- Joined
- Jan 23, 2000
- Posts
- 24,968
- Likes
- 2,619
- Location
- Werribee
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- post count: 38,986
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.
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.
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).]
