AFL - Good Ideas, Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea


#1986

That would be 26 games not 28.

I like this idea, but sadly I can’t see it ever happening


#1987

Your maths is as bad as Hutchy’s.

14 teams = 26 weeks

EDIT: Aboods!


#1988

Lol. True on the game numbers. So cut to 16 teams.

But you are right. Would never happen. It would effect revenue. Which of course is what it’s all about.


#1989

The only thing more concerning from having listened to Sound Board for this first time is that both Hutchy and the Purple flog both can’t count. I would have thought as CEO of a high powered AFL suck machine Hutchy would at least have some basic arithmetic skills.


#1990

30 games then.


#1991

Gill the Dill is just sounding embarrassing now, particularly with the AFLW. The World Cup was 4 weeks? So What?

Add 2 teams, 2 week final series, that’s 11 weeks. Anything else is demeaning…even though I rarely watch it.

But I watch it more than AFLX which is just rubbish.


#1992

Yep. Sounded like an absolute tool with the WC reference Re: AFLW.

Heard myself saying, “Just resign you Dikhead”.

Then I fully agreed with me, … and laughed.


#1993

Why do they need to complicate things?
Either 14 teams play each other twice or
If they ant to keep the number of teams play each other once and alternate the venue the next year.
The money will always be there and once AFL have a fairer system the fans will come and NRL will cry.


#1994

Business plan comes first. Those women need to understand that - priority over games.


#1995

They’re never going to reduce the season down from 22 games. Channel 7 won’t allow it and we know what power the broadcasters have.

People keep saying to dump the pre-season, but you simply have to have a pre-season. What you don’t need is a Mickey Mouse competition.

I’d be certainly dumping the pre-finals bye…that’s a stupid Gill the Dill idea.

And I have no problems with the mid-season bye. I have more issues with the disruption caused by mid-week games such as this year’s Anzac Day. I’d have all games played with a break of 6, 7 or 8 days.

And there’s zero chance of the AFL reducing the number of teams. Maybe even less than zero.


#1996

Of course they won’t reduce it. What they ultimately need is 2 more teams, One from NT, and one from Tassie.


#1997

Seriously the AFL’s incestuous administration needs to change, never has the term boys club been more appropriate. It operates as a ‘one-party state’ with its members drawn from a pool of silver spoon ‘visionaries’ and mates of, whose only metric for success is the next TV rights deal. They are so out of touch with the general public that they are slowly killing it from the inside. They are a cancer that needs to be cut out.


#1998

17 round season, you absolute farking idiots.

Have a state of origin round in the middle. That’s one more week.

Play a wildcard 7 v 10, 8 v 9 week. That’s an additional week, which will rate through the goddaam roof.

Have your week where the legends match is played (always rates well), and throw in an AFLW all stars game the same weekend. That’s another week.

Plus four weeks of finals.

That is 24 rounds of good quality football. As opposed to 28 weeks at the moment (incl the EJ game week). Only four weeks less. Knowing that every game means more and will have more eyes on it, the broadcasters should cop it.

If the AFL think that the broadcasters just want more product they are stuck in the mid 2000s, before Netflix etc. TV watchers are far more discerning now. They won’t simply watch Friday/Saturday night footy because it’s on, because they have a range of other options. But they will watch it if it’s an ‘event’. Restrict the amount of games and you make every game an event, just like the NFL.

And if the broadcasters still want more product, then give them an expanded AFLW comp, which the AFL could actually build into A Thing if they stopped treating it like a freak sideshow.

The fact that the AFL and some fans can’t see that this would work blows my mind


#1999

They should just bring in a legitimate reserves competition, turn the state comps into a English-style suburban tiered relegation and promotion competition. The only way I can see a true SoO would be with semi-pros and amateurs, drawn from the state leagues and reserve topups. All of this would need legit funding from AFL and MKR levels of promotion though.


#2000

Hey Gil you moron why aren’t you at the G sitting with the president of the Suns watching this train wreck?


#2001

Radical Idea - make the fixture fair by not changing a thing

How you ask?

By changing the way points are awarded on the ladder, in a way that makes it completely fair (or at least a lot fairer) and the season more interesting up until the end.

How is this possible?

Well the crux of the uneven fixture is playing teams away who have a home ground advantage and having no return game to even things up.

So to even things up …

First of all, for all the teams you are playing twice - do nothing (pretty obvious).

For Melbourne sides who play each other only once - make that an eight point game (you could have duelling MC’s and competing graphics and designated supporter ends to even up the atmosphere a little (small matter). Geelong is not counted here, given they have a clear home ground advantage (so would be treated like an interstate team, unless their home game is at the MCG, where it would be treated as a Melbourne team). I propose we ignore the difference between the MCG and Etihad, on the basis that, for example, we will play Richmond and Collingwood there as a home game even though our home is Etihad.

For matches involving sides not from the same state who play each other only once - this is where things get the most interesting and radical. A formula can be devised to create a virtual game at the home venue which didn’t get played at between the sides who only played each other once.

A virtual game?

Well, my proposal will mostly affect Melbourne vs interstate sides, so I will use this as the main example. For instance, we played Adelaide at Etihad and not in Adelaide this year. If we look at all the sides we played away which Adelaide played at home. The teams which meet this criteria are the Suns, Giants, Eagles and Power. My proposal would be to combine our scores where we had the away disadvantage against the same sides which Adelaide played with the home. So to get the score for the virtual game I propose we add all of our away scores against those teams together and divided them by 4 to get our virtual score and Adelaide could add up all of their home scores against those sides together and divide them by 4 to get their virtual score, and work out the virtual winner who would get an actual 4 points. This would constitute the score for a virtual Adelaide home game, and the scores could be used for percentage purposes.

This formula could be used for all the return games that don’t get played for the season. This idea could keep the interest in the season going until the end a lot more often, because these virtual games would not be able to be calculated fully until all the games required to get the result of the virtual game are played. For instance, we wouldn’t know for sure that we had won the virtual away game against Adelaide until we played Port in round 22, making that a real 8 point game for us.

Before the final round, the ladder could include partially completed virtual games in the same way as a live ladder is done during real matches before completion.

This in effect would have the same number of premiership ladder points as a 34 game season.

An added twist that could be considered: give the teams who travel to play a side only once, 8 points if they get an away win, making the virtual game redundant given they won when playing at a disadvantage.

What do you think?


#2002

blink


#2003


#2004

I obviously will need a mind like @theDJR to evaluate this idea if no one else is up to it.


#2005

I suppose I shouldn’t expect too much.

Not a good start.