AFL Conferences & Fixturing

[Catters 070911]

I have said for a while that they need to have fair fixturing.

Here's how I would do it.

Three groups with 6 teams each.

(Based on the final finishing positions of the previous season).

Group 1
1 (reigning premier)
2 (runner up)
3 (higher finishing preliminary-finalist loser)
4 (lower-finishing preliminary-finalist loser)
5(higher finishing semi- finalist loser)
6 (lower finishing semi-finalist loser)

Group 2
7 (higher finishing elimination finalist loser)
8 (lower finishing elimination finalist loser)
9
10
11
12
(based on final finishing positions on the ladder)

Group 3
(based on final finishing positions on the ladder)
13
14
15
16
17
18

Now, I would then use this to have every team play each once, and then the other five teams in their group a second time.

This would not add more weeks to the season as 17+5 =22

It would mean that Group 1 have the hardest draw, since they are playing the top five other top finals twice, whereas Group 3 have the easiest draw, as the weakest teams play each other twice.

The theory is that this should make the price of success a harder draw, and the worst teams get the easiest draw. The middle group could launch into the final, as they have a mixed draw.

For example, if the fixture was done this way this year, it would mean that WCE, Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne, Hawthorn and GWS Giants would get the hardest draw, as they should, so they have to win the big games if they want to rise to the heights again. If they are good enough, they will overcome this challenge.

I think this would make a fair fixture, because everyone knows what awaits them, and if you win the flag, you know that it will be harder to go back-to-back the next year, and if you do, you have unquestionably earnt it. It would also give hope to fans of lowly clubs that their team might get a few wins. It gives hope to fans of the second group that they have a 50/50 chance of making finals the next year.

Now, you might say that a team will tank to get an easier draw the next year. I doubt it, since they are screwing over their fans and costing themselves sponsor dollars by deliberately dropping into the next group, with a slim chance of winning the flag the next year.

But this will never be implemented by the AFL, since there are too many teams wanting favours, blockbuster games, and maximisation of profits.

So, my friends, the reason this problem will never be resolved is because there are too many parties who benefit financially from the current arrangement, and money is more important to the AFL than equality.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

For crowds, think your final against Richmond in 2017...Sure, you didn't know the G that well, but that crowd would have intimidated anyone, even successful ones (as any team reaching that far would be).

I think all teams can win any game. Sure, some have slim chances, but they still have a chance. Being at home, increases that chance a bit, and over a year might mean a low ranked team might snatch a win or two that mightn't happen on a truly neutral ground (if such a thing existed).

It was a stunning atmosphere but I actually dont think so.

Could make a better case for the QF at AO. They guys did drop their heads for 10 minutes in the 2nd QTR and gave up 5 quick goals.
At the G in the PF they were playing as well as at anytime in 2017 to me. We were just overrun by a very good side.

 

[telsor]

I have said for a while that they need to have fair fixturing.

Here's how I would do it.

Three groups with 6 teams each.

(Based on the final finishing positions of the previous season).

Group 1
1 (reigning premier)
2 (runner up)
3 (higher finishing preliminary-finalist loser)
4 (lower-finishing preliminary-finalist loser)
5(higher finishing semi- finalist loser)
6 (lower finishing semi-finalist loser)

Group 2
7 (higher finishing elimination finalist loser)
8 (lower finishing elimination finalist loser)
9
10
11
12
(based on final finishing positions on the ladder)

Group 3
(based on final finishing positions on the ladder)
13
14
15
16
17
18

Now, I would then use this to have every team play each once, and then the other five teams in their group a second time.

This would not add more weeks to the season as 17+5 =22

It would mean that Group 1 have the hardest draw, since they are playing the top five other top finals twice, whereas Group 3 have the easiest draw, as the weakest teams play each other twice.

The theory is that this should make the price of success a harder draw, and the worst teams get the easiest draw. The middle group could launch into the final, as they have a mixed draw.

For example, if the fixture was done this way this year, it would mean that WCE, Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne, Hawthorn and GWS Giants would get the hardest draw, as they should, so they have to win the big games if they want to rise to the heights again. If they are good enough, they will overcome this challenge.

I think this would make a fair fixture, because everyone knows what awaits them, and if you win the flag, you know that it will be harder to go back-to-back the next year, and if you do, you have unquestionably earnt it. It would also give hope to fans of lowly clubs that their team might get a few wins. It gives hope to fans of the second group that they have a 50/50 chance of making finals the next year.

Now, you might say that a team will tank to get an easier draw the next year. I doubt it, since they are screwing over their fans and costing themselves sponsor dollars by deliberately dropping into the next group, with a slim chance of winning the flag the next year.

But this will never be implemented by the AFL, since there are too many teams wanting favours, blockbuster games, and maximisation of profits.

So, my friends, the reason this problem will never be resolved is because there are too many parties who benefit financially from the current arrangement, and money is more important to the AFL than equality.

So the team that comes 6th gets a significantly tougher draw for the following year than the team that comes 7th? How is this 'fair'?

I do agree with you on why it would never happen though....gotta keep those derbies, etc.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Love how Vics reckon they don't get home games.

You know it's all relative, you get less away games.

Non-Vic sides experience what you experience playing us every second week.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

Only one solution fundamentally addresses 18 different playing schedules, dividing the competition into sections where each team in a section plays the same fixtures in their schedule and each section has its own table for ranking purposes.
- Its just conferences, no more Americanisation. Sections was the term used by the VFL for splitting the teams in two to decide grand finalists at the end of the 19th century, before conferences emerged in US sports.
- What if all the worst teams are in the same section? A Sectional table, combines the the performances of all teams within a section in inter-sectional games for comparing the relative performances of the sections based on the actual on field performances of the teams in each section. If a mathematically significant difference is found then sections, depending on the degree of difference, ranking, and even finals, positions could be lost.

With 18 teams playing 22 rounds, 3 sections with 6 teams in each makes perfect sense. Sectional teams play each other H&A (10 matches) and one half of each of the other sections H (6) and the other A (6), other section teams played alternate each season between H and A. A predetermined rotating sections can help to address some off field in equity, including every team playing every other team at least 5xH and 5xA every 8 seasons.

Here's how I'd do it:

Split competition into 3 sections with 6 teams each, then divide each section into 2 groups of 3 teams.



Each team plays the other teams in their section H&A, for 10 games, one group from each other section just H and the other group from each other section only A. The next season the teams from other played only H and only A swap.



The team rankings resulting from a single competition table is where fixture inequity exist, so each section has its own table.

A fourth, Sections Table, is used to assess the relative strength of the sections, the results in just inter-sectional matches for all teams in a section are combined in this table.


Finals and draft rankings are a combination of a team's section's position on the 'Sections Table' and the team's own position in their own section table: 1st team of the 1st section is ranked 1, 1st team of the 2nd section is ranked 2, 1st team of the 3rd section is ranked 3 through 3rd team of the 2nd section 8th and right down to 6th team of the 3rd section 18th. This standard ranking order could be adjusted where the 'Sections Table' shows mathematically significant differences between the sections.

That is the foundational fixture system that, for me, provides maximum seasonal fixture equity.

If you were only interested in seasonal fixture equity and, also, wanted to maximising match attendance, as AFL loves to do, you would go with sections similar to these:




But there are also off field inequities, e.g. travel, that should also be minimised. The only way to do so, to any significant degree, is preset rotation of teams in each section. Resulting in something like this:

This would allow every team to play almost all other teams 5 x home and 5 x away in an 8 season rotation, seasons 5-8 are the same except other section A and B groups H or A are reversed.

I think this is the most equitable way to structure AFL fixtures season by season. What do you think?

 

[GreaterWeStener]

How so?

Did you actually read the proposal or just react to an idea you don't agree with?

 

[scotty13]

Option 1:
Reduce the AFL to 14 teams, play 26 games (2 byes) so every team plays each other twice... h&a then given there is only 14 teams, have a top 5 finals system.

Option 2:
Conferences, but include at least 8 more sides from outside Vic, and split the conference geographically... then have conference champions with their own finals, then the winner of each conference plays for Australian Championship with a rotating GF venue (which is doable since the AFL has thrown any aspect of tradition out the window by introducing conferences!)

 

[Carringbush2010]

Option 1:
Reduce the AFL to 14 teams, play 26 games (2 byes) so every team plays each other twice... h&a then given there is only 14 teams, have a top 5 finals system.

Option 2:
Conferences, but include at least 8 more sides from outside Vic, and split the conference geographically... then have conference champions with their own finals, then the winner of each conference plays for Australian Championship with a rotating GF venue (which is doable since the AFL has thrown any aspect of tradition out the window by introducing conferences!)

Re option 2:

If you do it geographically which is of course is practical then you may as well go back to the state leagues and then have a "national" championship but the fans weren't for it when it was in place. (somewhere in the 80's - IIRC)

Re option 1:

HQ won't go for it because that's 4x 40k minimum paying members and morefold paying non members not to mention the dent to tv viewers. If it was viable to cut teams they would've done so by now.

 

[RedBullRacing]

Yes, let's have conferences. Golden State could have won another title

 

[The Blue Baggers]

Potential with a reduced season we may see conferences either 2x9 or even 3x6 ... what 9 team conference could look like ..

East
Brisbane Lions
Gold Coast
Sydney Swans
GWS Giants
Collingwood
Richmond
Hawks
Saints
Melbourne

West
WC Eagles
Fremantle
Adelaide
Pt Adelaide
Geelong
Bulldogs
Nth Melb
Essendon
Carlton

 

[Power Raid]

We should investigate an 8 team WA conference, an 8 team SA conference and 12 team VFL conference.

Every year we could have a State of Origin concept to see which conference had the bragging rights

 

[The Blue Baggers]

We should investigate an 8 team WA conference, an 8 team SA conference and 12 team VFL conference.

Every year we could have a State of Origin concept to see which conference had the bragging rights

hello 1980s , the new millennium is calling you !!

 

[Seeds]

We should investigate an 8 team WA conference, an 8 team SA conference and 12 team VFL conference.

Every year we could have a State of Origin concept to see which conference had the bragging rights

Interstate flights really arent that expensive.

 

[Seeds]

No no no. Conferences will be the death of the league.

You mean the making of it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We should investigate an 8 team WA conference, an 8 team SA conference and 12 team VFL conference.

Every year we could have a State of Origin concept to see which conference had the bragging rights

To be honest, the only way conferencing would work is to return to the state comps like it was before the vfl expanded to national. Having clubs base themselves in a conference that is not their homeland just wouldn't work.

The only problem with that is that the vfl would once again be the highest attended, tv rated and profiled league.

 

[eastfreo75]

I would introduce a Conference system just for this year.

Get 8 games away in 2 conferences

Then split it again into another 3 conferences, according to ladder position for 3 games.

That gives another 3 games and therefore 11 game season.

Final 12 teams.

1 v 12
2v 11
3 v 10
4 v 9
5 v 8
6 v 7

4 lowest losers are out

Quarter finals

Semi Finals

Grand Final

 

[mcgarnacle]

the reduced season, if there is one at all, would be a good opportunity to test the merits of a grouping system for scheduling and competition standings.

do we really need to call them conferences though? the term originated in NCAA sport - conferences are university athletic associations which aim to advance the fortune of each member by forming the collective.

fixed groups I've advocated in the past are:
Central-West: ADE - FRE - PA - WCE
VIC city: CAR - COL - MEL - RIC - STK
VIC suburban: ESS - GEE - HAW - NM - WB
North-East: BL - GC - GWS - SYD

For a shortened 8-game season, simply bring two groups together, eg Central-West & VIC City, and VIC suburban & North-East. 9 teams per group, with two competition ladders. Top 2 each group qualify for finals top 4, the remainding 4 teams are best records from either group.

If they can get another 3 or 4 matches out, then double up against the teams in their original group and have 4 separate ladders as above. Top team from each group qualifies top 4, and remaining 4 teams are best records from any group.

EDIT: may need to use rd 1 matches as a basis for forming groups for 2020

 

[rum ham]

Send every club back to their respective state leagues. VFL, SANFL, WAFL and NEAFL. There’s your conferences. Reduce team sizes to 16, squads to 30. Each club can try to live within their means. AFL to become a Champion’s League style tournament featuring the grand finalists from each state league. 8 team competition. Foxtel can buy the tv rights for every league which’ll boost the number of games they can televise every week.

 

[Walshawk]

Yes, let's have conferences. Golden State could have won another title
View attachment 777284

Spot on. This and the AFLW debacle last season shows why conferences are rubbish. They just make things more unfair. Does nothing to balance the draw.

Simply go to a 26 week season and have each team play every other three times, plus one extra derby/showdown, etc.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Spot on. This and the AFLW debacle last season shows why conferences are rubbish. They just make things more unfair. Does nothing to balance the draw.

Simply go to a 26 week season and have each team play every other three times, plus one extra derby/showdown, etc.

Thing is, GSW will have had a more common schedule to other western conference teams than any of the eastern conference teams. so comparing their performance to wester conference opponents is more fair to eastern conference teams than having one ladder.

There are many ways to implement a grouping system. It probably isn't the best format in a league such as the NBA where all teams play each other at least twice. About 37% of matches are against teams in the other NBA conference which is substantial. Each team plays each other at least twice in home and way conditions, so having separate standings is understandably an inferior method of assessing performance for qualification to finals. The schedule is still unbalanced and is determined by the division and conference of each team.

In contrast, Major League Baseball (the conferences are actually separate Leagues but it is still an example of a different grouping system for scheduling and standings) teams play teams in the other League in only 12% of matches. A large proportion of matches a team will play are against their division opponents, and only the top team in each division advance to playoffs - 3 division winners in each league. Each league has a wildcard winner as well, so 8 out of the 30 MLB teams qualify for playoffs.

The AFL already uses a grouping system to schedule the season. Like the Leagues above, it is also unbalanced so the one ladder format is not entirely ideal either. the only format one ladder standings work is where all teams play each other the same number of times.

The reason American Leagues use a grouping system is predominantly to minimise the travel burden, as well as promote regional rivalries.