So the AFL has called for the public to give their ideas in regards to a possible review of the way the football year is carried out. From the pre-season, to the season proper, to the finals.
The idea I have put forth is as follows;
Go with 3 cofnerences of 6 teams. Three of the teams (9 all told) will be seeded according to where they finished the year before. The remaining 9 teams will be placed by the AFL with consideration to travelling and other factors such as arranging for blockbuster matches.
They would be arranged as follows;
Conference A: Teams who finished 1st, 4th, 7th and 3 more teams chosen by the AFL.
Conference B: Teams who finished 2nd, 5th, 8th and 3 more teams chosen by the AFL.
Conference C: Teams who finished 3rd, 6th, 9th and 3 more teams chosen by the AFL.
Each team would play each team within it's own conference twice as well as each team outside of it's own conference once. This totals to 2 games per season.
At the end of the season proper; the 1st and 2nd team of each conference are automatically granted entry into the finals series but also play each other for title of Conference Champions and a better position in the finals series.
The 3rd placed teams among the conferences along with the best performing 4th placed team across the conferences would then play off for the remaining two positions in the finals.
The top 6 teams in the finals would be seeded from the results of the Championship matches the previous week, while the 7th and 8th places in the finals series would be sorted by the results of the playoffs.
The finals then would be played out as per usual.
I can appreciate the flaws of this system but hope that they would be mitigated by the fact that it'd be an exciting arrangement for the entirety of the year.
Anyway, hope it all makes sense and I'm eagerly anticipating the AFLs next move.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Lament - A White Crosses Review
I'm going to attempt to write an album review. My last attempt was way back when The Bronx released their first self titled album. It was horrible! About that same time though, Against Me! released 'As The Eternal Cowboy' an album that I would now consider in my 10 ten, if forced to consider such things.
I have no qualms with what direction AM! have taken career wise. I tried to be outraged when they went from Fat Wreck Chords to Squire but found it's a baseless and unloyal claim that someone shouldn't try to make money, and increase their distribution base, from their music.
The last release by the Gainesville sing-along merchants, 'New Wave', was a clean pick up, put down collection of pumping radio friendly punk rock tunes. Not a bad album but not one I'd say was doing anything great either. The most interesting song on that album though, for me, was 'The Ocean'. It featured an interesting line of lyrics and an extended 'Turn Those Hands...' vibe that I hoped heralded the future of the band as a more alt-punk, considered band seeing as they have matured away from the vitriolic stylings of the past.
White Crosses and New Wave are not totally dissimilar. But what we have with White Crosses is a leaning toward the Green Day style arena-rock. Usually I retract painfully from this kind of music which is as pandering as it is accessible. But I know AM! are a cut above, especially lyrically. Tom Gabel has continued to write some very good songs with a more deliberate approach to catchiness instead of a blistered 2 minute assault, but we now have more singalongs and, I feel less relevance. Maybe they got sick of the politics, I don't know, but for me Against Me! was all about the outrage and now I guess, continuing on from New Wave, they're just more introspective and ironic. I can't begrudge someone for that but I think it has left the band a bit hollow sounding.
The title track isn't a bad opener but I feel 'I Was A Teenage Anarchist' carries the vibe of the album a bit better. The musicianship is still tight and blustery. The prevalence of piano within tracks is a bit distracting but works on the whole to carry that arena rock vibe. My favourite track on this album is the closer 'Bamboo Bones' which, to be sure is arena rock, but really captures the boisterious feel they were shooting at with the chorus "What God doesn't give to you, you've got to go and get for yourself".
If you like the new Green Day, or that similar arena-rock vibe, then you'll love this. If, like me, you love your punk raw and uncompromised, you might feel this to be a bit lacking.
I have no qualms with what direction AM! have taken career wise. I tried to be outraged when they went from Fat Wreck Chords to Squire but found it's a baseless and unloyal claim that someone shouldn't try to make money, and increase their distribution base, from their music.
The last release by the Gainesville sing-along merchants, 'New Wave', was a clean pick up, put down collection of pumping radio friendly punk rock tunes. Not a bad album but not one I'd say was doing anything great either. The most interesting song on that album though, for me, was 'The Ocean'. It featured an interesting line of lyrics and an extended 'Turn Those Hands...' vibe that I hoped heralded the future of the band as a more alt-punk, considered band seeing as they have matured away from the vitriolic stylings of the past.
White Crosses and New Wave are not totally dissimilar. But what we have with White Crosses is a leaning toward the Green Day style arena-rock. Usually I retract painfully from this kind of music which is as pandering as it is accessible. But I know AM! are a cut above, especially lyrically. Tom Gabel has continued to write some very good songs with a more deliberate approach to catchiness instead of a blistered 2 minute assault, but we now have more singalongs and, I feel less relevance. Maybe they got sick of the politics, I don't know, but for me Against Me! was all about the outrage and now I guess, continuing on from New Wave, they're just more introspective and ironic. I can't begrudge someone for that but I think it has left the band a bit hollow sounding.
The title track isn't a bad opener but I feel 'I Was A Teenage Anarchist' carries the vibe of the album a bit better. The musicianship is still tight and blustery. The prevalence of piano within tracks is a bit distracting but works on the whole to carry that arena rock vibe. My favourite track on this album is the closer 'Bamboo Bones' which, to be sure is arena rock, but really captures the boisterious feel they were shooting at with the chorus "What God doesn't give to you, you've got to go and get for yourself".
If you like the new Green Day, or that similar arena-rock vibe, then you'll love this. If, like me, you love your punk raw and uncompromised, you might feel this to be a bit lacking.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Sundown for Marsten
The end of Red Dead is a special thing. It completes the arc of John Marsten with a typical western elegance that most films set in the period would struggle to attain.
Yet it also opens up the world to post-story exploring in a way that changed my perspective of the game world.
The first thing I did after the ending was kill me some lawmen.
I don't know if the ending truly opens the way for a sequel but I'd be happy if they didn't go down that path.
Alas, gaming today lends itself to franchises but here's hoping that the maturity found in the narrative of RDR can also be discovered outside of the game medium in itself.
My gripes with the game are minor; the Mexico part of the arc is something that I felt should have been looked at more critically and restructured. The way you end that phase of the game also seems somewhat disjointed. Nevermind though because
it is well worth trudging through that middle sequence in order to taste the virility of the final stanza. What a ride.
As I have recently acquired a laptop, I have given myself to games that suit that platform, something a bit more casual, a bit more 'pick up put down'. So at the present I am gorging myself upon Plants vs Zombies (typical Popcap brilliance) and something I've been meaning to do forever, a replay of Baldur's Gate.
Baldur's Gate was something I almost stumbled across. I was in my early teen years when it came out. I didn't have a bevy of friends who were into fantasy or Dungeons and Dragons and so it emitted signals that my radar was not properly attuned to pick up. Diablo was the drug of choice among gamers in my knowing and when I did pick up Baldur's Gate, merely on it's boxart, I found it foglike in it's accessiblity. But it, and especially it's sequel, proved to be the experience that further formed my nascent ideas of gaming and the importance of story within gaming more than any other.
So I have made a Male Half Elven Mage/Thief named Arahain. He'll be something of a magic dueller, using longswords
and shortbows and lots of magic missile. I've put in a heap of mods from Gibberlings 3, The Sorcerer's Place and others particularly the mod called BGTutu, a program that imports the BG2 upgraded infinity engine into BG1 making it look more playable and presentable than the previous iteration.
Yet it also opens up the world to post-story exploring in a way that changed my perspective of the game world.
The first thing I did after the ending was kill me some lawmen.
I don't know if the ending truly opens the way for a sequel but I'd be happy if they didn't go down that path.
Alas, gaming today lends itself to franchises but here's hoping that the maturity found in the narrative of RDR can also be discovered outside of the game medium in itself.
My gripes with the game are minor; the Mexico part of the arc is something that I felt should have been looked at more critically and restructured. The way you end that phase of the game also seems somewhat disjointed. Nevermind though because
it is well worth trudging through that middle sequence in order to taste the virility of the final stanza. What a ride.
As I have recently acquired a laptop, I have given myself to games that suit that platform, something a bit more casual, a bit more 'pick up put down'. So at the present I am gorging myself upon Plants vs Zombies (typical Popcap brilliance) and something I've been meaning to do forever, a replay of Baldur's Gate.
Baldur's Gate was something I almost stumbled across. I was in my early teen years when it came out. I didn't have a bevy of friends who were into fantasy or Dungeons and Dragons and so it emitted signals that my radar was not properly attuned to pick up. Diablo was the drug of choice among gamers in my knowing and when I did pick up Baldur's Gate, merely on it's boxart, I found it foglike in it's accessiblity. But it, and especially it's sequel, proved to be the experience that further formed my nascent ideas of gaming and the importance of story within gaming more than any other.
So I have made a Male Half Elven Mage/Thief named Arahain. He'll be something of a magic dueller, using longswords
and shortbows and lots of magic missile. I've put in a heap of mods from Gibberlings 3, The Sorcerer's Place and others particularly the mod called BGTutu, a program that imports the BG2 upgraded infinity engine into BG1 making it look more playable and presentable than the previous iteration.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Foul on Folau
I've spent the entirety of the day somewhat conflicted. I'm trying to measure my response to the announcement of Israel Folau's defection from NRL to AFL by some quantifiable means. I've trawled through the tripe of forums and news site vitriolic comments boards (yeesh) in order to gauge opinion and come up with some kind of response to it. So hopefully in this discourse, my opinion will call itself into being in a shape more coherent than the spasmodic ramblings that have trawled across my brain all day.
I may have come across before as some kind of frothing anti-League douche. I'm really not. Honest. I may prefer Australian Rules as a sport, but I know Rugby League has it's place in Australia. As an outsider, I can see where NRL is falling over and get equally frustrated when it's administrators do nothing to fix it's ailments. I'm not wringing my hands gleefully when seeing every missed opportunity or blow against it as some kind of 'death knell', nor do I see such a thing as a desirable outcome.
Yet actively targetting and striking against the NRL is what the AFL as an administration is doing. It's almost trying to conduct some kind of aggressive business takeover. I can sympathise with people who may enjoy the game but see the conduct of the AFL as innappropriate at best and as a major factor for them watching these recent events with anger.
Now talking specifically about the moves to recruit Karmichael Hunt (The Kanye of sport?) and Izzy, there are the following parties to consider; The Gaining Club (GCFC and GWS); The AFL; The NRL; The Losing Club, (The Brisbane Broncos) not to mention the players (referred to as poachings).
Firstly, the Gaining Clubs are getting major concessions when it comes to the AFL drafts in the first year(s) of entering the AFL. The quality of players coming through the draft today is unquestionable; one only has to look at Lucas, Trengove, Scully, Martin and of course Barlow (among many others) as a sign that not only is AFL development solid and fruitful in it's heartland states, but it is also immediate and broad in it's impact. Any claims that these poachings are for lack of talent in AFL stocks are ignorant and misguided.
But rookie players don't demand high salaries, they take time to appreciate in value. Barlow will be of equal value with the top 5% of AFL players if he keeps up this years form; but not for another two to three years at least. The planning that is going into these clubs, I can assure you, has been meticulous and long reaching. The time periods these poachings will play for are formative, the new clubs are not counting on running onto the park with a premiership side (how can they?). They are planning to run onto the field with a future premiership side. In the 3-5 years it will take for these teams to become true challengers, the poachings will reach the end of their contracts. If they are worth the coin they will be offered it (again).
But more likely is that the poachings will have done the development and promotional groundwork for the future stars to build on; stars they'll acquire in the draft or from trades. I think it truly doesn't matter if Folau is getting the same money as Judd or Ablett. Putting Judd in GWS means more to current AFL states than it ever would in NSW. Putting Folau in there has much more potential (and dare I say it, opportunity) than putting a developed player as a marquee star. Look at the impact it has created on the day it occured itself, it will resonant across both communites for weeks. People saying he'll be forgotten in a year must have very selective memories. I don't think it matters how good the poachings are individually because as a whole team they won't be able to seriously compete for several years. The value of these players cannot be measured against the same scale as that of Chris Judd and Gary Ablett Jr because the purpose of their employment is for different objectives.
N.B. That said, I still think they are being overpaid and ridiculously so.
The AFL itself has more than one agenda here. It is happy to further the Polynesian example set by Nic Natanui, it is happy to promote to more people of varying regions to try and come into the game. Mike Pyke, Canadian; Setanta O'hailpin, Irish and so on. But the deliberate, strategised targeting of NRL specifically is something I find distasteful and potentially damaging to the image of Australian Rules in general. Most NRL supporters agree. They aren't following NRL because of an individual player, they're following it for the game itself. The game is bigger than Israel Folau and Karmichael Hunt. These events do however, undoubtedly boost the legitimacy of the new franchises. Not as AFL clubs, but as social and community entities. People are talking, and that is points on the board for the AFL.
Moving onto the NRL side of the fence is a bit more complicated because I'm not 100% up to speed with every development administration (and player) wise. Giving it a crack though. Pull me up if I'm outright wrong.
As a professional competition of a popular sport in Australia (not to mention NZ and the Islands) the NRL has, and will continue, developing elite athletes. Retaining this talent is of prime importance to the NRL. The main point of contention at the moment in facilitating this, is the salary cap. A million people have said it and I'll say it too. Raise the bloody salary cap. Raise it through the roof because the NRL's players are worth more than what they are getting. No wonder they'll go to England or even switch codes they are an undervalued commodity in the NRL.
If a cap is such a problem to implement, as Gallop seems to repeat ad infinatum, the NRL might consider bringing in the A-League system of having 1 (or more) players paid outside the salary cap as a marquee player. The problem is that the NRL almost seem reluctant to treat the code as a business, the opposite of the AFL's problem. But then his claims can be backed up by the lower TV distribution rights deal, low attendences and membership numbers. The NRL is almost a pokie welfare entity in that regard.
The players themselves are not stupid, nor are they advised and managed by stupid people. These are all business choices. Someone trying to use their athleticism and natural talents to their best ability and make the maximum return on their efforts is not someone to scorn. People playing the loyalty card are absolute hypocrites because loyalty goes both ways. If you were ever loyal to Folau, you'd wish him luck and hope he does well, instead I find people are partisan wankjobs and treat sport like politics.
And as I've said before, NRL and AFL can easily and happily co-exist. The AFL doesn't have to be this juggernaut stomping across the countryside. Yet the NRL has to stop being a suburban wannabe competition and develop it's framework and business model to something competitive not just in Australia but on the World Stage.
Oh and Izzy should represent QLD in SoO2. It's pretty discriminatory to ban a player because they are leaving the code, surely the best players should be picked and that is that?
I may have come across before as some kind of frothing anti-League douche. I'm really not. Honest. I may prefer Australian Rules as a sport, but I know Rugby League has it's place in Australia. As an outsider, I can see where NRL is falling over and get equally frustrated when it's administrators do nothing to fix it's ailments. I'm not wringing my hands gleefully when seeing every missed opportunity or blow against it as some kind of 'death knell', nor do I see such a thing as a desirable outcome.
Yet actively targetting and striking against the NRL is what the AFL as an administration is doing. It's almost trying to conduct some kind of aggressive business takeover. I can sympathise with people who may enjoy the game but see the conduct of the AFL as innappropriate at best and as a major factor for them watching these recent events with anger.
Now talking specifically about the moves to recruit Karmichael Hunt (The Kanye of sport?) and Izzy, there are the following parties to consider; The Gaining Club (GCFC and GWS); The AFL; The NRL; The Losing Club, (The Brisbane Broncos) not to mention the players (referred to as poachings).
Firstly, the Gaining Clubs are getting major concessions when it comes to the AFL drafts in the first year(s) of entering the AFL. The quality of players coming through the draft today is unquestionable; one only has to look at Lucas, Trengove, Scully, Martin and of course Barlow (among many others) as a sign that not only is AFL development solid and fruitful in it's heartland states, but it is also immediate and broad in it's impact. Any claims that these poachings are for lack of talent in AFL stocks are ignorant and misguided.
But rookie players don't demand high salaries, they take time to appreciate in value. Barlow will be of equal value with the top 5% of AFL players if he keeps up this years form; but not for another two to three years at least. The planning that is going into these clubs, I can assure you, has been meticulous and long reaching. The time periods these poachings will play for are formative, the new clubs are not counting on running onto the park with a premiership side (how can they?). They are planning to run onto the field with a future premiership side. In the 3-5 years it will take for these teams to become true challengers, the poachings will reach the end of their contracts. If they are worth the coin they will be offered it (again).
But more likely is that the poachings will have done the development and promotional groundwork for the future stars to build on; stars they'll acquire in the draft or from trades. I think it truly doesn't matter if Folau is getting the same money as Judd or Ablett. Putting Judd in GWS means more to current AFL states than it ever would in NSW. Putting Folau in there has much more potential (and dare I say it, opportunity) than putting a developed player as a marquee star. Look at the impact it has created on the day it occured itself, it will resonant across both communites for weeks. People saying he'll be forgotten in a year must have very selective memories. I don't think it matters how good the poachings are individually because as a whole team they won't be able to seriously compete for several years. The value of these players cannot be measured against the same scale as that of Chris Judd and Gary Ablett Jr because the purpose of their employment is for different objectives.
N.B. That said, I still think they are being overpaid and ridiculously so.
The AFL itself has more than one agenda here. It is happy to further the Polynesian example set by Nic Natanui, it is happy to promote to more people of varying regions to try and come into the game. Mike Pyke, Canadian; Setanta O'hailpin, Irish and so on. But the deliberate, strategised targeting of NRL specifically is something I find distasteful and potentially damaging to the image of Australian Rules in general. Most NRL supporters agree. They aren't following NRL because of an individual player, they're following it for the game itself. The game is bigger than Israel Folau and Karmichael Hunt. These events do however, undoubtedly boost the legitimacy of the new franchises. Not as AFL clubs, but as social and community entities. People are talking, and that is points on the board for the AFL.
Moving onto the NRL side of the fence is a bit more complicated because I'm not 100% up to speed with every development administration (and player) wise. Giving it a crack though. Pull me up if I'm outright wrong.
As a professional competition of a popular sport in Australia (not to mention NZ and the Islands) the NRL has, and will continue, developing elite athletes. Retaining this talent is of prime importance to the NRL. The main point of contention at the moment in facilitating this, is the salary cap. A million people have said it and I'll say it too. Raise the bloody salary cap. Raise it through the roof because the NRL's players are worth more than what they are getting. No wonder they'll go to England or even switch codes they are an undervalued commodity in the NRL.
If a cap is such a problem to implement, as Gallop seems to repeat ad infinatum, the NRL might consider bringing in the A-League system of having 1 (or more) players paid outside the salary cap as a marquee player. The problem is that the NRL almost seem reluctant to treat the code as a business, the opposite of the AFL's problem. But then his claims can be backed up by the lower TV distribution rights deal, low attendences and membership numbers. The NRL is almost a pokie welfare entity in that regard.
The players themselves are not stupid, nor are they advised and managed by stupid people. These are all business choices. Someone trying to use their athleticism and natural talents to their best ability and make the maximum return on their efforts is not someone to scorn. People playing the loyalty card are absolute hypocrites because loyalty goes both ways. If you were ever loyal to Folau, you'd wish him luck and hope he does well, instead I find people are partisan wankjobs and treat sport like politics.
And as I've said before, NRL and AFL can easily and happily co-exist. The AFL doesn't have to be this juggernaut stomping across the countryside. Yet the NRL has to stop being a suburban wannabe competition and develop it's framework and business model to something competitive not just in Australia but on the World Stage.
Oh and Izzy should represent QLD in SoO2. It's pretty discriminatory to ban a player because they are leaving the code, surely the best players should be picked and that is that?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)