Will this be Gill’s bye, bye - another bloody bye?

the clubs and supporters should demand to know now how the rolling bye caused by a nineteenth team will be handled.

A ladder full of teams with an asterisk is not good enough 

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the clubs and supporters should demand to know now how the rolling bye caused by a nineteenth team will be handled.

A ladder full of teams with an asterisk is not good enough 

also

if there is a single team bye each round that means 22 (or the new "magic" 23) byes spread over 19 teams.

therefore 3 (or 4) teams have 2 byes, whilst the other 16 (or 15) teams have one bye

they could manipulate it so extra byes for the other teams were created resulting in everyone having 2 byes, but obviously this represents a loss of a large number of games and hence loss of revenue and tv rights games

alternatively they could leave the fixture for all games post round 19 undeclared until round 19, then allocated the second byes to the bottom 3 (or 4) teams

whichever way they go it looks a bit of a mess. knowing the afl it will probably be another example of why the draw is not equally fair, and $ reasons will be triumphant over fairness 

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the clubs and supporters should demand to know now how the rolling bye caused by a nineteenth team will be handled.

A ladder full of teams with an asterisk is not good enough 

We all know which teams will receive favourable "draws" and which will not.

Imagine being the poor bugger who gets a round 1 (or even 2) bye, or for the final round or two (unless their season is well and truly  over).  A finals contender with a bye in the last round, then the pre finals bye, maybe winning a QF so having another - absolute shambles.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

also

if there is a single team bye each round that means 22 (or the new "magic" 23) byes spread over 19 teams.

therefore 3 (or 4) teams have 2 byes, whilst the other 16 (or 15) teams have one bye

they could manipulate it so extra byes for the other teams were created resulting in everyone having 2 byes, but obviously this represents a loss of a large number of games and hence loss of revenue and tv rights games

alternatively they could leave the fixture for all games post round 19 undeclared until round 19, then allocated the second byes to the bottom 3 (or 4) teams

whichever way they go it looks a bit of a mess. knowing the afl it will probably be another example of why the draw is not equally fair, and $ reasons will be triumphant over fairness 

Oh God that looks like disaster to me DC. 

Hurry up and get it started so I can visit via the spirit, drive around eating cheese and seafood all weekend before it culminates in the Dees ripping out the hearts of the locals and increasing percentage by 10-20% for the first 5 years. 🥂🧀

Edited November 19, 20222 yr by John Demonic

2 hours ago, old dee said:

Oh God that looks like disaster to me DC. 

If Gil and his “brains trust” haven’t yet seen the total iniquity of floating byes in a season they clearly haven’t followed VFL which is an absolute dogs dinner as a “support competition”!

Either move a club to Tasmania or handoff the already inequitable schedule. 

Damn, where they want to build that stadium is where I park my car for work every day. What a personal inconvenience.

I'm glad it looks like Tassie will finally get a team in the AFL and its well and truly overdue.

I share the concerns of some others with the unevenness a 19 team competition creates with the bye and and also the lack of talent to support 19 teams.

The solution IMO, is three fold.

1. Reduce list sizes to approx 35 and have clubs able to play anyone on their VFL/SANFL/WAFL teams in the seniors if they have too many injuries.

2. Bring in a 20th team. Whether one based in Northern Australia, a third team out of Perth or maybe somewhere like Canberra or Newcastle are the best potential options I'm not sure. But 20 teams would be best.

3. Two divisions, whether you want to call them premier division and secondary division or premier and national? The premier could be 12 teams where everyone plays eachother twice. Top 6 make the finals for a 4 week finals series like they had from 91-93. While national could be 8 teams where everyone plays eachother three times (21 times) meaning the AFL can do their stupid magic round with that competition. Finals for this competition can be top 4 in a three week finals series which means it would likely conclude Semi Final weekend of the Premier division.

Every year the wooden spooner of premier division is relegated while the premier from National is promoted. This could IMO be the best way to combat an uneven competition and the uncompetitiveness of some teams.

19 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

I'm glad it looks like Tassie will finally get a team in the AFL and its well and truly overdue.

I share the concerns of some others with the unevenness a 19 team competition creates with the bye and and also the lack of talent to support 19 teams.

The solution IMO, is three fold.

1. Reduce list sizes to approx 35 and have clubs able to play anyone on their VFL/SANFL/WAFL teams in the seniors if they have too many injuries.

2. Bring in a 20th team. Whether one based in Northern Australia, a third team out of Perth or maybe somewhere like Canberra or Newcastle are the best potential options I'm not sure. But 20 teams would be best.

3. Two divisions, whether you want to call them premier division and secondary division or premier and national? The premier could be 12 teams where everyone plays eachother twice. Top 6 make the finals for a 4 week finals series like they had from 91-93. While national could be 8 teams where everyone plays eachother three times (21 times) meaning the AFL can do their stupid magic round with that competition. Finals for this competition can be top 4 in a three week finals series which means it would likely conclude Semi Final weekend of the Premier division.

Every year the wooden spooner of premier division is relegated while the premier from National is promoted. This could IMO be the best way to combat an uneven competition and the uncompetitiveness of some teams.

you'r not eddie everywhere are you, mah?

joking aside, some good lateral thinking there

Bringing in a twentieth team to solve the problem of nineteen teams underscores how impractical the nineteenth team is.

Locating it in NT would be a disaster as the population of the largest city is barely 170k.

Assuming we can't get rid of a Melbourne team, Adelaide or Perth is the logical spot but watch the two existing teams in each of those cities scream about cutting into their market.

The unfortunate reality is that no one has a solution to the rolling bye that will not involve a significant change to the competition. A quick look at the VFL ladder fiasco shows what happens when teams are all over the place on numbers of games played.

Mad as Hell's idea of relegation of the 19th team is of course the mathematical solution but finance wise I just cannot see relegation working for most clubs. (Would a player be entitled to a free trade form a club that is relegated. Who funds  the minimum player payments of the team when it is relegated and for how long. Do they continue on the same stadium deals? The issues just continue.)

Edited November 20, 20222 yr by Diamond_Jim

5 hours ago, Nasher said:

Damn, where they want to build that stadium is where I park my car for work every day. What a personal inconvenience.

One of my mates has only just started parking at Mac Point after UTas kicked him out of his previous spot.

bringing in tasmania ultimately does nothing for the game's coffers

now, a 19th and a 20th team...

it's inevitable that if they bring in the thylacines then a third wa, far nq, or newcastle and surrounds 20th team is an inevitability

it won't be canberra as without that region gw$ have even less support than they currently do

5 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Locating it in NT would be a disaster as the population of the largest city is barely 170k.

 

I certainly agree with this point. If you were to have a team based in Northern Australia, they'd probably need about 3 home grounds to be commercially sustainable. 4 home games in Darwin, another 4 in Cairns and maybe 3 out of Townsville?

6 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

One of my mates has only just started parking at Mac Point after UTas kicked him out of his previous spot.

I’ve been considering trying out one of the park and ride services in Kingston (I live in the Huon) as Mac Point is burning a hole in my pocket. This might encourage me to finally do it, although obviously it’s a while away yet.

Oh for proper public transport.

I cannot see how a 19 team competition works it looks like a disaster to me on a number of levels. IMO the only way Tassie gets in is for one of the current 18 to drop out or go to Tassie. 

Edited November 21, 20222 yr by old dee

On 11/20/2022 at 10:39 PM, Nasher said:

I’ve been considering trying out one of the park and ride services in Kingston (I live in the Huon) as Mac Point is burning a hole in my pocket. This might encourage me to finally do it, although obviously it’s a while away yet.

Oh for proper public transport.

I envy you Nasher living in the Huon. A beautiful part of the world if a little cold in winter. 

On 11/20/2022 at 12:45 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

Bringing in a twentieth team to solve the problem of nineteen teams underscores how impractical the nineteenth team is.

Locating it in NT would be a disaster as the population of the largest city is barely 170k.

Assuming we can't get rid of a Melbourne team, Adelaide or Perth is the logical spot but watch the two existing teams in each of those cities scream about cutting into their market.

The unfortunate reality is that no one has a solution to the rolling bye that will not involve a significant change to the competition. A quick look at the VFL ladder fiasco shows what happens when teams are all over the place on numbers of games played.

Mad as Hell's idea of relegation of the 19th team is of course the mathematical solution but finance wise I just cannot see relegation working for most clubs. (Would a player be entitled to a free trade form a club that is relegated. Who funds  the minimum player payments of the team when it is relegated and for how long. Do they continue on the same stadium deals? The issues just continue.)

The tiny population is just one negative to a NT based team.  
Every team that plays in Darwin historically  is stuffed the following week - imagine having one with a home base there (even if shared 50/50 with the far more friendly Alice Springs climate).  Just not viable.  (Same would apply to Cairns). 

We currently have the greatest game not only in Australia but the world, but it’s not without its problems. 

Yearly and mid season rule changes.

Inconsistent umpiring.

An absolute joke of a tribunal system.

Our 2 most recent expansion teams currently a mess. During the recent trade period the trend of quality players leaving GWS continued (but yet again I’m reminded of all their draft picks, the cycle continues….)and the Suns effectively giving away their first rd draft pick due salary cap issues.

St.Kilda (enough said).

North Melbourne (see above).

I spent 8 years living in Tassie as a child, it’s where my love for the game begun and was holidaying there as recently as two weeks ago. I am 100% behind them getting their own team but it must simply be at the expense on an existing Melbourne based club (The Giants and Suns are here to stay and 2 clubs in each of WA, SA, NSW & QLD provides options). We cannot continue to dilute our product. Just as the MCG has an agreement in place to hold the GF for the next 50 odd years there must be a similar agreement in place that we must remain at 18 clubs for a similar time frame for the good of the game. 

 

 

I don't understand why they have to build a new stadium to get a team.  None of the other expansion teams had that as a requirement.  What's wrong with Blundstone Arena?  Very nice stadium.  AFL has been played there for years as well as BBL and Test matches so it's clearly AFL standard. Perfecty good stadium.

Edited February 23, 20232 yr by Orion

There are barely enough quality players to go around in the 18 team comp. Nineteen teams  would be a disaster. Every week about 50 good players dont play due to being injured. Thats two teams that 'never' play. The standard has already fallen.  A Melbourne based side  would have to relocate or fold. Let Tassie own and foot the bill. Why should the AFL keep funding these non performering clubs. Do GWS and Suns ever get audited? Theyre getting  50m in the next handout.

To me, the Tassie model always made more sense with a relocation, though I'm not surprised no team was putting their hand up for it. Hopefully, they have a really open-minded look at the format of the competition to make it work, I'm coming around to the idea of more games, but shorter, and playing potentially during the week as well, part of the issue is all of the games being bunched together always leaves the bye as an annoying challenge to deal with

I don't want to hear about this again until they mean business.