Club CEOs and league interested in return to AFLW State of Origin

[Teen Wolf]

From a few days ago:

Detailed insight into two-day AFL CEOs meeting

Tom Morris with insight into the AFL CEOs meeting.

www.sen.com.au

The prospect of representative football – such as a State of Origin competition – did not garner much support. However, a State of Origin AFLW match did have more merit.

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

www.foxsports.com.au

There was little support for the return of men’s representative football, like State of Origin, but more positivity around an AFLW Origin match.

Nicole Livingstone, 14 months ago:

AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw

Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.

www.womens.afl

"Do we eventually have a representation series?... We might have a representative series that they go on to. So there are some other ways we can look at this to build it out."

---

Before responding with the predictable "why don't they just add more rounds to the AFLW season instead", consider a few things:

1. AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh made it clear there will be more AFLW games next year, but the exact number will depend on "metrics" yet to be agreed upon.

2. AFLW State of Origin has the potential to be both the most profitable and promotable area of women's football.

3. It would also likely be played in the middle of the AFL season, during the bye rounds, when good venues and timeslots are easier to find.

---

Here are some good reasons why State of Origin no longer works for the men but are not applicable to the women:

1. Injuries to players. This doesn't hold up because (unlike the men) when the women aren't playing footy, many of them are busy with boxing, rugby, soccer, Gaelic football, basketball, netball, younameitball. Additionally, some are working jobs that require them to be occasionally run over by speeding cars and struck by lightning.

2. No good time to play it. A legit problem for the men, but there's a perfect window that lines up with the early stages of the AFLW pre-season.

3. Players are tired from a long season and aren't that keen anyway. It is true that the men are spoiled with sixth months on centre stage each year, and thus aren't that excited about one extra game of limelight. But with the AFLW season played in mostly spring and mostly (if not exclusively) at small venues, this is a great opportunity to somewhat counterbalance that deprivation of premium coverage.

4. Hard to come up with a format that works. Actually, this is barely a good reason even for the men. A good format is easy to come up with, and I will detail my suggestion below.

---

AFLW State of Origin: DOs and DON'Ts

DO play it during a/the mid-year bye round(s) of the men's season.

DON'T make it Victoria vs the rest, because that ****ing sucks.

DO allow all six states to compete individually, or at least set out a plan for the weaker states to compete in the future (in other words, maybe don't have Tasmania join until they've got their elite facilities and staff sorted for their AFL/W teams). To avoid uncompetitive matches, have two divisions with a promotion/relegation system.

DON'T be afraid of having 3 or 4 games spread over 2 weekends. The articles from the past week do say "match" (singular), but they're not direct quotes from any club or league official.

DO strive to play it at the MCG, Adelaide Oval, Optus Stadium, etc. If that results in heaps of empty seats, then at least we get a clearer picture of what the appetite is for the very best level of women's football. Have a schedule (meaning: times, venues and at least home teams for each match) that is released six months in advance.

DON'T play the games on Friday at 5pm, or head-to-head with a men's AFL match, or as curtain-raisers.

DO include the very best players from NT, Ireland, etc., but just have them play for the state of their AFLW team, for example: Orla O'Dwyer could play for Queensland, Danielle Ponter could play for SA, Cora Staunton could (ignoring retirement) play for NSW.

DON'T worry about the fact that Victoria absolutely smashed the Allies/All-Stars team in 2017 like guitars. The girls in the Big V were hyped out of their brains and playing at home, while the disengaged hotchpotch team wearing white naturally surrendered about as quickly as an ICC World XI. Give both teams the pride of their state colours to play for and if it's still a smashing, at least it won't be a hollow one.

---

AFLW State of Origin: Format

Here's how I would do it.

2024

Week One
Div 1 Qualifier: 2nd seed vs 3rd seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 1 Decider; loser relegated to Div 2 in 2025 as 4th seed)
Div 2 Qualifier: 5th seed vs 6th seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 2 Decider)

Week Two
Div 1 Decider: 1st seed vs winner of Div 1 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 1 champions and will host Div 1 Decider in 2025 as 1st seed)
Div 2 Decider: 4th seed vs winner of Div 2 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 2 champions and promoted to Div 1 in 2025 as 3rd seed)

Therefore teams earn everything (promotion; home ground; week off) over a string of years, making victory all the more meritorious and prestigious.

It's rather straightforward, but I decided to make it look more complicated and exciting with this infographic:

---

Conclusion

Summarising my unsolicited advice to the AFL: If you're gonna do it, do it somewhat properly. Otherwise, please don't even bother--just focus on the AFLW H&A season and Finals. Hopefully it's the former because, to me, it's entirely compatible with the notion of "finding ways to heavily promote AFLW" which is what club CEOs committed to last week.

Let us not forget that it was in 2015 on a winter's Sunday afternoon when a best-of-the-best game at Docklands broadcast on Channel 7 rated its **** off, which was arguably the best thing to ever happen to women's footy. It seems crazy to not be going back to that well at a time when the ramifications of viewership "metrics" have never been greater.

Post your thoughts and questions below.

 

[FoopyNerd]

I'd be so keen for it. Sitting there watching the match in 2017 was awesome even though it was a blowout. Completely agree that this would be a representation of the very best women's footy available and be great viewing of what the future could look like.

Personally, I'd love to see a full round-robin each year with QLD, VIC, WA, SA, and Allies (the remaining four regions, over time hopefully spreading them out if possible though likely keeping NSW/ACT together). I can definitely see the limitations to that being possible though.

I'll be seriously flat if the AFL comes out with a one-match format of Vic v the rest!

 

[Teen Wolf]

Personally, I'd love to see a full round-robin each year with QLD, VIC, WA, SA, and Allies (the remaining four regions, over time hopefully spreading them out if possible though likely keeping NSW/ACT together). I can definitely see the limitations to that being possible though.

I'll be seriously flat if the AFL comes out with a one-match format of Vic v the rest!

On the topic of ACT, I would just let those players pick either NSW or the state of their original AFLW team. But, crucially, make it so that choice is permanent.

I don't know what specific crime I'll commit if there's another Vic v the rest, considering that even the more closely contested men's matches of that format haven't been particularly exciting. The fact is we want to see our brave Big V travel interstate and leave behind a mangled mess of South Australian jumpers, and so on and so forth.

 

[cmndstab]

The fact is we want to see our brave Big V travel interstate and leave behind a mangled mess of South Australian jumpers, and so on and so forth.

How dare you.

I'd be up for watching this, as long as it's given the proper treatment!

 

[The Educator]

From a few days ago:

Detailed insight into two-day AFL CEOs meeting

Tom Morris with insight into the AFL CEOs meeting.

www.sen.com.au

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

www.foxsports.com.au

Nicole Livingstone, 14 months ago:

AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw

Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.

www.womens.afl

---

Before responding with the predictable "why don't they just add more rounds to the AFLW season instead", consider a few things:

1. AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh made it clear there will be more AFLW games next year, but the exact number will depend on "metrics" yet to be agreed upon.

2. AFLW State of Origin has the potential to be both the most profitable and promotable area of women's football.

3. It would also likely be played in the middle of the AFL season, during the bye rounds, when good venues and timeslots are easier to find.

---

Here are some good reasons why State of Origin no longer works for the men but are not applicable to the women:

1. Injuries to players. This doesn't hold up because (unlike the men) when the women aren't playing footy, many of them are busy with boxing, rugby, soccer, Gaelic football, basketball, netball, younameitball. Additionally, some are working jobs that require them to be occasionally run over by speeding cars and struck by lightning.

2. No good time to play it. A legit problem for the men, but there's a perfect window that lines up with the early stages of the AFLW pre-season.

3. Players are tired from a long season and aren't that keen anyway. It is true that the men are spoiled with sixth months on centre stage each year, and thus aren't that excited about one extra game of limelight. But with the AFLW season played in mostly spring and mostly (if not exclusively) at small venues, this is a great opportunity to somewhat counterbalance that deprivation of premium coverage.

4. Hard to come up with a format that works. Actually, this is barely a good reason even for the men. A good format is easy to come up with, and I will detail my suggestion below.

---

AFLW State of Origin: DOs and DON'Ts

DO play it during a/the mid-year bye round(s) of the men's season.

DON'T make it Victoria vs the rest, because that ******* sucks.

DO allow all six states to compete individually, or at least set out a plan for the weaker states to compete in the future (in other words, maybe don't have Tasmania join until they've got their elite facilities and staff sorted for their AFL/W teams). To avoid uncompetitive matches, have two divisions with a promotion/relegation system.

DON'T be afraid of having 3 or 4 games spread over 2 weekends. The articles from the past week do say "match" (singular), but they're not direct quotes from any club or league official.

DO strive to play it at the MCG, Adelaide Oval, Optus Stadium, etc. If that results in heaps of empty seats, then at least we get a clearer picture of what the appetite is for the very best level of women's football. Have a schedule (meaning: times, venues and at least home teams for each match) that is released six months in advance.

DON'T play the games on Friday at 5pm, or head-to-head with a men's AFL match, or as curtain-raisers.

DO include the very best players from NT, Ireland, etc., but just have them play for the state of their AFLW team, for example: Orla O'Dwyer could play for Queensland, Danielle Ponter could play for SA, Cora Staunton could (ignoring retirement) play for NSW.

DON'T worry about the fact that Victoria absolutely smashed the Allies/All-Stars team in 2017 like guitars. The girls in the Big V were hyped out of their brains and playing at home, while the disengaged hotchpotch team wearing white naturally surrendered about as quickly as an ICC World XI. Give both teams the pride of their state colours to play for and if it's still a smashing, at least it won't be a hollow one.

---

AFLW State of Origin: Format

Here's how I would do it.

2024

Week One
Div 1 Qualifier: 2nd seed vs 3rd seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 1 Decider; loser relegated to Div 2 in 2025 as 4th seed)
Div 2 Qualifier: 5th seed vs 6th seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 2 Decider)

Week Two
Div 1 Decider: 1st seed vs winner of Div 1 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 1 champions and will host Div 1 Decider in 2025 as 1st seed)
Div 2 Decider: 4th seed vs winner of Div 2 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 2 champions and promoted to Div 1 in 2025 as 3rd seed)

Therefore teams earn everything (promotion; home ground; week off) over a string of years, making victory all the more meritorious and prestigious.

It's rather straightforward, but I decided to make it look more complicated and exciting with this infographic:

View attachment 1750936

---

Conclusion

Summarising my unsolicited advice to the AFL: If you're gonna do it, do it somewhat properly. Otherwise, please don't even bother--just focus on the AFLW H&A season and Finals. Hopefully it's the former because, to me, it's entirely compatible with the notion of "finding ways to heavily promote AFLW" which is what club CEOs committed to last week.

Let us not forget that it was in 2015 on a winter's Sunday afternoon when a best-of-the-best game at Docklands broadcast on Channel 7 rated its **** off, which was arguably the best thing to ever happen to women's footy. It seems crazy to not be going back to that well at a time when the ramifications of viewership "metrics" have never been greater.

Post your thoughts and questions below.

Definitely would go with some variation of this.

The definite change I would make to your model is, you would have each team play the same number of games each year (whether it is one, two or three).

If it is two games, you could play 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6 with the winners' challenging up (except for the winner of 1 v 2)

An alternative time could be in February ahead of the AFL season. This would only be plausible if the AFL committed to perhaps a 3 or 4 games series with a one month camp / training.

Either way, it would be a way to pad out the salaries and lock in commitments of the best 30 players in 6 states (including a sprinkling of territorians and irish) ahead of full professionalism. 30K X 180 = $5.4M. Guess you could get away with half of that for a 2 game, 2 week prep competition mid year.

Another benefit of this would be the extra carrots dangled in front of NSW athletes making sporting choices.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The definite change I would make to your model is, you would have each team play the same number of games each year (whether it is one, two or three).

If it is two games, you could play 1 v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6 with the winners' challenging up (except for the winner of 1 v 2)

My guess is there's a small chance of 3 or 4 games per year, and no chance of them doing 6. But that aside...

In a 1v2 3v4 5v6 format, where the winner is promoted and the loser relegated, you have more closely matched teams never playing each other and bigger discrepancies. Odds are teams 2 and 3 as well as 4 and 5 never get to meet even though they could possibly produce the best contest, while teams 2 and 5 meet in the 2nd round. In my format, it's just 3 and 4 missing each other, and no real mismatches.

The other problem with that structure in a 2-week form is you would only find out the venues for the 2nd week of matches at short notice. Creates a high potential for scheduling clashes with men's sport and concerts, and it's always women's footy that loses in such circumstances.

The venues for big events like the AFL GF, NRL SoO, Ashes Tests etc, are known months (or years, or decades) in advance. Obviously not going to happen for the AFLW Grand Final (and would likely be a disaster if it was tried), so the goal of an AFLW State of Origin match/series should be to compensate for that.

The best chance it has of getting big crowds would be through 1) optimal matchups; and 2) the home teams promoting it heavily for 6 months, rather than 6 days or 6 weeks (if this isn't true then I'm not sure why the AFL has been criticised so much for the delay of this year's AFLW fixture release).

 

[Walshawk]

From a few days ago:

Detailed insight into two-day AFL CEOs meeting

Tom Morris with insight into the AFL CEOs meeting.

www.sen.com.au

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

Radical ‘17-6’ AFL fixture revamp, mid-year trade period plans discussed at CEOs meeting

www.foxsports.com.au

Nicole Livingstone, 14 months ago:

AFLW Latest News - AFL.com.au/aflw

Latest breaking AFLW news from the official website of the Australian Football League.

www.womens.afl

---

Before responding with the predictable "why don't they just add more rounds to the AFLW season instead", consider a few things:

1. AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh made it clear there will be more AFLW games next year, but the exact number will depend on "metrics" yet to be agreed upon.

2. AFLW State of Origin has the potential to be both the most profitable and promotable area of women's football.

3. It would also likely be played in the middle of the AFL season, during the bye rounds, when good venues and timeslots are easier to find.

---

Here are some good reasons why State of Origin no longer works for the men but are not applicable to the women:

1. Injuries to players. This doesn't hold up because (unlike the men) when the women aren't playing footy, many of them are busy with boxing, rugby, soccer, Gaelic football, basketball, netball, younameitball. Additionally, some are working jobs that require them to be occasionally run over by speeding cars and struck by lightning.

2. No good time to play it. A legit problem for the men, but there's a perfect window that lines up with the early stages of the AFLW pre-season.

3. Players are tired from a long season and aren't that keen anyway. It is true that the men are spoiled with sixth months on centre stage each year, and thus aren't that excited about one extra game of limelight. But with the AFLW season played in mostly spring and mostly (if not exclusively) at small venues, this is a great opportunity to somewhat counterbalance that deprivation of premium coverage.

4. Hard to come up with a format that works. Actually, this is barely a good reason even for the men. A good format is easy to come up with, and I will detail my suggestion below.

---

AFLW State of Origin: DOs and DON'Ts

DO play it during a/the mid-year bye round(s) of the men's season.

DON'T make it Victoria vs the rest, because that ******* sucks.

DO allow all six states to compete individually, or at least set out a plan for the weaker states to compete in the future (in other words, maybe don't have Tasmania join until they've got their elite facilities and staff sorted for their AFL/W teams). To avoid uncompetitive matches, have two divisions with a promotion/relegation system.

DON'T be afraid of having 3 or 4 games spread over 2 weekends. The articles from the past week do say "match" (singular), but they're not direct quotes from any club or league official.

DO strive to play it at the MCG, Adelaide Oval, Optus Stadium, etc. If that results in heaps of empty seats, then at least we get a clearer picture of what the appetite is for the very best level of women's football. Have a schedule (meaning: times, venues and at least home teams for each match) that is released six months in advance.

DON'T play the games on Friday at 5pm, or head-to-head with a men's AFL match, or as curtain-raisers.

DO include the very best players from NT, Ireland, etc., but just have them play for the state of their AFLW team, for example: Orla O'Dwyer could play for Queensland, Danielle Ponter could play for SA, Cora Staunton could (ignoring retirement) play for NSW.

DON'T worry about the fact that Victoria absolutely smashed the Allies/All-Stars team in 2017 like guitars. The girls in the Big V were hyped out of their brains and playing at home, while the disengaged hotchpotch team wearing white naturally surrendered about as quickly as an ICC World XI. Give both teams the pride of their state colours to play for and if it's still a smashing, at least it won't be a hollow one.

---

AFLW State of Origin: Format

Here's how I would do it.

2024

Week One
Div 1 Qualifier: 2nd seed vs 3rd seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 1 Decider; loser relegated to Div 2 in 2025 as 4th seed)
Div 2 Qualifier: 5th seed vs 6th seed (winner progresses to 2024 Div 2 Decider)

Week Two
Div 1 Decider: 1st seed vs winner of Div 1 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 1 champions and will host Div 1 Decider in 2025 as 1st seed)
Div 2 Decider: 4th seed vs winner of Div 2 Qualifier (winner crowned Div 2 champions and promoted to Div 1 in 2025 as 3rd seed)

Therefore teams earn everything (promotion; home ground; week off) over a string of years, making victory all the more meritorious and prestigious.

It's rather straightforward, but I decided to make it look more complicated and exciting with this infographic:

View attachment 1750936

---

Conclusion

Summarising my unsolicited advice to the AFL: If you're gonna do it, do it somewhat properly. Otherwise, please don't even bother--just focus on the AFLW H&A season and Finals. Hopefully it's the former because, to me, it's entirely compatible with the notion of "finding ways to heavily promote AFLW" which is what club CEOs committed to last week.

Let us not forget that it was in 2015 on a winter's Sunday afternoon when a best-of-the-best game at Docklands broadcast on Channel 7 rated its **** off, which was arguably the best thing to ever happen to women's footy. It seems crazy to not be going back to that well at a time when the ramifications of viewership "metrics" have never been greater.

Post your thoughts and questions below.

Good work.

Here are my dos and don’ts.

Don’t - make it too ambitious and so complicated that it will never get of the ground.

Do - start with one game, that is played at a high standard (Vic v All stars or another 50/50 split). If there is a good crowd/interest and the Vics don’t win easily, consider more teams in the future. I find AFLW hard to watch due to the low standard. The Dees v Dogs games Pre AFLW were much better to watch. The priority here for both players and fans should be an elite match.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Do - start with one game, that is played at a high standard (Vic v All stars or another 50/50 split). If there is a good crowd/interest and the Vics don’t win easily, consider more teams in the future.

There won't be sufficient interest with that format, including from the non-Vic players, and Victoria will therefore win easily. We know this because it's what happened in 2017, and then the concept consequently died immediately.

I find AFLW hard to watch due to the low standard. The Dees v Dogs games Pre AFLW were much better to watch.

The difference between the 2013-2016 exhibition games and a typical AFLW game 5+ years later is night and day. Just not in the way you think.

Anybody who has watched an example from both eras back-to-back would never make the mistake you just did.

 

[Walshawk]

There won't be sufficient interest with that format, including from the non-Vic players, and Victoria will therefore win easily. We know this because it's what happened in 2017, and then the concept consequently died immediately.


The difference between the 2013-2016 exhibition games and a typical AFLW game 5+ years later is night and day. Just not in the way you think.

Anybody who has watched an example from both eras back-to-back would never make the mistake you just did.

It is not a mistake. I understand that AFLW is much faster and there is more pressure. That is what makes it unwatchable.

What is the second strongest state? Pretty sure any game v Victoria will be one sided.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It is not a mistake. I understand that AFLW is much faster and there is more pressure. That is what makes it unwatchable.

What is the second strongest state? Pretty sure any game v Victoria will be one sided.

Clearly your knowledge and memory of the 2013-2016 exhibition games is poor, further exemplified by the fact you're unaware WA beat Victoria in 2015.

And btw the biggest mistake you've made here is thinking your appraisal of the watchability of AFLW has any relevance to this thread.

 

[Walshawk]

Clearly your knowledge and memory of the 2013-2016 exhibition games is poor, further exemplified by the fact you're unaware WA beat Victoria in 2015.

And btw the biggest mistake you've made here is thinking your appraisal of the watchability of AFLW has any relevance to this thread.

Fair enough, I guess like many who used to watch women’s football, I”ll be giving the six state SOO a miss.

 

[Teen Wolf]

"I'll be giving it a miss"... but later posting on a women's footy forum that it's "hard to watch", and then acting surprised when not greeted with universal agreement and praise.

As far as those "who used to watch women's football" go, turns out last season's AFLW grand final was the most-watched game of any domestic women's league in Australia for 2022 (much higher than anything else, including the Season Six GF earlier that year). Little bit of promotion, decent timeslot, best players, close contest... and there you have it.

---

The key to this is creating and releasing the men's AFL H&A fixture and the women's SoO fixture in unison. I can't imagine how anybody could possibly view this as too ambitious or complicated:

First weekend

Times are AEST

Second weekend

Times are AEST

That's it. I may be a genius to be able to schedule and understand all of that, but I don't think so. More likely, it's just common sense.

Perhaps it could be argued the Div 2 games are better suited to smaller venues, but if there's no men's AFL footy on in town that weekend--as I've managed in these examples--then you may as well try to fill that void properly.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

They would be silly not too.

 

[The Educator]

My guess is there's a small chance of 3 or 4 games per year, and no chance of them doing 6. But that aside...

In a 1v2 3v4 5v6 format, where the winner is promoted and the loser relegated, you have more closely matched teams never playing each other and bigger discrepancies. Odds are teams 2 and 3 as well as 4 and 5 never get to meet even though they could possibly produce the best contest, while teams 2 and 5 meet in the 2nd round. In my format, it's just 3 and 4 missing each other, and no real mismatches.

see your point particularly about teams 2 and 5 meeting in the second round.

The other problem with that structure in a 2-week form is you would only find out the venues for the 2nd week of matches at short notice. Creates a high potential for scheduling clashes with men's sport and concerts, and it's always women's footy that loses in such circumstances.

The venues for big events like the AFL GF, NRL SoO, Ashes Tests etc, are known months (or years, or decades) in advance. Obviously not going to happen for the AFLW Grand Final (and would likely be a disaster if it was tried), so the goal of an AFLW State of Origin match/series should be to compensate for that.

The best chance it has of getting big crowds would be through 1) optimal matchups; and 2) the home teams promoting it heavily for 6 months, rather than 6 days or 6 weeks (if this isn't true then I'm not sure why the AFL has been criticised so much for the delay of this year's AFLW fixture release).

Sure that's an issue as well

Beyond that, I still think your approach is "fatally" flawed given it has one team playing one game each year while the others play 2 games.

2 other models that hit all criteria (competitive balance, rotation of opponents over years, predictable venues, teams play same number of games) are

-division 1 and 2 with pro/rel between seasons
-6 team table with weighted draw (i.e. 2/5ths of a round robin)

In the latter case you would have

1st seed play 2nd and 3rd
2nd seed play 1st and 4th
3rd seed play 1st and 5th
4th seed play 2nd and 6th
5th seed play 3rd and 6th
6th seed play 4th and 5th

You could do the above with 3 rounds

i.e.

1st seed play 2nd and 3rd and 4th
2nd seed play 1st and 3rd and 5th
3rd seed play 1st and 2nd and 6th
4th seed play 1st and 5thd and 6th
5th seed play 2nd and 5th and 6th
6th seed play 3rd and 4th and 5th

 

[Teen Wolf]

Beyond that, I still think your approach is "fatally" flawed given it has one team playing one game each year while the others play 2 games.

What specifically about it doesn't work for you? If it's player freshness or the opportunity to gel together, teams 1 and 4 could just play each other in week 1 as a ramification-free match (potentially behind closed doors praccy).

But as seen in my most recent post, the window for 2x2 is perfect, whereas a lot of scheduling issues will arise with a 3rd match.

2 other models that hit all criteria (competitive balance, rotation of opponents over years, predictable venues, teams play same number of games) are

-division 1 and 2 with pro/rel between seasons
-6 team table with weighted draw (i.e. 2/5ths of a round robin)

In the latter case you would have

1st seed play 2nd and 3rd
2nd seed play 1st and 4th
3rd seed play 1st and 5th
4th seed play 2nd and 6th
5th seed play 3rd and 6th
6th seed play 4th and 5th

You could do the above with 3 rounds

i.e.

1st seed play 2nd and 3rd and 4th
2nd seed play 1st and 3rd and 5th
3rd seed play 1st and 2nd and 6th
4th seed play 1st and 5thd and 6th
5th seed play 2nd and 5th and 6th
6th seed play 3rd and 4th and 5th

The other thing best avoided is dead rubbers, where the losers of the final match can still end up as champions. Hurts TV ratings for NRL SoO, and we're also seeing a similar impact on the Ashes this week (if the series was tied 2-2, the 5th Test was going to be shown on English FTA--first time since 2005).

Only way to avoid that: Something on the line every match, regardless of other results. And winners of the final game are the champions, regardless of other results. Both things are at odds with the concept of a round robin.

 

[The Educator]

What specifically about it doesn't work for you?

The whole having a state of origin competition where 4 states play 1 game and 2 states play 2 games by design. Why would you design it like that?

If it's player freshness or the opportunity to gel together, teams 1 and 4 could just play each other in week 1 as a ramification-free match (potentially behind closed doors praccy).

"freshness or the opportunity to gel together" is a secondary factor anyway but I really don't know why you would play a game behind closed doors

But as seen in my most recent post, the window for 2x2 is perfect, whereas a lot of scheduling issues will arise with a 3rd match.

You are significantly over egging this as a factor.

The other thing best avoided is dead rubbers, where the losers of the final match can still end up as champions. Hurts TV ratings for NRL SoO, and we're also seeing a similar impact on the Ashes this week (if the series was tied 2-2, the 5th Test was going to be shown on English FTA--first time since 2005).

Only way to avoid that: Something on the line every match, regardless of other results. And winners of the final game are the champions, regardless of other results. Both things are at odds with the concept of a round robin.

There wouldn't be dead rubbers in either of the models I have suggested. They wouldn't be sudden death matches to be fair, but you couldn't possible have dead rubbers (where teams can't change their seedings for the following season) in the second game of either of the 2 game models I proposed above.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The whole having a state of origin competition where 4 states play 1 game and 2 states play 2 games by design. Why would you design it like that?

Higher-ranked teams given a round off while lower-ranked teams play to qualify for the next round... happens in a lot of sports and competitions (including AFL) for primarily logistical reasons.

You are significantly over egging this as a factor.

It's not a particularly revolutionary notion: Can't maximise viewership if games are competing with each other, or with men's fixtures, for decent timeslots.

Further, the state teams will only have finite resources at their disposal. This doesn't just include footy-goers who are only interested in attending one match per weekend, but also access to appropriate support staff and facilities.

The more games, the greater burden on clubs like Freo/WC to accommodate and service the WA team etc. As shown in the examples above, the ideal situation is where you have a state team's match coincide with a local AFL men's team's bye. Practically* impossible to do if all state teams are playing two weeks in a row.

*theoretically it's possible if you're just fixturing those rounds in a vacuum

 

[Mitchell Madness]

A preseason carnival (what many suggested for the mens) would be ideal.

Imagine 3 game home, 2 away (or vice versa).

 

[Teen Wolf]

A preseason carnival (what many suggested for the mens) would be ideal.

Imagine 3 game home, 2 away (or vice versa).

Do you mean during the women's pre-season, in the middle of the year. Or during the men's pre-season, like in Feb-March (i.e. the old AFLW slot)?

 

[The Educator]

Higher-ranked teams given a round off while lower-ranked teams play to qualify for the next round... happens in a lot of sports and competitions (including AFL) for primarily logistical reasons.

It exists in finals series where teams have won a qualifying final which, in turn, they qualified for after a 23 round season.

I am not aware of any 2 shot game that it happens in. Your model is essentially starting from the old prelim in the mcyntire final 4/5 where positions are seeded from the previous year.

If first keeps winning it would play one game every year. Pulling a list together, coming together in a training camp, waiting for the result of the 2 v 3 and then one game which, if it wins, qualifies it for the final the next year.

I think your system is over-weighting the importance of having games be all sudden death and having venues locked in for 6 months and that is leading you back to your .....quite unique set up

But, anyway, here is another alternative that meets that criteria.

Play 3 v 6 and 4 v 5 from the previous season in the first week.

Play 1 v winner of 3 v 6 and 2 v winner of 4 v 5 in the second week.

Play final, 3 v 4 th play off, 5th v 6th play off at one pre determined venue in week 3

Every team plays at least 2 games and 2 teams will play 3 games.

It's not a particularly revolutionary notion: Can't maximise viewership if games are competing with each other, or with men's fixtures, for decent timeslots.

You could play them mid week. You could play them pre mens season etc.

Playing it on the bye rounds is obviously one way to do it and you've made a good go at how you would do it. But you could play 3 games, 3 weeks in a row from midday to 6 pm Sundays going with your model. You are just clearing out Sunday arvo.

Further, the state teams will only have finite resources at their disposal. This doesn't just include footy-goers who are only interested in attending one match per weekend, but also access to appropriate support staff and facilities.

The more games, the greater burden on clubs like Freo/WC to accommodate and service the WA team etc. As shown in the examples above, the ideal situation is where you have a state team's match coincide with a local AFL men's team's bye. Practically* impossible to do if all state teams are playing two weeks in a row.

*theoretically it's possible if you're just fixturing those rounds in a vacuum

This is simply not a credible argument. If a 2 or 3 game AFLW state of origin series was brought in during the men's season it would almost certainly not draw on AFL club staff at all.

Far more likely that it would create/leverage economies of scale with state junior programs.

 

[Teen Wolf]

But, anyway, here is another alternative that meets that criteria.

You can keep throwing up three-week formats, which by their nature fail to clear the first hurdle. The AFL isn't going to do a three-week comp, Ch 7 and Fox aren't going to clear out three blocks of six hours in the middle of the year for it either.

You could play them mid week. You could play them pre mens season etc.

Mid-week means getting shafted to 7mate, as opposed to being on the main channel in at least VIC, SA and WA on Sunday. Plus it's much harder to attract mid-week crowds for a fledgling event like this, when again Sunday afternoon is ideal for attendance.

Pre men's season means a number of premium grounds are unavailable, not to mention the players (unlike in the middle of the year, when they're already back at the clubs in footy mode). It would be very easy to schedule this if maximising viewership is not important--or that premium timeslots and venues, scheduled well in advance, have no bearing on viewership--but all evidence and common sense suggests otherwise.

This is simply not a credible argument. If a 2 or 3 game AFLW state of origin series was brought in during the men's season it would almost certainly not draw on AFL club staff at all. Far more likely that it would create/leverage economies of scale with state junior programs.

For what would be a level of women's football that eclipses AFLW, the access to support staff and facilities need to be no lower (in quantity and quality) than what is available to men's teams at AFL level. The most efficient way of achieving this is by using the existing structures in place at AFL clubs.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Fragile, reliant on others:


Strong, independent:


Down in the dumps:


Soaring above:


Need I say anymore?? Ok, I will. On the supposed issue of some teams playing more games than others in my proposal, it is not just precedented by post-season systems like the AFL finals or the NBA Play-in/NFL Wildcard matches (though that would be compelling enough, anyway).

There are obvious examples in regular/preliminary rounds of world-renowned competitions, including:

• Tennis - Grand slams have qualifier tournaments for lower-ranked players. ATP tour events, nearly all of them, give the top seeds an auto progression to the 2nd round.
• Soccer - FA Cup.
• Cricket - World Test Championship.
• Basketball - NCAA "First Four".
• Numerous sports in Olympic qualifiers, where different regions have different numbers of competing teams.

 

[Cdog71]

For what would be a level of women's football that eclipses AFLW, the access to support staff and facilities need to be no lower (in quantity and quality) than what is available to men's teams at AFL level. The most efficient way of achieving this is by using the existing structures in place at AFL clubs.

That’s right.
Though, it also needs to be in an area of the women players year where playing is the priority.
That they are ready and come ready to play as close to their best as they can be.

Others mention viewership as an influence on decisions with the AFLW and its format, rules, scheduling etc.
Unfortunately I think the influence of what will make people more interested in betting on the womens game has alotve sway.
I think Bookies would want people to bet on SOO games.

 

[Teen Wolf]

That’s right.
Though, it also needs to be in an area of the women players year where playing is the priority.
That they are ready and come ready to play as close to their best as they can be.

Others mention viewership as an influence on decisions with the AFLW and its format, rules, scheduling etc.
Unfortunately I think the influence of what will make people more interested in betting on the womens game has alotve sway.
I think Bookies would want people to bet on SOO games.

The players aren't sitting around half of the year doing nothing. Upon official return to clubs in late May, they've already put in 3 months of unpaid training and are ready to play. But instead of getting to play at that point, when the AFL is actually light on for content, they have to train for another 3 months.

I don't see why betting agencies would have needs unique to that of any other stakeholder. Optimal scheduling and promotion is good for business of all concerned parties.

 

[Cdog71]

The players aren't sitting around half of the year doing nothing. Upon official return to clubs in late May, they've already put in 3 months of unpaid training and are ready to play. But instead of getting to play at that point, when the AFL is actually light on for content, they have to train for another 3 months.

I don't see why betting agencies would have needs unique to that of any other stakeholder. Optimal scheduling and promotion is good for business of all concerned parties.

The AFL benefited by millions last year from the cut they take on any and all betting on the afl/aflw games.
They are a strong lobbying group on fixtures and changes to the game.


I’d love to see SOO, I’d like to see players match fit and ready to go.

Some players need 6months to get ready for the season