Here's how we even out the draw. YorN?

[4#Didak#4]

I like the idea if you apply it restrospectively it does make it more even. However by weighting games you will find clubs will focus on the 4 point games and as such will get some farcical situations. The system will alter the way clubs approach games and we don't want that. The Freo forfeit to the Hawks this year was a classic example of the lengths clubs will go to in order to maximise their position.

 

[Pocket_Pears]

You say its to stop higher placed teams beating up the bottom teams and getting extra points? What if that bottom team somehow beats the top team twice? Not really fair that they only come away with only 4 points for 2 hard fought wins.

 

[Richo83]

Seems fair to me.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

as another poster said, by making those games you only play once worth 8 points, you achieve the same result, without complicating further.

Revert to a once (home or away, rotating each year) per opponent per season (17 games), and clubs can negotiate their other 5 games according to rivalries/etc.

 

[shanman]

You say its to stop higher placed teams beating up the bottom teams and getting extra points? What if that bottom team somehow beats the top team twice? Not really fair that they only come away with only 4 points for 2 hard fought wins.

Well firstly, it will benefit lower teams more than not.

Secondly even if you upset a better team twice it still stops middle road teams with easy draws getting too far ahead of other middle road teams with difficult draws. In the end its about the ladder - spots in the 8 and the makeup of finals.

It would require a change of mindset - allocating the 4 points to individual teams rather than rounds per se... its not ideal, but its a way of working with something we know the AFL will never change.

Plus it would also encourage the view that if you lose the first leg against a rival you have a chance to square the ledger.. even though this is already the case, but not necessarily the focus at the moment..

 

[Father Jack]

Pretty sure that the NFL is an elite competition that has an uneven draw, even if it is somewhat more transparent (with conferences, divisions and the like).

The system as it is at the moment is pretty much the best that can be done with the resources available, whilst giving the fans the games that they want/maximising revenue.

 

[absfab]

I wasn't sure about the idea (I'm still not) but it was clearer to me once i set up a graph with the full list of teams on the x an y axis and did the hyperthetical table you love so much.
.

You shouldn't be sure, because that would be worrysome.

You can make a win against a team you play twice worth anything you like. 1,2,4,8 - doesn't matter. You still have a situation where some teams are going to have to work far harder for those x points than others have to. The imbalance remains.

And along the way you've created a far greater mess. Where, as I pointed out, a win over the regining Premier can be worth less than a win over the reigning Wooden Spooner.

And how about the delightful possibility that Team A wins a couple more games than team B. And yet Team B makes the finals by virtue of wins against all the teams it only plays once and Team A misses out. Taken further, it is also possible that Team A has not only won more games than Team B, it has also won them against (over the season) tougher opposition. Marvelous.

Give it up.

 

[Expat Pie]

Ok - might as well roll out my plan for 2012, when there are 18 teams.
3 divisions:

Southwest Division
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port
Geelong
Hawthorn

Central Division
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Melbourne
St Kilda
Richmond

Northern Division
Kangaroos
Western Bulldogs
Sydney
GWS
Brisbane
Gold Coast

Each team plays the other teams in their own division twice (10 games), and teams from the other divisions once (12 games) = 22 rounds.
Local derbies and the great rivalries would happen twice a year. Less travel for the non Vic teams.

Finals would be top 2 from each division, plus the teams with the next 2 best records as wild cards. Division winners guarenteed home field in the first round. Actual final structure is open for discussion.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Ok. Here's just one.

All you acheive is transfer the uneveness into a different manifestation

Not at all, it's almost completely removed. Although eloquent, your example wasn't all that rational. You strive for evenness, yet suggest that a game against the top side is some how worth more than a game against the spooners.

Here's the way I look at it. Take Sydney for example. Haven't beaten the pies in 5 years, and wont be beating them again until they do so serious re-structuring. Under the current system, if Sydney play the pies twice, that's 8 point they simply can't win. If they play them only once, it's only 4 point. Under the proposed new system, it's only 4 points, regardless of whether they play once or twice. Surely you can now see that this is more even.

As I'm unconvinced with your first point, and you did say you had so many it's not funny, perhap we should hear the rest.

 

[grammyboy]

I think your northern division is really lacking.....

but the rest sounds good

 

[shanman]

You shouldn't be sure, because that would be worrysome.

You can make a win against a team you play twice worth anything you like. 1,2,4,8 - doesn't matter. You still have a situation where some teams are going to have to work far harder for those x points than others have to. The imbalance remains.

And along the way you've created a far greater mess. Where, as I pointed out, a win over the regining Premier can be worth less than a win over the reigning Wooden Spooner.

And how about the delightful possibility that Team A wins a couple more games than team B. And yet Team B makes the finals by virtue of wins against all the teams it only plays once and Team A misses out. Taken further, it is also possible that Team A has not only won more games than Team B, it has also won them against (over the season) tougher opposition. Marvelous.

Give it up.

ok stop.

think it through

and try to put together a response that makes even a little sense. then get a grown up to check it before posting.

Better still come up with your own original idea or.. like your club - you could bring someone from outside to make up for your mundane thought processes.. Brown will have Rattens job before the end of the 2011. take it to the bank and put it with Visys ill gotten gains.

lets not start a "situation" absfab.

 

[Expat Pie]

I think your northern division is really lacking.....

but the rest sounds good

It probably is, but will keep the future double derbys of Syd-GWS and Bris-GC intact. As for thr Roos and Doggies - they would have to go as they do not have any great rivalries like the other Melb clubs have (not a snipe, but it is what it is).

I would also point out that teams from the Northern Division have won 4 or the last 10 premierships, which is not too bad, and GC is set to win one or two in the next few years, given the consissions they have got. GWC might be in a similar position (although not so sure on that one).

 

[Expat Pie]

You shouldn't be sure, because that would be worrysome.

You can make a win against a team you play twice worth anything you like. 1,2,4,8 - doesn't matter. You still have a situation where some teams are going to have to work far harder for those x points than others have to. The imbalance remains.

And along the way you've created a far greater mess. Where, as I pointed out, a win over the regining Premier can be worth less than a win over the reigning Wooden Spooner.

And how about the delightful possibility that Team A wins a couple more games than team B. And yet Team B makes the finals by virtue of wins against all the teams it only plays once and Team A misses out. Taken further, it is also possible that Team A has not only won more games than Team B, it has also won them against (over the season) tougher opposition. Marvelous.

Give it up.

I really really hate that I am finding myself agreeing with a Carlton supporter

 

[Expat Pie]

Summary: Every team in the competition will be worth a maximum of 4 points to any other team over a whole season.

HOW: When teams play twice in a season the 4 points are spread over the 2 games - 2 points a win. ( think a single round with a home and away fixture spread through the season - 2 points a fixture)

When teams only play once - usually non rivalries etc- the whole 4 points are up for grabs. Draws would be 1 point or the usual 2...

WHY: The draw is effecting the position of clubs on the ladder and I'm not aware of any other elite comp that would tolerate it.

THE EXCERCISE: I set up a few tables the other week - hyperthetical ladders if this system was in place. It was laborious in the extreme but I'm sure someone can come up with an easy way of transferring results.
from memory the top 9 was in this order under the proposed system.

Collingwood
St Kilda
Geelong
Hawthorn
WBD
freo
sydney
north melbourne
carlton
the wooden spoon was still WCE.

The differences weren't huge but teams that happen to meet 4 or 5 teams that they can bully up in a year are not given the 8 point gifts. Alternatively teams that get beat up on by a few of the big boys or a bogey side can stay in touch if they can get it together over other teams.

If you play 6 teams twice that means that 12 of the 22 rounds would be "2 point rounds" or H&A rounds. Considering that these fixtures are usually manipulated to milk rivalries I hardly see this as a major drawback.

I'm very new to this board, used to post on a pies board but can't access it OS. Would love some feedback from the wider football community. Any thoughts? Cheers.

Sorry mate, but it would be a NO.

 

[absfab]

ok stop.

think it through

and try to put together a response that makes even a little sense. then get a grown up to check it before posting.

Better still come up with your own original idea or.. like your club - you could bring someone from outside to make up for your mundane thought processes.. Brown will have Rattens job before the end of the 2011. take it to the bank and put it with Visys ill gotten gains.

lets not start a "situation" absfab.

Any room left on the Bandwagon Noob?

 

[absfab]

Not at all, it's almost completely removed. Although eloquent, your example wasn't all that rational. You strive for evenness, yet suggest that a game against the top side is some how worth more than a game against the spooners.

I don't strive for evenness, which is not possible if teams have a different mix of fixtures - doesn't matter how you hold your tongue, it aint happening.

You might also note I said that a win against the top side should not be worth LESS than a win against the spooners. Not the same thing as saying it should be worth more.

Here's the way I look at it. Take Sydney for example. Haven't beaten the pies in 5 years, and wont be beating them again until they do so serious re-structuring. Under the current system, if Sydney play the pies twice, that's 8 point they simply can't win. If they play them only once, it's only 4 point. Under the proposed new system, it's only 4 points, regardless of whether they play once or twice. Surely you can now see that this is more even.

You might like to think that through a little further. The example you give may be more advantageous to your bunnies, not the same as being more even.

 

[shanman]

Any room left on the Bandwagon Noob?

Again, just take a second and think it through.

Posting and supporting aren't the same thing.

+ Been posting on EB&W but can't access it from vietnam. Read the first post that you seem to have understood so well yet responded to so poorly.

Anything else numbnuts?

Help me its true, I hate everything about Carlton.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

Don't like this idea, if you take Collingwood from this year we played both Saints and Geelong 2 times and won one lost one against each. We would have a combined total of four points for these four games against strong sides. There isn't enough reward for grueling games against top sides if you happen to play them twice in a season. The idea that our game against Richmond can be worth double the amount of games against the saints seems ridiculous. All games should be of equal value.

Also as Absfab pointed out we could have a situation where a team with more wins could miss out on the 8 to someone who has less wins. The team with more wins is more than likely better performed but have missed out purely based on the draw. This scenario shows that the proposed system doesn't get rid of the inequalities in the draw. The way to do that is either a longer or shorter season or not having set games each year so every few the draw will even itself out in a cyclical pattern.

 

[serenityNow]

Ok - might as well roll out my plan for 2012, when there are 18 teams.
3 divisions:

Southwest Division
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port
Geelong
Hawthorn

Central Division
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Melbourne
St Kilda
Richmond

Northern Division
Kangaroos
Western Bulldogs
Sydney
GWS
Brisbane
Gold Coast

Each team plays the other teams in their own division twice (10 games), and teams from the other divisions once (12 games) = 22 rounds.
Local derbies and the great rivalries would happen twice a year. Less travel for the non Vic teams.

Finals would be top 2 from each division, plus the teams with the next 2 best records as wild cards. Division winners guarenteed home field in the first round. Actual final structure is open for discussion.

I think the AFL will go with something like this.

I like the wild card, sides will be pushing right to the end in each comp to earn one.

OP, nah not interested.

 

[shanman]

Don't like this idea, if you take Collingwood from this year we played both Saints and Geelong 2 times and won one lost one against each. We would have a combined total of four points for these four games against strong sides. There isn't enough reward for grueling games against top sides if you happen to play them twice in a season. The idea that our game against Richmond can be worth double the amount of games against the saints seems ridiculous. All games should be of equal value.

Also as Absfab pointed out we could have a situation where a team with more wins could miss out on the 8 to someone who has less wins. The team with more wins is more than likely better performed but have missed out purely based on the draw. This scenario shows that the proposed system doesn't get rid of the inequalities in the draw. The way to do that is either a longer or shorter season or not having set games each year so every few the draw will even itself out in a cyclical pattern.

One win and one loss against the same team in a year is a break even no matter if its for 2 or 4 points.

The shift of focus is from points allocated to rounds to points allocated to each opposition side.

My experiment on a couple of retrospective seasons didn't pose any glaring unfair ladder changes.

There are better solutions, but the AFL will never do it. Too busy milking the $$.

 

[Bonuspoints]

To the OP - Its an interesting idea and definitely different to anything else I've seen. So well done on thinking outside the box, but its a No for me. Like others I don't think it evens out the draw and the problems we have with it. The draw is unequal on many levels for clubs other than just a points and ladder consideration. Crowd numbers and TV ratings also need to be considered to ensure all clubs can be financial successful. Clubs want to maximise their exposure which helps generate interest, sponsorship dollars and sales.

A concern I have about this system is how clubs would treat the two point games. The way clubs are treating some late season games by resting players due to certain grounds and/or opponents makes me think that we would definitely see clubs resting key players in two point games. Two points versus freshness of your stars in finals - not really a hard choice if you've secured a spot in the finals.

Priority picks are gone (I think), but if a kid is the next megastar of the AFL I could see a clever club using these two point games to mask tanking by winning some of them and throwing the four pointers.

The draw is a complicated part of the AFL given the number of teams we have for the length of the season we have and the different stakeholders. Don't forget the TV networks weigh in on the draw and should definitely have a say given the money they tip into the competition. When the AFL sits down to design the draw for a season it has to take a view of whats good for the competition as a whole (maximising interest and exposure), fairness for the teams (toughness, home crowds, tv timeslots, breaks), maximising revenue, the broadcasters getting value for money (selling advertisements and ratings) and I'm sure theres some that I've missed.

Ultimately as has been pointed out the draw will never be fair and equal for all until the season is either short enough that clubs only play each other once or long enough for all clubs to play each other twice. The divisions and conferences idea has the same problem. Working on the draw is a tough gig and I don't envy those that have to try and work it to please all the different parties that have a lot riding on it.

 

[gPhonque]

I posted this in another thread... and in my opinion, it is by far the best way to "even" out the draw as much as possible.

It all just comes down to how the AFL create the fixture at the start of the year. People seem to have forgotten that ALL we need to do is even out the return matches as much as possible.

Therefore, this is how is should be done:


It's 2012. 18 teams.

Every team plays each other once = 17 games.

For the remaining games:

When the AFL are creating the fixture at the start of the year, they split the clubs into 3 groups based on the previous years ladder positions:

TOP (1st to 6th), MED (7th to 12th) and LOW (13th to 18th)

Then, it's easy - every club plays 2 return games against other clubs from each group. So we have a 23 week season where everybody plays each other once, and then everyone plays 2 games against sides ranked TOP, MED and LOW.

eg. Collingwood might play return games against St Kilda (3rd) and Bulldogs (4th), Carlton (8th) and Port Adelaide (10th), and Brisbane (13th) and Essendon (14th)

Same goes for every other club in the league. They each play 2 games against TOP, MED, and LOW ranked sides. Therefore, we get a fairly even spread of return games for ALL clubs. Nobody is massively advantaged or disadvantaged.

How you fixture those games, I don't care. The AFL could work them out based on traveling aspects and various other things (as they do at the moment), or they could pull them out of a hat - as I said, I don't care. As long as each team plays 2 games against 2 sides from the TOP, MED and LOW "divisions." (for lack of a better word)

The ONLY possible flaw with it is that teams change from year to year. Therefore, a team ranked 13th at the start of the year (when the AFL are creating the fixture) might be sitting 4th on the ladder come Round 18 the following year.

But unless:

a) We have either a 17 or 34 week season and therefore have a perfect fixture

or

b) The AFL (using my method above) create the rest of the fixture after Round 17


... then there is simply no other way of creating a fair fixture. To be honest, I can't understand why the AFL aren't already doing it like this.

My method comes as close as we possibly can to creating a fair draw for ALL teams based on the quality of opposition, and if the AFL deem it necessary, travel aspects as well.

 

[Perry Pie]

...................

The ONLY possible flaw with it is that teams change from year to year. Therefore, a team ranked 13th at the start of the year (when the AFL are creating the fixture) might be sitting 4th on the ladder come Round 18 the following year.
.........................

My method comes as close as we possibly can to creating a fair draw for ALL teams based on the quality of opposition, and if the AFL deem it necessary, travel aspects as well.

I like the idea behind this very much for creating the fixtures - it even allows the AFL to have rivalries / big drawing games preserved (which they will always insist on!). So I agree that this is pretty much as close to a fair draw as is practical. (gosh, i agree with a bombers fan)

re the "flaw" you noted - I don't even think its much of a flaw. Teams go up and down each year - with this method each team has a fair spread of teams to beat - they still have to perform.

This would also work as a 22 game season (say 3 from your own group and 1 each from other groups) or 24 game season (say 3 from you own group and 2 each from other groups). These would make it slightly tougher for the top 6 teams, and slighly easier for the bottom 6 teams. All depends on what the aim is - fairness, close games, money.