I've thought about this for a while.... Is it possible to make the fixture fair and still have 22 matches?

Here is some of the ideas, I've come up with....

- during the season every body plays each other once.... That covers 17 rounds + a split round or buy would make 18 rounds.... Everybody plays each other once.... The home or away teams could swap each year.....

- at the end of the 18 rounds the teams gets split into 3 groups of 6, were they play the remaining 5 rounds.....the top 6 play off, for a top four position in the finals and the mcclelland trophy... The middle six play off, for the remaining two positions in the top eight.... And the last six would ether be eliminated from the comp or they could play off for draft picks....

Wether this is a continuation of the season or the points start again, I don't know..... It would be fairer to start the points again, I think?

- these group rounds could be called play off or challenge matchs.... In these groups everybody plays each other once.... Because there is five rounds and six teams, three teams from each group only get 2 home games....

- the top six have made the finals and are playing off for a top four position....

- the middle six teams are playing off for the remaining two positions in the finals

- the bottom six ether get eliminated, or play off for draft picks..... I would prefer that the bottom six were eliminated.... This would take away some of the incentive to tank.....

Instead of the priority picks.... The teams that finish at the bottom, could get a large salary cap for the next season.... This would allow them to pay more for a free agent.... Maybe the mini draft could stay, giving the bottom two teams something to trade in trade mouth.....

Not with 18 teams it isn't and will never be.

What if you're in the top 6 and you've already played others in the top 6 a couple of times where some others have played bottom 6's a couple of times? It wouldn't be fair.

I'd rather we somehow worked a wildcard in the mix somehow. Position 9-12 have a mini play off for a spot in the finals. Not too sure how that's going to work though.

What if you're in the top 6 and you've already played others in the top 6 a couple of times where some others have played bottom 6's a couple of times? It wouldn't be fair.

I'd rather we somehow worked a wildcard in the mix somehow. Position 9-12 have a mini play off for a spot in the finals. Not too sure how that's going to work though.

everybody plays each other once during the 17 rounds...... The challenge/ play off games are the remaining 5 rounds.... That gets us to 22 rounds..... I like the idea of a mini play of for a spot in the top eight.... Maybe 8 and 9 could play in a pre finals elimination match?

I reckon the AFL are starting to get it right (to a large extent) by having the fixture based on the previous year's performance by each team. (Blockbusters and derby's aside) For instance, this season, our team gets to play 4 teams (twice) who finished in the bottom 6. It's a similar type of story for many other teams.(depending on their ladder position's) For instance, North Melbourne (14-8 last season) play the Pies, Hawks, Crows, Cats and the Lions twice - much much tougher than our 'double-ups'.

Whatever our opinions on the fixture might be, those opinions need to be based somewhat on what the AFL are going to do. We can have all the best ideas and intentions in the world but it will most probably mean diddly squat to those at HQ's. The AFL have always been focused on maximising crowds and revenue. And that includes maximising the interest in the 'free to air' TV games.(with the obvious input from the AFL's broadcast partners)

By the AFL organising a fixture where a major focus has the best teams playing each other twice, (as a general rule) that focus has the flow on effect of the mid range to poor teams getting 'kinder' fixtures. (with the odd exception, of course)

The top teams could point at our 'softer' fixture and call it unfair. They aren't doing that, mainly because we're not seen as a threat. The AFL won't be cutting back from a 22 game season in a hurry either. (though an extra bye might be brought in)

Edited January 28, 201312 yr by Macca

To answer the OP, I don't think so.

There will always be inequalities of varying degrees.

The challenge is to keep the fixture as fair as reasonably possible, and I think the AFL does a decent job of this.

No.

The challenge is to keep the fixture as fair as reasonably possible, and I think the AFL does a decent job of this.

surely you jest?

Can't possibly work if the bottom six get eliminated (or tank for draft picks). If that is the case, then MFC might have a short (17 match) season for years (however quite a bonus ffor those with range rovers and ski lodges)!

p.s. The fixture can never be fair as long as we have to play home games at Etihad (whilst Collingwood play all their Victorian matches on our Ground).

Yes,

It is possible to be quite fair, even playing 22 games.

There will be 5 teams played twice; 12 teams played just the once.

A. Those teams that are played only the one time, the games are for 4 points.

B. The teams played twice have only 2 points up for grabs in each match.

C. The total points played by a team over a season are 12 by 4 points plus 10 by 2 points; being a total of 68 points. 34 points will need to be played at the home ground and 34 points at an away ground to take away home ground advantage.

I am sure the AFL can still manipulate the draw (5 day breaks; playing at an away home ground; Collingwood playing most of their away games at the MCG and the like); but this makes the fixture as fair as possible.

.

surely you jest?

Nope.

It's a bloody difficult thing to balance, and I'd challenge anyone to do better.

Nope.

It's a bloody difficult thing to balance, and I'd challenge anyone to do better.

yes its difficult but the things they are balancing are not fairness but money (read power) related

When we (once again, for those of us with long enough memories) become a powerhouse team, every team we play will be below us on the ladder: then those below us will complain.

Remember, and all MFC fans with any even short term memory at all, that we have spent most of the last few season always playing more teams above us than have, say, Geelong: is that fair? :-))

"Home" games at Doglands though will always stick in my craw.

I can make it fair:

34 rounds. Finals in October.

Footy goes for 10 months of the year.

Starts in January.

How bout two seasons per year, rpfc. Footy 12 mths of the year. Get rid of this 20/20 crapolla, tennis shmenish, etc.....

Why do we have to have 22 matches? It really is ridiculous. Just have a 17 game season over 18 or 19 rounds, you can chuck in some State of Origin games if you want (though don't have to) and get rid of the absurdity of having to weigh up if you've got a good or bad deal by the AFL for next year's fixture. The fact the league can use the fixture as a reward/penalty against certain clubs is downright dumb. Just switch home and away each year and have each team travel once to WA/SA/NSW/QLD each year.

Then we can get to evening up the timeslots etc to ensure a really fair draw.

If you MUST have 22 matches then make it completely transparent and base it on the previous seasons ladder. Make 3 groups (1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16; 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17; & 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) and you play everyone in your group twice. No return blockbusters/derbies guaranteed but at least it's transparent and no-one can complain.

The only other way around it is to create conferences/divisions which the AFL supporters aren't ready for and which create their own issues anyway (who is in each conference/division the primary one).

This is my main beef with the AFL at the moment and it is a farce that they refuse to adopt an easy solution instead of compromising the integrity of the competition for some perceived (but not real/proven) extra dollars.

As I've posted before, I think the concern about 18 teams playing 22 rounds (that is, the issue of some teams playing each other twice and others once) is a bit over-stated. The best teams will always end up in the top 6 spots on the ladder. The fight for 7th to, say 12th, will always happen and perhaps the teams that get into 7th or 8th might have a softer draw than the teams 9th to 12th - but so what? Teams 7 and 8 aren't realistically going to challenge for the flag anyway. The evidence shows that almost always the premier comes from teams finishing 1st to 4th - and usually, 1st or 2nd. For them to get there they must have beaten a mix of good and bad teams.

Of greater concern to me is the inequality of the draw in terms of commercial benefit rather than position on the ladder. We shouldn't play home games at Etihad and all teams should have a better distribution across premium times. However, a lot of that is within our control. If we play better, we'll be rewarded.

And I'll support Jose - I think the AFL does a pretty good job overall at developing the fixture, even though it isn't perfect.