2017 Draw

[Cockadoodledoo]

The NFL has the unfairest draw of any major sport with daylight second, but the fans just shrug their shoulders and get on with supporting their teams..

On what basis is it unfair? I understand they have conference systems and the like but these are geographically based and dependent on alignment with AFC or NFC conferences. So whilst teams will sometimes play stronger or weaker teams through the course of the season, it is not like the NRL where certain teams are given a massive preference for prime time TV to enhance their sponsorship dollars. Or some teams are given an inequitable number of short turnarounds like Souths (4), Roosters (3) out of 19 5 day turnarounds for the first 19 rounds.

The NRL draw is contrived to give a few (one more than any other) teams prime time TV exposure, whilst others are forced to pick up the scraps. IMO the NFL is fair as there is a logical basis behind the draw and the teams are fully aware of this.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I don't think it's just hardcore fans who either are concerned with the integrity of the draw... or at the very least confused by it. Casual / fringe fans are probably left wondering each year why team X doesn't play team X for whatever reason at a certain ground, for example.

The A-League (albeit with a smaller competition) seems to be able to achieve some kind of balance by having all teams play thrice. I'm not saying definitely make it one game per club only, if there's support for 30 rounds instead, go for it

I think if we cannot have 30 rounds then the draw should be entirely setup based on finishing positions from the previous year and create an algorithm to determine who plays who once or twice the following year. If you only play a certain team once, have it designed so the home team is the opposite of when they last played each other once in a season. This cannot be difficult to set up.

The NRL has to abolish the idea of allowing teams to choose who they want to play once or twice in a season and who they get to play at home or away. I know they only take this as one of the considering factors but it opens the draw up to perceptions of bias. I doubt any other sporting competition in the world does it. The next step is to ensure a roughly even distribution of short turnarounds, but also ensure the minimum turnaround is 6 days. I am also sure this can be done.

If anyone from the NRL wants to get in touch to speak face to face, please PM me, my rates are fair but cash only.

 

[Canard]

Well done on taking the argument to a fallacious extreme. Just because it's not the most pressing of concerns doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

To me the concept of "fairness of the draw" doesn't outweigh getting the maximum possible revenue into the game.

I think a concept that curtails the regular season by 10 or so weeks would massively reduce the games revenue base and hurt the sport. 30 games a season is impractical for the players and other staff.

Australian sport isn't big enough nor have the demand to so dramatically alter it's status quo, just so people can feel good about their team having "fairness".

I If you only play a certain team once, have it designed so the home team is the opposite of when they last played each other once in a season. This cannot be difficult to set up.

So Broncos V Cowboys, Dogs V Souths once a year to ensure perceived "fairness"???

To me that's just not practical in the a country as small as Australia and our sport. It would mean huge drops in revenue.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

So Broncos V Cowboys, Dogs V Souths once a year to ensure perceived "fairness"???

To me that's just not practical in the a country as small as Australia and our sport. It would mean huge drops in revenue.

Yes it is, or you go down the conference route by geography, hillbillies like NQ, Brisbane, GC etc, westies like Tigers, Panthers, Eels, etc. dole bludging scum like Souths, Bulldogs, Sharks in another then sophisticated and educated teams like the Roosters and um.. er help me out here.

 

[Canard]

Yes it is, or you go down the conference route by geography, hillbillies like NQ, Brisbane, GC etc, westies like Tigers, Panthers, Eels, etc. dole bludging scum like Souths, Bulldogs, Sharks in another then sophisticated and educated teams like the Roosters and um.. er help me out here.

How are conferences fair though?

 

[Timmah]

Yeah I can't agree conferences are a go, not until there's > 20 teams and even then probably not.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How are conferences fair though?

At least you are aware of the set up from the get go.. Not that it is a path I would want to take.

 

[Valheru]

How are conferences fair though?

They wouldn't work for the NRL at the moment but they do for the NFL and it is a myth their schedule is not fair.

Each team effectively competes against 3 others each year knowing if they win their division they will make the playoffs and receive a home game. Within the division, each team has an identical schedule for 14 of the 16 games, they play each other twice, a whole division from their own conference and a whole division from the other conference. The 2 remaining games are unique to each team.

Further, who each division plays each year is done on a rolling basis and over a 8 year period every team will play each other team at least once at home and once away.

This could of course be improved by adding two regular season games ensuring all 18 games of the schedule are identical within a given division. That just leaves the fact that some teams play some teams at home whilst others play them away in a season.

It is much fairer than the NRL.

 

[TheVelourFog]

seems for most fans "fair" means "playing Newcastle twice"

 

[Canard]

They wouldn't work for the NRL at the moment but they do for the NFL and it is a myth their schedule is not fair.

Each team effectively competes against 3 others each year knowing if they win their division they will make the playoffs and receive a home game. Within the division, each team has an identical schedule for 14 of the 16 games, they play each other twice, a whole division from their own conference and a whole division from the other conference. The 2 remaining games are unique to each team.

Further, who each division plays each year is done on a rolling basis and over a 8 year period every team will play each other team at least once at home and once away.

This could of course be improved by adding two regular season games ensuring all 18 games of the schedule are identical within a given division. That just leaves the fact that some teams play some teams at home whilst others play them away in a season.

It is much fairer than the NRL.

Can explain to me why you believe it "much fairer"?

 

[Mister M]

They wouldn't work for the NRL at the moment but they do for the NFL and it is a myth their schedule is not fair.

Each team effectively competes against 3 others each year knowing if they win their division they will make the playoffs and receive a home game. Within the division, each team has an identical schedule for 14 of the 16 games, they play each other twice, a whole division from their own conference and a whole division from the other conference. The 2 remaining games are unique to each team.

Further, who each division plays each year is done on a rolling basis and over a 8 year period every team will play each other team at least once at home and once away.

This could of course be improved by adding two regular season games ensuring all 18 games of the schedule are identical within a given division. That just leaves the fact that some teams play some teams at home whilst others play them away in a season.

It is much fairer than the NRL.

How does the NFL playoff's work again?

You are correct that If you win your division you go into playoff's with a home game.

But there are 4 divisional champions in each conference, which have each had different schedules throughout the season-- thus potentially vastly different levels of difficulty throughout the Home & Away season. These four divisional champions then get ranked 1-4 based off their Home & Away records. Let's use the 2015 AFC Championships as an example (one of the two NFL conferences for those less familiar with the NFL).

In 2015, the Denver Broncos, New England Patriots & Cincinnati Bengals all won their divisions with a record of 12-4. Denver was ranked first due to a head-to-head win against both the Patriots & Bengals during the season, while the Patriots & Bengals had to be split on record vs common opponents. (Buffalo, Denver, Houston & Pittsburgh)

So despite finishing 12-4, the Bengals were ranked 3rd in the Divisional championship rankings and had to play in wildcard weekend. Thus having to play an additional week of finals, not due to an easy to understand tie-breaker like point differential, but due to their record vs common opponents. Does that sound fair?

Or ask the New York Jets about how their 2015 regular season record of 10-6 didn't qualify them for playoffs (they missed out on the wildcard results due to common opponents Vs the Steelers). Yet someone the AFC South Divisional champions, the Houston Texans played play-off's at a 9-7 record. Is it fair that the Houston Texans made the playoffs because the teams in their division were weaker than in the New York Jets AFC East.

 

[TheVelourFog]

it is fair if that is the system everyone operates under

otherwise we would see the same teams winning every year, wouldn't we?

 

[Canard]

There is no way the Australian sporting culture would accept teams playing in the finals with less wins than some that didn't make it.

Its not "fairer" its just a different system.

 

[BuffaloRules]

They wouldn't work for the NRL at the moment but they do for the NFL and it is a myth their schedule is not fair.

Each team effectively competes against 3 others each year knowing if they win their division they will make the playoffs and receive a home game. Within the division, each team has an identical schedule for 14 of the 16 games, they play each other twice, a whole division from their own conference and a whole division from the other conference. The 2 remaining games are unique to each team.

Further, who each division plays each year is done on a rolling basis and over a 8 year period every team will play each other team at least once at home and once away.

This could of course be improved by adding two regular season games ensuring all 18 games of the schedule are identical within a given division. That just leaves the fact that some teams play some teams at home whilst others play them away in a season.

It is much fairer than the NRL.

Its not fair at all...

Teams in the AFC East have to play two of their games against the best team in the comp over the past 15 years the New England Patriots.. Two thirds of the League never play them at all in any given year...

Teams in the AFC North get two guaranteed wins every year versus the Cleveland Browns...

I assume you are aware that its not only Division winners that qualify for the playoffs, but the two next best teams with the best record in each conference make it as wildcards..

I know who has the better chance of getting there given the above scenario,,,

 

[TheVelourFog]

well they could rank on an overall table to decide which teams make the playoffs regardless of where they finished relative to the teams in their own division

the divisions are then only used to decide who plays who in the finals series

i have a memory of the NHL using something like that?

 

[BuffaloRules]

Any draw where you play some teams twice, some teams once and more than half of the teams not at all is hardly fair when one third of the teams that qualify for the finals period do so on their records as opposed to being division winners....

But the point is that the whinging from the fans is very limited.

 

[Valheru]

How does the NFL playoff's work again?

You are correct that If you win your division you go into playoff's with a home game.

But there are 4 divisional champions in each conference, which have each had different schedules throughout the season-- thus potentially vastly different levels of difficulty throughout the Home & Away season. These four divisional champions then get ranked 1-4 based off their Home & Away records. Let's use the 2015 AFC Championships as an example (one of the two NFL conferences for those less familiar with the NFL).

In 2015, the Denver Broncos, New England Patriots & Cincinnati Bengals all won their divisions with a record of 12-4. Denver was ranked first due to a head-to-head win against both the Patriots & Bengals during the season, while the Patriots & Bengals had to be split on record vs common opponents. (Buffalo, Denver, Houston & Pittsburgh)

So despite finishing 12-4, the Bengals were ranked 3rd in the Divisional championship rankings and had to play in wildcard weekend. Thus having to play an additional week of finals, not due to an easy to understand tie-breaker like point differential, but due to their record vs common opponents. Does that sound fair?

Or ask the New York Jets about how their 2015 regular season record of 10-6 didn't qualify them for playoffs (they missed out on the wildcard results due to common opponents Vs the Steelers). Yet someone the AFC South Divisional champions, the Houston Texans played play-off's at a 9-7 record. Is it fair that the Houston Texans made the playoffs because the teams in their division were weaker than in the New York Jets AFC East.

Just because it is harder to understand doesn't make it unfair. Common opponents is absolutely the best way to split teams in a competition where some teams don't play each other at all, let alone twice.

The Jets example has more validity but American sports fans would just tell you they weren't good enough to win their division so they were at the mercy of the wildcard system.

I am not advocating divisions/conferences for NRL but people are using the NFL to make themselves feel better about our draw when, in fact, given their conference/division system as well as the amount of teams and the amount of games the Players Association are willing to play, they have the fairest schedule possible over a 8 year period.

Conversely the NRL just creates a draw based on what the teams and TV execs want.

 

[BuffaloRules]

[

I am not advocating divisions/conferences for NRL but people are using the NFL to make themselves feel better about our draw when, in fact, given their conference/division system as well as the amount of teams and the amount of games the Players Association are willing to play, they have the fairest schedule possible over a 8 year period.

I note you didn't respond to my comments about the fairness...

Several teams have won the Superbowl after qualifying as Wildcards, beating out other teams in their Conference on the basis of playing about 3 common opponents out of 16 games...

 

[Canard]

Just because it is harder to understand doesn't make it unfair. Common opponents is absolutely the best way to split teams in a competition where some teams don't play each other at all, let alone twice.

Because you don't play everyone home and away within the same season, it can still be considered unfair. Stretching this out over 8 seasons is meaningless to the competition itself.

Just because they have a different system to that used by the NRL, doesn't suddenly make it better or fairer.

 

[hrundi99]

2 conferences of 8 teams.

Each team plays the teams in their conference twice (14 games) and the other conference once (8 games).

22 rounds in total. You could still add 2 byes for 24 rounds.

Top 4 from each conference play in finals within conference and Grand Final is played between the 2 conference champions.

This means of course that 2 teams from the same conference can't meet in the GF.

This is a foreign concept here but has been accepted in the majors. I'm an NHL fan and it's disappointing, for example, that my Leafs won't meet traditional rivals, the Habs, in the Stanley Cup. There are however enough games in the regular season for them to play each other to recognise a "series" champion, informally.

They also have the opportunity to meet in a vitally important semi-final game prior to the GF.

It makes sense for the conferences to feature teams from similar geographic locations but given the high number of Sydney teams it skews the distribution a bit.

You would have to change it to include perhaps 4/5 Sydney teams in each conference.

For example:

NorthEast Conference
Cowboys, Broncos, Titans, Knights, Sea Eagles, Roosters, Rabbitohs, Sharks

SouthWest Conference
Storm, Raiders, Warriors, Dragons, Panthers, Tigers, Eels, Bulldogs

Traditional rivalries such as Cows/Broncos and Roosters/Bunnies are intact within the conferences.

You could still have "traditional" rivals in GFs such as Dragons/Sharks, Raiders/Broncos, etc.

In terms of expansion you would then add Perth to SouthWest and 2nd Brisbane team to NorthEast etc.

You could then make it 25 rounds or 16 games within conference and "random" 7 or 8 games from the other conference plus byes to make pre-determined 26 rounds etc.

You could also have an All-Star game based on conference rep teams.