Don't augment the AFL season, reduce it

There is just one problem with what you're saying, there is no private ownership in the AFL. You say 'If I owned a club', except you wouldn't be able to do so in the AFL (thankfully IMO.)

When things are said like "i would be happy to give up booze for 8 months of the year to play, it's not much to ask for,,,,," it, sadly, just looks like "i wish i'd made it as a professional sportsperson; I wish I didnt have this boring desk job".... When it comes down to employers invading employees lives, unless they're on drugs (incl. alcohol) whilst on the job, it should be of no concern of the employers; in fact, it is none of their business. Was it the business of channel 7 that that minister was frequenting bath houses in his spare time? Absolutely not! The same logic applies: unless someone is unable to function at work adequately, then what they do in their own time should be just that.. If police get involved, well that may be a different story. However, sportspeople should be treated equally by the authorities... evidently they are not,

Mods, that was a very long post (I had no idea just how long it was until after I posted it), and it was probably unnecessary. If you don't want to publish it, I will completely understand.

Indeed.

Sorry that this is such a long post. I had no idea it would be so long until after I posted it. "I’ll make this my last response because, as you’ve said, we’re never going to agree." Fair enough. There are a few things I want to address though. If you don't want to respond, I understand. "As stated, I don’t think drinking should be considered a human right, therefore it is prefectly acceptable to expect someone to live fully rewarding life without drinking. As I’ve said, if they want to be “normal” and drink, then don’t be a pro-athlete. I’ve already listed one (1 profession (politicians) where drinking in public or too excess wouldn’t be accepted and I’m sure there are more." It's not a human right (I never said it was) however it is presumptuous to expect others to live life the way you would or the way you think they should. For many people, they can not live a fully rewarding life without drinking. Being a pro-sportsman does not mean that one has to give up drinking in public, regardless of whether you think someone can lead a rewarding life without doing so. "No, but if they wee doing it for the “love of the game”, then they would play amateur sport and not have to put up with this. At the end of the day money is everything. All pro-athletes do is look for the next big contract (and good on ‘em, they’re the ones we pay to see). If they want some sort of inner peace, then I suggest they think of another career path." That's just silly. I mean, come on, what a simplistic way to think about it. There is nothing contradictory about loving your work (such as sport) and wanting to be paid for it. Especially since the money which goes to sportsmen wouldn't go to charity instead, if the sportsmen turned their backs on it. As for inner peace, maybe they want the same rights as you do? "No I probably don’t, but I do think that too much is made of it by our stars. Why is that you only hear about it being an issue from the players who do stuff wrong?" I think that's ignorant. You may not want to hear this, but that is extremely ignorant. The lack of privacy does not only extend to those who have done things wrong, and it is incredibly severs. Quite frankly, the stars don't make enough of it. I already listed examples of violations of privacy, however to say that it's overstated is just plain wrong. “I don’t here Hindmarsh et al complaining…." Who? ”Trust me, I have not missed the point. No one is suggesting they live in seclusion." But you are when you say they should stop drinking in public and should stop visiting bars. It's essentially what you're talking about when you talk about how one fully enjoy life without drinking and other such things. "Personally, I don’t care if they go out and make dicks of the themselves, but they can’t then turn around and whinge after they’re caught." But this isn't about that, although I disagree that making a dick of themselves (as opposed to non-sportsmen?) is such a big deal. This is about going out full stop. "As stated, this is a special profession, which they recieve numerous levels of compensation (money, women, fame) to partake in it. LIke all other high profile, and likely rewarding, professions, if you can’t stand the frying pan, get out of the kitchen." That's pretty easy for you to say, considering that you can go out, have a few drinks, and nobody will know. Bush, you keep on talking about how it's a special profession, but it's not! It's no different to being a well-paid actor or any other famous person. Are you suggesting that once someone becomes famous, they should stop going to bars and drinking in public? "You CAN compare Politicians and Sportsman in this way. Just because something doesn’t suit your argument, doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant." No, it's not relevant because it's simply not relevant. It has nothing to do with my argument. Comparing footballers, who are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, to politicians who enact laws is like comparing apples with pizza. The only connection is that both professions are public, however if you don't football, your life will be unaffected by them. You may not follow politics, however your life will be affected by politicians regardless. "They are two (2) examples of professions whereby, for whatever reason, we expect both to maintain a high level of moral code (higher for pollies). Ths means, at the end of the day, both should avoid the pub whilst playing/in politics." I find that's extraordinary. Your expectations of both professions is both unreasonable, and incredibly unfair. I mean, here's a thought, why not allow politicians and footballers to go to pubs and to behave like decent people. You've mentioned glassing and public urination. Nobody, regardless of what career they have, should be doing either of those things (especially glassing, which horrifies me.) "You say politicians have “actual influence”. You’re comment is actually rather ironic in that pollies are usually the ones who are influenced by public opinion, whilst footballs actually do have massive influence in a number of areas (though mainly socially – trend setting comes to mind). I’m not saying it’s right – but it is a fact." When I refer to actual influence, I should have said real power. Footballers might be more influential, however politicians are more powerful. They create law, which is what I was referring to. As I said, I should have said real power. "As for you’re next part, no one is changing the argument. I was simply adding that in for the flavour of the conversation. They’re extreme examples that were fun too use (don’t take this all so seriously). " Sorry, I guess it may come across that I take this very seriously. However, that is not my intention. "On a final note, yes having sex in public, which a toilet in a bar is, is very, very illegal and you can absolutely get in trouble with the police." Didn't know that (not that I would have any reason to :D). “Are you serious? Their job’s are so extraordinary and unique that they don’t ahve a right to normality. There is less than 800 professional AFL players in Australia. There would be even less League players (600) and only a handful of Cricket (200) and Union (150) players. I guarantee you that even if you throw in our Olympic athletes (most being rather low profile), we would have less than 3,000 professional athletes in this country. It is a job that is about as unique, high profile and financially rewarding as we have in this country." What is unique about it is the skill set and the low numbers. However the demands are not unique, unlike priests who specifically can not marry or have sex, or monks who sometimes live in seclusion, and may take vows of poverty or celibacy. Footballers are not required to take such vows. Nor are they required to give up drinking (although some may choose to do so.) When you speak of giving up a right to normality, you're right in terms of them being stars. But when you speak of drinking in public, I think it crosses the line. "If you think that this is “normal” then I’m shocked. I’m not sure why you think staying out of bars is something so shocking that it is more than a sacrafice, but we as we’ve established, we’ll never agree and you’re entitled to your opinion." If you are honestly shocked, you must have a low threshold for shock. I personally rarely visit bars, and I'm not a regular drinker. However many people routinely visit bars and enjoy drinking in public. As such, this is normal, in the same way as drinking coffee- which I don't drink- is normal. While not going to bars may not be a sacrifice for you or me, it is presumptuous to presume that others must feel the same way. I mean, I don't know what your favourite pastime is, but imagine if someone said that it's not much of a sacrifice to go without it, and one can lead a perfectly rewarding life without it? "For mine, like I’ve said, it seems like a small price to pay for everything else they recieve." As I said, to expect sportsmen to give up something that is afforded to most other people is IMO extremely unreasonable. It's also quite arrogant, considering that for so many people it is not a small price, and there is nothing contradictory about enjoying a few drinks out every now and again, and being a professional sportsman. There are tools in the football codes, however there are also tools in all industries. The idea that footballers should stop visiting bars is not only unreasonable but punishes the majority based on the behaviour of a few. Instead of proposing bans, which is unfair and unreasonable, and blithely dismissing concerns, simply because you don't drink much in public, which raises the question of how you would feel if I proposed preventing you from doing something you love; how about we just expect everyone to act like decent human beings, and allow sportsmen the opportunity to enjoy life like any other citizen?

Amazon fan well said! the hypocrisy and double standards found in some comments here is astounding. Exactly who do some of you think sportspeople are?! As their name suggests, they are, simply, sportspeople! People who play sport for a living. They should try to do their best at sport and should make an effort to adhere to the rules/laws of society as we all do.... nothing more, nothing less

amazonfan, I'll make this my last response because, as you've said, we're never going to agree. "But you ARE saying they shouldn’t live their lives."But you ARE saying they shouldn’t live their lives. As stated, I don't think drinking should be considered a human right, therefore it is prefectly acceptable to expect someone to live fully rewarding life without drinking. As I've said, if they want to be "normal" and drink, then don't be a pro-athlete. I've already listed one (1 profession (politicians) where drinking in public or too excess wouldn't be accepted and I'm sure there are more. "Money isn’t everything." No, but if they wee doing it for the "love of the game", then they would play amateur sport and not have to put up with this. At the end of the day money is everything. All pro-athletes do is look for the next big contract (and good on 'em, they're the ones we pay to see). If they want some sort of inner peace, then I suggest they think of another career path. "Their pressure is unique though." All pressure is unique. The difference here is that they are paid better than most to deal with it. Again, you say money isn't everything, but in our society it is about the only way to compensate someone - and they are compensated better than most. "you don’t really have an understanding of just how severe the lack of privacy can be." No I probably don't, but I do think that too much is made of it by our stars. Why is that you only hear about it being an issue from the players who do stuff wrong? I don't here Hindmarsh et al complaining.... " think you miss the point. Players are not priests, or monks in seclusion. Their careers are not particularly extraordinary. They are simply sportsmen, and they are absolutely entitled to normal lives." Trust me, I have not missed the point. No one is suggesting they live in seclusion. Personally, I don't care if they go out and make dicks of the themselves, but they can't then turn around and whinge after they're caught. As stated, this is a special profession, which they recieve numerous levels of compensation (money, women, fame) to partake in it. LIke all other high profile, and likely rewarding, professions, if you can't stand the frying pan, get out of the kitchen. "Two comments. One, you can’t compare footballers to politicians. Politicians have actual influence. Politicians are much more important. I suppose you think that politicians should stop going out for a drink?" You CAN compare Politicians and Sportsman in this way. Just because something doesn't suit your argument, doesn't mean it isn't relevant. They are two (2) examples of professions whereby, for whatever reason, we expect both to maintain a high level of moral code (higher for pollies). Ths means, at the end of the day, both should avoid the pub whilst playing/in politics. You say politicians have "actual influence". You're comment is actually rather ironic in that pollies are usually the ones who are influenced by public opinion, whilst footballs actually do have massive influence in a number of areas (though mainly socially - trend setting comes to mind). I'm not saying it's right - but it is a fact. As for you're next part, no one is changing the argument. I was simply adding that in for the flavour of the conversation. They're extreme examples that were fun too use (don't take this all so seriously). On a final note, yes having sex in public, which a toilet in a bar is, is very, very illegal and you can absolutely get in trouble with the police. "You make it seem as if the job is so outside the norm or so extraordinarily unique that they don’t have the right to normality." Are you serious? Their job's are so extraordinary and unique that they don't ahve a right to normality. There is less than 800 professional AFL players in Australia. There would be even less League players (600) and only a handful of Cricket (200) and Union (150) players. I guarantee you that even if you throw in our Olympic athletes (most being rather low profile), we would have less than 3,000 professional athletes in this country. It is a job that is about as unique, high profile and financially rewarding as we have in this country. If you think that this is "normal" then I'm shocked. I'm not sure why you think staying out of bars is something so shocking that it is more than a sacrafice, but we as we've established, we'll never agree and you're entitled to your opinion. For mine, like I've said, it seems like a small price to pay for everything else they recieve.

"No one is saying that can’t live their lives. Why is drinking some sort of “right of passage”, aren’t they living perfectly rewarding lives without going out and making jerks of themselves over a few beers?" But you ARE saying they shouldn't live their lives. By saying they shouldn't have a few drinks, and questioning whether drinking is some sort of “right of passage” (which is irrelevant), you are absolutely saying they shouldn't live their lives. Look, I'll be honest. My ideal night out involves dinner and a film, and it mightn't involve any alcohol at all. However not many people agree with me. While I dislike night clubs, and I spend very little time in bars, I'm not in the majority. Ultimately, for good or for bad, going for out a few beers is part of life for most people. Additionally, even when they make fools of themselves, they don't necessarily break the law; regardless, they should be treated like anyone else. This means being allowed to drink. "As constantly noted, they’re paid plenty to make this “sacrafice”." Money isn't everything. In Michael Jordan's book, he notes the extreme downsides of being 'Michael Jordan.' While I'm not comparing Australian footballers to MJ (and I should note that he talks about a lot of things, so don't take it as a sporting legend having a whinge), I think that being a professional sportsman is more complex than you make it out to be. "In fact I’m under pressure nearly seven days a week for forty-eight (48) weeks of the year. I wish I only had to perform with my “game face” once a week for twenty-two (22) to twenty-six (26) times a year." Their pressure is unique though. You may be under pressure for longer, but if you stuff up, we don't read about it in the papers. You don't go to a pub and hear someone say 'John Smith was horrible at work last week, and if (insert company name) had any common sense they would sack him' (language modified for a family website.) Anyway, I don't think it's good to compare pressures. Just as you perhaps wouldn't want people to lessen the pressure you're under, you shouldn't lessen the pressures players are under. "When I breakdown and take a day off work no one is looking after me." I don't know what work you do, but all I say is, that some of the injuries they receive are horrendous. "As pointed out, really that is the only downside to the job and they are paid handsomely to compensate. I’ll take their money, their fame, their beautiful wives, their set up for life at 30, over losing my privacy. Bugger it, thanks to facebook, I’ve lost it anyway." We're clearly not going to agree on this, as I disagree that lack of privacy is the only downside to the job and that money and fame (which is not all it can be cracked up to be( can compensate for it. I also think that, while you may not be ignorant, you don't really have an understanding of just how severe the lack of privacy can be. Players have made the news for doing things that were not illegal, family members have been targeted by the media, medical documents have been stolen, players who have retired have ended up in the news for minor reasons, players have been targeted whilst in rehab, and often when players go out, they have to deal with idiots. "This misses the point completely. They don’t have normal careers – therefore they aren’t entitled to normal lives." I think you miss the point. Players are not priests, or monks in seclusion. Their careers are not particularly extraordinary. They are simply sportsmen, and they are absolutely entitled to normal lives. "Just as we don’t expect our politicians to be drinking in bars, neither should athletes be allowed to go around glassing people or having sex in toilets." Two comments. One, you can't compare footballers to politicians. Politicians have actual influence. Politicians are much more important. I suppose you think that politicians should stop going out for a drink? Two, nobody has said that athletes should be ' glassing people or having sex in toilets' (although the latter is presumably legal), and that is not what we are talking about. You said "and don’t go to bars for a few years if it means you get to live the dream of being a pro-athlete in a sport, presumably, they love." You can't change the terms of the debate halfway through, as all I am suggesting is that a footballer should be allowed to go out for a night on the town, or to have a few beers. "It’s a career, not a lifestyle. If they don’t like it, don’t particpate. That is the point of a career – it’s a choice, not a job." It's not that simple. What you are asking of professional sportsmen (not politicians, priests or monks in seclusion) is completely absurd. If I was in the AFL, I wouldn't stand for it, and neither would anyone who are actually playing in the AFL. Nor should they. "If they want normality, I’m sure there is some other kid who is willing to make the sacrafic to play pro sport." Three comments. One, they do have the right to normality. All they do is play professional sports. You make it seem as if the job is so outside the norm or so extraordinarily unique that they don't have the right to normality. I would strongly contest that. Two, what you are asking (don't go to bars for a few years) is simply unreasonable, and that you call it a sacrifice (as if it's a good thing) is absurd. Three, there may be kids who may be willing to play pro sports for next to nothing. It doesn't make it right.

Alot of the detail is in this website, the creater calls it the Best and Fairest system avalable. I thint that i will post a complete article by the end of the season

I think I understand it as there is 1 or 2 extra weeks of finals footy. 1-6 are non-elimination seeding games to determine the teams that get home games and draw favouritism and such. 7-12 are qualifying finals to determine the remaining two spots in the 8. Then the 13-18 teams get to play for priority draft picks. So rather than losing/tanking your way to a #1 pick, you must win at least some games. I would assume come the end of the regular season the tables are reset and games commence. The teams then play for everything. All games have bearing and importance and meaning and consequences.

amazonfan, Whilst this is probably hijacking the thread a little, I will respond to your posts; 1) "To say that a sportsman shouldn’t go to bars for a few years, essentially that they shouldn’t live their lives, is absurd." No one is saying that can't live their lives. Why is drinking some sort of "right of passage", aren't they living perfectly rewarding lives without going out and making jerks of themselves over a few beers? As constantly noted, they're paid plenty to make this "sacrafice". 2) "It’s also ignorant. It’s ignorant because you look at the lives of pro-footballers from the outside, and you see only the good things; the fun of playing sport, the money, the fame etc.., however you don’t see the bad things (the lack of privacy, the injuries, the pressure) and you also don’t realize that ultimately playing football is a career." There's nothing ignorant about it. You don't have to be a genius to work out that there are some down sides to being famous, as you point out; lack of privacy is one. However, out of those you've mentioned, I'll only admit to privacy. As to pressure, they're under no more pressre to perform than anyone else in a high powered job. They need to make the finals, I need to do my job or else, like them, I wont get promoted and instead could risk being made redunant, fired etc. So I certainly don't accept pressure. In fact I'm under pressure nearly seven days a week for forty-eight (48) weeks of the year. I wish I only had to perform with my "game face" once a week for twenty-two (22) to twenty-six (26) times a year. As to injuries, that's like anything in life. Difference is, when they get injured they don't have to work and get the best possible treatment and care imaginable. When I breakdown and take a day off work no one is looking after me. 3) "Also, regarding Fevola and co, don’t forget that unlike you, if they stuff up at a party, you know about it..." This is just a continuation of the privacy argument above. As pointed out, really that is the only downside to the job and they are paid handsomely to compensate. I'll take their money, their fame, their beautiful wives, their set up for life at 30, over losing my privacy. Bugger it, thanks to facebook, I've lost it anyway. P.S. As a final note, you mention that "it's a career, and to expect them to give up the rights of anyone else (to go to bars and live a normal life) is ridiculous". This misses the point completely. They don't have normal careers - therefore they aren't entitled to normal lives. Just as we don't expect our politicians to be drinking in bars, neither should athletes be allowed to go around glassing people or having sex in toilets. It's a career, not a lifestyle. If they don't like it, don't particpate. That is the point of a career - it's a choice, not a job. If they want normality, I'm sure there is some other kid who is willing to make the sacrafic to play pro sport.

To say that a sportsman shouldn't go to bars for a few years, essentially that they shouldn't live their lives, is absurd. It's also ignorant. It's ignorant because you look at the lives of pro-footballers from the outside, and you see only the good things; the fun of playing sport, the money, the fame etc.., however you don't see the bad things (the lack of privacy, the injuries, the pressure) and you also don't realize that ultimately playing football is a career. It's not a hobby, it's a career, and to expect them to give up the rights of anyone else (to go to bars and to live a normal life) is ridiculous. Also, regarding Fevola and co, don't forget that unlike you, if they stuff up at a party, you know about it. If you stuff up, whether you get fired or not, remains private. The same with criminal convictions. Unless you commit a particularly serious crime, your being criminally convicted won't appear in the papers. You also can't compare footballers with teachers or childcare workers. Being a childcare worker is slightly more important. Additionally, I would be curious as to which footballers get charges reduced because they’re famous.

How nice that you measure masculinity based on violence.

Interesting idea. Would have to be engineered so that everyone gets 11 home games (not impossible), although these days a lot of flexibility is built into membership tickets, with wide range of pricing structures, so it's probably not a huge issue in terms of teams offering a different number of home games. Do you mind explaining what 7 to 12 is doing again? They play a further round robin to determine the final two spots in the top 8, but what's the point of the wild card again? an additional week where 8th plays 9th to determing the final spot? Also, do all the teams start from scratch in that last group of five games? Put up a bit more detail please, I'm liking the sound of it - where did you first hear this?

Impossible to go past first week in October (AFL goes till Oct 1 this season only because of the good grace of the cricketing authorities) - people have to get it out of their heads that the AFL can play more than 26 weeks per season: they can't do it, and even if they could, the players at the moment are at the very edge of their physical capabilities.

This always happens and i am going to say that a guy had come up with the perfect idea. First 17 rounds like you said then they split into 3 groups of 6 and play those 5 teams one other time. 1-6 play for position in the final, 7-12 play to make the finals, with the number 7 in the finals, and number 8 and 9 play a wild card to decide who is the last finalist. 13-18 play off to win the 10th draft pickon top of the 6th, In other words 2 top 10 draft picks in the beginin

Well, what would you expect if you only did a 4 day week. You don't work, you don't get paid. What do you think this place is Communist Russia?

You start at the beginning of March and go through to the end of October. All that suffers is the boring as hell horse racing season, which has just degenerated into a massive alcohol binge now with questionable treatment of the beasts involved. No loss if that sport carks it in my book.

The skates are like super sharp knives. They can cut you in half. Man up AFL. You have taken the biffo, the bumping, the tackling is airey fairy now.

In theory, the idea of a 17 round comp works well. In reality....well, i'd hate to see the players' reaction when a 20% reduction in games is accompanied by a 20% reduction in player salaries.