Why McLachlan’s fixture proposal is a bad idea

Not a bad proposal. Would like someone to post the last 10 years where teams were on the ladder after 17-15 rounds in comparison to round 23. Would be interesting.

Oh look another hate filled post by Bosk ... pick a team yet kid? yeah didn't think so.

That's too unfair on the team that won its elimination final and so made top 6. It would also lead to tanking. A Carlton would rather come 13th rather then 12th this year for the superior 2015 fixture.

Bosk, Is that a question or are you telling me I haven't thought it through. Considering you are a repeat offender for the "the Swans have a soft draw" comments, I am somewhat shocked and pleasantly surprised with your comments. A few questions? Freo have just played the Cats, Hawks, with Port to come. Do you think the poor dears would be that hard done by to also meet the Swans and Roos? Is this kids sport or a professional competition with elite teams of people behind these clubs. Come on. Do you honestly believe that with a chance to play finals on the line, the middle tier would play with any less intensity? If anything those teams haven't been playing regularly against the top 6 and may be less hardened or up to that standard. Who knows. Are we not subject to games between top sides and games between bottom sides during these last few rounds already? We would be guaranteed great viewing of 3-6 games and ordinary viewing of 3. So what is the difference? How about you give it some more thought to. I think it has less holes than you think.

You haven't really thought this through much have you Peter? Such a ridiculously radical change to the fixture would have far-reaching consequences we can't possibly anticipate. For starters, it would wear the living snot out of the top 6 teams during a time of the season when most premiership contenders are usually managing their stars, not being forced to effectively play 5 knockout finals on the trot in the leadup to September. Meanwhile the average teams in the second group are playing games against each other that are several notches down in intensity, so that whichever of them ends up with the best record will not only supplant one of the teams in the top group but also end up being far fresher when the real stuff starts - hardly a fitting reward for a team that was at best sitting 7th at the beginning of the second phase, while the team one place higher might as well start looping the Mission Impossible theme. Not only that but we'd be forced to watch the six best teams play a round robin directly before the finals - wouldn't that be a wonderful way of killing off our anticipation for September when half the fun is waiting for for all the dream matchups to come around? To say nothing of the fact that even more teams will be inclined to hide tactics from their opponents knowing they'll face them weeks later. Finally, the decision to have the 6 lowest teams play each other guarantees 2 or 3 incredibly sh*ty meaningless games of woeful standard every week for 5 weeks. Perhaps you can argue games involving top 4 sides against bottom 4 teams aren't usually much to look at either, but at least _some_ interest is maintained when one of the sides is playing quality football and is a flag chance. Do we REALLY want to watch GWS play St.Kilda, then GWS play Melbourne, then GWS vs Bulldogs... you get the idea. Give it some more thought. This idea has a huge amount of holes.

Any team that finds itself in 6th place with one round to play in the initial phase would be almost guaranteed to tank the final game, ditto any team in 12th spot. More the point this sport needs FEWER artificial mechanics designed to even up the competition, not more. I mean its bad enough that the FIXture has now openly become a handicapping system, but forcing the best performed teams to all play each other? Along with the football department tax the AFL could not possibly send a stronger message that it wants to punish the successful.

Surely the conference system would be best, like the NFL. 3 groups of 6, regionalised. Play H and A in group, 10 matches, Play H or A v other two conferences. 12 matches This gives 22 round season. Finals series, top 2 in each conference, plus best 2 next, could be from same group. Seeding based on regular season record, so teams at top have seeding to play for, while lower ranked teams still have opportunities for one of the 2 wild cards.

Don't get me wrong I love the idea just pointing out the chinks. Clubs will still have 11 game memberships but it will be harder for the AFL to honour all its commitments like Tasmania, Canberra, Cairns, ANZ Stadium etc when the last 5 rounds are variable. Don't get me wrong putting fairness and competition integrity ahead of profits is something I'm very happy with. On field I think there will also be the bonus of 7th and 8th entering finals with good form and wins on the board similar to how Richmond are playing Sydney this week. In Week 1 f the Finals we will be guaranteed that the 2 elimination finals are between teams that have not played for 5 weeks

I believe you have it wrong, what would happen is the top 6 teams playing each other again would determine their finals order in the top 6 (they could not finish lower than 6th). The middle 6 would fight it out for the last 2 finals spots and the bottom 6 would just play for whichever spot in the bottom 6 of the ladder, so no if a team finished 13th and won their last 5 games the highest they could finish is 13th, the only problem I see is the issue of tanking which could be sorted out by a lottery system for the first 6 picks because after all getting first pick doesn't normally getting the best kid in the draft.

Agree with you about talent being thinly spread... but, if GC and GWS do have some success that might flow onto increased player pool. It will be interesting.

Not any worse than finals scheduling, the 'hardest' would be round 18 with only the 10 days but than round 19 has 17 days notice, round 20 has 24 days etc etc.

First 17 rounds, play each other once (the away team hosts the following year). Then have rivalry/derby round (needed for non-vic clubs...less traveling), a 'GF replay'/'challenger' round based on last year's ladder (1 plays 2, 3 & 4... 17 & 18). The last couple of rounds are against teams you have not played twice in one year for the past 3 years (this includes finals appearances). I think this provides for blockbusters and fair exposure of smaller clubs to larger clubs. Also, the MCG ANZAC day clash should be shared amongst the top drawing Melbourne clubs...not just pies and bombers.

Yes, that Tasmanian nightmare is why getting a team down there has been so hard. Even if Tasmania could work out how to get a team going, the problem would be that player talent in the 18-team comp is already seen to be spread too thinly, and two new teams could make that worse.

Regarding the 20(+) team competition idea, one potential scenario would be to introduce a temporary team into the WAFL and SANFL and then promote the new teams (and hopefully their keen fans) to the AFL. Could also look at a Tassie side, but that might be a bit of a nightmare with the rivalry between Hobart and Launceston...would you just rotate the home games between the two?

I think this is a much better way of doing it if this system were to get the go-ahead. Personally I don't think there's too much wrong with the current system beyond there being too many definite fixtures that the AFL needs to schedule around. Having said that though, in my ideal world the AFL would ditch finals altogether and go with a first past the post league format with every team playing every other home and away (possibly the Foxtel Cup could expand to become an FA cup like comp) but I accept that this season would probably be too long for a game that can be so physically demanding at times. I know some would react to this suggestion like they had just seen their parents naked, thinking "it's too much like Soccer" or whatever but it is the ultimate for a truly fair draw.

Actually Gene, come to think of it, that is fair. And even more intriguing

Its pretty obvious that it cannot work if the 7th placed team can move up. You would be creating an incentive for a team to prefer finishing outside the top 6 in the regular 17 round season. The biggest problem with the proposal are marketing ones. I assume there would be a bye after round 17 but nonetheless the last 5 weeks of fixtures would only come out with notice of 10 days before Round 18.

but teams in the 2nd band would be playing inferior opponents compared to the teams playing in the top band, it makes sense to lock the teams into their bands after 17 rounds.

Having heard him and read some of the articles, he could be taken out of context. Again it's not set in stone and is just an idea. I would hazard a guess that by the top six being "locked in", he is not saying that teams won't still receive 4 points for a win. I think he is reflecting more on the amount of wins it takes, historically, to finish in those positions and so he is perhaps saying that the top 6 is "locked in". Gees, you would think they would have more sense than to not offer a team from 7-12 the opportunity to win 5 games and still finish somewhere from 4-8.

Sorry, but I have to disagree, based on what McLachlan said. “So you’d probably have the top six locked in for the top six playing for the final order. “The middle six playing for (positions) seven and eight and the bottom six playing for, I don’t know what, draft orderings or something like that. “That’s probably a preferred scenario out of seven or eight ... I don’t mind it. “There’s lots of different ones and there’s nothing definitive on that.” From that, I don't see how the ladder is operating, under his proposal. That's been the basis of all my arguments anyway, so please read them as based on the assumption that it's a locked ladder for the last 5 rounds.