1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

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).

The interstate teams have to travel every 2nd week anyway and if the Victorian teams have to travel a bit more, so be it.  All things would even out over time anyway and we'd soon get used to it.  The positives outweigh the negatives.

We'd benefit too (from a financial viewpoint) ... if the games were rotated on a year by year basis (home and away) we'd end up with 9 home games against the Victorian sides over a 2 year period (Essendon & Geelong included)  Just as important is that the big Victorian clubs wouldn't have a monopoly on the big home game fixtures against other big clubs. 

That's apart from the last 5 rounds having far more renewed interest because of what the teams would be playing for.

Also, I'm not sure that any demon supporter would mind a bit of extra travel in the last 5 rounds if say, after 17 rounds, we were assured of a top 6 spot and with it, 1 guaranteed home final. 

What the league could do before possibly taking this major step is to fixture the games in the last 5 rounds (in advance) as a sort of a trial (based on the previous year's ladder)  They haven't done it for next year's fixture but they could have.

Even though I'm arguing for this change I'm not sure it's going to happen.

I think it was 'dc' who put forward the idea of 3 conferences (3 groups of 6) where teams would play 10 games within their conference and play the other 12 teams once.  The top 2 teams in each conference qualify for the finals plus 2 wild-cards.  W/L would determine seedings.

It's another idea that I like but again, the chances of such radical change is not likely.  I can see the league bringing in another bye as part of the new CBA but that might be it.

More pertinent to this thread is our double-up games next season ... Carlton, Collingwood, North, St Kilda and the Crows is a decent result (all things considered)

13 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

That's the point though - 17 rounds is about as fair as you'll get. Ladder positions will be determined based on that. So why the need for a 5 week pre-finals round robin? Of course we all know the reason but from a competition standpoint it makes no sense.

 I agree the current fixturing sucks but this isn't the way to fix it.

13 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's the point though - 17 rounds is about as fair as you'll get. Ladder positions will be determined based on that. So why the need for a 5 week pre-finals round robin? Of course we all know the reason but from a competition standpoint it makes no sense.

 I agree the current fixturing sucks but this isn't the way to fix it.

So what is your fix Dr G?  ... taking into account that we won't be having anything less than a 22 game season.

 

 

 

On 06/11/2016 at 6:55 PM, Macca said:

We'd benefit too (from a financial viewpoint) ... if the games were rotated on a year by year basis (home and away) we'd end up with 9 home games against the Victorian sides over a 2 year period (Essendon & Geelong included)  Just as important is that the big Victorian clubs wouldn't have a monopoly on the big home game fixtures against other big clubs.

Not sure about that. On that basis we'd get one home game against Collingwood every two years, so we'd lose Queens Birthday. And how would our NT fixtures work if we didn't have a reasonable selection of games to send up there each year?

40 minutes ago, poita said:

Not sure about that. On that basis we'd get one home game against Collingwood every two years, so we'd lose Queens Birthday. And how would our NT fixtures work if we didn't have a reasonable selection of games to send up there each year?

It's probably not a good idea for me to argue on behalf of Gil yeah?

The more I look at it the more I see it as fairly unworkable. 

Fixturing the top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 from the previous year to all play each other twice makes more sense but then the derbies and double-up blockbusters are then at jeopardy. 

We're probably going to have to put up with the way it is now . . which is not ideal either. 

Getting each team to 11 home games would be an issue as well. 

There are some obvious benefits but Gil's idea probably creates more problems than it solves. 

So we can fully expect the AFL to implement the idea. 

On 06/11/2016 at 11:27 PM, Macca said:

So what is your fix Dr G?  ... taking into account that we won't be having anything less than a 22 game season

Personally I would prefer a 17 game season over 18 or 19 rounds (alternating H&A each year and travelling once each year to WA, SA, NSW & QLD) but accepting the AFL won't reduce the rounds due to media commitments I would go with the following options in descending order.

1) Return matches based on prior years ladder with teams in groups of 6 (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th & 16th in group 1 etc)

2) a rolling fixture so over x years you play every team the same amount of times 

3) 2 or 3 divisions (9 or 6 teams each) where you play your own division H&A and the other divisions once

Option 3 is unlikely and the least preferred.

For all options, particularly 1 & 2, I would have constant alternating between home and away each time you play an opponent. Therefore even if we only play Essendon for example once a season every 2nd year will be a home game.

Options 1 & 2 won't result in an equal draw but it will be transparent and fair without compromising the integrity of the competition which is something you can't say about the current policy or the suggested ones.

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Personally I would prefer a 17 game season over 18 or 19 rounds (alternating H&A each year and travelling once each year to WA, SA, NSW & QLD) but accepting the AFL won't reduce the rounds due to media commitments I would go with the following options in descending order.

1) Return matches based on prior years ladder with teams in groups of 6 (1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th & 16th in group 1 etc)

2) a rolling fixture so over x years you play every team the same amount of times 

3) 2 or 3 divisions (9 or 6 teams each) where you play your own division H&A and the other divisions once

Option 3 is unlikely and the least preferred.

For all options, particularly 1 & 2, I would have constant alternating between home and away each time you play an opponent. Therefore even if we only play Essendon for example once a season every 2nd year will be a home game.

Options 1 & 2 won't result in an equal draw but it will be transparent and fair without compromising the integrity of the competition which is something you can't say about the current policy or the suggested ones.

I think, ultimately, it will never be equal but the more transparent, the better. Your options 1 and 2 are certainly that, and I'd be in favour of either.

I've never been fussed about the draw. I can't remember the last time a team won the Premiership because they had the advantage of an easier draw.

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I've never been fussed about the draw. I can't remember the last time a team won the Premiership because they had the advantage of an easier draw.

Can you remember the last time a team got increased exposure, sponsorship opportunities, and gate takings from the way the draw is set up?

Example: how many Friday night games for Richmond, Carlton and Essendon over the last few years compared to Footscray?

Just now, Ted Fidge said:

Can you remember the last time a team got increased exposure, sponsorship opportunities, and gate takings from the way the draw is set up?

Example: how many Friday night games for Richmond, Carlton and Essendon over the last few years compared to Footscray?

You are quite right about the commercial aspects of the draw. I wasn't clear in my post, but I was only referring to the chance of winning the flag.

Mind you, Richmond, Carlton and Essendon appear to have done their best to waste the benefits of that extra exposure in the last few years.