Is there a good way to schedule byes?

I'd encourage you to submit it to us in article format and let The Roar's audience give you feedback.

How many times do we hear the media and spectators complaining about the AFL's uneven, unfair draw? I have an easily implemented solution to this problem but every attempt I make to contact either the AFL or the media is ignored. Makes you wonder if they are really interested in fixing the problem.

i Wookie, Not sure you read the article fully, or the conversation, etc. Dunny was noting how it was effecting "Fantasy Football" competitions. The "33 man squad" was an increase of the "30 players" you picked in 2010" versus "33 player squads" in 2011" due to the 17 teams in the AFL and the bye rotations. As such, the topic is currently on "Fantasy Football".

wait what? 33 players? You and I remember the 2010 season very differently. Club lists are only 40 + 6 rookies. I dont ever recall announced squads ever being that high except for Origin and International Rules squads.

I can't remember how it worked in 2010, how did we get to 33 players? were there 3 emergencies in each line, except for 2 emergencies for rucks? Anyway, that would help, if you could organise it so that you were missing 11 players each round, you'd stand a good chance of getting 22 players out on the park.

Exactly, Cat! Hence suggestion of increasing squads to 33 like 2010 - extra emergency player on each of the main lines. The suggestion was how to spread the byes, especially now that Eddie - sorry - Andrew has determined that 2 byes for each team need to be fitted into the fixtures, without seriously extending the AFL season. The AFL isn't worried too much about DT & Supercoach competitions, which it endorses. However, there is a lot of money in punting that it will be looking to safeguard. Getting a working compromise with Sporrtsbet, Centrebet, or Tom Waterhouse will have a lot more pull than yours and my Dream Teams.

Certainly it's a pain juggling DT and SC during the three weeks of byes - but - everyone's in the same boat and to be honest, it's the last thing the AFL would be worried about in working out their fixture for next season. It's up to DT and SC to design their games to fit in, not the other way round. They could quite easily add 6 more trades or something, and being able to do more trades during bye weeks, to help players juggle things. I just decided to take one big hit last week, and focus on winning my next two games, which I'm odds on to do (having had a quick look at the teams I'm up against).

Cut & pasted this from another article where I had made this point - hence reference to "earlier posts discussing set fixtures & compromised draw". The good point Dunny, is with 7 games a round and a rotating 4 team bye system, things like DT & Supercoach are less effected than they are this year, with 3 MBR's of 6 teams each week. Youu could go back to 33 man squads like 2010 and with only 4 teams missing, you should be able to cover - thus maintaining interest over the bye rounds. Anyway, just my thoughts and I'm sure there will be plenty of critics and other options to consider.

The AFL wants everyone to play 22 games, which means based on an 18 team competition, we need 198 games played. The players through the AFLPA want 2 byes during the season. I hate it when the ladder at the end of a round has some teams on different numbers of games played, so 2 weekends during the year with either no footy or a state of origin game(s) Obviously the AFL wouldn’t be happy with either of those, but at worst we have a 24 week season which is only 1 round longer than the current arrangement. I agree with a few of the early comments that this whole notion of “set” fixtures – ANZAC Day, Carlton v Richmond season opener and the Queens Birthday – is hogwash and compromises the whole idea of the competition being equal. Why should particluar clubs be entitled to these potential money spinners and others denied the chance to ever participate? And before we get the whole ANZAC Day belongs to Collingwood & Essendon, becasue they pioneered it, argument – don’t bother. If that was the basis for the setting up of the fixtures, then we should be seeing North Melbourne every Friday night & Sydney would only ever play on Sunday! So, the solution for the season opener is easy enough – games at Docklands, Subi, AAMI, Canberra, Launceston, Skoda, Kardinia Park, Metricon and so on, until the MCC comes to the party. Carlton & Richomnd can still have their MCG game, but it’ll be round 6, or 13. To give each team 2 byes during the course of a season, you would need to have 36 slots – 18 teams x 2 byes . This would mean 3 weeks of 6 games, like we have this season, or you could also go 9 weeks with 7 games – ie. a rolling roster of 4 sides having a bye, each week, over a 9 week period. I reckon teams would prefer to play somewhere bwtween 6 to 8 games, before having their first bye and would ideally like to build up for the finals over the last 4 or 5 rounds. As such, the byes could be worked into rounds 8 to 17, with 4 teams having a week off, on a rotating basis, until each team has had 2 weeks off. If you got your first bye in round 8, you’d get another in round 12 or 13 and if your first break was round 12, then you’d get the last one in round 17. Rounds 1 to 7 & 18 to 23, would be 9 games, with the in-betwen rounds being 7 games a weekend.

That was the case early last year. By this stage in the year things had changed a little. By finals time the week off is seen as an advantage, a lot depends on the time of year. Early in the season, gattiung match hardness into players is seen as advantgeous; later in the year, having time to get over the niggling little injuroies and soreness is seen that way. But whichever side is advantaged is not the point. There is no need to have any advantage in the weeks immediately before or after the bye when there are an even number of teams in the competition.

Based on the stats from last year a club coming off a bye is more likely to lose than win. So in the case of Carlton v WC, WC is disadvantaged as its the one coming off the bye. Yes logic will dictate that WC is advantaged in this scenario, but last year with the bye (especially earlier in the season) it favoured the club who was playing week in week out, rather than the fresher club.

Timmuh that's a good point - they should be able to mix and match the teams coming off byes a bit better.

The biggest problem with the byes is who plays who. Each team with a bye the following wee should play against another team with the bye the following week. Similarly, and arguably more importantly, with tams coming off the bye. The situation where West Coast will come off an 11 day break and Carlton off 6 days is totally unacceptable. With an odd number of teams last year, this type of thing was inevitable. With an even number of teams and the bye only existing to give players a rest, there is no excuse.

Dunny there's a related article on this subject this morning, and I've just put up a lengthy post which I think is relevant to your thread as well, so I repeat it here in whole. By pure happenstance, it's the players clamouring for the extra bye, and on this occasion, the AFL is very, very happy to oblige because it suits them right down to the ground. At the moment, we produce a rest week for each team by stretcing two rounds over three weeks (6 games x 3 weeks = 18 games, or two rounds). This produces 23 rounds and fills in the 27 weeks allocated to the AFL within the constraints of the cricket season (adding in 4 weeks of finals). As we can see with the six games just completed in the first week of the bye - they averaged nearly 40,000 per game. So apart from giving the players two weeks off, introducing a second bye has real commercial advantages to the AFL: * stretches the season proper out to 28 weeks, without increasing the number of games - longer period of media interest, etc * those six rounds of byes inevitably carry a higher average attendance and clash less for the broadcasters. The only obstacle at the moment is having the MCG for the season opener. Cricket Victoria has the MCG until the second last weekend in March - just in case it needs to host the Sheffield Shield final - otherwise it remains vacant - what a waste. Even if Victoria hosts the Sheffield Shield final - only 3,000 will attend - at the most - so why not find an alternative venue? If the AFL can't get the MCG a week earlier, it will stage one of its marquee games, the Carlton vs richmond season opener, at Etihad, where 30,000 less will attend - and that represents 80,000 that the MCG Trust aren't seeing, and one less marquee game for MCC members. On top of that, with the cricket world cup coming in 2015, it will go into early April, so the AFL will have to allow Cricket Australia use of the MCG (yes, the AFL has the call). So it's all going to fall into place - the AFL will give Cricket Australia a couple of extra weeks on the MCG if, and only if, Cricket Victoria can give the AFL the MCG for an additional week - permanently. And that seems a fair trade.