Why doesnt the AFL goto 30 game seasons?

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,968
Likes
2,619
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
#26
Originally posted by RogerC:
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.

Why in the f*ck would it be unpopular? It would give more recognition to the top team, in addition to retaining the Grand Final as the last match of the year - an event in it's own right. As a bonus, the finals become totally knockout, which makes them more exciting, and as an ADDED bonus, the home and away season will actually mean something. Fans can watch their team 22 times per year and they know that all those matches count towars the premiership. This differs from the current set-up, where all those 22 matches are irrelevant and count for nothing unless you win the 4 week finals series.

Going back to the 22 week season. I agree with you. Having a conference system doesn't change anything. We would still play 7 teams twice and 8 teams once. The inequity remains.

I will say, however, that despite the inequity, 22 games is still plenty of time to determine who is the best team. It's not like we are talking about 7 or 8 games here. We are talking about 22 matches. After 15 rounds, the draw is perfectly fair; everyone has played each other once. From this point until Round 22, that ladder never changes much, which indicates, that even if we had a 30 round season, the same teams would still probably occupy the top few positions, anyway!

So, even though the 22 week season is not perfect, I still believe it is long enough to realistically gauge who the best team is. it's a hell of a lot more realistic than a freaky and unpredictable 4 week tournament. Currently, that unpredictable 4 week tournament determines the season champion. This is not good enough.

Under my system, that freaky, unpredictable, exciting tournament will remain, but it won't determine the season champion, because the season champion is the team that has won the most games. And that team, is the team that deserves to be recognised.


[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 01 March 2001).]
 

(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
#27
Roger
Lots of good points, or at the very least, ones that I agree with.


I believe that two particular phrases you used get really close to the nub of the arguement:
"money spoke louder than logic"
"The draw is unfair now"

One describes the reason & one the result, no wonder people keep firing pot shots at the AFL!
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#29
Thanks, karnaby. I think that the way the AFL runs the competition now is, frankly, a joke. To skew the fixtures so that some teams play each other twice every year is bordering on corruption. It places profits ahead of any notion of equity, and that's got to be wrong.

(deep breath) I take exception with some of what Dan has to say. Let's leave the minor premier/finals issue alone for the moment - we hashed that one out elsewhere, and we'll only go round in circles again. Actually, I've just noted that it constitutes most of your post, so I'll confine myself to your claim that the current 22 week season is fair enough to determine the finalists.

There are enough occasions when three finals spots are separated by percentage, or a team is below another by a game, but ahead on percentage come finals time - or worse, a team misses out on the finals because of percentage, or one win, for the issue of who-played-who-twice in the season to become paramount.

To take '99 as an example (it is a little more graphic than last year) the draw may have been responsible for Sydney being in the finals at the expense of Hawthorn, St Kilda or Geelong. Port could have finished as high as 5th, West Coast as low as 7th. The Bulldogs, could have finished above Brisbane. These little things matter a lot, especially when a team misses out on the finals because of a harder draw. The revenue lost is crucial, and playing in the finals increases a team's morale and provides finals experience, which helps the following year.

And the issue of whether your system would or would not be unpopular if introduced is a bit academic when it is unpopular NOW (at least with this board) and you're asking the AFL to play two less finals. I just can't see why they would want to do it.

[This message has been edited by RogerC (edited 02 March 2001).]
 

QT

Premiership Player
Suspended
Joined
Dec 14, 2000
Posts
3,364
Likes
6
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
Thread starter #30
OK OK, I think that saying 30 game season is too much for the players is rubbish.

E.G
NBA they play all up 82 games a season. Then theres like another 25 if you go through the playoffs.

In soccer, most teams in Europe play upto 50 games a year incl League, Cup, Euro cups etc.!

These players are proffesiional athletes, and an extra 8 games a year shouldnt make that much of a difference!

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