We’ve now, by accident, got the perfect opportunity to sort out the iniquities in the AFL’s annual fixture lottery – 18 teams! Michael DiFabrizio asked the question: why is the AFL protecting Hawthorn?
Every year supporters of all clubs look at Collingwood’s draw and wonder what the guys up at the pointy end of working out the fixture have been smoking…
The travel factor gets debated backwards and forwards with the interstate clubs. Then we have to sort of work the whole thing into roughly 22 weeks, being the traditional number of games in a season dating back to when it was the VFL and we had only 12 teams. Whilst the clubs submit “wish lists”, we will always have a “compromised fixture”.
I’m in favour of the American “conference” system. They have successfully adopted this system across all their sports – football, baseball, basketball etc. Typically, they draw it up on locality, with a bit of rivalry bias thrown in. To me, that sounds like something the AFL should warm to.
But how do we sort out this system to fit the AFL? My suggestion would be three even conferences of six teams. Personally, I also favour splitting the local teams up, so you don’t get more travel in one conference, than the other two. The New York Giants and the New York Jets are in different conferences, as are (were) the LA Raiders and the LA Rams before they moved to Oakland and St. Louis respectively. Hence, West Coast and Fremantle to be split, as well as Adelaide and Port Adelaide, and even Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney and the GWS Giants.
If you look at the split up of interstate teams and Melbourne based teams, we have eight and 10. If one of the Melbourne teams was allocated to the “interstate” side of the ledger, we’d have an even nine and nine. I’ve picked out Hawthorn in this exercise (only an example) given they play four games in Tassie each year, at the moment. So, we could then split up the so called interstate teams and Melbourne teams, three each, into each of the three different conferences.
We also know the AFL likes its blockbusters – the Perth derbies, the Adelaide Showdowns and then the ANZAC Day game between Collingwood and Essendon. I don’t think you would lose much if these match ups took place once a year. The added anticipation would certainly result in a packed house every time.
The three conferences I’ve roughly looked at are as follows;
West Coast Fremantle Brisbane
Port Adelaide Adelaide GWS Giants
Sydney Gold Coast Hawthorn
Geelong St. Kilda Collingwood
Western Bulldogs Richmond Carlton
Essendon Melbourne North Melbourne
I’ve tried to split the Melbourne teams geographically, but you could go with any combination, without too many problems. For instance, if the AFL was desperate to have Collingwood and Essendon clash twice each year, then swap Essendon and North Melbourne, etc. You could name each of the conferences after a passed legend of the game – Whitten, Baldock, Jeans, or by any other method that was appropriate.
From there it gets pretty simple. Each season, your first five games are against your conference rivals (except the ANZAC Day round, if necessary), then you play everyone else once, and finally your last five games are back against your conference rivals. End result: 22 games, playing everyone once (17 games) and your conference rivals twice (five games).
The games against non-conference rivals are reversed each year, meaning if you played Brisbane at home this year and Fremantle away, next year you will play Freo at home and Brisbane away. You play your conference rivals home and away each year.
Simple system, which leads to no arguments and a fair draw. The argument about sides not getting two games against Collingwood each year, to pull the big crowds, doesn’t really hold a lot of water, as far as I can see. Certainly, there are other rivalries that will develop within conferences – you only have to look at the NFL’s black and blue division (NFC North), with Chicago, Green Bay, Minnesota and Detroit.
None of these sides likes each other and the “black and blue” refers to the amount of bruising that usually follows a head-to-head confrontation between any of these teams. This reputation has developed over time and I’m sure the AFL will promote and foster similar rivalries in any AFL conference set up.
The biggest problem I can see to be resolved in this concept is the format for the finals. I think you could stick with the “top eight”, which would be more manageable than a nine-team final series. Having said that, anything is possible.
My way of working it out would be to put the “conference” winners straight through to the finals (obviously) with the next best record getting the fourth spot and the double chance. It would be a bit like awarding the top eight sides a seeding position and then playing the finals pretty much exactly the way they play it now.
So, the conference winners would be ranked based on number of wins (premiership points) and then you could either stick to percentages, or perhaps look to the head-to-head outcomes during the year.
Let’s say Geelong, Adelaide and Carlton won their conferences, with Geelong and Adelaide tied on premiership points, one win behind Carlton. Carlton would be seeded No. 1, and then if Adelaide beat Geelong during the season, they would be seeded No. 2, regardless of whether Geelong had superior percentage (as their division may have been weaker over the course of the year). Home ground advantage to the conference winners and on through the finals.
The other big advantage in sticking with the “top 8” is the further expansion of the AFL out to a 20-team competition – which, as sure as night follows day, will happen at some point down the track. You would at that point move to four conferences, each with five teams. You play everyone once (19 games) and your four conference rivals a second time (another four games), resulting in a 23-round season (minimal change). I’m sure the AFL wouldn’t mind an extra round of 10 games!
The top two in each conference through to the finals and so on – conference winners one to four based on records, runners up filling out spots five to eight on a similar basis.
Finally, I would also like to suggest that at some point down the track – be that 10 years, or 50 years – that the grand final has to go on the road. I know many traditionalists and Melbournians will howl me down on this point. But again, you should look at the NFL model. They work it out in advance, by several years, where the Super Bowl will be played.
It is a terrific economic boom to the city hosting it and should not be held in one corner of our nation, if it is truly a national competition. I would also suggest that it would be a sell out every year and probably pre-sold, five years in advance. The AFL could also restrict the ability of a city to host the GF, until they had a stadium of an 80,000-plus capacity, or in 50 years time, 100,000-plus.
Again, spectators will travel – last year’s Super Bowl was between Pittsburgh and Green Bay was played in Dallas, and as per every year, was sold out years ago, as will this year’s in Indianapolis, New Orleans in 2013, Meadowlands, New York in 2014 and Arizona in 2015. I’m sure you could still get a sell out in Brisbane, if they were hosting and it was Port Adelaide and Essendon. Fans will travel for the GF – maybe not next year, or in five years time, but beyond that, who knows.
I live in Perth but follow St. Kilda, and would love to see the greatest game of the year played in the west at some point (hopefully in my lifetime), say between the Saints and the Pies, or Hawks.
I know lots of people in Perth who go to the GF each year, regardless of who is playing, and I’m sure that would be the same in the other capital cities around the country and would even give some Victorians and excuse to get out of town for a change!
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Hi Arg, I agree with you on a number of points you've mentioned. Division winners, runners up. The problem is the allocation of the week off, home ground, etc. throughout the finals. You can't really get that with 6 teams in the finals and if you go to 8, out of the 3 division winners, which 2 get the week off? Who gets 4th spot and home ground in the first week, out of the runners up. So, a little tinkering required, or we revert to the traditional top 8, for the finals, based on a consolidated ladder. I think we've just about done the topic justice and covered most of the salient points. Thanks to everyone who made comment - was great to see a lot of interest in the subject. In summary, my concept started with the following aims - 18 teams, playing 22 rounds of football, no bias on fixturing - how do we achieve this goal? The conference / division idea works. I "like" the idea of 3 separate ladders, but also accept that you could maintain the current single ladder system, by just using the "division / conference" thing to work out who you play twice each year. Only problem is with that system, does it stay with the same teams each year, or shift, depending on finishing positions, or some other magical method? Which then starts opening the door for bias! The biggest grizzle from the clubs is the travel issue. As I mentioned in a subsequent comment, all the clubs knew their was / would be, a travel component involved in this competition, becoming the "Australian" Football League. As such, again, I think the aim should be to remove "bias" from the equation. The AFL's biggest concerns are, popularity of the game (which results in revenue) and running a fair competition. At the moment, I believe they're favouring the former, at the expense of the latter. They're compromising the fixtures to achieve bigger crowds, through so called "blockbuster" games between Collingwood & Essendon and the local derbies and showdowns, etc. This creates instant bias. As Arg noted (and as I suggested originally) rivalries will develop within "divisions" AND add to that, the current blockbusters, even if they only take place once a year - again as Arg said, the increased "fanticipation" (great word). Look at it at the moment - as noted, Collingwood versus Essendon or Carlton, huge, West Coast against Freo, big, Adelaide taking on the Power, massive - but then, Western Bulldogs against WHO? St. Kilda against ???? North Melbourne and ???? Why should these clubs miss out on having the chance to develop an intense rivalry of their own, with a fellow division team they come up against regularly? Personally, I think people want an even competition and will tire if the AFL continues to push it to far in favour of the Melbourne teams, or alternatively, back the other way at some point, to compensate. You only have to look at what has happened in Adelaide last year and to a lesser extent, Perth, a couple of years ago. Attendances were down and I think the footballing public became a little disillusioned in these states, when their teams started to struggle. Did that have anything to do with the fixtures? These clubs weren't overlly disadvantaged, but when you compare their draw to say Collingwood's, or Essendon and Carlton's, given the number of teams in Melbourne, a bit of a disparity emerges. Add to this the desire in recent years for the AFL to grow the game in the rugby states, requiring strong showings from Brisbane and Sydney over the past decade. Anyway, the 3 divisions proposed offers a solution that would move the game back to being a "fairer" competition - as suggested by "ItsCalledFootball" - and I believe that should be the ultimate aim and the No. 1 reason the AFL Commission should exist. It's second most important function should be promotion of the game. You don't see the Auditor General's representatives specifically position any of the Lotto balls before they get tipped into the barrel!!! Perhaps we need 2 separate authorities - one to promote the game and one to ensure the equality of the competition? Thanks again to everyone who contributed.
Arg
Guest
It is not a conference if winning it doesn't gain an advantage for finals - it is just a draw for fixtures. So NeeDeep's right to protect the 3 winners, in fact I would protect the 3 runners-up, but with no home ground privileges for runners-up. That leaves only 2 finals spots decided on league-wide premiership points, and these 2 should have all finals as away games unless they play each other, which will allocate home ground based on their head-to-head result. I don't support the notion of putting the top 6 in one conference, the middle 6 in one, and the bottom 6 in another each year, because then at least one team (or 2 by my system above) from the bottom 6 is guaranteed a finals spot next year and at least 3 of this year's top 6 are doomed for next year's finals. Better is to rotate the positions through the conferences as per MattF. I don't think city derbies should be guaranteed 2 per year. It would raise the question whether Melbourne rivalries would qualify (and which Melbourne clubs get paired as rivalries) and leads to too many guaranteed conference pairs. In any case, having no guaranteed pairings would make for 'special' years when rivals do get paired coincidentally, and generate special levels of fanticipation.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Good point - but once you have a set of criteria, and aim to get each conference as close as possible to totalling 57 pts, it's all doable. Of course in those cases where two big Vic teams are in the top 3, and end up in the same conference, it does mean that to counterbalance that it means the reamining 4 teams must average a 13.5 finish, meaning you're probably getting two teams in the bottom 3, and further teams around 10 and 11, which will also probably receive howls of protests (especially if collingwood is involved)
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
Thanks NeeDeep. The solution to the problem depends on which problem you are trying to solve. If the objective is to maximise revenue, then the AFL is taking the right course of action. If the objective is to make a fairer competiiton which gives all teams an equal chance to succeed, then AFL should put out a fairer draw.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
Yes you're right Ian Geelong isn't exactly suburban Melbourne, but I think you understand what I mean. Good of the code? I think favouring the draw so that Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon play the most number of games at the MCG isn't really for the good of the code, its for the good of the bank balance. Demetriou always tries to squeeze the last cent out of everything because he knows he needs the money to buy exposure and expand the game and take over the rest of Australia. Trouble is that he is favourng the Victorian teams and they are dominating. This is doing nothing to impress upon the rest of us that AFL isn't just a Victorian game. That's contibuting to the continued decline of AFL outside of Victoria - just look at the stats.
stabpass
Guest
Interesting that outside of the WA, SA , QLD and now NSW derbys, having the top VIC teams play each other twice does not add actually crowd numbers, or possible y TV ratings If top teams play each other twice, then is stands to reason that bottom teams play each other twice, if those fixtures were mixed around, you would have top teams playing bottom teams, instead of having six 70,000 crowds and six 25,000 crowds you may have four 70,000, four 50,000 and four 25,000 .... if you get what i am saying, nuetrals will only turn up to matches that promise to be good, some years the big drawing VIC teams may be crap, and the lowly supported VIC teams playing great football.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Itscalledfootball, I hate to break this to you, but Geelong isnt Melbourne, in the same way the Central Coast isnt Sydney. In any case, the AFL Commission does everything it does for the good of the code. They are ruthless in this - everything else comes second.
Brian
Guest
The AFL would never allow a syatem where 1-3 don't play each other twice the next season. Coll beat Carlton in the GF and then play once the next year? What if Essendon come 3rd. Not only no blockbusters but none in the precise years the two teams are even. Take the last 5 years no Geelong playing Hawthorn twice - except where Hawthorn was no good the prior year!
fatboi
Guest
my thoughts on the afl competition makeup: 18 teams. Season to be played with 2 stages with total 23 rounds then finals. Stage 1 - Rounds 1-17 Teams play each other ONCE, with every team playing 8/9 home games. Ladder after 17 rounds determines positions for stage 2. Stage 2 - Rounds 18-22 Bottom 4 teams drop to division B (ineligible for finals and play 6 matches against other bottom 4 teams (3 home 3 away) Top 14 teams stay in competition. Top 14 teams play a further 6 matches to finish the regular season (3 home 3 away) Points carry over to Stage 2, where the last 6 matches determine the top 8. Fixture for Stage 2 is determined by a lottery system but every club plays at least 2 teams in the top 4, two teams from 5th-8th, and 3 from 9th-14th therefore ensuring last 6 matches are fair for all teams. Stage 3 - Finals. the current system works fine. graphical representation: http://imageshack.us/m/810/2682/goodp.jpg good points: * AFL get their 22-24 regular season games it wanted * AFLPA are happy the players aren't playing too many games * 17 games + 6 lottery format provides the fairest fixture to all clubs. * after 17 games, bottom 4 clubs relegated from main fixture, ensuring competition fairness and intergrity as these 4 clubs will naturally want to give surgery to star players and play kids for the rest of the season. * local derby games can still be catered for in the 2nd stage. the lottery will just automatically place derby matches pre selection. therefore Power-Crows, Eagles-Dockers etc can nominate for a second game and will be given preference. * NAB Preseason CUP may need to be scrapped for a 23 round season+mid season breaks
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
I certainly understand your viewpoint, but I'm glad you struggled on past that first sentence and posted your 2 bobs worth. The whole idea of the post is to suggest something that might even up the playing field, so all participants are on an equal footing. As you have pointed out, it's a national competition and people are going to start getting a little annoyed if it goes back to being the VFL (which is what is sort of happening and my post looks at that, through the implications of the fixturing and offers a possible solution). Positive and constructive comments are always welcome. So, if you have a better idea how we can fix the problems as you've noted, or if you agree with the original post, or any of the other comments since, would be pleased to have your further commets.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Hi Ian, I actually don't mind the idea of the smaller boutique stadiums, either. I'm in Perth and certainly, I can see Fremantle playing in Fremantle, at a restored Fremantle Oval, with a 30,000 capacity, in years to come. It has worked very nicely at Geelong and I'm sure the AFL will be pleased with the future prospects for Metricon and maybe even a West Sydney venue, down the track. But, this is a whole other topic. The stadiums I've mentioned are already laid down (they're looking for the sight in Perth, now) and I'm sure the AFL will be tipping in some support money for the construction, etc. They're not building these venues for soccer games, or one off concerts. The best chance of filling them on a regular basis is with the AFL. And yes, they can get 90K to the MCG for the GF - but I'm talking about the other states and cities, getting a fair suck of the sav as well! The other infrastructure is in the hands of the governments and in this state, they have put off the stadium for the past 3 or 4 years, because of the need for a new hospital, better education, roads etc. Having done those things, it is now time for an entertainment venue - which is going to happen in the next 3 to 5 years. I'm sure the money in the West won't run out in the meantime.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
NeeDeep, Im as much part of Krugman's Army as the next Keynesian who has read Joan Robinson, and I'd build a stadium for the Bombers in front of a bunch of bombers, but footy stadiums arent my first choice of an infrastructure investments. If new stadium is such a great idea on it's merits, then let the AFL pay for it - and I think you'll find they are more interested in boutique 20-25 000 person stadiums where they control the advertising and corporate boxes than a series of replacements for the MCG, so they can get the 90 000 crowd to a Grand Final they can get already.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
AFL fixture lottery? Lost most readers with your first sentence. The AFL draw is rigged to maximise attendances and revenue and favours high drawing Melbourne teams who use the MCG as their home and "away" venue. That's why we've had suburban Melbourne teamswinning the "national" AFL competition for the past few years and two Melbourne teams will play in the GF again this year. Its all about the money and the exposure to try and take over the rest of Australia with AFL money.
mds1970
Roar Guru
As you saw when you tried working it out, it's not hard to do. But it ensures the draw is as even as it can be, while at the same time maximising attendances and blockbuster clashes.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Huh? Cripple your economy by commissioning works that provide jobs? Perth is already committed to a new stadium of 65,000 to 70,000 people and Adelaide is looking at revamping the Adelaide Oval, probably to a similar capacity. They've been talking about a new stadium in Brisbane as well. So, it will happen and these stadiums are alrady pretty well a done deal. How they are used in the future will be up to the local authorites. Do you feel that only Melbourne and Sydney deserve big stadiums, because of population size? I think you'll find Perth is catching up fast and econimically, WA can certainly afford the coin.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Hi Ian, I penned / posed the article, purely of the back of another article, which was asking the question, why it seemed like Hawthorn was being looked after. As mentioned in the article I posted, we always seem to have this discussion after the release of the fixtures - "WOW, look at Collingwoods draw, they hardly leave Melbourne" and "Why are we playing twice in Perth this year, again" and "the draw is biased against the interstate teams" and so on. I'm just throwing an idea out there, that to me provides a "bit" of a solution. I certainly don't think I've got it all covered, but I'm hoping it's a step in the right direction. The good thing is, from what I can see, it is a fairly topical matter and a lot of people are giving it a lot of thought (and by the sounds of it, have in the past, as well). I would encourage people to think "positively" and not just try and shoot holes in ideas because they don't like change. The AFL was the VFL when I was a kid. With 12 teams, playing games at Moorabbin, Arden Street, Punt Road and Glen Ferrie. Mick Nolan was in the ruck for North and the galloping gas-o-meter ran around in front of the big gas thingy! It's changed a lot since then and I'm sure it will keep changing. To me, 6th versus 7th doesn't mean a huge difference. If you want to win a flag, you have to beat everyone, sooner or later and sometimes twice. Having said all that, I can certainly see the other side of the argument and I will stick the hand up and say that I'm a firm believer in not fixing what aint broken! But listening to all the noise coming from back there at the minute, something aint right and some fixing may be required.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
NeeDeep, So you cripple your economy all the time with funding a too-big stadium for the one year in ten you get an AFL grand final, plus perhaps a rugby Test, a Soccerroos game or an Origin game ?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
NeeDeep, Under that system, it's a horrible disadvantage and deeply unfair for your next years schedule to come 6th rather than 7th. How about we just dont fix what isnt broken, and accept that Showdowns are Good Things, Q-clashes are Good Things, crowds of 90 000 at the MCG are Good Things, and we will sacrifice some of the alleged purity of the competition to keep those things ?.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Hey James, I reckon most cities would soon get their act together if they realised the chance of hosting an AFL GF was available to them, if they had the stadium to put it on! I know they'd quickly re-think the current plan to build a 65,000-70,000 stadium and shoot for something more like 75,000-80,000. Adelaide as you say are also contemplating a new arena - be that an upgrade of the Adelaide Oval, or a new stadium all together. Brisbane would get something on the drawing board pretty quickly - Queensland hates being left out of anything. So, construction jobs for everyone - just for a start. Then you would find people would be buying tickets to the GF a year in advance, if they know it's coming to their home town and you'll have other people travelling and then the supporters of the clubs involved would snap up the rest. A few years down the track, it would probably be sold out before the season starts - let's hope not, because it would be a real tragedy for let's say a Bulldogs (Footscray) or Richmond fan if they made the GF but they couldn't get a ticket. Maybe the AFL could hold of selling (some of) the tickets until late in the season. It would be a fantastic shot in the arm for any cities local economy, to host the GF in any given year and a roster works for most people and sports.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Hi Ian, Yep - no way that game should have been played in Seatlle. Nawlins had a 10-6 record, from memory and it's a far cry from the balmy deep South in January, compared to frosty old North-West Washington State. But the NFC West was a really soft division with those other sides you mentioned, not really being up to scratch. Which does highlight the point that you need to get the "strength" of each conference evenly matched. Another option would be as a few people have pointed out, keep the one ladder and just use "divisions" - positions 1 to 6, 7 to 12, and 13 to 18, to determine the teams you play twice. That way we can keep Tony happy, by not Americanising the AFL and we can all think positive, happy thoughts, rather than just knocking ideas as they come up.