Tri-Conference Model - fixture

[Guest José Mourinho]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/expert-opinion/forget-the-blockbusters-afl-just-fix-the-fixture/story-fncqi979-1226344945306

I've not heard of this concept or Jason Feldman before, but I think this is a really really good idea.

I'd be very pleased if this was implemented and hope it gets a lot of support.

FELDMAN'S AFL TRI-CONFERENCE MODEL

KEY POINTS:

- Three conferences of six teams. Play each team in your conference twice and teams outside your conference once (total 22 games)

- Top two teams from each conference make the finals with the remaining spots being granted to two wildcards (teams with the best record outside the top two of respective conferences)

- Final eight teams to be ranked by record over 22 games

- Current final eight system to be retained

- Conferences to consist of three non-Melbourne and three Melbourne teams (Geelong is considered a non-Melbourne team due to its unique home ground)

- Conferences to rotate over a four-year period to ensure seven local derbies for SA, WA, QLD and NSW teams over four seasons and the nine Melbourne teams play five times each over a four-year period.

- Draft picks 1-8 to be based on records of non-finalists

- Draft picks 9-16 based on positions after finals.

POTENTIAL CONFERENCE ROTATIONS:

Year 1

Group A: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Geelong, Essendon, Western Bulldogs, Carlton

Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Fremantle, Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond

Group C: Sydney, GWS, West Coast, St Kilda, North Melbourne, Collingwood

Year 2

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Geelong, Essendon, Melbourne, St Kilda

Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Adelaide, Western Bulldogs, Hawthorn, North Melbourne

Group C: Sydney, GWS, Port Adelaide, Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood

Year 3

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Brisbane Lions, Essendon, Hawthorn, Collingwood

Group B: Sydney, GWS, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, St Kilda

Group C: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Carlton, Melbourne, North Melbourne

Year 4

Group A: West Coast, Fremantle, Sydney, Essendon, Richmond, North Melbourne

Group B: Gold Coast, Brisbane Lions, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, Collingwood

Group C: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, GWS, Carlton, Hawthorn, St Kilda

[stuie 7,374]

Seems very well thought out etc, but realistically, unless everyone plays each other twice it's never going to be 100% fair, ie: Hawthorn would be pretty much given the flag based on those first 2 years, especially seeing the final 8 system stays the same for finals.

The one thing I do like though is the drafting system it presents. Would definitely help with the "tanking" mentality (even though it's been proven to not be a good way to go).

[monoccular 16,126]

It certainly would be "fairer", which may make it unappealing to the AFL.

But, "conference", pleeeeaaase, lets not Americanize the game further - a conference is where you meet with like minded people to teach and learn - how about "sections", "divisions", "groups" etc

[pantaloons 2,019]

If people don't like the current system, watch the epic meltdown in the Hun when Collingwood finishes 13-9 and misses the finals while an 11-11 team that finishes second in its division makes it. The system isn't ideal, but it isn't broken. Part of Feldman's idea could be implemented - the rotating fixture could work fine with a regular ladder in place. Conferences and divisions are unnecessary for the AFL. They work in the US and that's fine, but it doesn't mean they should be used here. There are plenty of other US sporting ideas I'd look at here before a divisional structure (franchise player tags, a less insane zealotry to suspend half the competition every week, better live to internet packages for starters).

[Tony Tea 2,790]

Well thought out. Some good ideas. Fairer. Makes sense. It ain't going to get up.

[rufus 916]

^{I am in the process of (slowly) making am Aussie rules computer game (kind of my vision of a slightly updated NES Aussie Rules Footy)...and I needed a way to automatically create a fixture at the end of each season and I had actually come up with pretty much the same theory for my fixture, except that I have taken the ladder finishing positions as the basis for the 3 groups. I.e. the top 6 from the previous season will all play each other twice the next season, teams 7 to 12 will play each other twice, teams 13 to 18 will all play each other twice, and each team will also play the teams from outside their group once each. I think it works pretty fairly and assists the teams that finished lower to make their way up the ladder and means that the teams at the top need to cotinue to perform well to stay there...}

^{from a real world point of view I understand the AFL would never like it in terms of their "blockbusters", although it does encourage more big games because the top teams go each other twice....}

^{Even with dviding the teams into "groups" to work out the fixture I still keep the normal ladder and final 8 system...}

Edited May 2, 2012 by rufus

[Guest José Mourinho]

It certainly would be "fairer", which may make it unappealing to the AFL.

But, "conference", pleeeeaaase, lets not Americanize the game further - a conference is where you meet with like minded people to teach and learn - how about "sections", "divisions", "groups" etc

If you're getting hung up on the terminology, you're focusing on the wrong things.

[Samsara 65]

Ohh, my ears pricked at 'aussie rules computer game' - please, share with us more.

[rpfc 27,501]

I still don't see this model as a 'fairer' fixture. The ideal is to play 34 games and play everyone home and away.

This one would still have teams playing some teams once and others twice and personally I really don't care about this stuff.

What they should fix is the share of Friday night and Saturday night games, public holiday games, etc.

I would happily lose the QB game if we played the Anzac day game once every 10 years and all teams had 5 or 6 night games each a season.

[rufus 916]

Ohh, my ears pricked at 'aussie rules computer game' - please, share with us more.

I am doing something similar to what I did for my cricket game (antcricket.com)...got sick of all the commercial games which concentrate on aesthetics too much instead of old fashioned fun game play...the footy game is in a similar vein in that I have the whole ground displayed in one screen...as I state on the cricket game website I am not a professional programmer so there are many areas that need improvement (particularly around the stability of the deployment and the fact that I have used VB6 as the programming language, which is far from ideal but the only language I know well enough at this stage).

Have to say I have found the footy game much much harder to program. Coding AI for 36 different people at once, and particularly trying to chase bugs when they occur has been interesting. It's resulted in me stripping it back in a lot of ways to a pretty simply engine (i.e. the keys to playing well and winning matches in my game will be your disposal efficiency and the timing of you marking/spoiling attempts moreso than the more technical footy things like your tackling pressure). One of my main goals was to make a game which is sufficiently challenging so you have to play well in those areas to consistently win (in my current season I have lead the Dees to a 1 and 10 record so I feel that at this stage the game-play challenege is coming along quite nicely!).

Anyway in the next few months i hope to have a copy available to anyone who's interested in trying it out and giving their feedback...

[old55 21,356]

It's definitely an improvent over the current system - I'd leave ladder positions based on win-loss not conference standings even though this favours weaker conference teams it's less complex. I'd also go for permanent conferences to retain derbies and blockbusters:

East: Brisbane, GC, Sydney, GWS, Collingwood, Carlton (having the Pies and Blues fixtured twice would accelerate game development up north)

West: WC, Freo, Adelaide, Port, Geelong, Western Bulldogs

South: Essendon, Hawthorn, St.Kilda, North, Richmond, Melbourne

Each team plays their conference teams twice H&A, teams outside their conference alternate H&A each season, that way for example we play Freo away/WC at home, Adelaide away/Port at home, Sydney away/GWS at home, Brisbane away/GC at home one year and vice versa the next.

It's a bit more travel for the Victorian teams in the East and West conference but they could live with that - alternatively split the WA and SA teams across conferences with 4 Victorian teams in each.

East: Brisbane, GC, Sydney, GWS, Collingwood, Carlton

West: WC, Freo, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Richmond, Melbourne

South: Adelaide, Port, Essendon, Hawthorn, St.Kilda, North

Anzac day, QB, Dreamtime etc could be retained with this plan.

[Guest fitness]

I propose an alternative solution, as follows:

• The fixture should be set for a period of three seasons. So, at the end of 2012 it can be set for seasons 2013, 2014 and 2015.
  
• At the moment with 18 teams and 22 rounds, it means each team has to play each other team once, and five other teams twice. My proposal would involve 2013 having 22 rounds, 2014 23 rounds and then 2015 would have 23 rounds, so that you end up playing all 17 opposition teams four times in that three year period (i.e. twice in one year, and once in the other two years).
  
• In other words, MFC would play 5 teams twice in 2013, then play a different group of six teams twice in 2014, and then play the remaining six teams twice in 2015.
  

To be fair I haven't put a massive amount of thought into it. But it does seem fair and also achieves the desire for the amount of games/rounds the AFL seem to want to hold each year (i.e. 22/23 rounds in line with the TV rights deal), as well as keeping things fairly traditional in terms of not radically changing structures via conferences etc.

Any thoughts?

Edited May 3, 2012 by fitness

[Maldonboy38 5,930]

It certainly would be "fairer", which may make it unappealing to the AFL.

But, "conference", pleeeeaaase, lets not Americanize the game further - a conference is where you meet with like minded people to teach and learn - how about "sections", "divisions", "groups" etc

I hate Americanisms also but if you hate it so much, why did you spell Americanise with a "z"? Language is never static and changes all the time. We are at a high point of American language influence that began post WW2, and you just watch Chinese language nuances start to meld in with English now that China is fast becoming the most influential nation in the world, especially in terms of finance.

We could use regions, zones, divisions... whatever word you like, but I reckon the bacis idea is right on the money. One of the AFL's main focus is on the finances within the game to support and grow it so they are not looking for a fair draw or a level playing field. They are looking for exposure and the $ that comes from it.

The idea has merit and should at the very least be explored.

[stuie 7,374]

I propose an alternative solution, as follows:

• The fixture should be set for a period of three seasons. So, at the end of 2012 it can be set for seasons 2013, 2014 and 2015.
  
• At the moment with 18 teams and 22 rounds, it means each team has to play each other team once, and five other teams twice. My proposal would involve 2013 having 22 rounds, 2014 23 rounds and then 2015 would have 23 rounds, so that you end up playing all 17 opposition teams four times in that three year period (i.e. twice in one year, and once in the other two years).
  
• In other words, MFC would play 5 teams twice in 2013, then play a different group of six teams twice in 2014, and then play the remaining six teams twice in 2015.
  

To be fair I haven't put a massive amount of thought into it. But it does seem fair and also achieves the desire for the amount of games/rounds the AFL seem to want to hold each year (i.e. 22/23 rounds in line with the TV rights deal), as well as keeping things fairly traditional in terms of not radically changing structures via conferences etc.

Any thoughts?

Really like that as a simpler solution to the current system rather than a whole new one. Too much gets changed on a yearly basis to our game and I'd hate for a major change like a conference system to be brought in.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,462]

I think there is too much blind acceptance of the supposed 'flawed draw'. In my view, the best four teams will always end up in the top 6 positions of the ladder in any year. And one of them (the best four) will win the flag. So it doesn't matter who plays poorer teams twice. And keep in mind when the draw is determined there is usually (ie, apart from when new teams are being introduced) no certainty as to who the best and the worst teams will be in the coming year.

End of story.

[DemonWA 3,442]

I hate the conference idea purely because it reeks of USA sporting comps (NHL, MLB, NFL etc etc). First we call the draft camp a combine, what’s next? Organ players over the PA and the crowd chanting “De-fence, De-fence” when the ball goes inside 50?? – spare me.

Keep the AFL what it is, leave the rules and the scheduling alone.

[daisycutter 28,581]

I hate the conference idea purely because it reeks of USA sporting comps (NHL, MLB, NFL etc etc). First we call the draft camp a combine, what’s next? Organ players over the PA and the crowd chanting “De-fence, De-fence” when the ball goes inside 50?? – spare me.

Keep the AFL what it is, leave the rules and the scheduling alone.

Yeah I'm with you.

Was listening to the tv broadcast last week and one of the commentators said player x was playing the quarterback role.

WTF there is no such thing as the quarterback role in AFL and there is no AFL role that remotely resembles the NFL quarterback role

Sheeesh

[Striker475 696]

Better will be 4 conferences

AFL West

West Coast

Freo

WA3

Adelaide

Port

AFL South

Tasmania

Geelong

St Kilda

Hawthorn

Bulldogs

AFL Central

Melbourne

Essendon

Collingwood

Carlton

Richmond

AFL North

GWS

GC

Sydney

Brisbane

North Melbourne

- You play your conference twice - 8 games

- You play each member of the other conferences once - 15 games

- 2x byes for each team - 10 weeks of byes, each conference has 1 team have a bye each week

- Season lasts 23 weeks

Finals

Top 2 teams from each conference make finals.

The teams are ranked by current ladder order once the top 2 teams are decided.

[Junior 46]

My View:

The current fixture is determined by a group of individuals up in AFL headquarters decide who should play whom, and when. Their number 1 priority is SHORT TERM $$$$, and maximising crowds each week...this is a short term vision, as it harms the LONG TERM integrity of the competition, and serves to broaden the gap between the wealthy clubs and the not so wealthy clubs. Their fixturing also aims to support their expansion plans, which are very costly, high risk projects in GWS and GC which also serve to sap resources from the rest of the league. The fact that after all these years the Swans and the Lions still aren't dominating in their respective states should indicate how high risk it is establishing two more new clubs in these areas.

A set system such as the ones described in this thread should permanently be installed, which ensure that each club plays each other club a set number of times, and include an even number of home and away games. In my view this will give the competition more integrity and fairness, which will help to ensure the long term success of the game.

Whether this is achieved via grouping/conferences, or even by ensuring that each club plays each club a set number of times over the course of 2-3 seasons is not so important. What is important is that it's fair, and the system is set in stone so that clubs and supporters can rely on a fair system that delivers a premiership to the most deserving side each season. The wealthier clubs already have a big advantage in being able to spend more on their football department, delivering them further advantages via the fixture is just unnecessary and shouldn't continue.

If this means increasing the number of games/rounds each season to grow the value of broadcast rights etc. so be it...I don't think many in the AFL world will complain.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,462]

Better will be 4 conferences

AFL West

West Coast

Freo

WA3

Adelaide

Port

AFL South

Tasmania

Geelong

St Kilda

Hawthorn

Bulldogs

AFL Central

Melbourne

Essendon

Collingwood

Carlton

Richmond

AFL North

GWS

GC

Sydney

Brisbane

North Melbourne

- You play your conference twice - 8 games

- You play each member of the other conferences once - 15 games

- 2x byes for each team - 10 weeks of byes, each conference has 1 team have a bye each week

- Season lasts 23 weeks

Finals

Top 2 teams from each conference make finals.

The teams are ranked by current ladder order once the top 2 teams are decided.

While I don't agree with you, I like the way you have shamelessly put Melbourne in the group with the four teams with the largest crowd pulling power. I'm sure no-one else will notice...

[Dr. Gonzo 22,487]

AFL North

GWS

GC

Sydney

Brisbane

North Melbourne

The teams are ranked by current ladder order once the top 2 teams are decided.

How far north of Melbourne is North Melbourne? Surely they are more central than Essendon.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,462]

How far north of Melbourne is North Melbourne? Surely they are more central than Essendon.

They would have been about 2,000km north if they'd taken the Gold Coast option.

[daisycutter 28,581]

How far north of Melbourne is North Melbourne? Surely they are more central than Essendon.

and 23 games (8 + 15) + 2 byes in a 23 week season is quite an accomplishment

[monoccular 16,126]

I hate Americanisms also but if you hate it so much, why did you spell Americanise with a "z"? Language is never static and changes all the time. We are at a high point of American language influence that began post WW2, and you just watch Chinese language nuances start to meld in with English now that China is fast becoming the most influential nation in the world, especially in terms of finance.

We could use regions, zones, divisions... whatever word you like, but I reckon the bacis idea is right on the money. One of the AFL's main focus is on the finances within the game to support and grow it so they are not looking for a fair draw or a level playing field. They are looking for exposure and the $ that comes from it.

The idea has merit and should at the very least be explored.

I actually deliberately used the zee rather than the s as part of my 'protest'.

My concern re the Americaniz/sation of our game is that for instance there was once some talk of 'timeouts' and blaring canned 'music' after goals etc. Even the canned 'music' and innane interviews at breaks IMO detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Keep it simple. It is a great game to watch as it is without artificial supports that some other sports may feel they require.

[Guest José Mourinho]

I hate the conference idea purely because it reeks of USA sporting comps (NHL, MLB, NFL etc etc). First we call the draft camp a combine, what’s next? Organ players over the PA and the crowd chanting “De-fence, De-fence” when the ball goes inside 50?? – spare me.

Keep the AFL what it is, leave the rules and the scheduling alone.

What's wrong with it being like US sports if it works?

I couldn't care less about looking like stealing an idea from the americans, if it makes the game better.

What kind of childish crap is that?