Wildcard Round

[Macca 16,903]

3 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

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

A tankathon ... in plain sight!

[monoccular 17,413]

11 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? 

The "wildcard round" could be a last ditch for 9 & 10, but it could disincentivise the battle for 8th.  As it is if you finish 9th, bye bye season, as it should be.

And 'resetting' after round 17 would, as we'll as being unfair for those who get to the top on their hard work R 1-17, making it 'easier' for 7-14 to get up further.   Are the points gained to R 17 carrying forward, or is each sextet more or less reset?  If, for example, 7th won all their R18 and beyond, and 6th playing harder teams won only a couple, would 7 leapfrog 6 or are the sextets quarantined?   

It would also be a nightmare for fans booking last minute travel and accommodation for interstate games - but I guess the big wigs will get there somehow, so what do HQ care?

Inequitable as any schedule not having every team play each other twice remains, strictly held scheduling with the top teams from each year playing each other twice and the lower half once the following year would be as close to fair as possible.  Sadly fairness is always a distant second to money at AFL HQ.

11 hours ago, dees189227 said:

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.  

Americanisation is here already - flashing lights, 'music' and other noise after goals has already hit us. Thankfully Geoff Eldesten's cheerleaders didn't last long.

[pitmaster 3,512]

The AFL has an entire department of nerds whose assignment is to come up with half-arsed ideas like this. It's just stuff. Flakey nonsense that's only remotely plausible because we all know the AFL is driven by goons at Channel Seven and Foxtel who'd turn the game entirely into a TV spectacle if they could.

 

Dismiss it with the contempt it deserves.

Edited July 20, 2023 by pitmaster

[Lord Travis 10,696]

Sounds pathetic and it's a shame they wasted time and oxygen even thinking about this. 

[ANG13 2,057]

22 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I assume it's influenced by the fact that no-one wants to see uncompetitive sides like West Coast pantsed every week

Speak for yourself I love watching West Coast getting flogged every week. It would be better if it was Essendon or Carlton though. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

48 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Sounds pathetic and it's a shame they wasted time and oxygen even thinking about this. 

I think it's a silly idea, but the various problems with the fixture as it stands requires the AFL to consider what options are available to improve it. I'm sure there are other problems but the main ones seem to be:

• trying to find equity when there are 18 (or, perhaps soon, 19) teams playing 23 games. How best to distribute the "double ups"?
• an unequal and arguably unfair distribution of games at various grounds. For example, the use of GMHBA Stadium
• scheduling games so that each team gets a similar distribution of 5-day, 6-day, 7-day and 8+ days breaks throughout the season

 

  

 

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

Just now, ANG13 said:

Speak for yourself I love watching West Coast getting flogged every week. It would be better if it was Essendon or Carlton though. 

Fair enough. Even less reason for this unnecessary & undesirable change to fixturing. Why don't they just leave it alone? If it aint broke, don't fix it! 

P.S. My West Coast comments were partly driven by the fact that unfortunately we weren't one of the sides that benefitted from geting to play them twice in 2023. Still, I can't complain too much as the sides we play(ed) twice are/were Sydney, Brisbane, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn & North Melbourne (could have ('of' for the illiterate ones out there 😀) been worse.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,541]

If they want to have a wildcard weekend I don't really care either way, no one from 7-10 is winning a flag let's be honest. If it creates more money and interest in the AFL then I guess it's good overall for the game.

In regards to the 17-6 fixture, I would hate if they play 17 games and then break into teams of 6 and only play off against those sides for spots. That is just a stupid idea and would disadvantage teams who maybe started slowly and are firing late, as say you are 7th by % then that is a huge price to pay with 6 games left.

What I would like to see is the first 17 games every team plays and then there is a bye week as the AFL works out the fixture for the remaining 6 games. Teams can then be given a weighted draw based on difficulty to ensure each team has a relatively similar draw. This bye weekend would also then coincide with the opening round of the AFLW fixture, so that there is still football on and then the women's competition will run from there and continue after the men's finals are finished.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,687]

17 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If they want to have a wildcard weekend I don't really care either way, no one from 7-10 is winning a flag let's be honest. If it creates more money and interest in the AFL then I guess it's good overall for the game.

In regards to the 17-6 fixture, I would hate if they play 17 games and then break into teams of 6 and only play off against those sides for spots. That is just a stupid idea and would disadvantage teams who maybe started slowly and are firing late, as say you are 7th by % then that is a huge price to pay with 6 games left.

What I would like to see is the first 17 games every team plays and then there is a bye week as the AFL works out the fixture for the remaining 6 games. Teams can then be given a weighted draw based on difficulty to ensure each team has a relatively similar draw. This bye weekend would also then coincide with the opening round of the AFLW fixture, so that there is still football on and then the women's competition will run from there and continue after the men's finals are finished.

 

I'm not in favour of any change where we don't know before the season starts who we play and where for the whole home and away season. (I'd also prefer to know when for all games, but I'll accept that keeping the options open for round 23 is not unreasonable.)

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,732]

Looks as though most of you are getting your wish as the CEO's provided a luke warm response to the idea.

Oh well, back to twiddling our thumbs during the pre finals bye instead of having two blockbuster games on TV and potentially getting 80,000 to the MCG for one of the games. What a silly idea that was.

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think it's a silly idea, but the various problems with the fixture as it stands requires the AFL to consider what options are available to improve it. I'm sure there are other problems but the main ones seem to be:

• trying to find equity when there are 18 (or, perhaps soon, 19) teams playing 23 games. How best to distribute the "double ups"?
• an unequal and arguably unfair distribution of games at various grounds. For example, the use of GMHBA Stadium
• scheduling games so that each team gets a similar distribution of 5-day, 6-day, 7-day and 8+ days breaks throughout the season

 

I disagree about these so-called 'problems'. The combination of the draft (priority to lower-ranked teams, compensation for free agency moves, special assistance compensation, northern academies) and inequitable draws works. Why should it be left to the draft alone? Why do we need to make the draw totally equitable? I think the distribution of the double-ups is fine because it is inequitable.   

6 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If they want to have a wildcard weekend I don't really care either way, no one from 7-10 is winning a flag let's be honest. If it creates more money and interest in the AFL then I guess it's good overall for the game.

In regards to the 17-6 fixture, I would hate if they play 17 games and then break into teams of 6 and only play off against those sides for spots. That is just a stupid idea and would disadvantage teams who maybe started slowly and are firing late, as say you are 7th by % then that is a huge price to pay with 6 games left.

What I would like to see is the first 17 games every team plays and then there is a bye week as the AFL works out the fixture for the remaining 6 games. Teams can then be given a weighted draw based on difficulty to ensure each team has a relatively similar draw. This bye weekend would also then coincide with the opening round of the AFLW fixture, so that there is still football on and then the women's competition will run from there and continue after the men's finals are finished.

Firstly, I totally disagree with your 1st paragraph. Just because something creates more money and interest doesn't make if good for the game !!!!

Secondly, regarding your 17/6 proposal there are still problems. The bye doesn't work after 17 rounds. It is mid-season because it has been negotiated with the players association to provide a mid-season break and helps the players survive a 23-game season. Further, having the 17 teams play each other once to begin with still isn't equitable because  it depends on which teams you get to play at home & which away. Then coming up with a balanced fixture for the last 6 rounds is impossible because different teams are trending in different directions and then sudden reversals of form happen. Of course you could base it entirely on ladder position which is what they do now for the whole season so why not just leave it as it is?

The reason they don't run the AFL & AFLW concurrently with the AFL Season is that the AFLW would be buried. Starting the AFLW during the AFL pre-finals bye makes sense because AFL fans will be desparate to watch some footy that weekend, there will be reduced AFL games on TV in subsequent weeks because the finals are happening, and 10 clubs won't be playing in the AFL finals so can at least transfer their loyalties temporarily to AFLW.

[Macca 16,903]

Reality is that 7th & 8th aren't needed as only a rare abberation moment will see either team even make a PF

Top 6 works so much better with just a total of 5 finals

However, the season proper would lose a lot of it's interest if only 6 teams made the finals and the supporters need to see their teams getting some finals experience and more importantly, the supporters need to be fed hope

So bringing in the wildcard card games effectively helps 5th & 6th whilst at the same time not helping 7th & 8th ... but why do we care about 7th or 8th if those teams aren't a realistic chance anyway? 

In effect the wildcard weekend would act a precurser or warm-up for the finals that matter ... same as 5th vs 8th & 6th vs 7th right now are games that effectively get rid of 2 teams who aren't a real chance

Revenue raisers, precursers and preliminary games that in effect, wet our appetites for the real stuff

[rpfc 28,248]

On 7/19/2023 at 7:47 PM, ANG13 said:

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

Be Better

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not in favour of any change where we don't know before the season starts who we play and where for the whole home and away season. (I'd also prefer to know when for all games, but I'll accept that keeping the options open for round 23 is not unreasonable.)

I'm with you. For a start it allows fans to actually plan their travel (travelling from the country, interstate trips etc.) well in advance. Round 24 of course needs to be quarantined to ensure as much as possible there are no dead matches. For me, the complete fixture should be released in advance including dates, with the only exception being precise dates for the lasr round. This of course won't happen because it's all about maximising television ratings rather than aiding the fans who actually fo to the games! 

7 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Looks as though most of you are getting your wish as the CEO's provided a luke warm response to the idea.

Oh well, back to twiddling our thumbs during the pre finals bye instead of having two blockbuster games on TV and potentially getting 80,000 to the MCG for one of the games. What a silly idea that was.

You could always watch the AFLW. So you think getting 80,000 fans to the MCG for a game between 7 &10 or 8 & 9, the winners of which will have a 1% chance of winning the premiership, overrides any questions of the integrity of the competition?

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

Reality is that 7th & 8th aren't needed as only a rare abberation moment will see either team even make a PF

Top 6 works so much better with just a total of 5 finals

However, the season proper would lose a lot of it's interest if only 6 teams made the finals and the supporters need to see their teams getting some finals experience and more importantly, the supporters need to be fed hope

So bringing in the wildcard card games effectively helps 5th & 6th whilst at the same time not helping 7th & 8th ... but why do we care about 7th or 8th if those teams aren't a realistic chance anyway? 

In effect the wildcard weekend would act a precurser or warm-up for the finals that matter ... same as 5th vs 8th & 6th vs 7th right now are games that effectively get rid of 2 teams who aren't a real chance

Revenue raisers, precursers and preliminary games that in effect, wet our appetites for the real stuff

I'm not sure why you think 5th & 6th currently have a much bigger chance than 7th & 8th. Yes, if 5th/6th is Geelong playing at GMHBA or 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7 are played between teams from different states, but not otherwise. It basically comes down to whether there's any home ground advantage. If there is none then it's the same chance between all clubs from 5 to 8. I'd even argue it's better in such circumstances to finish 8th than 6th because if you win you likely play the 4th team in a semi rather than the 3rd.

Let's be clear. A wildcard round severely disadvantages 7th & 8th and significantly helps 5th & 6th (in the latter case even compared to 1st-4th). The 5th-6th teams will get an easier EF against more-fatigued sides & likely go into a SF against 3rd/4th teams that have just had tough QF games. Even without a Wildcard I can see that worked against Melbourne last year in their Semi against Brisbane.
 

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,337]

For anyone suggesting it will be an MCG blockbuster with an 80,000 crowd it's just as likely to be GWS v Gold Coast in front of two people and a dog*. 

*if they trial this garbage I so hope it is. 

[Macca 16,903]

1 hour ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I'm not sure why you think 5th & 6th currently have a much bigger chance than 7th & 8th. Yes, if 5th/6th is Geelong playing at GMHBA or 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7 are played between teams from different states, but not otherwise. It basically comes down to whether there's any home ground advantage. If there is none then it's the same chance between all clubs from 5 to 8. I'd even argue it's better in such circumstances to finish 8th than 6th because if you win you likely play the 4th team in a semi rather than the 3rd.

Let's be clear. A wildcard round severely disadvantages 7th & 8th and significantly helps 5th & 6th (in the latter case even compared to 1st-4th). The 5th-6th teams will get an easier EF against more-fatigued sides & likely go into a SF against 3rd/4th teams that have just had tough QF games. Even without a Wildcard I can see that worked against Melbourne last year in their Semi against Brisbane.
 

So we agree

As previously stated, the wildcard games would effectively help 5th & 6th and disadvantage 7th & 8th

And right now, from an overall perspective, 5th & 6th are better performed teams than 7th & 8th and therefore better teams historically

Aberration moments aren't the norm so disregard the Bulldogs GF victory.  20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers

And that was the jist of my previous post

If we went to 6 finalists only we'd not have any (or many) teams that aren't really worthy but for the reasons I outined in thr previous post, only having 6 finalists creates other issues

So that is not going to happen (final 6)

So in historical terms as a general standard, 5th & 6th are better than 7th or 8th same as 1st & 2nd are better than 3rd & 4th same as 3rd & 4th are better than 5th & 6th

But not every time (obviously)

Edited July 21, 2023 by Macca

[Garbo 1,517]

16 hours ago, monoccular said:

The "wildcard round" could be a last ditch for 9 & 10, but it could disincentivise the battle for 8th.  As it is if you finish 9th, bye bye season, as it should be.

And 'resetting' after round 17 would, as we'll as being unfair for those who get to the top on their hard work R 1-17, making it 'easier' for 7-14 to get up further.   Are the points gained to R 17 carrying forward, or is each sextet more or less reset?  If, for example, 7th won all their R18 and beyond, and 6th playing harder teams won only a couple, would 7 leapfrog 6 or are the sextets quarantined?   

It would also be a nightmare for fans booking last minute travel and accommodation for interstate games - but I guess the big wigs will get there somehow, so what do HQ care?

Inequitable as any schedule not having every team play each other twice remains, strictly held scheduling with the top teams from each year playing each other twice and the lower half once the following year would be as close to fair as possible.  Sadly fairness is always a distant second to money at AFL HQ.

Americanisation is here already - flashing lights, 'music' and other noise after goals has already hit us. Thankfully Geoff Eldesten's cheerleaders didn't last long.

From what I’ve read you can only finish within your bracket, so even if a team in the 1-6 bracket after round 17 lost every game the lowest they can finish is 6th.

I personally don’t mind this setup as it makes the draw more equitable. It also makes every game in the 1-6 and 7-12 brackets effectively 8 points games for the remainder of the year. 

The only downsides I can see is games between teams in 13-18th bracket are pointless making their season is over sooner. And it leaves less of a mystery where each team stands come finals in the other brackets as they will have all played each other just prior.

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

4 hours ago, Macca said:

So we agree

As previously stated, the wildcard games would effectively help 5th & 6th and disadvantage 7th & 8th

And right now, from an overall perspective, 5th & 6th are better performed teams than 7th & 8th and therefore better teams historically

Aberration moments aren't the norm so disregard the Bulldogs GF victory.  20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers

And that was the jist of my previous post

If we went to 6 finalists only we'd not have any (or many) teams that aren't really worthy but for the reasons I outined in thr previous post, only having 6 finalists creates other issues

So that is not going to happen (final 6)

So in historical terms as a general standard, 5th & 6th are better than 7th or 8th same as 1st & 2nd are better than 3rd & 4th same as 3rd & 4th are better than 5th & 6th

But not every time (obviously)

Yes, 5th-6th teams are normally better than 7th-8th teams so usually you'd expect them to win but that's not the same as saying an individual team has more chance of winning frome 5th-6th positions as 7th-8th positions. The reality is that if there is no home ground advantage then you have exactly the same chance 5th vs 8th as 8th vs 5th (the same of course comparing 6th vs 7th with 7th vs 6th). Basically this is the same as Collingwood vs Melbourne at the MCG is identical 1 vs 4 or 4 vs 1 which numerous people have made on the Run Home thread.

You make a point that 20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers. Not true. At least not true in relation only to 7th & 8th. I'd argue that the only relevant period is the 23 years since the current Final 8 System came in. In that period no side has come from outside the Top 3 other than Western Bulldogs in 2016. So what evidence does that provide that 5th-6th is a cut above 7th-8th. I'd say precisely none. 

3 hours ago, Garbo said:

From what I’ve read you can only finish within your bracket, so even if a team in the 1-6 bracket after round 17 lost every game the lowest they can finish is 6th.

I personally don’t mind this setup as it makes the draw more equitable. It also makes every game in the 1-6 and 7-12 brackets effectively 8 points games for the remainder of the year. 

The only downsides I can see is games between teams in 13-18th bracket are pointless making their season is over sooner. And it leaves less of a mystery where each team stands come finals in the other brackets as they will have all played each other just prior.

Thanks for that clarification. Important information. I can see a few more downsides.

You are basically making it a 17 game season because the 7th-12th teams are competing for 2 positions that they'll find it virtually impossible to win the premiership from. After 17 rounds this season St Kilda in 6th position have a 9-8 record and a percentage of 104.3%, but more typically you would need a 10-7 record. On that basis fans of lower teams would be tuning out after about Round 10. At least now, apart from the absolute bottom teams, there's still a mathematical chance of getting Top 8 (even Top 5 or 6). Do we really want to consign teams to the rubbish heap so early in the season? Very demotivating for fans. Also, it really works against teams coming home with a big rush and playing good footy coming into the finals.

Let's look at what's going to happen post-Round 17. You'll potentially have teams in the lower reaches of the Top 6 resting players once they know they can't make Top 4. Contrary to the idea of 8-point games, for the last 2-3 rounds of the season you'll have teams not really being competitive because they know they can't drop any lower on the ladder. That compromises the whole fixture. Right now you've got teams needing to keep winning and being extremely motivated. There's about 6 or 7 games each week involving at least 1 team that's competing for finals. Instead we'll have at least 3 games every week between 13th-18th teams (and maybe even a game in the 7th-12th bracket) that are of absolutely no interest. In fact, for those tanking conspiracy theorists there's every reason to tank in the bottom bracket, you can't get higher than 13th so you might as well finish lower and get better draft picks.

And finally, this only works with 18 teams and 22 rounds.

As I've posted earlier, there's nothing wrong with the current system. Yes, its inequitable but so is the draft. Why do we need a totally equitable fixture? It's all part of equalisation. Even if we do, surely we could change the fixture to distribute the 6 second-team games more evenly. A much easier solution and then there's still the flexibility to play 23 or 24 rounds of 9 matches.

[Macca 16,903]

7 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

Yes, 5th-6th teams are normally better than 7th-8th teams so usually you'd expect them to win but that's not the same as saying an individual team has more chance of winning frome 5th-6th positions as 7th-8th positions. The reality is that if there is no home ground advantage then you have exactly the same chance 5th vs 8th as 8th vs 5th (the same of course comparing 6th vs 7th with 7th vs 6th). Basically this is the same as Collingwood vs Melbourne at the MCG is identical 1 vs 4 or 4 vs 1 which numerous people have made on the Run Home thread.

You make a point that 20+ years of the final 8 gives us a body of evidence that 7th & 8th (especially) are making up the numbers. Not true. At least not true in relation only to 7th & 8th. I'd argue that the only relevant period is the 23 years since the current Final 8 System came in. In that period no side has come from outside the Top 3 other than Western Bulldogs in 2016. So what evidence does that provide that 5th-6th is a cut above 7th-8th. I'd say precisely none.

The evidence says otherwise as just in the last 9 years alone, 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams

So what are the chances of the play-in winners when they are up against the 5th & 6th teams (that have been freshened up putting their feet up with their bye)

Rest and recuperation are huge factors in our sport

For instance, in a majority of our GF wins, we've had 2 full weekends off during the finals

If we give the 5th & 6th teams a weekend off, their winning chances increases with (a) superior personnel and (b) a weekend off's R & R

You might as well just make it a final 6 but for reasons outlined earlier, that won't be happening for a number of reasons.  Not least of all the money that can be made from 4 precurser finals

It should be remembered that for about 40 years, only a 3rd of the teams made the finals (4 from 12)

Sometimes less is better

So I'm not pro the play-in games but I wouldn't mind betting that they will happen sooner or later

[Sydney_Demon 1,175]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The evidence says otherwise as just in the last 9 years alone, 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams

So what are the chances of the play-in winners when they are up against the 5th & 6th teams (that have been freshened up putting their feet up with their bye)

Rest and recuperation are huge factors in our sport

For instance, in a majority of our GF wins, we've had 2 full weekends off during the finals

If we give the 5th & 6th teams a weekend off, their winning chances increases with (a) superior personnel and (b) a weekend off's R & R

You might as well just make it a final 6 but for reasons outlined earlier, that won't be happening for a number of reasons.  Not least of all the money that can be made from 4 precurser finals

It should be remembered that for about 40 years, only a 3rd of the teams made the finals (4 from 12)

Sometimes less is better

So I'm not pro the play-in games but I wouldn't mind betting that they will happen sooner or later

You haven't read my latest post properly. I said the 5th & 6th teams are generally better than the 7th & 8th teams  so you would expect them to win more games. I totally accept your evidence that 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams. That is because the 5th team is usually better than the 8th (which is why they finished 5th rather than 8th) and the 6th is better than 7th for the same reason. The other factor is home ground advantage.  I also differentiated it from a situation where the same teams are playing on a neutral ground and their positions are switched.

I agree with your comments about 5th & 6th teams being advantaged by the  possible inclusion of a wildcard round (in fact I made them earlier). I also agree with you sometimes less is better. I know 4 of 12 teams used to play finals which equates to 6 of 18 (and we currently have 8). We both know it won't be reverting to 6 and support leaving it at 8. 

I also agree with your last point. Clearly the AFL want it because it will be a money spinner which is their only concern. The inequity of playing 22 games to eliminate 8 out of 18 teams and have teams with losing records play finals is I'm sure nothing that's even crossed their mind. The fact that they snuck this into VFL this year for a test run (any consultation? I doubt it) shows where they're coming from.     

Edited July 21, 2023 by Sydney_Demon
typo

[Macca 16,903]

25 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

You haven't read my latest post properly. I said the 5th & 6th teams are generally better than the 7th & 8th teams  so you would expect them to win more games. I totally accept your evidence that 13 of the last 18 elimination finals have been won by the 5th or 6th teams. That is because the 5th team is usually better than the 8th (which is why they finished 5th rather than 8th) and the 6th is better than 7th for the same reason. The other factor is home ground advantage.  I also differentiated it from a situation where the same teams are playing on a neutral ground and their positions are switched.

I agree with your comments about 5th & 6th teams being advantaged by the  possible inclusion of a wildcard round (in fact I made them earlier). I also agree with you sometimes less is better. I know 4 of 12 teams used to play finals which equates to 6 of 18 (and we currently have 8). We both know it won't be reverting to 6 andsupport leaving it at 8. 

I also agree with your last point. Clearly the AFL want it because it will be a money spinner which is their only concern. The inequity of playing 22 games to eliminate 8 out of 18 teams and have teams with losing records play finals is I'm sure nothing that's even crossed their mind. The fact that they snuck this into VFL this year for a test run (any consultation? I doubt it) shows where they're coming from.     

The play-in game looks likely and as a pragmatist and realist, I've accepted that likely occurance in advance

Even though I can't really see the point of it all apart from us punters watching a few warm-up games

But if it comes in there will be a realisation (after a time) that the games are just precursers until the top 6 have sorted themselves out (IMV)

However, given the rest that the 5th & 6th teams will get, they may have a better chance of advancing further if they advance to the S/F's where they'd meet the losers of the QF's

So in summary, the winners out of a new system may well be the 5th & 6th teams

But again, we'd need a big sample size to see what eventuates

So if a team from 9th or 10th advances to the SF week, what chance have they got against a top 4 team that has had a bye and has just lost a QF? 

At the moment that could be a team like the Giants @ Collingwood (assuming we smash the Pies in a QF ... hee hee)

Edited July 21, 2023 by Macca

[BDA 22,713]

If they are really interested in making the fixture fairer why not ensure teams alternate between home and away every second year. why do we have to play Geelong and west coast at their home grounds every year. Makes no sense from a fairness standpoint 

[Macca 16,903]

2 minutes ago, BDA said:

If they are really interested in making the fixture fairer why not ensure teams alternate between home and away every second year. why do we have to play Geelong and west coast at their home grounds every year. Makes no sense from a fairness standpoint 

In some ways we are in that Saints, Doggies & North bracket of teams

Back 10 years ago I believe we played all the 8 interstate teams away ... might have been 2013.  Could have been 7 times but the Pies for instance only ever travel interstate 4 times a year.  And they never go down to Geelong

And for a long time most of our home games were against interstate teams

That's changed somewhat but we could well do with another blockbuster game/event

A few years ago we tried the opening round vs Geelong but I reckon we should try again vs Essendon (round 1) Can't be Carlton but if it's Geelong again, we run the risk of getting them at Catpark again in a return fixture

Effectively if we do that we come under the AFL's attention with 3 blockbusters in the first half of the season and they might then see us in a different light.  Worth a try at least

 

[monoccular 17,413]

33 minutes ago, BDA said:

If they are really interested in making the fixture fairer why not ensure teams alternate between home and away every second year. why do we have to play Geelong and west coast at their home grounds every year. Makes no sense from a fairness standpoint 

BDA - sorry but you are being a bit naïve.  AFL HQ have zero interest in fairness.  Only in $$$$$