The 17-5 season

[Nascent 9,216]

If we went down the "conference" route I'd much prefer the teams to be grouped as...

Conference A

1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16

Conference B

2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17

Conference C

3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

 

Seems a fairer spread.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Nascent

[tiers 2,840]

I agree with Nascent. No favourites, no guaranteed finals positions, incentives for all teams to play hard up to round 17 as group assignments would not be known until the end of the round (draw to be made as late as possible to maintain interest), further incentives in the final 5 games for up to 12 teams to progress, less chance of the system being gamed by unscrupulous or creative coaches, maintain interest till round 22.

One downside - teams would not be able to challenge those closest to them eg. 7, 8 and 9 for the final spot in the eight. Acceptable compromise.

Last year I also proposed a similar staggered round robin series for the first three weeks of the finals. Combined the potential is awesome.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

27 minutes ago, Micah said:

Although finals is a different level completely, I have a huge concern regarding the 17-5 set up in that it will ultimately dull down finals.

Entering this system mean that we will already have had these top 6 teams play off against each other just before the finals. Therefore, although not under 'finals' type pressure, we still  possibly see the same teams over and over

Looking at some current day traditional rivals, eg Hawthorn Geelong for example, this game ends up usually being a great spectacle and exciting close contest.

However this system will inevitably end up with a year/s where we could have Hawks v Geelong in round 16, then again once in the final 5 rounds, then again in the early finals, and again in a grand final. That would be 4 meetings of the same two teams over virtually 8 weeks or so.

Though that is an extreme example, I still worry that the top 6 being the 'best' of the year playing each other in the lead up to finals would diminish the excitement of finals when we just repeat similar contests

Spot on...

[daisycutter 29,616]

49 minutes ago, Nascent said:

If we went down the "conference" route I'd much prefer the teams to be grouped as...

Conference A

1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16

Conference B

2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17

Conference C

3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

 

Seems a fairer spread.

are you saying conferences for whole season or just after round 17?

if just after round 17 i don't see what your proposal offers that is any better than the current system 

[barneymfc 152]

conference? another buzz word for [censored],lets just make it a roundrobin for afl,[censored] off leave it alone

[furious d 464]

1 hour ago, Nascent said:

If we went down the "conference" route I'd much prefer the teams to be grouped as...

Conference A

1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16

Conference B

2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17

Conference C

3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

 

Seems a fairer spread.

I like this but I'd make one small tweak. Teams should be rewarded for finishing higher, I'd swap the lower teams in conference a and c.

Conf A- 1,4,7,12,15,18

Conf B- 2,5,8,11,14,17

Conf C- 3,6,9,10,13,16

Not really conferences as such, just the last 5 rounds decided after rd 17. This is the best idea I'v heard to make the draw actually fair.

[CHF 2,743]

2 hours ago, furious d said:

I like this but I'd make one small tweak. Teams should be rewarded for finishing higher, I'd swap the lower teams in conference a and c.

Conf A- 1,4,7,12,15,18

Conf B- 2,5,8,11,14,17

Conf C- 3,6,9,10,13,16

Not really conferences as such, just the last 5 rounds decided after rd 17. This is the best idea I'v heard to make the draw actually fair.

I would go along with that as long as the conferences were decided upon on the table positions at the end of the previous season. 

If we only had 16 teams it would be simple. Two conferences of 8 teams. They play each other twice and the teams from the other conference once for a total of 22 games. 18 teams on that basis makes for 25 games. too many for the Player's association.

[Macca 16,972]

With the new proposed 17/5 system, there can be teams that may end up with only 10 home games and some of the traditional double-up games and derbies would be at risk as well.  It's also quite possible that a team (or teams) could conceivably end up with 12 home games.

Unless the AFL wants to risk foregoing those derbies and double-up 'blockbusters' ... and to also be ready to compensate teams that lose a home game,  I can see them reaching a stumbling block with the plan.  But this is the AFL where they can often make decisions on the run.

The same type of fixture based on the previous placings of the teams makes more sense but they already largely do that now (save for the double-up blockbusters & derbies)

I'm not against conferences & divisions though ... the ladder had a lot more interest when we had fewer teams.  However, if they left it as it is I wouldn't be fussed.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

An absolutely terrible idea. The facade that this is a sports competition and not just a media commodity has been totally ripped away.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,226]

AFL website article 

"Research has shown that attendances and ratings drop off when games involve two teams who no longer have a chance of making the finals."

[censored] rocket scientists running this game 

[monoccular 17,432]

Firstly -- PLEASE don't use the American word "conference"!  Division, section, but not some word that usually means some sort of talkfest. 

So, in an even season, if you are 13th and rapidly on the rise after perhaps an injury plagued start to the season, maybe only a game or two out of the 8, with the teams ahead of you struggling, your season is in effect stuffed?  Fantastic.

If you are 6th and on a rapid decline, rest easy - you are guaranteed a finals spot, so maybe rest a few players and prepare for finals.

What a pathetic (again) thought bubble by the worst AFL CEO in history.  Please Gil, go and enjoy the polo and hand over to someone who can (i) make decisions eg Jab's Downlow and (ii) really has a feel for the ordinary footy  fan.

 

[monoccular 17,432]

44 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

AFL website article 

"Research has shown that attendances and ratings drop off when games involve two teams who no longer have a chance of making the finals."

[censored] rocket scientists running this game 

So nobody will attend the lowest "conference" ? Games at all?

Once again, Gill planning carefully.  

How would they cope if Essundone, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton, maybe with Hawthorn ended up in the losers' "conference"?  

Edited February 9, 2017 by monoccular

[monoccular 17,432]

5 hours ago, barneymfc said:

conference? another buzz word for [censored],lets just make it a roundrobin for afl,[censored] off leave it alone

True.  Awful Americanized word. Maybe when DumbItriou who loved all things American to the extent that he missed AFL season matches to schmooze at big US events, was in charge,  but really, what is meant by "conference"?

Section. Division. Group. 

[ex52k2 238]

If  the  17/5  system  was in  place  in 1987  goodbye  to  Robbie  playing  in  a  finals  game.  Goodbye  to  the  DEES  flying  home  winning  their  last  7  games.  Goodbye  to  thrilling  last  game  at  Footscray.

I  can  still  remember  the  feeling  when  Hawthorn  hit  the  front  at  Geelong.  WE  WERE  IN  THE  FINIALS.  Please  don't  take  away  that  feeling  and  have  us  or  anybody  else  playing  for    nothing  in  the  final  5  rounds.

Boy  if  we  have  seen  teams  rest  many  players  before,  you  aint  seen nothing   yet.  Tanking  will  become  an  art  form.

[Wells 11 5,406]

6 hours ago, monoccular said:

So nobody will attend the lowest "conference" ? Games at all?

Once again, Gill planning carefully.  

How would they cope if Essundone, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton, maybe with Hawthorn ended up in the losers' "conference"?  

They would still pack out stadiums when they play each other. Essendon and Collingwood could be last and second last and still get 90, 000 to a game. They already do on Anzac day.  The bigger issue is if its Brisbane and Melb or Port and St Kilda with some teams  crushed that they Just missed out on 12th on percentage.  But all that, and most of the above being said,  the fixture as it is NOW is horrible. "Blockbusters" dominate the schedule and its hard for teams with a low supporter base to get more of them. Not just that but there could be a home and away cycle every 2 years so at least we would get to play Geelong at the MCG every 2nd year!  This would ultimately have the effect of evening out the competition so I dont understand why so many opposed. Id understand why the Collingwoods and Essendons dont want it as they start to lose their grip on being overlords..

I like the idea of 3 conferences. Building on Nascents idea Id maybe have the top 6 playing for finals positions (as is planned now) but the actual  games played  look like 1 12 3 10 5 8 and on the other side 2 11 4 9 6 7. The top 2 teams stay away from each other and theres a mix of difficulty in the final 5 rounds. 

The issue is, as many have already pointed out,  what do the bottom 6 play for? It cant ONLY be for the draft.  That may be part of it but cant be all of it. There has to be some incentive. A trophy of some kind or maybe some advantage into the next year...a wild card entry into the middle conference if they miss out next year? I dont know how that works Im just thinking out loud ..............but something. 

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

12 hours ago, furious d said:

I like this but I'd make one small tweak. Teams should be rewarded for finishing higher, I'd swap the lower teams in conference a and c.

Conf A- 1,4,7,12,15,18

Conf B- 2,5,8,11,14,17

Conf C- 3,6,9,10,13,16

Not really conferences as such, just the last 5 rounds decided after rd 17. This is the best idea I'v heard to make the draw actually fair.

I thought the whole idea of this was they want these "conferences" to create better quality games later in the year. In theory is having them play teams around them on the ladder to make the games closer. They want the top team playing 12th, 15th and 18th in the last 5 rounds doesnt really support that. That would result in more blowouts wouldn't it?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

An absolutely terrible idea.

Why?

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

7 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

 

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

An absolutely terrible idea.

Why?

I hate the idea because i feel like it just creates new problems rather than solving all the problems. I want them to come out with a solution that makes things better not one that moves the problems elsewhere. There is only 1 truely fair solution and that's everyone plays each other twice. Thats not practical so the next best is everyone plays each other once but that doesnt get the AFL enough $$$ so we are stuck trying to make new fixtures that are just as unfair/impractical as the current one.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

11 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I hate the idea because i feel like it just creates new problems rather than solving all the problems. I want them to come out with a solution that makes things better not one that moves the problems elsewhere. There is only 1 truely fair solution and that's everyone plays each other twice. Thats not practical so the next best is everyone plays each other once but that doesnt get the AFL enough $$$ so we are stuck trying to make new fixtures that are just as unfair/impractical as the current one.

We know we can't have a 34 round season and we know we can't have 17 round season.

The current system is broken and unfair, the 17-5 system is a far fairer and just plain better but still meets the requirement of playing 22 games.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Clint Bizkit

[furious d 464]

11 hours ago, CHF said:

I would go along with that as long as the conferences were decided upon on the table positions at the end of the previous season. 

If we only had 16 teams it would be simple. Two conferences of 8 teams. They play each other twice and the teams from the other conference once for a total of 22 games. 18 teams on that basis makes for 25 games. too many for the Player's association.

 

The whole point of going this way is it doesn't require conferences and it doesn't limit where clubs can finish on the ladder. I hate the idea of conferences and would prefer to keep them out of our game. It's just a FAIR method of deciding who plays who in the last 5 rounds of the season. It would be a bit inconvenient not knowing the fixture for Rd's18-22 until after round 17 was done and dusted but that would be a small price to pay for a truly fair fixture.

 

1 hour ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I thought the whole idea of this was they want these "conferences" to create better quality games later in the year. In theory is having them play teams around them on the ladder to make the games closer. They want the top team playing 12th, 15th and 18th in the last 5 rounds doesnt really support that. That would result in more blowouts wouldn't it?

Not interested in extra blockbusters but I'm very keen to see an uncompromised competition.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

2 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

We know we can't have a 34 round season and we know we can't have 17 round season.

The current system is broken and unfair, the 17-5 system is a far fairer and just plain better but still meets the requirement of playing 22 games.

With all the horrible issues with the current system i still think its better than the possibility of the side finishing 6th having fewer wins than the one that finishes 7th. Thats assuming that the lock the conferences in the 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 ladder position blocks. If they choose not to do that then 6th has to play 1-5 and 7th plays 8-12 with an open ladder which is even more unfair. I just dont like it at all

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

11 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

With all the horrible issues with the current system i still think its better than the possibility of the side finishing 6th having fewer wins than the one that finishes 7th. Thats assuming that the lock the conferences in the 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 ladder position blocks. If they choose not to do that then 6th has to play 1-5 and 7th plays 8-12 with an open ladder which is even more unfair. I just dont like it at all

You're thinking of it all wrong, it's effectively a 17 round season and the 5 is just an extension of a finals series.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

17-5 I think will work if you have the last 5 as floating, the AFL are great at making decisions on the fly, why are they so reluctant to do it for a good cause?  Are they scared they will get it right!?

The down side will always be the same, no matter what silly idea you invent, people will watch the games that are going to matter to the run to the finals, and they will not watch games that mean little to the finals, except diehards that watch no matter what (us).  But at least they can schedule each to the appropriate time slots to maximize whatever unfolds throughout the season that no one predicted, like last year and Freo tanking sucking.

There is no way the draw will EVER be fair, but getting as close too should be the goal.

Edited February 9, 2017 by AzzKikA

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

You're thinking of it all wrong, it's effectively a 17 round season and the 5 is just an extension of a finals series.

So its like a "group stage" of the world cup except 1 group everyone moves on with them just jostling for position the next group only the top 2 stay in and in the last group nobody stays in but they all get to play finals because everyone can participate even if they dont deserve to? It almost sounds like a 17 game season with 5 exhibition matches between the season and the finals just to meet that arbitrary 22 game quota

Look there are alot of different variants of how the 17-5 system will work. I'll hold off all judgment until the AFL releases their actual plan in detail. But I have serious doubts that it will actually be more "fair". I just see it moving the problems elsewhere. If it hides the problems enough then i supose that makes it a success

[daisycutter 29,616]

for whole year

3 divisions of 6 teams each (based on some formula to make relatively even

play own division twice (1 home 1 away) - 10 games

play each other division teams once (alternate home game by year) -12 games

total 22 games

top 2 in each division into finals, 2 wildcards based on wins then %

simple ....... only hard bit is determining the starting line-ups for each division 

divisions stay same each year,.... or maybe could be redrawn based on performance, say every 4 years (in order to keep divisions more equal)