Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
For years now, whenever someone brings up the idea of evening out the fixtures to eliminate some teams getting an easier run (ie. Brisbane having 5 double up games vs top 8 teams this year, compared to 2 with Geelong) the argument always rears it’s head to say ‘play everyone once, plus a rivalry game, followed by splitting the league into thirds and you all play the same schedule’
But what these people fail to realise is that it’s effectively logistically impossible to work.
You’re creating the split once everyone has played 18 games. 9 teams will have 9h, 1n (Gather Rd) and 8a. Whereas 9 teams have 8h, 1n (Gather Rd) and 9a. But it’s almost certain that at least one of the thirds would have an uneven amount of teams within this split.
Say we reach this stage and Collingwood, Geelong, Adelaide, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs and Hawthorn are the first group. But they have all played 9h, 1n, 8a after their games. How do you split their games now? They can only play each other, so 3 teams will finish on 12h, 1n, 10a and the other 3 will be 11h, 1n, 11a. So 3 teams get an advantage, and 3 are disadvantaged in just that group of 6 teams. But at the same time, you can have the bottom 6 entering at 8h, 1n, 9a. Which leads to 3 teams finishing 10h, 1n, 12a with the other 3 having an even amount (11/1/11). By doing the split, you can not ensure all teams have an equal h:a record.
And on another point, what happens when you fall in the same group as your rival. You get 3 games in a year? Under the logic that’s presented atm, GWS and Sydney would be in the same group this year. They would’ve played early, then they would have played each other as rivals, then again in the group? Again, a statistical anomaly people don’t want.
This idea, despite coming from a good place, and trying to do better, has more flaws in it than just about any idea I’ve seen for a fixture, and to be frank with you, is sheer stupidity.
There are ways to twist the concept and make it work (Basing it off the previous years ladder - 1 group being 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th. Another being 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th. With the remainder being the other group. Then using the remaining game to get the best rivalry game you can get) But any idea brought up where you create the groups mid year would require a miracle to even create a fixture which ensures that all teams have the same amount of home and away games, as well as not getting 3 matchups vs a team.
I know people are trying to find ways to fix a flawed system. But this idea is lunacy and almost certainly create an option which is much worse than the status quo.
The fact that this idea still gets brought up time and time again after about one and a half decades since first being suggested, and has fans, media and players alike all liking it. Shows just how stupid many are.
You can not guarantee that everyone plays the same amount of home and away games if you split the league into thirds after 17/18 games. You cant.
But what these people fail to realise is that it’s effectively logistically impossible to work.
You’re creating the split once everyone has played 18 games. 9 teams will have 9h, 1n (Gather Rd) and 8a. Whereas 9 teams have 8h, 1n (Gather Rd) and 9a. But it’s almost certain that at least one of the thirds would have an uneven amount of teams within this split.
Say we reach this stage and Collingwood, Geelong, Adelaide, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs and Hawthorn are the first group. But they have all played 9h, 1n, 8a after their games. How do you split their games now? They can only play each other, so 3 teams will finish on 12h, 1n, 10a and the other 3 will be 11h, 1n, 11a. So 3 teams get an advantage, and 3 are disadvantaged in just that group of 6 teams. But at the same time, you can have the bottom 6 entering at 8h, 1n, 9a. Which leads to 3 teams finishing 10h, 1n, 12a with the other 3 having an even amount (11/1/11). By doing the split, you can not ensure all teams have an equal h:a record.
And on another point, what happens when you fall in the same group as your rival. You get 3 games in a year? Under the logic that’s presented atm, GWS and Sydney would be in the same group this year. They would’ve played early, then they would have played each other as rivals, then again in the group? Again, a statistical anomaly people don’t want.
This idea, despite coming from a good place, and trying to do better, has more flaws in it than just about any idea I’ve seen for a fixture, and to be frank with you, is sheer stupidity.
There are ways to twist the concept and make it work (Basing it off the previous years ladder - 1 group being 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th. Another being 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th. With the remainder being the other group. Then using the remaining game to get the best rivalry game you can get) But any idea brought up where you create the groups mid year would require a miracle to even create a fixture which ensures that all teams have the same amount of home and away games, as well as not getting 3 matchups vs a team.
I know people are trying to find ways to fix a flawed system. But this idea is lunacy and almost certainly create an option which is much worse than the status quo.
The fact that this idea still gets brought up time and time again after about one and a half decades since first being suggested, and has fans, media and players alike all liking it. Shows just how stupid many are.
You can not guarantee that everyone plays the same amount of home and away games if you split the league into thirds after 17/18 games. You cant.
