-
Re: 17-5 Model
The AFL's biggest reason for considering a 17-5 fixture model is to reduce or completely eliminate boring/one-sided games towards the end of the season. The reality is that it is likely to result in MORE "dead rubbers".
If this model comes in the bottom 6 will be reduced to playing a round robin amongst themselves for nothing.
The top 6 after round 17 are guaranteed to make the finals and can rest all their best players until September, especially now that finishing top 4 is not the massive advantage it was before the pre-finals bye was introduced. As if they are going to go flat out over the last 5 weeks against each other when they can save themselves for the games that actually count.
That leaves the middle 6. In the current system they are still alive to make the finals anyway, and can finish anywhere from 1st to 18th. In the 17-5 system the best they can do is 7th. And imagine if after round 17 there is a 4 or 5 game gap between 8th and 9th - then the middle 6 have nothing to play for too.
So by jumping at shadows, in a worst case scenario, the AFL may create a fixture where the last 5 weeks produce 45 "dead rubbers" in an attempt to eliminate 5 or 10 dud games.
Footscray member since 1980.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
Flamethrower
The AFL's biggest reason for considering a 17-5 fixture model is to reduce or completely eliminate boring/one-sided games towards the end of the season. The reality is that it is likely to result in MORE "dead rubbers".
If this model comes in the bottom 6 will be reduced to playing a round robin amongst themselves for nothing.
The top 6 after round 17 are guaranteed to make the finals and can rest all their best players until September, especially now that finishing top 4 is not the massive advantage it was before the pre-finals bye was introduced. As if they are going to go flat out over the last 5 weeks against each other when they can save themselves for the games that actually count.
That leaves the middle 6. In the current system they are still alive to make the finals anyway, and can finish anywhere from 1st to 18th. In the 17-5 system the best they can do is 7th. And imagine if after round 17 there is a 4 or 5 game gap between 8th and 9th - then the middle 6 have nothing to play for too.
So by jumping at shadows, in a worst case scenario, the AFL may create a fixture where the last 5 weeks produce 45 "dead rubbers" in an attempt to eliminate 5 or 10 dud games.
And how do they determine 'home teams' for those matches?
It can't just be the higher placed team, eg WC/Freo finish 7th and then get five home games in a row. How do they determine the order, and who plays where?
The AFEL just had their most even season in years and they're looking to change it...why exactly? I much prefer the idea of a rolling fixture as described above.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
jazzadogs
The AFEL just had their most even season in years and they're looking to change it...why exactly?
Because it keeps "The Ideas Men" @ AFEL Headquarters in a job and because they can't #$%&ing help themselves.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
I don't like 17-5, it limits movement around the ladder for teams finishing with a head of steam or slowing to a crawl and is logistically difficult with not being able to make preparations for the last 5 games until after round 17
It seems to be targeting dead rubbers & tanking, I'm not a tanking denier but I think every AFL game has something on the line and despite clubs putting players in for surgery earlier, playing the kids or experimenting if they are out of finals contention, there is always something to play for
The current system of playing teams in your finishing bracket last season twice more often is alright
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
redders70
So teams that are 7th and 8th after 17 rounds have no chance of making the top four?
Is that how this 17-5 fixture reads?
Yep, we would have been guaranteed top 6 after the Suns game and never would have played & lost to St Kilda the following week
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Re: 17-5 Model
I really dislike this idea.
So we qualify for the top 6, guaranteed home final if we finish outside the top 4. We put the cue in the rack and ensure we manage players and rest them, whilst the remaining finalists battle each other to the death in games that don't really matter, before we emerge with a full squad and repeat what we did in 2016?
Maybe this is a cracking idea ...
In all seriousness, either leave it alone or make it a draw, not a fixture. They'll never make it a draw, so I suppose we best stick with what we have.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Jazzadogs is right. Why change a system that gave us that finals series. The finals series we had was perfect from our POV including North being humiliated in the first week but even for a footy fan fan the finals series delivered proven by the ratings record and the media going crazy ape shit over football. Everything went perfectly for Brand AFEL. Every paper and TV station poured out footy stories. Everyone was talking about footy (they were wherever I was anyway). It was a 10/10 series that people will talk about for years.
So they are changing it why?
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
Flamethrower
If this model comes in the bottom 6 will be reduced to playing a round robin amongst themselves for nothing.
Give the team that wins the mini-tournament between the bottom six teams the number one draft pick. That is meaningful isn't it?
Top 6 play for spots in the top 4.
Next 6 play for spots in the finals.
Bottom 6 play for draft position.
What should I tell her? She's going to ask.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
mjp
Bottom 6 play for draft position.
As if Brisbane would have won that. Yet they are in such bad shape the AFL awarded them a priority pick
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
mjp
Give the team that wins the mini-tournament between the bottom six teams the number one draft pick. That is meaningful isn't it?
Top 6 play for spots in the top 4.
Next 6 play for spots in the finals.
Bottom 6 play for draft position.
Originally Posted by
boydogs
As if Brisbane would have won that. Yet they are in such bad shape the AFL awarded them a priority pick
There's no real way for it to work, other than potentially a weighted lottery system.
If the 'winner' gets pick one, then the actual worst teams each year don't get the reward that they deserve. Big shame for the guys that finish 13th, and only miss out on pick one by one spot!
If the worst team gets pick one, there is not much to stop the team that finishes 13th from putting all their good players in for surgery, playing the kids and hopefully getting pick one.
If it is a lottery, with say 6 chances for 18th, 5 chances for 17th etc you will have the same issues with minimal reduction compared to option B.
-
Re: 17-5 Model
While I'm at it, a few other 'worst case scenarios' which the AFL won't think about until they happen (and then they change the rules again so they don't happen, then something else happens, then they change the rules again so that...etc.)
1) At the end of round 14, 1st place is four games clear of seventh place. They rest players for three weeks, knowing that they don't matter (can't lose top 4, can't lose a home final). Prepare for an assault on the 'final 5' but means three dead rubbers in the lead up. Could also conceivably happen with 2nd, 3rd etc.
2) This year, at the end of rd17 the divisions would have been (Hawks, Giants, Swans, Cats, Eagles, Crows) (Dogs, North, Saints, Port, Melbourne, Collingwood) (Richmond, Carlton, GC, Freo, Brisbane, Essendon). In the middle tier, there was 5 wins separating the top side - Bulldogs 12 wins - and the bottom two sides - Melb + Collingwood 7 wins. How could it possibly be a fair and rational result to make these sides play off for a finals berth, when they have already shown against all 17 other teams to be 5 wins better?
3) Using the divisions above, Richmond's 4% difference between middle and lower tiers means they now have a shot at the first pick which they otherwise would not have taken. No matter the rationale, these 3 games each week will have very very low crowds and ratings (buried on Sundays most likely).
4) Middle tier - lose your first three games, you can't get one of the final two top 8 spots, you tank the last two matches for a better pick. Another game per week with low crowds, low ratings.
5) Top tier - you put in 17 rounds of excellent footy, lose one or two matches. Because there is no way to fairly randomise who gets home games, you are 'randomly' drawn to play your two away games at WC and Adel, despite already playing two away games against them this year. You lose, and miss out on double chance in the knockout games. Farce.
BURN THE 17-5 IDEA. BURN IT WITH FIRE.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Originally Posted by
jazzadogs
There's no real way for it to work, other than potentially a weighted lottery system.
If the 'winner' gets pick one, then the actual worst teams each year don't get the reward that they deserve. Big shame for the guys that finish 13th, and only miss out on pick one by one spot!
If the worst team gets pick one, there is not much to stop the team that finishes 13th from putting all their good players in for surgery, playing the kids and hopefully getting pick one.
If it is a lottery, with say 6 chances for 18th, 5 chances for 17th etc you will have the same issues with minimal reduction compared to option B.
There is. The best side of those last 5 games does "win" pick one, second gets pick 2 etc.
After the 17 rounds with those 6 you flip the ladder and then allocate points based on the different number of wins each side has had to that point.
eg.
After round 17 the bottom 6 are as follows:
Richmond, 6 wins 11 losses
Melbourne, 5 wins 12 losses
Port Adelaide, 4 wins 1 draw 2 losses
Brisbane, 4 wins 13 losses
Collingwood, 3 wins 14 losses
Carlton, 2 wins 15 losses
So you award Calrton the premiership point difference between themselves and the hughest ranked team, Richmond, which is 4 wins or 16 premiership points. Then you do the same for Collingwood etc.
The ladder would look like this prior to the final 5 games:
Carlton, 16 points
Collingwood, 12 points
Brisbane, 8 points
Port Adelaide, 6 points
Melbourne, 4 points
Richmond, 0 points
Percentage would remain as it was. Now Richmond need to win 4 more games than Carlton to possibly get the first pick (depending on percentage and other teams). Everybody has every reason to win, draft picks should still be allocated somewhat fairly (Carlton should get pick 1 or close to it), and games should be fairly competitive.
I should leave it alone but you're not right
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Its a bloody stupid idea an I was going to detail why I think so but jazza said it all in 5 succinct points
-
Re: 17-5 Model
Some great points made. Don't like the idea myself anymore! Conceivably, we wouldn't have made finals under the system this year as in the crucial 5 week period, we probably had the most injuries, despite us being a better side across the full year than say Saints, North or Melbourne who could have knocked us out
-
Re: 17-5 Model
I understand the angst about the 17-5 but how can we spend the whole year moaning about the inequality of the draw then complain when things get 'equalised'. To me, whatever happens after round 17 - when we have played everyone once - is CAKE. Year after year the point is made that the ladder "hardly changes" after round 12...which means there are a lot of meaningless games at the end of the year. The fact that the last 5 weeks are against the most 'evenly matched' teams possible, well - isn't that good. When we were crap a couple of years ago I would have killed to play all the other bottom teams as the season wound down...at least that way I might have had a bit of hope the game would be close rather than dreading the idea of having to go interstate and play a top team on their home deck and just get destroyed.
Sure there are negatives but how is this worse than the top 8 being so heavily influenced by which teams 'got lucky' by somehow getting to play four of the five worst teams in the comp twice. Plus it gets rid of all the 2x derbies/showdowns/etc per year nonsense...this isn't perfect but is a MASSIVE step forward.
What should I tell her? She's going to ask.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes