28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i like your idea of locking in drafting positions based on ladder after 17 rounds......from an equality point of view

re your argument about there be no real disadvantage in the draw, you are really just basing it on the one year. the real effect of the draw inequality is the impact it has on the lower drawing clubs over a longer period than just one season as it impacts greatly on their revenue and membership opportunities

Regarding the draw, I was referring to the issue of who each team plays, not when and whether on free-to-air TV. I agree that the scheduling (rather than the draw per se) significantly impacts on equity. I like the idea posted by someone above that all teams have a minimum number of Friday and Saturday games on free-to-air TV. But I don't see it happening. I can fully understand why Channel 7 would not have wanted us stinking up their viewer numbers if forced to broadcast us in 2012 and 2013.

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Regarding the draw, I was referring to the issue of who each team plays, not when and whether on free-to-air TV. I agree that the scheduling (rather than the draw per se) significantly impacts on equity. I like the idea posted by someone above that all teams have a minimum number of Friday and Saturday games on free-to-air TV. But I don't see it happening. I can fully understand why Channel 7 would not have wanted us stinking up their viewer numbers if forced to broadcast us in 2012 and 2013.

re "Regarding the draw, I was referring to the issue of who each team plays, not when and whether on free-to-air TV"

i don't think you can just separate these two aspects as they often go hand in hand. and it is not just fta. it is also the day/time slot advantages. 

Cheap - i dont want us to get a flag cheaply like last years doggies win . They got to September ducking and chucking Im hoping we do it with no contreversy -  a traditional approach 

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

re "Regarding the draw, I was referring to the issue of who each team plays, not when and whether on free-to-air TV"

i don't think you can just separate these two aspects as they often go hand in hand. and it is not just fta. it is also the day/time slot advantages. 

I agree with you. Similarly, I don't think you can separate the draw from the subsequent draft order. I'd like to think the AFL would make its decisions recognising the impact each has with the other but I'm not sure they are sophisticated enough to do so.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with you. Similarly, I don't think you can separate the draw from the subsequent draft order. I'd like to think the AFL would make its decisions recognising the impact each has with the other but I'm not sure they are sophisticated enough to do so.

money trumps sophistication every time at afl house

Qualification for prime-time, free-to-air games goes as follows (in order) ...

1) Popularity

2) Success on the field

And that will never change ... the ratio can vary as one particular team (Collingwood) can be unsuccessful on the field and still get preferential treatment over teams who are slightly less popular but successful.  I'm fairly sure that Collingwood received at least 9 prime-time and 7 or 8 other free-to-air games in 2006 after going 5/17 the previous year (they tanked that year as well)

So popularity wins out most of the time.  And that makes sense too as the TV advertising dollars are all that really matters to the free-to-air networks. 

 

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Qualification for prime-time, free-to-air games goes as follows (in order) ...

1) Popularity

2) Success on the field

And that will never change ... the ratio can vary as one particular team (Collingwood) can be unsuccessful on the field and still get preferential treatment over teams who are slightly less popular but successful.  I'm fairly sure that Collingwood received at least 9 prime-time and 7 or 8 other free-to-air games in 2006 after going 5/17 the previous year (they tanked that year as well)

So popularity wins out most of the time.  And that makes sense too as the TV advertising dollars are all that really matters to the free-to-air networks. 

 

we all understand that, macca. but by continuing to march to that beat it just perpetuates the status quo and makes it harder for unpopular clubs to gain popularity. It is a very short term policy and needs a bit more nuancing and leadership (but that is just a pipe dream )

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

we all understand that, macca. but by continuing to march to that beat it just perpetuates the status quo and makes it harder for unpopular clubs to gain popularity. It is a very short term policy and needs a bit more nuancing and leadership (but that is just a pipe dream )

I'm not sure everyone does understand how it all works though dc ... I've had numerous 'discussions' with people here who can't understand why we're not on free-to-air a lot more. 

My argument has always been to win games, maximise our home game dollars and then lobby as hard as we can for as many free-to-air games as possible.  We have no divine right and we have to scrap for everything that we can get.

Other clubs, because of their 'popularity', have a much easier ride.  It's just how sport in general works.

 

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

I'm not sure everyone does understand how it all works though dc ... I've had numerous 'discussions' with people here who can't understand why we're not on free-to-air a lot more. 

My argument has always been to win games, maximise our home game dollars and then lobby as hard as we can for as many free-to-air games as possible.  We have no divine right and we have to scrap for everything that we can get.

Other clubs, because of their 'popularity', have a much easier ride.  It's just how sport in general works.

 

Your theory worked up until last year

The AFL banked on Carlscums "Popularity" last year and got burnt big time.

A crap game is always a crap game and last year a lot of Carlscum Friday and Saturday night games were switched off or not watched at all. 

The spread is wider overall this year, 

TV Stations only make profits during finals, which is why they are pushing so hard for an extra week in September. 

During the Home & Away Season the Broadcasters will break even most of the time, which is why last year they got burnt. Carlscum cost them a lot of wasted   Nights

4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Your theory worked up until last year

The AFL banked on Carlscums "Popularity" last year and got burnt big time.

A crap game is always a crap game and last year a lot of Carlscum Friday and Saturday night games were switched off or not watched at all. 

The spread is wider overall this year, 

TV Stations only make profits during finals, which is why they are pushing so hard for an extra week in September. 

During the Home & Away Season the Broadcasters will break even most of the time, which is why last year they got burnt. Carlscum cost them a lot of wasted   Nights

It's a good point you make re Carlton Wyl and I suppose old habits die hard.  The bigger Victorian clubs are usually not so unsuccessful so the template used previously can't necessarily be used going forward. 

But channel 7 would probably still be banking on at least 3 or 4 of bigger Victorian clubs being more than competitive - so those clubs may well still get preferential treatment.  The issue for channel 7 is that (right now) 6 of the top 8-10 teams are interstate teams (if we include Sydney)

My main point is that we're just not one of the bigger supported clubs (yet) so in order to even get a look in, we need to be a finals type team.  Our popularity would no doubt grow if we were consistently decent. 

All that happens and we'll get our fair share of free-to-air prime time games (but we'd still need to lobby hard - nothing is automatic)

 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's a good point you make re Carlton Wyl and I suppose old habits die hard.  The bigger Victorian clubs are usually not so unsuccessful so the template used previously can't necessarily be used going forward. 

But channel 7 would probably still be banking on at least 3 or 4 of bigger Victorian clubs being more than competitive - so those clubs may well still get preferential treatment.  The issue for channel 7 is that (right now) 6 of the top 8-10 teams are interstate teams (if we include Sydney)

My main point is that we're just not one of the bigger supported clubs (yet) so in order to even get a look in, we need to be a finals type team.  Our popularity would no doubt grow if we were consistently decent. 

All that happens and we'll get our fair share of free-to-air prime time games (but we'd still need to lobby hard - nothing is automatic)

 

The MFC is not one of the Big Vic Clubs, i agree but with sustained good results we can get there ( some clubs never will)

the old template must be thrown away. On FTA TV we rarely get to see a cracking interstate match, that is just plain stupidity. 

Richmond are another massive gamble. Yes they have huge membership numbers  but their games are often turned off. 

Young adults now have much shorter attention spans, they will switch off if it's a boring game. 

When we were kids, we kept watching regardless because it was the only game on TV. 

(Sometimes Ch7 and ABC 2 had the same game on with different commentary!!!

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The MFC is not one of the Big Vic Clubs, i agree but with sustained good results we can get there ( some clubs never will)

the old template must be thrown away. On FTA TV we rarely get to see a cracking interstate match, that is just plain stupidity. 

Richmond are another massive gamble. Yes they have huge membership numbers  but their games are often turned off. 

Young adults now have much shorter attention spans, they will switch off if it's a boring game. 

When we were kids, we kept watching regardless because it was the only game on TV. 

(Sometimes Ch7 and ABC 2 had the same game on with different commentary!!!

Yep ... good points again Wyl. 

The age demographics and their choices would vary quite a bit. 

The only thing that we can control is our own destiny ... 'losing' seasons are just fatal when we're trying to grow the numbers.  Previously we've made terrible errors but I'm very confident we're now a well run club.  To achieve 40.000 members after 10 years of crud is quite remarkable - so the potential for growth is definitely there.

I know you hate excuses but I don't know how we can consistently win games with an undersized back-up ruckman.  The lesson to be learnt is to have 1 or 2 more back-up ruckmen on the list.  I wasn't exactly calling for that to happen previously so I'm not apportioning blame.  Gawn & Spencer are a bit injury prone, all the same.

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Yep ... good points again Wyl. 

The age demographics and their choices would vary quite a bit. 

The only thing that we can control is our own destiny ... 'losing' seasons are just fatal when we're trying to grow the numbers.  Previously we've made terrible errors but I'm very confident we're now a well run club.  To achieve 40.000 members after 10 years of crud is quite remarkable - so the potential for growth is definitely there.

I know you hate excuses but I don't know how we can consistently win games with an undersized back-up ruckman.  The lesson to be learnt is to have 1 or 2 more back-up ruckmen on the list.  I wasn't exactly calling for that to happen previously so I'm not apportioning blame.  Gawn & Spencer are a bit injury prone, all the same.

Hindsight yes, but we could have kept Dunny for a year or 2 longer. O Mac is nowhere near ready for a key defensive post..

Dunny could have at least looked after the biggest player. 

This is a stupid idea but . . . there's talk here of scheduling inequities and talk here of reducing tanking incentives. Why not combine the two somehow? If lower teams are fighting for Friday night qualification for example you can be sure it won't be the admin pushing for under-performance. 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hindsight yes, but we could have kept Dunny for a year or 2 longer. O Mac is nowhere near ready for a key defensive post..

Dunny could have at least looked after the biggest player. 

We should/must recruit another KPD but it's our forward line where our bigger issues are ... we need a ready-to-go KPF (trade) as well as a fit Hogan.  We also need to recruit a decent forward/ruck (trade) to replace or ultimately replace Pedersen.  Depending on the development of King & Filipovic, we'll probably need another ruckman as well.

 

Back on topic ... the League are going to bring in 2 more finalists.  We may or may not agree with that decision but it's going to happen.