Just now, ANG13 said:

I feel sick, I am on the same page as them. 

End times ...

Can we just cut to the end game in all this where we've got some C list Yank singing Star Spangled Banner at the Grand Final. 

If they really want to fill a pre finals void then why not make it a 24 game home & away season. Even better do away with the mid season bye and make it a 25 game season. 

 

 

 

Fugazi 

From a MFC supporters view, we have finished just outside the right to play in a finals series, quite a few times.

A couple of thoughts.

Would have been great to have a look in. Too many times, having no involvement for long periods was demoralising. At least, with a play off we would have got to watch a game when we were part of the few. Hated not being in finals on a regular basis, especially when going with mates to watch non-MFC games.  

If we played in a final series before we were ready, wouldn't that make for some experience that could be built on, and therefore with more improvement, the finals prep would be familiar.

As an advocate for teams not doing well. The more capacity to have a chance to get in a finals series or at least be playing in a game where others don't play that week, I would endorse, because, experience for the team, and entertainment for that teams patrons.

 

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by kev martin

23 hours ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I did say slowly dying, and I believe it is. First and foremost league is a mugs game, very boring to watch and lacks skill (the conversion kick from the boundary being the exception but even then the ball is on sand or a plastic mould and all other play has stopped). The game plan is pretty much the same for every team. Very rarely do we see a team kick early in the tackle count, or utilise kicking for touch. It’s a game made for tv purely because of the rectangle shape field and that the teams line up in straight lines, not because of the excitement factor. I’ve now been living in Sydney for 15 years, junior participation in some areas is down with kids opting to play soccer and older rusted on fans have started to switch off due to the perceived soft state of the game after their much loved biff and cheap shots have been filtered out. A extension of this is Origin is no longer what it was in the 90’s and early 2000’s. This year they have the rolling bye which a lot of fans aren’t happy about. No they’ve never been big on live attendance but even in the workplace there isn’t anywhere near the same level of passion as there is when workmates talk about AFL. I’m not sure how we’re giving them a free kick by having a week off before finals start, we’re doing the best thing for our game, I actually like the idea. Are people going to suddenly switch onto league just to fill their sports fix? Sure some might but a lot won’t, and those that do I’m confident won’t be lost to the game for reasons I’ve already mentioned.

Hey slow down, I’ll lend you a paragraph.

I’m guessing the same group of people  who are vehemently against the wild card round also lost their marbles about the introduction of the final 5 in 1972.

It will be an exciting addition to the AFL calendar and nobody will think twice about it by year two.

Posted to trigger @Jaded No More 🤪

 

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I’m guessing the same group of people  who are vehemently against the wild card round also lost their marbles about the introduction of the final 5 in 1972.

It will be an exciting addition to the AFL calendar and nobody will think twice about it by year two.

Bit harsh on those of us born more recently than 1972 who are also vehemently against it.

"Exciting addition" does not mean good idea. In fact, that's the precise problem. It's all about appearances, stories, "narratives", "excitement". Not at all about what the competition might actually need.

At some point the AFL is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Continually shoving more and more "content" down everyone's throats until we're all sick of it.

On 7/18/2023 at 11:27 AM, Sydney_Demon said:

I like your creative thinking and nominating your opponent is an interesting approach. It seems though it's a bit of a reversion to the old McIntyre Final 8 System which was rejected because sides are not totally in charge of their own destinies and there were matches with meaningless results.

TL/DR: my proposed system – different from the McIntyre – still has major advantages over the current one in terms of integrity, fairness and marketing, with or without ‘nominations’.

I appreciate the clarity you've brought to this thread Syd and you’re somewhat right once again – my proposal does have an element of McIntyre throwback about it, but, nominations or not, would repeat the first-week formula throughout the finals series, thus eliminating the pre-prelim bye, which is my biggest bugbear: an uneven contest ether way you argue the bye/no-bye debate, one less finals game, and the league having its two best-preformed teams sidelined for a week at the most exciting and publicly-engaged time of the year.

So after week one, with two teams eliminated, the ladder is reordered according to the previously highest-placed winners through to highest-placed losers, and then 1 v 6 and 2 v 4 etc. in week 2, with the two lowest-placed losers eliminated before a 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 semi-final round. All teams then have a progressively harder path through the finals, and every team has an incremental advantage according to ladder position (including a guaranteed second chance for 1 & 2 in week one, and potentially a second). Currently, 2 has an ‘easier’ path after week one.

If they want to expand the finals to ten teams in the future, it’s easily adaptable, by adding an extra week or eliminating four teams in the first round. Moreover, as a national competition, the current system is constantly open to potential integrity issues. Firstly, the ‘second’ chance isn’t one in the true sense of the term – it’s a first chance to compete for a prelim spot. Then you have issues for 3 and 4, if for example they go on the road week one against a highly-rated opponent, before playing at ‘home’ against a 5th-6th-placed winner which didn’t travel and had an easy win.

While lower-ladder ‘positioning’ may not have occurred in the past, the fact that it has even been discussed in the media before is an integrity issue in itself. There’s a potential chance we’ll be chatting about it on here in a few weeks time, should for example the opportunity arise that we could overtake Brisbane, but then face a tough week one road-trip to Adelaide and come ‘home’ to meet say Geelong in week two, which may have had a soft assignment against a traveling an eighth-placed GWS at home. Staying in 4th playing Collingwood at home might be preferable.

I think you’re correct again in saying that the McIntyre system was in part ditched due to the potential for dead rubbers, as well as repeat fixtures. Flexible scheduling can resolve the first one, and while higher-placed teams should be given the priority for longer breaks, we still deal with that now. The second I don't see as a major problem. The past two seasons we’ve played Geelong and Brisbane in the final round and then again two weeks later (with differing results) and I doubt anyone lost interest. Admitted, back-to-back finals repeats are somewhat different.

My proposed system still has its other flaws; namely another McIntyre one, that losing teams can continue to progress through the finals without perceived merit. Think Adelaide in 1998, after we thumped them and so then booked a later tougher assignment against Friday night specialists North. My proposal will include one loser in the semis, which is a bit tough to swallow, but it's at least fairer in terms of future finals pathways, with teams better holding their ‘destiny’ in their own hands.

I think my system is way more equitable than the current one, while adding a marquee finals match (rather than a pointless ‘wild card’ round) and resolving potential integrity issues. The nominations suggestion would take that one step further (teams would be scrambling for every ladder position possible), and help to mitigate against ‘bad luck’, such as the season-long form fluctuations of opponents and untimely injuries. Plus it would be a marketer’s dream.

It at least makes for an interesting thought experiment. Which team would Melbourne have nominated in week one last year? It could well have been Brisbane, considering we had just thumped them, or Fremantle, on a long road trip. I’m sure it would have fired them up even more, or any team ‘nominated’ for that matter. Perhaps Sydney, to hopefully disadvantage a major flag competitor after round one? Or the ‘easiest’ kill in the Bulldogs, who we had just lost to?

 

Leave the game alone.

The Bont said the season was already too long prior to the extra gather round. 

If that view is any reflection of many of the players' views then surely this idea would go down like a lead balloon.

5 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I’m guessing the same group of people  who are vehemently against the wild card round also lost their marbles about the introduction of the final 5 in 1972.

It will be an exciting addition to the AFL calendar and nobody will think twice about it by year two.

No. 5 of 12, currently 8 of 18, so we're already ahead of that ratio. No-one's advocating going to 6 of 18 which is the pre-72 ratio. Frankly grouping people on the basis of some dreamed-up assumption that everyone against this just doesn't accept change is insulting and superficial. Why don't you try responding to the arguments presented rather than just taking a cheap shot. 

Top 8 stay as it is, and have a week off going in to the finals.

9-rest play a ‘lightning tank-a-thon’. Maybe a quarter each way type of thing, at same venue on same day. Just like a lightning premiership, but of course no one wants to win as they all want better draft picks! So kind of like a slow bicycle race. Would be a complete laugh and much more entertaining for the rest of us!

Maybe on to something here as it means during the regular season there is 0 incentive to tank so rounds 1-whatever are more meaningful and the joke of a fixture matters less. But unfortunately no Freo death ride either.

Lightning Tank-a-thon - you know it makes sense…..

I'm getting a little frustrated with the argument that certain things introduced would be more 'exciting' for the competition. When they first brought the sub in around 2011 the people who liked it said it was exciting and added something to the game but didn't really factor in what it meant for players and coaches.

Just this morning I was speaking with my boss about Marvel, he likes going there and thinks it's a good stadium fair enough. I said that the place is pretty flawed and that I've never been a fan of the surface and he replied "Well, I don't play on it". 

This is the kind of person that laps up whatever the AFL gives them. It's almost this self absorbed entertainment factor and it makes you feel like a nutjob for caring about the overall state of the competition and how it's played.

I do think it will happen and we will get used to it, whatever dude. 

Edited July 19, 20231 yr by layzie

The wildcard round idea might be a distraction. The Age is today reporting that the idea was discussed between the AFL Executive and club CEOs yesterday and was not well supported. However, another idea apparently was more popular. That would be a 17 round initial season where every team plays each other once. Then, the remaining rounds sees the top 6 (as they are at that point) playing each other again, the middle 6 similarly and the bottom 6 playing amongst themselves. 

I can see the attraction...and a huge problem. Who's going to want to pay TV broadcast money for meaningless games played between the bottom 6 teams? 

Nup sorry if you're not good enough to make one of the top 8 spots then bad luck. Sick of people here trying to bring americanism into our sports and comparing AFL to US sports. 

It's like the other week when Robbo was introducing the players and says our quarterback. No we don't have a quarterback in the AFL. 

Don't even get me started on the goal keep term.  

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The wildcard round idea might be a distraction. The Age is today reporting that the idea was discussed between the AFL Executive and club CEOs yesterday and was not well supported. However, another idea apparently was more popular. That would be a 17 round initial season where every team plays each other once. Then, the remaining rounds sees the top 6 (as they are at that point) playing each other again, the middle 6 similarly and the bottom 6 playing amongst themselves. 

I can see the attraction...and a huge problem. Who's going to want to pay TV broadcast money for meaningless games played between the bottom 6 teams? 

I know they're all about getting more blockbuster games between equally-matched sides, but how would this work in conjunction with Top 8, or 9 or 10? You couldn't have the whole 8 open on this basis because the higher-ranked teams in the 2nd bracket would be extremely advantaged compared to the lower-ranked teams in the 1st. Even if you had the Top 6 quarantined after 17 rounds, you could have a ridiculous situation where say the 13th team after 17 rounds gets up to 7th at season end because they get 5 games against weak opposition!!! If people are currently worried about tanking, this would encourage tanking for 7th or 13th positions as well as 18th. Much easier. 

What's wrong with the current system? You get an easier draw if you're a bottom team because your extra 6 games are against generally weaker teams. It helps with equalisation which I'm all for. We can't play 34 games a years and I think the current system works so why compromise it? Also, the current system gives you the flexibility to play 22, 23 or 24 games. The 17 round option only works with a 22 round season.   

    

Edited July 20, 20231 yr by Sydney_Demon
Typo

1 hour ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I know they're all about getting more blockbuster games between equally-matched sides, but how would this work in conjunction with Top 8, or 9 or 10? You couldn't have the whole 8 open on this basis because the higher-ranked teams in the 2nd bracket would be extremely advantaged compared to the lower-ranked teams in the 1st. Even if you had the Top 6 quarantined after 17 rounds, you could have a ridiculous situation where say the 13th team after 17 rounds gets up to 7th at season end because they get 5 games against weak opposition!!! If people are currently worried about tanking, this would encourage tanking for 7th or 13th positions as well as 18th. Much easier. 

What's wrong with the current system? You get an easier draw if you're a bottom team because your extra 6 games are against generally weaker teams. It helps with equalisation which I'm all for. We can't play 34 games a years and I think the current system works so why compromise it? Also, the current system gives you the flexibility to play 22, 23 or 24 games. The 17 round option only works with a 22 round season.   

    

The other problem with the proposal is that the last six rounds where the top teams play each other effectively removes the need for a finals series. Unless we're happy to see the same teams playing each other over and over again. (Rather like Melbourne playing Brisbane last week which was the 5th time in less than a year. It was reported somewhere that in that same time, some teams have not played each other at all.) 

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The other problem with the proposal is that the last six rounds where the top teams play each other effectively removes the need for a finals series. Unless we're happy to see the same teams playing each other over and over again. (Rather like Melbourne playing Brisbane last week which was the 5th time in less than a year. It was reported somewhere that in that same time, some teams have not played each other at all.) 

Well, surely whatever they come up with isn't going to reduce the length of the season. The rights holders aren't going to agree to that!

13 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Well, surely whatever they come up with isn't going to reduce the length of the season. The rights holders aren't going to agree to that!

Agree. But what I think will happen is that fewer people than the AFL expect will bother to attend the last 6 rounds. For the bottom six seasons, the games are totally meaningless and for the top six, I predict many people won't bother going when they know they'll see the same teams play in finals just a few weeks later. 

I’m interested to hear Patrick Dangerfield’s view on this. I’m guessing he’ll support whatever agenda the AFL is pushing. 

2 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I’m interested to hear Patrick Dangerfield’s view on this. I’m guessing he’ll support whatever agenda the AFL is pushing. 

You mean modern day hero, CEO in waiting, greatest player of all time Patrick Dangerfield right?

He requires you to call him by his full title. 

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Agree. But what I think will happen is that fewer people than the AFL expect will bother to attend the last 6 rounds. For the bottom six seasons, the games are totally meaningless and for the top six, I predict many people won't bother going when they know they'll see the same teams play in finals just a few weeks later. 

But the games won't be meaningless because they'll determine where the sides finish on the ladder. The whole reason for floating this idea is to have more meaningful games between equally-matched sides which is what the public apparently wants. I assume it's influenced by the fact that no-one wants to see uncompetitive sides like West Coast pantsed every week and basically gifting games and percentage to other sides who arecompeting for finals spots. I personally think the proposal is an over-reaction and part of the beauty of the run home is seeing unexpected results where lower teams beat their more-fancied opponents. e.g the Carlton-Port Adelaide matchup woudn't have happened last weekend.   

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The wildcard round idea might be a distraction. The Age is today reporting that the idea was discussed between the AFL Executive and club CEOs yesterday and was not well supported. However, another idea apparently was more popular. That would be a 17 round initial season where every team plays each other once. Then, the remaining rounds sees the top 6 (as they are at that point) playing each other again, the middle 6 similarly and the bottom 6 playing amongst themselves. 

I can see the attraction...and a huge problem. Who's going to want to pay TV broadcast money for meaningless games played between the bottom 6 teams? 

So essentially the bottom 6 teams are tanking to get the best possible pick. What could go wrong!