Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
The game is so entrenched in the DNA of the population of this country that it will survive a nuclear war, so any claims that he is a great administrater are crap.
He has grown fat on the back of the game, and instead of building a strong competition, he has move to entrench a setup that is dependent on the biggest clubs getting the best draw and timeslots, that is all he has.
There has been no innovation, no creativity.
Well said. The fixture is a joke and puts paid to any claims of credibility the AFL might pretend to as a competition.
The game is so entrenched in the DNA of the population of this country that it will survive a nuclear war, so any claims that he is a great administrater are crap.
He has grown fat on the back of the game, and instead of building a strong competition, he has move to entrench a setup that is dependent on the biggest clubs getting the best draw and timeslots, that is all he has.
There has been no innovation, no creativity.
Well said. The fixture is a joke and puts paid to any claims of credibility the AFL might pretend to as a competition.
plugger66 wrote:
So again I ask how would you do it. Random doesnt mean fair IMO by the way.
For one thing I wouldn't have 18 teams. Sixteen was enough.
For another thing, it is not my problem. It is the AFL's. Since they created the current mess it is really on them to fix it.
But one way might be to split the competition into two conferences where everyone plays each other twice ... once at home and once away. They'd have separate finals series and the winners would play off.
Of course, the AFL ... in its enormous greed to milk every last cent out of the game ... would never go for it. It would mess with revenues too much and there would be the problem of no blockbusters if, say, Collingwood and Essendon were in separate divisions.
Then there's the TV rights deal. You wouldn't get enough games to satisfy it.
Basically, AFL greed gets in the way of having a credible competition.
Last edited by bigcarl on Sun 03 Mar 2013 1:14pm, edited 2 times in total.
The game is so entrenched in the DNA of the population of this country that it will survive a nuclear war, so any claims that he is a great administrater are crap.
He has grown fat on the back of the game, and instead of building a strong competition, he has move to entrench a setup that is dependent on the biggest clubs getting the best draw and timeslots, that is all he has.
There has been no innovation, no creativity.
Well said. The fixture is a joke and puts paid to any claims of credibility the AFL might pretend to as a competition.
How would you do the fixture with 18 sides?
Everyone plays each other once. 17 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
The non vic teams can play off to see who fills the two spots left for a twelve team comp. This happens before the season.
These two teams re-locate to Vic for the season.
We then have a twelve team competition who play each other twice, all on a Saturday afternoon with a final four at seasons end.
Seems fair to me.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Everyone plays each other once. 17 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
that would be a start....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Well said. The fixture is a joke and puts paid to any claims of credibility the AFL might pretend to as a competition.
How would you do the fixture with 18 sides?
Everyone plays each other once. 18 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
There are reasons for every system not to work and there are plenty thats says that wouldnt work. Firstly it is 17 rounds and you get the advantage or disadvantage of playing interstate when that side is good or poor. Would you rather play Adelaide at their home in 2011 or 2012? Also the TV rights would drop about 400 million so either clubs go or players take a huge pay drop. people will then argue that the players take the drop or dont play as the game is only played in Australia anyway so they will probably take the pay drop. However long term kids with sporting ability will choose another game because they will see the AFL isnt the best paid sport in Australia so the standard of players will drop. And I love footy and like many others think the season isnt slightly to long even if you side cant make the finals because I just love watching the Saints play.
I can honestly say there is more hope of a random draw than ever going to 17 games.
Everyone plays each other once. 18 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
There are reasons for every system not to work and there are plenty thats says that wouldnt work. Firstly it is 17 rounds and you get the advantage or disadvantage of playing interstate when that side is good or poor. Would you rather play Adelaide at their home in 2011 or 2012? Also the TV rights would drop about 400 million so either clubs go or players take a huge pay drop. people will then argue that the players take the drop or dont play as the game is only played in Australia anyway so they will probably take the pay drop. However long term kids with sporting ability will choose another game because they will see the AFL isnt the best paid sport in Australia so the standard of players will drop. And I love footy and like many others think the season isnt slightly to long even if you side cant make the finals because I just love watching the Saints play.
I can honestly say there is more hope of a random draw than ever going to 17 games.
34 games it is then. Problem fixed. You can watch Saints all year round. Players will earn a fortune and TV rights will be worth a gazillion.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Everyone plays each other once. 18 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
There are reasons for every system not to work and there are plenty thats says that wouldnt work. Firstly it is 17 rounds and you get the advantage or disadvantage of playing interstate when that side is good or poor. Would you rather play Adelaide at their home in 2011 or 2012? Also the TV rights would drop about 400 million so either clubs go or players take a huge pay drop. people will then argue that the players take the drop or dont play as the game is only played in Australia anyway so they will probably take the pay drop. However long term kids with sporting ability will choose another game because they will see the AFL isnt the best paid sport in Australia so the standard of players will drop. And I love footy and like many others think the season isnt slightly to long even if you side cant make the finals because I just love watching the Saints play.
I can honestly say there is more hope of a random draw than ever going to 17 games.
34 games it is then. Problem fixed. You can watch Saints all year round. Players will earn a fortune and TV rights will be worth a gazillion.
Well that isnt going to happen either so lets play 22.
Everyone plays each other once. 17 round season. Bigger finals series. 5 Weeks maybe. Season is too long. Especially for the sides that know they won't play finals.
that would be a start....
agreed there are interesting aspects to this schedule,(not that the season is too long), they are professionals earning big money, and people want them to have half a year off?
& I have always thought an expanded final series is the best option to be called the Grand Finalist (best of three) but didnt people bitch and moan when we had two shots at winning one
the fact is no matter what system is in place, there will always be people who ...
Two conferences
Each year decided by a draw.
Each team plays each other twice within their conference (16 rounds)
Each team plays teams from the other conference once. (9 rounds)
Total 25 rounds.
Scrap the NAB Cup.
It's totally fair and easily the BEST way for the comp to be run.
The block busters are still in tact.
Filth and dopers can still play on Anzac Day.
For me the fairest draw is simply the random draw for the first 17 rounds, then you play the teams you played for the first 5 rounds again.
I don't like the idea of charging more for blockbusters, after all, if Essendon and Collingwood are down near the bottom of the ladder, which the salary cap and draft will do, are their games still a blockbuster?
Many of those Anzac Day games we're one sided boring affairs, and to be perfectlyu honest, if the first one had been a one sided boring predictable match, their grip on Anzac Day probably would have been a lot weaker and the on going boredom for the other 16 clubs supporters probably wouldn't be happening.
Funny thing is that we hold the record for the highest attended match at Etihad, all of our Grand Final appearances are amongst the highest attended.
Plus, with the exception of 2011, we have been a fairly profitable club for the last 10 years.
My fear is that if the AFL persists with a revenue driven draw, we may end up with a situation like the EPL and other soccer competitions around the world, and trust me, that will kill the game much quicker than having a random draw each year.
tweedaletomanning wrote:Two conferences
Each year decided by a draw.
Each team plays each other twice within their conference (16 rounds)
Each team plays teams from the other conference once. (9 rounds)
Total 25 rounds.
Scrap the NAB Cup.
It's totally fair and easily the BEST way for the comp to be run.
The block busters are still in tact.
Filth and dopers can still play on Anzac Day.
It is WAY too logical for the AFL to do it.
It isnt fair, its random. I dont think fair and random are the same thing. And any person who understands the game knows it needs to grow in the developing states also understands they need to play each other twice a year. Also you can scrap the NAB cup but sides still have to play practice ames unless you dont want to see young kids given a go at the start of a season. And just one small point. They cant get grounds for the NAB cup so how will they get them if they start the season 3 weeks early? And it is logical in your mind but that doesnt make it logical in others minds. For example a guy on here wants 17 rounds so does that make his thoughts illogical?
And if the conferences are decided by a draw then how do you know the pies and dons play Anzac day or there will be blockbusters?
3rd generation saint wrote:For me the fairest draw is simply the random draw for the first 17 rounds, then you play the teams you played for the first 5 rounds again.
I don't like the idea of charging more for blockbusters, after all, if Essendon and Collingwood are down near the bottom of the ladder, which the salary cap and draft will do, are their games still a blockbuster?
Many of those Anzac Day games we're one sided boring affairs, and to be perfectlyu honest, if the first one had been a one sided boring predictable match, their grip on Anzac Day probably would have been a lot weaker and the on going boredom for the other 16 clubs supporters probably wouldn't be happening.
Funny thing is that we hold the record for the highest attended match at Etihad, all of our Grand Final appearances are amongst the highest attended.
Plus, with the exception of 2011, we have been a fairly profitable club for the last 10 years.
My fear is that if the AFL persists with a revenue driven draw, we may end up with a situation like the EPL and other soccer competitions around the world, and trust me, that will kill the game much quicker than having a random draw each year.
You could do that if TV rights were worth 10 million but they are worth 1.3 billion. A random draw will see the rights drop dramatically and thus end a few sides of which we could be one. At the moment we wouldnt be but what if we have 3 or 4 bad years. I wouldnt be wanting a new TV rights deal which only includes random draws.
Random draws for the NFL, MLB, NBA and EPL doesn't seem to have affected the TV rights deals in those countries.
How many Derby's and Showdowns have you watched? Not to mention they are on Foxtel here in the biggest football state and the Eastern Seaboard.
I ahve no doubt that the right thing in S.A., W.A, QLD and NSW to broadcast the local teams live all the time into their respective states.
But I think you will find that if the Bulldgs and North are both top teasm such as they we're in 1999, that the game would get a bigger T.V. audience than a mediocre game between any of the so called power clubs.
That is because more neutral supporters such as me and others on this forum would rather tune into a potentially great game, then one between the big clubs who are having mediocre seasons.
Personally, I haven't watched an Anzac Day game for over 10 years because I couldn't give a rat's ass about Essendon or Collingwood and find the whole media circus around it a bunch of over hyped crap.
3rd generation saint wrote:Random draws for the NFL, MLB, NBA and EPL doesn't seem to have affected the TV rights deals in those countries.
How many Derby's and Showdowns have you watched? Not to mention they are on Foxtel here in the biggest football state and the Eastern Seaboard.
I ahve no doubt that the right thing in S.A., W.A, QLD and NSW to broadcast the local teams live all the time into their respective states.
But I think you will find that if the Bulldgs and North are both top teasm such as they we're in 1999, that the game would get a bigger T.V. audience than a mediocre game between any of the so called power clubs.
That is because more neutral supporters such as me and others on this forum would rather tune into a potentially great game, then one between the big clubs who are having mediocre seasons.
Personally, I haven't watched an Anzac Day game for over 10 years because I couldn't give a rat's ass about Essendon or Collingwood and find the whole media circus around it a bunch of over hyped crap.
Firstly you are talking about the biggest sports in the world compared to our little game watched by less than half the people in Australia so that isnt a good comparison. Also it doesnt matter what you or me watch, it matters what the public usually watch and the bigger games get bigger audiences. Maybe a Bulldogs and North game would get a bigger audience than the power clubs if they were on the bottom but would also be very close. What we do know is the bigger clubs will get a bigger audience if positions were reversed. And I wouldnt mention the EPL as good example for anything. They have the perfect draw as everyone plays everyone twice but only 5 sides have won it in 25 years.
My point has always been no fixture is perfect so lets go with the one that will keep 18 clubs. And I also think that the fixture hardly ever decides the GF winner. They are usually the best side on the day and usually in the top2 sides in the year no matter how the fixture plays out.
plugger66 wrote:
Why? The AFL are never going to build another ground. I still dont see why it matters where you train. They are nearly all closed sessions anyway and the days of big crowds going to training are pretty much over.
I'm not thinking about training so much. The south east is only going to grow and if the numbers justify it you could probably justify another ground. Population growth is inevitable and another playing ground probably is too one day. We could be to the south east what Geelong is to the south west.
A ground would cost about 100 million to build. There is no way the AFL or the government is going to spend money like that and I doubt private enterprise would in an area out of the city. Geelong joined the VFL at the start of the comp and that is why they kept the ground. Even if a new side started in the SE they would never build a ground for them. The AFL have contracts and will own Etihad in 12 years. They wouldnt want another ground. I dont get how population growth equtes to another ground.
I don't know what the AFL will or wont do but you seem to know. Anyway I am pretty certain that population growth and an increasing membership would result in there being the need for another ground. Geelong not only kept their ground but they have upgraded it also. I think it's because there are a few people over in the west that like going to the footy. Maybe one day the south east might have a lot of people that like to go to the footy.
I'm not thinking about training so much. The south east is only going to grow and if the numbers justify it you could probably justify another ground. Population growth is inevitable and another playing ground probably is too one day. We could be to the south east what Geelong is to the south west.
A ground would cost about 100 million to build. There is no way the AFL or the government is going to spend money like that and I doubt private enterprise would in an area out of the city. Geelong joined the VFL at the start of the comp and that is why they kept the ground. Even if a new side started in the SE they would never build a ground for them. The AFL have contracts and will own Etihad in 12 years. They wouldnt want another ground. I dont get how population growth equtes to another ground.
uote]I don't know what the AFL will or wont do but you seem to know. Anyway I am pretty certain that population growth and an increasing membership would result in there being the need for another ground. Geelong not only kept their ground but they have upgraded it also. I think it's because there are a few people over in the west that like going to the footy. Maybe one day the south east might have a lot of people that like to go to the footy.
Can you explain how population growth means you need another ground.
plugger66 wrote:
A ground would cost about 100 million to build. There is no way the AFL or the government is going to spend money like that and I doubt private enterprise would in an area out of the city. Geelong joined the VFL at the start of the comp and that is why they kept the ground. Even if a new side started in the SE they would never build a ground for them. The AFL have contracts and will own Etihad in 12 years. They wouldnt want another ground. I dont get how population growth equtes to another ground.
uote]I don't know what the AFL will or wont do but you seem to know. Anyway I am pretty certain that population growth and an increasing membership would result in there being the need for another ground. Geelong not only kept their ground but they have upgraded it also. I think it's because there are a few people over in the west that like going to the footy. Maybe one day the south east might have a lot of people that like to go to the footy.
Can you explain how population growth means you need another ground.
More population = more consumption and that means more opportunity to grow the market. So one day it's possible it might become viable to build a ground because of demand. Or do you think that the AFL will not grow any bigger than it is now in Victoria.
uote]I don't know what the AFL will or wont do but you seem to know. Anyway I am pretty certain that population growth and an increasing membership would result in there being the need for another ground. Geelong not only kept their ground but they have upgraded it also. I think it's because there are a few people over in the west that like going to the footy. Maybe one day the south east might have a lot of people that like to go to the footy.
Can you explain how population growth means you need another ground.
More population = more consumption and that means more opportunity to grow the market. So one day it's possible it might become viable to build a ground because of demand. Or do you think that the AFL will not grow any bigger than it is now in Victoria.
Can you explain how population growth means you need another ground.
More population = more consumption and that means more opportunity to grow the market. So one day it's possible it might become viable to build a ground because of demand. Or do you think that the AFL will not grow any bigger than it is now in Victoria.
No and certainly not in the SE.
So between the south east shorelines of Port Phillip Bay and Gippsland you are saying that Victoria will never grow in population. Wow! I knew Victoria was in decline but I didn't realise it was that bad. Well I did see that the AFL think that a ground in Cairns in the next couple of decades could be possible so maybe you are right.
More population = more consumption and that means more opportunity to grow the market. So one day it's possible it might become viable to build a ground because of demand. Or do you think that the AFL will not grow any bigger than it is now in Victoria.
No and certainly not in the SE.
So between the south east shorelines of Port Phillip Bay and Gippsland you are saying that Victoria will never grow in population. Wow! I knew Victoria was in decline but I didn't realise it was that bad. Well I did see that the AFL think that a ground in Cairns in the next couple of decades could be possible so maybe you are right.
Sorry but you need to read what I said as requested by you. When did I sy Victoria or the SE wouldnt grow in population?
So between the south east shorelines of Port Phillip Bay and Gippsland you are saying that Victoria will never grow in population. Wow! I knew Victoria was in decline but I didn't realise it was that bad. Well I did see that the AFL think that a ground in Cairns in the next couple of decades could be possible so maybe you are right.
Sorry but you need to read what I said as requested by you. When did I sy Victoria or the SE wouldnt grow in population?
Semantics. I was trying to connect the dots for you with regards to how growth and consumption works. More population might mean more people consuming AFL and subseqently the need for another ground.
