Equalising the draw

[Vandenberger With The Lot 234]

We always hear about the draw being the sole reason some teams make finals, and there's always a reason we can't do anything about it.

Forgive me if this has been floated before, but here's my idea to fix it.

Round 1-17 - All teams play each other once. If you want an "event" game (queens b'day etc) it has to be in this first 17 rounds.

Round 18-22 - The ladder is divided into 3. Top 6, middle 6, bottom 6. These are the teams you play the remainder of the season against.

From what I see the pros are there. It's exciting. We see good football games, and it has a chance to shake up the top 4/who makes the 8.

The AFL has it's Friday night blockbuster set up already.

The only flaw I can find is having to schedule mid-season. Anyone else see any issues?

[Guest Demon Abroad]

Really good idea in theory, would make it equitable and exciting, but unfortunately from a commercial point of view would simply be impossible for the schedule to be done mid-season. Clubs wouldn't be able to budget properly, plan functons etc.

[bananas 428]

Could end up with 'mini-tanking' ... team in 6th place after round 16 'rests players' and 'experiments' to drop to 7th for a week and get an easier run home. Also, if the team in 13th at the right moment goes on a massive run against the crappy teams and sneaks into the finals, the teams who were 7-12 would have a right to feel pretty aggro.

It's pretty good, but until we get enough teams that everybody playing each other once fills a season's worth of TV rights, it'll always be inequitable in some way.

ed. for grammar.

Edited November 20, 2012 by bananas

[Dr. Gonzo 23,927]

Just make it 17 games over 18 rounds everyone plays each team once plus a bye (or over 19 weeks with an extra week for State of Origin and/or U18 carnival) - alternating H&A each year and travelling to WA, SA, NSW, QLD once each year. Either that or divide the ladder based on previous years ladder positions so teams who finish 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16 in 2012 play twice in 2013 and so forth. Easiest, fairest and most transparent way available.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Dr. Gonzo

[Weedster 174]

Really good idea in theory, would make it equitable and exciting, but unfortunately from a commercial point of view would simply be impossible for the schedule to be done mid-season. Clubs wouldn't be able to budget properly, plan functons etc.

I think the AFL have, for once, considered current "seedings" if you like in framing next year's draw.

Let face it, the way we played this year, we could have played GWS, Suns, Power & Dogs 5 times each and still missed the finals !

Bigger issues for 2013

[Sir Why You Little 36,761]

The only way the draw will be made fairer is to have less teams.

Simple.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

I'm not convinced the draw's supposed lack of fairness is a real problem. The Grand Finalists will virtually always come from the top 6 at the end of the home and away season, and usually the top 4. So whether a team scrapes into 7th or 8th positions because of a comparatively favourable draw seems somewhat irrelevant.

[45HG 1,539]

No team from outside the top 4 has made a grand final under the current system and only two have made a prelim. I think the winners end up being deserving regardless.

In terms of the OP - what I wonder is if a team is 7th under that system, they then only play teams under them. In terms of a points system, couldn't they easily end up jumping up into a 3rd or so just from playing weaker teams while those above play the harder teams?

[biggestred 4,855]

the draw doesnt really matter.

financial equalisation does.

exposure on free to air tv does. it builds memberships and allows kids to support various teams.

its a disgrace the bigger, richer clubs get the prime timeslots - it allows them to become bigger and richer - which allows them to spend more money on their footy departments, which makes the team better, which means they get the prime timeslots.

a game against a lowly team here or there is peanuts compared to this.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

The draw is fare, there is no such thing as a hard or easy draw, when geelong ruled between 2007 tn 2011, very draw was a good draw, good teams win most game, crap team lose most games,

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Barely anyone complained until GWS and Gold Coast turned up. There's your answer.

But why not make it completely random who plays who? Then no one could complain, except maybe about the fact that there may only one derby/ Carlton V Collingwood. Of course you'd have to convince the corporate low lives who care more about money.

Every team playing each other once wouldn't be ideal for mine. I'm used to the length of the season and wouldn't want it to shorten due to the fact I like footy in large quantities.

[Vandenberger With The Lot 234]

No team from outside the top 4 has made a grand final under the current system and only two have made a prelim. I think the winners end up being deserving regardless.

In terms of the OP - what I wonder is if a team is 7th under that system, they then only play teams under them. In terms of a points system, couldn't they easily end up jumping up into a 3rd or so just from playing weaker teams while those above play the harder teams?

This is true, though I guess the fairest indicator of standings would be after one game against everyone. We could lock ladder positions to their current brackets, so someone sitting 7th couldn't go into the top 6, they are fighting to stay in the 8. Sort of a mini finals series

[Dr. Gonzo 23,927]

The draw is fare, there is no such thing as a hard or easy draw, when geelong ruled between 2007 tn 2011, very draw was a good draw, good teams win most game, crap team lose most games,

From a competitive perspective perhaps. Financially, no way in hell.

[45HG 1,539]

A 17-round season could alleviate that problem but, at the end of the day, the best teams shine at the end of the year regardless I reckon.

[demon-4-life 467]

Unless every team plays each other twice with 1 home and 1 away game each, the "draw" will never be fair.