Jeff Kennett

[wonnabeeri 275]

17 rounds the way to go.

I thinks yes.

[Pates 9,660]

I dunno, feels a bit short for me. 22-24 i think is still a good fit, with them getting rid of the pre-season competition. Finals system in my eyes doesn't need to be changed at all, keep it at 8 that way when you make it it actually means something, that you are amongst the best in the competition.

But i know what will happen, the AFL will do what it can to maximise the bottom $$$$$. Not unexpected, but is it right thing to do for the image of the game?

[2014-Flag 0]

17 rounds the way to go.

I thinks yes.

I wonder whether everyone associated with the AFL, including a lot of people on this site, would want to have the game as an industry shrink by 25% because that is what such a decision would represent. The major factors in making the game so popular with television stations are : its entrtainment value and therefore consistently high ratings; the length of the game itself ( more revenue per game); consistent scoring and therefore plenty of opportunities for natural Ad breaks; and yes length of seasons. Reduce the season by 25% and theefore reduce income likewise.

All these features give us a natural advantage over NRL and Soccer. Do we really want to surrender these advantages through some ideological decision making? I think not.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,840]

17 rounds the way to go.

I thinks yes.

Don't like the idea of seeing Melbourne play only 11 or 12 times a year in Melbourne (as we'd probably play 5 or 6 interstate games).

24 rounds sounds good to me.

[wonnabeeri 275]

I just like the idea of a fair and even competition. One where collingwood aren't given a dream run to make finals every year.

[Adzman 2,154]

I hear all this buzz around the free AFL agency. The reason the free agency is so successful overseas is because they have long seasons (with the exception of the NFL). 22 games is nothing! You want to have a free agency top top up talent when you only play them 17 games a season? What is the point of a F/A then? You take away from the credibility of the sport, not to mention the joy of the fans by cutting the season short.

As it stands 22 physical rounds is pretty fantastic (over 24 to fit in bye weeks). Kennett is a [censored] for suggesting otherwise.

[Nasher 33,616]

17 rounds the way to go.

I thinks yes.

It's probably the most fair solution, but fairness isn't the only driver for a solution. I don't want the season to get shorter and I doubt the AFL does either.

[Stigga 25]

It's probably the most fair solution, but fairness isn't the only driver for a solution. I don't want the season to get shorter and I doubt the AFL does either.

The AFL has not invested tens of millions of dollars into NSW and Queensland in order for less games to be played...

[GM11 776]

What about this -

18 teams play each other once = 17 games

then split the ladder into top 9 and bottom 9

top 9 play each other once & bottom 9 play each other once = 8 games (for a total season of 25 games)

incentive for the top 9 is finals order as it is now

incentive for bottom 9 is draft order i.e. 10th = pick 1, 11th = pick2 etc then for the top 9 9th = pick 10, 8th = pick 11, etc

Benefits

- similar season length

- last 9 rounds would feature more even games

- no more incentive to tank

[Supreme_Demon 3,860]

I always liked the idea of each team playing each other twice and you get rid of the Pre-Season competition.

[Ho Chi Dee 0]

It's probably the most fair solution, but fairness isn't the only driver for a solution. I don't want the season to get shorter and I doubt the AFL does either.

Would you really want it longer though Nasher? Think back to '07-'09, the last thing I'd want is an extension of watching the mfc being thumped with no hope of finals and with no real incentives to win. With fewer games, each game essentially means more.

17 would be fair. You'd play each team once and could change homeground advantage each year - that seems like the only way we'd get close to having a 'fair' draw.

The way the game is travelling at the moment it is going to be hard to sustain the level of intensity over 24+ rounds.

Increases in quantity rarely correlate to increases in quality.

In saying that, it wont happen. There will be yet more football played. All for the sake of $. It's a pity the running of the game now is seen solely in monetary terms.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Ho Chi Dee

[deanox 9,924]

17 round comp with 18 teams. top 6 straight into the finals, next four play a knock out 7 v 10 and 8 v 9 for the last two finals spots, so we get an extra week, and the top 6 all get a week off. (we are still 4 weeks down on previous years though.

it does give you a chance to bring back SoO without disrupting the number of weeks?

perhaps, i don't see it happening.

[Prof 15]

17 weeks is not long enough - simple

Any set up with less than 34 weeks will be unfair.

Stay with 22 weeks. Make sure all Victorian based teams have the same number of interstate games (plus or minus one).

Retain the final 8.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Prof