Radical new fixture idea!

[darylcowie]

How about instead playing footy from February to September, the season could run from April to September instead (which it always did pre-AFL!)

This would solve the following glaring fixturing problems:

1. The NAB/Challenge Cup is currently played on hard grounds in late summer/early autumn promoting "hot spot" injuries to players before the real season has even started.

2. The MCG is unavailable until the end of March due to cricket.

3. The old Anzac Day chestnut about who should play on that day could be solved by playing the NAB Cup Grand Final on that day!
(i.e. the NAB Cup would be run and won in April instead of March)

4. The uneven draw would balance completely over 2 seasons if every team played every other team once over a 17-round season!

5. The new young teams would be less likely to burn out and put the cue in the rack for next season.

6. Due to a shorter season there would be no need for a mid-season bye and the associated fawning over the Sydney-Collingwood clash!

7. Speaking of the Filth, because every team plays every other team only once, the richer teams play fewer "blockbusters" thereby reducing the financial gap at the gate for the poorer clubs.

Comments?

[dragit]

less









$

[borderbarry]

They would still fiddle with the fixture and give Collingwood and Essendon & Carlton the home ground advantage for all the important games.

[shmic_s]

I like the idea.

But the league has signed a broadcast agreement for certain number of games.
Also it would be less money as mentioned. But quality vs quantity?
Could allow more space for state of origin etc, which if marketed correctly could result in making up the $$$.

[noreason41]

I like the idea.

But the league has signed a broadcast agreement for certain number of games.
Also it would be less money as mentioned. But quality vs quantity?
Could allow more space for state of origin etc, which if marketed correctly could result in making up the $$$.

Honestly, 22 games in a season is already short enough.

And the only way to have a fair fixture is to play each team twice, the shorter you make a season from that point the less fair it is.

[Life Long Saint]

I like the idea.

But the league has signed a broadcast agreement for certain number of games.
Also it would be less money as mentioned. But quality vs quantity?
Could allow more space for state of origin etc, which if marketed correctly could result in making up the $$$.

Honestly, 22 games in a season is already short enough.

And the only way to have a fair fixture is to play each team twice, the shorter you make a season from that point the less fair it is.

Unless you play each side once and once only.

[dragit]

My radical fixture idea is that:

• The teams that finish highest on the ladder have to travel interstate more than those that finish lower, regardless of membership numbers or
crowd MCG crowd filling potentials.

• Marquee matches are earned by those have performed well the previous year, and not owned by the same 2-3 richest clubs.

• The AFL fixture clubs at venues with suitable stadium deals OR find an alternative so that the already battling clubs don't lose more money when they play at home.

• Twillight Sunday games are moved to Saturday arvo, even if (god forbid) it means 2 games are on at the same time. No-one wants be out on a Sunday night.

How about everyone plays each other once (17), plus an extra rivalry round (derby, showdown etc) (18) then say 2 games against teams above you and 2 more games against teams below you (22)

[St Chris]

The competition will eventually get to a happy, fair place. But not at the expense of the number of games in a year. There's a big fat Channel 7 cheque with 9 zero's on it that says it can't.

The day when the average punter wises up to the reality of the AFL as a business is getting closer. People will stop pouring cash into the AFL, realising their club is being unfairly dudded by head office. It's started already, with crowds and TV audiences down in 2011, and prominent journos are now telling the story as it is. Caro is a big critic of the current fixturing process.

We are more likely to see 22 clubs in the competition, play everyone once in 21 rounds, have a 5 week finals series with a top 10. It's only 4 additional teams to find, one in Tassie, another WA side, perhaps a FNQ or Darwin team, maybe a Canberra side??

The issue of "talent thinning" will come up, and be swept under the rug by the Gestapo, and everyone will be happy again

[noreason41]

I like the idea.

But the league has signed a broadcast agreement for certain number of games.
Also it would be less money as mentioned. But quality vs quantity?
Could allow more space for state of origin etc, which if marketed correctly could result in making up the $$$.

Honestly, 22 games in a season is already short enough.

And the only way to have a fair fixture is to play each team twice, the shorter you make a season from that point the less fair it is.

Unless you play each side once and once only.

So we play Collingwood, Geelong, WC, Freo, Adel, Bris away....

Does that seem fair?