2017 AFL FIXTURE

[Dr. Gonzo 24,463]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Seems that the Saturday afternoon 3pm free to air broadcast may be sold to Pay TV in 2017.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/28/fewer-afl-games-to-be-screened-on-free-to-air-television-in-2017

It already was, under the new broadcast rights deal. There was the possibility it would be on sold by Fox to Channel 10 but that seems to have fallen through, for 2017 at least.

[DubDee 26,556]

slightly off topic, but does anyone know more about this 17-5 proposed fixture that might be implemented?  or care to speculate?

I like that they are thinking of ways to make the draw fairer and keep some interest in the late rounds but it raises many questions,

• if you finish in the top 6, are you garenteed to make finals?  if you lose your next 5 games can you drop out?
• what do the bottom 6 play for? draft picks? this might punish the really terrible teams or encourage tanking by trying to get into the bottom 6 if no chance of finals
• does the middle 6 use their existing points tally?

[Sir Why You Little 37,407]

Until there are 12 teams again the AFL Fixture is a mess and will remain so. 

There is only one way to stop Tanking. Incentive clauses in Player Contracts, otherwise Bottom clubs will pack up before the season is done. 

[hemingway 7,633]

On 30 October 2016 at 11:54 AM, jnrmac said:

That's what happens with 10 years of conditioning

 

On 30 October 2016 at 9:03 AM, stevethemanjordan said:

The Bulldogs last year resoundingly proved time and time again that the game is completely between the ears.

Injuries, travel, 6 day breaks, mouth ulcers, etc etc.

Many posts in this thread typify the soft underbelly of the modern day MFC supporter.

It's really sad.

I prefer to think of true Melbourne supporters as loyal, passionate,  stoic, and resilient. Supporters that wear their loyalty as a badge of honour through thick and thin. And supporters that when success comes will be humble and proud in victory understanding that to enjoy victory we have to experience loss and defeat. Supporters that are not quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism and derision of players and coaches.  I think the Dogs supporters are a great example. 

[Demanding Success 298]

8 hours ago, DubDee said:

slightly off topic, but does anyone know more about this 17-5 proposed fixture that might be implemented?  or care to speculate?

I like that they are thinking of ways to make the draw fairer and keep some interest in the late rounds but it raises many questions,

• if you finish in the top 6, are you garenteed to make finals?  if you lose your next 5 games can you drop out?
• what do the bottom 6 play for? draft picks? this might punish the really terrible teams or encourage tanking by trying to get into the bottom 6 if no chance of finals
• does the middle 6 use their existing points tally?

I read when this was first suggested that the top 6 play finals. The next 6 are competing for the last 2 spots. There was even a suggestion that the finals could be expanded in terms of teams. Like a top 10. The bottom teams get to see there sides against other low clubs to try and win some games.  I like the idea compared to what is currently in place.

[WA Demon13 39]

Can anyone send me alink to a PDF of the entire fixture as im having issues with teh AFL page .

 

Cheers

[DubDee 26,556]

14 hours ago, Demanding Success said:

I read when this was first suggested that the top 6 play finals. The next 6 are competing for the last 2 spots. There was even a suggestion that the finals could be expanded in terms of teams. Like a top 10. The bottom teams get to see there sides against other low clubs to try and win some games.  I like the idea compared to what is currently in place.

it is definately worth exploring but it might raise more issues than it solves also.

so if a team wins 10 games from 17.  makes the top 6, loses the next five and makes the finals with a total of 10 wins

another team on 8 wins is in the middle 6 wins 3 games and depending on the others games could possibly miss out of finals on 11 wins

[Clintosaurus 7,940]

16 hours ago, WA Demon13 said:

Can anyone send me alink to a PDF of the entire fixture as im having issues with teh AFL page .

 

Cheers

This: http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2017 Toyota AFL Premiership Season Fixture.pdf

[monoccular 17,719]

On 02/11/2016 at 8:22 AM, DubDee said:

slightly off topic, but does anyone know more about this 17-5 proposed fixture that might be implemented?  or care to speculate?

I like that they are thinking of ways to make the draw fairer and keep some interest in the late rounds but it raises many questions,

• if you finish in the top 6, are you garenteed to make finals?  if you lose your next 5 games can you drop out?
• what do the bottom 6 play for? draft picks? this might punish the really terrible teams or encourage tanking by trying to get into the bottom 6 if no chance of finals
• does the middle 6 use their existing points tally?

 

19 hours ago, Demanding Success said:

I read when this was first suggested that the top 6 play finals. The next 6 are competing for the last 2 spots. There was even a suggestion that the finals could be expanded in terms of teams. Like a top 10. The bottom teams get to see there sides against other low clubs to try and win some games.  I like the idea compared to what is currently in place.

 

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

it is definately worth exploring but it might raise more issues than it solves also.

so if a team wins 10 games from 17.  makes the top 6, loses the next five and makes the finals with a total of 10 wins

another team on 8 wins is in the middle 6 wins 3 games and depending on the others games could possibly miss out of finals on 11 wins

It would appear at first sight to be a marketing tool for the AFL to be able to promote big games (ie the top 6) in the lead up to finals.

Nothing to do with equalization or fairness, but then when did the AFL really ever give a stuff about those alien concepts. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,463]

The 17-5 split is a terrible idea and fairly close to unworkable.

The afl should either base the fixture on previous years ladder with no room for manipulation, reduce to a 17 game season alternating home and away each year or have a rolling fixture. Anything else is just a bandaid solution.

Personally I'd prefer a 17 game/18 round season but would settle for a 22 game season based on the prior years ladder.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The 17-5 split is a terrible idea and fairly close to unworkable.

The afl should either base the fixture on previous years ladder with no room for manipulation, reduce to a 17 game season alternating home and away each year or have a rolling fixture. Anything else is just a bandaid solution.

Personally I'd prefer a 17 game/18 round season but would settle for a 22 game season based on the prior years ladder.

They once tried such a thing. A strict rotating draw, balancing out over 5 years. Very fair.

Then they realised that if they did that, there would be some years with only one "derby" in SA/WA. Some years without two "blockbusters" between the "big four" (all currently languishing in the bottom half of the ladder).

That games between clubs with low attendances, and interstate clubs playing in Vic/NSW would affect gates and TV ratings, and exec bonuses.

That's when the draw became the fix fixture.

14 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

 with no room for manipulation

Doctor! Is there a doctor in the house! This is the AFL fixture.

Oh I see now. You were joking of course.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,463]

1 minute ago, Ted Fidge said:

They once tried such a thing. A strict rotating draw, balancing out over 5 years. Very fair.

Then they realised that if they did that, there would be some years with only one "derby" in SA/WA. Some years without two "blockbusters" between the "big four" (all currently languishing in the bottom half of the ladder).

That games between clubs with low attendances, and interstate clubs playing in Vic/NSW would affect gates and TV ratings, and exec bonuses.

That's when the draw became the fix fixture.

Doctor! Is there a doctor in the house! This is the AFL fixture.

Oh I see now. You were joking of course.

Coll/Ess only played once this year, Coll/Carl only once in 2017. The AFL is ready to evolve past these guaranteed return games (which often don't draw all that well anyway).

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Coll/Ess only played once this year, Coll/Carl only once in 2017. The AFL is ready to evolve past these guaranteed return games (which often don't draw all that well anyway).

I realise that, Doc. The AFL have become more sophisticated in their maximising of gates/rating.

But there was a time not too far distant when they set it up to always have two derbies, etc.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

On Wednesday, November 02, 2016 at 1:55 PM, hemingway said:

 

I prefer to think of true Melbourne supporters as loyal, passionate,  stoic, and resilient. Supporters that wear their loyalty as a badge of honour through thick and thin. And supporters that when success comes will be humble and proud in victory understanding that to enjoy victory we have to experience loss and defeat. Supporters that are not quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism and derision of players and coaches.  I think the Dogs supporters are a great example. 

When success comes I will not be humble about it, I shall turn into an arrogant and smarmy beast. I've waited too long for this opportunity,  I shall bathe in the salty tears of our victims and display a level of elitism rarely seen. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

44 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

When success comes I will not be humble about it, I shall turn into an arrogant and smarmy beast. I've waited too long for this opportunity,  I shall bathe in the salty tears of our victims and display a level of elitism rarely seen. 

When the Boston Red Sox won the "world series" in 2004 or whatever it was, after umpteen years of pain and loss, their fans went mad. Some of the non-mad ones decried this, saying "we must be dignified in victory". The hell with that. The incredible things that had happened to their team over the years had earned them the right to go berserk with joy.

Look at Chicago right now. Their run of outs was even longer. Mind you, they are also rioting and destroying property, which should not require saying is over the line.

I look forward to being able to celebrate with unbridled joy and lack of restraint. We've earned it.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,704]

Anyone know if you can do a 2017 ladder predictor anywhere on the interwebs yet? Can't seem to find one...

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,485]

23 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The 17-5 split is a terrible idea and fairly close to unworkable.

The afl should either base the fixture on previous years ladder with no room for manipulation, reduce to a 17 game season alternating home and away each year or have a rolling fixture. Anything else is just a bandaid solution.

Personally I'd prefer a 17 game/18 round season but would settle for a 22 game season based on the prior years ladder.

I hate 17-5 as well.

I hate that you have no idea who you're playing in the last 5 weeks of the season( throughout the first 4 months) thus you can't plan possible interstate trips in August, as well as planning important family events on the calendar eg- weddings.

I also think it's crap that once round 17 occurs, the 13th and even 14th placed side are automatically eliminated from finals. It's not impossible for either of those sides to make a late dash for finals under the current system. Plus the amount of garbage yawn fests that will occur in the last 5 weeks between sides that are already eliminated from finals, will be a joke. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,485]

7 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

When the Boston Red Sox won the "world series" in 2004 or whatever it was, after umpteen years of pain and loss, their fans went mad. Some of the non-mad ones decried this, saying "we must be dignified in victory". The hell with that. The incredible things that had happened to their team over the years had earned them the right to go berserk with joy.

Look at Chicago right now. Their run of outs was even longer. Mind you, they are also rioting and destroying property, which should not require saying is over the line.

I look forward to being able to celebrate with unbridled joy and lack of restraint. We've earned it.

I wonder if all the neutral supporters will get on the Demon bandwagon when we eventually make a grand final, like they did with the Dogs?

I found the neutral support of the Dogs, and particularly the media love of the Dogs way over the top.

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,672]

On 2016-11-02 at 9:22 AM, DubDee said:

slightly off topic, but does anyone know more about this 17-5 proposed fixture that might be implemented?  or care to speculate?

I like that they are thinking of ways to make the draw fairer and keep some interest in the late rounds but it raises many questions,

• if you finish in the top 6, are you garenteed to make finals?  if you lose your next 5 games can you drop out?
• what do the bottom 6 play for? draft picks? this might punish the really terrible teams or encourage tanking by trying to get into the bottom 6 if no chance of finals
• does the middle 6 use their existing points tally?

I hate this idea that has been proposed by the AFL and I'll give my reason why.

After round 18 this season the top 8  of the ladder sat like this:

Hawks: 14 wins

GWS: 12 wins

Sydney: 12 wins

Cats: 12 wins

West Coast: 12 wins

Adelaide: 12 wins

Bulldogs: 12 wins

North: 11 wins

If the proposed changes came into affect then Hawks, GWS, Sydney, Cats, West Coast & Adelaide would all have to play each other once. As there would only be 5 games it would mean some teams would have 3 home games and others 2 which is also unfair.

However, the biggest part of inequality would be that the Dogs (who were even on games won but just behind in %) would have to play North, Saints, Port, Melbourne & Collingwood. So essentially they are being rewarded with an easier last 5 games which they would likely win all of them leaving them on 17 wins and likely a top 2 spot. Obviously they won the premiership anyway but I still think this system has so many flaws that it can't possibly be used.

The current system is probably as fair as you can get at the moment without extending the season and playing everyone twice.

 

[greenmachine 21]

i think our draw is not too bad we finished close to the saints and there draw sucks we lucky imo

 

[Macca 17,121]

6 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

However, the biggest part of inequality would be that the Dogs (who were even on games won but just behind in %) would have to play North, Saints, Port, Melbourne & Collingwood. So essentially they are being rewarded with an easier last 5 games which they would likely win all of them leaving them on 17 wins and likely a top 2 spot. Obviously they won the premiership anyway but I still think this system has so many flaws that it can't possibly be used.

That is not how it would work ... with the proposed new 17/5 system, no team from the middle 6 teams can finish any higher than 7th regardless of how many wins a team from the middle 6 teams finishes on.  Same goes for the bottom 6 teams.  13th is as high as a team could finish from the bottom 6 group.

We'd go from an arbitrary and contrived system to one where we'd know exactly where we would stand.  The first 17 rounds becomes a season in itself (and a largely fair one where every team plays every other team once) ... so, if a team then misses out on a preferred ladder position because they're in a lower group, stiff cheddar.

I like the new concept and have disliked the current system for a long time ... however, the bottom line with ideas like the one proposed is that people don't like change of any description.

For people like myself, a new concept such as the one proposed is welcomed.  I reckon it's a fantastic idea.

 

 

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,865]

The AFL will introduce this system when Collingwood have no prospect of making the finals under the current system.

[mauriesy 7,441]

35 minutes ago, Macca said:

The first 17 rounds becomes a season in itself (and a largely fair one where every team plays every other team once)

Being an uneven number, there would be a slight season advantage for half the teams because they would play 9 home games against the other half's 8 home games.

Unless it is organised that one of the nine home (or away) matches for each team is played at a "neutral" venue. (I guess this could be AO for Adelaide v Port, Domain for Fremantle v WC, MCG where both teams have it as a home ground etc.)

[Macca 17,121]

3 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Being an uneven number, there would be a slight season advantage for half the teams because they would play 9 home games against the other half's 8 home games.

Unless it is organised that one of the nine home (or away) matches for each team is played at a "neutral" venue. (I guess this could be AO for Adelaide v Port, Domain for Fremantle v WC, MCG where both teams have it as a home ground etc.)

They could just change the H & A status from one year to the next (to even things out)  A reverse fixture from year-to-year with regards to who plays at home and vice-versa.  It would mean that the QB status would change from year to year but so would every other game.  We as a club shouldn't be dependent on one game anyway. 

No system is perfect but the one we currently have is far from perfect - and that is reflected in the criticisms that the current system now gets.  The League is putting forward a proposal that lays transparency on the 5 'said' games.  From year to year, we'd know where we'd stand with regards to how things would play out.

 

[titan_uranus 25,229]

22 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I hate 17-5 as well.

I hate that you have no idea who you're playing in the last 5 weeks of the season( throughout the first 4 months) thus you can't plan possible interstate trips in August, as well as planning important family events on the calendar eg- weddings.

I also think it's crap that once round 17 occurs, the 13th and even 14th placed side are automatically eliminated from finals. It's not impossible for either of those sides to make a late dash for finals under the current system. Plus the amount of garbage yawn fests that will occur in the last 5 weeks between sides that are already eliminated from finals, will be a joke. 

For mine, the planning component is huge. What happens if the top 6 at Round 17 contains five interstate sides and one Victorian? The Vic club has to make, what, three road trips in five weeks? Or you end up with Perth sides and Queensland sides and they are all forced to make multiple cross-country trips in the last month leading into finals. Or, of course, those clubs are all in the middle six and have no ability to plan their final month of training to work their way into the 8.

8 hours ago, Macca said:

That is not how it would work ... with the proposed new 17/5 system, no team from the middle 6 teams can finish any higher than 7th regardless of how many wins a team from the middle 6 teams finishes on.  Same goes for the bottom 6 teams.  13th is as high as a team could finish from the bottom 6 group.

We'd go from an arbitrary and contrived system to one where we'd know exactly where we would stand.  The first 17 rounds becomes a season in itself (and a largely fair one where every team plays every other team once) ... so, if a team then misses out on a preferred ladder position because they're in a lower group, stiff cheddar.

I like the new concept and have disliked the current system for a long time ... however, the bottom line with ideas like the one proposed is that people don't like change of any description.

For people like myself, a new concept such as the one proposed is welcomed.  I reckon it's a fantastic idea.

The current system is flawed. But, unless we play 34 games every year, every system is flawed.

The 17-5 model is a logistical nightmare and creates new problems the game doesn't need (see above). I'm against it, but not against something new for the fixture.

A 3 or 4 year plan in which the AFL clearly sets out who plays who, and when, and how often, could be an easier option (similar to how the NFL has conferences and uses those to ensure each club plays each other club at least once every four years and home/away once every eight years, something like that I think is far preferable to having a 5-week unknown block for 17 weeks).