The Bye we "Had" to have

[deespicable me 1,487]

I like it and I don't mind the AFL giving something like this a go.

They said they want the teams in the 8 to make a big deal of their training sessions and they will help them and if we make it I am certainly going to get along to a couple. Also for a team like us if we were to make it I would be more than happy to bask two weeks in the glory of making the finals. If we were there the build up would be intense. I can only imagine it will be the same for a lot of other fans as well. 

I think the AFL said they were also making a bigger deal of the rising star and with 4 in and Jayden Hunt a real possibility to take it to 5 for the club (what a great effort) that would become a great event to go to, especially if we were alive in finals.

[Lucifers Hero 39,875]

In 2015 Freo rested rnd 23 because of energy draining travel.  Their ladder position was unaffected.  However, the 'resting' by North had a sinister touch. 

They new if they won rnd 23 they would play Adelaide in SA for the 1st elim final.  If they lost they would play Richmond in Victoria - a far more palatable prospect.  So they 'rested' players and lost.  It was all a smokescreen.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/vote-does-north-melbournes-decision-to-rest-players-for-round-23-constitute-tanking/news-story/6d646a9125a4a21aa318d3355f471653

The AFL approved North's resting on the basis that it was unlikely results would fall in such a way to affect North's ladder position.  Well guess what, the results did the 'unlikely' and North succeeded in 'tanking' all the way to a Prelim Final...

In true comical AFL style they have fixed a problem that didn't exist!  A bye after rnd 23 may rest players but it does not stop the real problem - a team tanking rnd 23 to give them a preferential draw for the finals.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Ricky P 757]

Not that how it impacts us is relevant in this discussion, but if we make it we'll be riding a wave of momentum that this bye may put a halt to. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

In 2015 Freo rested rnd 23 because of energy draining travel.  Their ladder position was unaffected.  However, the 'resting' by North had a sinister touch. 

They new if they won rnd 23 they would play Adelaide in SA for the 1st elim final.  If they lost they would play Richmond in Victoria - a far more palatable prospect.  So they 'rested' players and lost.  It was all a smokescreen.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/vote-does-north-melbournes-decision-to-rest-players-for-round-23-constitute-tanking/news-story/6d646a9125a4a21aa318d3355f471653

The AFL approved North's resting on the basis that it was unlikely results would fall in such a way to affect North's ladder position.  Well guess what, the results did the 'unlikely' and North succeeded in 'tanking'.

In true comical AFL style they have fixed a problem that didn't exist!  A bye after rnd 23 may rest players but it does not stop the real problem - a team tanking rnd 23 to give them a preferential draw for the finals.

Exactly. Players will still be rested if a loss brings a favourable outcome. The week off won't stop that. It just inconveniences the whole comp. 

[monoccular 17,432]

6 hours ago, rjay said:

Yep, it's going back a bit now but from memory we had at least a 2 week break.

Say the Hawks win their first final they could have 2 by 1 week breaks though which could make things hard to get on a bit of a roll.

One can only hope ??

The tank backfired seriously on Freo last year ?

[titan_uranus 25,020]

I'm confident, whether it is liked or not this year, it will be gone next year.

The AFL has for years said it couldn't find a way to incorporate two byes into a season. This week off before finals is the second bye round. I suspect we will see a two-bye home and away season next year without this week off.

7 hours ago, Nasher said:

The minimum any team will play is 3 in a 5 week period here though, and no team has to sit out two weeks in a row.  Your team must have missed two weeks in a row somewhere unless I've stuffed up, which was surely the biggest momentum killer? 

So while that was a pretty unsatisfactory outcome for your team, it's not going to be that drastic here.  It will also take the edge off the top 4 advantage of having a rest week after the first week of the finals - it's a big part of the reason why nobody in the current finals format has ever won a flag from 5-8 (and not just because they're not good enough) - those teams come up against a top 4 side who have had their feet up for the week, while the 5-8 teams busted a gut the week before in the semi.  

I'm not sure we should be diluting the benefit of finishing top 4.

The last thing we need is for 5-8 to just do enough to make the top 8 during the home and away season and lose the incentive to push for top 4. If top 4 isn't as appealing as it currently is, I fear we increase the risk of more meaningless home and away games, not fewer.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

14 hours ago, billy2803 said:

Completely wrong?

Then you followed it up with this beauty...

You clearly are showing a high level of ignorance on this topic.

Not ignorant at all just a difference of opinion.

An AFL club has a list of 38 players to choose from. That the afl think they can dictate which players should and should not be playing each week is ridiculous. Why don't the afl just pick teams instead of the clubs if that's the case? 

Using your example what if 9th plays 7th and 8th plays 15th who are blooding youngsters for next year and going to serve up crud? You can't manufacture the outcome of games no matter how hard the afl tries. Having a bye before finals is such a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to a non issue (typical afl in other words) that's in my view it's barely even worth debating if not for its utter stupidity.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

12 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

In 2015 Freo rested rnd 23 because of energy draining travel.  Their ladder position was unaffected.  However, the 'resting' by North had a sinister touch. 

They new if they won rnd 23 they would play Adelaide in SA for the 1st elim final.  If they lost they would play Richmond in Victoria - a far more palatable prospect.  So they 'rested' players and lost.  It was all a smokescreen.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-news/vote-does-north-melbournes-decision-to-rest-players-for-round-23-constitute-tanking/news-story/6d646a9125a4a21aa318d3355f471653

The AFL approved North's resting on the basis that it was unlikely results would fall in such a way to affect North's ladder position.  Well guess what, the results did the 'unlikely' and North succeeded in 'tanking' all the way to a Prelim Final...

In true comical AFL style they have fixed a problem that didn't exist!  A bye after rnd 23 may rest players but it does not stop the real problem - a team tanking rnd 23 to give them a preferential draw for the finals.

Similar to Essendon in 2001 tanked against the Tiges in r22 to get them first week of finals 

[Bossdog 2,002]

17 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If we were in that position we'd have no one to blame but ourselves for losing unloseable matches earlier in the year. Take care of the wins early and you won't sweat on results in the final round.

North tried that.......Not working out well for them....Just saying

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

1 hour ago, Bossdog said:

North tried that.......Not working out well for them....Just saying

It's worked out for them in this context though where the result is in their own hands

[steve_f 40]

Basically the League has no intestinal fortitude and panics.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

On 18/08/2016 at 0:28 PM, Clint Bizkit said:

All teams will go in fresh, it's great.

As I was saying.

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

As I was saying.

And to top it off, we had near record week 1 crowds.

Clearly the week off didn't lose the momentum that some of the negative nellies were expecting...

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

7 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

And to top it off, we had near record week 1 crowds.

Clearly the week off didn't lose the momentum that some of the negative nellies were expecting...

No surprise at all.

I've always held the view that less is more with sports, looks at the NFL and how it only has 16 regular season games a year. Crowds are actually bigger with less games as opposed to more because each game is more of an event.

In the case of the bye we had a week off which meant that we were even more hungry for football the following week. I also extend the same argument to playing more games at smaller stadiums (SCG, Spotless and Simonds Stadium) and having them sell out because in the long run you are increasing the demand for games in the future as attending those games is more enticing.

Too many sports administrators are short-sighted when it comes to maximising crowds and revenue.

[deelete my account 1,194]

9 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Too many sports administrators are short-sighted when it comes to maximising crowds and revenue.

I think another example of short sightedness is The Bulldogs playing Adelaide at the MCG last year. They earnt an Etihad final and yes it would have earnt less money in that week. But what they missed out on was a Dogs v Hawks semi final that might have had far more people and not had hundreds of thousands of people switching off the tv at half time.. The long term benefits of fixturing equalisation and "shot term attendance pain" probably would have a net-positive impact in the long term with the health of the competition boosting membership numbers and attendances from less apathetic people.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DominatrixTyson

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 minute ago, DominatrixTyson said:

I think an examlpe of short sightedness is The Bulldogs playing Adelaide at the MCG last year. They earnt an Etihad final and yes it would have earnt less money in that week. But what they missed out on was a Dogs v Hawks semi final that might have had far more people and not had hundreds of thousands of people switching off the tv at half time.. 

There are two issues with finals stadiums, one is the home ground factor and the other is maximising revenue as I mentioned.

For example, the game on the weekend should have been played at the SCG because it is their home ground and where they play their best football. The fact that the shape of the SCG is completely different to ANZ Stadium is part of this. A crowd of 60,000 is great, but people are trying to say that 20,000  would  have missed out if the game was at the SCG isn't important because next time those people will want to go even more and will be willing to pay a higher price for tickets.

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

35 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

And to top it off, we had near record week 1 crowds.

Clearly the week off didn't lose the momentum that some of the negative nellies were expecting...

That was due to all the finals being one state one game finals and included a derby in Sydney and two Victorian teams at the MCG.

It was always going to be a record

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

8 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

That was due to all the finals being one state one game finals and included a derby in Sydney and two Victorian teams at the MCG.

It was always going to be a record

It was also partially due to the dream way that home finals were allocated --- one to each of Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. From the AFL's perspective, it couldn't get better.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

9 hours ago, billy2803 said:

And to top it off, we had near record week 1 crowds.

Clearly the week off didn't lose the momentum that some of the negative nellies were expecting...

As has been pointed out, I would consider the slate of games (with Hawthorn v Geelong and GWS v Sydney) to have been the major factor increasing the crowds far, far more than the bye did.

And as for losing momentum, how do you think West Coast feels about the bye?

I'm not necessarily against it but it's not all amazing and not all the positives were caused by the bye, either.

Edited September 12, 2016 by titan_uranus

[Gorgoroth 12,963]

The interesting bit is going to be the preliminary final. One team had played 2 games in 3 weeks.  The other 1. I think it could hurt GWS and the cats. The advantage of earning the break is gone due to the other teams getting a week off two weeks earlier.

[nrc73 77]

7 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

The interesting bit is going to be the preliminary final. One team had played 2 games in 3 weeks.  The other 1. I think it could hurt GWS and the cats. The advantage of earning the break is gone due to the other teams getting a week off two weeks earlier.

Top 4 getting a double chance is a huge advantage. Has anyone considered that it actually enhances the finals as the guys from the top 4 that lose the first week have more of a chance of making the Grand Final. How boring and predictable has it been watching (almost) every year the winners of the 2 Qualifying Finals end up in the Grand Final. There have been some exceptions but much less so as the game have become much more demanding. Week 2 & 3 of the finals have been so predictable that you can switch off every year and not miss much. How is that "keeping the momentum" of the finals going?.

I'm shocked at how closed minded so many are before giving it a chance. Funnily enough attitudes have changed after the first round and idiots in the media who've been overwhelmingly negative about it have gone on to attack Gill (who was a bit ambivalent himself) so they don't have to defend their own embarrassing stance. If the coaches were so in agreement against the bye round, it only shows up that they don't always have the best interests of the game at heart, putting their own interests first. Could imagine Bevo doesn't have a problem with the bye now. 

I sure as hell don't have an issue with the Bulldogs playing an away game and knocking the Eagles out of the finals.

Edited September 13, 2016 by nrc73
typo

[Gorgoroth 12,963]

29 minutes ago, nrc73 said:

Top 4 getting a double chance is a huge advantage. Has anyone considered that it actually enhances the finals as the guys from the top 4 that lose the first week have more of a chance of making the Grand Final. How boring and predictable has it been watching (almost) every year the winners of the 2 Qualifying Finals end up in the Grand Final. There have been some exceptions but much less so as the game have become much more demanding. Week 2 & 3 of the finals have been so predictable that you can switch off every year and not miss much. How is that "keeping the momentum" of the finals going?.

I'm shocked at how closed minded so many are before giving it a chance. Funnily enough attitudes have changed after the first round and idiots in the media who've been overwhelmingly negative about it have gone on to attack Gill (who was a bit ambivalent himself) so they don't have to defend their own embarrassing stance. If the coaches were so in agreement against the bye round, it only shows up that they don't always have the best interests of the game at heart, putting their own interests first. Could imagine Bevo doesn't have a problem with the bye now. 

I sure as hell don't have an issue with the Bulldogs playing an away game and knocking the Eagles out of the finals.

Is it such an advantage now? I'm not sure.  I'm not a fan as I think the week of isn't required.  Only the top four should be able to have a week off between the end of the season and the GF.

There was nothing wrong with the way it was. 

It's a knee jerk reaction just like the sliding which is now adjudicated completely wrong for what it was bought in for. 

[The Chazz 4,077]

16 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

As has been pointed out, I would consider the slate of games (with Hawthorn v Geelong and GWS v Sydney) to have been the major factor increasing the crowds far, far more than the bye did.

And as for losing momentum, how do you think West Coast feels about the bye?

I'm not necessarily against it but it's not all amazing and not all the positives were caused by the bye, either.

Yeah, because GWS has such a huge following?

The 2 games you used as an example were the Top 4 teams.  History would show that these games always draw bigger crowds as they are the "better" teams playing in them.

I know you haven't used these exact words, Titan, but how anyone can see the bye round as a failure is beyond me.  Even with the Eagles, other than Adelaide, they were to only side in the top 8 that played a home ground final in the first week.  The fact the flucked up that advantage says more about them, more about the Bulldogs, and less about the bye round.

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

Seems that the Bye following the last round will continue in 2017

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-endofseason-bye-to-stay-in-2017-as-commission-considers-minor-premiership-windfall-20160928-grqs1n.html

[DV8 2,271]

On 13/09/2016 at 1:02 PM, Gorgoroth said:

Is it such an advantage now? I'm not sure.  I'm not a fan as I think the week of isn't required.  Only the top four should be able to have a week off between the end of the season and the GF.

There was nothing wrong with the way it was. 

It's a knee jerk reaction just like the sliding which is now adjudicated completely wrong for what it was bought in for. 

Why I do not see this at all. And it takes away randomness of finals wins and losses. 

So the power clubs stay power clubs, & the rest make up numbers, as fodder to the machine devouring itself.

This change is good, & in 3 yrs time we won't even blink at end of H&A.

Edited September 29, 2016 by DV8