Again, no extra weighting.

Maths weighs it in favour of the poorest teams. Any other 'addendums' makes it more complex than it needs to be.

As illustrated above - if a poor team loses 5 games by 5 goals they will get a higher pick than if a middling team wins two games by 5 goals.

Ok, I get that rpfc. No extra weighting.

In the Bulldogs case above, when or what round were they mathematically out of finals contention last year?

The best way to cure tanking is to not talk about it in team meetings.

Or not have politically minded people with grudges.

But how do you factor in a team that starts well but maybe because of injury loses its last 7 games.

Should they intrude on a celler dwellers pick?

This is why i think you need fixture weightings.

Or not have politically minded people with grudges.

But then who do we get to run the AFL and media?

But then who do we get to run the AFL and media?

Clone Gerard Whateley.

Clone Gerard Whateley.

I am getting a faint message you like him H_T

I like that the maths favourably weights towards the poorer performing teams. I'm just looking at your scenario above.

Port and the Bulldogs are the ones that trouble me. There has to be some way of correcting so that a team like Carlton doesn't get a pick ahead of these two? This is where I think some form of modifier has to be in order. Maybe a simple reconciliation with ladder position after the weighted calc? So if you finish last on the ladder but the weighted calc puts you at pick 5, you are dragged up to 4 or 3 or something.

Of course then the picks get tied (even in a diminished way) to ladder position and the question of tanking may come up again.

WB let their season peter out, a blatant attempt to maximise their Ward concession pick.

I don't know what to make of PA because I don't think they would allow a 72 pt loss in Tassie against Haw, a 48 pt loss to WCE at home, and a 13 pt loss to BL at home, before a tie away to Rich when they realised they couldn't catch the Bulldogs.

WB lost to NM by 54, Rich by 70, Syd by 82, Geel by 34, and the Lions by 67. The Geelong game was the only one out of Melbourne.

That needs to be stopped. What a waste of a quarter of the year for fans.

I am getting a faint message you like him H_T

He's not alone.

I am getting a faint message you like him H_T

The only error of judgement I believe he has made old dee, is publishing a book of Black Caviar before her racing career has finished.

edit: but it's no biggy, considering the trainer and owners thought Ascot might be it for her.

Edited March 6, 201312 yr by H_T

Ok, I get that rpfc. No extra weighting.

In the Bulldogs case above, when or what round were they mathematically out of finals contention last year?

5 rounds to go - all losses.

Their percentage during those 5 games was 53.97.

Just pathetic.

5 rounds to go - all losses.

Their percentage during those 5 games was 53.97.

Just pathetic.

Yep. pick 10 for them then, I thought it may have been a bit earlier.

The only error of judgement I believe he has made old dee, is publishing a book of Black Caviar before her racing career has finished.

edit: but it's no biggy, considering the trainer and owners thought Ascot might be it for her.

Rare beast i.e. Mr W as well as the horse

Yep. pick 10 for them then, I thought it may have been a bit earlier.

It's mathematic chance based on wins, but their low percentage meant they were out the week before (a 76 pt loss to St K).

They went from a 3 goal loss to Carlton in Rd 17 to pure crud for 6 weeks.

I like the scenario that the bottom 3 or 4 teams at the halfway point of the season have their own mini ladder to play out the season for. The best win loss record or percentace diferential between them in the second half of the seaon gets the first draft pick. Logic says that the bottom teams at the halfway point have already done their season and have little to play for. Could net be any simpler or fairer.

Edited March 6, 201312 yr by Muvver Jones

5 rounds to go - all losses.

Their percentage during those 5 games was 53.97.

Just pathetic.

After looking at that, I agree. WBD at 10 is fine considering these figures.

How does it handle the PA situation though? As you said it didn't look like they were trying to 'peter out' for picks.

On the "mathematically possible idea", I can think of scenarios where is is mathematically possible, but implausible to make the finals, eg need to win last 3 games by a total of 1000 points and have the 8th team lose every game and so on. Could that not foster late-mid season tanking from teams who know that practically speaking they can't make it, ie they deliberately lose to allow participation in the ordering system that they would otherwise not get so long as finals remained "possible"?

I like the scenario that the bottom 3 or 4 teams at the halfway point of the season have their own mini ladder to play out the season for. The best win loss record or percentace diferential between them in the second half of the seaon gets the first draft pick. Logic says that the bottom teams at the halfway point have already done their season and have little to play for.

Yeah but then you have H_T's fixture issue. If one of those teams plays teams in the top 4 and the others don't, that's a huge disadvantage.

I think the weighted percentage system is better.

On the "mathematically possible idea", I can think of scenarios where is is mathematically possible, but implausible to make the finals, eg need to win last 3 games by a total of 1000 points and have the 8th team lose every game and so on. Could that not foster late-mid season tanking so from teams who know that practically speaking they can't make it, so they deliberately lose to seal the deal?

So many permutations.

Damnit Nasher we were making progress here!

On the "mathematically possible idea", I can think of scenarios where is is mathematically possible, but implausible to make the finals, eg need to win last 3 games by a total of 1000 points and have the 8th team lose every game and so on. Could that not foster late-mid season tanking from teams who know that practically speaking they can't make it, ie they deliberately lose to allow participation in the ordering system that they would otherwise not get so long as finals remained "possible"?

Nasher, you make a good point. A way around this could be to let the AFL determine the probabilities of teams making the finals. If for example a team has a 30% chance of playing in September then they would qualify to participate in the ordering system. If by chance they do make the finals then they are disqualified. The betting agencies are constantly framing markets on who will make the 8 based on probabilities. The AFL can do the same.

The more discussion the more I started to like it.

Needs some modelling but I like it

Its good to see that there is consideration of the permutations and it may be difficult but if it can help the competition to overcome the stench of losing as a "management" tool then it is probably even better.

As an idea from Melbourne supporters I doubt wether the AFL would even consider it If we can get Eddie to agree it might fly.

On the "mathematically possible idea", I can think of scenarios where is is mathematically possible, but implausible to make the finals, eg need to win last 3 games by a total of 1000 points and have the 8th team lose every game and so on. Could that not foster late-mid season tanking from teams who know that practically speaking they can't make it, ie they deliberately lose to allow participation in the ordering system that they would otherwise not get so long as finals remained "possible"?

Seasons are also tanked at the start when you get rid of pros and bring in kids...

I think we can only make sure that teams have something to play for the entire season, and if that leaves a couple games between chance of finlas and 'need to compete' then that team can do that. It won't be a great look however.

This would cure late-season bottom hanging out tanking.

And make all games interesting and give teams to play for.

Edited March 6, 201312 yr by rpfc

Nasher, you make a good point. A way around this could be to let the AFL determine the probabilities of teams making the finals. If for example a team has a 30% chance of playing in September then they would qualify to participate in the ordering system. If by chance they do make the finals then they are disqualified. The betting agencies are constantly framing markets on who will make the 8 based on probabilities. The AFL can do the same.

I don't like that much. The data is based on little to nothing. Any weighting has to come from quantifiable numbers and data.

It's not perfect, and some teams will be worse off who shouldn't be, but it would eliminate the practice where teams are ridiculously uncompetitive.

Seasons are also tanked at the start when you get rid of pros and bring in kids...

I think we can only make sure that teams have something to play for the entire season, and if that leaves a couple games between chance of finlas and 'need to compete' then that team can do that. It won't be a great look however.

This would cure late-season bottom hanging out tanking.

And make all games interesting and give teams to play for.

Now here's a thought.

What if a team who's in the start of a development cycle (ie no chance of finals whichever way you slice it), decides to 'reverse tank'. They pump all their rookies into the side in the first 10 games, causing abysmal percentage. After the mathematical limit of when they can reach finals is reached, they shift into gear and put all the seniors back in - resulting (in theory) in a huge improvement in weighted percentage.

Now here's a thought.

What if a team who's in the start of a development cycle (ie no chance of finals whichever way you slice it), decides to 'reverse tank'. They pump all their rookies into the side in the first 10 games, causing abysmal percentage. After the mathematical limit of when they can reach finals is reached, they shift into gear and put all the seniors back in - resulting (in theory) in a huge improvement in weighted percentage.

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

How about the bottom 10 teams just get ranked on how long it is since they won a premiership? Longest gets Pick 1.

Then they can play how they like.