The AFL’s draw faces a number of challenges, we all acknowledge that. The current format of 22 rounds is set in stone and won’t be reduced.
Players want two byes per season, making for a 24-week season and they also want minimum six-day breaks between games. TV wants more time slots and the AFL itself wants blockbuster matches.
Here is an interesting solution to these problems, some of which came from the comments of other Roarers on this website.
Eliminate the two bye weeks, reducing the length of the home-and-away season back to 22 weeks, to lessen the ground availability issues with cricket.
Play two Friday night games each week, one in Victoria and one interstate. Channel Seven and FOX could each show one game live and one game delayed, much like Channel Nine do with the NRL on Friday nights. This should also help in giving each team the six-day breaks they demand.
Introduce a rolling bye where two teams have a bye each week between Rounds 3-20, i.e. play eight games per week instead of nine. This would give each team two byes. The impact on television and TV rights deals would be minimal. And the start of the season and final two rounds would feature all teams playing.
The result of all of these changes would be to have each team play 20 matches over 22 weeks. Each team would play every other team once, that’s 17 games with three games able to feature state rivalry rounds and blockbusters. It’s a lot fairer, and each team would play every other team at home and away over two years.
And here’s the big idea.
Limit each player to 18 games maximum in the home-and-away season. Each player would have two personal byes.
This would enforce an extra two weeks rest for every player. Player fatigue could be better managed during the season and in the lead-up to finals. Player longevity may also be enhanced.
It would also mean young or new players would get valuable game time and experience, allowing for better informed list management decisions.
It would also introduce a new level of coaching strategy into the game. When do you rest your star players? Do you rest them all against weaker teams and risk losing? Do you rest them late in the season to freshen up for finals? Do you rest specific players against specific opponents?
Limiting players to 18 games per season may not be such a radical idea anyway.
Many players have injuries during the season, forcing them to miss games. Games where players were injured would count towards their two personal byes. Suspensions would not count however.
Many players are rested during the season already, particularly older players where long interstate trips are involved. And Fremantle rested half its side in the last round a few years ago, conceding a loss to Hawthorn by about 100 points in Launceston but allowing their players to freshen up and defeat Hawthorn in a final a few weeks later.
Many teams already experiment with players in different positions, particularly those not in contention for finals. So omitting players to give youngsters an opportunity is also nothing new.
Players and coaches are already employing these tactics, let’s just make it compulsory.
Troy
Guest
I think the current system is fine. Less than 22 games means less tv revenue. The additional 5 games are based on where you finished the previous year. The bye's are placed when they are most useful. A round 3,4 or 5 bye makes no sense. At the end of the day If you are good enough you will win enough games to get into the top 4 and have a crack at the Premiership.
Nicholas
Guest
I like your idea of team byes and a 20 round season. As a few people have said initially I don't think it would be a good idea to have player byes as well as team byes but maybe could be introduced after a few year.
Axle an the guru
Guest
I think it would be a worthwhile article Tom. Like Gene said,you would have a few carrying on about value for money. The televised right holders would be the biggest problem as far as getting it put in place. I think it would be accepted much better by players,coaches and the inner circle itself then giving players a rostered game off.
TomC
Roar Guru
Yes it would. Trade-offs.
Cat
Roar Guru
it would lower the value of the media deal ... shorter games equal less commercials equals less value.
TomC
Roar Guru
I reckon there are diminishing returns. Reducing the game by a quarter doesn't mean reducing the revenue by a quarter - I stand to be corrected but I don't think AFL tickets currently cost more than shorter sports like soccer and rugby. But it would definitely have an impact on TV rights. You're right Axle, it's easy to say but it would put a lot of stakeholders off-side. I still reckon it's the way to go. Perhaps I should write an article about it.
Milo
Guest
Interesting idea, but agree if you had the rolling team byes, the personal bye is probably too much. At least initially. For the rolling byes it would be ideal if the two teams having the bye would face each other the following week so there is no advantage/disadvantage for either team. The twenty game concept is good, but there may be disputes as to who plays whom for the remaining three games. And if its not a set three clubs each year (ie its rotated), then really its just a twenty game season rather than the current twenty two. I guess an even distribution of all gates & tv rights would ease most clubs fears but some clubs (Collingwood? Hawthorn? ) may be reluctant to split their gate receipts if they feel they have a right to keep their blockbuster receipts themselves (or at least btwn the two competing clubs).
johno
Guest
Fremantle has 1 personal bye each year. Its called the final away game before the finals. When the AFL sent Freo to Tassie just before the finalsin 2010 they sent B-mantle to play the Hawks. Freo then smashed the Hawks in the elimination final Last year Freo sent B-mantle again to play against the Saints just before the finals where the AFL judiciously decided to play the final at Skillled. Freo beat the Cats! This year the AFL has decided that the best thing for Freo would be to schedule their final 2 away games at Skilled and Brisbane. The only way the AFL could have picked two longer road trips would have been to play the games in Launceston and Hobart. Expect B-mantle again to don the purple and white at the Gabba, unless a top 2 berth is in the offing or a top 4 berth is in peril (which it won't as the game v Port will decide that. The AFL will again frown and say stern words but will they look at these ridiculous scheduling decisions? Freo has no problems playing in these locations, but to consistently play them at the end of the gruelling season for a team that travels more kms than any other (WC aside) is getting beyond a joke.
Axle an the guru
Guest
That would take a quarter of football out of the game and off the public Tom,I'm not sure how people would react to that. You would have to lower the price of tickets for the public at the same time. Not a bad idea though.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
I think the 'personal byes' idea is a good one, although you either have the club managed player byes or team byes, not both. Its not surprising that in a hyper competitive sporting environment, such as the AFL, that club managers and players wouldn't be keen on the concept, and so it probably wont happen, but that doesn't mean its wouldn't be beneficial to the AFL as a whole, prolonging careers and giving young players more chances earlier.
TomC
Roar Guru
I've heard the personal byes proposal before. I don't mind it from an academic point of view, but I've heard that it is instantly dismissed and scoffed at when anyone raises it with people actually involved with the game. It's one of those things that I'd prefer to see another sporting league do first, so we can see whether it works or not. My solution to the burden on players is to shorten the length of games by five minutes each quarter.