Despite being one of the most professionally run competitions in the world, the AFL’s approach to fixturing has always seemed imprecise compared to other leagues.
The NFL uses an intricate, but accessible, formula to generate a fair fixture each year, while the Premier League simply sees each team play each other twice. With the AFL, you can hazard a pretty good guess as to who your club will play twice, but really there’s no way of knowing until the fixture is launched.
In a bid to make the home-and-away season more predictable but exciting at the same time, a radical proposal has emerged from AFL HQ that employ a ’17-5′ model with the fixture.
But no matter how you do the maths, this ’17-5′ model just doesn’t add up.
For those unaware, the 17-5 model would see each team play each other once over their first 17 matches, before the competition is split into thirds for the final five rounds.
The top six jostle for finals positioning, the middle six duke it out for a September spot and the bottom six fight for better draft picks.
The reasons for change that its supporters give are simple: By giving all clubs something to play for over the final few weeks, there’ll be no more meaningless games. What’s better, by making clubs compete in some way for the top pick, tanking will be eliminated almost instantaneously.
The fixture will be fairer and fans will have a reason to see their team play right up until the end of the season, what’s not to love?
As it turns out, just about everything.
The most concerning of all the misconceptions is easily the belief that this model will eliminate tanking. A club in 12th place at the conclusion of Round 15 would be well aware they aren’t a premiership chance. Under the 17-5 model, a club in such a position would have the choice of: (a) Playing to win in their next two matches, cementing a spot in the middle six and giving them a shot at what will almost certainly be a futile finals campaign or; (b) ‘Experimenting’ in their next two matches, falling into the bottom six and then clobbering the cellar-dwellars to get a higher draft pick.
Similarly, a club hovering around sixth after 15 games would have to weigh up the benefits of: (a) Winning their next two games, booking their spot in the finals but also setting themselves up for five consecutive matches against the competition’s best, versus; (b) Throwing the next two games, making them earn their finals spot, but also allowing them to have a crack at some of the also-rans.
We can argue all day as to whether clubs would actually be devious enough to do such a thing. We can argue all day as to why either option is smart or stupid, but at the end of the day we shouldn’t be discussing it at all, because teams shouldn’t have to make those decisions in the first place.
Teams don’t aim for the top four because it looks good on their resume, they do it because finishing at the top end of the ladder gives you a significant advantage in the finals. How do you reach the top four? By winning games – that’s the only way.
If you spread chocolate chips throughout the ladder, teams will be drawn to them, regardless of which direction they have to travel to get there.
The only way to ensure teams try to win every match they play, is to put all the rewards at the top. The 17-5 model would not only fail to eliminate tanking, but would in fact give many more teams a reason to start.
The second most worrying misconception the model’s supporters have is that meaningless games would be a thing of the past.
Would a five-match run to September that needs to reset everybody’s points to zero in order to work not render the entire season of footy that preceded it meaningless?
Going through 17 rounds of football (18 if you include byes) to decide which one of three ‘zones’ you’ll be in, where you’ll then decide the order of the ladder in just over a quarter of that time has to be one of the most nonsensical proposals ever floated.
Theoretically a team could go 21-1 for the season, but because that loss came in the final five weeks, finish second to a team that went 11-6 in the first leg but found serious form at the end.
The other obvious problem with separating the final five rounds from the first 17 is that you run the risk of locking a team out of finals contention prematurely.
At the conclusion of Round 17 last year, Richmond were mere percentage points out of 13th, imagine if they’d been locked into the bottom six and had their historic winning streak count for nothing?
There are better ways to add spice to a Melbourne-St Kilda game in August than throwing the first four months of the competition out the window.
Another perceived benefit of the 17-5 model is that it will maintain fan interest throughout the course of the season by giving the lesser teams something to play for.
Nothing sells tickets like success. But while a team’s home crowds grow as the wins pile up, so too does the number of fans who travel with them when they play away.
Last season, GWS were able to enjoy a home games against North Melbourne and Collingwood over the last five weeks, raking in more than 10,000 people to each match – excellent figures for the Giants.
But under the 17-5 model, they would have played those games against either the Western Bulldogs, Carlton, Melbourne, Brisbane or St Kilda.
Would GWS have been a better chance to win those games? Yes. Would any of those games pulled close to 10,000 people late in the season? Absolutely not.
There are obvious logistics issues that arise from having five weeks of football not finalised until five days before the first of those matches is due to be played, but asking one demoralised fan-base to travel to the ground of another similarly disinterested fan-base is not at all conducive to maintaining fan interest.
This all said however, poking holes at the 17-5 model is somewhat of a waste. The AFL is yet to justify the need for a radical fixture overhaul in the first place.
Looking at the bigger picture, the meaningless late-season match is not a problem unique to the AFL at all. Every sport on the planet pits its also-rans against each other at some point.
If the AFL genuinely believes that interest can be manufactured by dangling a draft pick in the faces of the fans, then they’re demonstrating a worrying lack of understanding as to why fans do and don’t go to the football.
The AFL faces a number of challenges going forward as it looks to cement its status as Australia’s premier sporting competition, but the 17-5 model of fixturing creates more problems than it solves.
If the AFL has fixturing ideas that will benefit the competition – I’m all ears. The 17-5 model however is clearly not one of them.
andyl12
Guest
Following your illogic Murry Shaw- why did you post that twice? The fact is, none of those comparisons are valid and you know it. If the logic behind the Anzac Day fixture had any merit then we may as well also decide that Essendon and Collingwood should always be playing in the Grand Final regardless of ladder position because their bigger crowd-pulling capabilities mean the AFL could charge higher ticket prices and bring more money into the game. Luckily the AFL haven't fallen for that one, but if the wrong people ever get in charge then who knows.
Stirling Coates
Editor
"deliberate losing doesn’t happen, but deliberately not putting yourself in the best possible position to win every single week does happen." I think that's where this proposed model creates the most problems. When teams elect to play youngsters, whilst they may be decreasing their overall probability of winning the match, the competitive attitude and intent to win they take to the match is still there (and if they're struggling that chance wouldn't have been huge anyway). The purpose of such an exercise is to allow the club to become more competitive going forward by developing their younger players, and as such the integrity of the game remains intact. There is a fundamental difference between the aforementioned occurrence and the act of deliberately losing a game (or games) in order to make a team's upcoming fixture significantly easier, or to potentially entitle a team to a reward they would not have been eligible to receive had they continued to win. As said in the article, we can argue all day as to whether a club would be devious enough to pursue this course of action, but why give them the option in the first place?
Shaw
Roar Rookie
Following your illogic Andy: Why does Stawell always host the Stawell gift? Why does England always play the ashes? Why does Australia play for the bledelsloe Cup? Why did nsw play state of origin for nearly a decade? Why Andy why?
Shaw
Roar Rookie
Following your illogic Andy: Why does Stawell always host the Stawell gift? Why does England always play the ashes? Why does Australia play for the bledelsloe Cup? Why did nsw play state of origin for nearly a decade?
Stirling Coates
Editor
Agreeing with Paul on this one. If you don't reset the points then there's a good chance 11 & 12 would be too far off to compete for finals, rendering the whole mini-tourney useless.
onside
Guest
The trouble is that there are too many AFL teams. Hence these sort of discussions, where we are trying to solve a problem not of our making. If there were say 16 teams instead of 18, then every team could play each other twice through the season. A the very least that would be the start of fairness and equity. As it stands now, several matches are quite frankly, boring. The net result of this dilemma is that some AFL supporters will go from cradle to grave without seeing their team in a grand final, let alone win one.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"The author is assuming the ladder will reset to 0 points for each tier after Round 17. I don’t believe this is so. The brackets will be fixed but otherwise points will carry forward" So what happens when teams 7 & 8 win almost all of their games and teams 5 & 6 lose most of theirs? That's why you need to reset the points. Otherwise the best of the middle tier get a dream run to the finals. Don't tar everyone with the same brush who is saying this is a bad idea. It's not people being reactionary for the sake of it. Rather, I think a lot of people have looked at this, thought it through and come to the very reasonable conclusion that this is a Bad. Idea.
Brian
Guest
Well said Ryan. People really dislike change. The Top 6 often play each other right before September. Last year the Hawks played Geelong 2 weeks before the first final repeat. The year before we played Sydney 1 week before the first final repeat. Everyone complains there are no even games well this is how to fix it. The middle 6 tanking argument is poor. Any draft system is susceptible to tanking. Would the 6th place team really prefer to lose and drop into the second bracket so they know they will be playing away in week 1 if they make the Finals. The author is assuming the ladder will reset to 0 points for each tier after Round 17. I don't believe this is so. The brackets will be fixed but otherwise points will carry forward The bottom 6 is the hard one, should pick 1 go to the bottom team or to 13th. However this is an eternal dilemma when you have a draft, not unlike bygone years and priority picks. Melbourne asked for a extra pick last year on top of pick 2 for being a long-term basket case. Under the 17+5 you could easily allow Melbourne to say lock in pick 2 but still have their next pick determined by the final 5 games. Its no more unfair equalization then Melbourne getting pick 2 for Scully, pick 3 for Frawley whilst the Hawks got pick 18 for Franklin. Many rightly complain that currently it is a fixture not a draw and it goes against natural fairness. Finally we have a plausible solution where the AFL are potentially giving up guaranteed revenue (2 Carl v Coll etc). and putting fairness first.
onside
Guest
Re tanking; How about the AFL run a players lottery.....take the choice away from the clubs. Top 18 players, one to each club, same 19 to 36, and so on. Maybe a system where bottom teams get two players, whatever; but it's all decided by a lottery. Winners ,loosers,team gets two talls, but wants midfielders, all that . Let the trading begin.
markd
Guest
How about the following; Add 2 teams to the competition, making total teams 20. Split the competition into two divisions each of 10 teams based on where each finish in previous year. Each division is then run playing opposition sides twice for total 18 game season. Top team in Div 2 gets promotion, with next four playing off for remaining 1 promotion spot. Bottom 2 teams in Div 1 get relegated. Top 4 teams in Div 1 play finals each year to determine premier. In later years you could also introduce a relegation from div 2 with promotion coming from the state based comps.
Paul D
Roar Guru
36 games is beyond the realms of possibility. Player wear and tear would forestall it. NAB Cup games can’t be compared to regular season matches – they’re not as intense or as long. Midweek games won’t happen. It’s a nice idea, but there are way too many obstacles to overcome.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
What a bunch of negative nellies you all are! I wrote about precisely this model in July last year: http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/07/24/since-asked-shorter-afl-season/, and fully support it. My basic rationale was: - The pursuit of 'fairness' is a fallacy - The fixture is contrived as it is, so why not make it as entertaining as possible - The games we all look forward to at the end of the year are the 'wooden spoon' game, the 'who will make the eight' game, the 'who will make the top four' game The anti-'tanking' argument is flawed too, and built on some puritanical idea of teams playing to win every single weekend. Do you really think Carlton are going to get to the 14th round of the year and -not- be thinking about next season? "Playing the kids" is just code for writing off a season. Sure, deliberate losing doesn't happen, but deliberately not putting yourself in the best possible position to win every single week does happen. You can even guard against some of the (admittedly, well made) arguments above. For example, with the bottom six, why not have an NBA-style lottery? Instead of having a six game tournament to play for the order of draft picks, you still take into account the team's record after the Home and Away season and allocate a percentage chance (a number of ping pong balls, to keep the NBA analogy going) of landing a pick based on where they finish. But then, in the final six games, you play for a multiplier on your percentage (or more ping pong balls) based on your record against your peer group. And for the teams in the middle six bracket...give them a cash prize for making the eight. I get its a big change. And people don't like change. But can anyone honestly be sitting at their computer saying 'I would not watch this'? That's the test.
onside
Guest
Don't know Casper. Hadn't thought of it. But they do fit in a few games, with the NAB thingy. Perhaps teams could play three matches in two weeks through the season (midweek game?) Three games in two weeks for elite athletes isn't too much of a stretch.(big list of players) Outside of Test cricket, perhaps all other cricket should be moved to smaller grounds (not stadiums) and the AFL could throw an impoverished game a few million dollars as compensation.
Paul D
Roar Guru
There are some good ideas from the AFL – this isn’t one of them. Top 6 teams playing off – essentially will become dress rehearsals for finals. Teams will phone it in, rest players, not reveal much. Won’t be blockbusters by any means and will devalue when these teams actually meet for keeps in a month’s time. Middle 6 teams – will rapidly become irrelevant for teams in bottom half, particularly if they lose a few to start. Bottom 6 – Total tankfest. Again, irrelevance is a massive issue. And that’s before you even get into the nonsense in weeks 15 & 16 as teams jockey for a favourable spot on the grid.
andyl12
Guest
I think the TV networks would allow that as long as their fee for the rights drops accordingly. And there would be the problem- players have to take significant pay cuts. I just think that if we have to have an uneven fixture then we can at least repay a side one year for the disadvantages they suffer in a previous year. Carlton look like they'll be down the bottom for quite a few years now, and the sides to benefit the most from this will be Collingwood and Essendon since they're guaranteed to play Carlton twice.
Casper
Guest
A lot of things are beyond you Andyl12. Don't worry, I'm sure the Hawks will get to keep those plum Launceston matches, lol.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
What the AFL could learn from English football is the Play-off system used in lower tier football but adapt that for the bottom of the AFL ladder somehow. Maybe just a one-off game between 13th and 14th to decide the draft pick while also adding ladder position monetary incentives (Not sure if they do this already?), so that if you finish 12th you'll get a decent chunk of money..more for 11th, 10th, and so on to try and prevent tanking. As well as promotion, relegation, Champions league, Europa spots in EPL there's always something to play for because of the money involved in each ladder position. Okay TV rights are nowhere near the same but The Age ran a story in March that " only 40 per cent of AFL income is parlayed to the clubs."
andyl12
Guest
Agree that the Top 6 teams deserve more merit-based fixtures. Why Essendon still get Anzac Day given the low standard of football they've given to 4 of the 6 clashes is beyond me. And does anyone remember the last time the Dreamtime game produced quality football?
Timber Tim
Guest
The only other model if people are after equity and fairness is that the TOP SIX, MIDDLE SIX, AND BOTTOM SIX from the previous home and away season standings are grouped to play each other twice the following season. could see more competitive matches throughout the year as teams maintain or push for a higher spot. the TOP 6 teams should be rewarded with more primetime viewing spots for their hard work on the field for the previous season. REWARD PERFORMANCE ON MERIT.
Timber Tim
Guest
Read the last part. AFL are still going to want Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton to play each other twice yearly same as the showdown, western derby etc. Geelong will already have 5 games against divsion rivals at the cattery guaranteed. Its just an idea to give fans and Idea of who they play and where they play each year while sort of protecting the best rivalries in the AFL. No way the AFL will allow Port or the crows to only play once a year same as Collingwood/Essendon.