2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

These are good points (although I don't believe Wildcard is the right move) but can I just fact-check the statement, "the NRL has gained ground and in fact, is starting to out-rate the AFL"? Hasn't the NRL been outrating AFL on FTA and pay-TV for many years?

Not to a great degree as far as I can work out. But the 2025 NRL GF set a benchmark in terms of eyes on the sport. I posted up a link to that ratings win by the NRL a couple of pages back

And V'landys is shouting from the rooftops about the NRL nudging ahead

State of Origin is another huge winner for the NRL so it's no surprise that the AFL are revisiting that area

The media in Melbourne ignore such subject matter (heads in the sand) but it's my belief that the AFL would have to be at least a bit concerned

Thus, the constant push from the AFL to ease congestion, have less stoppages and keep the ball in play ... by contrast, the NRL is almost constantly in play the ball mode, especially once the 6 extra tackles came into vogue

The NRL 2025 GF was almost non-stop yet in the AFL, it's not unusual to see 80 - 100 stoppages in any given game

So it's not a world market so to come 2nd in a small market (especially if the margin increases) is a worry

I hope people here aren't misreading where my allegiance lies, as I want the AFL to kick the NRL's butt

And competition is a healthy situation especially if the AFL & the NRL are up for the fight

If you want the exact information, you're going to have to do a lot of research going back and looking at the ratings over the last 10 years

Most footy fans have close to zero interest in such matters and will often just default to "I love my footy and I hate the NRL" ... my comments are not directed at those people

I'm looking at this whole situation following the money trail

Worst case scenario is that the AFL fall behind the NRL by 20%+ which in turn, would have an effect on whether Ch7 would want a sport that keeps running a poor 2nd

Right now, I reckon the margin might be 6% or 7% but that margin is growing

If the NRL can start making inroads in the United States (Las Vegas, Miami etc), where does that leave the AFL?

So the wildcard round is about the money and being in full competitive mode (in my view)

Did Dillon talk about 2 more teams having a chance at the premiership? No (and there's your answer as to why 9th & 10th are now playing finals)

23 hours ago, William said:

The AFL, apart from continuing to chase $s at the expense of quality, is I guess assuming that 9th and 10th will be close to 7th and 8th in final points and percentage. But what if 9th and 10th are, for argument’s sake, 3 games (12 points) shy of 8th and/or a significant percentage gap sits between them.

Then an elimination between these teams is unfair to say the least.

The afl is nothing about being fair, nothing about preserving the integrity and the inate differences of our game. It's just a self feeding loop from thought bubble via its a$$

In short they dont care

saw 1 poll where less that 5% of people where pro wildcard round

on insta: AFL comment god or Smth like that

Just now, beelzebub said:

The afl is nothing about being fair, nothing about preserving the integrity and the inate differences of our game. It's just a self feeding loop from thought bubble via its a$$

In short they dont care

The final straw for me in terms of AFL integrity was when Cripps got off

A blatant shirt-front (king hit) and yet they told us that he got off because of a loop-hole in the rules? But they never explained what the actual loop-hole was? Ditto for Maynard

Hundreds of prior incidents where the same thing occured resulted in suspensions, yet not for Cripps or Maynard?

Where was the loop-hole for those 100's of incidents?

They just make it up to suit themselves

For me, unless it's a good game, I just switch off

Edited yesterday at 00:341 day by Macca

22 minutes ago, Macca said:

The final straw for me in terms of AFL integrity was when Cripps got off

A blatant shirt-front (king hit) and yet they told us that he got off because of a loop-hole in the rules? But they never explained what the actual loop-hole was? Ditto for Maynard

Hundreds of prior incidents where the same thing occured resulted in suspensions, yet not for Cripps or Maynard?

Where was the loop-hole for those 100's of incidents?

They just make it up to suit themselves

For me, unless it's a good game, I just switch off

The reason Cripps was let off was something to do with being denied due process whatever that means. I am quite sure that charges can be worded to deliberately sabotage tribunal hearings by creating get out of gaol technicalities.

4 hours ago, Previously known as LITD. said:

beHi L

Great to hear from you.

I'm not sure what exactly you.mean.

Are you in favour of this new idea.

My take on it means that finishing 7 or 8 means you haven't finished.

You have to play another game to determine where you finish. While the other teams rest.

Am I right in this?

Isn't it a case of really making a final ten?

Just named differently?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but does this scheme mean after the h and a games all finals teams rest but for 7 and 8 and need to play again to see if they are actually finalists.

If this is the case I suggest that we will never see a team finishing 7 th or 8th before the WC game, win a cup

Or just as bad by sheer luck and a few cases of sever food poisoning, the tenth team in 50 years knocking off the minor premiers.

It just seems to make it harder for 7 and 8 but nobody else. Or easier if you will for the others in six and above.

Does having a final ten in a comp of 18 seem right,?

Wildcard is just a fancy name to effectively make it so.

And all through the year what would be the point of a ladder revealing only the top eight. It's inaccurate when two other teams are in the mix.

Honestly LITD I haven't liked the idea and you're probably right about it being something badged with a fancy name. I'm personally choosing to be open about it because I'm so tired of being annoyed at the league for making changes we hate, it's not easy but I'm looking for the good in it.

The question I was asking is that if we were to lose to a 10th placed team (which is very much something this club would do) yes it would be meltdown world but also if you were to do the job properly and win that game then wouldn't you have well and truly proven your credentials as a finals team?

There are flaws to it for sure. I guess the incentive to finishing 7th or 8th will be a home wildcard game so that's something. It is probably the only sport in the world where over half the teams make finals but I'm willing to see the effect in can have.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

The question I was asking is that if we were to lose to a 10th placed team (which is very much something this club would do) yes it would be meltdown world but also if you were to do the job properly and win that game then wouldn't you have well and truly proven your credentials as a finals team?

No... simply because like years gone by you've already put in the hard yards to finish in seven and eight and like the teams above you don't need further testing.

I mean one could argue for further $ that Fifth has to play 11th just because.

Why are the two bottom final two only tested.

It just means they are more fatigued, have more suspended players and injuries.

It effectively means finishing 7 and 8 under this scheme have fat chance of a flag.

And the players are playing enough imho.

If the AFL wants:

Less dead rubbers

No weeks of no footy

More games of consequence,  excitement/engagement heading into finals…

How about a wildcard 3 rounds?

23 rounds over 26 weeks

Each team gets 3 byes a season.

6 teams per week off rounds 6/7/8-13/14/15- 18-19-20.

Last 3 rounds - 21&22&23 - each win is worth 6? 7? 8? points.

Top 6 sides at rounds 21/22/23 play each other. Middle 6 play each other. Bottom 6 play each other.

First 20 rounds is all about getting as much a buffer as you can so you need wins like normal.

Last 3 rounds, there is way more to gain and lose now for probably the top 14 teams which means LESS DEAD RUBBERS outside the bottom 4. Teams could climb in or fall out of both the top 4 or 8, easier.

Teams get 1 more week of rest, there’s no weeks during the season of no footy and more rounds of consequence (which would be hectic), before the normal top 8 finals series.

AND gives teams lower on the ladder a chance to sneak in, fairly, as every team has had the same amount of rest and is playing for the same amount of points, playing against teams close to them on the ladder.

You won’t lose too many games by the 3rd bye and creates effectively 3 rounds more footy where 7 out of 9 games, every week, mean a lot.

10 hours ago, Macca said:

The AFL starting becoming Coca Cola-like decades ago. i.e. It's all about the money

The strange move was leaving a weekend free prior to the finals from 2016 onwards

And because the Bulldogs had that fairytale win in 2016, most went along with the bye weekend as a consequence

But I always thought we were giving the NRL a free hit. And now that the NRL has gained ground and in fact, is starting to out-rate the AFL, hey presto, no more weekend bye

The AFL is a business and this is a business move. Not sure anyone genuinely believes the move is to give more teams a chance at the flag.

It's all about the money, not just for the 2 extra finals but to keep the supporters engaged in the 4th part of the season proper

And also, to make sure that the AFL is in true competition mode against the NRL

The AFL vs the NRL is not a talking point but it should be

V'landys is out to win the battle

I get what you’re saying Macca but in the course of all of these changes we are cheapening / diluting our product so in the short term there may be dollars on the horizon but I believe we’re doing long term damage to the game. Expanding the competition to 19 & 20 teams also means more revenue but for how long, the cycle of certain teams stuck on the bottom continues. If they want to Americanise the competition I’m all for players being traded without their permission but we all know how that will go.

45 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I get what you’re saying Macca but in the course of all of these changes we are cheapening / diluting our product so in the short term there may be dollars on the horizon but I believe we’re doing long term damage to the game. Expanding the competition to 19 & 20 teams also means more revenue but for how long, the cycle of certain teams stuck on the bottom continues. If they want to Americanise the competition I’m all for players being traded without their permission but we all know how that will go.

Pro sports brings it's own issues ... once the money rolls in, everything is for sale. It's inevitable

As previously stated, my issue is with the crowded nature of the sport with all the congestion & stoppages. The AFL are trying to fix it but there's is a band-aid approach

I vote with my feet and my eyes and I know plenty who are the same. The AFL needs the neutrals to watch the games live or on TV & devices. Without the neutrals watching, the sport is in trouble

So it's not the die-hards or the rusted on types, it's those who can swing any which way

Another example are the high membership numbers and the very low percentage of members who attend games. If you do the maths, up to 70% to 80% are often stay-aways. For most, if not all the clubs

It's a weird question, but how do we get the majority of members to attend games?

12 hours ago, Macca said:

Pro sports brings it's own issues ... once the money rolls in, everything is for sale. It's inevitable

As previously stated, my issue is with the crowded nature of the sport with all the congestion & stoppages. The AFL are trying to fix it but there's is a band-aid approach

I vote with my feet and my eyes and I know plenty who are the same. The AFL needs the neutrals to watch the games live or on TV & devices. Without the neutrals watching, the sport is in trouble

So it's not the die-hards or the rusted on types, it's those who can swing any which way

Another example are the high membership numbers and the very low percentage of members who attend games. If you do the maths, up to 70% to 80% are often stay-aways. For most, if not all the clubs

It's a weird question, but how do we get the majority of members to attend games?

In answer to your final question, we must keep in mind that many members for all clubs don't necessarily live in proximity to where their team's games are played. In fact, the whole competition relies on membership being as geographically broad as possible, which would always mean many members physically cannot attend, even if they wish to.

Expanding the finals series to 10 teams just further rewards mediocrity. AFL sees $$$. The fans lose interest.

They should be doing the opposite and cutting finals series back down to 6 teams. Only the best teams should earn the right to compete for the premiership. It's basically impossible to see a team winning it from 9th or 10, so what's the point?

10 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Expanding the finals series to 10 teams just further rewards mediocrity. AFL sees $$$. The fans lose interest.

They should be doing the opposite and cutting finals series back down to 6 teams. Only the best teams should earn the right to compete for the premiership. It's basically impossible to see a team winning it from 9th or 10, so what's the point?

This is a key point. The AFL will disagree, but the majority of public statements since the Wildcard round was announced suggests the AFL has lost touch with what the public wants.

29 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In answer to your final question, we must keep in mind that many members for all clubs don't necessarily live in proximity to where their team's games are played. In fact, the whole competition relies on membership being as geographically broad as possible, which would always mean many members physically cannot attend, even if they wish to.

Sure, but the percentage of members who attend is still quite small

I reckon most members are happy to plough their money into clubs but attending? That's the point of difference

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This is a key point. The AFL will disagree, but the majority of public statements since the Wildcard round was announced suggests the AFL has lost touch with what the public wants.

I don’t think the public knows what it wants other than their clubs doing well and be entertained. Kneejerk Reaction is always the first horse out of the blocks when radical changes are made. The public bemoan lack of a more competitive season now complain the AFL engineering more competitive games. And what exactly do the public deep down want? Other than a more exciting games I doubt many can articulate their thoughts further than that.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by John Crow Batty