bandicoot

Wild card weekend

165 posts in this topic

31 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Yep, trust a team coming from 10th to make it into the finals because an umpire awards some dumb deliberate out of bounds in the final minutes of the game. You would just about lose your nut if that happened to Melbourne, and you just know it will! 

I would lose it. I've talked a lot of sh*t in my time, but that is the kind of thing that would finally tip me over the edge! The idea that a team who has not been good enough all season to make finals, can have a good week or two right at the end and take the finals place of a team that has learnt if over the course of a full season of pathetic. A team should be rewarded for playing well over a full season, not 1-2 weeks. Imagine if Melbourne finished 7th, then played off in a "wildcard" match against 10th. Imagine 10th is West Coast and we have to fly to WA to play them. Under the current more fair system and fixture that is already in place, and we would've been scheduled to play Brisbane who are 17th in Melbourne. During that match we suffer injuries such as Hogan and Gawn going down, leaving us 2 men down on the bench, and then had an umpire makes an incorrect or debatable decision at the end of a game that gives West Coast the win. Due to that loss we could potentially go from 7th and playing finals, to out of the 8 and not playing finals. 

It's a sh*t idea used to generate hype and creates an unfair fixture. We need to keep the game the way it is and stop copying other sports to generate hype at the expense of a fair system. It's already unbalanced to favour certain teams/areas, we shouldn't tip the scales even further. I don't want it to degenerate into Baseketball (as fun as that movie is).

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Essendrug saga. Sledging someone's wife during play. Gambling in sport. Racism in sport. Too much effing $ in sport.

But no, let's tackle the big issues. I know, what about a wildcard round leading into the finals? I reckon the Richmond match committe have dreamt this up to give them a chance at winning a final. 

It is an appalling idea with little merit, and robs the game of the equilisation they have worked so hard to produce. 

Is Gil actually fit to lead this great game? 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

Not sure if I'm the only one, but I love Wild Card. I do happen to be a little bit of an NFL fan. Demons first and all that, but have fallen in love with the overseas game as well. The AFL is slowly and gently bringing in some of the best things about the USA sports under everyone's noses. WHile many won't agree, I'm with them on this one and many others. We have a great resource here in that we have another country with a passionately followed indigenous game that governs itself. Their fans are every bit as obsessive as ours, and they've gone through many mistakes to make it better for the fans and players. We have this awesome situation where we can pick and choose the things they did well, and benefit from all their harsh lessons.

The wild card week the AFL is proposing isn't strictly speaking a Wild Card. My understanding of the Wild Card is more like the NFL version. You earn the right to BE a Wild Card if you don't win your division, but win enough games to beat all the other second placed sides in other divisions. The "Wild Card" games are really just the first weeks of playoffs... and that's what the AFL is proposing. It's essentially just more finals... The GP might look at them as poorer quality finals, but for me, I think they're ok. Everyone knows the rules, so I doubt anyone will whinge if they come 8th and get bundled out by the team in 9th. Anyone only just scraping into 8th will get a home final anyway, And usually if you get there, it's only just... by a game or percentage.

I think it's a great thing, and I've been hoping they expanded it for ages. So many USA things have been brought in for the betterment of the game. I see this as another good one. I don't think it hurts the tradition or fabric of the game either. Finals formats have been changing since the game started.

If we ever got to the point that we had 25 clubs in the country, I'd love to see Divisions brought in too. It works fantastically in the USA, and I'm confident it would be embraced here too.

I get what you say about looking elsewhere for what has worked but the wildcard idea is a joke. What the AFL should bring in that the NFL do is sharing of high rating timeslots on telly. If we followed their model it would be something like every team gets 2 Friday night spots every year, one home and one away (and getting 3 in a year is rotated), then each team can also get 2 Saturday night spots and so on. This would help massively in evening out the revenue of each club and quite possibly take clubs like us of the feed from the AFL (which is only given to us in compensation for not getting these timeslots anyway!)

Unfortunately in Gill's mind it is more important to continue down the road of limiting market exposure to clubs based on the wants of a TV organisations, who have no interest in the long term health of the comp, while not actually setting up 18 sustainable clubs that will build the AFL and not be a drain!

F that bloke is a Dill.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris said:

I get what you say about looking elsewhere for what has worked but the wildcard idea is a joke. What the AFL should bring in that the NFL do is sharing of high rating timeslots on telly. If we followed their model it would be something like every team gets 2 Friday night spots every year, one home and one away (and getting 3 in a year is rotated), then each team can also get 2 Saturday night spots and so on. This would help massively in evening out the revenue of each club and quite possibly take clubs like us of the feed from the AFL (which is only given to us in compensation for not getting these timeslots anyway!)

Unfortunately in Gill's mind it is more important to continue down the road of limiting market exposure to clubs based on the wants of a TV organisations, who have no interest in the long term health of the comp, while not actually setting up 18 sustainable clubs that will build the AFL and not be a drain!

F that bloke is a Dill.

It was always going to be like this once the AFL sold its soul to TV Stations for Billions of $$$$'s

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It was always going to be like this once the AFL sold its soul to TV Stations for Billions of $$$$'s

And they are too silly to see that 18 healthy viable clubs will make them more money int eh long run, even if they have to take a hit for a few years while it evens out a little. The AFL only seem to be able to see slightly further into the future than our pollies!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Is Gil actually fit to lead this great game? 

No and the sooner he goes the better.

So the AFL creates a working group to figure out how to make the fixture fairer, and this is the end result? How does this make the fixture fairer?? Why do they need a working group to figure out what is a basic idea?? There are a couple of logical and simple ways to even out the fixture, extra elimination finals and the 17-5 abortion are NOT it

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris said:

I get what you say about looking elsewhere for what has worked but the wildcard idea is a joke. What the AFL should bring in that the NFL do is sharing of high rating timeslots on telly. If we followed their model it would be something like every team gets 2 Friday night spots every year, one home and one away (and getting 3 in a year is rotated), then each team can also get 2 Saturday night spots and so on. This would help massively in evening out the revenue of each club and quite possibly take clubs like us of the feed from the AFL (which is only given to us in compensation for not getting these timeslots anyway!)

Unfortunately in Gill's mind it is more important to continue down the road of limiting market exposure to clubs based on the wants of a TV organisations, who have no interest in the long term health of the comp, while not actually setting up 18 sustainable clubs that will build the AFL and not be a drain!

F that bloke is a Dill.

Well said

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It was always going to be like this once the AFL sold its soul to TV Stations for Billions of $$$$'s

NFL makes $4 billion A YEAR from TV networks ($1b a year for Monday night football alone - 16 games!) and doesn't compromise it's competition anywhere near the extent the AFL does. It's because the AFL executive/board are all incompetent fools who mostly got in on the basis of their mates in the game. The TV networks NEED the AFL it's what the AFL is still yet to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#: 59   Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

NFL makes $4 billion A YEAR from TV networks ($1b a year for Monday night football alone - 16 games!) and doesn't compromise it's competition anywhere near the extent the AFL does. It's because the AFL executive/board are all incompetent fools who mostly got in on the basis of their mates in the game. The TV networks NEED the AFL it's what the AFL is still yet to figure out.

Of course. But we have sold the rights for inflated prices  

This means the TV Stations will get what they demand. 

Deliberate out of bounds is example number one. 

Edited by Sir Why You Little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The Essendrug saga. Sledging someone's wife during play. Gambling in sport. Racism in sport. Too much effing $ in sport.

But no, let's tackle the big issues. I know, what about a wildcard round leading into the finals? I reckon the Richmond match committe have dreamt this up to give them a chance at winning a final. 

It is an appalling idea with little merit, and robs the game of the equilisation they have worked so hard to produce. 

Is Gil actually fit to lead this great game? 

doubt he runs it....just takes orders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Is Gil actually fit to lead this great game? 

Yes, Gil is starting to make a few think this.

Gil's accomplishments so far? Cheaper food at Etihad. Rules more confusing than ever. Twilight grand final (so we can better enjoy Meatloaf).  "Wildcards".

Good work, Gil. (Not.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not really a "wildcard". (Check out any US sport that has them and you'll see why.)

It's a final 10 with an extra week of elimination finals.

More than half the teams make the finals.

And who has been crying out for this? Writing letters to the AFL, hammering talkback lines, generating online petitions, ....... ? Anyone? Bueller?

Gil sure has his priorities right. ($$$$$)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with wildcards, as seen in (eg) major league baseball, is that they can be easily "expanded" depending on the controlling powers' whim, to have more and more of them.

Baseball season in the US is too long already, and they have introduced more wildcards which just prolongs the agony.

If Gil pronounces his wildcard idea to be a success, before you know it, the team that finishes 11th will get the chance to knock off the team in 10th, in a "special wildcard" game. 12th will get a crack at 9th. Because it's "more exciting" (translation: generates more $$$$$$)

Fluck off, Gil.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

It's a final 10 with an extra week of elimination finals.

More than half the teams make the finals

This is all it is

5 week final series (with a week off??)

6 weeks where TV Stations can earn the Premium $$$$

Any other reason for a new system is total crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others I see it as a bit of a money-making exercise but the supporters of those teams who finish 9th & 10th will embrace it ... including our members & supporters if we ever finish in those places on the ladder. 

I'd felt that the ladder has become too cumbersome with 18 teams and would have preferred dc's idea of 3 conferences groups instead.  Just the 8 teams playing finals with that system though (1st & 2nd qualify from each of the 3 groups together with the 2 next best performed teams)

Finishing in the top 6 now becomes a goal as well as the top 4 and the top 2.  The new system also alleviates the issue of the 'footy-bye' before the finals.  In the 2nd week of the finals (which used to be the first week of finals) the Thursday night game would probably be one of the qualifying finals (1st vs 4th or 2nd vs 3rd)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have first 17 rounds...play everyone once.

Throw away results.

Next five weeks ...lucky dip out of bag...

Throw away results.

6 week lightning Premiership

Would work for Gil and the telly.

Of course , no one would be interested in footy anymore...only small glitch :unsure:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's strange is that apparently club presidents like this idea.

Surely not. Do we really need to sell our sole any more in the interests of a commercial return and the networks . We put up with a lot already - including but not limited to:.

* A painful fixture e,g, inconvenient 3.20 pm Sunday time slots, limited free to air games

* 23 rounds to narrow the field by only half so we can generate more finals matches with inflated ticket prices

* Corporate finals tickets at the expense of members

* Rule changes each year to speed the game up e.g. the 'no intent' out of bounds which just doesn't feel fair and right for the game

* Sports betting advertising and pokies

* Anthony Hudson

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

What's strange is that apparently club presidents like this idea.

Surely not. Do we really need to sell our sole any more in the interests of a commercial return and the networks . We put up with a lot already - including but not limited to:.

* A painful fixture e,g, inconvenient 3.20 pm Sunday time slots, limited free to air games

* 23 rounds to narrow the field by only half so we can generate more finals matches with inflated ticket prices

* Corporate finals tickets at the expense of members

* Rule changes each year to speed the game up e.g. the 'no intent' out of bounds which just doesn't feel fair and right for the game

* Sports betting advertising and pokies

* Anthony Hudson

ANTHONY HUDSON STOP YELLING

little man 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is crap.

how about a special 8 point weekend?

if you have earned the right throughout the season, you have earned the right.  It is a travesty to suggest that ninthmond would perennially get one more chance of making the finals.

leave the game alone,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

Gil sure has his priorities right. ($$$$$)

Part of his salary package is linked to $$$'s, so is it any wonder. Probably about time executive salary packages were a lot more imaginative and had more to do with the long term health of the organisation and I'm not just talking AFL here.

40 minutes ago, Demons1858 said:

What's strange is that apparently club presidents like this idea.

Yes, and China was a sellout....unfortunately you can't believe anything that comes from the AFL...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Is Gil actually fit to lead this great game? 

Time to get the ball rolling on impeachment proceedings.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rjay said:

Yes, and China was a sellout....unfortunately you can't believe anything that comes from the AFL...

You dreadful cynic - the (many) empty seats were obviously locals out getting their dim sims and fried rice.   Couldn't possibly be so many empty seats in a ground breaking, culture changing sellout match, could it? 🙄😎

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! A lot of hate towards ideas trying to fix our scheduling system - and misdirected IMHO at Gil. Allow me to talk people through this:

Why is there a proposal to change the draw? What are the current problems?

1/ 18 teams don't fit into 22 rounds, so there's an inherent fairness problem surrounding who plays who twice. Despite the weighting that occurs to determine the next year's fixture, certain clubs always play each other twice  (interstate clubs, ess v coll etc) purely for financial reasons

2/ Towards the end of a season, large numbers of supporters of those clubs that can't make the finals stop attending and watching their teams. As melbourne supporters you'd well know how it feels in August when all hope is shot (actually we usually feel that in May LOL)

So Gil proposed this back in 2015:

1/ Every team plays each other once in the first 17 rounds. Over as two year period, each team would play once at home and once away

2/ After 17 rounds, the AFL splits into 3 groups. 1-6 plays for top 6 positions, 7-12 for the last two spots in the 8 and 13-18 for draft picks (unspecified)

What's good about this?

1/ It's a fairer draw

2/ It makes the late season far more interesting, especially for teams in the 7-12 space. 

3/ It has the added benefit of placing the bye round at the end of Rd17 (the extra bye that the PA want) rather than the week before the Finals. Given that the last week will almost certainly be important, the incentive to rest players (like Freo and Nth did in 2015) is diminished.

4/ Scheduling for prime time spots (ie Friday night) can be more accurately presented in the last 65 rounds as top clubs all play eachother

5/ Teams can be clearly rewarded for their performance in H&A, not only with guaranteed finals spots or chances for a spot, but with top 3 of each group of 6 playing 3 home games (bottom 3 play only 2).

But the clubs (not Gill) didn't like the 17-5 model.

Why?

1/ Interstate clubs want to play each other twice (ie money reasons, and travel) as do Vic clubs like Coll, Ess and Car

2/ Clubs wanted a guaranteed 11 home games (under the 17-5 model, some clubs would play 12 home games, some 11 and some 10) - ie money

3/ No-one could agree on what the proper incentive for the bottom 6 should be (IMHO -  a legit concern)

And so the clubs (not Gil) suggested working on an 18-4 model:

This is much harder.  Trying to fit 4 rounds into 3 groups of 6 will be hard to be both fair and practical, although you can make each team have 2 home and two away games.

The wildcard idea that has been floated is designed to provide some incentive for the teams finishing in the bottom 6 (rather than provide (unspecified) draft concessions)

Issues With All These Models:

1/ What to do with the bottom 6? You could offer the team that won the bottom 6 comp, pick no1, but then give the bottom team 2, 2nd bottom 3 and so on. The 13th based team with pick no1 and a string of late season wins would enter the next season busting with hope. OR you could give them a 'wildcard' entry (as proposed in the post-Gil model). A wildcard entry vs team 7 at team 7's home, would not win very often.

2/ Do you re-start the ladder or start again ie is the final 4-5 rounds considered a new competition or do wins and percentage carry on? (I personally favour re-starting the table, and using original ladder position or maybe total wins instead of percentage to split teams)

I'm a supporter, generally of Gil's proposal. I'm looking for some reason to remain interested once finals places are shot.

Unfortunately money looks like it will kill Gil's proposal - not the other way round.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea.

Actually equalise the competition. 

Same number of prime time slots etc etc.

Centralise gate takings and divide $

Draft in order of wins over last 3 years 

Literally draw last 5 opponents out of a hat 

Facilitate an actual [censored] competition and not produce a [censored] tv show.

If you make the top 8 well done sunshine youre in.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.