Tanks A Lot, AFL
Regardless of whether or not Carlton "tanked" to win last year's wooden spoon, there appears to be a perverse form of incentives working in the Australian Football League (AFL).
Let's see: Carlton finished bottom of the table last year. This automatically entitled them to first pick in the player draft. As an added bonus, the club only has to play last year's top team, Geelong, only once this season. And that match was played at their home ground (admittedly shared with other clubs, but Geelong is not one of them).
With rewards like that, the AFL is not only a fight for the top position, but it looks like a race to the bottom as well.
How do bottom-placed teams fair in the top leagues of the premier football code around the world?
* In the English Premier League, Watford finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
* In Italy's Serie A, Messina finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
* In Spain's La Liga, Gimnàstic de Tarragona finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
Detect a pattern?
Why does the AFL reward poor performance? A team can consistently under-perform for a few years to build up its roster, then suddenly "switch on".
By providing such perverse incentives, the outcomes of matches come under question. Given the level of gambling, er sports betting, in Australia, I'm sure a lot of punters would be concerned by this. Consider this hypothetical: the top team is playing a potential bottom team the week before the finals. The top team must win to secure a home final. A loss for the cellar-dwellers would ensure a last place finish and all the benefits that would accrue. The top team doesn't want any injuries either, but would like a nice hit out to toughen them up. If only the two clubs could conjure a mutually-acceptable arrangement...
I'm not suggesting this has happened, but it could. The threat of relegation would help make sure all teams remain competitive for as long as possible. Resting players or experimenting could jeopardise the club's final position.
The AFL wants to expand from 16 teams to 18 teams. Why not make it 20 teams, but separated into a first and second division? Each team could play each other at least twice, removing the complaints for lop-sided schedules. The threat of relegation and reward of promotion would keep clubs honest and help prevent both mediocrity and the temptation to "tank".
But somehow I doubt the AFL has the guts to do it.
Let's see: Carlton finished bottom of the table last year. This automatically entitled them to first pick in the player draft. As an added bonus, the club only has to play last year's top team, Geelong, only once this season. And that match was played at their home ground (admittedly shared with other clubs, but Geelong is not one of them).
With rewards like that, the AFL is not only a fight for the top position, but it looks like a race to the bottom as well.
How do bottom-placed teams fair in the top leagues of the premier football code around the world?
* In the English Premier League, Watford finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
* In Italy's Serie A, Messina finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
* In Spain's La Liga, Gimnàstic de Tarragona finished bottom and was relegated (along with the two other worst-performing teams).
Detect a pattern?
Why does the AFL reward poor performance? A team can consistently under-perform for a few years to build up its roster, then suddenly "switch on".
By providing such perverse incentives, the outcomes of matches come under question. Given the level of gambling, er sports betting, in Australia, I'm sure a lot of punters would be concerned by this. Consider this hypothetical: the top team is playing a potential bottom team the week before the finals. The top team must win to secure a home final. A loss for the cellar-dwellers would ensure a last place finish and all the benefits that would accrue. The top team doesn't want any injuries either, but would like a nice hit out to toughen them up. If only the two clubs could conjure a mutually-acceptable arrangement...
I'm not suggesting this has happened, but it could. The threat of relegation would help make sure all teams remain competitive for as long as possible. Resting players or experimenting could jeopardise the club's final position.
The AFL wants to expand from 16 teams to 18 teams. Why not make it 20 teams, but separated into a first and second division? Each team could play each other at least twice, removing the complaints for lop-sided schedules. The threat of relegation and reward of promotion would keep clubs honest and help prevent both mediocrity and the temptation to "tank".
But somehow I doubt the AFL has the guts to do it.
posted by Bruno at 8:24 PM [permalink]
<< Home