Hi all, not sure if this has been discussed before but has anyone else considered a bonus points system for AFL games? Rugby Union have a bonus points system and it has made their code far more exciting. This idea is simple and i wonder if it has ever been considered before in football circles.

My idea is that clubs still receive 4 points for a win but also points are given for each quarter won. Under this system winning clubs can receive between a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 8 points for a win. Losers can receive between 0 to 3 points for a game. One for each quarter won and half for tied quarters. Under this system for the last round, Collingwood would have received 5.5 points against Melbourne's 2.5. In contrast St Kilda would have received 8 points against Nth Melbourne's 0. These totals more accurately reflect how the game was played though of course it will never be perfect.

The advantages of this system are;

Less junk time in the game.

Dominant teams have an incentive to play the game out for maximum return.

Losing teams have an incentive to battle the game out and salvage some points.

Rewards effort and reduces the luck factor.

Unlucky losers receive some reward for their efforts.

Good sides maximise their value.

More fairly reflects how the game was played.

Fairer ladder position.

Over the course of a season bonus points will more realistically reflect better teams with similar ladder standings.

Reduces the the value of percentage which can be misleading as it may reflect one or two blowouts for the season either way.

Adds interest in the game.

All the various posibilities in point scoring will add much unpredictability and interest to a game and ladder position variables.

Will increase competition between rivals at the end of the season as 1 or 2 extra points may be critical to ladder positions irrespective to who they are playing.

As for negatives I can't think of any at this stage so if anyone can think of some then please contribute.

Any other opinions on this idea?

Cheers

Na dont like it. A win is a win and thats all that counts. Higher emotional elation.

Now why do they have % calculated based on for and against points? Hmmm

Agreed, I'm not for tinkering with the rewards for wins/losses. It's been the same since the 1880's and we need to keep some tradition while everything is being destroyed.

Even if the scores don't really make sense. Why 4 points win and 2 points draw and not 2/1? What was so good about four?

I respect the thought behind the idea, and if I was going to launch some kind of wild summer footy league (p.s Why has nobody ever launched a summer footy league?) I might consider it, but for the AFL I want to keep it as it is.

Same goes for people trying to get the 9pt goal into the game. No thanks.

Thanks all. I admit tradition did enter my mind but then again these days tradition counts for not much. There have been so many changes in the past 30 years. The game is not what it was then and is always evolving. An aspect of the game that needs improving is game quality time. It's my impression that teams don't play out 4 quarters anymore if they don't have to. Teams are saving themselves for next week and some games remind me of dud cricket matches where the game is virtually over after one innings.

The team who is leading at games end, get 4 points, the other team 0-simple

Imagine making the finals without winning games, but just Quarters!!

Please leave it alone, don't give the AFL any more ridiculous ideas.

Hi all, not sure if this has been discussed before but has anyone else considered a bonus points system for AFL games? Rugby Union have a bonus points system and it has made their code far more exciting. This idea is simple and i wonder if it has ever been considered before in football circles.

My idea is that clubs still receive 4 points for a win but also points are given for each quarter won. Under this system winning clubs can receive between a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 8 points for a win. Losers can receive between 0 to 3 points for a game. One for each quarter won and half for tied quarters. Under this system for the last round, Collingwood would have received 5.5 points against Melbourne's 2.5. In contrast St Kilda would have received 8 points against Nth Melbourne's 0. These totals more accurately reflect how the game was played though of course it will never be perfect.

The advantages of this system are;

Less junk time in the game.

Dominant teams have an incentive to play the game out for maximum return.

Losing teams have an incentive to battle the game out and salvage some points.

Rewards effort and reduces the luck factor.

Unlucky losers receive some reward for their efforts.

Good sides maximise their value.

More fairly reflects how the game was played.

Fairer ladder position.

Over the course of a season bonus points will more realistically reflect better teams with similar ladder standings.

Reduces the the value of percentage which can be misleading as it may reflect one or two blowouts for the season either way.

Adds interest in the game.

All the various posibilities in point scoring will add much unpredictability and interest to a game and ladder position variables.

Will increase competition between rivals at the end of the season as 1 or 2 extra points may be critical to ladder positions irrespective to who they are playing.

As for negatives I can't think of any at this stage so if anyone can think of some then please contribute.

Any other opinions on this idea?

Cheers

Good thoughts mate but it won't happen! It would be interesting if you have the time to show us the ladder at the end of the season using your system versus the traditional points system. I can see what you are driving at. A 1 point winner receives 4 points the unlucky loser nothing! Not really fair but that's how it has been for over 150 years and that's how it will remain.

I like fresh ideas, and you do raise some intersting points, however I think the main reason the bonus point was introduced in rugby was due to the game getting more defensive and less attacking. That league was forced into making things more 'exciting'. AFL doesn't have this problem.

I would like to see a secondary competition. A sub competition within the AFL. Champion league/FA cup style.. obviously the Grand Final remains the ultimate prize, but I would like to see some kind of 'best of the rest' style competition. Hopefully someone with greater football knowledge can nut-out the finer details, but have always felt only 1 prize, for 1 team, after such a long season wasn't enough in a way. Maybe teams that finish 9-16th can battle out for draft selections or something.

Obviously totally unrealistic- if we could demote wooden spooners to the VFL/state equivalent and introduce relegation. Not possible right now, but if it ever was tanking would never be mentioned again that's for sure- would also mean a stronger, more diverse league. Who knows where were going in the future.. your bonus point thing may get looked at in some point in time. Ever evolving game..

Hi all, not sure if this has been discussed before but has anyone else considered a bonus points system for AFL games? Rugby Union have a bonus points system and it has made their code far more exciting. This idea is simple and i wonder if it has ever been considered before in football circles.

My idea is that clubs still receive 4 points for a win but also points are given for each quarter won. Under this system winning clubs can receive between a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 8 points for a win. Losers can receive between 0 to 3 points for a game. One for each quarter won and half for tied quarters. Under this system for the last round, Collingwood would have received 5.5 points against Melbourne's 2.5. In contrast St Kilda would have received 8 points against Nth Melbourne's 0. These totals more accurately reflect how the game was played though of course it will never be perfect.

The advantages of this system are;

Less junk time in the game.

Dominant teams have an incentive to play the game out for maximum return.

Losing teams have an incentive to battle the game out and salvage some points.

Rewards effort and reduces the luck factor.

Unlucky losers receive some reward for their efforts.

Good sides maximise their value.

More fairly reflects how the game was played.

Fairer ladder position.

Over the course of a season bonus points will more realistically reflect better teams with similar ladder standings.

Reduces the the value of percentage which can be misleading as it may reflect one or two blowouts for the season either way.

Adds interest in the game.

All the various posibilities in point scoring will add much unpredictability and interest to a game and ladder position variables.

Will increase competition between rivals at the end of the season as 1 or 2 extra points may be critical to ladder positions irrespective to who they are playing.

As for negatives I can't think of any at this stage so if anyone can think of some then please contribute.

Any other opinions on this idea?

Cheers

Who are you??? Ross Oakley????

Leave the game alone!!

Thanks all, to Nostradamus, yes Rugby was getting too defensive and introduced bonus points to combat it. But the AFL is going the opposite. The game is getting ultra attacking too loose and big deficits kill many games as spectacles and contests after half time. I'd like to see most games played out to the finish. This will discourage negative strategies and encourage positive play for the whole game.

A couple of scenarios.

1) A team leads by 80 points at 3/4 time. They eventually win by 64 points. The other side made a net gain of 16 points. Now this happens because the winner slows down or the loser plays better for pride. Sometimes a combination of both but more likely winning sides are shutting down. The game is effectively over. Fans switch off or leave early. The 4 points are already won at the break. With bonus points for the taking both sides can improve their standing. Also sides getting thrashed just give up because there is nothing to play for.

2) Late in the season, one team needs a win over its rival 4 points above it to make the finals. But is 8 percentage points behind on the ladder. Impossible to make up the deficit with a win. If their were bonus points to play for then the game will be played out to the death.

3) To maintain ladder position or leapfrog a rival side even though loosing will stimulate play in irrelevant games to gain extra points to enhance or maintain position.

Further no team can make the finals by loosing and collecting only bonus points throughout the season. Winners will always get a minimum of 5 points. But losers can only get a maximum of 3 if they win 3 quarters in a game which is quite rare. And how satisfying it will be to see your side collecting the maximum 8 points by winning all four quarters.

I don't think applying the bonus point system to past games for evaluation is useful as games were never played with bonus points at stake to begin with and the data will be false. Perhaps this system could be tried in a lesser competition to see how it works.

As for tradition, I am a big fan of it but not when it is illogical, inspires no passion and inhibits the game from developing.

A tradition I like to see maintained or revived is to play out the game for 4 quarters with passion. Aussie footy used to be a game where players were expected to give a 100% winning commitment for 4 quarters unlike soccer where soft playing for a draw is Ok or Gridiron where they have the unwritten code of "don't rub it in" when a side gets a lead of 30 or so points. In rugby they play for 80 minutes but a significant large proportion of the time players are just standing around in uncredited stopages.

But the critical advantages of the other codes is that they are entrenched worldwide sports. Aussie Rules is a loner in an insignificant corner of the world. It will need constant innovation and stimulation to keep it the best game in the world and ensure its survival.

Cheers all

No need.

As RR said, that's what percentage is for.

I was surprised last week that Hawthorn took their foot off the pedal as early as they did. If they want to make the 8, even the 4, they're going to need to have a decent percentage, and we were ripe for the killing. They missed out on a lot of easy percentage.

IF we introduced something like that, you would need to weight the points for the win more heavily, e.g. 4 points for a win and 1/2 point per quarter.

So it would have been Collingwood 4.75, Melbourne 1.25.

But no, that's why we have the %...

Hi all, I do think percentage has flaws and perhaps not that rated at least early in the season as shown by the example posted by titan. Percentage is a simple separation of teams with equal points and does not make for better games. As I said previously percentage can be skewed by a couple of blowouts either way and make or ruin a season. Teams can negate percentage for their rivals with negative play. It's value is also variable to weather conditions which may only affect certain games. Teams that play in better home conditions will have an advantage. Bonus points will reward sustained efforts for trying to win over an entire season. It may be possible for a team to finish ahead of a rival with less wins but it would also demonstrate that that team tried harder to win all year and played more consistent good football. Teams have try their best in every game to ensure they get the extra points and not the opposition.

Agree that weighing the points spread is something that has to be determined

to ensure the fairest and most deserving outcome.

cheers

Hi all, I do think percentage has flaws and perhaps not that rated at least early in the season as shown by the example posted by titan. Percentage is a simple separation of teams with equal points and does not make for better games. As I said previously percentage can be skewed by a couple of blowouts either way and make or ruin a season. Teams can negate percentage for their rivals with negative play. It's value is also variable to weather conditions which may only affect certain games. Teams that play in better home conditions will have an advantage. Bonus points will reward sustained efforts for trying to win over an entire season. It may be possible for a team to finish ahead of a rival with less wins but it would also demonstrate that that team tried harder to win all year and played more consistent good football. Teams have try their best in every game to ensure they get the extra points and not the opposition.

cheers

Percentage is simply the aggregate points for and against. It is meant to recognise and measure the scoreboard difference betweeen two sides which reflect the relative performance of both sides on the day. It is not meant to make for better games. Percentages cant be skewed because one goal = 6 points and 1 behind = 1 point. It isnt skewed at all. It reflects the results of the games If there is a blowout in a game it reflects that one team has played really well and one team hasn't. Given the game is played over 22 rounds on different days in seven states and territories percentage is only variable by the fixture and the locations chosen. That's not a flaw in percentages. I would have thought that scoreboard is the ultimate measure of sustained effort. The scoreboard is the judge of winner in the Grand Final so why should it is be any different in a home and away game.

No need to complicate something soooo simple and arms length.

I was surprised last week that Hawthorn took their foot off the pedal as early as they did. If they want to make the 8, even the 4, they're going to need to have a decent percentage, and we were ripe for the killing. They missed out on a lot of easy percentage.

They have 21 rounds to go. They had given us a pasting. They had no further injuries to add to their mounting list. Why bust a boiler when you had Geelong the following week?

They have 21 rounds to go. They had given us a pasting. They had no further injuries to add to their mounting list. Why bust a boiler when you had Geelong the following week?

I thought my post made that pretty clear. Easy percentage. They want to play finals. If they miss out on the 8th spot, or the 4th spot, because of percentage, they'll look back on that match and possibly be quite annoyed they didn't go on with it.

I thought my post made that pretty clear. Easy percentage. They want to play finals. If they miss out on the 8th spot, or the 4th spot, because of percentage, they'll look back on that match and possibly be quite annoyed they didn't go on with it.

Its consideration for a side 3 to 4 weeks out particularly if they are in 9 to 12th spot. But at round 1 I dont think so.

Given there long injury list and their next 2 matches I would have thought they would have been satisfied.

If they miss out on 4th or even 8th I reckon they will be more pi$$ed off with the games they lost (eg Geelong after being 20 points up).

Percentage is of no real value until the later stages of the season and mostly for teams who are very close to each other in the standings and in contention for something they want. Unlike points on the board percentage ebbs and flows for most teams throughout the season unless they are very dominant or very poor. A draw nullifies all value of percentage for a team unless it gets involved in the unlikely situation with another side who had a draw during the season. Dominant teams accumulate whopping percentage but its wasted on them anyway as mostly they don't need it. Poor teams don't have much but can manipulate what they have to farm draft picks. No sense at this stage in playing for percentage and all its variation with such a long tough season still to play. Points are for keeps for the duration and thats all teams want at this stage of the season. Teams have to know where they are at in the grand scheme of things before they can play for the percentage card.

No.

Leave the game alone.

This system was trialed in the Farrer League back in the late 70's early 80's and from memory the ladder positions ended up exactly the same as if it was 4 points and percentage. So they discontinued it.

No.

Leave the game alone.

+1

Percentage is of no real value until the later stages of the season and mostly for teams who are very close to each other in the standings and in contention for something they want. Unlike points on the board percentage ebbs and flows for most teams throughout the season unless they are very dominant or very poor. A draw nullifies all value of percentage for a team unless it gets involved in the unlikely situation with another side who had a draw during the season. Dominant teams accumulate whopping percentage but its wasted on them anyway as mostly they don't need it. Poor teams don't have much but can manipulate what they have to farm draft picks. No sense at this stage in playing for percentage and all its variation with such a long tough season still to play. Points are for keeps for the duration and thats all teams want at this stage of the season. Teams have to know where they are at in the grand scheme of things before they can play for the percentage card.

% is the same value at Rd 1 and at Rd 22. Percentage ebbs and flows on team performance relative to their opposition (who'd have thunk it!!). A draw reflects the evenness of both sides. Dominant teams earn the 4 points and the % enshrines their position. Poor teams can only seek to manipulate to a limited fashion the final outcome of a game. Poor teams at the tail end of the season are to varying degrees playing for a loss to improve draft pick position. In the grand scheme of things teams know if your ratio of your score to the oppositions score is higher/lower than your existing aggregrate % then your aggregate % will increase/decrease.

You have spent alot of time erroneously debunking % when its ex poste arbirtary measure of relative performance but your proposal only increases the extent of bias, manipulation and confusion that undermines the integrity of the aim of the game...trying to beat your opposition on the final siren.

Hi all, I don't debunk percentage and it is still a required tool but it does nothing for making a game a better spectacle or contest and getting both sides to play out four quarters of quality football. And thats been the core issue of my whole argument. Interesting to read Prodical Son's comment on the Farrer league. The system made no difference to ladder position so perhaps its just as accurate as percentage to determine position but I'd bet it made a difference to how the games were played out quarter by quarter.

Hi all, I don't debunk percentage but it does nothing for making a game a better spectacle or contest and getting both sides to play out four quarters of quality football. And thats been the core of my whole argument. Interesting to read Prodical Son's comment on the Farrer league. The system made no difference to ladder position so perhaps its just as accurate as percentage to determine position but I'd bet it made a difference to how the games were played out quarter by quarter.

It would undermine the integrity of how the game is played because the secondary aims of the bonus points conflict with the ultimate aim of the game...to play four quarters of football. Poor teams wont play any more attractive football because 1 they are not good enough and 2 there is no incentive re the re building of lists to improve ladder position. It will do nothing to rectify the imbalance of dominance and weakness in the AFL ladder.

Bonus points systems have been used in various forms in other sports (eg Cricket) and has proven unsuccessful in creating better contests because it incentives outcomes that are not always consistent with the ultimate aim of the game. In the case of cricket it was undermining the whole competition. If you have a rewards system which is in any way different to the 4 points for a win and none for a loss scenario then its conflicts with the overall purpose and undermines the integrity of the contest.

Rugby Union have a bonus points system and it has made their code far more exciting. This idea is simple and i wonder if it has ever been considered before in football circles.

That's very contentious, I know plenty of Rugby fans who would argue the contrary. When you have sides missing the finals that have won more games than sides that make the finals (which happens), then it makes a complete mockery of the system. Not a fan at all. I think the current system works best.