in theory, communism works.
Coaches seem to like the Ansett Cup as a base to test some of the youngsters.

I think they should stay put for the moment. If the oppourtunity arises to have more than 1 division by increasing the clubs, they should take it with both hands.

------------------
visit the Easts Cricket Club - <A HREF="http://www.eastscricket.com.au" TARGET=_blank>www.eastscricket.com.au
</A>
A must for anybody into statistics - http://cromulent.freehosting.net/
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#7
WCE2000,

Yeah, well I don't think the AFL will play a Grand Final in Sydney. At least I didn't until I heard the talk about it. If they can only break that MCC deal, it's open season on all traditions, I reckon.

I don't necessarily advocate shifting the date of the GF. Just one of a few possibilities.
 
P

play on

Guest
#8
I would love to see a 30 round season but i can't see the ACB giving the footballers access to grounds like the MCG the Gabba ect. Even now there is still Pura milk cup and one day cricket.
 
P

play on

Guest
#10
Yes I agree with them playing their games at punt road. Qld play some of their games at the Allan Border Field. Victoria has done the same at punt road. NSW should play games at the North sydney oval and the problem would be fixed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
#11
30 week season is fine by me.

The best solution is a 2 conference system where the number of games is not increased and the draw is equitable - finally.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

karnaby

All Australian
Joined
Oct 18, 2000
Posts
638
Likes
36
Location
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
StKilda
#12
16 teams in 2 conferences of 8.
Play @ team in your conference twice, ie 2x7=14 games
play @team in the other conference once
1x8=8 games. Therefore same 22 week season as now.

Issues:
Inequitous draw, so what's new?
Could ramdomly draw the teams for @ conference @ year. (A guaranteed tv ratings winner, errr). All matches bw sides could be on a strictly rotated home n away basis.

Loss of "blockbuster" games, loss of a ppn of home state derbies in WA & SA.
Good points are - a sharing of some of the bigger fixtures, eg some other team could have a game on the g on Anzac Day. Greater perception of fairness; the average supporter often seems to feel disenfranchised with the corporatisation of footy this might reverse that trend somewhat.
Not so good points, cost the afl fairly big bucks. afl to also lose some control to the great god Chance.

phuck me! the last 2 points stuff my arguement completely, not too sure I'll try an even handed analysis again (esp after a few brown trout on Fri evening)
 

lioness

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,535
Likes
44
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fitzroy
#13
glory be the AFL, I think that's a great idea there, karnaby.

------------------
*the one and only lioness*
 

Same Old's

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Posts
2,198
Likes
5
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
#14
Originally posted by karnaby:
16 teams in 2 conferences of 8.
Play @ team in your conference twice, ie 2x7=14 games
play @team in the other conference once
1x8=8 games. Therefore same 22 week season as now.
I wouldn't mind that system. However, there is a "problem" when you play a teams that are in the "other" conference. Since you only play them once, how do you work out which teams you play at "home" and which teams you play "away".

You could play only 4 teams from the other conference on a home and away basis. You could structure it so that you could play all the teams from the opposing conference every 2 or 3 years.

Furthermore, you could give the previous years premiers the "toughest" schedule. That is they would play the "best" teams in the opposing conference based on winning percentages.(i.e. the top 4 teams on a H&A basis)

That's what they do in the NFL.

Anyway, just an idea.
 

karnaby

All Australian
Joined
Oct 18, 2000
Posts
638
Likes
36
Location
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
StKilda
#15
Thanks lioness & Same Olds

The idea isn't original, but I don't recall where I 1st heard it.

Yeh SOs, there would be problems crop up. Initially I'd thought they'd play on a strictly rotating basis but I can see that could throw up situations where a side could have either none or all home games in the 2nd conference.

I sort of like the idea of creating tougher (& easier) draws. I thought this was supposed to happen now to some degree, however by the time each club submits its' fixturing wishlist it seems to go by the wayside. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Essendon have a fairly soft draw last year & Richmond a pretty tough one? To me if that is going to be the result of all the clubs lobbying for prime fixtures then it may as well all be random.

I feel like I'm pissin in the wind a bit with this one, but I'd be interested in seeing some other thoughts on the subject.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
#16
Originally posted by karnaby:
16 teams in 2 conferences of 8.
Play @ team in your conference twice, ie 2x7=14 games
play @team in the other conference once
1x8=8 games. Therefore same 22 week season as now.

No no no. Look at how it is now. Currently, each team plays 7 teams twice and 8 teams once. Essentially, the conference system exists right now!! The only difference is that there is one ladder instead of two.

But what is the point in having two ladders? The top 4 teams in each ladder would make the finals. But how is that any different to those exact same 8 teams making the finals in a 16 team ladder??????? It's no different.

See what I mean? A conference system exists right now.

I prefer a 30 week H&A seaosn, with the top team being "Home and away" premiers. I then want a 3 week finals series played amongst the best 8 teams in a knockout format (quarter finals, semi-finals, Grand Final 1v8,2v7, 3v6, 4v5). The winner of that knockout tournamnet would be the champions of that tournament. Not "whole season" champions, but champions of that tournament.

With no pre-season competiton, the season would go for 33 weeks.

This year, the home and away season goes for 23 weeks (each team gets a bye) with 4 weeks of finals. That 27 weeks. The pre-season competiton goes for 5 weeks, with a week off between the Grand Final and Round 1. That's 33 weeks. all up

If the 33 week season was introduced (which obviously includes the separate 3 week knockout finals series tournamnet, which has the Grand Final to conclude the season), then Round 1 would begin on Saturday the 17th of February.

It's still probably too long a season, but the players have been doing physical training since November. Many Essendon players played in all 5 Ansett Cup games last year, plus all 25 (including finals) premiership matches. That's 30 matches.
 

karnaby

All Australian
Joined
Oct 18, 2000
Posts
638
Likes
36
Location
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
StKilda
#18
Dan I take it you meant no in your post

Further, who said it would be necessary to have two ladders? Not me.

I accept that by using the word conference I may have conveyed the idea of having two distinct groups however my intention relates primarily to fixturing.

I disagree with your belief that a conference system already exists, maybe you'd like to explain which teams are in each 'conference' this season or failing that even last year.

My perception of what goes on presently is that clubs submit wishlists of fixturing priorities, the afl then goes through a process of backroom negotiations with the clubs (always mindful of making as many bucks as possible), then 16 individual draws are published packaged as "The AFL Fixture" (from which they then try to gather more $s)

I'd be perfectly happy with a 30 game season however I don't percieve it as a real possibility in the near future. Given that, I'm prepared to explore how a 22 game season might work a bit more equitably, because I certainly don't think it does so now.

As for finals systems I'll save thinking about that for another day. Also, much and all as I would like to see Minor Premiers get a bit more recognition, I don't believe that it could ever be legitimate to seriously anniont Home & Away Premiers until the draw is fair to all clubs.

Cheers
Horace
 
G

Guest

Guest
#19
Dan Dan Dan

You got it completely wrong, we do not have a 2 conference system in one ladder.

If you lump all the teams together the advantages of a 2 conference system is completely wasted.

The beauty of a 2 conference system is that the teams you play most in your conference have a direct relationship on where you finish on your ladder.

Its a fairly simple principle and I'm surprised you got it so wrong.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
#20
Happy Hawker,

But you can have that conference system you talk about whereby 8 teams play themselves twice and 8 other teams once, and still have one ladder of 16 teams.

If you have 2 ladders of 8, then the top 4 teams from each group will make the finals. If the teams were all in one ladder of 16, then the EXACT same 8 teams will still make it. So we might as well just have one ladder.

Currently, each teams plays 7 teams twice and 8 teams once. I realise that each teams 7 opponents are different, but essentially a conference system still exists. Each teams still gets to play 7 teams twice and 8 teams once.

If your conference idea existed, then it is possible that one of the conferences could be much weaker than the other. If this was the case, 8 teams would have an advantage in ther weaker conference. HALF the competiton would have an advantage.

Currently, it is possible to have an easy draw, but usually only one or two teams each year get an easy draw, because every team has a different draw. The fact that every teams has a slightly different draw nowadays, makes it far more preferable than a 2 conference system, where it is possible that HALF the compettion will have an easier draw. See?
 

Mudholian

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Posts
2,149
Likes
21
Location
The Monkey House Port Adelaide
#21
Well since Port are doing fine in the Escort Cup I reckon we should have 4 conferences of 4 one in each of the important states. Then we have a VFC vs an SAFC vs the WFC vs the EFC. Then we have more recognition for the minor premiers - there'd be 4 of them , hell, this sounds good. We could add as many clubs as you like, more expansion, is good, no?
Mud
 
G

Guest

Guest
#22
Dan,

You say that the top 8 teams in a 16 team ladder would finish in the same positions as a 2 conference system assuming that the teams play the same teams twice in both systems.

That with all due respect is complete crap.


You esssentially defeated your own argument by correctly stating that one conference would indeed be stronger than the other. In a conference system the 2 conferences would be for all practical purposes two separate identities. Teams in the stronger conference would ONLY have to beat the teams in their conference for a spot in the finals, not have to compete against teams who have a weaker draw.

Combining the 2 conferences into one ladder makes teams with unequal draws fight for the same places in the finals. As we do now.

As already stated their would probably be stronger and weaker conferences so to overcome the only real weakness of this system when you get down to the last 2 in each conference you could play a crossover where 1 plays 2 in each others conference. This would allow the top 2 from one conference to play in the GF.

[This message has been edited by happy hawker (edited 01 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by happy hawker (edited 01 March 2001).]
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#23
I don't like the conference system. In a way, what Dan is saying is correct. Each team plays 8 teams once and 7 teams twice. It isn't a conference system, but it works as a de facto conference. Formalising it into a system wouldn't change the way it functions. What would change things would be if separate ladders were introduced. But again, this doesn't alter the finals set up too much either. It would be the same as, say, dividing the finalists into (1, 4, 5, 8) and (2, 3, 6, 7); having them play off like final fours and then making the Grand Final a play off between the two. Nobody seemes to like that idea when it was proposed.

What the AFL does now, and what a conference system would do are pretty similar. You'd have the same problems with inequity ( ie, some teams get easier seasons, depending on who they play).

I remember there being some talk early on when new teams were brought in that the fixturing would follow a three year cycle, with teams playing an opponent roughly 4-5 times over that three year cycle. Once that went out the window any sense of fairness in the draw went with it. It's fine having blockbusters pencilled in twice every year, but it isn't fair. Unfortunately, money spoke louder than logic.

The draw is unfair now. The only way, to my mind, to improve it is to have as many teams play each other twice as possible. If it means having a 24 or 26 game season, at least that is fairer. not perfect, but fairer.

The other problem with conferences is that it implies that we will have 16 teams for the foreseeable future. We have them until 2006, but if we lose a couple of teams after that, the whole conference system becomes unworkable. With so much doubt about the number of teams in the AFL, the best approach is to keep all teams in the same ladder/conference/whatever. That way, adapting will be easier.

I don't even want to reopen the minor premiers/knockout finals can of worms. Suffice it to say that the major obstacle to it happening is that very few people except Dan seem to like it.
 

Same Old's

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Posts
2,198
Likes
5
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
#24
Originally posted by RogerC:
I don't even want to reopen the minor premiers/knockout finals can of worms. Suffice it to say that the major obstacle to it happening is that very few people except Dan seem to like it.
What's it matter? The AFL changes a lot of things that the public doesn't want changed.
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#25
True, true, true, Same Olds. But the AFL probably aren't going to do much about Dan's idea unless there is a clear financial advantage in it for them. Less finals? To do something that's unpopular AND won't line their pockets is, to say the least, unlikely.

Oh God, am I leaving myself open to one of Dan's "But it WILL be more popular!" rants?
 
Top Bottom