*NEW point system for teams playing each other twice/making the draw even!

[calyam]

Absolutely no chance of that happening, even the AFL are aware of how big a joke that would be.

Yeah, no way the AFL will allow that to happen. GWS and GC will play each other twice and obviously have their respective cross-town derbies twice. I would expect the two teams to get relatively easier schedules next year though.

 

[Corkintheocean]

Ridiculous suggestion but running with it - would it not make more sense for the two games to be averaged out over the season and the aggregate winner taking the 4 points.

IE. West Coast travel to AAMI to play Port. Port win by 27 points. On the return leg to PS West Coast must win by a margin of 28 points or greater to secure the four points. A 14 point win by West Coast at PS will give the 4 points to Port as aggregate winners by 13 points.

Technically this would decrease the amount of splits (teams winning half games at home) by making the games "longer" rather than having two separate results.

It would put the competition into disarray but would throw up some intriguing scenarios.

 

[eastfreo75]

Freo play the Swans in Sydney for 4 points, and in the return game at home play for 2 points. That would be unfair.

Also, consider that the final 8/9 might be set alot easier. Takes the excitement, out of teams that still have a remote chance to make the finals.

 

[cobbly]

Amazingly simple. I like it.

Much better than all the conference suggestions, or evening out over 2/3/4/100 years (Only the current year matters, alot can change in 2 years, just look at west coast).

It perhaps disadvantages a crap team that causes an upset against a good team that they happen to play twice. but i think its still better than the current system.

I don't think it would impact revenue, i can't see people not turning up to a carlton v collingwood game just because its only worth 2 points.

There would be dead rubbers, but theres dead rubbers anyway.

I would suggest having the 2 point games out of the way fairly early. play the first ones in the first 5 rounds, and then the return games from rounds 12 to 17. This should minimize the dead rubbers and keep from having the 8 set too early.


we don't have to change the number of rounds. Dont have to worry about having a bad draw, better yet dont have to listen to people using it as an excuse for being crap or using it to diminish another teams achievements.

And we don't have to leave it to random chance, which could potentially have a big impact on revenue and could still end up being unfair.

 

[indy nile]

wait, so nder your system, if North had beaten collingwood on the weekend (lol), north would have got 2 points? thats not right

 

[Furn]

Does it really even out the draw though?

If the inaccuracy in the draw is which teams you play twice, then Geelong playing the Gold Coast twice is still likely to give them 4 points in total, whereas Carlton playing Fremantle for example might give them 0 points or two points each.

It is only a factor if you happen to pinch a win in a four point game that your competitor has dropped. However at least that victory might put you ahead of that competitor rather than even with them, with a percentage disadvantage I guess.

It goes part of the way, but not all of the way.

I managed a soccer team a couple of years back, and the draw was lopsided, with an unevent amount of teams compared to the fixture and an uneven amount of byes. The league said they would come up with a solution.

What they came up with was that each team played each other once. For the teams that played each other twice, you count your best result only.

Now this will lead to more wins than losses in the final ladder as teams who split their two games both get points (and percentage).

As above, using Geelong vs Gold Coast and Carlton vs Fremantle. For argument's sake, let's pretend this was the only fixture where these teams differed from each other.

Geelong def Gold Coast by 60 points
Carlton def Fremantle by 30 points

Geelong def Gold Coast by 40 points
Fremantle def Carlton by 36 points

Under this system Geelong get 4 points from their two Gold Coast games and the 60 point victory counts towards their percentage.

Carlton get 4 points and a 30 point percentage boost.

Fremantle get 4 points and a 36 point percentage boost.

Under the OP's system, Geelong would get 4 points, Carlton 2 and Fremantle 2. Better than 8, 4 and 4 but still does not fully take into account the strength of opponent.

Carlton and Fremantle getting a win against each other might be considered just as meritorious as Geelong beating the Gold Coast twice.

The only drawback might be a team that already had a 15 goal win the first time out, resting their players and letting the opposition win to keep another opponent at bay.

wouldn't that system be open to teams "sharing" wins or teams resting players once they've won the first meeting. You would have a case of the the tea mthat won the first game playing for nothing more than a better % while the other team is playing for 4 points.

 

[winty]

So if that system was being used this year, and Geelong and Collingwood drew in Round 24, does that mean each side would only get one point?

 

[Gizza]

It's not without merit but I think it introduces too many problems to be worth it. The draw isn't really a problem anyway. Any team relying on an easy draw to make the finals isn't going to do any damage come September anyway.

 

[raskolnikov]

You're missing the point.

With the 18-team comp nexy year, you play 17 opponents over the course of the 22 H&A matches

EVERY opponent is worth 4 premiership points. If you play them twice you can get 2 points for each match (4 in total) and if you play them once you get 4 points.

So, every opponent is worth the same. If you were to win every game, you can get no more or no less than 4 points against every team. All opponents are worth the same.

Mathematically it is a perfectly sound concept.

It's still unfair though. Let's say Essendon had Collingwood twice next year and we beat them both times. We would get the same number of points as Geelong for beating GWS twice?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

A win is a win.

Except under this arrangement where a win is sometimes half a win

Do you sing half the song at the end of the game? Every second word perhaps

Good Collingwood
The how play game
By they together
Uphold Magpies
See barrackers
As barrackers
Oh premiership cakewalk
The old.

 

[00Stinger]

Whats wrong with the system we have?
Everyone can bitch and moan but at the end of the season the best teams barring injury always finish at the top of the ladder. And the shit teams always finish at the bottom of the ladder.
What appears to be an easy draw at the beginning of the season can look to be a hard draw come the seasons end.

 

[Dazb86]

I like this concept. Makes the competition fair.

 

[Hipster Doofus]

Not a fan of it, just leave the game as it is

 

[Hikaru]

Its a pretty simple idea, and fairer then what we have.

It doesn't take into account percentages though - we'd probably have to halve the scores in the 2 point matches to even that out, so the two 2 point matches are equivalent of one 4 point match. (ie to stop the advantage of a team having two trashings of the bottom compared to just playing 'em just once).

Doesn't take into account home ground advantage either, ie Essendon might play Adelaide in Adelaide once, Carlton might pay them both in Adelaide and Melbourne, and others Collingwood play them only in Melbourne. Obvious which teams are at advantage here.

The point on it making some matches worth more than others as well is a bit distasteful. I prefer having all matches being equal. But still, the current system is a long way from perfect so I can live with it.

 

[Burgarama]

From next year, each team will play 5 other teams twice. Why not group the teams based on where they finished the year before so that you have the top 6, middle 6, and bottom 6. Then every team plays the other 5 teams in their group twice.

The first advantage, the most obvious point, is it creates more blockbuster games between the top 6.

Secondly, the bottom 6 games are going to be more even, and therefore more interesting, contests. Nothing worse for neutral supporters than seeing a bottom team getting smashed by a top side.

Thoughts?

 

[cfx_1]

I kind of like the idea. However i do believe an percentage differential would be the fairest way to calculate the points.

This takes out the problem of weather conditions and goes by each team's performance on each day..

For example, if we were using aggregate total and the following games were played

Game 1: Team A 50 - Team B 40
Game 2: Team A 90 - Team B 105

Under total aggregate Team B would be awarded the 4 points as they have a positive differential of 5 points, however Team A would win under a percentage system as they have a positive differential of 3.33%..

Basically, 10 points in a slog is harder to get than 15 points in a shootout and this accounts for that.

Thoughts?

 

[AFaiL]

But is it an improvement Jack? You play a random bunch of teams and every game counts as much as the last. This basically makes half games.

Tell me a team that won the premiership or played finals only because they played easybeats? Any team worth their salt will win interstate, against top sides and bottom sides and with and without injuries. The draw isn't a problem.

You're from Sydney, which hopefully explains your complete lack of knowledge on the issue.

The fundamental element of the game, the draw/fixture is flawed and unfair and favours certain teams more than others.

 

[AFaiL]

Yes sent their B team to Tassie to play Hawthorn

Imagine a game like this Saturday's worth only 2 points. Would teams play their best 22? Would it be a sell out?

every team plays the same number of 2 points games, so throw away 2points at your own peril

the main problem is the bogans who are obseesed with things like 4 points, finals in september, 4 quarters, etc etc..

 

[AFaiL]

Not a fan of it, just leave the game as it is

God I'm sick of people like you.."just leave the game as it is"

You only say that because KB and his mates continualyl fiddle with the umpiring rules.

The fixture is flawed, terribly, and needs attention.

The game is not perfect, not fair, and should not be left as it is.

Bogan

 

[Rummy]

I dont like that at all. What happens if you play against higher quality opposition in your repeat games throughout the year on average compared to another team??

What they should do is look at where each team finished on the ladder at the end of the previous season and note the position Eg Collingwood finished 1st, so give them a 1. West Coast finished last so they would be 16.

Then do a mock draft and add up the total points for the opposition you will be facing throughout the year. Eg 18 teams and 22 rounds you should have a score roughly around 198 (9 would be the average team score next year multiplied by the number of rounds). If a score is too high above 198, this means their opposition is too easy, and if the score is below 198, they need to adjust them to play lessor quality teams in a game or two to make it roughly equal to 198. It's so very simple.

 

[Burgarama]

I dont like that at all. What happens if you play against higher quality opposition in your repeat games throughout the year on average compared to another team??

The only team who can feel aggrieved would be the 1 or 2 weaker teams in the top 6. But you could argue that if they were genuine contenders, they should beat a couple of the top sides anyway, plus nearly all of their games against the bottom 12. That still puts them in contention for a top 8 finish.

 

[mjay]

This is how the ladder would look currently under this system (apologise if there is any errors, was made quickly). In brackets is the number of point they actually have and the numbers on the far right is how many points they would have left to play for under this 'new' point system.
I like the idea in theory but it still seems to have some flaws. It doesn't change the ladder a huge amount but the dogs have obviously won a few '4 point' games. Would be interesting to construct the ladder at the end of the year and see if there is any difference from the real ladder to this system's. Good teams are gonna win no matter what though

Coll -40 (52) 22
Geel – 36 (52) 20
Hawks – 34 (44) 18
Carlton – 29 (42) 20
WC – 26 (40) 22
Sydney – 26 (34) 18
WB – 24 (28) 18
Freo – 24 (32) 22

Ess – 23 (30) 18
Melb – 22 (26) 18
St kilda – 22 (26) 22
North – 20 (24) 20
Rich – 14 (22) 22
Adel – 14 (16) 20
Bris – 8 (12) 20
Port – 8 (8) 18
GC – 6 (8) 22

 

[ash_78]

Has its merits but will never get up.

The 2 biggest flaws IMO are:
1) a lowly placed side only receives 2 points for pulling off a huge victory against a top team.
2) it devalues huge rivalry games such as Anzac Day and Showdowns etc, and therefore could adversely affect crowds.

 

[calyam]

This is how the ladder would look currently under this system (apologise if there is any errors, was made quickly). In brackets is the number of point they actually have and the numbers on the far right is how many points they would have left to play for under this 'new' point system.
I like the idea in theory but it still seems to have some flaws. It doesn't change the ladder a huge amount but the dogs have obviously won a few '4 point' games. Would be interesting to construct the ladder at the end of the year and see if there is any difference from the real ladder to this system's. Good teams are gonna win no matter what though

Coll -40 (52) 22
Geel – 36 (52) 20
Hawks – 34 (44) 18
Carlton – 29 (42) 20
WC – 26 (40) 22
Sydney – 26 (34) 18
WB – 24 (28) 18
Freo – 24 (32) 22

Ess – 23 (30) 18
Melb – 22 (26) 18
St kilda – 22 (26) 22
North – 20 (24) 20
Rich – 14 (22) 22
Adel – 14 (16) 20
Bris – 8 (12) 20
Port – 8 (8) 18
GC – 6 (8) 22

So effectively it's less transparent, more complicated and makes little-to-no difference. Not exactly surprising.

 

[gPhonque]

Sorry people, but this is just another extremely flawed idea. Sometimes, I wonder if anybody on this forum actually really thinks about these things. It seems as though you all look at the total amount of points awarded, and just say to yourselves "well, every team is worth the same amount of points, so it MUST be even now! Yay!"

Yet, it solves absolutely nothing, and arguably makes it worse.

Teams still play 22 games.

The only difference is that you're now arbitrarily grouping a bunch of them together and awarding them HALF the points for each of their games.

How is this fair?

The system contains all the advantages and disadvantages that the current system contains. Random teams are still playing random teams twice. But now, you're limiting the amount of points they are awarded for winning these games! Based on WHAT? Why are these teams playing each other twice? What is THAT based on? And WHY should these games not be worth the standard amount of points? WHAT is it all based on?

Answer - NOTHING!

It's still completely random. It is still left in the hands of a bunch of men in suits at the start of the season.

How is the following hypothetical example "fair":

Brisbane happen to play Collingwood twice. Brisbane BEAT Collingwood TWICE. Brisbane are awarded 4 points.

Brisbane happen to play Gold Coast once. Brisbane BEAT Gold Coast ONCE. Brisbane are awarded 4 points.

How on Earth is that fair?

Why should Brisbane not be awarded 8 points for winning 2 extremely tough games of football?

Why is a game of football now NOT a game of football?

If that's the case (which is EXACTLY the situation that this system creates), then the question must be asked - why are we bothering with the extra games if they are still making the entire competition uneven?

Why don't we just play each other ONCE?


The best, simplest, most logical, and most importantly fairest way to even up the draw is the method I suggested in a thread last year:

2012.

18 teams.

1 ladder.

No difference to what we currently have now, apart from:

23 rounds.

Firstly, everybody plays each other once.

When creating the draw at the start of the season however, the AFL "group" or "rank" the teams based on their previous year's ladder (or finishing) position....

eg. (I'll use 2010 ladder position for this example)

GROUP 1: Collingwood, Geelong, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs, Sydney, Fremantle

GROUP 2: Hawthorn, Carlton, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Melbourne

GROUP 3: Brisbane, Essendon, Richmond, West Coast, Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney

.... and then every team plays TWO teams from each group twice.

Simple!

That way, the "return matches" are played against an equal spread of teams of various strength.

REMEMBER: These groups are ONLY used by the AFL when they are creating the draw at the start of the year. They are NOT seen by us. We still have ONE ladder. ONE competition. NO "groups." NO "conferences." These rankings are PURELY a tool used by the AFL to create the draw at the start of the season. NOTHING changes from what we have now.

As for WHERE the AFL schedule these games to be played, the AFL can work that out. Obviously, they need to take into account the amount of times teams travel, etc. In fact, they also still have the flexibility to have their blockbusters and derbies. eg. Collingwood can still play Essendon twice if the AFL want. It just means that Collingwood can only play ONE other team from Group 3 twice, and Essendon can only play ONE other team from Group 1 twice.

In reality, nothing changes compared to what we have now, other than the fact that each team MUST play TWO teams from each group TWICE. And because these groups are based on the previous year's ladder (or finishing) position, then things are instantly 100x fairer.

The ONLY potential flaw in this system is the fact that teams evolve from year to year. Teams get stronger. However, teams also get weaker.

Yes - it's still an "uneven" draw. Yes, it's still a little bit "random." Yes, different clubs still play different clubs twice. However, it's certainly less random, and a hell of a lot fairer, than what we currently have as the return matches are now based on the quality of the opposition.

It is the fairest way to do it.

Otherwise, we either play each other once and have a 17 round season, or twice and have a 34 round season.

Or, we stick with what we currently have which is just completely random and completely unfair.

You decide.