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.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
13th man - you have misunderstood or more likely I haven't been clear in my posting. But in the conference model you would play every team: those in your conference twice and those in the other conference once. So a total of 25 games before the finals start.
Torchbearer
Guest
The way to make the bottom group relevant for the last 5 rounds would be to have relegation for the bottom 2 teams- but that's not going to happen, but it would spice things up! Lots of flaws in this complex concept, lets take for example say SYDvFRE (top 6 teams) play in Round 17, then draw to play in Round 19, then draw first week of finals and then meet in grand final- 4 meets in two months. Viewers will get Top 6 fatigue by the final.
Tom
Guest
I there any danger in leaving the competition how it is? This years draw is a beauty and has enhanced the eveness of the competition. Once the expansion teams have been around for another 5 years the draft will begin to even out the competition again.
josh
Roar Rookie
The real solution is either play 17 game season or a 34 game season. Dropping 5 games probably won't appeal, even though I'm sure you'd find the resulting economic impact will be less than expected. Increasing to 34, is fraught with issues. Decreasing the season to 17 games, improves the chances of a return of State of Origin.
13th Man
Guest
That would mean that you wouldn't play half the teams at all until finals. Everyone should play everyone. My solution Increase the comp to 20 teams (a team from Tassie and NT maybe) and play 20 rounds of footy with 2 byes. Sorted!
13th Man
Guest
Agree with that
13th Man
Guest
Thats why I don't like it. A lot of teams that are top 6 after 17 rounds don't make finals. It happens. A team in that 7-13 bracket could end up with more wins than a 1-6 bracket side yet finish lower. Also dislike not necessarily having 2 derbies/showdowns.
Frank R
Roar Rookie
I want to throw in another fixture idea. As I posted on a similar thread "AFL Clubs reject 17-5 fixture" consider this: Split into 2 conferences of 9 teams.East / West conferences. 5 Victorian teams into each conference. Play each other twice in the conference and once against the teams in the other conference. Top 4 of each conference play off in the final eight. That way most derbies and blockbuster games can be maintained.
sheek
Roar Guru
Okay, thanks Michael, I wasn't aware of whether the points would be carried over or not. I just assumed they would. I understand the desire for more blockbusters, but if the top teams end up playing each other three times, or perhaps even four times (including a grand final), then won't this be overkill? I don't know if I'm going to enjoy Hawks & Swans playing each other four times within one year. Or Cats & Dockers. Or Magpies & Bombers, etc. Would croweaters like to see Crows & Power play each other four times in a year, if it came to pass? it's possible two teams could end up playing each other four times in a season, & that would certainly be overkill.
Tom
Guest
What about the top 6 teams losing their win/loss record but keeping the percentage they have earned? This gives a reward for their effort but means they still need to win to maintain ladder position. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Michael I think you have made a reasonable fist of describing the positives of the 17-5 concept and debunking some of the criticisms. I think it's worth keeping it on the agenda, even if clubs have dismissed it outright for the moment. As for the problem of clubs ending up with only 10 home games - there are such a variety of memberships sold these days, I don't think it's an issue at all. In fact, memberships could be priced for 10 home games, meaning you get a freebie if your team ends up with 11 home games, and/or one of the away games is designated as allowing the member the equivalent of home game entry, which already happens for some clubs already. In fact, in much of this, we are only limited by our imaginations - the spread of home games for members is the very least of our concerns.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
I quite like the idea in theory, but it's only going to work if there are an odd number of teams. That's because if this system was brought in now, the clubs would almost certainly have differing numbers of home games. Some clubs would have 10, some would have 12, and there's nothing the AFL could do about it. And there is the issue of forward planning - clubs would have no idea when their games would be or where they'd be.
TomC
Roar Guru
I have to say I bristled at Michael's comment that some of the arguments against the 17 5 system 'fall down pretty quickly' when the main arguments he marshalls have some glaring flaws. The biggest argument seems to be around more meaningful games. But under this system every week three games will be played that cannot have any impact on the season's result at all. Not only that, but the teams involved will play another meaningless game the following week, and then more after that. This system completely disengages 33% of the league for over a month. Even the middle tier battles for relevance. As the feedback from clubs shows, the only realistic structure allows these teams to finish no higher than seventh, from where it is virtually impossible to win the flag. Especially when the finals pit you against teams that have been playing against better opposition consistently for the previous five weeks. These games will barely be noticed. Sure, the three top tier games will be big draw cards. But even before we consider the diminishing returns of what is basically an extended finals series with much lower stakes, three marquee games a round isn't enough to sustain the demands of TV stations. It's more than just ratings. Its having a certain number of hours of meaningful content to distribute across the weekend, between FTA and pay TV. One of the biggest reasons we watch sport is the chance of seeing something unexpected. How great was the doggies win over the swans a couple of weeks back? Or St kilda beating the dockers last year? Or all of the innumerable times when at the end of an agonising year, a struggling team managed to have an impact on the season by knocking off an opponent whose year is still alive? Sure, these contests are more likely to end in blowouts, but they're still meaningful, especially for teams down the bottom of the ladder.
joe b
Guest
i agree with some of the comments above : 1. The top 6 effectively play 2 finals series in a row, devaluing the proper finals series 2. If points are zeroed in the last five rounds, and play offs determine their reward (draft picks, final 2 spots in 8, positions 1-6 and chance to host), will some teams rest players in the later rounds of 1-17 in order to focus on play offs? 3. Focus should be on equal hosting for every team in a 3 year cycle eg. Gold Coast host Collingwood twice, and Collingwood host Gold Coast twice. Or perhaps a 4 year cycle, enabling traditional rivals to play twice a year most seasons.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Not a good idea, the finals series already creates the big games and keeps them scarce enough that it's an event.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Me Too, I think 'European super league' is a bit of a stretch. Like I sad in earlier comments, I'm not too sure of the exact mechanism with the bottom six but it wouldn't be too hard to find one that works. Maybe wins in those last five rounds boost a team's weighting in an American-style draft lottery. Maybe the bottom team starts the final five rounds with 6 points already on the board, and second-last with 4 points, third-last with 2 points. It wouldn't be too hard to find a balance between killing tanking and being fair to struggling sides.
Me Too
Guest
There can be quite a disparity between the sixth worst and worst team - and by rewarding the better team by giving them better draft picks means bottom teams will have less chance to boost their stocks - imagine how supporters would feel if their team were locked into a cycle of bottom six 'playoffs' year after year, watching better teams steal the cream of the crop each year? This 17-5 system would set up a mini 'european super league' where the better teams solidify tv market, gates, membership and marketing revenue. In this age of free agency such clubs would be far more attractive to players, even at lower dollar, than the bottom or mid six.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
QConners, the bottom six would likely be linked to draft placings, in that wins in the last five rounds would be rewarded by a better shot at the top draft pick, which would ensure they would hold a fair bit of interest relative to current late-season games among bottom sides.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Sheek, one aspect to be discussion as mentioned is what happens to points earned in the first 17 rounds. Do they carry over or is it a clean slate? If it's a clean slate, does the team finishing first get say a 6-point start, 2 gets 4 points and 3 gets 2 points, as reward for their performances to that point? I like that last suggestion, as a general rule. The problem with a rotating conference system is while it's great for fairness, it takes away more blockbusters than it provides and may even have a negative effect on fairness for some teams (given the league currently can artificially ensure top teams play more games against other top teams and so forth).
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
Wayne, the 13-18 bracket would actually allow for some form of anti-tanking measure to be brought in. Wins in those final five rounds would help a team move up the draft order. I don't know the exact mechanism for how that would look, but it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with something that significantly reduces the risk of tanking.