But it is… Grand final needs to get back to september… this october stuff is crap.
And the season needs to start later as well…
My view is to have everyone play each other once which is 16 rounds.
Then a Rivalry round (so all the interstate clubs can do there derbys and melbourne clubs theres)
Then a consolidation round as the final round, a round to cement the final 8 and the minor premiership (which needs to be more celebrated than it is… Finishing top of the ladder is rare.) This would be 1st plays 16th… right down to 8th plays 9th 7th plays 10th etc…
What this does is really works out who deserve to be just in the 8 from 6th to 11th if it is close… imagine a round like that this year… it might be a dud some years but others it would be great.
And if it is percentage that separates 1st and 2nd on the ladder they need to really make an effort in case 2nd smashes 15th and takes there spot… so resting players becomes more difficult if its close at the top from 1st to 4th in the last round all playing the bottom sides… Also… it has other benefits… no one in the top 8 plays each other before the finals series… helping not to take away the excitement of finals.
That makes it 18 rounds.
But then i say we extend the finals series by 1 week… the 5 week system gives lower teams more chances and top teams a easier route to the grand final, with the bottom sides playing each other more… and it will be more tactical for top sides to plan there finals. (its too much to explain here… but there is a way…)
So you end up with 4 less rounds overall but a fairer system. IMO.
Except you could, quite feasibly, have the side finishing 7th have more wins, and maybe a lot more wins, than the side finishing 6th. Which then raises the prospect of aiming for the easier draw, by finishing 7th/8th at round 17.
Which has obvious issues.
And the what to do with the bottom 6? Why even bother playing those games?
I hope people realise there are more fatigue injuries because the prevailing game style demands about 25 players around the ball at all times.
Get rid of the congestion by radically reducing interchange. 12 a quarter. It’ll increase fatigue in the short term but surely coaches will realise it’s totally counterproductive. Wemight even see footballers take over from athletes.
The amount of wins of sixth and seventh:
I assume you mean when you take into account the +5?
If that’s the case, then it’s kind of the wrong way to look at it.
The first 17 games are there to play everyone once and qualify into one of the three groups for the plus 5.
In the finals eighth can finish with more wins than sixth, or fifth I suppose, but what of it?
The finals are a separate section of the season.
As is the plus 5.
The home and away would be 17 rounds, not 22 or 23 (give or take byes, I’m sure you know what I mean).
Tanking to avoid the top six would be very risky, as you may not qualify for finals at all.
I don’t think a hierarchy that approved that would survive to the next year if it failed as badly as it could.
And yes, as I said, the bottom six is more problematic. Playing for draft picks (and it wouldn’t necessarily have to be the first six draft picks) is possible but probably not ideal.
Why play the games at all?
It’s a reasonable question, but is there any real purpose in the bottom teams playing when they’re eliminated from finals now?
Surely it’s the same thing?
And again, at least the fans of bottom teams would go into the plus five with a lot more hope of winning than currently.
I’m not saying it’s perfect. Not by a long way.
But I think it fixes the home and away inequality (in the teams selected to play twice) we have now.
There should be no excuse for inequality in who gets the home game as we have now.
It should ensure closer, more interesting games (although I concede that you lose the shock win from an underdog that changes the whole season, and there’s a romance to that).
Broadcasters should love it, because it means so many more games in the last five rounds are genuinely important.
They don’t have to look silly promoting a Friday night game between (I dunno) Carlton and Adelaide.
I’m more than happy to hear a better/fairer suggestion.
And I do think this would be better and fairer than we have now.
But hey, I was wrong once before.
Maybe even twice, but I still haven’t conceded that second one.
It could create a problem that top teams stay top teams for a long time. It’s an equalisation system within a season not a system that equalises the comp over a period of years.
Does anyone have a ladder excluding the double ups? Only include the first game of teams that play twice.
The season will always be 22 games so that the AFL can get the TV money - Bear in my mind we’ve had a 22 round season since 1968 - It seems that the TV rights for most live sports have reached a ceiling so doubt the AFL will get much of an increase if any next time.
I have a problem with the possibility a side could lose 5 straight, (for a total of 13 for the year)being locked in, with a home final, ahead of a team that’s just won 5 straight, for 17 for the year.
I don’t see why round 15 and 16 are arbitrarily more important than round 17 and 18.
Resolve one issue (uneven fixture) but creates a whole lot more. And arbitrary lines irk me more than the current failings.
I think there’s tidier solutions, that achieve much the same thing:
keep the last 5 rounds floating, and draw them up based on ladder groupings at round 17 (ie you play 2 against the bottom 6, 2 against middle, 2 against top 6 - minus whichever group you’re in)
rotate the last 6 re-matches across 3 years (ie Adel > Freo in year 1, Geel > North year 2, Port > Dogs year 3)
draw the last 5 out of a hat.
FWIW I can’t see the AFL considering anything that they can’t control, ie floating anything. And a lot of the clubs really rely on the fixed-in draws, so they wouldn’t want it either.
Then a 19 round season. Everyone play each other once. Alternate interstate games every year.
Totally fair and transparent (which I know the AFL won’t like).
If we want an added game (so 20 games before finals) on the week off after the final home and away round we have a wild card weekend where 2 teams playoff for the final spot.
I’m struggling to see your issue.
After all teams play each other, six teams are locked in to finals.
That’s really no different to some teams being in and some teams being out after 22/23 rounds.
Again, the home and away is 17 rounds. That’s where you make your position, which is as it should be. Not with some teams playing extra games against weaker teams and some teams playing against stronger.
What’s the problem with the team finishing sixth losing five straight against the teams finishing 1-5, and the team finishing seventh winning five straight against teams finishing 8-12?
That’s really what should happen.
It certainly doesn’t make seventh better than sixth.
And in that situation, guess who’s playing against each other in an elimination final?
Arbitrary lines?
We have.
Now.
This is just fairer.
And of course round (I assume you mean) 16 and 17 are important.
Who doesn’t want to be locked in to finals?
Edit: Who doesn’t want to sneak in to 11th or 12th? The happy clappers who think they can win the flag do, that’s for sure.
Again, I think broadcasters would love 17+5, because it makes more games important.
Edit: Also, gee you’d have to be stiff not to get traditional rivalries in the last five rounds.
Looking at the ladder now, you’re going to get Rich v Coll, Ade v Port, Syd v GWS.
As for Essendon, games against Geelong, Melbourne and North wouldn’t exactly suck.
And every goal counts in the plus five.
The fixture would be unfair under any sort of 17-5 scenario. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for some teams, in circumstances which probably haven’t been thought of yet.
The only way to have a fair fixture is to play 17 rounds. Anything else, no matter how you swing it, is just window dressing.
.