Cure Tanking: The Competitive Percentage Determinator

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

You mean tanking against the system?

It could work. But you wouldn't be giving much bang for your buck for the heartland in the first half of the season i.e. the supporters

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of demons members were quite comfortable with what we were doing during the Bailey years.

But yeah, it'd be a risk. I'm just trying to throw up scenarios to test the thesis and possibly make it more robust.

This thread needs someone who's good at maths to do some proper modelling and look at developing those 'number of games' and 'quality of competition' modifiers we were talking about before. Probably a lot of work for a hypothetical though

[Jack Jack 415]

This does solve tanking - there is no desire from teams to let the arse fall out of their season as they will be punished a number of places in the draft.

It creates other, but I believe smaller and manageable, problems such as a team that is poor losing players to real injuries and being affected in that draft. However, they are still gauranteed a top 10 pick.

It also opens up a number of scenarios where these games are suddenly important to clubs and for fans - and for the right reasons.

The Swans are playing GC but GC know that if they can stay within 2 goals of the Swans they will get a higher pick. It will mean there is something a stake in normally nothing games at the end of the season.

There is definitely merit in the idea, making games more interesting would be great for supporters and the AFL in general. But there will always be teams that have a better draw than others. And the quality of the team you're up against is one thing, but factoring in travel, break between games and injuries could potentially create a serious disadvantage to a team knocked out of finals contention.

Theoretically a team knocked out late in the season would have limited scope to change their percentage. But a poorer performing team, knocked out earlier in the season, has a much range for improvement or, more importantly, decline.

Current fixtures already create bias, basing draft pick position over fewer games only magnifies this.

[MadAsHell 4,088]

Interestign idea, although very complicated.

My idea for this would see the need for a 24 round season which would give the players their 2 byes for the season they so dearly want.

Rounds 1-18 everyone plays eachother once and has 1 bye each meaning 9 teams have 9 home games & 8 away, and 9 have 8 home games & 9 away.

At the end of Round 18 the ladder is divided into 3 sections, 1st - 6th, 7th - 12th & 13th - 18th.

Your win loss ratio over the 17 matches is then reduced to the 5 matches that you've played against the other 5 teams in your group and you are then ranked accordingly.

Round 19 becomes a bye round as the fixture is re-worked and they can play the EJ Whitten match and maybe a TAC All Star match or something during that week.

Over the last 5 rounds, 20-24 you play the other 5 teams in your group again meaning you would have played everyone in that group twice and the other 12 teams once (22 games).

The teams that were 1-6 after round 18 are locked into the top 6, over the last 5 rounds they are simply playing for top 4 spots and so on.

The teams that were 7-12 are playing for the final two remaining spots in the finals. Obviously cancelling out any tanking there.

The teams 13-18 play for draft picks. Whoever ends up topping the group gets pick 1 and so on. Again this gets rid of tanking and over the last 5 roudns you'll actually be rewarded for winning. Will mean that all games will actually count for something.

The following year the teams that only got 8 home games in rounds 1-18 the following year get 9 and the tems who had 9 get 8 to keep the draw fair.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Interestign idea, although very complicated.

My idea for this would see the need for a 24 round season which would give the players their 2 byes for the season they so dearly want.

Rounds 1-18 everyone plays eachother once and has 1 bye each meaning 9 teams have 9 home games & 8 away, and 9 have 8 home games & 9 away.

At the end of Round 18 the ladder is divided into 3 sections, 1st - 6th, 7th - 12th & 13th - 18th.

Your win loss ratio over the 17 matches is then reduced to the 5 matches that you've played against the other 5 teams in your group and you are then ranked accordingly.

Round 19 becomes a bye round as the fixture is re-worked and they can play the EJ Whitten match and maybe a TAC All Star match or something during that week.

Over the last 5 rounds, 20-24 you play the other 5 teams in your group again meaning you would have played everyone in that group twice and the other 12 teams once (22 games).

The teams that were 1-6 after round 18 are locked into the top 6, over the last 5 rounds they are simply playing for top 4 spots and so on.

The teams that were 7-12 are playing for the final two remaining spots in the finals. Obviously cancelling out any tanking there.

The teams 13-18 play for draft picks. Whoever ends up topping the group gets pick 1 and so on. Again this gets rid of tanking and over the last 5 roudns you'll actually be rewarded for winning. Will mean that all games will actually count for something.

The following year the teams that only got 8 home games in rounds 1-18 the following year get 9 and the tems who had 9 get 8 to keep the draw fair.

Really, really interesting. Very egalitarian.

Not sure how it would work with the venues, I hear they are massive pains to negotiate with in regards to scheduling. But I like it.

The fact that you only play 13-18 for picks means even at 18th, you have a good chance.

So for 2012, the last 6 were Brisbane, Port, Bulldogs, Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast. Not one of those teams would just roll over if pick #1 was at stake. Even #13 (Brisbane) vs #18 (GWS) would become a good match to watch.

The middle-ranked 'conference' would also contain teams all trying their best to make finals. If they loose, they might not make it. So they won't be tanking to get pick #7-10 if it means they can make finals by playing hard.

The top-ranked one of course would go hard for a top 4 bonus we currently have.

Also a pretty simple system to explain to the punters.

[daisycutter 28,630]

Really, really interesting. Very egalitarian.

Not sure how it would work with the venues, I hear they are massive pains to negotiate with in regards to scheduling. But I like it.

The fact that you only play 13-18 for picks means even at 18th, you have a good chance.

So for 2012, the last 6 were Brisbane, Port, Bulldogs, Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast. Not one of those teams would just roll over if pick #1 was at stake. Even #13 (Brisbane) vs #18 (GWS) would become a good match to watch.

The middle-ranked 'conference' would also contain teams all trying their best to make finals. If they loose, they might not make it. So they won't be tanking to get pick #7-10 if it means they can make finals by playing hard.

The top-ranked one of course would go hard for a top 4 bonus we currently have.

Also a pretty simple system to explain to the punters.

OK, lets assume 13-18, as desired, all play to their best abilities

So the team that ends 18th is the worst team in the comp etc thru to the 13th which is the 13th best team

You now give picks 1,2,3,4,5,6 to teams 13,14,15,16,17,18

So the worst team gets pick 6. That's hardly equalisation

are you going to be consistent for the other 2 groups? e.g. picks 7,8,9,10,11,12 go to teams 7,8,9,10,11,12 and picks 13.14.15.16.17.18 go to teams 1,2,3,4,5,6

this system does give a good chance to get teams to not tank, but it doesn't reward the genuine worst teams equitably

how about a lottery for say, the bottom 6 teams. where each team is loaded based on final ladder posn

e.g 18th gets 6 marbles, 17th gets 5 marbles..........13th gets 1 marble

marbles then drawn for each draft position

as well as this the afl better defines tanking and what is acceptable re "list mgmt"

[robbiefrom13 877]

A club may not have set out to rort the system in the way Choke describes, but what if they are a loss or two off being out of contention (whatever the formula is for working that out), and they have an easy run home: wouldn't this be a huge incentive for throwing a couple of games in a "mid-season collapse"? Bottom line - someone will surely try to beat the system at some stage, if they have a mind to, no matter what the rules.

Actually, in that sense, a half mill fine for a technical acquittal may be a genuinely good result - a "no correspondence entered into" just outcome in terms of the heart-in-the-wrong-place system-rorting attitude. Pick it to bits, sure - but it sent the message.

[rpfc 27,570]

A club may not have set out to rort the system in the way Choke describes, but what if they are a loss or two off being out of contention (whatever the formula is for working that out), and they have an easy run home: wouldn't this be a huge incentive for throwing a couple of games in a "mid-season collapse"? Bottom line - someone will surely try to beat the system at some stage, if they have a mind to, no matter what the rules.

Actually, in that sense, a half mill fine for a technical acquittal may be a genuinely good result - a "no correspondence entered into" just outcome in terms of the heart-in-the-wrong-place system-rorting attitude. Pick it to bits, sure - but it sent the message.

All we can do is say that Finals are a great desirable - until it isn't possible...

Then picks become desirable - this makes performance matter in games that usually don't matter.

[robbiefrom13 877]

yes. The difference between when finals are realistically impossible, and technically impossible, would probably be a small window in which there would be scope for the rort I tried to describe. But I agree with the clear intent of your suggestion.

I flew to Melbourne one week late in that year, with my wife, just for the Melbourne game. At the gate, we looked at each other and turned around, and went and watched half of the misery in a pub and then wandered around until we flew home again. We knew what was going to happen, at least thought we did; and we hated it. It was a very dispiriting experience, the "tanking that wasn't", and no football supporter should ever go through it again. A rule that promotes busting your guts while there's hope, and then going flat out after that - this is the right rule, in my opinion.

Edited March 6, 2013 by robbiefrom13

[MadAsHell 4,088]

OK, lets assume 13-18, as desired, all play to their best abilities

So the team that ends 18th is the worst team in the comp etc thru to the 13th which is the 13th best team

You now give picks 1,2,3,4,5,6 to teams 13,14,15,16,17,18

So the worst team gets pick 6. That's hardly equalisation

are you going to be consistent for the other 2 groups? e.g. picks 7,8,9,10,11,12 go to teams 7,8,9,10,11,12 and picks 13.14.15.16.17.18 go to teams 1,2,3,4,5,6

this system does give a good chance to get teams to not tank, but it doesn't reward the genuine worst teams equitably

how about a lottery for say, the bottom 6 teams. where each team is loaded based on final ladder posn

e.g 18th gets 6 marbles, 17th gets 5 marbles..........13th gets 1 marble

marbles then drawn for each draft position

as well as this the afl better defines tanking and what is acceptable re "list mgmt"

While you're true the worst team getting pick 6 isn't equalisation, they are still getting a top end draft pick and as we all know all to well there's no guarentee that pick 1 is going to be any better then pick 6.

The other two groups would be different as they're playing for finals/positioning, not draft picks. So the bottom placed team of group 7-12 gets pick 7 and the bottom placed team of group 1-6 (assuming 5th & 6th knock out 7 & 8 in the first week of finals and then both get knocked out in the semis) gets pick 13.

You're right, a lottery does work also, however the other way (as unlikely as it would be) does make the final few rounds a bit more interesting.

[daisycutter 28,630]

While you're true the worst team getting pick 6 isn't equalisation, they are still getting a top end draft pick and as we all know all to well there's no guarentee that pick 1 is going to be any better then pick 6.

The other two groups would be different as they're playing for finals/positioning, not draft picks. So the bottom placed team of group 7-12 gets pick 7 and the bottom placed team of group 1-6 (assuming 5th & 6th knock out 7 & 8 in the first week of finals and then both get knocked out in the semis) gets pick 13.

You're right, a lottery does work also, however the other way (as unlikely as it would be) does make the final few rounds a bit more interesting.

yeah i understand the reasoning......but there is something conflicting about it

the two objectives 1) eliminate tanking/play to potential and 2) use the draft as an equalising tool just seem to conflict

achieve the first and you deprecate the second

achieve the second without the first and you deprecate the first objective

it is a conundrum, because if you do achieve the first then you have truly arrived at genuinely ranking the worst teams whereupon you penalise them

it just seems to me to be a type of oxymoron