Jet

The NFL has 32 teams and 14 teams make finals. Each regular season game carries significant weight and thus is compelling. The NBA has 30 teams, 20 teams are eligible for finals (including play in tournament). The NBA is losing significant interest d.t the reg season being too long and less meaningful. There's a lesson in that. If big crowds and excitement is the KPI, then why stop at 10th for our Wildcard round? Why not extend it to 11th-14th? Those additional wildcard games will also produce excitement, big crowds and a TV audience? Knockout sport is exciting. The right to participate in the finals should be earned via the 23 preceding H&A games. Not via a single sugar hit game which we justify as being a good idea because a big crowd attended. What was the benefit for the Dees for finishing 7th instead of 10th? The game was played at the MCG, both teams home field. Why push for those extra wins if you're going to end up in the wild card race instead of 6th? The AFL's modus operandi is to introduce a change for something that is not broken only to create a different set of problems that they didn't envisage. Will we see teams clearly trapped in the wild card bracket a few rounds out start to rest players etc? With injuries being the way they were this yr, and perhaps minimal benefit from finishing higher up the ladder, it wouldn't shock me. The Finals should consist of the top 8 and begin immediately following the H&A season. That first round is knockout football. It will be equally as exciting, and consist of the teams that have earnt the right to be there.

One thing that is quite apparent under the current AFL Administration is their particular focus on metrics. The footy public are often perplexed as to how the exec can have a certain view-point when so many feel the exact opposite. The answer is because they seem to be driven by optimising for specific metrics. In Laura Kane's now infamous "the game is in great shape" interview it was v.clear what sort of things they look to optimise for. Jeff Bezos nicely explains the issue with managing your way to optimising for metrics. I specifically like his line: "when the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right". And right now my sense is that the AFL executive focusses far too much on the metrics and does not take the anecdotes (opinions of footy public) into account enough. Hence Dillon can inexplicably say that the SCG surface was fine when anyone with functioning eyesight could see it clearly was not. It didn't matter that players couldn't keep their feet, the grass metrics showed it was safe. I've included these Bezos comments i'm referring to in the replies.