Proposed Draw

[Sainter_Dad]

Each Team plays all other tems once between Round 1 and 17
At the end of Round 17 the league is split into Sections for (mini) Final Series

Draft poisitions fixed at the end of Round 17

Top 8 play each other once more (Section A)
Bottom 10 play 7 of the remaining 9 teams (Section B)

Top 7 of Section A fill positions 1 - 7 of the Final Series
Lowest finisher from Section A drops out of the finals race

Top Finisher from Section B is elevated to the Final Series

Standard Finals Series then applies
1-4
2-3
5-8
6-7

Benefits
Removes tanking as the draft order is fixed at Round 17 when teams will still be 'live'
Keeps interest in the season for the Section B as one team will still make the finals
Ensures that most teams playing finals will have had competitive games up to the finals
Guarantees blockbusters in the weeks leading up to the finals

I have not heard of this being proposed but it may have been.

Thoughts????

[perfectionist]

You are right in that it is more a "draw" than a "fix". It has logical consistency (probably enough to torpedo it here and elsewhere), and not only promotes more interest to the end of the H&A games, but probably greater revenues. However, does it pass the one test that matters? Does it advantage or disadvantage Collingwood?

[dragit]

You are right in that it is more a "draw" than a "fix". It has logical consistency (probably enough to torpedo it here and elsewhere), and not only promotes more interest to the end of the H&A games, but probably greater revenues. However, does it pass the one test that matters? Does it advantage or disadvantage Collingwood?

I'm more worried about Andrew's bonus, will he be able to crack $2.5million with that set-up.

[Spinner]

So offence... But I am so over 'proposed' fixture changes. Both on the internet and the people that ring up radio stations with their concept.

[saintspremiers]

Really silly idea.

You can't have everyone playing each other once in the first 17 rounds!

Andy and his monkey gt rid of that a few years ago to make more money!

The best IMO we can hope for is a longer season - may mean 24 rounds and 2 byes per team, but at least that's a week less off season and an extra round of the H&A season.

More time to annoy you lot

[citywest]

If we had a proper CEO then the next expansion of the AFL should be in 2016 (Tasmania) and 2017 (3rd team in WA). That would make a total of 20 teams in the AFL.

* Each team plays each other once = 19 rounds..........
The following year whichever team you played at home (in rounds 1 to 19), the previous year you play away.
Round 20 is always determined by the ladder as at the end of round 19 and home ground advantage goes to the
higher placed team.

* Round 20 would be 1 vs 11, 2 vs 12, 3 vs 13, 4 vs 14, 5 vs 15, 6 vs 16, 7 vs 17, 8 vs 18, 9 vs 19 & 10 vs 20.

That makes 20 rounds with 10 games per round which = 200 home and away games.
Currently we have 22 rounds with 9 games per round which = 198 home and away games.

Totally fair and totally equitable.

[Life Long Saint]

* Round 20 would be 1 vs 11, 2 vs 12, 3 vs 13, 4 vs 14, 5 vs 15, 6 vs 16, 7 vs 17, 8 vs 18, 9 vs 19 & 10 vs 20.

Why does the top team get the hardest game? Shouldn't they play the bottom team?

The other issue with this approach is that they are struggling to get nine games on a weekend. One more into the mix will not help without a major rethink of the fixturing...

[plugger66]

People whinge about the current fixture and then come up with this. Clubs would tank to finish 9th after 17 rounds instead of finishing 8th. When will people realise no fixture is fair and it is better to have one that gets money into the AFL so clubs survive than coming up with something that still isnt fair but means less money into the AFL meaning that clubs may not survive. And just in case people havent realised our membership is the 3rd lowest in Victoria. hardly in a position to wanting a fixture that may make the AFL a lot less money. And i also doubt 24 rounds is coming any time soon even though it would be great IMO. The more footy the better.

[jays]

get rid of nab cup and play each team twice

[Sainter_Dad]

People whinge about the current fixture and then come up with this. Clubs would tank to finish 9th after 17 rounds instead of finishing 8th. When will people realise no fixture is fair and it is better to have one that gets money into the AFL so clubs survive than coming up with something that still isnt fair but means less money into the AFL meaning that clubs may not survive. And just in case people havent realised our membership is the 3rd lowest in Victoria. hardly in a position to wanting a fixture that may make the AFL a lot less money. And i also doubt 24 rounds is coming any time soon even though it would be great IMO. The more footy the better.

Why would teams tank to get 9th instead of 8th? To go into the last 7 weeks with a 1 chance in 10 to play in the finals whereas finishing 8th gives them a 7 out of 8 chance of playing finals?

And why is this proposal getting less money to the AFL - It would mean that the top 8 teams (usually the highest attended clubs) play each other twice - I would figure that this would give more money to the AFL - more blockbusters etc.

[plugger66]

People whinge about the current fixture and then come up with this. Clubs would tank to finish 9th after 17 rounds instead of finishing 8th. When will people realise no fixture is fair and it is better to have one that gets money into the AFL so clubs survive than coming up with something that still isnt fair but means less money into the AFL meaning that clubs may not survive. And just in case people havent realised our membership is the 3rd lowest in Victoria. hardly in a position to wanting a fixture that may make the AFL a lot less money. And i also doubt 24 rounds is coming any time soon even though it would be great IMO. The more footy the better.

Why would teams tank to get 9th instead of 8th? To go into the last 7 weeks with a 1 chance in 10 to play in the finals whereas finishing 8th gives them a 7 out of 8 chance of playing finals?

And why is this proposal getting less money to the AFL - It would mean that the top 8 teams (usually the highest attended clubs) play each other twice - I would figure that this would give more money to the AFL - more blockbusters etc.

Yep sorry misread the part about the 7 out of 8 make the finals. Still think it would bring in much less money to the AFL because the TV stations want the draw up front and the want the pies to play Carlton and Essendon twice. That is just the way of the game. Also I still say that you must have local derbies. The game is only going to get a bigger audience in the growing states when they play each other twice. I also think it is basically a 17 round season for 10 sides. One position for 10 sides isnt a great incentive and yes I know the ladder hardly changes after round 17 but could imagine 2 of the top 8 losing 6 or 7 of their 7 games and 2 sides in the bottom 10 winning 6 or 7. They could both have 5 or 6 more wins but only one of them can in the finals.

[perfectionist]

...Why would teams tank to get 9th instead of 8th? To go into the last 7 weeks with a 1 chance in 10 to play in the finals whereas finishing 8th gives them a 7 out of 8 chance of playing finals?
And why is this proposal getting less money to the AFL - It would mean that the top 8 teams (ussually the highest attended clubs) play each other twice - I would figure that this would give more money to the AFL - more blockbusters etc.

You see, there you go again, bringing logic and thoughtful analysis into the argument. The whole point of having opinions these days is that they must be uninformed or personally provocative or uncritically accepting of the status quo. Deflecting the thread to avoid unnecessary intellectual embarrassment is also a sound approach. But logic? Forget it. By the way, your idea would work, given the number of teams that we now have, which make the current arrangements too prone to manipulation. Two additional components I would add. First, reverse the home ground advantage every other year for rounds 1-17, and second, to draw lots for the schedule for rounds 18-24.

[plugger66]

...Why would teams tank to get 9th instead of 8th? To go into the last 7 weeks with a 1 chance in 10 to play in the finals whereas finishing 8th gives them a 7 out of 8 chance of playing finals?
And why is this proposal getting less money to the AFL - It would mean that the top 8 teams (ussually the highest attended clubs) play each other twice - I would figure that this would give more money to the AFL - more blockbusters etc.

You see, there you go again, bringing logic and thoughtful analysis into the argument. The whole point of having opinions these days is that they must be uninformed or personally provocative or uncritically accepting of the status quo. Deflecting the thread to avoid unnecessary intellectual embarrassment is also a sound approach. But logic? Forget it. By the way, your idea would work, given the number of teams that we now have, which make the current arrangements too prone to manipulation. Two additional components I would make. First, reverse the home ground advantage every other year for rounds 1-17, and second, to draw lots for the schedule for rounds 18-24.

So you actually think a side who finishes 9th with say 5 more wins than 7th would make sense? If you are going to debate something the way you wrote your paragraph isnt the way to do it. What you did is really dumb it down. What i said is logic. When people think of something you must think of the alternatives. Still need local derbies especially for the growing states and still need blockbusters so the TV stations pay 1.2 billion or more next time.

[Sainter_Dad]

...Why would teams tank to get 9th instead of 8th? To go into the last 7 weeks with a 1 chance in 10 to play in the finals whereas finishing 8th gives them a 7 out of 8 chance of playing finals?
And why is this proposal getting less money to the AFL - It would mean that the top 8 teams (ussually the highest attended clubs) play each other twice - I would figure that this would give more money to the AFL - more blockbusters etc.

You see, there you go again, bringing logic and thoughtful analysis into the argument. The whole point of having opinions these days is that they must be uninformed or personally provocative or uncritically accepting of the status quo. Deflecting the thread to avoid unnecessary intellectual embarrassment is also a sound approach. But logic? Forget it. By the way, your idea would work, given the number of teams that we now have, which make the current arrangements too prone to manipulation. Two additional components I would add. First, reverse the home ground advantage every other year for rounds 1-17, and second, to draw lots for the schedule for rounds 18-24.

I don't think that by claiming that I am arguing Logic - and that by definition another poster (P66) is being emotive and illogical actually helps but....

I do agree with the changing of the home ground advantage, other things such as Anzac Day etc need to be considered - and Plugger has a point about the TV rights - however - I also think that the TV stations get to chose their games in 6 week blocks (??) I may be wrong - but could they not pick games 1-6, 7-12 and 13-18 (with round 18 being a selection of ladder positions as opposed to actual games) and then the balance once the ladder is set. Or alternatively bid on the H & A for the first 17, and then have the right to telecast the Section A with the other channels being left the Section B - I know which section I would want to spend mega big bucks to get.

[Sainter_Dad]

So you actually think a side who finishes 9th with say 5 more wins than 7th would make sense? If you are going to debate something the way you wrote your paragraph isnt the way to do it. What you did is really dumb it down. What i said is logic. When people think of something you must think of the alternatives. Still need local derbies especially for the growing states and still need blockbusters so the TV stations pay 1.2 billion or more next time.

Plugger - the side that finishes 9th having finished traditionally in 8th is not likely to figure deep into September - unfortunately - this is a case of breaking eggs to make omelettes. But I can guarantee that if 8th is playing 7th in round 24 they will be fighting it out as it will be an elimination final. The same is also true for the team in Section B that has to win to get the final chance.

With a fixture that is inherintly arbitrary - at least this way - it is less arbitrary and means for more "live" games in the run to the finals - and less 'tanking' by those out of the finals. If the ladder remained the same points differential to 2 rounds till the end of the season as it stands at the moment even Brisbane (at 15) could actually, mathematically, make the finals. What a fairy tale that would be.

[plugger66]

So you actually think a side who finishes 9th with say 5 more wins than 7th would make sense? If you are going to debate something the way you wrote your paragraph isnt the way to do it. What you did is really dumb it down. What i said is logic. When people think of something you must think of the alternatives. Still need local derbies especially for the growing states and still need blockbusters so the TV stations pay 1.2 billion or more next time.

Plugger - the side that finishes 9th having finished traditionally in 8th is not likely to figure deep into September - unfortunately - this is a case of breaking eggs to make omelettes. But I can guarantee that if 8th is playing 7th in round 24 they will be fighting it out as it will be an elimination final. The same is also true for the team in Section B that has to win to get the final chance.

With a fixture that is inherintly arbitrary - at least this way - it is less arbitrary and means for more "live" games in the run to the finals - and less 'tanking' by those out of the finals. If the ladder remained the same points differential to 2 rounds till the end of the season as it stands at the moment even Brisbane (at 15) could actually, mathematically, make the finals. What a fairy tale that would be.

The side that finishes 8th now is not likely to go far into the finals and Brisbane could still make it now without chaging how things are done. I just couldnt fathom a ladder that has a side finishing 9th having 5 more wins than 7th. It just doesnt make sense. I do agree that what propsed is as good as I have heard but unlike most here I dont want the fixture to change because it is my opinion that the fixture and thus the TV rights keeps a few sides in the AFl. Us maybe being one of them. I will continue to harp on about derbies as they are vital for growth of the game.

[gringo]

So you actually think a side who finishes 9th with say 5 more wins than 7th would make sense? If you are going to debate something the way you wrote your paragraph isnt the way to do it. What you did is really dumb it down. What i said is logic. When people think of something you must think of the alternatives. Still need local derbies especially for the growing states and still need blockbusters so the TV stations pay 1.2 billion or more next time.

Plugger - the side that finishes 9th having finished traditionally in 8th is not likely to figure deep into September - unfortunately - this is a case of breaking eggs to make omelettes. But I can guarantee that if 8th is playing 7th in round 24 they will be fighting it out as it will be an elimination final. The same is also true for the team in Section B that has to win to get the final chance.

With a fixture that is inherintly arbitrary - at least this way - it is less arbitrary and means for more "live" games in the run to the finals - and less 'tanking' by those out of the finals. If the ladder remained the same points differential to 2 rounds till the end of the season as it stands at the moment even Brisbane (at 15) could actually, mathematically, make the finals. What a fairy tale that would be.

The side that finishes 8th now is not likely to go far into the finals and Brisbane could still make it now without chaging how things are done. I just couldnt fathom a ladder that has a side finishing 9th having 5 more wins than 7th. It just doesnt make sense. I do agree that what propsed is as good as I have heard but unlike most here I dont want the fixture to change because it is my opinion that the fixture and thus the TV rights keeps a few sides in the AFl. Us maybe being one of them. I will continue to harp on about derbies as they are vital for growth of the game.

The TV right competitive balance fund is just a way of handing some money back to clubs who generate it. The AFL still tell clubs what to do and control their actions and limit their possibilities to earn independently. They survived before that and teams like the Pies didn't dominate like Man U. The interstate games still make the draw unfair over one full round of games.

[Rosco]

I'm kinda with plugger here. It's a fixture, can't possibly be fair, just go with it. The only improvement I would make if I could would be coilingwood travelling interstate on a par with the rest of the Vic clubs.

[borderbarry]

The only way to improve fairness of the draw would require 25 rounds of home and away. Season would be too long, especially if there were byes in it.

[QuestionOfAccuracy]

I'm kinda with plugger here. It's a fixture, can't possibly be fair, just go with it. The only improvement I would make if I could would be coilingwood travelling interstate on a par with the rest of the Vic clubs.

You can't argue "just go with it" and then also want Collingwood to travel more, because if you want to just go with "it" (the current model) then you have to respect the Victorian clubs want to play Collingwood as much as possible - meaning that they will travel interstate less.

[mr six o'clock]

So offence... But I am so over 'proposed' fixture changes. Both on the internet and the people that ring up radio stations with their concept.

agree
Tv stations run footy nowdays , they wont pay top dollar having a fixture that is uncertain between two rounds .

[Superstar]

Don't loose too much sleep over the fixture, it ain't gonna change. Ive seen dozens of ideas on web sites and papers and footy shows, from the good to the ridulous. As long as every year the afl want to come out and say crowds are up, ratings are up etc..... The fixture will be manipulated to suit these figures.

get rid of nab cup and play each team twice

I know a lot fans see this as the obvious fix and i Understand why. It just Won't happen players already want another bye. The afl like to start the season near Easter, there are also issues with cricket grounds as well. The other problem is the season pretty long as is, imagine the years the saints were near the bottom, would you rearly want to sit through another 12 games? Add to that all the increase costs etc..

I'd like the season to be over 17 weeks everyone plays each other once, alternating home and away year to year.
But it won't happen cause the games relies too heavily on the tv money.

[SMS]

Geez guys the man is only proposing. AND im with the OP. GREAT IDEA we need more excitement in the latter stages seriously suks once teams out of finals race. Air of tanking is a disgrace and its boring from rounds 18-22 usually. This way is fair, gives lower teams somethin to play for. Personally id like to see a darwin and tassie team come in and there to be a western eastern conference type fixture like the NBA. More games like saints v north, ess, cats than boring freo or port. Then they get the best of the best for finals.

Yes realistically for money it will never happen ... but its nice to dream yes?

[3rd generation saint]

Interesting logic P66 re local derbies.
However, if local derbies are important, then shouldn't every Victroian based club play each other twice, afterall, in the true definition of a local derby, every game between 2 Victorian side is a local derby.
Plus, I don't see West Coast, Fremantle or Adelaide being that effected by only having 1 every now and then, after all West Coast and Adelaide survived fairly well before their local derby opponents even existed.
Yes the AFL makes money and hands out funds to clubs so they can survive, the problem is they only just survive and I can see this comp, despite the draft etc becoming more like the soccer leagues around the world where the chosen few get all the success, whilst the others just make up the numbers.
Maybe the AFL should have a closer look at how the NFL does it's schedule, because there, they allow the salary cap and draft to do their work and teams go through cycles and all make money.
No favourites, no gee these teams have to meet twice every season etc, and every year the NFL makes money.

[plugger66]

Interesting logic P66 re local derbies.
However, if local derbies are important, then shouldn't every Victroian based club play each other twice, afterall, in the true definition of a local derby, every game between 2 Victorian side is a local derby.
Plus, I don't see West Coast, Fremantle or Adelaide being that effected by only having 1 every now and then, after all West Coast and Adelaide survived fairly well before their local derby opponents even existed.
Yes the AFL makes money and hands out funds to clubs so they can survive, the problem is they only just survive and I can see this comp, despite the draft etc becoming more like the soccer leagues around the world where the chosen few get all the success, whilst the others just make up the numbers.
Maybe the AFL should have a closer look at how the NFL does it's schedule, because there, they allow the salary cap and draft to do their work and teams go through cycles and all make money.
No favourites, no gee these teams have to meet twice every season etc, and every year the NFL makes money.

I think i mentioned that local derbies were important in the growing states. In other words, NSW and Qld and i will always say that until hopefully the game is bigger than we can all imagine.

And i dont think you compare AFL to NFL. NFL is popular through every state in America. Our first and third biggest states dont really support AFL at this stage. Having said that even NFL teams change states.