The 17-5 format

[ex52k2 250]

As  far  as  I  can  make  out  the  17-5  format  means,  all  teams  play  each  other  once  in  the  first  17  rounds.  Then  they  divide  up  into  3  groups  to  play  the  final  5  rounds.

Nos  1-6  play  off  for  top  6,  nos  7-12  for  nos  7-12  and  nos  13-18  play  off  for  aspros.  If  you  finish  13  only  %  behind  12  or  even  11  you  cannot  play  finals  even  if  you  finish  higher  than  12  after  round  22.

So  you  couldn't  get  a  1987  type  year  where  we  won  our  last  7  games  and  snuck  into  the  finals  on  %  alone.

What  use  is  the  last  5  rounds  for  nos  13-18?

No  chance  of  finals  no  matter  where  you  finish.

And  this  is  good  for  football!     

[Ungarie boy 233]

Haven't  seen this but its very similar to a model I suggested to the AFL a couple of years  ago.

Play 17 games (1 game against every side) then divide into groups of 6 playing another 5 games.

Then teams placed 1 - 16 play off in a knockout  formula for positions in the 8, with 1 v 16, 2 v15 and so on. Final 8 places are determined by the winners position entering the knockout round eg the 16th placed team can only get the 8th final spot. Home team is awarded to the highest placed team going into the game. After knockout round final 8 runs its natural course.  For those arguing that its unfair that the top side can potentially get knocked out in this round, then it can be equally argued that they are not a top side to be beaten at home by a bottom side.

I actally preferred a 2 division model that allowed every team to play each other first in rounds 1 -17, then each other in their div once more  (  this model better caters for showdowns, derbys ans marquee games such as anzac or queens birthday).

A variant of this could be a 1 -17 games, then split into 3 divisions based on capacity to fixture in marquee games eg melb, coll, ess, rich would be in the same div.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Ungarie boy

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,339]

2 hours ago, ex52k2 said:

As  far  as  I  can  make  out  the  17-5  format  means,  all  teams  play  each  other  once  in  the  first  17  rounds.  Then  they  divide  up  into  3  groups  to  play  the  final  5  rounds.

Nos  1-6  play  off  for  top  6,  nos  7-12  for  nos  7-12  and  nos  13-18  play  off  for  aspros.  If  you  finish  13  only  %  behind  12  or  even  11  you  cannot  play  finals  even  if  you  finish  higher  than  12  after  round  22.

So  you  couldn't  get  a  1987  type  year  where  we  won  our  last  7  games  and  snuck  into  the  finals  on  %  alone.

What  use  is  the  last  5  rounds  for  nos  13-18?

No  chance  of  finals  no  matter  where  you  finish.

And  this  is  good  for  football!     

Its expected to that 13-18 will play off with the team highest after the final 5 rounds to gain the number 1 draft selection. To balance it out it has been discussed that the team finishing 18th would potentially get selection 6 and 7 and then go back to front of queue for subsequent rounds. I like the concept of 17-5 but wonder what it could look like for a member where there is an heavy skew of interstate sides in a sector. ie: 4 of  top 6 this year were not Victorian How will they decide who plays where to keep it fair  or does ladder position after round 17 also affect this.  The concept certainly removes current challenges but possibly creates others along the way.

 

[JV7 2,375]

I understand the format but there is a huge advantage to be say 7th rather than 6th or even 5th.. What would you rather be 6th & play everyone above you or finish 7th and play everyone below you to 12th ? I'd think the 7th placed side would have an advantage to leap the sides above 

Edited November 11, 2016 by JV7

[monoccular 17,700]

Locking in the top 6 after 17 rounds is just wrong, as is locking in bottom 6. 

In a very even season 13th at round 17 could still make finals, and a top 4 team could still miss out.   It destroys incentive. 

Fairer (not a priority of AFL), and easier to organize a full year fixture for TV and corporate prebooking (AFL top priority) , would be to play everyone in the first 17, then group in three of six based on the previous year final ladder.  Sure there would be anomalies like Freo's tanking this year, but overall it could boost the middle 6's chances, and keep the top 6 on their toes, maybe also discouraging the 'resting' of players in the final rounds by the top teams. 

[Mickey 4,757]

1 hour ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Its expected to that 13-18 will play off with the team highest after the final 5 rounds to gain the number 1 draft selection. To balance it out it has been discussed that the team finishing 18th would potentially get selection 6 and 7 and then go back to front of queue for subsequent rounds. I like the concept of 17-5 but wonder what it could look like for a member where there is an heavy skew of interstate sides in a sector. ie: 4 of  top 6 this year were not Victorian How will they decide who plays where to keep it fair  or does ladder position after round 17 also affect this.  The concept certainly removes current challenges but possibly creates others along the way.

 

This might remove the incentive to tank late in the season, but what about a club like brisbane who do, actually, really suck. They end up with pick 6 or 7 instead of 1 because some others might have made a choice to tank previously. 

 

I'd prefer a lottery for these teams, with the lower teams getting more entries, like in the NHL 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Mickey
Lottery suggestion

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,339]

1 hour ago, JV7 said:

I understand the format but there is a huge advantage to be say 7th rather than 6th or even 5th.. What would you rather be 6th & play everyone above you or finish 7th and play everyone below you to 12th ? I'd think the 7th placed side would have an advantage to leap the sides above 

7-12 are playing off for the last 2 finals spots is my understanding. 1-6 are locked for finals its then about finishing order and who gets the double chance.

[daisycutter 29,919]

we wouldn't have played hawthorn late in the season, beat them, impressed lewis so much he defected to us

we also wouldn't have played and embarrassingly lost to geelong and carlton

norf might have played finals

anyway, if there has to be change i prefer the 3 equal divisions set permanently. play all teams once (rotating home games each year) and your division twice .

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,339]

12 minutes ago, Mickey said:

This might remove the incentive to tank late in the season, but what about a club like brisbane who do, actually, really suck. They end up with pick 6 or 7 instead of 1 because some others might have made a choice to tank previously. 

 

I'd prefer a lottery for these teams, with the lower teams getting more entries, like in the NHL 

Unless there is a clear stand out two of the best 7 selections versus number 1 is a decent reward. Also the ability to trade one for a quality player whilst retaining a high position in the draft. I don't like the lottery idea but see how it makes sense to some.

[Lil_red_fire_engine 11,339]

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we wouldn't have played hawthorn late in the season, beat them, impressed lewis so much he defected to us

we also wouldn't have played and embarrassingly lost to geelong and carlton

norf might have played finals

anyway, if there has to be change i prefer the 3 equal divisions set permanently. play all teams once (rotating home games each year) and your division twice .

Easy to say in hindsight but you could also argue we would have been guaranteed to have played Carlton and Geelong earlier rather than when we were cooked. You could also argue we would not have played the eventual premiers or our bogey team StKilda each for two losses. We potentially would have gone in with a middle bracket of teams and been able to reset to focus on getting one of two remaining finals spots (not much different than what we did anyway).

Once its set those what if moments disappear and the removal of who was advantaged by only playing team x once or team y twice goes away.

There really is no clear way I can see pro's and con's for all options. How would you set the 3 divisions?

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by big_red_fire_engine

[daisycutter 29,919]

20 minutes ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

Easy to say in hindsight but you could also argue we would have been guaranteed to have played Carlton and Geelong earlier rather than when we were cooked. You could also argue we would not have played the eventual premiers or our bogey team StKilda each for two losses. We potentially would have gone in with a middle bracket of teams and been able to reset to focus on getting one of two remaining finals spots (not much different than what we did anyway).

Once its set those what if moments disappear and the removal of who was advantaged by only playing team x once or team y twice goes away.

There really is no clear way I can see pro's and con's for all options. How would you set the 3 divisions?

 

i wasn't arguing those points about results, just saying for interest sake

now as far as how you would set the 3 divisions we could discuss for ages. my intention though would be to end up with each division being reasonably equal to each other in strength terms (probably based on recent history and to some extent on medium length history) within that intention also try to gain some geographical rationale to encourage local derbys and minimise travel time) but that may be too hard in practice. It won't be easy and will provoke a lot of heated discussion but it is doable

[McQueen 17,867]

The current system is as suitable as can be. Yes the AFL fixture the big games twice a year, the big clubs get more marquee games etc. It's a business and the goal is to make money which to some degree assists with the equalisation measures . I'd prefer this as opposed to the league struggling.

Just leave as it is.

[daisycutter 29,919]

5 minutes ago, McQueen said:

The current system is as suitable as can be. Yes the AFL fixture the big games twice a year, the big clubs get more marquee games etc. It's a business and the goal is to make money which to some degree assists with the equalisation measures . I'd prefer this as opposed to the league struggling.

Just leave as it is.

that is the most likely, i agree

i was only discussing divisions (a) in preference to 17:5 and (b) if it was decided to pursue a more equitable fixture

[Wells 11 5,476]

Imo the current system  is just hopelessly compromised. Financial interests running over the top of an equal competition.  I love the thought of a 17-5 format and hope they bring it in

[junk 342]

13-18 teams should play off for the no.1 draft pick,this may put a stop to tanking and keep supporter interested in the comp. Alternative support womens team if the mens team goes to crap.

[daisycutter 29,919]

1 minute ago, ENYAW said:

13-18 teams should play off for the no.1 draft pick,this may put a stop to tanking and keep supporter interested in the comp. Alternative support womens team if the mens team goes to crap.

so you are saying that if the 18th team at the end of round 17 then doesn't tank but still finishes last you will "reward" them for the wooden spoon and not tanking by giving them pick 8 in the draft as a gesture of equalisation and thanks..................rightio

[Little Goffy 14,795]

Or, we can just stop trying to tinker with the game and creating contrived results in order to please TV ratings and join in the 'everyone gets a gold star' mood.

If you're season sucked and you've got 'nothing' to play for in the last five rounds, get yourself some dignity and play on.

As for 17-5, well, obviously every club plays every other club at least once a year. The remainder can be rolled around however you like it.

Some clubs really ought to play eachother twice a year, state derbies and the like. Other clubs it may be a good idea based on recent rivalry and interest levels. The rest can just be a general mish-mash of whatever suits, as negotiated each year in the great AFL-bunfight* session. (*official title of a venerable tradition, though unlike trade week and draft, the dates and venues aren't officially announced) 

Which is what happens now, with the only real problem being the disproportionate influence of some clubs and commercial interests.

[deanox 10,058]

Best thing to do is either:

- Remove two teams, get rid of pre season, and play a 26 games per year, playing nearly all teams twice. 

-Add 2 more teams (Tas and NT) and reduce the H&A fixture to 19 weeks and play every team once. change the finals system into a top 12 with the top 4 getting a week off, and the next 8 playing knock out for a place in the real finals.  or something similar. 

[junk 342]

Daisycutter,what I suggest is no more ridiculous than splitting the 18 teams into 3 groups and having each team play within a group. A team(who is in i.e 6th position)  near the end of the comp can tank by ending up in 7th position then win all their matches in their group and have a better chance to end up in the top 4. There is nothing worst than clubs who cannot make the finals by sending players for surgery which otherwise would not occur. Bottom clubs have to play for something,they owe it to their paying supporters.Why not make it after round 12 those teams unable to make the 8 they are eliminated from any further action. I am sure there would be an outcry.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

11 hours ago, monoccular said:

Locking in the top 6 after 17 rounds is just wrong, as is locking in bottom 6. 

In a very even season 13th at round 17 could still make finals, and a top 4 team could still miss out.   It destroys incentive. 

Fairer (not a priority of AFL), and easier to organize a full year fixture for TV and corporate prebooking (AFL top priority) , would be to play everyone in the first 17, then group in three of six based on the previous year final ladder.  Sure there would be anomalies like Freo's tanking this year, but overall it could boost the middle 6's chances, and keep the top 6 on their toes, maybe also discouraging the 'resting' of players in the final rounds by the top teams. 

Sone good points, look at North this year.

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

21 hours ago, daisycutter said:

we wouldn't have played hawthorn late in the season, beat them, impressed lewis so much he defected to us

we also wouldn't have played and embarrassingly lost to geelong and carlton

norf might have played finals

anyway, if there has to be change i prefer the 3 equal divisions set permanently. play all teams once (rotating home games each year) and your division twice .

I was under the impression (wrongly?) that the 3 equal divisions were based on the ladder positions from the previous year. This would give an improving side that finished the previous season on the ladder anywhere from 9th through to 12th, a chance to push for finals playing teams 7-12 twice. Teams who finished 1-6 had to maintain their form, and teams in the 13-18 bracket have a chance to shoot up the ladder by getting an easier draw.

If it's done based on the current years ladder positions there is more incentive to be 7th or 8t after 17 rounds then 5th or 6th. 7th and 8th would have an easier last 5 rounds. 

[daisycutter 29,919]

11 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I was under the impression (wrongly?) that the 3 equal divisions were based on the ladder positions from the previous year. This would give an improving side that finished the previous season on the ladder anywhere from 9th through to 12th, a chance to push for finals playing teams 7-12 twice. Teams who finished 1-6 had to maintain their form, and teams in the 13-18 bracket have a chance to shoot up the ladder by getting an easier draw.

If it's done based on the current years ladder positions there is more incentive to be 7th or 8t after 17 rounds then 5th or 6th. 7th and 8th would have an easier last 5 rounds. 

see post #11

i was talking of a permanent 3 division comp (a'la us sports)

Edited November 12, 2016 by daisycutter

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,477]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

see post #11

i was talking of a permanent 3 division comp (a'la us sports)

Fair call DC, actually wrote that late last night after work but only ended up posting this morning.

[Its Time for Another 4,306]

I like the idea of some form of this. The fixture is hopelessly compromised at the moment.

There are real challenges. For instance, each team is entitled to 11 home games. What if there are several teams in a division that haven't had enough home games before round 17 but have played some of the teams in their 6 already as home games. They may miss out on a home game. Difficult. Teams playing a team with a major home ground advantage will be disadvantaged in their placing at the end of 17 rounds. Think teams vying for a spot in the top 6 but playing West Coast away or Adelaide, Cats at Skilled etc. 

As discussed teams in 7th or 8th after rd 17 will be potentially facing a real advantage over teams in 5th & 6th. However, I think this is still fairer than some teams in the top 6 getting to play teams in the other 6's more than other teams in the top 6. For instance Cats this year played Dons twice, no one else in the top 6 did. That was a massive percentage and bonus win in a very tight fight at the top of the ladder. It is quite conceivable that without that game they could have finished 6th instead of 2nd.