FGS_Lurker

Thanks for the feedback. Re: TV Ratings. Yeah, this is arguably the number one KPI for the AFL. Unfortunately, this data is not publicly available. Do you know anyone that works at a media agency that could get it? My guess would be that the trend in TV ratings probably follows the trends in match attendance. Hard to see why it wouldn't. At any given point in time there are always "fringe" viewers that drop out, just like there are fair-weather match-goers. Would they care if average ratings dropped? A bit but they are prob just happy having a large total audience to sell to advertisers, and expanding to an 18 team comp means they can fill a whole weekend back-to-back with footy. It doesn't suit them to have 4 or 5 games on a Saturday afternoon as the TV audience is cannibalised. Re: The draft and equalization. Yes, there are certainly other factors like investment in facilities that drive a turn-around from the "bottom-end" of a cycle but I'd rank it third after player talent and on and off-field team management/culture. For facilities, to make the critical difference, we'd have to believe that one team's list is only really 10% better or worse than another, and that facilities is what gives a team that extra edge. But I reckon the differences are still much greater than that, especially when GWS and Gold Coast had priority access to talent. But then again, Gold Coast and GWS make for an interesting experiment. Both got similar access to talent but perhaps each of them and worse/better facilities? Or does the difference relate to culture and team cohesiveness? Ablett/Hunt /Campbell Brown vs Sheedy/Folau/Callum Ward. Re: Richmond. The comment about their supporters was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Hard to believe that a supporter base would intrinsically know any better about the future success of their club than any other fan base but there is definitely something the club must have done to keep the flame alive in supporters minds. Did they have a killer marketing/CRM system? Prob having Richo and Molloy in the media helped. Not sure what else? Begs the question of how well MFC actively handled the supporter base over our period of poor performance. You'd probably say it was OK, not outstanding or anything. The trend in match attendance for MFC was reasonable despite some horrid seasons and despicable football (Figure 3 in my analysis). That many supporters are rusted on to the MCC year-in year-out helps with attendance (tho this does not necessarily help memberships). Today, we are in a much better position than North and St. Kilda I think in regards to the supporter base. And with North "bottoming out", I wouldn't be surprised if things get a bit dire down at Arden St in the next couple of years,

Long time reader, first time poster. I thought some of you might appreciate this in-depth analysis of the overall health of the AFL competition, why 2017 felt like a pretty good season overall, and why the 6 prior seasons were actually rather poor (notwithstanding individual team performances). Here's hoping 2018 is just as good (and the Dees make the top 6 at least). Footy!