After reading the article ‘17-5 amounts to fundamentally flawed fixturing‘ by mds1970, I was motivated to present an alternative to the 17-5 model currently under consideration by the AFL and clubs.
I totally understand the rationale behind trying to create a fairer fixture, as well as trying to keep the interest in the season for more teams, for longer, and to reduce the number of ‘meaningless’ games played by teams at the lower end of the ladder.
It makes sense therefore to consider some creative options – and for this reason, due diligence demands that the AFL and the clubs should at least consider the 17-5 model. It is important, however, that any new model adopted to improve the fixture doesn’t create unintended consequences that might in fact detract from the intended improvements, and create drawbacks that do not exist in the current fixturing.
The current format guarantees a certainty of fixturing and timing of games for 21 out of 22 rounds, and 11 home games for all 18 clubs, as rightly pointed out by mds1970. The fact that the 17-5 format cannot guarantee these, should weigh heavily in the debate. There is no point in introducing a fixture that solves some things, but creates new problems.
There is, I believe an alternative that could achieve a more even fixture – albeit over a longer time period than just one season. All it would require is some fairly minor tinkering to the existing arrangements, and the occasional extra game. It may not solve the issue of reducing ‘meaningless games’ but surely some improvement is better than none.
It is simply not plausible to ensure that every team plays each other team the same number of times in any given season. A 17-game season would be far too short, and a 34-game season could never be considered.
We are unlikely to ever see the competition expand to 23 teams, which is the only way to create the perfect scenario of a 22-round season where each team plays every other team the same number of times, just the once, in a season.
While we have 18 teams, however, we can actually devise a system that produces an even fixture over a three year period, but it would involve adding one extra round in two out of every three seasons. Under such a proposal, there would be 68 rounds over three years, meaning each team would play each other four times, ensuring the same number of both home and away games for every club.
Some things would have to be given up, such as some blockbuster games involving the same two clubs. Such games could not occur twice in each and every season, and could only occur twice in a season every third year. On the other hand, this should also serve to increase the interest in such games, if they only arise once in a particular season.
Such a model could also be adapted in the event of a new team or teams entering the AFL competition. If we had a 19-team competition, for example, an even fixture could be achieved over a four year period (90 rounds in total), with each team playing each other five times, with an extra round required in two of those four years. Under this scenario it would however take eight years for each team to have the same number of home and away games against each individual club.
If ever we got to 20 teams in the completion, then 114 games over five years would achieve an even fixture, with an extra round required in four out of every six years.
So let’s think a little bit outside the square and come up something that works for all – clubs, fans, sponsors and the AFL.
Jonathan Pilbrow
Roar Rookie
I agree with comments about AFL Clubs shouldn't be able to put in a wish list. How have the AFL ever allowed this to happen to the extent it has. The wish lists seem to undermine transparency about having a fair fixture. And regarding the reduction in blockbuster games - the scarcity of blockbuster games might breed more interest in them when they do happen once a year. As mentioned in another comment - the Geelong - Hawthorn rivalry hasn't suffered when they have only had one home and away game in a season.
hal
Guest
Cat: Spot on. I totally agree.
MG
Roar Rookie
I read an idea a few years ago. Go back to playing the other 17 teams in the first 17 rounds then for rounds 18 to 22 split the points and percentage with the game already played. So Swans have played GWS once and lost, GWS get the 4 points from that game until the second game is played. After the second game the Swans win so GWS lose 2 points (and have only 2 points) for the first game and the Swans get 2 points for the second game. Same thing for the points for and against.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Unsurprisingly, I'm in this camp. In all these discussion, I'm never quite sure what the problem is that people are trying to fix. From the moment University left the comp in 1915, right up to around 1967 (ignoring the war years), the VFL played 18 rounds, meaning at no point was there a balanced home and away fixture. We had 22 rounds for a 12 team comp for about 17 seasons. Did it matter? Just get out there and win a game of footy and stop whining like a stuck pig.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Cat I'd have no issue will all of what you said, on one proviso: Any teams within Victoria not performing after a 5-10 year period (standing on their own feet) is cut from the AFL. No more handouts, no more subsidising the weak. If North, Bulldogs, Melbourne and Saints sign up to that, I'm all for it. Somehow I doubt they'd have the balls though.
Cat
Roar Guru
Maxirius
Guest
You're probably right!
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Good point Max. I'm a cynic though. I don't think the AFL really gives a $#%^. They'd probably make WCE travel every week if it meant crowd and TV numbers increased. It's a good thing I believe having an equitable competition long-term will be commercially more viable than the inequitable one we currently have. The AFL probably believes this too.
Maxirius
Guest
The issue why these various "fair draw" approaches fall down is, while they go a most of the way in overcoming the integrity and equity issues with the current set up, they fail to achieve the increases in competitive and meaningful games that the 17-5 achieves In a way, and I say this with some self-awareness that I sound like a flog, 17-5 addresses the halfway house between a single and double round robin that is the 18 teams in to 22 rounds, as an opportunity rather than a problem "Equalisation" as an organising principle in professional sport, is a originally an American concept but one that suits Australian football very well given the game's attractiveness deteriorates significantly as the gap in quality increases. What the 17-5 does is ensures that from late july onwards the majority of games are between equally matched teams playing for similar stakes.
Maxirius
Guest
"Marquee fixtures are in place purely because of revenue..." Actual derbies, particularly the Perth derby, you could argue marginally offsets the travel burden for the WA teams
Maxirius
Guest
The problem with this is it creates a massive threshold issues between 6th and 7th as well as 12th and 13th
Ror Rick
Roar Rookie
Fortune favours the brave, if the side is good enough the draw wont matter... Just ask the Doggies..
Batman
Guest
That's the key point. Clubs fortunes fluctuate year to year based upon injuries and good fortunate; just ask Freo. I certain would be an advantage playing Freo once in 2015 and twice in 2016 and Geelong/GWS twice in 2015 It only matters who you play that season not whether you played all teams over 3 years.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
It's not quite that simple Cat. You're assuming the smaller clubs have the ability to generate the same level of revenue (providing they have equal footing) as the bigger clubs. This may be true, but who's going to 'foot the bill' and for how long should this not be the case? Marquee fixtures are in place purely because of revenue — end of discussion. It's no secret the AFL runs its enterprise like a business: as such, it's the dominant code in the Australian sporting landscape. People like Eddie are the loudest because they are capable of providing a product the AFL can sell — North, St Kilda, Bulldogs and Melbourne can't and perhaps never will. This of course should not be at the complete expense of equity. I kind of liken it to free speech — I believe you should be able to say whatever you like. However, Australia needs a system in place to limit total free speech, because as a nation, we're not mature enough yet. As the competition grows, equity should be the forefront of future growth, but an inequitable draw is still paramount in maintaining stability of the ever growing juggernaut. Perhaps one day the AFL will be big enough and mature enough to have a truly national and equitable draw that we are all proud of.
Tricky
Guest
Does this mean we have a premiership every 3 years? Y'know to keep it "balanced" and all
Russell
Guest
Correction:My view is that teams finishing top 6, Mid 6 and Bottom 6 the previous season play each other twice. So: If finish 4th, 10 +6+ 6 =22 If 9th. 6 + 10 + 6 = 22 If 16th, 6+6+10 = 22 This evens up the competition (a goal of the league) and improves the fairness.
Russell
Guest
My view is that teams finishing top 6, Mid 6 and Bottom 6 the previous season play each other twice. So: If finish 4th, 10 +6+ 6 =22 If 9th. 6 + 10 + 6 = 22 If 16th, 6+6+12 = 22 This evens up the competition (a goal of the league) and improves the fairness.
TomC
Roar Guru
It's an idea worthy of discussion, but as others have said I think the costs outweigh the benefits. Each of the non-Victorian teams giving up two local derbies every three years is a big deal, as would be adding an extra round to the season. The AFLPA are already upset about the demands on the players.
Cat
Roar Guru
The first thing the AFL should do is rip up and refuse to accept any more fixture 'wish lists'. Stop kowtowing to loudest clubs and do what is right for all 18 clubs. The 'big' clubs are only 'big' because they continually get all the favours and treats. The sooner the AFL stops holding back clubs by denying them basic fairness, the sooner they'll have 18 clubs standing on their own feet without perennial handouts.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Because I'm a realist Cat who understands the meaning of balance. Despite my objections to the imperfect draw, parts of it are necessary to continue growing the game. I'd have no objection removing double Carlton vs Collingwood fixtures, but this also mean you need to remove derbies interstate for balance. This won't happen EVER! The Victorian clubs need to decide who plays each other twice — the remaining Vic vs Vic fixtures would then be rotated. This would then balance out the permanent interstate double-up fixtures. I'd personally have Collingwood vs Essendon as the double up fixture for these two respective clubs — but that's just me.