Hi all, just wondering how many members of the TS community are part of the 'AFL Fan Focus' supporter feedback initiative??? Found the survey today very interesting as it focussed on the hot topic of pre-season structure, home & away season structure, etc. A couple of the questions about the H&A structure really grabbed my attention and it would be good to see how others view these alternative structures. <table id='ContentTable' cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' class='en-GB' style='font-size: 12px; width: 940px; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff;] <tr id='ResponseRow] <td id='ResponseCell] <div id='hiddenAssets' style='visibility: hidden;] <div class='QuestionText' style='margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px; font-size: 14px; color: #000000; font-style: normal;] <div class='InstructionText' style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 11px; color: #6c6c6c; font-style: italic;] <div id='PagePanel100000190] <div class='QuestionText InformationText' style='margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px; font-size: 14px; color: #000000; font-style: normal;] As described earlier in the survey, the entire Home & Away fixture is currently pre-scheduled for the upcoming season and released in October the year prior. Alternative structure formats could be considered in future that aim to create greater equity/ fairness for all teams. An example format is a&lsquo;reset' fixture. In this format, the fixture would be pre-scheduled for the first 17 rounds of the season where each team would play each other once. At the conclusion of Round 17, the entire competition would be scheduled with a bye weekend - during which time the remaining rounds (5-7 matches depending on preferred quantity) would be fixtured. The fixture for the remaining rounds would be determined by team ladder position at the conclusion of Round 17. The 18 teams would then be divided into groups and match-ups for the remaining rounds would be designed based on ladder seeding and a difficulty formula. . The level of difficulty amongst other things would be based on a combination of factors including the seeding of opponents within each group, whether games are played home or away and travel requirements. <div class='InstructionText' style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 11px; color: #6c6c6c; font-style: italic;] <div class='QuestionText' style='margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 5px; font-size: 14px; color: #000000; font-style: normal;]Now, thinking about the &lsquo;reset' fixture as described above, please indicate how much you would support or oppose a change to this type of fixture structure. <p style='color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; background-color: #ffffff;]Another example of an alternative fixture format is the use of &lsquo;conferences'. <p style='color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; background-color: #ffffff;]In this format, the 18 teams would be divided into 2 or 3 conferences - each with their own ladder. In a conference format, teams may play other teams in their conference twice and teams outside their conference once during the Home & Away season. At the conclusion of the Home & Away season, the top 3-4 teams from each conference may qualify for Finals. <p style='color: #000000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; background-color: #ffffff;]Now, thinking about the &lsquo;conferences' fixture structure as described above, please indicate how much you would support or oppose a change to this type of fixturing structure.
g'day Bear, I really like the idea of 17 games followed by a week's break and then the remaining games based on some sort of equitable finish. It need not create havoc for the clubs and ticketing agencies as the schedule for the final six (?) games could be set after (say) 14 games and that would allow 4 weeks for flights etc. The previous year's form is not always a guide to the next year's form and such an approach might hold more interest for supporters of mi and bottom placed clubs. For example, the Giants last six games this year are Collingwood (A), Melbourne (H), Freo (A), Lions (A), Tiges (H) and theSuns (A). At least two of their opponents will be licking their lips at the prospect of being able to rest players in home games just before the final series. A mini-series with the other weaker teams - those identified by that season's results would be far more interesting in my opinion. The Giants 2013 schedule is also dodgy as they play the Swans and the Bombers twice in the first 17 rounds. There is real room for improvement in the H&A series; that's my two bob's worth.
And I'll throw my 2 bob's worth in as well, and it'll be brief. Until the AFL can get every team to play each other, home and away, it will never be a fair competition and I can't see that happening, in my lifetime......and that's what I wrote in the Survey.
I completed it also; Do not like the current structure Am in favour of a reset, where teams play each other once before a new round of festivities start. The conference idea properly done is better than what we have also
I think the fairest is to play each other once. So 17 games. Add a mid seasonstateof origin. Of course money won't allow this, and the AFL is controlled by money.
No pre-season, no byes, no wasted time. 18 teams, so 34 rounds, play each team once at home and once away - couldn't be fairer. Finals are two weeks - top four only (if you can't get into the top four you don't deserve to call yourself a 'finals team'). 1 v 4 and 2 v 3, winners play in the GF. Simple, fair, more games = more money. To stop teams from tanking when they can't make the top four, set up a prize money structure for placings, such that each step up on the ladder gives teams more prize money, which they can use to pay for anything except for breaching the salary cap for players. Thats my three bobs worth ;-)