"Drawing A Long Bow On Fairness In Football" - THE AGE

[GreaterWeStener]

Divisions/conferences and the like are not the way to go.

What happens if all of the teams in one conference would have finished in position 13-18 on a normal ladder ?? They then go ahead at the end of the year at the expense of some teams who have played off in a stronger conference. No way, that is rubbish.

Highly unlikely, especially if you have rolling rather than set divisions. This is the only real argument against divisions, the simple solution is a Divisions Table, all inter-divisional matches are added to the division of the teams involved in the same as each team on their divisional table. This is an objective way to rank divisions and then divisions can lose and gain finals positions based any significant differences in the Conferences Table.

To that end and until such time as the number of teams in the competition changes, the 17-5 option is the fairest thing they can do. The draft is based on ladder position so why not the draw ??

I'd be surprised if you hadn't read the arguments that a competition based on playing each other team once is significantly fairer than the current system.

The two reasons being:
1. All teams have higher H than A win %ages and significant variations in differences between them.
2. Reducing games decreases sample size reducing the likely accuracy of the table.

Then there are the 17-5 specific drawbacks that I wont repeat here.

 

[Bad Horse]

Have a 4 year rolling draw

Each team paired with one "traditional rival" they will always play twice.

Then rotate the other two pairs who are drawn to play the additional return bout slots on a 4 yearly repeating cycle.


Pair A Coll/ESS

Pair B Bris/GCS

Pair C Adl/POR

Pair D WCE/FRE

Pair E Gee/Haw

Pair F NTH/WBD

Pair G Syd/GWS

Pair H Stk/Mel

Pair I Ric/Car


Year 1 double ups are

ABC

DEF

GHI

Year 2

ADG

BEH

CFI

Year 3

AEI

DHC

GBF

Year 4

AHF

DBI

GEC


then repeat

Everyone has doubled up against every other team once in the cycle.

The AFL's fixation with derbies and traditional rivals can be maintained

Everyone knows exactly what they are going to get not just this year, but every year into the future.

 

[99cents]

I do!
Most years prior to 1968 the VFL had 18 games, some had 19 and others 20.
68 and 69 had 20 games
From 1970 it was 22 VFL games morphing into the AFL 22 games except 1993 that had only 20.

Interesting- thanks for that.
22 matches per H&A does seem rusted on by now.
Can't imagine the AFL will reduce the number of matches..

 

[GreaterWeStener]

Have a 4 year rolling draw

Each team paired with one "traditional rival" they will always play twice.

Then rotate the other two pairs who are drawn to play the additional return bout slots on a 4 yearly repeating cycle.


Pair A Coll/ESS

Pair B Bris/GCS

Pair C Adl/POR

Pair D WCE/FRE

Pair E Gee/Haw

Pair F NTH/WBD

Pair G Syd/GWS

Pair H Stk/Mel

Pair I Ric/Car


Year 1 double ups are

ABC

DEF

GHI

Year 2

ADG

BEH

CFI

Year 3

AEI

DHC

GBF

Year 4

AHF

DBI

GEC


then repeat

Everyone has doubled up against every other team once in the cycle.

The AFL's fixation with derbies and traditional rivals can be maintained

Everyone knows exactly what they are going to get not just this year, but every year into the future.

Spot on! That's pretty much the system I would like to see adopted.

Each team plays every non-paired team 5 times H&A over two cycles (8 years), alternating H & A in non-divisional years.

 

[FreoMonocle]

Footy is one of the toughest games in the world and the season is too long. The attrition players towards the end of a long season is too much with some clubs having up to a third of their lists injured.

I say cut the season down to 17 games + a rivalry round for local rivalries. That makes an 18 game season and I also would have a bye after rounds 6, 12 and 18.

This would reduce the wear and tear on players and make the draw fairer

Nah, get rid of the rivalry matches altogether. If you win that match and the 4 points you have reduced chances for the next weeks match due to being more bruised, possibly more injuries and more match bans for various infractions.

Rivalry matches are good for the entertainment - but bad for the sport.

 

[The Passenger]

I agree the draw should be even from year to year. Not a fan of the weighted draw again the top teams - not just Eagles are copping it this year (Pies and Demons got it worse too). I'm long on record on here against the idea.

The best idea for a draw IMO (and I've posted this multiple times before) Is to create 6 pods. (Pod A: 1st ,2nd ,3rd), (Pod B: 4th, 5th, 6th)..... (Pod F: 16th, 17th, 18th). Take 1 team from each pod, and those are your 5 double ups. Easy peasy.

Come the next season maybe you'd have doubled up against teams that went better than expected given you a tougher draw (and it goes without staying the opposite is possible) but that is not foreseeable in advance. The best you can hope for is the draw is as even as possible when it is made - at the moment it' far from it.

The difference in travel distances and centralised Melbourne home games* are not things the AFL can change but the strength of your opposition double-ups can and should be even (based on the knowledge you have at the time).

* One thing the AFL should look at is changing the way tenancy is decided in Melbourne. The 9 Melbourne clubs should split their home games 6/5** between MCG/Etihad, and the away teams at the MCG and Etihad should be split evenly between all 18 clubs in the competition.

** Taken into account before home games are moved interstate (Tassie, NT etc)

 

[mr bagcroft]

The game is now nowhere near of a high enough standard for 22 rounds. It’s too long and too boring. You want too many teams and dilute the talent pool too much, you reap what you sow.

 

[Mofra]

Interesting- thanks for that.
22 matches per H&A does seem rusted on by now.
Can't imagine the AFL will reduce the number of matches..

Certainly not while 23 rounds (accounting for byes) is so heavily tied to TV rights

 

[bluebob1]

Spot on! That's pretty much the system I would like to see adopted.

Each team plays every non-paired team 5 times H&A over two cycles (8 years), alternating H & A in non-divisional years.

Not going to happen. There would be a year in this scerario where ess and colling double ups would be adel port WC and freo. This would be too much for the AFL means not enough Melbourne based derbies. No dreamtime double up, no Rich Coll double up will be too revenue costly according to the afl. The rolling predetermined fixture does not allow the afl to maximise revenue. Personally i would rather a small revenue drop not that big imo (Vics will get used to watching interstate teams over time) for the sake of fairness. If that means the players get paid less so be it but this is probably why you dont see more of a stink from the players about scheduling because how they do it now means they get paid more.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

Not going to happen. There would be a year in this scerario where ess and colling double ups would be adel port WC and freo. This would be too much for the AFL means not enough Melbourne based derbies. No dreamtime double up, no Rich Coll double up will be too revenue costly according to the afl. The rolling predetermined fixture does not allow the afl to maximise revenue. Personally i would rather a small revenue drop not that big imo (Vics will get used to watching interstate teams over time) for the sake of fairness. If that means the players get paid less so be it but this is probably why you dont see more of a stink from the players about scheduling because how they do it now means they get paid more.

It took the VFL 45 years to re-balance the schedule after 3 teams were introduced in 1925 to take it to 12 teams, so I still hold out hope, eventually, something might be done.

No doubt it will take a significant change in AFL hierarchy thinking, of course the AFL was born out of financial imperative, 7 of the 12 clubs were insolvent and legally should have been wound up. Enter West Coast and Brisbane willing to pay millions of dollars to enter the VFL, saving those 7 clubs from insolvency.

The AFL appears to be still run as if the financial imperative still exists, although I suspect the real motivation now is positive headlines and executive bonuses, although I maintain it clearly doesn't and a change of thinking is now possible. I still hope somebody in AFL will move from a handouts mentality to a more equitable structure that supports each club to maximize their own income. No doubt that will probably, at least in the short term, see a reduction in crowds and revenue, as the competition becomes more equitable, but, in the longer term, the financial base spreads further and the whole of AFL finances become more robust and less centralized.

 

[LoungeLizard]

It took the VFL 45 years to re-balance the schedule after 3 teams were introduced in 1925 to take it to 12 teams, so I still hold out hope, eventually, something might be done.

No doubt it will take a significant change in AFL hierarchy thinking, of course the AFL was born out of financial imperative, 7 of the 12 clubs were insolvent and legally should have been wound up. Enter West Coast and Brisbane willing to pay millions of dollars to enter the VFL, saving those 7 clubs from insolvency.

The AFL appears to be still run as if the financial imperative still exists, although I suspect the real motivation now is positive headlines and executive bonuses, although I maintain it clearly doesn't and a change of thinking is now possible. I still hope somebody in AFL will move from a handouts mentality to a more equitable structure that supports each club to maximize their own income. No doubt that will probably, at least in the short term, see a reduction in crowds and revenue, as the competition becomes more equitable, but, in the longer term, the financial base spreads further and the whole of AFL finances become more robust and less centralized.

You want to thank your lucky stars that this handouts mentality didn't change before your mob came along, because that's why you exist.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It took the VFL 45 years to re-balance the schedule after 3 teams were introduced in 1925 to take it to 12 teams, so I still hold out hope, eventually, something might be done.

No doubt it will take a significant change in AFL hierarchy thinking, of course the AFL was born out of financial imperative, 7 of the 12 clubs were insolvent and legally should have been wound up. Enter West Coast and Brisbane willing to pay millions of dollars to enter the VFL, saving those 7 clubs from insolvency.

The AFL appears to be still run as if the financial imperative still exists, although I suspect the real motivation now is positive headlines and executive bonuses, although I maintain it clearly doesn't and a change of thinking is now possible. I still hope somebody in AFL will move from a handouts mentality to a more equitable structure that supports each club to maximize their own income. No doubt that will probably, at least in the short term, see a reduction in crowds and revenue, as the competition becomes more equitable, but, in the longer term, the financial base spreads further and the whole of AFL finances become more robust and less centralized.

Whilst I agree that change can happen (generationally like you mentioned in the early vfl days to a 12 team comp) in order to do so you'll need to alienate a large fan base .............. probably forever. You're not gonna make change like that and expect to keep the fan base (or any of their future generations), Fitzroy and South are good examples.

Until such time that footy has enough "expendable" supporter base i:e it becomes the no.1 code nationwide, any major change like merging or culling clubs to "fair up the comp" is not going to happen.

Fair enough, if you're vic team supporter and your team is merged or culled for a means what are you going to do? Your club is gone, you'll probably turn your back on the game. If you're a wa or sa fan you've still got your wafl or sanfl team to follow if the team you follow in the AFL goes by the wayside (which won't happen anyway) but for some for sake of "progression" say oh well too bad and expect those fans not to get their back up - yeah right.

 

[Mitchell54]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sp...bow-on-the-footy-fixture-20181102-p50doa.html




Great article by Martin Blake, about time someone called out the AFL for it's money-grabbing ways.

Think it’s quite obvious that the AFL prioritises money like any other business.

 

[Mitchell54]

Have a 4 year rolling draw

Each team paired with one "traditional rival" they will always play twice.

Then rotate the other two pairs who are drawn to play the additional return bout slots on a 4 yearly repeating cycle.


Pair A Coll/ESS

Pair B Bris/GCS

Pair C Adl/POR

Pair D WCE/FRE

Pair E Gee/Haw

Pair F NTH/WBD

Pair G Syd/GWS

Pair H Stk/Mel

Pair I Ric/Car


Year 1 double ups are

ABC

DEF

GHI

Year 2

ADG

BEH

CFI

Year 3

AEI

DHC

GBF

Year 4

AHF

DBI

GEC


then repeat

Everyone has doubled up against every other team once in the cycle.

The AFL's fixation with derbies and traditional rivals can be maintained

Everyone knows exactly what they are going to get not just this year, but every year into the future.

Could do a 3 year cycle. Add 2 games to the year.

7 double ups. AFL gets 2 locks for rivalries and rotating the other 15 teams over 3 years. 5 per year.

 

[PowerForGood]

Think it’s quite obvious that the AFL prioritises money like any other business.

Of course. And the biggest dollars are in Victoria so they look after that market first.
Its equal parts annoying / amusing to hear people argue otherwise.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Whilst I agree that change can happen (generationally like you mentioned in the early vfl days to a 12 team comp) in order to do so you'll need to alienate a large fan base .............. probably forever. You're not gonna make change like that and expect to keep the fan base (or any of their future generations), Fitzroy and South are good examples.

Until such time that footy has enough "expendable" supporter base i:e it becomes the no.1 code nationwide, any major change like merging or culling clubs to "fair up the comp" is not going to happen.

Fair enough, if you're vic team supporter and your team is merged or culled for a means what are you going to do? Your club is gone, you'll probably turn your back on the game. If you're a wa or sa fan you've still got your wafl or sanfl team to follow if the team you follow in the AFL goes by the wayside (which won't happen anyway) but for some for sake of "progression" say oh well too bad and expect those fans not to get their back up - yeah right.

It doesn’t mean your team folds though, they play in the VFL and you could support them there. Just like all the Fitzroy supporters did........ Not.

 

[joy division]

All teams must play each other H&A. Simples as that. Extra revenue lift the players wages to play the extra games. Lethargy? That's what the 44 man squad is for. Clubs can use it.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

Whilst I agree that change can happen (generationally like you mentioned in the early vfl days to a 12 team comp) in order to do so you'll need to alienate a large fan base .............. probably forever. You're not gonna make change like that and expect to keep the fan base (or any of their future generations), Fitzroy and South are good examples.

Until such time that footy has enough "expendable" supporter base i:e it becomes the no.1 code nationwide, any major change like merging or culling clubs to "fair up the comp" is not going to happen.

Fair enough, if you're vic team supporter and your team is merged or culled for a means what are you going to do? Your club is gone, you'll probably turn your back on the game. If you're a wa or sa fan you've still got your wafl or sanfl team to follow if the team you follow in the AFL goes by the wayside (which won't happen anyway) but for some for sake of "progression" say oh well too bad and expect those fans not to get their back up - yeah right.

No change of teams in involved for what I'm suggesting.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It took the VFL 45 years to re-balance the schedule after 3 teams were introduced in 1925 to take it to 12 teams, so I still hold out hope, eventually, something might be done.

No doubt it will take a significant change in AFL hierarchy thinking, of course the AFL was born out of financial imperative, 7 of the 12 clubs were insolvent and legally should have been wound up. Enter West Coast and Brisbane willing to pay millions of dollars to enter the VFL, saving those 7 clubs from insolvency.

The AFL appears to be still run as if the financial imperative still exists, although I suspect the real motivation now is positive headlines and executive bonuses, although I maintain it clearly doesn't and a change of thinking is now possible. I still hope somebody in AFL will move from a handouts mentality to a more equitable structure that supports each club to maximize their own income. No doubt that will probably, at least in the short term, see a reduction in crowds and revenue, as the competition becomes more equitable, but, in the longer term, the financial base spreads further and the whole of AFL finances become more robust and less centralized.

I'm not really opposed to the idea.

I see risks in decentralising control in that the AFL would not be able to support clubs who get into trouble, and I think that's what you're suggesting.
It would require a restructure of some clubs governance, ours for instance requires the AFL to input money from time to time as it determines is necessary. Doesn't really mean much except it can decide to provide funding but it wont work if some clubs are supported and not others.

The Swans, Suns and GWS have the AFL as owners that I know of and there may be others in Victoria I dont know about. We would all have to move to member ownership I think. The WA arrangement where WA football holds the AFL licences might be sustainable.

There would also have to be a significant period where the AFL made payments to clubs it has commitments to assist. Or a large payment to sell the obligations to clubs and then look after yourselves.

Be interesting to see if clubs need AFL assistance through mis-governance if they know there 's no safety net. And presumably guaranteed sufficient income. There will always be opportunitues to spend money to get a competitive advantage one way or the other.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It doesn’t mean your team folds though, they play in the VFL and you could support them there. Just like all the Fitzroy supporters did........ Not.

And what of those that don't have a team in the VFL and only have an affiliate like the Saints?

 

[Carringbush2010]

No change of teams in involved for what I'm suggesting.

I'm not being flippant but if you're suggesting change for a fairer comp (more spread among the states would be necessary) then merging or culling teams is not negotiable.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

And what of those that don't have a team in the VFL and only have an affiliate like the Saints?

I was talking about the hypothetical of a team being removed from the AFL as Fitzroy were, if their supporters are as passionate as you say they will just follow them in a lower division.

 

[Roylion]

It doesn’t mean your team folds though, they play in the VFL and you could support them there. Just like all the Fitzroy supporters did........ Not.

Fitzroy didn't play in the VFL though, after their removal from the AFL. The club had no on-field team for twelve years. Not surprising that some Fitzroy supporters drifted away and either didn't support football at all or went on to support other clubs (either in the AFL or their local football club). Fitzroy is still one of the highest supported clubs in the VAFA.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

2 conferences west and east

WEST
WCE Freo Adel Port Geel Bulldogs North Ess Carl

EAST
Bris GC Syd GWS Mel Coll Haw Rich St.K

25 round season get rid of NAB challenge
Fixed

 

[Carringbush2010]

I was talking about the hypothetical of a team being removed from the AFL as Fitzroy were, if their supporters are as passionate as you say they will just follow them in a lower division.

Some did (after) but there was a long time before they fielded a team in any league after their AFL exit hence a lot of them were lost from the game completely or followed other leagues or clubs.

In any case at the time it was a fan base lost that HQ for some reason went ahead with anyway............. head scratcher I know.