6 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Most AFL fans hate it cos they want to draft a kid and see him be a one game player, so on this one I realise while I like it, most won't.

 

This was my exact hope when we drafted Cook. But alas.

Just now, Skuit said:

This was my exact hope when we drafted Cook. But alas.

I really should pay you a fee to be my editor.

 

On 18/05/2017 at 10:53 PM, Dappa Dan said:

So many USA things have been brought in for the betterment of the game. I see this as another good one. I don't think it hurts the tradition or fabric of the game either. Finals formats have been changing since the game started.

 

 

On 19/05/2017 at 11:08 AM, rjay said:

Name them...

 

15 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Draft and Salary Cap alone are massive inclusions. And while the NFL didn't come up with it, the success, interest and intrigue of the NFL draft is attractive to so many codes.

 

Well, I guess a couple of ideas. One borrowed from the EPL....

I love your enthusiasm 'Dappa' but not all things American are great...and not all things fit like a jigsaw when moved to a different game in a different environment.

We're probably looking at about the most even season in my living memory and now we have to fix it...doesn't make sense to me.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Well, I guess a couple of ideas. One borrowed from the EPL....

I love your enthusiasm 'Dappa' but not all things American are great...and not all things fit like a jigsaw when moved to a different game in a different environment.

We're probably looking at about the most even season in my living memory and now we have to fix it...doesn't make sense to me.

That's a fair point. On one hand, it's as "fixed" as it's ever been so why fix what's not broken. Likewise, it's probably as pretty as it's been for a while precisely because the rule-makers have gotten aggressive. Roosy and others claim the fans are saying don't change the game. I just don't think that's true. The vocal ones are certainly saying that. But if you asked all fans, the ones who are happy with the changes and encourage modernisation, they're just quiet. Personally I love the change to third man up, and I love the brutal officiating of the deliberate out of bounds. I think they're working, and I always feel the urge to roll my eyes at the grumbling naysayers. As I say though, I know I'm just one person, so I keep Schtum. Mostly.

I agree not all American things are great. If they were we'd be playing NFL here. We've picked and chosen the ones that we need though. And done it CAREFULLY which is important. Our drafts and the new system for bidding for Father sons and Academy picks is new to us as well. I wouldn't want to see a lottery brought in, but it has enjoyed success in the NBA.

One other one I forgot, the trading of future picks is freaking brilliant. The RG3 one is amazing theatre. Wentz last year vs Daz Prescott taken rounds later. It's awesome.

Something I think they might bring in is results dependant trades. So for example... we put out a trade for, say, Sam Day for a future second rounder. But we add a caveat. If he plays less than 10 AFL games, that second rounder becomes a third rounder. You can even project 2-3 years into the future, so you can keep insurance for trades that don't work out. It adds controversy and intrigue. It can be policed easily by the AFL, as they approve all trades. All fun stuff I reckon. But as I say, respect your view.

22 hours ago, Macca said:

Like others I see it as a bit of a money-making exercise but the supporters of those teams who finish 9th & 10th will embrace it ... including our members & supporters if we ever finish in those places on the ladder. 

I'd felt that the ladder has become too cumbersome with 18 teams and would have preferred dc's idea of 3 conferences groups instead.  Just the 8 teams playing finals with that system though (1st & 2nd qualify from each of the 3 groups together with the 2 next best performed teams)

Finishing in the top 6 now becomes a goal as well as the top 4 and the top 2.  The new system also alleviates the issue of the 'footy-bye' before the finals.  In the 2nd week of the finals (which used to be the first week of finals) the Thursday night game would probably be one of the qualifying finals (1st vs 4th or 2nd vs 3rd)

here's anothery from left field, macca

add 6 teams (tassie, nt, canberra.......) making 24

split into 2 national divisions each of 12

22 rounds each, so play each in div twice

top 6 in each div play off for their respective finals

bottom 2 in div 1 relegated to div 2. both div 2 grand finalists promoted to div 1

bottom 6 of div 1 have something to play for right up to round 22 (as do top 6 obviously)

 

of course it would be too radical for the money men

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

here's anothery from left field, macca

add 6 teams (tassie, nt, canberra.......) making 24

split into 2 national divisions each of 12

22 rounds each, so play each in div twice

top 6 in each div play off for their respective finals

bottom 2 in div 1 relegated to div 2. both div 2 grand finalists promoted to div 1

bottom 6 of div 1 have something to play for right up to round 22 (as do top 6 obviously)

 

of course it would be too radical for the money men

I like these. I don't think anyone will ok a decision where half the teams in the league are in a lower division and have no chance of making a grand final every year. But the division/conference thing I love. You can still schedule in Anzac day, Queens birthday and all the rest... Within divisions you can have the Blues and Pies so they play each other twice every year. We could be in that one too as we have history with the Pies. You put the interstate sides in divisions with each other. Possibly even Eagles, Freo, Adelaide and Port in one division. Then GWS/GC/Sydney and Brisbane in another... Love it.

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

here's anothery from left field, macca

add 6 teams (tassie, nt, canberra.......) making 24

split into 2 national divisions each of 12

22 rounds each, so play each in div twice

top 6 in each div play off for their respective finals

bottom 2 in div 1 relegated to div 2. both div 2 grand finalists promoted to div 1

bottom 6 of div 1 have something to play for right up to round 22 (as do top 6 obviously)

 

of course it would be too radical for the money men

The standard of footy would drop with so many teams dc ... unless one of the divisions was the superior division as you've suggested but ... we're still left with an inferior 2nd division with a greater proportion of inferior players.  If we've got 120 good players running around right now then that number of good players would be spread thin with more teams.  Nice idea though. 

I'd like to see teams out of those regions that you mentioned but the only way to do that would be expand the league (Unless a team or 3 relocates)

I prefer and still like your idea of 3 groups ... and leave the groups as they are for a prolonged period of time.  You'd already have the rivalries to begin with if the 3 groups were set up properly.  Your model would have the teams playing each other twice within the groups whilst playing every other team once outside of the groups.  Dead rubbers may be less so because of 'group-rivalry' (much like what happens in the NFL) 

In the meantime, teams could be enticed by the AFL to play more games in the less represented regions (Tassie, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, the Alice - even Ballarat & Bendigo)

We could have just the 2 wild-cards out of the 3 groups but we know the AFL are almost certainly going to bring in 2 more finalists so if that's the case, 4 wild-cards from the 3 groups could apply.

The AFL discussion and so then responses are all over the shop.

This is apparently about H&A equity.

Yet the AFL seem to be trying to solve perceived issues with late-season dead rubbers at the same time.

In respect to their proposals, punters are then rightly questioning whether this simply all comes down to cash.

If they want to expand (and dilute the quality of) the finals to ten teams, just do it. 9th and 10th join in. Simple. Expansion of finals numbers has happened many times before, and people may grizzle but they get on with it. It's this convoluted 'Wild-Card' business and how it undermines the H&A season that at heart has everyone's backs up. 

This was my proposal for an alternative finals system: Forgetting the wilder nominative aspect, it still resolves some peripheral issues and has in-built adaptability. The structural basis is a rolling first-week McIntyre extended over the entire course of the finals, with the two lowest-ranked losers eliminated each week and the ladder reordered. Can easily be expanded to 10 teams if that's what the AFL desires.

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

here's anothery from left field, macca

add 6 teams (tassie, nt, canberra.......) making 24

split into 2 national divisions each of 12

22 rounds each, so play each in div twice

top 6 in each div play off for their respective finals

bottom 2 in div 1 relegated to div 2. both div 2 grand finalists promoted to div 1

bottom 6 of div 1 have something to play for right up to round 22 (as do top 6 obviously)

 

of course it would be too radical for the money men

Daisy,

I have always liked the idea of a conference type setup.

But as soon as you go into relegation you start to lose supporters.

Why not just go for top 4 in each conference.

which makes a final 8 between them.

 

37 minutes ago, Macca said:

The standard of footy would drop with so many teams dc ... unless one of the divisions was the superior division.  If we've got 120 good players running around right now then that number of good players would be spread thin with more teams.  Nice idea though.  I'd like to see teams out of those regions that you mentioned but the only way to do that would be expand the league (Unless a team or 3 relocates)

I like and still like your idea of 3 groups ... and leave the groups as they are for a prolonged period of time.  You'd already have the rivalries to begin with if the 3 groups were set up properly.  Your model would have the teams playing each other twice within the groups whilst playing every other team once outside of the groups.  Dead rubbers may be less so because of 'group-rivalry' (much like what happens in the NFL)

We could have just the 2 wild-cards but we know the AFL are almost certainly going to bring in 2 more finalists so if that's the case, 4 wild-cards from the 3 groups could apply.

my epl style division was very tongue in cheek (and yes the 2nd division becomes a level below the 1st division but is still a national division) 

whilst it solves many problems, existing teams ( and their stakeholders) would never agree to being shifted to a 2nd division. Imagine if one or more of the big 4 ended up being contenders for 2nd division at creation time). And in truth it does create a few new problems esp in draft, trading, salary cap areas.

35 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Daisy,

I have always liked the idea of a conference type setup.

But as soon as you go into relegation you start to lose supporters.

Why not just go for top 4 in each conference.

which makes a final 8 between them.

 

relegation just gives the bottom sides in the top division a reason to play out the season. the relegation/promotion in the epl creates much excitement and keeps the home and away series honest to the end. but yeah, it does have other problems

Just now, daisycutter said:

my epl style division was very tongue in cheek (and yes the 2nd division becomes a level below the 1st division but is still a national division) 

whilst it solves many problems, existing teams ( and their stakeholders) would never agree to being shifted to a 2nd division. Imagine if one or more of the big 4 ended up being contenders for 2nd division at creation time). And in truth it does create a few new problems esp in draft, trading, salary cap areas.

Like a few here, I'm a big fan of the division & conference model that the NFL employs.  You're a bit of an NFL fan too so you know how well it works.  Of course, nothing can just be simply transplanted but the eyes can always be plucked out (that reads as a bit Frankensteinish)

I've been a critic of the 18 team ladder because I find it too cumbersome so I can't be too critical of the AFL's initiative ... it's not the change that I'd do but the extra 2 finalists does give incentive to those teams who might be sitting on 7 or 8 wins after 17 or 18 rounds of footy ... what we get now are way too many dead rubbers and too many teams angling at a higher draft pick number.

2 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

Nice post. I have to ask though, why is the Wild Card thing a joke? Allowing for more finals (that's what Wild Card week is, essentially)... Who does it hurt in the end? I always liked the fact that the top half of the ladder play finals. With GC and GWS being in, now it's 8/18... And I think we're missing a trick there. There's no hard and fast rule saying it HAS to be half. It could conceivably be 12/18. I realise of course it won't be. A team that loses far more games than it wins shouldn't be able to play finals. I have no idea why everyone seems so attached to the top 8. Especially as there's now more teams in the comp than there was when the final 8 was brought in. The history of the finals 8 system is very short. You have to put in the finals system that's appropriate for the amount of teams in the comp.

Absolutely agree with the scheduling thing. Eddie Everywhere I think still stamps his feet and acts like a petulant child and everyone in the league lets him have his way. That's the big area the comp needs to improve. Every person running a club should be expected to act like an adult, and part of a collective. Eddie's been a blight on the game for years, and teams like us have paid the price.

I'm not anti-Gill. I have time for anyone doing what's essentially an impossible job. I think in truth he does as much or more than can be expected for a guy who's role isn't as powerful as people think. He's not the most powerful person in the AFL. The broadcasters and club bosses have way more clout.

Good stuff tho Chris.

10 or 12 teams making finals in an 18 team comp renders most of the home and away season pointless. Just do enough to qualify then prime your players for a 5 week assault at the flag.

59 minutes ago, Macca said:

Like a few here, I'm a big fan of the division & conference model that the NFL employs.  You're a bit of an NFL fan too so you know how well it works.  Of course, nothing can just be simply transplanted but the eyes can always be plucked out (that reads as a bit Frankensteinish)

I've been a critic of the 18 team ladder because I find it too cumbersome so I can't be too critical of the AFL's initiative ... it's not the change that I'd do but the extra 2 finalists does give incentive to those teams who might be sitting on 7 or 8 wins after 17 or 18 rounds of footy ... what we get now are way too many dead rubbers and too many teams angling at a higher draft pick number.

The only problem I have with the conference system is rivals always come from the same conference - so you will never have rivals playing off in a GF and teams can't develop a rivalry based on GFs

28 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The only problem I have with the conference system is rivals always come from the same conference - so you will never have rivals playing off in a GF and teams can't develop a rivalry based on GFs

not necessarily, depends on how you handle the finals. doesn't have to be the nfl way

41 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The only problem I have with the conference system is rivals always come from the same conference - so you will never have rivals playing off in a GF and teams can't develop a rivalry based on GFs

Yeah Gonzo ... as dc said (above)

I can see the other side of the argument and for what it's worth, the extra 2 finalists wouldn't have been my choice.  However, I wanted the league to do something and I wasn't a fan of zero football in the weekend before the finals (from a continuity viewpoint)

I see the new initial 2 finals as a sort of a prelude to the major finals ... we'll get used to it (some may not) 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yeah Gonzo ... as dc said (above)

I can see the other side of the argument and for what it's worth, the extra 2 finalists wouldn't have been my choice.  However, I wanted the league to do something and I wasn't a fan of zero football in the weekend before the finals (from a continuity viewpoint)

I see the new initial 2 finals as a sort of a prelude to the major finals ... we'll get used to it (some may not)

They did have to do something - but what they've done is nothing.

They should do something about situations like Melbourne never hosting Essendon as the home game or always travelling to Geelong every year or Collingwood Essendon and Carlton playing each other twice every year (granted this has changed somewhat but it's only at the edges - they'll only play 2 of the 3 twice now instead of all 3).

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

They did have to do something - but what they've done is nothing.

They should do something about situations like Melbourne never hosting Essendon as the home game or always travelling to Geelong every year or Collingwood Essendon and Carlton playing each other twice every year (granted this has changed somewhat but it's only at the edges - they'll only play 2 of the 3 twice now instead of all 3).

If we had 3 groups a lot of those fixturing issues would dissipate (in theory) The games against those teams from outside your group could have a home, then away (the following year) component.  But it's almost certainly never going to happen that way ... the league has instead decided to add 2 more finalists so the compromised fixture will probably remain. 

So, our club needs to be super aggressive with regards to maximising our home fixtures.  We're not going to be granted any favours so PJ's initiative with the ANZAC eve game is a beauty.  We should therefore be able to strike a deal with the Bombers if we're predominately going to be playing them in the week after that ANZAC eve fixture.  Another opportunity opens up as a flow-on effect.

Works in the MLB due to an imbalance in divisions in each league (3 divisions in each league in mlb, with wildcard winner rounding it to 4) and the nfl due to the top seed getting a bye week round 1 ( wildcard rounds the teams to an even number to play while top seed gets a bye).

Now, both NFL and MLB are comprised of 32 and 30 teams respectively. Including the qualifying wildcard game in the MLB, 10 teams make the post season in the MLB (8 bracketed with one wildcard lower per league).  That is 33% of the letter mlb represented post season. The NFL have 14 teams make the post season, with 43% of teams making the post season.

The AFL already has 44% of teams qualifying for finals without the additional of the wildcard.

I think the top 8 works. If and when the number of teams in the comp expand, maybe a wildcard round is a good idea. But until then they need to leave it alone. 

 

14 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

Nice post. I have to ask though, why is the Wild Card thing a joke? Allowing for more finals (that's what Wild Card week is, essentially)... Who does it hurt in the end? I always liked the fact that the top half of the ladder play finals. With GC and GWS being in, now it's 8/18... And I think we're missing a trick there. There's no hard and fast rule saying it HAS to be half. It could conceivably be 12/18. I realise of course it won't be. A team that loses far more games than it wins shouldn't be able to play finals. I have no idea why everyone seems so attached to the top 8. Especially as there's now more teams in the comp than there was when the final 8 was brought in. The history of the finals 8 system is very short. You have to put in the finals system that's appropriate for the amount of teams in the comp.

Absolutely agree with the scheduling thing. Eddie Everywhere I think still stamps his feet and acts like a petulant child and everyone in the league lets him have his way. That's the big area the comp needs to improve. Every person running a club should be expected to act like an adult, and part of a collective. Eddie's been a blight on the game for years, and teams like us have paid the price.

I'm not anti-Gill. I have time for anyone doing what's essentially an impossible job. I think in truth he does as much or more than can be expected for a guy who's role isn't as powerful as people think. He's not the most powerful person in the AFL. The broadcasters and club bosses have way more clout.

Good stuff tho Chris.

I don't like the wildcard idea as it is far to much based on luck. I know if we finished 7th and based on 22 games of building form and consistency in order to 14 or so games and losing 8 then I would be very annoyed to then face a pot luck game against a team that didn't do those things as well just to confirm we had earned our spot in the 8. Especially if it ended up like our Geelong or Richmond game where injuries during the match play a large role and we lose the right to play finals because of it. Especially with the ramifications for sponsorship etc. 

If the finals were to expanded to 10 then so be it, you earn the right to play finals, if you win a wildcard game due to injuries to the other team, or because you come out and flatten half the other team then you haven't earn the that right. 

1 hour ago, Adzman said:

Works in the MLB due to an imbalance in divisions in each league (3 divisions in each league in mlb, with wildcard winner rounding it to 4) and the nfl due to the top seed getting a bye week round 1 ( wildcard rounds the teams to an even number to play while top seed gets a bye).

Now, both NFL and MLB are comprised of 32 and 30 teams respectively. Including the qualifying wildcard game in the MLB, 10 teams make the post season in the MLB (8 bracketed with one wildcard lower per league).  That is 33% of the letter mlb represented post season. The NFL have 14 teams make the post season, with 43% of teams making the post season.

The AFL already has 44% of teams qualifying for finals without the additional of the wildcard.

I think the top 8 works. If and when the number of teams in the comp expand, maybe a wildcard round is a good idea. But until then they need to leave it alone. 

 

I don't know about MLB but in the NFL the top 2 teams in each conference get a bye and only 12 of 32 teams make playoffs 

3 hours ago, Chris said:

I don't like the wildcard idea as it is far to much based on luck. I know if we finished 7th and based on 22 games of building form and consistency in order to 14 or so games and losing 8 then I would be very annoyed to then face a pot luck game against a team that didn't do those things as well just to confirm we had earned our spot in the 8. Especially if it ended up like our Geelong or Richmond game where injuries during the match play a large role and we lose the right to play finals because of it. Especially with the ramifications for sponsorship etc. 

If the finals were to expanded to 10 then so be it, you earn the right to play finals, if you win a wildcard game due to injuries to the other team, or because you come out and flatten half the other team then you haven't earn the that right. 

Spot on. 

10th position is around 10 wins

NOT WORTHY TO PLAY FINALS

 

The problem for 3 "conferences" is the number of interstate teams in each conference will form a bias. At the moment for example there are 4 interstate teams in the top 6 with Richmond and Geelong. With Geelongs home ground as well Richmond would be travelling all over the place to play. They would claim it was more unfair than it is now. (Mind you, Richmond supporters whinging is a small price to pay.)

41 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

The problem for 3 "conferences" is the number of interstate teams in each conference will form a bias. At the moment for example there are 4 interstate teams in the top 6 with Richmond and Geelong. With Geelongs home ground as well Richmond would be travelling all over the place to play. They would claim it was more unfair than it is now. (Mind you, Richmond supporters whinging is a small price to pay.)

Here's a rough draft ...

Group 1 ... West Coast,  Fremantle,  Sydney,  GWS,  Hawthorn,  North Melb

Group 2 ... Adelaide,  Port Adelaide,  Brisbane,  GCS,  St Kilda,  Western Bulldogs

Group 3 ... Melbourne,  Collingwood,  Carlton,  Richmond,  Essendon,  Geelong. 

As a consequence, we'd get 5 home games against the big clubs at the MCG every single season.  All the double-up blockbusters stay and all the derbies stay. 

All the teams in each group play each other twice as well as playing all the other teams in the 2 other groups once.

The winners and runners up from each group qualify for finals together with the 2 next best performed clubs from any of the 3 groups (2 x wild-cards) 

Final 8 seedings can still be based on W/L ratio & percentage. 

 

8 hours ago, Chris said:

I don't like the wildcard idea as it is far to much based on luck. I know if we finished 7th and based on 22 games of building form and consistency in order to 14 or so games and losing 8 then I would be very annoyed to then face a pot luck game against a team that didn't do those things as well just to confirm we had earned our spot in the 8.

 

Fair enough. To each their own. I think my point is that the whole sense of entitlement of "making the 8" is redundant once it's not a final 8 anymore. If you're not good enough to make the 6, then you deserve to have to work harder to get to a grand final than everyone else.

Also, there is an advantage. It's not complete pot luck. If West coast got 10th, and demons were 7th, we play at the MCG against an away team. How is that not a complete advantage?

But yeah opinions are opinions. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.