g-man
Senior List
I don't see this need to balance out the draw. Every team gets 11 homegames and 11 away games, sounds fair to me. It shouldn't matter who you play twice, you're either good enough to win or you're not.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
*NEW point system for teams playing each other twice/making the draw even!
- Thread starter D I D A K #4
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Dont you see, it doesn't matter whether you play a team once or twice, its still only 4 points up for grabs. Thats why it doesnt matter if your playing collingwood twice or GWS twice. either way its only 4 points!
Therefore a team is not advantaged by playing GWS twice because they get the same points as they would have playing them once.
The only possible negative is the lack of reward for a team causing an upset.
But it's still better than the way it is now.
We could just have a 17 round season but that will never happen because of the loss of revenue.
34 round season is also unrealistic as it would make the season too long and extend into the cricket season, making the G and other grounds unavailable for much of the time. Not to mention the extra strain on the players.
the problem with using last years results to determine who plays who twice is they were last years results. Alot can change, you may have thought at the start of the year that playing west coast twice was an advantage, turns out that's not the case. It also means sides that have one bad year can have a big advantage the next year. Lets bring back the constant claims of tanking!
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
It would be interesting to see how it would effect previous seasons.
West Coast would have had 4 less points as we beat Essendon twice.
bballscout
Cancelled
Structure I like for the long term future:
Victorian Conferance (9 teams):
Collingwood
Carlton
Essendon
Richmond
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Geelong
St Kilda
North Melb/Bulldogs Merger (cop abuse i know but has benefits)
Australian Conferance (9 teams:
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS
Tasmania
Final 4 from each divison makes finals where it is ranked as normal. Teams play each other from their group twice and the outside group once. Leaves for a 25 game season. Interstate clubs get the extra home game to compensate for travel (13/12). They could even play that uneven round elsewhere ala darwin, cairns, ballarat etc.
Whats everyone think? Maximises derby games, offers an even competition whilst keeping the AFL/fans/clubs happy.
Victorian Conferance (9 teams):
Collingwood
Carlton
Essendon
Richmond
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Geelong
St Kilda
North Melb/Bulldogs Merger (cop abuse i know but has benefits)
Australian Conferance (9 teams:
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS
Tasmania
Final 4 from each divison makes finals where it is ranked as normal. Teams play each other from their group twice and the outside group once. Leaves for a 25 game season. Interstate clubs get the extra home game to compensate for travel (13/12). They could even play that uneven round elsewhere ala darwin, cairns, ballarat etc.
Whats everyone think? Maximises derby games, offers an even competition whilst keeping the AFL/fans/clubs happy.
It might only be 4 points, but it's 2 games!
You haven't answered ANY of my questions either.
WHY are certain teams playing certain teams twice? WHO decides which teams play each other twice?
It's just as completely random as the current system.
Under the current system, teams are ALREADY playing for the same amount of points.
Under this proposal, teams are still playing for the same amount of points... but they're still all playing different teams for the same amount of points!
There's no difference!
The problem is not the amount of points teams play for.
The problem is the fact that everybody plays completely random clubs twice!
And this doesn't do anything to fix that!
How does scheduling a bunch of random teams to play another bunch of random teams twice, (the key flaw that you're all forgetting about here!) and then telling them that "you guys who play each other twice only get half the points" even anything up?
Seriously, use your brain here for a minute.
It's STILL random teams playing other random teams twice.
The amount of points they play for has NOTHING to do with it, and does NOTHING to make things fairer.
Yes, and I even mentioned that that's the ONLY potential flaw in my system. However, you're also forgetting that each team plays TWO teams from EACH group twice. They may have drawn West Coast twice, but they may also have drawn St Kilda and/or The Western Bulldogs twice. Things will even themselves out.
It's still certainly a hell of a lot fairer than the current system, and the system that has been suggested in the OP. (which is still completely random and, as I said, left to a bunch of men in suits to decide at the start of the season.)
No they don't.
How?
Did you even bother to read my post?
One of the things my system is designed to completely avoid is the exact thing you just mentioned.
Remember - every team plays return games against TWO teams from EACH group.
"Tanking" would achieve nothing as the team that has "tanked" (and every other team I might add) firstly plays every team once, and then has to play return matches against two teams from the Top 6, two teams from the Middle 6, and two teams from the Bottom 6.
Every club has a similar draw.
That is the entire point of the system.
Try reading posts before you reply to them.
How does it offer "an even competition?"
Basing return games on geography is no less random than picking them out of a hat.
It is no fairer or "even" than what we currently have.
How is basing the return matches on geography fairer than having a bunch of men in suits decide them at the start of the season? (as we currently have)
What if all of the Victorian teams are strong, and all the Non-Victorian teams are weak?
All of a sudden, we have a finals series in which 4 teams who don't belong there are playing finals, while stronger teams who happened to be in a stronger "conference" miss out.
It's unfair, and compromises the entire integrity of the finals series, and indeed our game.
Not to mention that splitting the competition into geographical groups is going backwards! Why did we even bother with an AFL then? We may as well go back to having the VFL, WAFL, SANFL (etc) if we're going to split the competition up again based on nothing more than geography.
This is why conferences do not work. At least, not for our game.
Cue Dan26.
Corrections:
West Coast 28
Adelaide 12
Port 6
Disadvantage compared to actual premiership points:
Collingwood 20%
Geelong 25%
Hawthorn 23%
Carlton 31%
West Coast 30%
Sydney 24%
Fremantle 25%
Bulldogs 14%
Essendon 23%
Melbourne 15%
St.Kilda 15%
North 17%
Richmond 36%
Brisbane 33%
Port 25%
Gold Coast 25%
bballscout
Cancelled
Not really, American sports is entirely based around conferance systems.
Also as suggested that extra uneven round could easily be a neutral game, play it overseas, cairns etc. Promote the league/game.
Doesnt matter if 1 conferance is stronger than the other as this will always change year to year. Top teams will be there no matter what. Look at NBA this year, West significantly weaker than the East.
I concur with the criticisms levelled at the op's system and whilst yours is fairer than the current system, it is no fairer than the OP's.
Under your system, team A could play Collingwood, Geelong, Hawthorn, Carlton, West Coast and Essendon twice in 2011 (top 5 teams and 8th)
Team B could play GC, Brisbane, Port, Adelaide, StKilda, Bulldogs twice (bottom 4 and two other bottom 8 teams)
Now I know you've acknowledged this flaw (to an extent) but it makes for a system that is less fair than 'all teams worth the same' (which has some flaws of its own). At the end of the day, you're unusual criticism (still decided by suits) can also be applied to your system as there is still random allocation within the groupings.
kosifantutti
Premiership Player
Veteran
St Kilda - Marcus Windhager Player Sponsor 2022
St Kilda - James Frawley Player Sponsor 2021
St Kilda - Doulton Langlands Player Sponsor 2020
St Kilda - Robbie Young Player Sponsor 2019
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2018
Reimagine Moorabbin
St Kilda - Nathan Freeman Player Sponsor 2017
Some quick calculations based on last year's results.
The top four doesn't change:
Pies 49
Cats 46
Saints 44
Dogs 40
then Hawthorn 38 leap frogs Sydney 36 and Freo 36 into fifth spot, Carlton 30 drops out and Hawthorn play North 32 in the first week of the finals.
The top four doesn't change:
Pies 49
Cats 46
Saints 44
Dogs 40
then Hawthorn 38 leap frogs Sydney 36 and Freo 36 into fifth spot, Carlton 30 drops out and Hawthorn play North 32 in the first week of the finals.
Amokura
Debutant
Works for me given all the other rule changes that go on.
One variation to ensure every game has as much interest as possible is the first time each team plays each other it is for the full 4 points. Next time it is to retain or drag back. Same goes for a draw in the first meet.
So the result could be 4/0, 2/2 or 3/1.
Given that the second time teams play it still provides the incentive to win games for those vying for finals. Those teams who want to play dead can still do that too.
Only problem I see is it is an "emotional" issue and these are always hard to convince people who think that way.
One variation to ensure every game has as much interest as possible is the first time each team plays each other it is for the full 4 points. Next time it is to retain or drag back. Same goes for a draw in the first meet.
So the result could be 4/0, 2/2 or 3/1.
Given that the second time teams play it still provides the incentive to win games for those vying for finals. Those teams who want to play dead can still do that too.
Only problem I see is it is an "emotional" issue and these are always hard to convince people who think that way.
Of course it is.
In fact, I'm not sure how you can agree with the criticisms I made in regards to the OP, then say that my system is fairer than the current system, and then say that my system is no fairer than the OP's!
The current system and the OP's system are exactly the same, so how can my system be fairer than one and not the other?
The OP and the current system are still made up of random clubs playing other random clubs an uneven number of times, with those return matches being based on absolutely nothing that has any relevance to what happens on a football field.
At the moment, they are decided by "a bunch of men in suits" at the start of the year. (yes, it sounds silly, but that's our current method!) You may as well pull them out of a hat in that case. Would that be fair? Of course not.
My system tries to bring SOME order and fairness as to who plays who twice in a season. And that's ALL we can do with an uneven draw.
Making the clubs who play each other twice only earn 2 points for a win does nothing to even anything out, as those clubs they are playing for half points each time are still selected at random at the start of the year by the AFL. All teams are still playing the same amount of games as each other for the same amount of points as each other.... but all playing different clubs!
In reality, there is absolutely no difference!
That is an extreme example that might apply to ONE team.... maybe.... once every few years. And even then, it is still infinitely better and fairer than the system (if you can call it that!) that we have currently.
And infinitely better than a system that has completely random clubs playing other completely random clubs for half the points each time, and other completely randomly selected clubs for the full 4 points.
You say "all teams are worth the same".... but they're not! Some are stronger, and some are weaker. So who decides who plays the stronger teams once or twice for half or full points, and the weaker teams once or twice for half or full points? Why should one game of football be worth more (or less) than another game of football?
People seem to think that the mathematics add up.... (which they don't! We'd just be creating another problem that people will be complaining about after they realise it hasn't actually solved or changed anything!)
....but the mathematics are not the problem.
It's different clubs playing a different number of games of football against different quality opposition that is the problem.
The OP does nothing to fix this, and in fact, only brings MORE attention to and places even MORE importance on this completely random aspect of our draw.
My system, whilst not perfect, is as fair as we'll ever get.... unless we play 17 rounds, or 34 rounds....
.... or create the rest of the draw (using my method) at the end of Round 17. (which can't happen for obvious reasons!)
Could also say "if you beat team X by a combined score Y then they lose previous points if they had them" . Makes it more interesting as those games have numerous outcomes. A team doing crap in the beginning of the year gets beat, later in the year they hit their straps and take all the points back with a thrashing!
Any number of gimmicks could be introduced to make things more "interesting", but why? Change for change's sake alienates rather than unites.
This suggestion is along the same lines as my idea, but in my opinion, is also unnecessarily complicated and places unnecessary limitations on where a team can finish, and also introduces another layer of unevenness that is just pointless:
"They then play a further five games against the teams in their group of six to make up the 22 games.'
Why play the teams only in their group twice? Why should a club's performances throughout the first 17 rounds dictate the strength/difficulty of their remaining H&A fixture? That's just introducing more unevenness. And why should a club's performance throughout the first 17 rounds dictate (to an extent) where they finish on the ladder when there are still another 5 (or 6 under my system) rounds to play?
It's an interesting suggestion nick1408, but my suggestion is MUCH more balanced - each team plays two teams from each group twice.
If I may say so myself, my idea is almost perfect. The only flaw is the fact that the groups are based on the previous years ladder.
Ideally, it would be based on the ladder after Round 17 of the current season.
However, that will never happen in the AFL for a variety of reasons.
Therefore, basing it on the previous years ladder is the next best option.
But they HAVE to play 2 clubs from EACH group or else you're just creating another uneven draw. The only thing you're achieving by placing teams in ranked groups and having them play the other teams in that group twice is applying a method to the madness.... it's not fixing the problem of clubs having tougher or weaker draws! In fact, it's only exacerbating the problem! Not to mention, as I said, splitting the ladder into 3 completely unnecessary groups and placing unnecessary limitations on where a club can finish.
Think outside the box (or "group", or "conference") people!
Thinking "inside the box" (or group/conference) doesn't solve anything, and is just another way of creating an uneven draw.
Schulzenfest
TheBrownDog
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm not a fan of your idea at all gPhonque. It's even less fair than the current one. In the current system, a team might be unlucky enough to get stuck with playing all of the top teams from the previous year or lucky enough to get stuck playing all of the bottom teams, which is supposed to be what the AFL are trying to avoid to promote fairness. It's just an unwanted quirk of the draw which probably won't happen. Your system guarantees that this unwanted and unfair consequence will occur. How is it fair that the team finishing 6th has to play 1st through 5th twice but the team finishing 13th gets to play 14th through 18th twice?
Big fan of the Scottish Premier League based system though. Again I doubt it will happen because it lessens the AFL's ability to double up on 'blockbuster' games, but it's probably the fairest system suggested yet.
Big fan of the Scottish Premier League based system though. Again I doubt it will happen because it lessens the AFL's ability to double up on 'blockbuster' games, but it's probably the fairest system suggested yet.
Easty
The King
Don't like the notion of random selection = unfair.
One thing I've noticed about draw fairness. More often than not, the team on top of the ladder always perceivably has a relatively easy draw. Why? Because they are the best team, so everyone below them aren't as good. Teams vying for the last spot in the 8 will have a comparably harder draw because, you guessed it, the teams above them are better than them.
But that's irrelevant anyway. Name me one team that won the premiership because they had a good draw throughout the season?
One thing I've noticed about draw fairness. More often than not, the team on top of the ladder always perceivably has a relatively easy draw. Why? Because they are the best team, so everyone below them aren't as good. Teams vying for the last spot in the 8 will have a comparably harder draw because, you guessed it, the teams above them are better than them.
But that's irrelevant anyway. Name me one team that won the premiership because they had a good draw throughout the season?
Freo2012
Premiership Player
Scottish system definitely the best and fairest system - would also create a lot more interest in the remaining pool games as every team has a lot more to play for than the present system.
There is a flaw inthe 4 pt OP system. Take 2 teams with identical draws except one plays Colonwood twice, the other plays GC twice - there is a definite % advantage still for the team that plays GC twice. The solution would be to halve the points for and against of the duplicate opposition games.
Code:
St Kilda 9.5
Adelaide 9.1
Hawthorn 8.9
Fremantle 8.8
Sydney 8.8
Port Adelaide 8.7
Melbourne 8.7
Richmond 8.7
Collingwood 8.6
Carlton 8.5
W. Bulldogs 8.4
West Coast 8.4
Essendon 8.2
Nth Melb. 8.0
Brisbane 7.5
Geelong 7.3Significantly uneven or not?
gimp!
Standus Operatus
- Feb 20, 2010
- 5,608
- 4,897
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
The fairest system is one where each team plays each other once. The Scottish Premier League system seems OK but there is no way it will happen for the reason you have said; it will restrict these bastards from making money. If fixturing blockbuster games wasn't going to be an issue then it would be a 17 round season, and that's that.
Yes, you're misunderstanding COMPLETELY.
They don't!!!
Oh god........ did you even read my post? (seriously? I'm not being a smart-arse... but did you actually read it?)
I don't know how many more times I can repeat it...
Each club plays TWO games (or A RETURN MATCH) against TWO clubs from EACH group.
See the words I've written in CAPITAL letters? They're the key words.
I don't know how I can explain it any simpler, but I'll try... (and it's really not that hard! In fact, it's an incredibly simple concept!)
Here's last year's ladder: (I've put Gold Coast and GWS at the bottom obviously)
Collingwood
Geelong
St Kilda
Western Bulldogs
Sydney
Fremantle
Hawthorn
Carlton
North Melbourne
Port Adelaide
Adelaide
Melbourne
Brisbane
Essendon
Richmond
West Coast
Gold Coast
Greater Western Sydney
The colours represent the "groups."
Now, I'll repeat:
Each club plays TWO games (so a return match) against TWO clubs from EACH group.
SO...
Each red team plays two red teams twice, two green teams twice, and two brown teams twice.
Each green team plays two red teams twice, two green teams twice, and two brown teams twice.
Each brown teams plays two red teams twice, two green teams twice, and two brown teams twice.
Got it?
That way, the return matches (WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM!) are fairly evenly spread between teams of VARYING QUALITY/STRENGTH. Strong teams get absolutely NO advantage or disadvantage. Weaker teams get absolutely NO advantage or disadvantage.
Other than having 17 or 34 rounds, you simply can NOT get a fairer draw than this!
The scenario you mentioned above ("How is it fair that the team finishing 6th has to play 1st through 5th twice but the team finishing 13th gets to play 14th through 18th twice?") is exactly what my system avoids. It simply doesn't happen under my system. That's the entire point of it.
The ironic thing with your entire post is that my system addresses BOTH the fairness issue (far more than the Scottish Premier League system does), is simpler, AND still let's the AFL schedule their "blockbuster" games.
If only you'd comprehended it.
Instead of the Scottish Premier league, why not copy the English Premier League?
34 games. 'Oh Noes, I might get hurt and tired!'.
Tough sh*t. Let's have a fair comp - which we haven't had since 1986.
34 games. 'Oh Noes, I might get hurt and tired!'.
Tough sh*t. Let's have a fair comp - which we haven't had since 1986.
When would they make the assessing of a weak team? West Coast at the start of the year would surely be a 2 point game.. Now they are the most feared club behind pies and cats?
