Crankyhawk's fixturing solution

[piesaregreat]

I don't think Melbourne, north, saints and dogs would be happy to be paired with any of the other three, and I don't think any Vic club would be happy to be paired with these 4.

You could have North play the Dees Saturday afternoon at the MCG it would stop the complaining.

The only problem would be the AFL administration would be confused about the time.

"Football on a Saturday afternoon? Has that ever been done before?" Adrian Anderson

 

[RogersResults]

I posted this suggestion in the 2013 Fan Fixture response thread and now I've actually sat down and worked out how it might pan out.

Every club gets a rotating fixture over 4 years. During that 4 years, you play one club 8 times (a nominated rival) and every other club 5 times.

Every club is aware at the start of the 4 year cycle who they will be playing twice in each season over the 4 years. Specific week to week fixturing still waits until the end of the season (to allow flexibility for TV to decide which games go in which timeslots, AFL to balance out travel etc)

Initially I thought this would have to involve a type of conference system (the same 6 clubs in one year playing each other twice and everyone else once) but with a bit of tinkering I was able to largely avoid that. Given it only took me 1 hour to do, doubtless the AFLs army of computers could smooth out possible bumps while keeping the concept intact.

So this is how the fixture should be for 2014 to 2017 seasons

Adelaide
Rival: Port adelaide
2014 (play twice): Collingwood, Geelong, Brisbane, West Coast
2015: Essendon, hawthorn, Western bulldogs, Sydney
2016: Richmond, Melbourne, Gold Coast, GWS
2017: Carlton, North, St Kilda, Fremantle

Brisbane
Rival: Gold Coast
2014: Collingwood, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Sydney
2015: Essendon, Melbourne, Western, WCE
2016: Richmond, North, Sydney, Fremantle
2017: Carlton, Geelong, St. Kilda, GWS

Carlton
Rival: Richmond (so they can do start of season match)
2014: WCE, GWS, Hawthorn, Western
2015: Fremantle, Port, Collingwood, Melbourne
2016: Sydney, Gold Coast, Geelong, Melbourne
2017: Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, St. Kilda

Collingwood
Rival: Essendon (for Anzac Day)
2014: Richmond, St Kilda, Adelaide, Brisbane
2015: Carlton, Western, WCE, GWS
2016: hawthorn, melbourne, fremantle, port
2017: Geelong, north melbourne, sydney, gold coast

Essendon
Rival: Collingwood
2014: Geelong, North, Sydney, Gold Coast
2015: hawthorn, St Kilda, Adelaide, Brisbane
2016: Richmond, WCE, Western, GWS
2017: Carlton, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port

Fremantle
Rival: West Coast
2014: Richmond, North, Western, Port
2015: Carlton, Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast
2016: Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Brisbane
2017: Essendon, Melbourne, Port, Adelaide

Geelong
Rival: St Kilda
2014: Essendon, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Gold Coast
2015: Richmond, Melbounre, Sydney, Fremantle
2016: Carlton, North, WCE, Port
2017: Collingwood, Western, Brisbane, GWS

Gold Coast
Rival: Brisbane
2014: Essendon, Geelong, Sydney, GWS
2015: Richmond, hawthorn, St Kilda, Fremantle
2016: Carlton, Melbourne, Adelaide, Port
2017: Collingwood, North, Western, WCE

GWS
Rival: Sydney
2014: Carlton, Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Gold Coast
2015: Collingwood, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port
2016: Essendon, North, Western, Adelaide
2017: Richmond, Geelong, WCE, Brisbane

Hawthorn
Rival: North Melbourne (the tasmania thing, that's why not geelong)
2014: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2015: Essendon, St Kilda, Adelaide, Gold Coast
2016: Collingwood, Western, Sydney, Fremantle
2017: Richmond, Melbourne, WCE, Port

Melbourne
Rival: Western bulldogs
2014: Richmond, North, WCE, Port
2015: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2016: Collingwood, St kilda, Adelaide, gold coast
2017: Essendon, Hawthorn, Sydney, Fremantle

North Melbourne
Rival: Hawthorn
2014: Essendon, Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle
2015: Richmond, Western, WCE, Port
2016: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2017: Collingwood, St kilda, Gold Coast, Adelaide

Port
Rival: Adelaide
2014: Richmond, Melbourne, Western, Fremantle
2015: Carlton, North, WCE, GWS
2016: Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, Gold Coast
2017: Essendon, Hawthorn, Fremantle, Sydney

Richmond
Rival: Carlton
2014: Fremantle, Port, Collingwood, Melbourne
2015: Sydney, Gold Coast, Geelong, North
2016: Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, St Kilda
2017: WCE, GWS, hawthorn, western

St Kilda
Rival: Geelong
2014: Collingwood, Western, WCE, GWS
2015: Essendon, hawthorn, Sydney, Gold Coast
2016: Richmond, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port
2017: Carlton, North, Adelaide, Brisbane

Sydney
Rival: GWS
2014: Essendon, North, Gold coast, Brisbane
2015: Richmond, Geelong, St Kilda, Adelaide
2016: Carlton, hawthorn, Brisbane, WCE
2017: Collingwood, Melbourne, Western, Port

Western
Rival: melbourne
2014: Carlton, St kilda, Fremantle, Port
2015: Collingwood, North, Adelaide, Brisbane
2016: Essendon, hawthorn, WCE, GWS
2017: Richmond, Geelong, Sydney, Gold Coast

WCE
Rival: Fremantle
2014: Carlton, Melbounre, St. Kilda, Adelaide
2015: Collingwood, North, Port, Brisbane
2016: Essendon, geelong, western, sydney
2017: Richmond, hawthorn, GWS, Gold Coast

(tl, dr)
Every victorian club will play 5 interstate games excluding tasmania arrangements/ other sold games - will still mean 13 games in melbourne for hawthorn and north supporters. Every victorian club hosts 5 interstate teams each year. Every club will get one of the"victorian big 4" twice each year, unless they are a big 4, in which case 2 years out of the 4 year cycle they get 2

Would like to work out a way so that one doesn't double up on both adelaide teams or both new franchises but couldn't get it to balance out. At least everyone plays everyone else the same.

Comments?

If you are playing well, the fixture is of no consequence.

There is no empirical evidence that the fixture has ever determined the outcome of the Premiership.
Superior teams on their way to the Premiership win where-ever against who-ever and the finals sort out who is best

The fixture can certainly have an effect on clubs' and the League's revenue streams. But even then redistribution of the wealth takes place and some of the revenue from 'block-buster' games also finds its way to the game at a grass-roots level.

The last and one of few times that the fixture was 'even' 1970-1986 (12 teams playing each other twice each season) the 17 premierships were shared between 41.67% of clubs competing.
In the last 17 seasons of 'uneven' and 'unfair' fixtures the premierships have been shared by 62.5% of the teams competing for more than two seasons in the period.

1970-1986 - 58.8% of the premierships were shared between two clubs.
1996-2012 - 35.3% of the premierships were shared between two clubs.

1970-1986 - 50% of clubs competing won 50% or more of their matches in the period.
1996-2012 - 68.75% of clubs competing (more than 2 seasons) won 50% or more of their matches.

1970-1986 difference in average match/win% of the 3 best and worst performed clubs - 29.9%
1996-2012 difference in average match/win% of the 3 best and worst performed clubs - 17.6%

An even fixture in itself does not make for a more even competition. If the fixture is taken as the vital component in the evenness and fairness of the competition then the reverse may actually be the case. Maybe the strongest teams getting to beat up on all the weakest teams twice in a season in fact makes the competition less fair? Of course since the period of everyone playing each other twice the League has introduced measures - the salary cap, the draft etc. to even up the competition. The figures above indicate that they have had some success, even with an uneven and 'unfair' fixture.

The system proposed by the OP on analysis would probably have affects on revenue streams but not much else. There is a lot of genuine but wasted effort put into devising fixtures that don't actually demonstrate what exactly would be achieved beyond giving the unfounded impression that the competition will be somehow more 'fair' or 'even'.

​

 

[Crankyhawk]

I don't think Melbourne, north, saints and dogs would be happy to be paired with any of the other three, and I don't think any Vic club would be happy to be paired with these 4.

The fixturing does allow the "rival" pair to change/ rotate at the end of 4 years. Marketing however should be able to build a decent rivalry and interest over the 4 years so that there may not be a need to change. While the 4 clubs mentioned are relatively "small" in terms of members, it should be noted that overall the membership figures are larger than 20 years ago so the challenge is more about getting members to attend more games.

 

[Crankyhawk]

If you are playing well, the fixture is of no consequence.

There is no empirical evidence that the fixture has ever determined the outcome of the Premiership.
Superior teams on their way to the Premiership win where-ever against who-ever and the finals sort out who is best

Agreed, but there is a perception that "we always get a hard fixture, or so and so always get an easy one" This would at least predetermine years in advance who you play twice and therefore remove part of that element. Also to deal with the odd fixture anomalies such as Hawthorn only playing Carlton away for the last 3 years x 1 time per season, or Brisbane not hosting Hawthorn for 5 years.

An even fixture in itself does not make for a more even competition. If the fixture is taken as the vital component in the evenness and fairness of the competition then the reverse may actually be the case. Maybe the strongest teams getting to beat up on all the weakest teams twice in a season in fact makes the competition less fair? Of course since the period of everyone playing each other twice the League has introduced measures - the salary cap, the draft etc. to even up the competition. The figures above indicate that they have had some success, even with an uneven and 'unfair' fixture.

The system proposed by the OP on analysis would probably have affects on revenue streams but not much else. There is a lot of genuine but wasted effort put into devising fixtures that don't actually demonstrate what exactly would be achieved beyond giving the unfounded impression that the competition will be somehow more 'fair' or 'even'.

​

​

I think to give an impression of eveness is something that the AFL should strive for. Otherwise people (ok admittedly hawthorn supporters) will continue to grumble in caves, tin foil hats on complaining about sydney and adelaide always getting soft draws/ afl love childs etc etc

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't think Melbourne, north, saints and dogs would be happy to be paired with any of the other three, and I don't think any Vic club would be happy to be paired with these 4.

I'm sure Sydney would rather pair with somebody else aside than GWS too.

But minor criticisms aside regarding finding a decent matchup for these sides (let them build a rivalry knowing they meet twice a year) I think its a very strong proposition.

 

[Suma Magic]

I agree it's a great idea overall. Best way to do it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So is there any chance of incorporating a fixture like this into the afl's people's "charter"?

 

[UpForGrabs]

Yep.

Channel 7 want as many games as possible between Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond.

The AFL have got down on their knees and sucked Channel 7's knob for money

The AFL has no interest in creating a fair fixture

Which is weird because Fox pay more for the broadcast rights than Channel 7 do.

 

[RogersResults]

Which is weird because Fox pay more for the broadcast rights than Channel 7 do.

AFL Broadcast Costs
Seven to pay $475 million for four matches per round
FOXTEL to pay $500 million for five matches per round

 

[telsor]

Came up with a very similar idea a while back (although with out all the detail/work), so clearly I agree.

It doesn't really bring fairness, so much as transparency (which I think matters more), and there would still be complaints due to the timing of matches/travel, etc.

2 problems are.
AFL/currently advantaged teams wont like losing out, and this will cost some $.
Disagreement over who the 'rivals' are (for Vic teams).

Short version is, it wont happen, because the AFL will never surrender control over anything if they have a choice, and in this case, they definately have a choice.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Maybe they do have a choice. If I pitch it to them that I can do this for about $1000 a year which has got to be cheaper than the computer boffinated draw that is currently done, surely the hip pocket nerve helps? Plus by equalising the commercial aspect to a degree this would reduce the need to impose things like blockbuster game taxes/ increased funding for the 'poorer' clubs.

The problem is that I have no contacts with anyone influential in the AFL world.

 

[Gibbke]

Shut up. Turn up. Play and try to win.

That's the only consideration anyone needs to give to the fixture.

Seven straight against the rest of the top 8 from 2012 to start. And then the double ups. Love it.

 

[telsor]

Maybe they do have a choice. If I pitch it to them that I can do this for about $1000 a year which has got to be cheaper than the computer boffinated draw that is currently done, surely the hip pocket nerve helps? Plus by equalising the commercial aspect to a degree this would reduce the need to impose things like blockbuster game taxes/ increased funding for the 'poorer' clubs.

The problem is that I have no contacts with anyone influential in the AFL world.

The fixturing software probably has more to do with the schedule (ground availability, ensuring teams usually get a break between games, especially after travel, etc) than who plays who.

I also suspect the AFL would rather it 'earned' $10 which it could 'generously' distribute to the poorer clubs and have them praise their generosity (and buy their votes/support on other issues) than let the poorer clubs earn an extra $15 themselves.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Shut up. Turn up. Play and try to win.

That's the only consideration anyone needs to give to the fixture.

Seven straight against the rest of the top 8 from 2012 to start. And then the double ups. Love it.

Since I initially wrote up this fixture, I have moved away from it being a way of making the fixture "fair" from a eveness of double up opponent difficulty toward a more equitable travel and perceived blockbuster double up - more on the economic argument to bring this in. A fixture like this is much fairer for the off field aspects of the game. There is no mechanism/ reason in this fixture that you couldn't start off against the 7 other finalists from a season either.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The fixturing software probably has more to do with the schedule (ground availability, ensuring teams usually get a break between games, especially after travel, etc) than who plays who.

I also suspect the AFL would rather it 'earned' $10 which it could 'generously' distribute to the poorer clubs and have them praise their generosity (and buy their votes/support on other issues) than let the poorer clubs earn an extra $15 themselves.

Now that definitely strikes home.

Off topic, is there a way to suggest improvements via Gillon McLachlan's "charter". Although that probably is more smoke and mirror BS too...

 

[g-man]

I don't usually comment a lot on here, especially on the subject of a fair fixture as I think it's one of the sillier arguments I see. I have always believed that if you are good enough then you will win, it shouldn't matter who or where. But I thought I would chime in on this subject at least once. Some may think it was one too many times

From what I can see the idea of what a fair fixture means seems to differ quite a bit. Is it about fair competition, the amount of times teams travel or play at the MCG, the opportunity to play the bigger drawing clubs as a home game, getting the prime TV slots? All things I have seen thrown out there as being important for a fair fixture. It all seems to depend on your own point of view.

I don't see how teams playing everyone else the same amount of times over a 4 year cycle really does anything for a fair fixture. It would if an AFL season was played over 4 years but it's not, it's played over 22 weeks. Only those 22 weeks matter, not what happens in year 4 of the cycle. Therefore any sort of multi-year fixture is pointless in my eyes. I don't care who Collingwood play in 2017 at this point in time as it has zero bearing on this season, and that's all that matters as far as a fixture goes. I'm only concerned about who the pies play this season and whether those games are winnable. At the end of each season it all resets and teams start again.

The only true fair fixture is to play every team home and away, and that will never happen.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I don't usually comment a lot on here, especially on the subject of a fair fixture as I think it's one of the sillier arguments I see. I have always believed that if you are good enough then you will win, it shouldn't matter who or where. But I thought I would chime in on this subject at least once. Some may think it was one too many times

From what I can see the idea of what a fair fixture means seems to differ quite a bit. Is it about fair competition, the amount of times teams travel or play at the MCG, the opportunity to play the bigger drawing clubs as a home game, getting the prime TV slots? All things I have seen thrown out there as being important for a fair fixture. It all seems to depend on your own point of view.

I don't see how teams playing everyone else the same amount of times over a 4 year cycle really does anything for a fair fixture. It would if an AFL season was played over 4 years but it's not, it's played over 22 weeks. Only those 22 weeks matter, not what happens in year 4 of the cycle. Therefore any sort of multi-year fixture is pointless in my eyes. I don't care who Collingwood play in 2017 at this point in time as it has zero bearing on this season, and that's all that matters as far as a fixture goes. I'm only concerned about who the pies play this season and whether those games are winnable. At the end of each season it all resets and teams start again.

The only true fair fixture is to play every team home and away, and that will never happen.

Certainly your last point is the truth.

For me the concerns are primarily commercial, to balance out travel requirements - the way I had set it up each victoria side travelled 5 times in the year, then clubs like hawthorn and north that sell home games lose those out as well - so hawks would play 9 games a year interstate; the multiyear aspect is so that the supporters are clearer that there is no inherent bias that says to one club you will play 3 particular clubs twice every year and only play another club once each year for many years.

On average each club should get a double up in a year against every other club at least once in a 4 year period - this is not happening.

It is also a rejection of the AFL hypothesis that "you finished strongly last year, you are seeded to play other strong teams twice next year". Which if you think about it is the opposite of how seeding works in other sports (where prior success leads to easier draws i.e tennis). Not saying that I think we should be going for that, I think like yourself that only a particular stretch of 22 weeks matters, so your performance in the previous year should not be a factor with fixturing the next year.

By putting the draw over a cycle, it removes any perception of bias/ skullduggery by the AFL.

Surely anything which increases transparency for AFL has to be a good thing? Particularly the way the current administration is going?

 

[pazza]

I posted this suggestion in the 2013 Fan Fixture response thread and now I've actually sat down and worked out how it might pan out.

Every club gets a rotating fixture over 4 years. During that 4 years, you play one club 8 times (a nominated rival) and every other club 5 times.

Every club is aware at the start of the 4 year cycle who they will be playing twice in each season over the 4 years. Specific week to week fixturing still waits until the end of the season (to allow flexibility for TV to decide which games go in which timeslots, AFL to balance out travel etc)

Initially I thought this would have to involve a type of conference system (the same 6 clubs in one year playing each other twice and everyone else once) but with a bit of tinkering I was able to largely avoid that. Given it only took me 1 hour to do, doubtless the AFLs army of computers could smooth out possible bumps while keeping the concept intact.

So this is how the fixture should be for 2014 to 2017 seasons

Adelaide
Rival: Port adelaide
2014 (play twice): Collingwood, Geelong, Brisbane, West Coast
2015: Essendon, hawthorn, Western bulldogs, Sydney
2016: Richmond, Melbourne, Gold Coast, GWS
2017: Carlton, North, St Kilda, Fremantle

Brisbane
Rival: Gold Coast
2014: Collingwood, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Sydney
2015: Essendon, Melbourne, Western, WCE
2016: Richmond, North, Sydney, Fremantle
2017: Carlton, Geelong, St. Kilda, GWS

Carlton
Rival: Richmond (so they can do start of season match)
2014: WCE, GWS, Hawthorn, Western
2015: Fremantle, Port, Collingwood, Melbourne
2016: Sydney, Gold Coast, Geelong, Melbourne
2017: Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, St. Kilda

Collingwood
Rival: Essendon (for Anzac Day)
2014: Richmond, St Kilda, Adelaide, Brisbane
2015: Carlton, Western, WCE, GWS
2016: hawthorn, melbourne, fremantle, port
2017: Geelong, north melbourne, sydney, gold coast

Essendon
Rival: Collingwood
2014: Geelong, North, Sydney, Gold Coast
2015: hawthorn, St Kilda, Adelaide, Brisbane
2016: Richmond, WCE, Western, GWS
2017: Carlton, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port

Fremantle
Rival: West Coast
2014: Richmond, North, Western, Port
2015: Carlton, Geelong, GWS, Gold Coast
2016: Collingwood, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Brisbane
2017: Essendon, Melbourne, Port, Adelaide

Geelong
Rival: St Kilda
2014: Essendon, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Gold Coast
2015: Richmond, Melbounre, Sydney, Fremantle
2016: Carlton, North, WCE, Port
2017: Collingwood, Western, Brisbane, GWS

Gold Coast
Rival: Brisbane
2014: Essendon, Geelong, Sydney, GWS
2015: Richmond, hawthorn, St Kilda, Fremantle
2016: Carlton, Melbourne, Adelaide, Port
2017: Collingwood, North, Western, WCE

GWS
Rival: Sydney
2014: Carlton, Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Gold Coast
2015: Collingwood, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port
2016: Essendon, North, Western, Adelaide
2017: Richmond, Geelong, WCE, Brisbane

Hawthorn
Rival: North Melbourne (the tasmania thing, that's why not geelong)
2014: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2015: Essendon, St Kilda, Adelaide, Gold Coast
2016: Collingwood, Western, Sydney, Fremantle
2017: Richmond, Melbourne, WCE, Port

Melbourne
Rival: Western bulldogs
2014: Richmond, North, WCE, Port
2015: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2016: Collingwood, St kilda, Adelaide, gold coast
2017: Essendon, Hawthorn, Sydney, Fremantle

North Melbourne
Rival: Hawthorn
2014: Essendon, Melbourne, Sydney, Fremantle
2015: Richmond, Western, WCE, Port
2016: Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane, GWS
2017: Collingwood, St kilda, Gold Coast, Adelaide

Port
Rival: Adelaide
2014: Richmond, Melbourne, Western, Fremantle
2015: Carlton, North, WCE, GWS
2016: Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, Gold Coast
2017: Essendon, Hawthorn, Fremantle, Sydney

Richmond
Rival: Carlton
2014: Fremantle, Port, Collingwood, Melbourne
2015: Sydney, Gold Coast, Geelong, North
2016: Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, St Kilda
2017: WCE, GWS, hawthorn, western

St Kilda
Rival: Geelong
2014: Collingwood, Western, WCE, GWS
2015: Essendon, hawthorn, Sydney, Gold Coast
2016: Richmond, Melbourne, Fremantle, Port
2017: Carlton, North, Adelaide, Brisbane

Sydney
Rival: GWS
2014: Essendon, North, Gold coast, Brisbane
2015: Richmond, Geelong, St Kilda, Adelaide
2016: Carlton, hawthorn, Brisbane, WCE
2017: Collingwood, Melbourne, Western, Port

Western
Rival: melbourne
2014: Carlton, St kilda, Fremantle, Port
2015: Collingwood, North, Adelaide, Brisbane
2016: Essendon, hawthorn, WCE, GWS
2017: Richmond, Geelong, Sydney, Gold Coast

WCE
Rival: Fremantle
2014: Carlton, Melbounre, St. Kilda, Adelaide
2015: Collingwood, North, Port, Brisbane
2016: Essendon, geelong, western, sydney
2017: Richmond, hawthorn, GWS, Gold Coast

(tl, dr)
Every victorian club will play 5 interstate games excluding tasmania arrangements/ other sold games - will still mean 13 games in melbourne for hawthorn and north supporters. Every victorian club hosts 5 interstate teams each year. Every club will get one of the"victorian big 4" twice each year, unless they are a big 4, in which case 2 years out of the 4 year cycle they get 2

Would like to work out a way so that one doesn't double up on both adelaide teams or both new franchises but couldn't get it to balance out. At least everyone plays everyone else the same.

Comments?

Admirable and worthy effort.

Send it on an email to say KB and see if you can get some coverage. Good effort.

 

[Air_Chester]

I wholeheartedly support this idea.

The only issue will be some clubs (quite obvious) will complain about their designated "rival" but in the end, nothing is stopping a team's fans from showing up every week and really, this idea may be as fair as it gets.

On the return game issue, I don't give a shit if Essendon do or don't play Collingwood/Richmond/Carlton twice because the return games have ordinary crowds anyway. If people are given reason to go to the footy (good form) they will go.

Also 1998...

 

[Starburns_]

Had a similar idea to this a few years ago with a few differences, ne was how the rivals were determined (would have paired the same but Hawthorn-Geelong can't be ignored, St Kilda-Melbourne as foundation clubs with secondary bases in Casey and Frankston, and Bulldogs-North as 1925 expansion clubs both looking at attracting fans out West).

The other was that the the rival pairings were put in a "group" of sorts with 2 other rivalries each year and it rotated around over 4 years. Problem with that was that once every 4 years a Victorian club would get something similar to the dreaded Hawthorn 2012 fixture with 7 home games against non-Victorian sides. But the advantage was that you had an identical schedule to 5 other teams in the competition.

Either way, if the AFL ever look at trying to even up the draw, the rotating fixture plus rivalries is probably the best fit they could get.

 

[Books]

Call me deluded but I like to belive that all things are possible

The Bible says "With God all things are posiible".

But with Vlad... I doubt it.

 

[Debris]

You should never consider a rivalry when doing the fixtures. That should be the first thing to go.

 

[Gibbke]

Kill rivalries and you kill sport. Which would you prefer - the current set up - blockbusters, derbies and all - or a clean slate like the Big Bash...?

 

[Debris]

Kill rivalries and you kill sport. Which would you prefer - the current set up - blockbusters, derbies and all - or a clean slate like the Big Bash...?

Other sporting codes maintain rivalries just fine without anything artificial. I don't want to kill rivalries, just don't want it affecting the fixture list.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Admirable and worthy effort.

Send it on an email to say KB and see if you can get some coverage. Good effort.

Just sent it to morning glory and to KB, here's hoping