There is discussion of a 34 game season with 4-5 day breaks as the norm.

The rationale is higher media revenue.

It would allow the retention of the same/similar list numbers thus permitting rotations.

Lot to be said for it.

A few initial thoughts:

MFCSS warns me that it could lead to a long season once you become irrelevant.

Suspect you would need 20 wins to make the eight.

Is it too much of a home advantage for teams such as the Eagles.

Crows would make a fortune from 17 sellout matches and Geelong would be fine as well.

 

I actually prefer this season with only playing everyone once, Now that we are getting towards the end the race for the 8 it more exciting.

hard to do with home and away fixture and be fair, some teams would do better one year with more home games than the next etc.
So playing everyone twice would be ideal.

Imagine how excruciating it would be if we had a 34 game season in the Neeld era and trying to get through that. 

Brownlow Medal night would go for 7 hours.

 

Heres a crazy idea -  22 games and 4 weeks of finals , just as its always been and worked just fine

Edited August 22, 20204 yr by Pickett2Jackson

5 minutes ago, FritschyBusiness said:

I actually prefer this season with only playing everyone once, Now that we are getting towards the end the race for the 8 it more exciting.

More games = more money so I doubt they would go for it.

The marginal cost of an additional game is not high as the salaries etc are fixed costs.

There would be issues with stadiums running below break even but the power clubs would do well. They could charge more for 17 home games than the usual 10-11.

scarcity makes the overall product more valuable and every match is vital

17 game season would be ideal for mine

8 home games on year, 9 the next

4 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

scarcity makes the overall product more valuable and every match is vital

not to an insatiable media.

It's all about content.

34 games would be a dream for streaming services.

Remember FTA pay below 50% of the broadcast rights for around 70% of the ratings (better games)

Edited August 22, 20204 yr by Diamond_Jim

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

More games = more money so I doubt they would go for it.

The marginal cost of an additional game is not high as the salaries etc are fixed costs.

There would be issues with stadiums running below break even but the power clubs would do well. They could charge more for 17 home games than the usual 10-11.

oh 100% the AFL is a business so money will be the main factor in a decision like this. 
TV revenue is huge. 

A lot of changes will happen with more profit, one being the players will want their share too so salary caps will increase again.

More profit can also mean more available investment into building the AFLW product.

 

I'd love to watch more games of football. At least the draw will be even. I'm all for it.

I thought the 34 game idea may come up, it's out there but interesting. 

22 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Brownlow Medal night would go for 7 hours.

 

Heres a crazy idea -  22 games and 4 weeks of finals , just as its always been and worked just fine

Just as it has always been! Not a fan of history? We have won 12 flags and never in a 22 round season.

8 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

not to an insatiable media.

It's all about content.

34 games would be a dream for streaming services.

Remember FTA pay below 50% of the broadcast rights for around 70% of the ratings (better games)

yes, i understand that

but i know what i'd prefer

Dumb idea.

One of the good things to come out if this year is the 17 game season.  Every game means much more and financially clubs are far better off filling stadiums in less games than having smaller crowds at more games.

1 minute ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Dumb idea.

One of the good things to come out if this year is the 17 game season.  Every game means much more and financially clubs are far better off filling stadiums in less games than having smaller crowds at more games.

17 games = pay cuts for players and smaller lists so it's a non starter.

The power clubs drive gate attendances and this (34 game season) will mean the lesser clubs get a home game against every one of the power clubs

This may sound counter-intuitive (especially to egalitarian Aussie minds), but I don't believe a 17 or 34 game season makes the competition any more equitable as some ideal we should strive toward. Teams have runs of form, injuries, suspensions etc. - when you come up against a team and the strength of that team at the time is partially a matter of luck.

Yet, the longer a season goes obviously increases the sample size and thus a more equitable result in the end - so I believe there's some room to add a few extra matches without necessarily striving for 34 and weakening the game. It shouldn't be considered as a dichotomy. In practice, the AFL has probably hit upon the most equitable fixture in a practical sense.

Playing more games against your previous season bracket. That would be easy to expand to the top and bottom halves of the ladder (17 + 7) and would create a greater sense of formal fairness for fans, as well as accommodating more of the big-money games without sacrificing the ideal. I feel that a 24 game season plus a bye or two feels about right.   

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

There is discussion of a 34 game season with 4-5 day breaks as the norm.

The rationale is higher media revenue.

It would allow the retention of the same/similar list numbers thus permitting rotations.

Lot to be said for it.

A few initial thoughts:

MFCSS warns me that it could lead to a long season once you become irrelevant.

Suspect you would need 20 wins to make the eight.

Is it too much of a home advantage for teams such as the Eagles.

Crows would make a fortune from 17 sellout matches and Geelong would be fine as well.

 

Too long and like the Big Bash would kill the novelty and bore many.

1 minute ago, 58er said:

Too long and like the Big Bash would kill the novelty and bore many.

But what answer do you have to the now massive debt of the AFL which will increase in 2021 assuming limits on crowds until July /August?

One alternative is lower salary caps, smaller lists, no VFL and an even more contrived season where revenues are maximised by so called blockbusters plus of course teams like MFC selling games to the non footballing states..

If you can drive revenue up by around 25% by moving to 34 games it seems a lot more sensible.

Living in Victoria we think there is too much football.To an Adelaide or Eagles supporter they presently get to see their team 12 times a year at most.

By playing Mondays and Thursdays the 34 round season would not be much longer than now(eliminate the practice games and that gets you three weeks extra anyway).

 

Definitely don't think it should extend out to 34 games, that's too much. I feel like it could get out to 26-28 games with a "festival of footy" style in the middle but they need to manage it so there aren't 4 day breaks, that has clearly been an issue for teams. At the very least there shouldn't be a dependency of one team on a 4 day break and the other on 6+ day break.

I also worry about the season becoming very tough to watch if the team is awful like what Adelaide are dishing up. 

31 minutes ago, Pates said:

Definitely don't think it should extend out to 34 games, that's too much. I feel like it could get out to 26-28 games with a "festival of footy" style in the middle but they need to manage it so there aren't 4 day breaks, that has clearly been an issue for teams. At the very least there shouldn't be a dependency of one team on a 4 day break and the other on 6+ day break.

I also worry about the season becoming very tough to watch if the team is awful like what Adelaide are dishing up. 

Makes sense but MFC would be screwed by it as the TV would demand the power teams play each other twice.The AFL would want that as well as it would maximise gate revenue etc.

Of course if punters are charged another $30 per game on their membership for additional games the power clubs will love it as they make the most. Geelong and Adelaide as mentioned would be delirious.

Just getting rid of the practice games gets you to 25 games without doing anything.

Adelaide would be a lot worse with a smaller list as you couldn't even ring the changes to keep up minimum interest.

Bear in mind we had already reached the top of the media rights payments on the present system and we are now facing a downturn. To improve the dollar return change may be required.

I'd be all for it. Imagine the Crows having a 0-34 season. 

Will it help us win a premiership?

Asking for a friend.

Some years ago I wrote regarding the draw up to round 17 and the final five weeks followed by a finals season and retaining the bye before the finals. I believe it still has merit especially after this year.

Play a 17 round season and then break up into separate groups for the last five rounds. Groups to be as below to play a round robin within each grouping ie 5 rounds.

1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16;

2, 5, 8, 11., 14, 17;

3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18,

The advantages would be that there would be 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 as all teams to have something to play for.

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. it is an acceptable compromise.

To enhance this system, there should also be a similar staggered round robin series for the first three weeks of the finals. Combined the potential is awesome.

The bye and the chance for a rest and refresh for the players offers the prospect of a finals season, distinct from the H & A season and a finals series. The eight clubs to be divided into 2 groups 1,3,5,7 and 2,4,6,8 and play a round robin series to determine ladder positions at the end of the finals season. The teams that finish top in each group play off in the grand final. They will have earned it.

Finishing 1 and 2 or top 4 loses its appeal for the teams. The argument the WB benefited from the bye is correct - but don't we want the best teams to win, not just the team with least injuries at the start of the finals. Injuries can occur in the finals that will test team lists but at least they could all start even.

The trade off is enhanced interest in the final round and four matches a week for the three weeks of the finals where just winning is not enough, it's the margin of victory and its affect on percentage that counts as well. Every score could have a bearing. I would also have all four matches in the third week played at the same time so that teams can't game the system. The broadcasters would have the challenge to cover all four matches simultaneously using "round the grounds" images and reports. What a dynamic and exciting day of footy.

Introduce another bye in the week before the grand final so that both teams can be at their best The grand final would then be the ultimate match of the season.

The bye week before the GF should become awards week for the Brownlow, rising star, MVP, coaches and all other awards to be held in that week which would become an event in itself with daily functions with the Brownlow as the climax. What a celebration of footy. And then the grand final. Or use the bye week before the finals start

Why not?

7 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Brownlow Medal night would go for 7 hours.

Heres a crazy idea -  22 games and 4 weeks of finals, just as its always been and worked just fine

Ah, to be young enough to have only ever known that!

2 hours ago, ding said:

Will it help us win a premiership?

Asking for a friend.

Can't do us much harm

2 hours ago, tiers said:

Why not?

22 games = same revenue

The challenge is to grow the revenue

Your system is great/interesting   if we are looking at maintaining the momentum

Keep up the thought process... there may be a compromise

When I saw "34 games", I thought it was going to be about how just 34 games ago, we were in the finals ?