- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The AFL proposed a new model for the fixture to club CEOs this week. It did not go down well.
Caroline Wilson wrote in The Age of a “near-unanimous thumbs-down” from club chiefs.
AFL.com.au said clubs saw merit in the idea, but made it clear a number of issues needed to be addressed.
Under the so-called 17-5 model every club would play each other once before the league is broken up into three groups of six for the remaining five home-and-away games.
Teams finishing 1-6 would play each other again to decide finals placings, 7-12 would play off for the last two finals spots, and 13-18 would play each other with potentially some form of draft incentive on the line.
Let’s weigh up both sides here. The issues? Well, there are a few:
Yep, there are a few issues.
In reply, AFL chief Gillon McLachlan said the 17-5 model would help boost equality.
“The driver around this is around equality, making every game count for something,” McLachlan said. “You have to have tight games. Every game would mean something.”
Gill probably has a point on this front.
Picture what it would be like right now, if finals footy – or at least a variation of it – weren’t more than four months away. If your club had just 11 more games to set up their season.
The pressure would be turned up a notch, no doubt.
There’s also a fairness aspect to the argument. Removing the predetermined nature of the current draw could ease some concerns.
Now, there are alternative models out there built around equality and fairness. American-style conferences come up a lot. But the AFL wouldn’t be keen on any idea that reduces the league’s appeal to TV broadcasters.
A rotating three-year fixture built around conferences, or variations of that idea, would be more likely to bring about a reduction from the status quo in that sense. Under such a model, the loss of Showdowns and derbies and Carlton-Collingwood is felt.
Under 17-5 though, the repeat games in the fixture are on the whole replaced by games with higher stakes. And, if we refer to that picture we looked at of what the model would be like right now, games earlier in the season also adopt higher stakes.
This would seemingly result in more ‘must watch’ fixtures. By extension, some ‘don’t bother’ fixtures would be converted to ‘can watch’ fixtures. The improvement would be across the board.
You can see this translating well into TV ratings, can’t you?
Throw in the fact the primetime TV slots for last five rounds of the season won’t be determined until the fixture for those rounds are decided and, well, this could be quite the earner.
Late-season Friday night snoozefests would well and truly be a thing of the past.
For all the issues that need to be addressed, it has to be said some complaints fall down pretty quickly.
Clubs may very well play up the importance of the 11-game membership. But let’s not pretend membership isn’t an evolving beast – 17-game memberships, three-game memberships, there are so many packages. Would the conversion of the 11-game package to a 10-game package with an asterisk really be cause for a member not to renew?
Sponsorship may be an issue, but if games are getting greater exposure the top-end sponsors certainly won’t be complaining. Besides, clubs could just as easily end up with 12 home games as they could 10. Over time everything would be evened out.
Would it create just a super-long finals series that would de-value the existing finals? It could, sure. But almost every game in September will have a recent reference point with storylines to draw from. It could very easily add to the hype of finals.
You can see where the AFL are coming from with this one.
The 17-5 model, with a few necessary variations from what was presented this week, sounds more and more like the way forward.