17-5 Model

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I couldn't find a thread on the subject so apologies if one exists. But what are people's thoughts on the proposed 17-5 model of fixture? The AFL are certain to move to something like this in the future. I think it's a great idea.

Pros:
- Equal fixture for all clubs. Everyone plays each other once
- Sets up a "playoffs" for the last 5 weeks of the season, which would see teams in similar ladder positions playing each other each week
- Great for the fans and tv networks with extra blockbuster games
- Gives more teams a shot at the finals so there are more meaningful games played

Cons:
- Scheduling and logistical nightmare for the AFL
- Would the last 5 "seeding" games it reduce the impact of the finals ?
- What do teams 13-18 play for?

Questions:
- How do you assign home games for the last 5 weeks?
- Do points reset after 17 games?
- What do teams 13-18 play for?


Others?

For those that aren't aware, the 17-5 model is a fixture where everybody plays each other once = 17 games
The ladder is then split into 3 groups of 6: 1-6, 7-12, 13-18
The last 5 games of the season are played against teams in your group. The results will determine seeding. A team cannot move out of their group. i.e. 7th can finish no higher than 7th and finish no lower than 12th.

So essentially you have teams 1-6 playing for the top 4 and 7-12 playing for the last 2 spots in the 8. The big question is what do teams 13-18 play for? Draft order? But this may not be fair as 13th most likely would win the group and is probably a lot stronger than 18th. Does a lottery system get implemented for 13-18 with the winner of the group playing for an extra ball in the lottery? Or do they simply play for pride?

The AFL has also floated the idea of conferences, but this seems less likely.

[chef]

Id rather we just had a rolling draw. Fairest thing for everybody.

[bornadog]

Id rather we just had a rolling draw. Fairest thing for everybody.

Yep none of this contrived stuff, just roll it so every so many years we play the same team twice.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Id rather we just had a rolling draw. Fairest thing for everybody.

Excuse my ignorance. What is a rolling draw?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Excuse my ignorance. What is a rolling draw?

I believe a rolling draw is an old wooden ship used....

No i think it's where the teams you play twice each year rolls in a certain sequence. So a team plays all 17 teams twice in a 3.x year period. So e.g. Collingwood may play Essendon twice in Year 1 but would not play them twice again until they have played all other 16 teams twice in a season.....wow this is so much harder to explain than i thought. I'm sure someone else can do a better job

[chef]

Yep none of this contrived stuff, just roll it so every so many years we play the same team twice.

Yep. The AFL just love to try to hard to be innovative when there just is no need for it.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Yep. The AFL just love to try to hard to be innovative when there just is no need for it.

I think it has merit. Would certainly make for more interesting games in the last 5 weeks. At the moment there are a lot of dead rubbers when the top 8 is settled. I don't really mind either way but wouldn't be unhappy with the model

[Twodogs]

I believe a rolling draw is an old wooden ship used....

No i think it's where the teams you play twice each year rolls in a certain sequence. So a team plays all 17 teams twice in a 3.x year period. So e.g. Collingwood may play Essendon twice in Year 1 but would not play them twice again until they have played all other 16 teams twice in a season.....wow this is so much harder to explain than i thought. I'm sure someone else can do a better job


If we play Essendon in r1 we don't play Essendon again until we have played all the other teams then we play Essendon again in r18. If we play Richmond in r2 we don't play Richmond again until we have played all the other teams then we play Richmond again in r19. And so on every year. The team we play in r7 in any given year would be the team we play in the opening round the next year. And that would be the same every year.

Is that right?

[The Pie Man]

I don't mind the concept - I like 17 games and more breaks for players better, but I get what they're trying to do within network agreements/insatiable greed.

Of course it's far from perfect - take this year for example. Teams 6-7 had a legit chance at top 4 with 5 weeks left. In a season as even as this year was, teams around the 6-8 mark will be mighty annoyed to be relegated to the 2nd tier at the conclusion of round 17.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I don't mind the concept - I like 17 games and more breaks for players better, but I get what they're trying to do within network agreements/insatiable greed.

Of course it's far from perfect - take this year for example. Teams 6-7 had a legit chance at top 4 with 5 weeks left. In a season as even as this year was, teams around the 6-8 mark will be mighty annoyed to be relegated to the 2nd tier at the conclusion of round 17.
Could you really be annoyed though? You have played all 17 teams once each. If everyone has played each other once and you finish 7th, that's a pretty accurate representation of where you should finish. The only inequality would be interstate games played i guess. i.e. we go to perth twice this year. That should not happen under a 17-5 model

[1eyedog]

Inevitably I think it will be a 20 team comp with each team playing each other once and two byes.

What about a 5-17 draw? Top teams from the previous year play off at the start of the year potentially leaving them with something like 1 or 2 wins before they're let loose on the fodder. Would be interesting to see some of the better teams of the previous year play catch up.

[bornadog]

If we play Essendon in r1 we don't play Essendon again until we have played all the other teams then we play Essendon again in r18. If we play Richmond in r2 we don't play Richmond again until we have played all the other teams then we play Richmond again in r19. And so on every year. The team we play in r7 in any given year would be the team we play in the opening round the next year. And that would be the same every year.

Is that right?

Correct.

So in your example we would play Essendon in rd 1, Rd 18, then the following year round 14 etc etc - every 17 games we play Essendon.

That is a fair system. However, it could be tweaked so that we don't play the same team every opening round or every round 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. We could mix up the last 5 rounds, but over 3 plus years we would play each time twice.

[anfo27]

I believe a rolling draw is an old wooden ship used....

No i think it's where the teams you play twice each year rolls in a certain sequence. So a team plays all 17 teams twice in a 3.x year period. So e.g. Collingwood may play Essendon twice in Year 1 but would not play them twice again until they have played all other 16 teams twice in a season.....wow this is so much harder to explain than i thought. I'm sure someone else can do a better job

I do love a Ron Burgundy quote squeezed into a post. Good work.

[FrediKanoute]

Could you really be annoyed though? You have played all 17 teams once each. If everyone has played each other once and you finish 7th, that's a pretty accurate representation of where you should finish. The only inequality would be interstate games played i guess. i.e. we go to perth twice this year. That should not happen under a 17-5 model

I disagree. Take NOrth Melbourne as an example this year. After 9 games they were unbeaten and top of the ladder. If you were unlucky to play them during this purple patch then you lost points - were North a top 6 team come round 17? What about at seasons end? To me it would see clubs go hell for leather early, get points on the board and then coast/rest players for the middle rounds once they were certain they could not be bumped from the top 6.

AS to the impact on finals - there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. 9 weeks of finals like footy? I doubt players could cope. We have a lopsided draw. You either rectify it by making every team play each other 2 x and that means midweek games or you accept that you will inequalities that should even themselves out over time.

Your third option is to dump GCS & GWS - nobody would give a sh*t if they weren't in the competition

[LostDoggy]

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?

[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.

[jazzadogs]

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.

[LostDoggy]

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.

[boydogs]

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

[boydogs]

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

[Go_Dogs]

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.

[Twodogs]

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?

[mjp]

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.

[boydogs]

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

[jazzadogs]

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.


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.

[jazzadogs]

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.

[soupman]

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.

[Topdog]

Its a bloody stupid idea an I was going to detail why I think so but jazza said it all in 5 succinct points

[bulldogsthru&thru]

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

[mjp]

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.

[chef]

Will it water down the finals?

[jazzadogs]

Will it water down the finals?

I think it definitely would. It will water down the whole season.

MJP, I absolutely agree that there are issues with fixture equality but what concerns me is that the AFL will (as usual) bring in this idea when it's only half baked and contingencies haven't been thought through. There is still going to be luck that comes into a season regardless of fixture, and the current fixture at least makes some attempt to equalise based on ladder position. It's not perfect, but I don't see it as significantly worse than the 17-5 model and would like a bigger sample size (they've only been using this model for two years haven't they?).

[Topdog]

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.

Whats the point of the finals series if you spend the last 5 weeks of the season with teams in position 1-6 playing each other?

[hujsh]

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.

What if it was competing to improve your draft place? So if the 3rd team wins a bunch of games they can get the 1st pick but the 6th team can maybe go up to 3rd or 4th.

[chef]

Whats the point of the finals series if you spend the last 5 weeks of the season with teams in position 1-6 playing each other?

Yep. I just seems so stupid.

What other leagues do this?

[Topdog]

What if it was competing to improve your draft place? So if the 3rd team wins a bunch of games they can get the 1st pick but the 6th team can maybe go up to 3rd or 4th.

So the totally crap teams get punished? This year a 6 win difference between 13th and 18th.

Also after 17 games this season the difference between 2nd and 7th was percentage. The difference between 7th and 9th was 3 games. Yet with the new system the team in 7th can miss the finals and finish a maximum of 7th position. Those in 2-6 cannot miss the finals and can finish at worst 6th. Just every way I look at this idea all I see is stupidity.

Interestingly in the past 6 years 6 & 7 have been separated by percentage only in 5 of those seasons.

Rolling draw, still not completely fair but its the best that can be done and it also gets rid of the rubbish 2x rivalry games and manufactured fixtures

[bulldogsthru&thru]

So the totally crap teams get punished? This year a 6 win difference between 13th and 18th.

Also after 17 games this season the difference between 2nd and 7th was percentage. The difference between 7th and 9th was 3 games. Yet with the new system the team in 7th can miss the finals and finish a maximum of 7th position. Those in 2-6 cannot miss the finals and can finish at worst 6th. Just every way I look at this idea all I see is stupidity.

Interestingly in the past 6 years 6 & 7 have been separated by percentage only in 5 of those seasons.

Rolling draw, still not completely fair but its the best that can be done and it also gets rid of the rubbish 2x rivalry games and manufactured fixtures

I understand your point, but to MJPs point, there is % separating 2-6 after 17 games. So everyone has played each other once. That's as equal as it can be. If there was % separating 2-6 at the end of 22 rounds would we complain about it? It's in some ways worse as teams have played different opponents twice. And 7th, being 3 games ahead of 8-12, should be good enough to get through.

17-5 is not perfect but it still has merit

[mjp]

Whats the point of the finals series if you spend the last 5 weeks of the season with teams in position 1-6 playing each other?

So you are telling me in the last 10 weeks of the year - round 18-22 and then the finals - I get to watch the best 6 teams go at it TWICE? And all the crap teams play each other in obscurity and I don't have to even bother about those games (unless we are one of them?)

It sounds like the last 3-months of footy would be awesome under this model.

Where do I sign up for this?

[comrade]

So you are telling me in the last 10 weeks of the year - round 18-22 and then the finals - I get to watch the best 6 teams go at it TWICE? And all the crap teams play each other in obscurity and I don't have to even bother about those games (unless we are one of them?)

It sounds like the last 3-months of footy would be awesome under this model.

Where do I sign up for this?

Finals is for the best teams to play each other.

[chef]

So you are telling me in the last 10 weeks of the year - round 18-22 and then the finals - I get to watch the best 6 teams go at it TWICE? And all the crap teams play each other in obscurity and I don't have to even bother about those games (unless we are one of them?)

It sounds like the last 3-months of footy would be awesome under this model.

Where do I sign up for this?

Sounds like we should just stop the season at 17 games and have a 9 week finals series.

To gimmicky for me.

[Twodogs]

Sounds like we should just stop the season at 17 games and have a 9 week finals series.

To gimmicky for me. If the AFEL had their way they would stop the season after 17 games. It's how to fill the other 5 weeks up with meaningful footy that is the problem. Their ideal solution is probably to pack in all the blockbusters and derbies and showdowns and bridge battles and whatever the freakshow in Queensland is called again.

[Scorlibo]

I like the idea, but would like to see it refined. Having a core 17 round season seems a no-brainer, from there I guess there are any number of things you could do. For me, the 5 game round-robin is a bit long to have the bottom two eventual finalists separated from the rest. I'd like to see the back-end of the season more aligned with the structure of the finals.

Maybe three groups of four making up the top 12? A bye before the round-robin - Brownlow weekend. At the conclusion of the 3 game round-robin, the lowest ranked team from the top four moves down into the bottom half of the eight, the lowest ranked team from the middle four misses out and the highest ranked team from the 9-12 bracket gets a wildcard entry. Would make for a 20 game season in total, the bottom six don't miss that much football, we kill off the out of form team in the eight and don't lose momentum going into finals.

[hujsh]

So the totally crap teams get punished? This year a 6 win difference between 13th and 18th.

Also after 17 games this season the difference between 2nd and 7th was percentage. The difference between 7th and 9th was 3 games. Yet with the new system the team in 7th can miss the finals and finish a maximum of 7th position. Those in 2-6 cannot miss the finals and can finish at worst 6th. Just every way I look at this idea all I see is stupidity.

Interestingly in the past 6 years 6 & 7 have been separated by percentage only in 5 of those seasons.

Rolling draw, still not completely fair but its the best that can be done and it also gets rid of the rubbish 2x rivalry games and manufactured fixtures
Well worst case scenario is the totally crap team gets the 3rd pick (and that requires the 3rd placed team to do really well).If teams 6 5 and 4 do the best in that order they'll just shuffle around their picks.

I don't love it but it seems like if we did go the 17-5 model that might be an option that doesn't completely damage the shit clubs and gives incentive for them to at least try when the season's over.

And the punishment is no worse than doing shit in an expansion team concession year.

[LostDoggy]

I reckon under a 17-5 fixture (which I generally like), the fairest way to allocate draft picks for the bottom 6 teams would be to allocate draft pick 1 to the team that is 18th after 17 rounds, pick 2 to 17th and so on.

This would allow the last 5 rounds for the bottom teams to be a time to fight to avoid the wooden spoon (which would again become a symbol of unambiguous ignominy without having the reward of draft pick 1 attached), but also to play kids and plan for the future without the suspicion/accusation of tanking in the final games.

[comrade]

I reckon under a 17-5 fixture (which I generally like), the fairest way to allocate draft picks for the bottom 6 teams would be to allocate draft pick 1 to the team that is 18th after 17 rounds, pick 2 to 17th and so on.

This would allow the last 5 rounds for the bottom teams to be a time to fight to avoid the wooden spoon (which would again become a symbol of unambiguous ignominy without having the reward of draft pick 1 attached), but also to play kids and plan for the future without the suspicion/accusation of tanking in the final games.

Don't mind it, and taking it further, maybe the 18th team after 17 rounds gets the most entries into a draft lottery, 17th next most etc to round out the top 5 picks.

So even if they tank to be guaranteed bottom after 17 rounds, the bottom team isn't guaranteed pick 1, just the best chance at it.

I really like the idea of a draft lottery for the top 5 picks.

[LostDoggy]

Don't mind it, and taking it further, maybe the 18th team after 17 rounds gets the most entries into a draft lottery, 17th next most etc to round out the top 5 picks.

So even if they tank to be guaranteed bottom after 17 rounds, the bottom team isn't guaranteed pick 1, just the best chance at it.

I really like the idea of a draft lottery for the top 5 picks.

Yep. Good idea. I like the concept of a weighted lottery (as opposed to a guaranteed pick) for the bottom 6 at least, removes a lot of the temptation to 'tank' and speculation that goes with it, but the weaker teams will still be getting the higher picks.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Yep. Good idea. I like the concept of a weighted lottery (as opposed to a guaranteed pick) for the bottom 6 at least, removes a lot of the temptation to 'tank' and speculation that goes with it, but the weaker teams will still be getting the higher picks.

I like the idea of having the lottery sorted after 17 weeks. But for the last 5 weeks, why not give more weight in the lottery to the team who wins the group? Not more, or as much weight as the wooden spooner, but just enough to make it worth going for. It allows, say 13th, to fight for a better chance of getting a higher pick. And it would only most likely come at the expense of 14th or 15th who should be able to challenge 13th anyway

[LostDoggy]

I like the idea of having the lottery sorted after 17 weeks. But for the last 5 weeks, why not give more weight in the lottery to the team who wins the group? Not more, or as much weight as the wooden spooner, but just enough to make it worth going for. It allows, say 13th, to fight for a better chance of getting a higher pick. And it would only most likely come at the expense of 14th or 15th who should be able to challenge 13th anyway

Get the idea, but worry that it reduces the chance of the real basket case teams getting the top picks. Maybe just makes the entire thing too convoluted also. I reckon the back end of the year for the bottom 6 should primarily be about doing your best to avoid the wooden spoon, but otherwise plan for the future free of tanking accusations.

[Twodogs]

Apart from TV scheduling needs why do we have 22 rounds anyway?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Apart from TV scheduling needs why do we have 22 rounds anyway?

Not sure when it became a 22 round season. But i'd imagine long before tv money was a priority.

Players would love a 17-week season but the fans and sponsors wouldn't. Interestingly the NFL is 17 weeks (with a bye per team and a week off before the superbowl). I've always felt the season was just too short.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Looks like it was the 1970 season, when there were 12 teams and everybody played each other twice!

[soupman]

I really like the idea of a draft lottery for the top 5 picks.

I am strongly against the idea of a lottery for the draft. Assuming you have the draft there for equalisation purposes, a lottery just compromises it's purpose for little to no gain. I don't see why removing the guarantee but still leaving an incentive to tank fixes tanking.

Atm you either go all out to win every game to improve your culture or you go half arsed to try to benefit from the draft. This doesn't change with a lottery, but yet the teams that really need the help have a much greater chance of not getting all the help they need under a lottery.

Besides, for all the talk of tanking can we name any sides that unfairly benefitted from it? I can't think of a single example where a side that was clearly too good for the spot they finished in did so through questionable practices. Even in Melbournes "not guilty" years they were shit enough to warrant the picks they got, and subsequent years justified that stance.

[comrade]

I am strongly against the idea of a lottery for the draft. Assuming you have the draft there for equalisation purposes, a lottery just compromises it's purpose for little to no gain. I don't see why removing the guarantee but still leaving an incentive to tank fixes tanking.

Atm you either go all out to win every game to improve your culture or you go half arsed to try to benefit from the draft. This doesn't change with a lottery, but yet the teams that really need the help have a much greater chance of not getting all the help they need under a lottery.

Besides, for all the talk of tanking can we name any sides that unfairly benefitted from it? I can't think of a single example where a side that was clearly too good for the spot they finished in did so through questionable practices. Even in Melbournes "not guilty" years they were shit enough to warrant the picks they got, and subsequent years justified that stance.

It's not all about teams unfairly benefiting from tanking. It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.

Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.

A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick. The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

[soupman]

It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.


I agree, a lottery however doesn;t fix that. I posted a solution to this within the 17-5 model a couple of pages back. Basically the best side of the bottom 6 playoffs gets pick 1, however the ladder position and wins leading into the final 5 games are both taken into account.



Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.


How? How does something which rewards you for finishing lower incentivise you to finish higher? Yes the guarantee is gone but you still have a much better chance of getting a better pick.



A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick.

Thats got nothing to do with the way the draft is setup and everything to do with the AFL not stepping in to stop this. A lottery doesn't fix this, in fact it means Richmond would also be rewarded for being a good squad with poor form and a shit coach if they were to draw the number one pick.



The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

Yep, but a lottery also gives them a chance of finishing last and walking away with pick 6, or 10, or 18. The priority pick (which they received) is what they get to compensate them for being atrocious.

A weighted lottery does not fix tanking. It's a half arsed solution that will only punish clubs in need more than benefit them. It still incentivises tanking, but now with the added benefit of potentially allowing teams that don't need or deserve top 5 picks getting them, and teams that are absolute crap ending up with crap picks as well.

A lottery is not the solution, and just like tanking (which at most has made a difference of 1 spot in the draft, has never really rewarded a club, is definitely bad for your culture and also doesn't officially exist) it is potentially corruptable, just look at the FIFA hot/cold balls thing.

The only way you disincentivise tanking completely is by making there no advantage to a lower ladder spot, which means either you have a rolling draft where every club gets every pick over an 18 year period, or it's a fair lottery where 1st and 18th have an equal chance of getting every pick.

Besides blaming the draft system as the problem for clubs tanking is looking at the problem arse about. The issue isn't the sensible and fair method of allocating the best picks to the worst teams, but rather clubs supposed willingness to sacrifice wins for a minor and often inconsequential benefit in the future stars market (a market where maybe 20% of the players go on to play enough games to have a career and a pick 4 and 6 are worth Geelongs first rounder in 2017 and a couple of worthless picks in the 40's two years later).

[hujsh]

Yep, but a lottery also gives them a chance of finishing last and walking away with pick 6, or 10, or 18. The priority pick (which they received) is what they get to compensate them for being atrocious.


Say's who? I'm sure it could be tweaked to avoid such a situation if that was desired

[soupman]

Say's who? I'm sure it could be tweaked to avoid such a situation if that was desired

So why create a system to fix a "broken" system that needs fixes immediately to stop it being broken too?

The more you tweak it away from a pure lottery the less it fixes the issue.

Under the proposed lottery system you are incentivised to finish lower so that you can get more lottery tickets. If those lottery tickets also contain further guarantees that your pick couldn't possibly be as bad as the team that finished one spot above you then that even more incentive to finish lower.

Whats the point of replacing a system that encourages finishing lower with another system that also encourages you to finish lower, but now you might also get punished if you are genuinely worse than other teams because someone may have tanked in the past and didn't even benefit from it?

Besides, what issue are we fixing?

Who tanked this year? Essendon didn't, Brisbane didn't. What about last year? Carlton were just shit. So were Brisbane.

The aim should be to have every team trying their hardest to win at all times, but instead of trying to lessen the reward to not do so we need to reward them for finishing higher/winning games. A 17-5 model where the last 5 rounds they play to win draft picks maybe helps this, but a lottery fixes nothing.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It's not all about teams unfairly benefiting from tanking. It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.

Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.

A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick. The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

Unfortunately, in sports where a lottery exists like the NBA, the lottery hasn't done anything to stop teams from tanking. It still exists. Just look at the 76ers and how similar a situation they are in to Melbourne.

I agree Essendon getting the no 1 pick was absolutely ridiculous. Their best players were suspended for cheating, as a result their team sucks for a year without those players, they are awarded the no 1 pick and then all their best players return the next season. I can't believe this was so easily accepted. It's a complete joke.

[hujsh]

So why create a system to fix a "broken" system that needs fixes immediately to stop it being broken too?

The more you tweak it away from a pure lottery the less it fixes the issue.

Under the proposed lottery system you are incentivised to finish lower so that you can get more lottery tickets. If those lottery tickets also contain further guarantees that your pick couldn't possibly be as bad as the team that finished one spot above you then that even more incentive to finish lower.

Whats the point of replacing a system that encourages finishing lower with another system that also encourages you to finish lower, but now you might also get punished if you are genuinely worse than other teams because someone may have tanked in the past and didn't even benefit from it?

Besides, what issue are we fixing?

Who tanked this year? Essendon didn't, Brisbane didn't. What about last year? Carlton were just shit. So were Brisbane.

The aim should be to have every team trying their hardest to win at all times, but instead of trying to lessen the reward to not do so we need to reward them for finishing higher/winning games. A 17-5 model where the last 5 rounds they play to win draft picks maybe helps this, but a lottery fixes nothing.
The temptation to tank for pick one over two is less than the temptation to tank to guarantee you get pick 5 minimum instead of 6 (as an example).

If someone really wanted a lottery I don't see why it can't be altered to find a happy medium between helping the worst teams and providing the proper motivations. That's not applying 'fixes immediately to stop it being broken too' BTW, it's trying to find a compromise then introducing that as a new system.

I think pick 1 is over rated sometimes. You often can get as good or better players in the top 5 (Hi Bont, hi Jarred Roughead)

[Twodogs]

Looks like it was the 1970 season, when there were 12 teams and everybody played each other twice!

So for 45 years they operated a 12 team competition with the original 18 rounds? That means the fixture has been compromised for far longer than it has been fair. It was only a 12 team and 22 round season from 1970 1970 until 1987 when the competition went to 14 teams.

I wonder if they spent ages talking about it and what the players had to say about expanding the season by 4 weeks in 1970?

[Twodogs]

With a 17-5 model is there a danger of sides picking and choosing the divisions they finish in? If you're having a so-so season and you've just lost your best player for the rest of the season in R13. You aren't going anywhere, maybe tenth if things fall your way but there us a clear and outstanding #1 pick they are saying is a once in a generation player. Why not rest a few, get yourself down into that bottom division before bringing your players back rested and ready to compete for that #1 choice.


There is always going to be a perception of clubs doing what is best for them under the rules of the competition,

[Twodogs]

The temptation to tank for pick one over two is less than the temptation to tank to guarantee you get pick 5 minimum instead of 6 (as an example).

If someone really wanted a lottery I don't see why it can't be altered to find a happy medium between helping the worst teams and providing the proper motivations. That's not applying 'fixes immediately to stop it being broken too' BTW, it's trying to find a compromise then introducing that as a new system.

I think pick 1 is over rated sometimes. You often can get as good or better players in the top 5 (Hi Bont, hi Jarred Roughead)

Jack Macrae is waving and his arm is getting sore.

[hujsh]

Jack Macrae is waving and his arm is getting sore.
Yeah him and Stringer aren't bad.

[Twodogs]

Yeah him and Stringer aren't bad.

Which one went at 5?

[hujsh]

Which one went at 5?

Thought it was Macrae but just checked and it was Stringer surprisingly.

[craigsahibee]

Not a fan of the proposed 17-5 draw. It's too much of a "fixed-ture" for me.

I would much prefer to have the teams seeded based on the previous years ladder positions.

Rankings
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Each team plays every other team in their column twice (Home and Away) and every team in the other 2 columns once.

22 games. Sorted. Sure there may be some discrepancies with regards to travel should Freo & Eagles finish in the same group, but it's not that hard to go interstate and win!

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Not a fan of the proposed 17-5 draw. It's too much of a "fixed-ture" for me.

I would much prefer to have the teams seeded based on the previous years ladder positions.

Rankings
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Each team plays every other team in their column twice (Home and Away) and every team in the other 2 columns once.

22 games. Sorted. Sure there may be some discrepancies with regards to travel should Freo & Eagles finish in the same group, but it's not that hard to go interstate and win!

Yep, a 5-17 model. Could work well

[chef]

By the sounds of things Gillons going to give the coaches a big **** you and will bring this in. Wanted to do the wild card this season which is just absurd. Will happen next season.

God help the AFL.

[bulldogtragic]

By the sounds of things Gillons going to give the coaches a big **** you and will bring this in. Wanted to do the wild card this season which is just absurd. Will happen next season.

God help the AFEL.

They just don't care they're meant to be custodians of the game, not out for more and more bucks way beyond what they'd ever need. Other than to give out bigger bonuses.

[comrade]

They just don't care they're meant to be custodians of the game, not out for more and more bucks way beyond what they'd ever need. Other than to give out bigger bonuses.

They're like the board of Fairfax, always looking at the short term financial implications when making decisions, rather than maintaining the highest possible quality.

[jeemak]

I agree Comrade.

Nobody has been able to articulate the benefit of this, other than to quantify that it should deliver the AFL and its strategic partners more revenue.

Interestingly the 17-5 system was baulked at because local games and traditional blockbusters would be reduced. Once again, nothing to do with what it would bring to the competition.

[Topdog]

Geez this would be frustrating this season

[Twodogs]

Geez this would be frustrating this season

Who would we have played in the 17-5 model? Beceause we would be in the '5' stage by now.

[chef]

I think we are seeing with the closeness of the comp we don't need to 'invent' anymore interest.

Just leave as it is.

[hujsh]

I think we are seeing with the closeness of the comp we don't need to 'invent' anymore interest.

Just leave as it is.

Needs to keep the interest up in the offseason though.

[boydogs]

Who would we have played in the 17-5 model? Beceause we would be in the '5' stage by now.

We would be in the 7-12 bracket playing for the last two spots in the 8, with no chance of finishing top 6

[bornadog]

I think we are seeing with the closeness of the comp we don't need to 'invent' anymore interest.

Just leave as it is.

Agree Chef, except for one thing. We have played 17 games and still haven't played, Essendon, Hawks


We would be in the 7-12 bracket playing for the last two spots in the 8, with no chance of finishing top 6

We could finish 6th if we keep winning, so yeah 17-5 sucks.

[Topdog]

Agree Chef, except for one thing. We have played 17 games and still haven't played, Essendon, Hawks



We could finish 6th if we keep winning, so yeah 17-5 sucks.

Could finish 3rd if we win out. Incredibly close season