4 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Wake up Dillon you’re asleep at the wheel.

I don't think he's asleep at the wheel. More like racing down the freeway at 120kmh, dodging all the slow traffic to get to the pot of gold first. 

Very interesting thoughts and reasonings herein, both for and against. I hadn't thought of many of them (though I'm in the mildly enthusiastic camp). Thanks all.

As to its likelihood, today's Age report of the CEO mutual cuddle in Perth notes that, 'To the surprise of many, there was enthusiasm for...(it)...'. Curiously it reports the 'spectre' of 19 teams '...enthuse(d)...' the CEOs about the prospect, and '...the shot in the arm it would give the game in the final rounds.'

Notably, the article also references '...possibilities...including...re-seeding teams for the last five or six rounds.'

Doesn’t matter what the AFL do to our game we the fans will continue to lap it up. The current state of umpiring is and has been for some time extremely inconsistent. The tribunal / match review is a talking point every week. Constant rule changes and the pending expansion to a 19th team for many stretches an already thin talent pool and here we are discussing a wildcard weekend. 

5 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Nah, let’s not.  8 is enough.

maybe have some bottom 4 games to determine draft order. That would be fun!

This is a great idea. Winner gets greater probability of #1 draft pick through lottery/similar to avoid tanking.

Not a fan of the og proposal. I don’t think it’s fair to have 7-10 placed teams play potentially 2 additional games to a top 4 prelim final opponent.

4 hours ago, Gawn's Beard said:

If you were wanting to have a truly equal fixture, then:

Rounds 1-17, play everyone once

Ladder after round 17 is split into 3, Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6

Top 6 guaranteed finals, play each other once to determine top 6 order

Middle 6 play each other once, top 2 then make up final 2 spots in final 8

Bottom 6 play each other for ladder position and determine number of balls for “lottery” draft picks (picks 1-6), with highest getting more, etc. 

Means 22 games plus finals. Devil is in the detail however at least we’d have equal fixture, similar interstate travel, and avoids tanking

Wild but I like it

Have not heard that solution for the bottom 6 before but with some tweaks would work well.

Of course the big clubs would hate it (Blockbusters etc)

I'd reluctantly take an 8th vs 9th Double Secret Elimination Final, but anything below that is charity for average sides.

Stupid idea, like the "night GF" and other brain farts the AFL and their compliant media roll it out whenever it's a slow news day or, in this instance, when they want discussion diverted from how poorly the game is being administered/umpired.

This will mean whoever finishes 7 or 8 has an even less chance of winning the flag and will likely create very 1 sided games the following week in 5 v 8 and 6 v 7.

Imagine playing the 24 game regular season, then having to play another game while the other teams rest and you crack in just for the privilege to play them.... stupid

4 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Yet the W comp has a pathetic 11-game H&A season. 🙄 

Theres not enough talent for 18 AFL men’s teams currently and its been going for how long. The AFLW expanded too quickly and in the process diluted the quality of the product. AFLW was always going to work but they’ve gone about it the wrong way.

Love footy, hate the AFL. A logical oxymoron. 

9 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

Love footy, hate the AFL. A logical oxymoron. 

Exactly how I feel

once the tasmanian franchise comes in, i would love it if it was everyone plays each other once, and then the following year the home / away is flipped - an 18 game home and away season would be equitable for all, and the increased scarcity of games would make the value of them significantly more, and as such reduce the need for the likes of us, footscray, gc17, and the aints to 'sell' games in order to drive attendance

scarcity would actually be beneficial, on the whole, as opposed to increasing games, which far more likely

but the afl will never, ever do it, as it will reduce the value of the broadcast rights, which is the majority of where the money comes from in the competition

i expect it'll be a 25-round season in the not too distant future, with 22 home and away games, gil's round in adelaide, and the 'perf showcase' round, and everyone getting two byes throughout the course of the year due to there being 19 teams in the competition

while we're at it, i've love them to reduce players on field to 16 in aflm

it's ironic that aflw could actually benefit by increasing players to 18 on-field, as they - tayla and a few others aside - can't kick more than 40m and more players may actually help with ball movement

 

It is an awful idea

just rewards Mediocre teams that have lost more games than won (99% of the time) 

it’s all about $$$’s and dumbing down the Competition 

Reward the teams who make the 8

The rest go on holiday 

10 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Nope. It awards mediocrity and cheapens the achievement of making the finals. If they want to shoehorn in an extra week of football make it an entire home & away round. 

Not sure about that. At times sides in 7th or 8th can be limping into finals due to form, injury or both and a team in 9th or 10th would actually be more competitive in finals v the top 6. 

I quite like the idea. 

You can only peel away so many layers of credibility until you no longer have a decent sport

 

26 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

once the tasmanian franchise comes in, i would love it if it was everyone plays each other once, and then the following year the home / away is flipped - an 18 game home and away season would be equitable for all, and the increased scarcity of games would make the value of them significantly more, and as such reduce the need for the likes of us, footscray, gc17, and the aints to 'sell' games in order to drive attendance

scarcity would actually be beneficial, on the whole, as opposed to increasing games, which far more likely

but the afl will never, ever do it, as it will reduce the value of the broadcast rights, which is the majority of where the money comes from in the competition

i expect it'll be a 25-round season in the not too distant future, with 22 home and away games, gil's round in adelaide, and the 'perf showcase' round, and everyone getting two byes throughout the course of the year due to there being 19 teams in the competition

while we're at it, i've love them to reduce players on field to 16 in aflm

it's ironic that aflw could actually benefit by increasing players to 18 on-field, as they - tayla and a few others aside - can't kick more than 40m and more players may actually help with ball movement

 

I love the concept that every team plays each other once - it would make it a fairer fixture.

Fixture, because I expect the AFL would still like to determine the dates for hallmark games- eg Anzac Day etc. That I could live with.

Still reckon the ‘Broadcast Gods’ financial objectives could be appeased by having 24 rounds (or whatever) so they can max out their tv ratings. Football on tv every weekend etc. Surely that makes them money.
This would mean that all teams would get a couple of byes throughout the season. Chance to recover, etc. 

Finally, as mentioned by others, a week’s break before the GF, not after the final round (give half a chance for injured players to get up and recover before the big one).

Will it happen? Nah.

13 hours ago, Demonland said:

It’s only a matter of time. 

No, hate it, stop changing [censored]. Fix what’s broken. 

The main concept of the wild card it to reward the top 6 and make 7th and 8th an "also ran" in reality.

I don't think that's a terribly bad thing.

Furthermore, the weekend off between round 24 and week 1 finals is a joke IMO and needs to go. What league in the world closes down just before finals?

I hate this idea

15 minutes ago, Dee*ceiving said:

Not sure about that. At times sides in 7th or 8th can be limping into finals due to form, injury or both and a team in 9th or 10th would actually be more competitive in finals v the top 6. 

I quite like the idea. 

Fair point. Perhaps it's all in the marketing / wording of the concept then Dee*. For example it could be said that the final series is actually being reduced to six teams to enhance their credibility. Teams that then end the season in places 7-10 can play a lightning repechage game (or two) for two of them to join the top six. Something like that anyway. 

4 hours ago, tilly18 said:

This cannot be compared to the wild card system the NFL apply.

To earn a wild card entry teams need to have strong win/loss ratio over the season and miss the play offs because they were part of a highly competitive Division. 

This is just expanding the finals series and rewarding a team that finishes in the bottom half of the ladder with an opportunity to play finals.

8/18 is plenty. 10/18 does not make sense I think.

It’s the same concept in practice as the NBA PLAYOFFS 

Realistically we already have this - teams outside the top 4 are playing for wildcard entry into the ‘big leagues’ of the second weekend of the finals.  In the whole time of the AFL, only the Doggies won the thing from a wildcard slot.

• Top 9 (once we have Tassie)
• Split into 3 pools of 3
• Each team plays the 2 other teams in their pool (1 x Home and 1 x away)
• Top of each pool goes to Prelim (seeded by H&A ladder position)
• Last spot in Prelim goes to the team with the highest H&A ladder position of the teams that finish 2nd in their pool

 

13 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Nah, let’s not.  8 is enough.

maybe have some bottom 4 games to determine draft order. That would be fun!

If they insist on the “pre finals bye” (which I hate) then maybe 9-18 could play some sort of 9v10, 11v12 etc to fine tune draft positions - with the winners of each pair getting a better pick. 

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It is an awful idea

just rewards Mediocre teams that have lost more games than won (99% of the time) 

it’s all about $$$’s and dumbing down the Competition 

Reward the teams who make the 8

The rest go on holiday 

see above. 
On the other hand, it would make top 4 a priority, but 5 and 6 far better than 7 and 8 which could give added incentives. But imagine “we hope to get into the 10” in an 18 (or 😡 19) team competition. Surely falling below the middle of the ladder usually means NQR. 

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

If they insist on the “pre finals bye” (which I hate) then maybe 9-18 could play some sort of 9v10, 11v12 etc to fine tune draft positions - with the winners of each pair getting a better pick. 

see above. 
On the other hand, it would make top 4 a priority, but 5 and 6 far better than 7 and 8 which could give added incentives. But imagine “we hope to get into the 10” in an 18 (or 😡 19) team competition. Surely falling below the middle of the ladder usually means NQR. 

13 wins should be a benchmark for finals, 12 at a real stretch with a Top 8

Anything less is an average Season. Making Finals should be a hard thing to do. 
Top 10 just cheapens the whole competition