The 17-5 season

[Diamond_Jim 12,405]

Gil McLachlan has announced that they are likely to adopt a 17-5 season.

This means that each team will play the other once and then the league will be divided into three "conferences" of six with the teams in each conference playing each other thus achieving the remaining five games. I like the idea of playing each other once and ideally the home and away should rotate on a year by year basis.

Can anyone explain how the conferences are selected?

Also not sure how it will fit with the various "blockbusters" but it should work.

Here is an article on Gil McLachlan's press conference where the subject is discussed mid article (after the discussion re James Hird)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/feb/09/james-hird-would-be-welcomed-back-by-the-game-says-afl-ceo-mclachlan

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

This means that each team will play the other once and then the league will be divided into three "conferences" of six with the teams in each conference playing each other thus achieving the remaining five games.

Top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 after each team has played each other once.

It's a brilliant idea and will rectify a lot of the current scheduling issues we have.

[daisycutter 29,484]

nothing to do with gil, this is all media driven and gil just does as he is told (assuming he wants the media rights $s)

[Diamond_Jim 12,405]

Do I read correctly that the conferences are simply decided by ladder position at the end of 17 rounds.

Boy that will make for some "easy wins" if at the end of 17 rounds you happen to top say the middle conference as distinct from the team at the bottom of the top conference who has five games against "better" teams

 

I posted this as Clint was posting.... will certainly make for a helter skelter final five rounds

Edited February 9, 2017 by Diamond_Jim
ealier post

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,422]

So it would be great if you could be seventh on the ladder after seventeen rounds... then only play the teams below you for the last six rounds, storm into the top four or even top two.  

Doesn't seem right... or am I missing something??

[The Chazz 4,077]

4 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6 after each team has played each other once.

It's a brilliant idea and will rectify a lot of the current scheduling issues we have.

Don't think it's a brilliant idea at all.

We could finish a tight 6th at the end of Round 17, then have our final 5 games against sides above us.  The team that finishes Round 17 in 7th, then have their last 5 games against sides 8th-12th.

If you want to rectify the scheduling issues, having a floating-style fixture, similar to what the NRL does/did.  It's not ideal for a supporter trying to plan games to go to in advance (especially interstate supporters), but atleast scheduling games 6 weeks in advance means that from the middle of the year, prime time games will generally be between 2 better performing sides.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

It's not rocket surgery, people.

• Top 6 will play each other only for a top 4 position (guaranteed top 8 finish)
• Middle 6 will play each other only for 7th and 8th positions
• Bottom 6 will play each other only for most likely the number 1 draft pick (or something like this)

Edited February 9, 2017 by Clint Bizkit

[Diamond_Jim 12,405]

1 minute ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

So it would be great if you could be seventh on the ladder after seventeen rounds... then only play the teams below you for the last six rounds, storm into the top four or even top two.  

Doesn't seem right... or am I missing something??

Brings a while new meaning to "ninthmond" !!  We will all be aiming for seventhdom.

Will be very interesting. Cannot see teams tanking (in giving up points) in order to gain position but if you were seventh on percentage a team might think twice before it went for a percentage boosting performance in round 17.

[Diamond_Jim 12,405]

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

It's not rocket surgery, people.

• Top 6 will play for a top 4 position (guaranteed top 8 finish)
• Middle 6 will play for 7th and 8th positions
• Bottom 6 will most likely play for the number 1 draft pick (or something like this)

wait a minute ... that stinks

So if I am seventh I can only go down in my last five games

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,422]

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's not rocket surgery, people.

• Top 6 will play for a top 4 position (guaranteed top 8 finish)
• Middle 6 will play for 7th and 8th positions
• Bottom 6 will most likely play for the number 1 draft pick (or something like this)

So you could have teams with less wins than others playing finals?? 

[The Chazz 4,077]

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It's not rocket surgery, people.

• Top 6 will play for a top 4 position (guaranteed top 8 finish)
• Middle 6 will play for 7th and 8th positions
• Bottom 6 will most likely play for the number 1 draft pick (or something like this)

That's better, thanks for clarifying!

Yep, that could work, although for the top 6 teams, they are basically playing 2 finals series back to back.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

2 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

So you could have teams with less wins than others playing finals?? 

Effectively the "season" is the first 17 games, the last 5 are a finals series of sorts.

The only way we could have a truly even fixture would be to play 34 games, but that's not going to happen.

This is the next best alternative.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Clint Bizkit

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,422]

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Effectively the "season" is the first 17 games.

 

Seems like we would be making the dead-rubbers an even bigger issue - especially for the bottom six matches.

[Diamond_Jim 12,405]

6 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Effectively the "season" is the first 17 games, the last 5 are a finals series of sorts.

The only way we could have a truly even fixture would be to play 34 games, but that's not going to happen.

This is the next best alternative.

 

that is radical but I can see the attraction .... would like to think some more and hear from others about scenarios before deciding.

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Diamond_Jim

[DeeSpencer 25,011]

Dreadful idea. 

The bottom 6 will become a tank off. You can't win a number 1 pick. It will simply be a complete write off for those teams. Fans won't be any more interested by playing poor quality games and those sides may as well pull up stumps after 17 weeks.

The middle 6 will be competitive, but they are now limited to finishing 7th. They can't storm home in to a top 4 finish that (usually) is required to win the flag.

The top 6 now have 5 really tough games in the lead up to finals and can't manage their build up to finals. 

If the AFL wants a 17 (or even better an 18) round season then they have to put the money aside from the 4 or 5 extra weeks revenue and do that. This is a plan worked up by TV Networks as a way of guaranteeing 6 meaningful - 3 quality and 3 decent - games a week for the back end of the year. It's a sham. 

Playing against the bad teams and effectively ending after 17 weeks will completely anchor the bottom sides and elongate the gap between top and bottom when what the league needs to get back to is pre tanking, pre youth policy, pre GWS + GC where teams were far more even and could bounce up and down the ladder between seasons. No team did that better than us under Daniher!

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,284]

19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Do I read correctly that the conferences are simply decided by ladder position at the end of 17 rounds.

Boy that will make for some "easy wins" if at the end of 17 rounds you happen to top say the middle conference as distinct from the team at the bottom of the top conference who has five games against "better" teams

 

I posted this as Clint was posting.... will certainly make for a helter skelter final five rounds

I initially thought this however someone explained to me that isn't how it works.

The top 6 will play off for spots 1-6.

The middle 6 play off for the final two finals spots.

The last 6 play off for sh*ts and giggles.

[daisycutter 29,484]

8 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Effectively the "season" is the first 17 games, the last 5 are a finals series of sorts.

The only way we could have a truly even fixture would be to play 34 games, but that's not going to happen.

This is the next best alternative.

 

there are other options clint which imo are just as good. we have discussed them before. but i suppose this method has a certain common sense to it.

[daisycutter 29,484]

3 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I initially thought this however someone explained to me that isn't how it works.

The top 6 will play off for spots 1-6.

The middle 6 play off for the final two finals spots.

The last 6 play off for sh*ts and giggles.

just a clarification here

after the 17 games do they then start the last 5 games in their division with their existing points?

or do they all revert to zero points?

i presume the former

[PaulRB 6,312]

I'd prefer a three year cycle where over every three years you play every team 4 times.  I.e. You play every team at least once a year with the remaining 5 games cycled through teams again over three year period. I'd also make is it transparent for the three year period. 

Keeps the whole season alive and is as fair as can be achieved. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by PaulRB

[Ouch! 2,250]

I think its pretty clear what the incentives are for the top 2 tiers after 17 rounds... 

Top 6 playing off for a top 4 place, but guaranteed top 6 place.

Middle 6 playing for top 2 position (effectively 7th and 8th)

It's the bottom one that is intriguing, ... because they can't just be playing for pride. Surely that if they introduce this, then they will also have to bring in in a lottery system to determine the top 6 picks in the draft.... i.e the win/loss/percentage in the bottom 6 determines a number of 'bonus' lottery tickets that a side would get contributing to the number of tickets assigned to you as a club based on ladder position after round 17. This would need to be balanced to still ensure the bottom club has the greatest chance of getting the number one draft, but playing off for wins in the last 5 rounds would give enough of an incentive to try and snag a higher draft pick than you would normally be entitled to based on ladder position in the 'lottery draw'

[Drunkn167 5,093]

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Dreadful idea. 

The bottom 6 will become a tank off. You can't win a number 1 pick. It will simply be a complete write off for those teams. Fans won't be any more interested by playing poor quality games and those sides may as well pull up stumps after 17 weeks.

This my biggest issue. Whatever system they chose either the worst team will never get good picks or everyone will just tank and it'll be a s***show. 

With this, as well as trying to mess around with the rules to relieve congestion around the ball (which I don't really think is as bad as people say it is) they are gonna mess with the game too much, its already confusing enough from an umpiring perspective as it is.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

11 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Dreadful idea. 

The bottom 6 will become a tank off. You can't win a number 1 pick. It will simply be a complete write off for those teams. Fans won't be any more interested by playing poor quality games and those sides may as well pull up stumps after 17 weeks.

The middle 6 will be competitive, but they are now limited to finishing 7th. They can't storm home in to a top 4 finish that (usually) is required to win the flag.

The top 6 now have 5 really tough games in the lead up to finals and can't manage their build up to finals. 

If the AFL wants a 17 (or even better an 18) round season then they have to put the money aside from the 4 or 5 extra weeks revenue and do that. This is a plan worked up by TV Networks as a way of guaranteeing 6 meaningful - 3 quality and 3 decent - games a week for the back end of the year. It's a sham. 

Playing against the bad teams and effectively ending after 17 weeks will completely anchor the bottom sides and elongate the gap between top and bottom when what the league needs to get back to is pre tanking, pre youth policy, pre GWS + GC where teams were far more even and could bounce up and down the ladder between seasons. No team did that better than us under Daniher!

Just with the bolded part - could they make it that the best performed side in those final 5 rounds wins the number 1 pick in the draft, which may in turn force sides not to tank and go hell for leather for that pick?

I still need to get my head around the whole idea, though.  Not sure what was inherently wrong with system we have now to be honest.

[Ouch! 2,250]

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Just with the bolded part - could they make it that the best performed side in those final 5 rounds wins the number 1 pick in the draft, which may in turn force sides not to tank and go hell for leather for that pick?

I still need to get my head around the whole idea, though.  Not sure what was inherently wrong with system we have now to be honest.

You can't make it a straight out and out fight for the number 1 pick. The bottom team in most years is pretty ordinary, to put them in a race with the 13th ranked team in the comp would not be fair.  I could only see it working with a lottery system being implemented for the top 6 places in the draft, and based on tickets in that lottery.

I would also like to see the conferences being locked down in terms of the free agency arrangements/restrictions, but we'll never see that occur!!

[Wiseblood 24,637]

Just now, Ouch! said:

You can't make it a straight out and out fight for the number 1 pick. The bottom team in most years is pretty ordinary, to put them in a race with the 13th ranked team in the comp would not be fair.  I could only see it working with a lottery system being implemented for the top 6 places in the draft, and based on tickets in that lottery.

I would also like to see the conferences being locked down in terms of the free agency arrangements/restrictions, but we'll never see that occur!!

You're probably right, although if something isn't changed then the last 5 rounds for those sides may just turn into one big tankfest.  Could they make it a lottery like the NBA?  Best performed side is given a 35% chance at the number 1 pick and so on?  I'd just hate to see those sides simply aiming to be as a bad as possible to get a better pick as they'll have nothing to play for.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

I haven't thought through whether it's a good or bad idea, but one aspect of it I really like is that it would mean every team would play every other team once and only once in the first 17 games.  Irrespective of what happens with the last five games, I would be far happier with the draw if this simple fix was made. It would give everyone a clearer reference point as to how their team was travelling.