The below is copied off the AFL site,

Quote

Top six: Clubs ranked 1-6 on the 2015 ladder will have a minimum of two and maximum of three return meetings with other top six clubs. They will have a minimum of one and maximum of two return meetings with clubs ranked 7-12. They will have either no return meetings or a maximum of one return meeting with clubs ranked 13-18.

 

Has this rule/plan changed since 2015? If not, why do we get stuck playing 4 top 6 teams twice?

11 hours ago, Males said:

The below is copied off the AFL site,

Has this rule/plan changed since 2015? If not, why do we get stuck playing 4 top 6 teams twice?

Sydney finished 7th

On 11/3/2018 at 1:07 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

makes so much sense on so many fronts. The only people it might upset are the stadium owners but with less games you would probably see a 10% increase in crowds per match is my guess.

I think it will also upset supporters. How often is the word "tradition" bandied about, including on this forum? A 22 game home and away series is an inherent part of that tradition. My gut feel is that more people would be aggrieved with a 17-game "fair" fixture than purists might expect.

The 10% increase idea might be true, but it's also possible that attendances might drop because of the perceived damage to the traditional fixture. 

In short, I think tradition will outweigh integrity of the draw in the minds of the majority.

On 11/3/2018 at 4:58 PM, A F said:

The 17 game season is a [censored] idea.

I like football. The more of it, the better.

There will always be inequality in the fixturing as there will always be financial interests at play - the system now relies on it and everyone's wage is based on the broadcast rights.

Let's just continue our upward trend and build a success club. The rest will take care of itself.

Agree with everything you've said. As I've posted before, I can't recall one Premiership being won by a club where the inequity of the fixture was considered to be a significant contributing feature to that result.

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Agree with everything you've said. As I've posted before, I can't recall one Premiership being won by a club where the inequity of the fixture was considered to be a significant contributing feature to that result.

The pies won 14 of their games against the bottom 10 sides. That unequivocally assisted them to a top 4 berth and a GF spot. Sure they didn't win it but 2019 will test the pies as their draw is significantly harder.

Anyone who needs reminding of the differnecess between FTA and Foxtel ratings have a look at what happened with yesterday's ODI in Perth. On so many fronts an own goal by Cricket Australia and a reason to insist that MFC have decent FTA coverage.

"Sunday's coverage of the first One Day International (ODI) in Perth between Australia and South Africa on Foxtel's new Fox Cricket channel attracted an average audience of just 205,000 viewers across the five major cities.

To put that in perspective, Foxtel scored higher ratings in recent weeks with its coverage of Gold Coast Supercars (212,000 viewers) and an NRL test between Australia and Tonga (231,000 viewers).

The figures represent an almost fourfold drop when contrasted with last season's ODI in Perth between Australia and England on Nine – the fifth game in a series England had wrapped up early – which attracted an average audience of 956,000 viewers for the free-to-air network.

For a further comparison, the last time South Africa toured Australia for an ODI was in November 2014, with the opening game, at the time also played in Perth, attracting just over one million viewers for Nine."

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/foxtel-s-first-tilt-at-cricket-takes-massive-ratings-hit-20181105-p50e2r.html

11 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Anyone who needs reminding of the differnecess between FTA and Foxtel ratings have a look at what happened with yesterday's ODI in Perth. On so many fronts an own goal by Cricket Australia and a reason to insist that MFC have decent FTA coverage.

"Sunday's coverage of the first One Day International (ODI) in Perth between Australia and South Africa on Foxtel's new Fox Cricket channel attracted an average audience of just 205,000 viewers across the five major cities.

To put that in perspective, Foxtel scored higher ratings in recent weeks with its coverage of Gold Coast Supercars (212,000 viewers) and an NRL test between Australia and Tonga (231,000 viewers).

The figures represent an almost fourfold drop when contrasted with last season's ODI in Perth between Australia and England on Nine – the fifth game in a series England had wrapped up early – which attracted an average audience of 956,000 viewers for the free-to-air network.

For a further comparison, the last time South Africa toured Australia for an ODI was in November 2014, with the opening game, at the time also played in Perth, attracting just over one million viewers for Nine."

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/foxtel-s-first-tilt-at-cricket-takes-massive-ratings-hit-20181105-p50e2r.html

Yes but you have to take in to consideration that Australian cricket is currently [censored] and it's ripping themselves itself apart in a, one country race to the bottom. Yep, we are the harshest enforcer when it comes to punishing cheaters. Guess we win that contest, too bad it's not televised.

13 minutes ago, Dante said:

Yes but you have to take in to consideration that Australian cricket is currently [censored] and it's ripping themselves itself apart in a, one country race to the bottom. Yep, we are the harshest enforcer when it comes to punishing cheaters. Guess we win that contest, too bad it's not televised.

Point taken but the article also compares it with amongst others a dead rubber where England had already won the series.

Such a bad decision.

If you want another comparison look what has happened to cricket in England since it went behind the paywall.

Edited November 5, 20186 yr by Diamond_Jim

11 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Sydney finished 7th

My bad, was taking it from where the teams finished after the home and away season.

I like the idea of playing for 2 points against a team you play twice. Therefore the total points to be won against any team would be 4 points making the fixture fair. Then there is no issue with scheduling the blockbusters and derbies etc.

11 minutes ago, Kaiser Bill said:

I like the idea of playing for 2 points against a team you play twice. Therefore the total points to be won against any team would be 4 points making the fixture fair. Then there is no issue with scheduling the blockbusters and derbies etc.

I'm struggling to find reasons why this is a bad idea. The only extremely minor points I can think of at first blush are that (1) the ladder during the year will be all over the shop and (2) tradition. Neither of those should be reasons not to proceed with the idea.

2 hours ago, Kaiser Bill said:

I like the idea of playing for 2 points against a team you play twice. Therefore the total points to be won against any team would be 4 points making the fixture fair. Then there is no issue with scheduling the blockbusters and derbies etc.

Good theory but in practice will never, and should never, happen.

Playing for 2 points rather than 4 would devalue many of the major games each year - the two showdowns, two derby’s, Anzac Day match etc. Round 1 2025, Carlton finally knock Richmond off after 35 years of first up losses and get .... 2 points.*

Playing a Queens Birthday match for 2 points or beating Geelong at Geelong for 2 points?

The current system has many inequalities but if you want 22 games it is as good as it gets

 

* Ok so I’m not totally against this option 

Edited February 15, 20196 yr by FarNorthernD