We’re in the midst of the bye rounds. At this point of the season, we’re playing just six games each weekend and with one of them being on a Thursday night, there are some major breaks in the program.
Last week there was no Sunday game until 3:20pm. It will be the same this week.
When there are byes, it’s viable to play Thursday nights, with two teams that had the bye the previous week. During the rest of the season, due to the turnaround time required between games, it can’t be done.
Thursday night footy can be hit-and-miss with crowds, but last year saw some good roll-ups. Far better than the Sunday or Monday night timeslots that were experimented with in 2014. And there’s no doubt they rate very well on TV.
During the non-bye period, we have congested weekends where we have games being played at the same time, therefore splitting the broadcast audience. On the Fox ratings, we usually see more people watching AFL than NRL, but because the AFL audience is split, the NRL games outrate the AFL games.
The Players Association has been consistently vocal in requesting two byes during the season. In the context of rising injury tolls and fatigue, exacerbated by reduced rotations during games, they have a point.
A second bye was introduced in 2014 but was taken away in 2015, when the season started late due to the Cricket World Cup.
There’s a week off before the finals this year, but non-finals teams won’t benefit from that bye week. It remains to be seen how a week off will affect the momentum of the season.
If it becomes a regular thing, one potential benefit could be the floating fixture would no longer be needed and game dates and times would be locked in when the draw is released. But that’s a separate discussion that no doubt we’ll have when we see how that week off goes.
There’s been plenty of discussion, both on The Roar and elsewhere, of how to manage the bye periods.
I have a system that would spread the fixtures more evenly through the season and give the players the second bye they request without having so many gaps in the program. It would also drastically reduce the number of simultaneous games, allow a greater role for the high-rating Thursday night footy and give each team equal access to that prime-time timeslot.
It’s called the rolling bye.
A season would have each team playing 22 games plus two byes, meaning a 24-week home-and-away season.
For the first four rounds, there would be nine games played, same as a normal round now. Same for the last two, the run home to the finals. The other 18 rounds would see eight games played, with two teams having the bye.
The two teams with the bye would then play each other on the next Thursday night. That allows the blockbuster timeslot to be played 18 times, with teams participating having had the required turnover time.
Each team would have two byes, and therefore play two Thursday night games; one home and one away. Unlike Friday nights, where some teams get plenty while others get overlooked, it’s an even spread. Each team gets even exposure in this timeslot.
A typical round during those weeks would have one game on Thursday night, one on Friday night, one Saturday afternoon, one Saturday twilight, two Saturday night, one early Sunday and one Sunday 3:20pm.
If the early Sunday game is brought forward to 12:30pm, Saturday night would be the only timeslot in which two games are played simultaneously. And the unpopular Sunday 4:40pm timeslot would be abolished.
Concurrent scheduling would be significantly reduced, there’s a much bigger role for Thursday night football, and less gaps in the program than the current bye weeks have. It’s a big win for the broadcasters.
Thursday night games rate well on TV. They’re not always easy to get to, but you’re only going to have to do it for a home game once a season.
The players get their two byes. But with the spread of games, unless it’s your team’s turn to have the bye, you’ll barely notice it’s a bye round.
Is this the answer to the bye-scheduling dilemma?
Batman
Guest
I attended the Thursday night game, but that doesn't mean I like Thursday night games. A good rollup doesn't indicate support as my membership means I've paid to attend and there are only 11 home games. I noticed there were no kids at the game, definitely not family friendly fixture.
mds1970
Roar Guru
The reason they play 3.20 is so Channel 7 can lead it into the 6pm news. But both last week & this week Ch 7 aren't showing the Sunday game; so no reason for it this time. My model keeps the 3.20 game, which Ch 7 would keep. But the Sunday 4.40pm timeslot, which is unpopular with fans, would be abolished.
brian
Guest
2 points regarding the rolling bye ive often thought it a good idea. You could get more games in by having 9 games on the easter, anzac day and queens birthday rounds. One problem is that there is a small but growing market and money the AFL makes from fantasy competitions such as supercoach. As a participant in one these cannot work with a rolling bye. Now its only a small market at the moment but the AFL would be aware that for the NFL fantasy teams are a big deal abd may hope to get to that one day. regarding mandatory player resting it seems to open to manipulation. first clubs would want them used whenever players are injured which is not what the AFLPA has in mind. secondly the AFL season would only start in mid April which is too late a start if it had just 22 rounds in 22 weeks. Third is the potential for abuse or corruption particularly in betting markets or even just the perception of it, think dangerfield resting against north? or alternatively not resting cause scott knows against his brother it wont look good
Gyfox
Guest
It is crazy to have only one Sunday game at 3.20 pm. Who wants to go out on a Sunday afternoon in cold, wet June so late in the day & go home in the dark? Bring back 2.20 pm!
mds1970
Roar Guru
Plenty of material for your next article. Make it happen mate!
Cat
Roar Guru
Require clubs to list players as (off week) instead of (omitted) (dropped) (injury). - Every player on the list must have been listed as (off week) twice or substantial fines/sanctions await. - Players listed as (off week) are to be given a 4 day break away from club (same as they currently get during byes), are not allowed to play games at any level and must not be on suspension. - Injured players may be listed as (off week) only if they can be given the same 4 day break (no rehab sessions can be scheduled or mandated during this time). - No player may be listed as (off week) more than once during any 6 week period (this can be negotiated between AFL and AFLPA). - No player may be listed as (off week) during the first 6 weeks of the season (again, this can be negotiated between AFL and AFLPA).
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Don't mind the idea at all. It could play out a bit like the motor racing scenario, where there's that bit of intrigue when cars/bikes might come in for their enforced pitt stop. You might also want to make a mandatory point in the season that every player would have had to use their (first break), to avoid say the supposed en masse rest later in the year. There's certainly the potential for another avenue for interplay around strategy then in footy discussion on this.
mds1970
Roar Guru
I actually don't mind that. Letting the clubs select their own bye for each player. It becomes a fascinating list management exercise. With a couple of provisos. Being a break for wear & tear purposes, no playing lower grades (VFL, WAFL, SANFL, NEAFL) on those weekends, it must be a complete break. And weeks when a player is suspended doesn't count as one of the two weeks off.
Cat
Roar Guru
I know it doesn't get a lot of support but I still say the best approach is scrap the byes altogether, combine it with the proposed list changes (expanding lists to 50 and doing away with rookies) and mandate players are only allowed to play a maximum of 19 or 20 games a season. This would force teams to use more of their list (great for the AFLPA) and all players would be given the downtime they need (great for the AFLPA) and allow the season to progress without the stop start and unfairness of uneven byes (great for everyone). In time this would also see every team develop and maintain deeper lists allowing them to withstand injuries better (great for everyone).
9 Monkeys
Roar Rookie
Give everyone the bye on the same week, say after round twelve, and schedule the women's league season (I think six rounds-two-weeks-of-finals is one of the models being discussed) so that its grand final is played on the bye weekend.
mds1970
Roar Guru
By their nature, byes are stop-start. The only way to prevent the stop-start momentum breaking of byes is to do away with them completely. But that would be asking too much of the players. The issue is whether every team should stop-start at a similar time or each team doing it at different times progressively through the season but always keeping most teams going in any given week. As far as byes being a stop-start momentum killer and allowing for the effect of that, one thing that my Thursday night system does is ensures a team coming off the bye will play another team coming off the bye. The current system doesn't do that.
Wayne
Roar Guru
They floated Rolling Byes and it got shot down. The SANFL do it, and its horrid. As a fan, the season is so Stop-start you can't get into it
Damo
Guest
Just stop this partial, split round bye crap and everyone gets a general bye one or twice a year. It's not like we're going to forget it's footy season if there's no game for 1 week.