Oh God!!! Once again the AFL is [censored] up a game that has worked so well for 150+ years

 

Oh and surprise surprise crowd numbers keep dropping even though we have 6 extra teams...

 

Just make it fair. Is it really that hard? Geez my 12 yo could work it out in five minutes, but the idiots that think they are running the show can't do that in 30 odd years. $$$'s rule even as the fans shake their heads.

 

Number one biggest issue for me is this actually stops teams from possibly making the 8 with a great run in the last 6 games!

round 17 2016 - 3 teams on 7 wins us, the pies and Tiges. the team with the worst % goes into the bottom 6 and the other 2 into the middle 6.  fair?  [censored] no! if a team wins 6 straight they are on 13 wins and play finals, if they win 5/6 that have a chance of making finals.

22 games is already a short season but cutting it down to 17 games means if you have a bad run or form early or key injuries you have less chance to make a comeback and suddenly you are playing for draft picks in July.

another exmaple - round 17 2016 Geelong are 7th. win last 6 and finish second.  not to mention teams from the middle 6 potentially having more wins that the tp 6 and missing finals.

this idea solves some problems but IMO creates many more - so in summary a classic AFL idea that will be implemented and then later removed!!

ALSO - this will increase the have and have nots vibe.  the top 6 will get all the TV rating and the bottom wont get shown, more people will not go to game if the bottom 6 play each other!  it will be less

34 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Number one biggest issue for me is this actually stops teams from possibly making the 8 with a great run in the last 6 games!

round 17 2016 - 3 teams on 7 wins us, the pies and Tiges. the team with the worst % goes into the bottom 6 and the other 2 into the middle 6.  fair?  [censored] no! if a team wins 6 straight they are on 13 wins and play finals, if they win 5/6 that have a chance of making finals.

22 games is already a short season but cutting it down to 17 games means if you have a bad run or form early or key injuries you have less chance to make a comeback and suddenly you are playing for draft picks in July.

another exmaple - round 17 2016 Geelong are 7th. win last 6 and finish second.  not to mention teams from the middle 6 potentially having more wins that the tp 6 and missing finals.

this idea solves some problems but IMO creates many more - so in summary a classic AFL idea that will be implemented and then later removed!!

ALSO - this will increase the have and have nots vibe.  the top 6 will get all the TV rating and the bottom wont get shown, more people will not go to game if the bottom 6 play each other!  it will be less

I agree Dub

17-5 does fix certain problems BUT it also creates a whole lot of new ones

It does place a lot more restrictions on what can be done

At present if you win you rise up the ladder, lose you fall..that is it

17-5 will be like the duckworth lewis shambles at certain times.

I'm not sure there's a problem to fix, or, at least, a problem of sufficient concern that something needs to be done. Ignoring the two newbies, every team bar Richmond has played in a grand final since 2000. The teams that haven't won premierships, by and large, have been incompetently managed for significant periods of time which has limited their success. It's not the fixture that's done that.

But, the fixture has some elements which impact on the enjoyment of the product (separate to the ultimate result). There are three aspects that should be locked in:

1. Every team should play each other team once and only once in the first 17 rounds. That adds to the enjoyment for supporters because it provides a much better appreciation of how their team is travelling compared to all the others.
2. The first 21 games should be locked in well in advance to allow planning for supporters with travel arrangements and for clubs to maximise commercial opportunities. I'm not yet convinced of the need for round 22 to be "flexible", but I can accept that there may be value to try to even up rest times for clubs likely to play finals. Of course, if the bye after round 22 is to remain (and I'm definitely against that) then the argument for flexible timing for round 22 disappears.
3. Blockbuster games which have become traditional and some themed rounds (indigenous, heritage, etc) should continue.

 

 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Number one biggest issue for me is this actually stops teams from possibly making the 8 with a great run in the last 6 games!

The season would in effect be 17 games, which like the NFL would mean that every single game becomes far more important.

This is a good thing.

A good suggestion on BigFooty is that after 17 rounds the season is done for 13th-18th and the 17-5 only applies for 1-6 and 7-12.  That loses 15 largely dud matches and avoids trying to come up with some contrived incentive for the bottom 6.  Draft order is as-is from last up.

Some variation on 1-6 and 7-12 grouping could be played instead e.g. groups of 1,3,5,7,9,11 and 2,4,6,8,10,12 and ladder positions all open and settled as per usual.

How about this as a way of preventing the bottom 6 teams tanking for draft picks?

The draft picks go in order according to how much each team in the bottom 6 has improved their position in the last 5 rounds playing against the other 5 bottom teams.

So if the 18th team after Round 17 wins 2 of the 5 games & finishes 16th, it's improved its position +2. If the 16th team after Round 17 only wins 1 game & finishes 17th, it's -2. And so on.

The 18th team would have the biggest chance of improving its position, so it would still have the best chance of the top pick, which is only fair. But to get that top pick, it would have to win at least one and probably two of those last five games, so it couldn't just cruise; it would have to go hard in every game.

Even the 13th team could still improve its pick, but it would have to beat the other 5 bottom teams to do so. It would then get a score of 0 (as it would have maintained its 13th position), but this would be perhaps the 3rd or 4th best score so they'd get pick 3, say, rather than pick 6.

Therefore to get the best draft picks possible, every bottom-6 team would have to play as hard as it possibly can against the other 5 bottom teams in the last 5 rounds. And we get a competitive last 5 rounds between the bottom teams, with both sides having something to play for in every game.

18 minutes ago, Akum said:

How about this as a way of preventing the bottom 6 teams tanking for draft picks?

The draft picks go in order according to how much each team in the bottom 6 has improved their position in the last 5 rounds playing against the other 5 bottom teams.

So if the 18th team after Round 17 wins 2 of the 5 games & finishes 16th, it's improved its position +2. If the 16th team after Round 17 only wins 1 game & finishes 17th, it's -2. And so on.

The 18th team would have the biggest chance of improving its position, so it would still have the best chance of the top pick, which is only fair. But to get that top pick, it would have to win at least one and probably two of those last five games, so it couldn't just cruise; it would have to go hard in every game.

Even the 13th team could still improve its pick, but it would have to beat the other 5 bottom teams to do so. It would then get a score of 0 (as it would have maintained its 13th position), but this would be perhaps the 3rd or 4th best score so they'd get pick 3, say, rather than pick 6.

Therefore to get the best draft picks possible, every bottom-6 team would have to play as hard as it possibly can against the other 5 bottom teams in the last 5 rounds. And we get a competitive last 5 rounds between the bottom teams, with both sides having something to play for in every game.

Complicated but its among the best ive seen.

What about at the end of rd 17 each club gets a number 

18th- 10
17th- 8
16th- 6
15th- 4
14th- 2
13th- 0

then for each win they get in the last 5 + 1 . That way 13th cant get any higher than 4th in the draft. and it forces any team to win 2 more than the team below them to overtake them in the draft. We dont want 13th getting up high in the draft too easily.
Edit: Tie breaker would be the original lower ranked team gets the higher pick so if both 18th and 17th finished on 11 then 18th is pick 1

you could even consider using those numbers as "tickets" in a lottery system should they choose to do that. I dont mind the lottery but i know alot of people dont like it.

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by ArtificialWisdom

58 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

A good suggestion on BigFooty is that after 17 rounds the season is done for 13th-18th and the 17-5 only applies for 1-6 and 7-12.  That loses 15 largely dud matches and avoids trying to come up with some contrived incentive for the bottom 6.  Draft order is as-is from last up.

Some variation on 1-6 and 7-12 grouping could be played instead e.g. groups of 1,3,5,7,9,11 and 2,4,6,8,10,12 and ladder positions all open and settled as per usual.

Here's the refined plan:

Season over after 17 matches for 13th to 18th

For top 12 teams play groups:
A: 1,4,5,8,9,12
B: 2,3,6,7,10,11
Retain points and percentage from the first 17 games, all ladder positions open and decided in the standard way.

This:

• provides more interesting and meaningful contests between better quality sides in the last 5 rounds
• keeps all ladder position options open
• provides a good contest for positions in the lower half of the 12 leading up to the completion of the first 17 rounds.
• gets rid of 15 largely dud games
• prevents having to come up with some contrived incentive for the bottom 6
• repeat games at the opposite venue to the first one
• is simple to understand

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by Fifty-5

6 hours ago, ex52k2 said:

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.

Exactly.  Really the conference group with most incentive is the 7-12, two of whom will definitely make finals.  1-6 yes, vying for top 4.  13-18 planning for off season repairs, end of season trips, coach sackings etc.

3 hours 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.

Even ta(n)king into account Freo's sudden decline last year, wouldn't playing everyone once rounds 1-16,  then basing the 'draw' for the final rounds based on conferences groups based on the previous year's finishing positions be almost fair?

So the final rounds would be between the previous year's 1-6. 7-12, 13-18.

That would give ample time for planning fixtures, venues and travel:  deciding just a week, or a few weeks in advance as proposed by GTD would cause chaos, and may well result in seriously declined attendances especially for those needing to travel interstate.

3 hours ago, furious d said:

 

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.

 

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

As the old advertisements would say - "I would like to see that".  Will never happen.  Compromised scheduling is in the AFL DNA.

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by monoccular

7 hours ago, ex52k2 said:

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.

This is the best arguement against 17-5 so far

a lot of unpredictability will be lost if 17-5 is adopted. It's too rigid and i don't care if the NFL do it. 

Those clowns aern't always right, look at The White House!

23 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This is the best arguement against 17-5 so far

a lot of unpredictability will be lost if 17-5 is adopted. It's too rigid and i don't care if the NFL do it. 

Those clowns aern't always right, look at The White House!

Teams can still make a late season comeback with 17 games.

I'm undecided as to whether the top 6 teams playing each other as a precursor to the actual finals series will be an advantage or a disadvantage when compared to the teams in 7th and 8th position that will have been playing teams of lesser quality. One argument says they will be more battle hardened. The other says they will be more strung out.

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but it's not difficult to envisage it going [censored] up, especially in relation to the amount of interest in the bottom 6 teams playing off against each other for the remaining weeks. Although to be honest, the AFL will generally double fixture those teams who are likely to finish near the bottom anyway.

Wait and see approach.

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by P-man

12 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Teams can still make a late season comeback with 17 games.

Not from 13th they can't. 

Look how tight last year was. 

A 1987 type run last year could have made huge inroads. 

You must leave all those opportunities open or Teams will tank worse than we have seen before

2 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The season would in effect be 17 games, which like the NFL would mean that every single game becomes far more important.

This is a good thing.

not a good thing from my standpoint. means that for many supporters there will be interest in footy for 4 months out of the year.

every league in the world has dead rubbers. in the EPL is not in top4 contention or relagtion trouble, the 8 teams in the middle just plod along until next season.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not from 13th they can't. 

Look how tight last year was. 

A 1987 type run last year could have made huge inroads. 

You must leave all those opportunities open or Teams will tank worse than we have seen before

If you're 13th after 17 games, there's a decent argument that says you don't deserve to play finals that year.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not from 13th they can't. 

Look how tight last year was. 

A 1987 type run last year could have made huge inroads. 

You must leave all those opportunities open or Teams will tank worse than we have seen before

You can from 13th after say round 12.

I think you are upset at this just for the sake of being upset at everything the AFL does.

4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

not a good thing from my standpoint. means that for many supporters there will be interest in footy for 4 months out of the year.

Did you not watch Melbourne from 2007 until 2013?

In pretty much all those years our season was over by June.

4 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Did you not watch Melbourne from 2007 until 2013?

In pretty much all those years our season was over by June.

June? God some were over before the end of April

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Did you not watch Melbourne from 2007 until 2013?

In pretty much all those years our season was over by June.

Yes, I am well aware of that.

I just think the 17-5 idea, while it has some merit will cause more problems than it solves and is just a way of the AFL making more money

1 minute ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

June? God some were over before the end of April

True.

Wow very divided on this subject, nice friendly debates going on.

I thought I was for the 17-5 with the TBA last 5 games but after consideration it can't work just for logistics alone, unless they announce who plays who by say rnd 10.

I do believe that it should be that you play every team once before you do repeats must be introduced again, it's just what to do with the rest of the year.

3 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

June? God some were over before the end of April

For some of us it was over before preseason started the year before!

Ahh the good ol days, I am going to miss them.

Edited February 10, 20178 yr by AzzKikA

If you finish 6th, you can have a shot at the "double chance" if you can beat 4 or 5 of the other top teams. Why on earth would you give up that chance to finish 7th and get an easier run into an elimination final?

And if you finish 12th, you get a chance to play in finals, if you can beat 4 or 5 of the teams immediately above you. Why on earth would you give that up for, say, a chance to finish 13th and be in the running for a pick near the top of the draft?

A team would be foolish to tank under 17-5.

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

I just think the 17-5 idea, while it has some merit will cause more problems than it solves and is just a way of the AFL making more money

You are right that it will make the AFL more money, but it is on the back of them actually trying to improve the competitiveness of the whole competition int he long-term.

In the past, the AFL would have just flooded the fixture with multiple blockbusters but with this system they are potentially giving up a a lot of blockbusters if the likes of the South Australian teams only play each other once for example.

54 minutes ago, P-man said:

If you're 13th after 17 games, there's a decent argument that says you don't deserve to play finals that year.

What even  if you win the last five?