Coaches: "reduce number of matches"

[Donkson]

Less matches less money.

not necessarily

 

[legend166]

All the conference thing does is makes the question "who are the 5 teams we play twice this year?" predictable. No other effect on the draw. That's assuming the conferences stay static. If they don't, there's no practical difference between what we have now and that sort of conference system, save for the pointless and illogical "conference" label (who's conferring? what about?).

Well, the point is that there would be separate ladders for each conference, meaning you are only competing for finals spots against those who have the same draw as you do.

 

[bluemarq]

not necessarily

Agreed. There comes a point where it is no longer viable to have beyond a certain no. of teams in the comp as there is simply insufficient revenue to sustain the costs each team incurs (the NBL have found this out the hard way on a couple of occasions now).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The conference/divisional system would be OK to address "fairness" in the draw however I think the best outcome would be to play every team once in an 18 or 19 round season (either 1 or 2 byes per team). It makes complete sense which is why I fear the goons at AFL House will never do it.

They worry about the potential dollars lost due to decreased games but they don't factor in the increased interest that would generate for the remaining games. I think the average crowd size would actually increase with less games to attend each year and would do away with the farcical situations of some teams playing certain teams at their home ground/once a year all the time while other teams play twice every single year.

Just do it AFL.

 

[leeloo]

So what would they do for the rest of the year?

 

[Pessimistic]

The 6 game weekends havent been bad. Have 9 of those (equals 6 full rounds) and 12 with 9 games thats a 21 week season - you should be able to do away with 6 day (or less) breaks altogether which is the other inequity

Need a minimum 3 games FTAeach week though

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Do we do this and increase lists to 50 players so you have to manage your playing list like they do in the EPL?

Could shorten games as well.

No. The quality of games is already declining due to the lack of depth in the talent out there made evident following the introduction of GWS & GC. Can you imagine the spuds that would be getting games if lists were increased to 50 (essentially an extra 216 players). There is probably only enough talent for 14 teams as it is let alone 18 with lists increased by 33%).

Soccer gets away with heaps of games because it is a non-contact sport, similar to basketball & baseball. Football should be compared to NFL for a better idea of how many games a season each team/player can handle.

 

[fairdinkum]

20 teams, 19 rounds.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/20-teams-19-rounds-vision-for-an-uncompromised-fixture.940393/

One day, hopefully.

 

[Underdog]

No. The quality of games is already declining due to the lack of depth in the talent out there made evident following the introduction of GWS & GC. Can you imagine the spuds that would be getting games if lists were increased to 50 (essentially an extra 216 players). There is probably only enough talent for 14 teams as it is let alone 18 with lists increased by 33%).

Putting a cap on teams is nothing but an arbitrary number, whether it be 20, 18 or 14.

Why not reduce the competition to 2 teams. Imagine all the spuds that would be getting a game in a 14 team comp...

 

[Heafy83]

No. The quality of games is already declining due to the lack of depth in the talent out there made evident following the introduction of GWS & GC. Can you imagine the spuds that would be getting games if lists were increased to 50 (essentially an extra 216 players). There is probably only enough talent for 14 teams as it is let alone 18 with lists increased by 33%).

Soccer gets away with heaps of games because it is a non-contact sport, similar to basketball & baseball. Football should be compared to NFL for a better idea of how many games a season each team/player can handle.

I wouldn't say do it now. Wait 10-15 years when the GC and GWS have more established markets and there is more of a talent pool to draw from.
Also GWS & GC arent crap bc of a lack of talent its inexperience. You shove any group of 18 year olds together no matter how talented they are and they will struggle against men. In fact I think the GWS talent is better than everyone thought it would be.

Yes NFL is probably a better comparison but its also a very unfair fixture in itself over there. Just saying unless everyone plays everyone twice (home & away) you will never have an equitable draw.

PS Soccer does have less contact but you will also play at least 50 games a year with league, 2 x local cups, and then there is European comps if you are good enough. I think Messi played close to 70 games last year.

 

[W.C. Fry]

Coaches want 17 or 18 games. The AFL will give them 10. Thats what happened when the coaches wanted to keep 4 on the bench, right???

 

[Quivorir]

For you, this year, maybe.

If thats heading towards a pot shot at our easy draw get over it. (I never complain about the draw, it is what it is)We have had the harshest draw of most teams for a very long time, we got a good one this yeah.

22 games over 23/24 rounds is fine.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If anything we’ll be going up, not down.

A Vic team shoved to Tassie (full time), two conferences of 9 each (Vic and Aus), play your own conference twice (16 games) and the other once (9 games). 25 total, alternate between 12 and 13 home games each year.

It’ll NEVER decrease – there’s now only 5 clubs you play twice – if you look at those games in isolation, it’s basically the second games between Carlton / Collingwood / Essendon / Richmond, and each of the interstate derbies. Going to one game vs each club basically means getting rid of those return games – the very ones that drag in the huge crowds and TV audiences. Killing the golden geese.

It’ll never happen. Forget “it’ll make the other game bigger” – it’ll never make up for having two games.

I guess they could drop a couple, but there’ll always be at least a few teams you play twice. Always. It’s commercial reality.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Ok easy solution

Over 4 seasons you play everyone 1.25 times, except your rival team that you play every year.

17 games, plus 4 games, plus 1

plus a bye for everyone

23 round season.

 

[Underdog]

Ok easy solution

Over 4 seasons you play everyone 1.25 times, except your rival team that you play every year.

17 games, plus 4 games, plus 1

plus a bye for everyone

23 round season.

I thought you said easy solution?

 

[wikipediaAFLproject]

If anything we’ll be going up, not down.

A Vic team shoved to Tassie (full time), two conferences of 9 each (Vic and Aus), play your own conference twice (16 games) and the other once (9 games). 25 total, alternate between 12 and 13 home games each year.

It’ll NEVER decrease – there’s now only 5 clubs you play twice – if you look at those games in isolation, it’s basically the second games between Carlton / Collingwood / Essendon / Richmond, and each of the interstate derbies. Going to one game vs each club basically means getting rid of those return games – the very ones that drag in the huge crowds and TV audiences. Killing the golden geese.

It’ll never happen. Forget “it’ll make the other game bigger” – it’ll never make up for having two games.

I guess they could drop a couple, but there’ll always be at least a few teams you play twice. Always. It’s commercial reality.

Very good point!

 

[longsuffreosupp]

I thought you said easy solution?

pretty sure its easy

you play every team once a year except your rival team, and one season in a 4 year block you play them twice.

 

[greennick]

I think the most important outcome of this is the fact that 4 of the coaches are too stupid to realize that you would play everyone in an 18 team comp in 17 rounds.

I find it more amazing that you were too stupid to think that was specifically for a rivalry round with the same team every year (mainly derbies for the 8 non-Vic teams).

 

[greennick]

Ok easy solution

Over 4 seasons you play everyone 1.25 times, except your rival team that you play every year.

17 games, plus 4 games, plus 1

plus a bye for everyone

23 round season.

If they don't go to a 17 or 18 game season, this is what they need.

 

[Tas]

34 rounds, play everyone twice.

Increase the size of lists, there are a lot more quality kids coming through the ranks than there was 10 years ago which is why almost every draft is a great draft now.

Increase the number on the bench to 6, increase the subs to 4 so clubs have a lot more control in terms of managing players. There shouldn't be any bye rounds, clubs will just more scope to manage their players, they can rotate and rest players giving them a break without having to have a bye.

 

[No BS!!]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/140431/default.aspx

I agree. It would make for a much much more exciting season if you knew that you had only one chance to beat each team. Imagine Richmond playing Carlton! They would have only one chance to show each other who is boss!!

Yes, it means a reduction in broadcast dollars!! A reduction in game receipts!! But it could possibly work, as the hype for each match would be greater (crowd averages would increase), and there would be a chance to have a SoO involving 8 states/territories.

changing the tiebreaker from the archaic percentage to head-to-head would make each and every match so much more important to. For example, if said Richmond & Carlton finish the regular season on equal points and 8th, the team that won their match wins the tiebreaker for position and goes through to the finals.

 

[Magpie Since 1986]

How many less games is it ?

In 2010, with 16 teams, 22 rounds there were 176 games. 18 over 22 rounds makes 198, 22 more

18 teams by 18 rounds is 162, just 14 less than in 2010.

Apparently the broadcast agreement is for 176 minimum - at least 8 games over 22 rounds

I would think from a broadcast perspective, having the extra rounds/weeks would be more important than extra games.

That is, 4 extra Friday night games, 4 extra Sat night games etc, people can only watch one game at a time, but they can watch 4 extra weeks of football if the season is prolonged.

Not saying I agree with it, but that would be a consideration.

 

[Watson_my_mind]

It is fine as it is. Why do you people constantly want to change things about our great game?

There is nothing wrong with the product, it is still the number 1 sport in the country, just leave it. Sheeesh.

 

[hcd199]

changing the tiebreaker from the archaic percentage to head-to-head would make each and every match so much more important to. For example, if said Richmond & Carlton finish the regular season on equal points and 8th, the team that won their match wins the tiebreaker for position and goes through to the finals.

And then what do we do if there's a three-way-tie? What's the issue with percentage, anyway? It does exactly what it's supposed to do - separate the teams on the basis of their performance across the season. What you suggest implies separation, when on the same number of wins, on the basis only of the respective head-to-head match. Doesn't make much logical sense.

Well, the point is that there would be separate ladders for each conference, meaning you are only competing for finals spots against those who have the same draw as you do.

Then it's a highly unfair system. The ladder you are ranked in includes games involving sides not in that ladder, which means it isn't even a fair way of ranking the best sides within that conference. Beyond that, there is a far more obvious issue - the top 8 teams in the season will quite possibly not be the 8 that progress to finals, because we have more than one ladder.

Such a segregation of the competition won't solve any problems. Certain sides will always have had an "easy ride", due to the make-up of their particular conference, or how many times they have to travel, so it won't create a fairer competition. It also creates, through division, a less cohesive league overall, since each team is part of a disparate conference.

Fixtures will rarely ever be even (12 teams, 22 rounds was a rare exception in league history), and at least under the current system, due to it being manipulated by the AFL, it is flexible and adjustable enough to accommodate most of the demands on a fixture.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It is fine as it is. Why do you people constantly want to change things about our great game?

There is nothing wrong with the product, it is still the number 1 sport in the country, just leave it. Sheeesh.

Well there is the whole fairness/evenness aspect, but yeah I guess I can see why in a professional sport that would be the last consideration.