Here’s the standings and fantasy game results from Week 3 of the SBAC and RELEGATION LEAGUES (Oct 9th)…


NEW ENGLAND W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Penn State 3 102 6
Army-WP 3 98 6 Army def. U Conn 57-28
Syracuse 3 80 6 Boston Coll def Pitt 37-26
Temple 2 1 78 4 Penn St def Buffalo 38-18
Boston College 2 1 6 4 Syracuse def U Mass 46-32
Pitt 1 2 (12) 2 Temple def Rutgers 77-21
Buffalo 1 2 (31) 2
Massachusetts 3 (80) 0
Connecticut 3 (113) 0
Rutgers 3 (128) 0


OHIO W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Notre Dame 3 125 6
Ohio State 3 60 6
West Virginia 2 1 68 4 Bowling Green def Marshall 45-36
Miami-OH 2 1 (21) 4 Kant St def Ohio U 51-40
Purdue 1 2 22 2 Notre Dame def  Indiana 52-22
Indiana 1 2 0 2 Miami def Purdue 59-42
Ohio U 1 2 (2) 2 Ohio State def West Virginia 14 to -3
Kent State 1 2 (76) 2
Bowling Green 1 2 (89) 2
Marshall 3 (87) 0
GREAT LAKES W L T Point Diff PP This Week
*North Dakota State 3 38 6
Toledo 3 12 6
Michigan 2 1 63 4 Michigan def Akron 41 to -14
Wisconsin 2 1 26 4 Toledo def CMU 37-29
Eastern Michigan 2 1 (4) 4 EMU def Minnesota 33-29
Central Michigan 1 2 17 2 Wisconsin def Mich St 16-3
Michigan State 1 2 (12) 2 NDSU def Western Mich 57-28
Minnesota 1 2 (22) 2
Western Michigan 3 (52) 0
Akron 3 (66) 0
MIDWESTERN W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Cincinnati 3 57 6
Iowa State 3 39 6
Iowa 2 1 30 4
Northwestern 2 1 29 4 Iowa def Ball St 51-17
Missouri 2 1 14 4 Cincinnati def Missouri 32-29
*South Dakota State 1 2 2 2 Iowa State def Northwestern 43-40
Northern Illinois 1 2 (21) 2 NIU def South Dakota St 31-5
Illinois 1 2 (41) 2 Illinois def Nebraska 55-45
Nebraska 3 (49) 0
Ball State 3 (70) 0
MID-ATLANTIC W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Kentucky 3 101 6
Appalachian State 3 58 6
Virginia 2 1 100 4 Appalachian State def Louisville 34 to -17
Virginia Tech 2 1 (17) 4 Virginia def East Carolina 43-2
*James Madison 1 2 28 2 Kentucky def Navy 38 to -9
Maryland 1 2 4 2 Maryland def Western Kentucky 42-30
Western Kentucky 1 2 (26) 2 Va Tech def James Madison 6 to -6
Navy 1 2 (53) 2
East Carolina 1 2 (81) 2
Louisville 3 (114) 0
TOBACCO ROAD W L T Point Diff PP This Week
No Carolina St 3 105 6
Duke 2 1 60 4 Duke def No Carolina 38-23
North Carolina 2 1 41 4 Memphis def Tennessee 37-26
Middle Tenn St 2 1 29 4 MTSU def Old Dominion 66-37
Vanderbilt 2 1 (11) 4 NC State def Wake 30 to -26
Old Dominion 1 2 (16) 2 Vanderbilt def NC A&T 51-33
Tennessee 1 2 (24) 2
Wake Forest 1 2 (43) 2
Memphis 1 2 (51) 2
*North Carolina A&T 3 (116) 0
PLANTATION W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Clemson 3 121 6
Georgia 3 89 6
South Carolina 2 1 53 4 Georgia def Charlotte 56-11
Troy 2 1 6 4 Coastal def Liberty 48-33
Coastal Carolina 2 1 (11) 4 Clemson def GA Tech 77-47
*Kennesaw State 1 2 3 2 Troy def GA State 47-32
Georgia Tech 1 2 (25) 2 So Carolina def KSU 43-42
Liberty 1 2 (55) 2
Georgia State 3 (67) 0
Charlotte 3 (98) 0
PANHANDLE W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Florida 3 81 6
Florida State 3 43 6
Central Florida 2 1 54 4
*Jacksonville State 2 1 32 4 UCF def FIU 45-17
Miami-FL 2 1 (11) 4 Florida def Miami-FL 25 to 1
South Florida 1 2 7 2 GA Southern def FAU 52-41
Florida International 1 2 (22) 2 Florida St def USF 41-25
Georgia Southern 1 2 (26) 2 JSU def So Alabama 78-21
Florida Atlantic 3 (52) 0
South Alabama 3 (106) 0
DEEP SOUTH W L T Point Diff PP This Week
UA-Birmingham 2 1 66 4
Alabama 2 1 46 4
Auburn 2 1 33 4 Alabama def Miss St 20 – 17
Southern Miss 2 1 12 4 Auburn def Tulane 19-7
Ole Miss 2 1 9 4 So Miss def La Tech 32-11
UL-Lafayette 2 1 (28) 4 Ole Miss def UL-Lafayette 77-42
Mississippi State 1 2 36 2 UAB def UL-Monroe 78-11
Louisiana Tech 1 2 (7) 2
Tulane 1 2 (10) 2
UL-Monroe 3 (157) 0
GULF COAST W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Texas 3 84 6
LSU 3 83 6 LSU def Arkansas 29-20
Houston 2 1 34 4 Texas A&M def No Texas 29-3
Texas A&M 2 1 26 4 Texas def Houston 38-20
Arkansas 2 1 25 4 UTSA def Rice 62-58
UT-San Antonio 2 1 3 4 Sam Houston def Texas St 67-38
*Sam Houston State 1 2 (36) 2
Arkansas State 3 (53) 0
Texas State 3 (65) 0
Rice 3 (101) 0
LONE STAR W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Texas Tech 3 100 6
Oklahoma 2 1 38 4
UTEP 2 1 2 4 Baylor def Okla St 25-18
Baylor 2 1 0 4 Texas Tech def No Texas 29-3
Oklahoma State 1 2 11 2 Oklahoma def TCU 9 to 8!
TCU 1 2 (13) 2 UTEP def SMU 62-58
SMU 1 2 (21) 2 Illinois St def Tulsa 48-40
North Texas 1 2 (24) 2
*Illinois State 1 2 (27) 2
Tulsa 1 2 (56) 2
ROCKY MOUNTAIN W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Kansas State 3 46 6
Arizona State 3 33 6
Air Force 2 1 61 4
Arizona 2 1 30 4 Air Force def BYU 64-7
BYU 2 1 (28) 4 Arizona def Kansas 43-36
Colorado 1 2 1 2 Ariz St def Colorado St 42-33
Kansas 1 2 1 2 New Mexico def Colorado 72-54
New Mexico 1 2 (30) 2 K State def NMSU 52-38
New Mexico State 3 (39) 0
Colorado State 3 (75) 0
BEAR REPUBLIC W L T Point Diff PP This Week
USC 3 44 6
Fresno State 3 21 6
San Diego State 2 1 1 4 San Diego St def Cal 45-29
UCLA 2 1 0 4 Fresno St def UCLA 40-34
*Weber State 1 1 1 21 3 Nevada def Stanford 18-14
Stanford 1 2 8 2 USC def San Jose St 49-16
Nevada 1 2 (9) 2 Weber St def UNLV 23 to -6
San Jose State 1 2 (47) 2
California 2 1 (18) 1
UNLV 3 (54) 0
NORTHWEST W L T Point Diff PP This Week
Utah 3 56 6
Washington 3 24 6
*Eastern Washington 2 1 35 5
Utah State 2 1 21 4 Boise St def Oregon St 29-18
Washington State 1 1 1 20 3 Washington def Hawaii 27-19
Oregon 1 2 31 2 Utah St def Oregon 42-32
Boise State 1 2 (12) 2 Utah def Wyoming 65-14
Wyoming 1 2 (55) 2 EWU tied WSU 42-42
Oregon State 3 (55) 0
Hawaii 3 (65) 0



Relegation Leagues – Week Three results


Northeast Region
Conference One W L T PP +/- This Week
Penn St – 7 3 6 115
Notre Dame – 5 3 6 40  BC def Mich St 27-6
Michigan – 3 2 1 4 18  PSU def Louisville 31 to -23
Ohio St – 6 1 2 2 44  Michigan def OSU 10-8
Boston College – 1 1 1 2 0  Notre Dame def WV 41-6
West Virginia – 9 1 2 2 -28
Virginia Tech – 8 1 1 2 -31
Michigan St – 4 2 0 -37
Louisville – 2 3 0 -121
Southeast Region
Conference One W L T PP +/- This Week
Clemson – 3 3 6 75
Miami-FL – 7 2 1 5 27
South Carolina – 9 2 1 4 18  Alabama def Duke 23 to -2
Auburn – 2 1 1 1 3 8  Miami tied Aub -3 to -3 (!?!)
Alabama – 1 1 1 2 17  Clemson def LSU 63-3
Georgia – 5 1 2 2 0  Georgia def So Car 26-8
LSU – 6 1 2 2 -65
Mississippi St – 8 2 0 -30
Duke – 4 2 0 -50
Midwest Region
Conference One W L T PP +/- This Week
Wisconsin – 9 3 6 63
Northwestern – 3 3 6 41
Texas – 7 3 6 32  Iowa def Oklahoma 17-5
Iowa – 1 1 1 2 11  Texas def Mizzou 39-22
Missouri – 2 1 2 2 -13  NW def TCU 40-27
Oklahoma St – 5 1 2 2 -22  Wisc def Okla St 13-8
TCU – 6 3 0 -28
Texas A&M – 8 2 0 -36
Oklahoma – 4 2 0 -48
Western Region
Conference One W L T PP +/- This Week
Utah – 7 2 1 4 38
Colorado – 3 2 1 4 33  Oregon def ASU 24-20
USC – 6 2 1 4 13  Utah def Cal 54-19
Oregon – 4 2 4 5  Colorado def USC 30-25
Washington St – 9 1 2 2 8  WSU def Stanford 18 to -1
Washington – 8 1 1 2 4
Arizona St – 1 1 1 2 -1
Stanford – 5 1 2 2 -26
California – 2 3 0 -54


Northeast Region
Conference Two W L T PP +/- This Week
Syracuse – 7 3 6 52
Maryland – 3 2 1 5 41
Purdue – 5 2 1 5 23  Indiana def Pitt 40-32
Virginia – 9 2 1 4 32  Syracuse def Marshall 32-13
Marshall – 2 1 2 2 2  Maryland def Rutgers 48-15
Indiana – 1 1 1 2 -21  Purdue def Virginia 32-26
Toledo – 8 2 0 -15
Pitt  – 4 2 0 -35
Rutgers – 6 3 0 -79
Southeast Region
Conference Two W L T PP +/- This Week
Kentucky – 5 3 6 91
Georgia Tech – 4 2 4 34
Florida – 2 2 1 4 23  GA Tech def Arkansas 63-34
Ole Miss – 7 2 1 4 8  Ole Miss def Florida 46-41
Arkansas – 1 1 1 2 -13  Fla St def NC St 40-26
Florida State – 3 1 2 2 -27  Kentucky def Wake 36 to -24
Wake Forest – 9 1 2 2 -34
No Carolina St – 6 3 0 -32
Vanderbilt – 8 2 0 -50
Midwest Region
Conference Two W L T PP +/- This Week
Texas Tech – 9 3 6 87
Iowa St – 3 3 6 55
Minnesota – 7 2 1 4 -5  Baylor def Kansas 43-39
Kansas State  – 5 1 2 2 9  Illinois def Minn 50-34
Baylor – 1 1 1 2 -6  Iowa St def Memphis 42-22
Illinois – 2 1 2 2 -16  Tex Tech def K State 28-22
Memphis – 6 1 2 2 -38
Nebraska – 8 2 0 -20
Kansas – 4 2 0 -66
Western Region
Conference Two W L T PP +/- This Week
San Diego St – 7 2 1 4 29
Boise St – 3 2 1 4 28
Fresno St – 5 2 1 4 28  Air Force def BYU 64-17
Utah State – 9 2 1 4 25  SDSU def Arizona 42-33
Air Force – 1 1 1 2 23  BSU def Oregon St 29-18
Arizona- 2 1 2 2 -8  Utah St def Fresno St 40-34
UCLA – 8 1 1 2 -17
BYU – 4 1 1 2 -45
Oregon St – 6 3 0 -63


Northeast Region
Conference Three W L T PP +/- This Week
Cincinnati – 3 2 1 4 68
Army-WP – 1 2 4 42
Miami-OH – 5 2 1 4 20  Army def EMU 38-26
Buffalo – 2 2 1 4 14  Buffalo def Ohio U 45-26
Temple – 8 2 4 5  Cincinnati def Navy 41 to -2
Navy – 6 1 2 2 29  Miami-OH def WMU 70-44
Western Michigan – 9 1 2 2 -29
Eastern Michigan – 4 2 0 -13
Ohio – 7 3 0 -50
Southeast Region
Conference Three W L T PP +/- This Week
Central Florida – 2 3 6 79
Troy – 9 3 6 24  App St def Mid Tenn 40-38
Appalachian St – 1 2 4 14  UCF def SoMiss 44-17
South Florida – 6 1 2 2 -3  FAU def USF 30-29
North Carolina – 5 1 2 2 -20  Troy def UNC 39-36
Southern Miss – 7 1 2 2 -21
FAU – 3 1 2 2 -32
Middle Tenn – 4 2 0 -11
Tennessee – 8 2 0 -30
Midwest Region
Conference Three W L T PP +/- This Week
Houston – 2 2 1 4 25
Tulane – 7 2 1 4 13
SMU – 6 2 1 4 6  Ark St def NoTexas 32-11
Louisiana Tech – 3 2 1 4 0  Houston def Tulane 36-18
Tulsa – 8 1 1 2 32  SMU def LaTech 30-12
North Texas – 4 1 1 2 25  No Ill def ULL 53-49
Arkansas St – 1 1 1 2 -9
Northern Illinois – 5 1 2 2 -9
UL-Monroe – 9 3 0 -83
Western Region
Conference Three W L T PP +/- This Week
Hawaii – 2 2 1 4 40
Nevada – 3 2 1 4 38  New Mexico def CSU 91-58
Wyoming – 9 2 1 4 28  Hawaii def UNLV 47 to -6
New Mexico St – 5 2 1 4 -2  Nevada def SJSU 53-39
UNLV – 7 2 1 4 -13  NMSU def Wyoming 50-47
New Mexico – 4 1 1 2 24
San Jose St – 6 1 2 2 -20
Colorado St- 1 2 0 -41
UTEP – 8 2 0 -54


Northeast Region
Conference Four W L T PP +/- This Week
Western Kentucky – 9 3 6 22
James Madison – 6 2 1 4 122
Akron – 1 1 1 2 16  CMU def Akron 33-18
Central Michigan – 4 1 1 2 11  Kent St def Ball St 57-51
Ball St – 2 1 2 2 -5  BGSU def J Madison 36-29
U Mass – 8 1 1 2 -8  WKU def U Conn 54-44
Kent St – 7 1 2 2 -31
Bowling Green – 3 1 2 2 -48
Connecticut – 5 1 2 2 -85
Southeast Region
Conference Four W L T PP +/- This Week
Georgia St – 6 2 1 4 45
UAB – 9 2 1 4 25
FIU – 4 2 4 24  FIU def Charlotte 55-42
Coastal Carolina – 2 2 1 4 19  Coastal def ODU 50-43
Old Dominion – 7 2 1 4 15  GA State def ECU 66-16
East Carolina – 3 2 1 4 -34  UAB def GA South’n 69-62
Charlotte – 1 2 0 -29
Georgia Southern – 5 3 0 -30
South Alabama – 8 2 0 -35
Midwest Region
Conference Four W L T PP +/- This Week
Northern Iowa – 3 3 6 91
Western Illinois – 9 2 1 4 21
UL-Lafayette – 7 2 1 4 12  CAU def Rice 55-32
Illinois State – 2 2 1 4 4  Ill St def ULL 58-48
Sam Houston St – 5 2 1 4 -17  NIU def Texas St 36-18
Central Arkansas – 1 1 1 2 11  SHSU def W Ill 57-39
UTSA – 8 2 0 -30
Rice – 4 2 0 -42
Texas St – 6 3 0 -45
Western Region
Conference Four W L T PP +/- This Week
South Dakota – 6 3 6 71
So Dakota State – 7 3 6 42  NoDakSt def EWU 58-47
No Dakota State – 4 2 4 26  SoDakSt def Idaho 22 to -4
Weber State – 9 2 1 4 13  South Dak def Montana 39-6
Montana – 3 1 2 2 56  Weber St def CSUS 30-9
Sacramento State – 5 1 2 2 -32
East’n Washington – 1 2 0 -17
UC Davis – 8 2 0 -19
Idaho – 2 3 0 -76


Northeast Region
Conference Five W L T PP +/- This Week
Rhode Island – 5 3 6 90
Indiana State – 2 2 1 4 74
Maine – 3 2 1 4 11 Delaware def UNH 68-59
Youngstown State – 10 2 1 4 5  Ind St def St Brook 80-27
Stony Brook – 7 2 1 4 -22 Maine df Richmond 58-39
Villanova – 9 1 1 1 3 -4  URI def Villanova 75-47
Towson – 8 1 1 1 3 -9  Towson def YSU 66-40
Delaware – 1 1 2 2 0
New Hampshire – 4 3 0 -51
Richmond – 6 3 0 -84
Southeast Region
Conference Five W L T PP +/- This Week
Jacksonville State – 3 3 6 82
Wofford – 9 2 1 4 42
Elon – 1 2 4 13
Samford – 7 1 2 2 6  Elon def KSU 66-62
Kennesaw St – 4 1 1 2 0  Samf’d def Furman 76-48
The Citadel – 8 1 1 2 -10  JSU def Mercer 86-38
Liberty – 5 1 2 2 -15 Wofford def Liberty 51-36
Furman – 2 1 2 2 -34
Mercer – 6 3 0 -76
Midwest Region
Conference Five W L T PP +/- This Week
Missouri State – 3 3 6 80
Nicholls State – 4 2 4 57  Nicholls def EIU 72-44
Southern Illinois – 8 2 4 22  SEMo def McNeese 69-46
SE Missouri State – 7 1 2 2 4  SELa def MizzouSt 60-19
Northwestern St – 5 1 2 2 -8   NW St def Austin 58-35
Eastern Illinois – 1 1 1 2 -26
McNeese State – 2 1 2 2 -39
SE Louisiana – 6 1 2 2 -54
Stephen F Austin – 9 3 0 -46
Western Region
Conference Five W L T PP +/- This Week
Idaho State – 2 3 6 51
Northern Arizona – 5 2 1 5 52  CPSLO def NoDak 85-60
San Diego – 8 2 4 6  IdahoSt def PortSt 107-87
Montana State – 3 1 1 1 3 -4  MontSt def NoColo 62-48
Cal Poly SLO – 1 1 1 2 20  NAU def SoUtah 72-31
Portland State – 7 1 2 2 -19
Southern Utah – 9 1 2 2 -25
Northern Colorado – 6 3 0 -38
North Dakota – 4 2 0 -43



Northeast Conference
Conference Six W L T PP +/-
Albany – 1 2 1 5 35
Duquesne – 4 2 1 4 35
UT-Martin – 8 2 1 4 31
Central Connecticut – 3 2 1 4 18
Robert Morris – 5 2 1 4 13
Bryant – 2 2 1 4 -21
Sacred Heart – 6 1 2 2 11
Wagner – 9 1 2 2 -50
St. Francis (PA) – 7 2 1 1 -34
William & Mary – 10 3 0 -38
Conference Six W L T PP +/-
Campbell – 1 3 6 43
Chattanooga – 3 2 1 4 37
VMI – 9 2 1 4 27
Charleston Southern – 2 2 1 4 26
Monmouth – 7 2 1 4 15
Western Carolina – 10 2 1 4 -4
Presbyterian – 8 1 2 2 -14
Gardner-Webb – 5 1 2 2 -63
E Tennessee St – 4 3 0 -8
Hampton – 6 3 0 -59
Southland Conference
Conference Six W L T PP +/-
Tennessee State – 9 2 1 4 50
Incarnate Word – 5 2 1 4 29
Murray State – 7 2 1 4 23
Lamar – 6 2 1 4 12
Austin Peay – 2 2 1 4 10
Abilene Christian – 1 2 1 4 -1
Eastern Kentucky – 3 1 2 2 -8
Houston Baptist – 4 1 2 2 -37
North Alabama – 8 1 2 2 -44
Tennessee Tech – 10 3 0 -34
Pioneer League
Conference Six W L T PP +/-
Davidson – 2 3 6 29
Drake – 4 2 4 80
Dayton – 3 2 1 4 10
Marist – 6 1 2 2 9
Stetson – 8 1 1 2 8
Morehead State – 7 1 2 2 -4
Valparaiso – 9 1 2 2 -16
Jacksonville – 5 1 2 2 -24
Butler – 1 2 0 -56

If you’re here… you’ve probably already seen our predictions for Week 5, right?

If not, click on that title sequence above and hop back over to the Blog to see our Sept 27 forecast!

Meanwhile, here are the starting numbers for both the SBAC and Relegation Fantasy leagues for the weekend of Sept 29th – Week 2 of our fantasy season!

Week TWO – START SCORES – SBAC Fantasy League

(All conferences use the same scheduling template – listed alphabetically, R2 games are listed

as follows: 2@3, 5@6, 1@7, 8@9, 4@10.)

NEW ENGLAND (Conf 1)              OHIO (Conference 2)

Boston College @ Buffalo (35-27)     Kent St @ Indiana (30-52)

U Mass @ Penn St (9-51)                    Miami-OH @ Notre Dame (16-45)

Army @ Pitt (30-34)                            Bowling Grn @ Ohio U (36-54)

Rutgers @ Syracuse (28-50)               Ohio State @ Purdue (26-8)

U Conn @ Temple (33-54)                 Marshall @ West Virginia (16-37)


GREAT LAKES (Conf 3)                 MIDWESTERN (Conf 4)

Cent Mich @ Eastn Mich (35-40)    Cincinnati @ Illinois (39-35)

Michigan St @ Minnesota (32-24)    Iowa State @ Nebraska (37-25)

Akron @ Toledo (31-42)                     Ball State @ Missouri (22-51)

Wstn Mich @ Wisconsin (18-46)     No Illinois @ Northwestern (28-39)

Michigan @ No Dakota St (23-15)    Iowa @ So Dakota St (24-21)


MID-ATLANTIC (Conf 5)             TOBACCO ROAD (Conf 6)

East Carolina @ Kentucky (23-46)   Memphis @ Middle Tennessee (37-25)

Maryland @ Navy (31-33)                   North Carolina St @ Old Dominion (47-23)

Appalachian St @ Virginia (29-27)   Duke @ Tennessee (24-23)

Va Tech @ W Kentucky (41-23)       Vanderbilt @ Wake F (29-34)

Louisville @ James Madison (28-34)No Carolina @ NC A&T (48-36)


PLANTATION (Conference 7)      PANHANDLE (Conference 8)

Coastal Car @ Clemson (10-45)        Florida @ FAU (32-23)

Geo State @ Geo Tech (29-49)          Fla State @ Geo Southern (40-28)

Charlotte @ Liberty (48-58)              UCF @ Miami-FL (15-22)

So Carolina @ Troy (34-24)               So Alabama @ USF (27-49)

Georgia @ Kennesaw St (40-11)       FIU @ Jacksonville St (38-42)


DEEP SOUTH (Conference 9)       GULF COAST (Conference 10)

Auburn @ La Tech (34-15)                 Arkansas St @ Houston (25-34)

Mississippi @ So Miss (41-31)           Rice @ Texas (19-56)

Alabama @ Tulane (39-1)                   Arkansas @ Texas A&M (19-43)

UAB @ UL-Lafayette (46-42)            Texas St @ UTSA (47-56)

Miss. St @ UL-Monroe (43-21)         LSU @ Sam Houston St (48-18)


LONE STAR (Conference 11)         ROCKY MOUNTAIN (Conf 12)

No Texas @ Oklahoma (9-30)           Arizona @ Arizona State (24-31)

SMU @ TCU (19-43)                          Colorado @ Colorado State (44-29)

Baylor @ Texas Tech (22-33)             Air Force @ Kansas (37-38)

Tulsa @ UTEP (57-42)                        Kansas State @ New Mexico (43-51)

Okla St @ Illinois St (33-22)              BYU @ New Mexico St (52-32)


BEAR REPUBLIC (Conf 13)           NORTHWEST (Conf 14)

Fresno St @ Nevada (41-24)              Hawaii @ Oregon (24-44)

San Jose St @ Stanford (15-52)          Utah @ Utah St (29-22)

Cal @ UCLA (34-30)                           Boise St @ Washington (12-22)

UNLV @ USC (22-42)                        Washington St @ Wyoming (37-24)

San Diego St @ Weber St (38-30)     Oregon St @ Eastern Wash (39-45)

Week TWO – START SCORES – Relegation Leagues

(All conferences use the same scheduling template – listed alphabetically, R2 games are listed

   as follows: 2@3, 5@6, 1@7, 8@9, 4@10.)

 Since most conferences have nine teams, “10” is a bye in those conferences – all regions in levels 1 – 4, plus some at 5 and 6.)


Northeast Region

Louisville @ Michigan (12-34), Notre Dame @ Ohio St (5-19), Boston College @ Penn St (9-27), Va Tech @ West Virginia (16-23). BYE – Michigan St.

Southeast Region

Auburn @ Clemson (10-15), Georgia @ LSU (15-11), Alabama @ Miami-FL (15-1), Miss St @ So Carolina (21-21). BYE – Duke

Midwest Region

Missouri @ Northwestern (28-25), Oklahoma State @ TCU (19-22), Iowa @ Texas (19-21), Texas A&M @ Wisconsin (18-22) BYE – Oklahoma.

West Region

Cal @ Colorado (26-30), Stanford @ USC (22-18), Arizona St @ Utah (19-27), Washington @ Wash St (21-15). BYE – Oregon.



Northeast Region

Marshall @ Maryland (30-37), Purdue @ Rutgers (47-29), Indiana @ Syracuse (28-33), Toledo @ Virginia (29-34). BYE – Pitt.

Southeast Region

Florida @ Florida St (28-23), Kentucky @ NC State (20-26), Arkansas @ Ole Miss (28-43), Vanderbilt @ Wake Forest (29-34). BYE – Georgia Tech.

Midwest Region

Illinois @ Iowa State (22-42), Kansas St @ Memphis (22-31), Baylor @ Minnesota (32-33), Nebraska @ Texas Tech (22-40). BYE – Kansas.

West Region

Arizona @ Boise State (19-31), Fresno State @ Oregon State (42-24), Air Force @ San Diego St (27-38), UCLA @ Utah State (29-37). BYE – BYU.



Northeast Region

Buffalo @ Cincinnati (32-38), Miami-OH @ Navy (31-45), Army @ Ohio U (36-34), Temple @ W Michigan (37-36). BYE – E Michigan.

Southeast Region

UCF @ FAU (32-22), No Carolina @ USF (27-36), Appalachian St @ So Miss (41-27), Tennessee @ Troy (34-37). BYE – Middle Tennessee .

Midwest Region

Houston @ La Tech (34-28), No Illinois @ SMU (40-39), Arkansas St @ Tulane (39-34), Tulsa @ UL-Monroe (43-42). BYE – No Texas

West Region

Hawaii @ Nevada (41-44), New Mexico St @ San Jose St (49-55), Colorado St @ UNLV (39-47), UTEP @ Wyoming (37-60). BYE – New Mexico.



Northeast Region

Ball St @ Bowling Green (51-51), U Conn @ James Madison (28-54), Akron @ Kent St (49-42), U Mass @ Western Ky (41-51). BYE – Central Mich.

Southeast Region

Coastal Carolina @ East Carolina (43-45), Geo Southern @ Geo State (46-43), Charlotte @ Old Dominion (47-58), So Alabama @ UAB (39-49). BYE – FIU.

Midwest Region

Illinois St @ No Illinois (36-36), Sam Houston St @ Texas St (53-51), Central Arkansas @ UL-Lafayette (46-49), UTSA @ Western Illinois (40-50). BYE – Rice.

West Region

Idaho @ Montana (42-56), Sacramento St @ South Dakota (57-49), Eastern Wash @ S Dakota St (24-42), UC Davis @ Weber St (38-47). BYE – No Dakota St.



Northeast Region

Indiana St @ Maine (46-53), Rhode Island @ Richmond (51-51), Delaware @ Stony Brook (46-50), Towson @ Villanova (47-54), New Hampshire @ Youngstown St (38-58).

Southeast Region

Furman @ Jacksonville St (38-56), Liberty @ Mercer (52-51), Elon @ Samford (45-45), Citadel @ Wofford (43-56). BYE – Kennesaw St.

Midwest Region

McNeese @ Missouri St (46-50), NW State @ SE Louisiana (54-63), Eastern Illinois @ SE Missouri (57-68), So Illinois @ Stephen F Austin (64-48). BYE – Nicholls.

West Region

Idaho St @ Montana St (47-59), No Arizona @ No Colorado (56-52), Cal Poly SLO @ Portland St (70-63), San Diego @ So Utah (53-66). BYE – North Dakota.



Northeast Region

Bryant @ CCSU (67-69), Robert Morris @ Sacred Heart (67-79). Albany @ St Francis (62-62), UT-Martin @ Wagner (75-57), Duquesne @ William & Mary (60-66).

SoCon 6

Charleston Southern @ Chattanooga (50-63), Gardner-Webb @ Hampton (68-76), Campbell @ Monmouth (62-73), Presbyterian @ VMI (73-77), ETSU @ Western Carolina (55-68).

Southland 6

Austin Peay @ Eastern Kentucky (69-55), Incarnate Word @ Lamar (69-70), Abilene Christian @ Murray St (62-64), No Alabama @ Texas St (54-70), Houston Baptist @ Tenn Tech (69-77).

Pioneer 6

Davidson @ Dayton (71-91), Jacksonville @ Marist (83-83), Butler @ Morehead St (86-78), Stetson @ Valparaiso (81-86). BYE – Drake.

Preparing for Week 1 of our Fantasy Football leagues – and Week 4 of the College Football season!

September 19, 2018

We see ten games in Week 4 where the ELO-Following Football numbers (and some other resources, including our eyeballs!) say the oddsmakers are slightly off. No guarantees, but hopefully we get more than five of these right and it balances out!

VIRGINIA (-28.5) at Old Dominion. We have it as forty. ODU is NOT very good at all. Take the points. 

Wisconsin at IOWA (+3.5). Iowa wins outright, in our view. No, Wisconsin isn’t as bad as they were last week, but Iowa’s pretty good, too. 

MINNESOTA (+2.5) at Maryland. We think the Gophers win outright, too. Maryland started strong, but they do that. Once the conference season starts, they fade – and Minnesota usually gets BETTER in conference play, too. 

STANFORD (-1.5) at Oregon. Have you seen who Oregon’s played so far? Bowling Green, Portland State, and San Jose State? They haven’t imagined playing anyone like the Cardinal!

WASHINGTON STATE (+3.5) at USC. Quick, while the Trojans are struggling with their freshman QB! This won’t last…but while they’re down, strike while the iron’s hot.

Ohio U at CINCINNATI (-7.5). The numbers only say it’s an 8-point margin, but Sagarin has it at 13, and if you watch the Bearcats’ games, they’ve been far beyond the spread every single game so far. They will be here, too. 

Florida Atlantic at UCF (- 13.5). Central Florida hasn’t lost much without Scott Frost as coach – they’ve still got their star QB. And FAU is simply not as good as they were last year: they’ve dropped from a rating of 22 to 32 in three weeks. Take UCF and the points. 

NORTHERN ILLINOIS (+10) at Florida State. Is it a no-brainer to say “how will the Seminoles even score ten points, much less win by ten”? Maybe. NIU is better than Samford, and Samford should have beaten them. Take the Huskies. 

COASTAL CAROLINA (+4) at UL-Lafayette. I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen either team play this year. But we (and Sagarin and…) have the Chanticleers winning by two. That’s a BIG gap.

UNLV at ARKANSAS STATE (-7.5). The Rebels aren’t too bad, but stAte is very good this year. All three power schools in the Sun Belt are solid this season (Troy and App St as well). Take the points. 

Here are the STARTING SCORES for the two fantasy formats – SBAC and the RELEGATION LEAGUES. This weekend’s games will adjust these numbers by the amount each team exceeds or fails to reach their ELO-FF point spreads, and we’ll get those printed as soon after Saturday night as we can.


Week ONE – START SCORES – SBAC Fantasy League

(All conferences use the same scheduling template – listed alphabetically, R1 is

   as follows: 10 @ 1, 6 @ 2, 3 @ 5, 8 @ 7, 4 @ 9.)


NEW ENGLAND (Conf 1)              OHIO (Conference 2)

Buffalo @ U Mass (49-41)                  West Virginia @ Bowling Green (50-21)

Temple @ Army (34-36)                     Notre Dame @ Kent St (49-22)

Penn St @ Boston C (20-13)               Indiana @ Miami-OH (43-33)

U Conn @ Syracuse (28-54)               Ohio State @ Ohio U (36-9)

Rutgers @ Pitt (29-47)                        Marshall @ Purdue (30-36)


GREAT LAKES (Conf 3)                 MIDWESTERN (Conf 4)

North Dakota St @ Akron (39-26)    So Dakota St @ Ball State (46-27)

Minnesota @ Central Mich (47-32) Nebraska @ Cincinnati (32-38)

Eastern Mich @ Mich St (21-39)       Illinois @ Iowa State (22-41)

Western Mich @ Toledo (31-41)       No. Illinois @ Missouri (22-38)

Michigan @ Wisconsin (18-17)         Iowa @ Northwestern (28-21)


MID-ATLANTIC (Conf 5)             TOBACCO ROAD (Conf 6)

James Madison @ App St (26-33)     NC A&T @ Duke (20-47)

Navy @ East Carolina (44-34)          Old Dominion @ Memphis (21-54)

Kentucky @ Maryland (33-30)          Mid Tenn St @ NC State (21-40)

Virginia Tch @ Virginia (31-18)         Vanderbilt @ Tennessee (32-32)

Louisville @ W Kentucky (43-32)    No Carolina @ Wake Forest (26-37)


PLANTATION (Conference 7)      PANHANDLE (Conference 8)

Kennesaw St @ Charlotte (53-43)    Jacksonville St @ UCF (19-41)

Ga Tech @ Coastal Car (42-30)        Ga Southern @ Florida (32-45)

Clemson @ Ga State (45-15)              FAU @ Florida State (29-35)

South Carolina @ Liberty (45-26)    So Alabama @ Miami-FL (14-50)

Georgia @ Troy (34-11)                       FIU @ USF (26-43)


DEEP SOUTH (Conference 9)       GULF COAST (Conference 10)

UL-Monroe @ Alabama (-2 to 46)   Sam Houston St @ Arkansas (39-49)

So Miss @ Auburn (13-44)                 Texas @ Arkansas State (31-23)

La Tech @ Ole Miss (28-37)               Houston @ Rice (53-28)

UAB @ Tulane (38-42)                        Texas St @ Texas A&M (19-56)

Miss St @ UL-Lafayette (46-17)        LSU @ UTSA (47-18)


LONE STAR (Conference 11)         ROCKY MOUNTAIN (Conf 12)

Illinois State @ Baylor (31-37)           New Mex St @ Air Force (35-57)

TCU @ No Texas (30=21)                   Colorado St @ Arizona (29-46)

Oklahoma @ SMU (40-9)                  Arizona State @ Colorado (26-28)

Tulsa @ Texas Tech (26-42)              Kansas State @ Kansas (36-29)

Okla St @ UTEP (38-18)                     BYU @ New Mexico (43-32)


BEAR REPUBLIC (Conf 13)           NORTHWEST (Conf 14)

Weber State @ Cal (27-31)                 E. Washington @ Boise State (19-46)

Stanford @ Fresno St (21-18)             Utah St @ Hawaii (41-32)

Nevada @ San Jose St (49-44)           Oregon @ Utah (19-27)

UNLV @ UCLA (34-42)                     Washington St @ Washington (11-24)

San Diego St @ USC (22-29)              Oregon St @ Wyoming (37-44)


Week ONE – START SCORES – Relegation Leagues

(All conferences use the same scheduling template – listed alphabetically, R1 is as follows: 10 @ 1, 6 @ 2, 3 @ 5, 8 @ 7, 4 @ 9. Since most conferences have nine teams, “10” is a bye in those conferences – all regions in levels 1 – 4, plus some at 5 and 6.)


Northeast Region

Ohio St @ Louisville (29-9), Michigan @ Notre Dame (19-17), Michigan St @ West Virginia (18-24), VaTech @ Penn St (10-18), BYE – Boston College.

Southeast Region

Clemson @ Georgia (8-15), Duke @ So Carolina (23-23), LSU @ Auburn (13-18), Miss St @ Miami FL (14-17), BYE – Alabama.

Midwest Region

Northwestern @ Oklahoma St (15-31), Oklahoma @ Wisconsin (18-9), TCU @ Missouri (22-21), Texas A&M @ Texas (20-22), BYE – Iowa.

West Region

Oregon @ Washington St (21-27), Colorado @ Stanford (15-29), USC @ Cal (27-25), Washington @ Utah (19-14), BYE – Arizona State.


Northeast Region

Maryland @ Purdue (30-36), Pitt @ Virginia (31-32), Rutgers @ Marshall (33-47), Toledo @ Syracuse (28-34), BYE – Indiana.

Southeast Region

Florida St @ Kentucky (27-32), Ga Tech @ Wake Forest (26-30), NC State @ Florida (22-24), Vanderbilt @ Ole Miss (28-32), BYE – Arkansas.

Midwest Region

Iowa St @ Kansas State (26-25), Kansas @ Texas Tech (26-39), Memphis @ Illinois (38-24), Nebraska @ Minnesota (29-38), BYE – Baylor.

West Region

Boise St @ Fresno St (21-22), BYU @ Utah St (29-32), Oregon St @ Arizona 29-44, UCLA @ San Diego St (26-37), BYE – Air Force.


Northeast Region

Cincinnati @ Miami-OH (43-35), Eastern Mich @ Western Mich (38-39), Navy @ Buffalo (38-34), Temple @ Ohio U (36-36), BYE – Army.

Southeast Region

FAU @ No Carolina (31-35), Middle Tenn @ Troy (34-40), USF @ UCF (19-29), Tennessee @ So Miss (41-35), BYE – Appalachian St.

Midwest Region

Louisiana Tech @ No Illinois (35-37), No Texas @ UL-Monroe (43-30), SMU @ Houston (25-43), Tulsa @ Tulane (38-42), BYE – Arkansas St.

West Region

Nevada @ New Mexico St (54-44), New Mexico @ Wyoming (37-46), San Diego St @ Hawaii (41-52). UTEP @ UNLV (39=58), BYE – Colorado State


Northeast Region

Bowling Green @ U Conn (51-53), Central Mich @ W Kentucky (43-50), James Madison @ Ball State (46-33), U Mass @ Kent State (49-52), BYE – Akron.

Southeast Region

East Carolina @ Ga Southern (40-47), FIU @ UAB (39-43), Ga State @ Coastal Carolina (42-48), South Alabama @ Old Dominion (51-50). BYE-Charlotte

Midwest Region

Northern Iowa @ Sam Houston St (46-36), Rice @ Western Illinois (40-56), Texas State @ Illinois State (34-56), UTSA @ UL-Lafayette (46-50), BYE – Central Arkansas

West Region

 Montana @ Sacramento State (46-45), North Dakota St @ Weber State (38-26), South Dakota @ Idaho (52-40), UC Davis @ South Dakota State (24-48). BYE – Eastern Washington.


Northeast Region

Maine @ Rhode Island (48-48), New Hampshire @ Villanova (48-58), Richmond @ Indiana State (50-51), Towson @ Stony Brook (49-54), Youngstown State @ Delaware (47-41).

Southeast Region

Jacksonville State (45-42), Kennewick St @ Wofford (43-43), Mercer @ Furman (50-52), Citadel @ Samford (43-60), BYE – Elon.

Midwest Region

Missouri State @ Northwestern State (60-49), Nicholls @ Stephen F Austin (65-52), SE Louisiana @ McNeese (46-56), Southern Illinois @ SE Missouri (56-48), BYE – Eastern Illinois.

West Region

Montana State @ Northern Arizona (49-50), North Dakota @ Southern Utah (53-53), Northern Colorado @ Idaho State (50-59), San Diego @ Portland State (70-66), BYE – Cal Poly SLO.


Northeast Region

Central Connecticut State @ Robert Morris (78=72), Duquesne @ Wagner (72=66), Sacred Heart @ Bryant (64-73), UT-Martin @ St Francis (PA) (62-60), William & Mary @ Albany (59-61);

SoCon 6

Chattanooga @ Gardner Webb (69-55), East Tennessee State @ VMI (75-71), Hampton @ Charleston Southern (60-71), Presbyterian @ Monmouth (59-76), Western Carolina @ Campbell (70-66).

Southland 6

Eastern Kentucky @ Incarnate Word (67-63), Houston Baptist @ Tennessee State (54-77), Lamar @ Austin Peay (49-73), Northern Alabama @ Murray State (62-70), Tennessee Tech @ Abilene Christian (60-72).

Pioneer 6

Dayton @ Jacksonville (80-74), Drake @ Valparaiso (77-73), Marist @ Davison (88-84), Stetson @ Morehead St (86-88), BYE – Butler.


The AFL Home and Away Season Wrap-Up – The Teams

originally published in the Roar – Aug 30 2018

With the finals set and the powers that be granting us a week’s respite in their divine benevolence to recuperate from a tremendously exciting season that apparently desperately needs fixing, it’s the perfect time to look back on the season that was for each of our eighteen teams which we vicariously lived and died with for six months (and for 44% of us, will continue to do so for anywhere from a week to a month more).

Using the data from the ELO-Following Football database, we’ll look at the pre-season predictions, the week-to-week predictions, and how the season shaped across the year. Later, we’ll take a look at the individual players – the best and fairest, the most and least surprising, and much more. Finally, we’ll take a glance at our crystal computer ball and see what September has in store. Dig in!

Richmond Tigers

2018 finish: Minor premiers, 1st place, 18-4, 136.1%, +569 point margin.

Last year: 3rd place (15-7). Won Grand Final. You probably heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Pre-season predictions: Averaging all predictions (and we found dozens!), Richmond was the consensus fourth choice, behind fellow Grand Finalist Adelaide and the two Sydney clubs. Readers of The Age and our own Adelaide Docker both projected them to finish first, however, as did FMI ( and The Arc (

ELO-FF Ratings: Richmond ended 2017 as the highest rated team, and so they began 2018 the same way, with a rating of 77.8 entering week one. They dropped below 70 after three games, rose to a season high of 84.3 after a week seven demolition of Fremantle, and have spent the rest of the year hovering steadily atop the board between ratings of 75 and 82. The only time they’ve dropped out of the top spot? This weekend, after a narrow victory reduced their own rating to 72.5 and Geelong beat its second straight opponent by a century, the Tigers fell to third place (Melbourne).

Other weekly ranking services: While they usually started around third or fourth, the Tigers quickly ascended to the top of every one of the ranking services we subscribe to, somewhere between the fourth and seventh rounds, and have universally stayed there ever since, although Geelong and Melbourne have caught them in a couple others besides ours.

Week-by-week prediction records: (We’re going to provide a sampling for each team of the weekly predicted records for some of the prognosticators, to give you a sense of how each team fared in comparison with those expectations as well.)

Betting line: 20-2, +496 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 21-0-1, +612 predictions: 21-1, +507

“Pick-A-Winner”: 17.5 wins, 4.5 losses

The Roar*: 20-2; individual picks were 100-21.

The Age: 21-1; individual picks were 225-39.

CrowdBet percentages: 20-2; total percentage was 1839% win, 361% lose.

(My personal picks had them going 20-2.)

Against The Spread: The Tigers went 12-10 versus the early line point spread this season.


 (* We also included the predictions of “mastermind5991” whenever he made them, because of the extensive care he made to break down the games when he was available to do them.)


West Coast Eagles

2018 finish: 2nd place, 16-6, 121.4%, +355 point margin.

Last year: 8th place (12-10), famously beat Port in OT but then lost big to GWS in the semifinal.

Pre-season predictions: NOBODY had them improving significantly over last season: the highest prediction was seventh place (The Arc), with a few eighth places strewn about. The consensus placement was 12th place, between St. Kilda above them and (ahem) Collingwood below. (We all look really smart right about now.)

ELO-FF Ratings: The Eagles started this year in 11th place right around “average” at 49.0 (the mean is always 50), and immediately rose to 61.4 by R4. After a bit of a stall, they made it to their season high of 72.9 and second place following their R9 rout of Richmond at Optus Stadium. Since then, they’ve done a gradual slide down to their present rating of 63.2 due to a combination of “market correction” and forward injuries, in sixth place.

Other weekly ranking services: The primary difference in the West Coast rankings elsewhere is that they reached their pinnacle placement earliest in the ELO-FF system; the others had them still moving higher as late as R14 in some cases. They’re sitting around third to sixth in all of them right now.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 13-9, +200 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-7, +238 predictions: 12-10, +136

“Pick-A-Winner”: 14 wins, 8 losses

The Roar*: 14-8; individual picks were 77-44.

The Age: 15.5 – 6.5; individual picks were 170-94.

CrowdBet percentages: 15-7; total percentage was 1421% win, 779% lose.

(My personal picks had them at 14-8.)

Against The Spread: 14-8 versus the early line point spread this season.


Collingwood Magpies

2018 finish: 3rd place, 15-7, 120.4%, +347 point margin

Last year: 13th place (9-12-1), which placed them in the bottom third for scheduling this season. Which didn’t hurt their chances.

Pre-season predictions: We had them in the top eight partly because of that schedule and partly because of the AFL’s infallible predictor of future success: whenever a mid- or low-level team has a percentage inordinately high compared to their record (they were right at break-even), the following year will show a large leap in placement. Besides me, the only other forecasts expecting finals for the Pies were The Arc (again) and FMI. The overall average prediction was for Collingwood to remain in 13th place this season (and for the coaching search to begin on Monday), generally ranging from 11th down to 16th.

ELO-FF Ratings: They ended 2017 and began 2018 in seventh place, at 51.1 (slightly above average). Their growth has come in leaps after specific games, but they’ve been able to maintain that higher rating in the games that followed. For example, they jumped nine points after their 50-point upset of five-goal favorite Adelaide at the Oval in R4 (to 58), consolidated by another 3½-point leap after R5. They jumped another eight rating points after slamming a then-red-hot Demons club right before the bye in R12, hitting their season high of 69.8. They’re currently fifth at 63.5, not having dipped below 64 until now.

Other weekly ranking services: As high as second (US Footy), as low as sixth (FMI). Their movement paralleled the ELO-FF patterns, for the most part.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 13-8-1, +170 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-7, +238 predictions: 13-9, +138

“Pick-A-Winner”: 15.5 wins, 6.5 losses

The Roar*: 13.5-8.5; individual picks were 77-44.

The Age: 16-6; individual picks were 170-94

CrowdBet percentages: 13-9; total percentage was 1221% win, 979% lose

(My personal picks had them at 16-6.)

Against The Spread: 13-9 versus the early line point spread this season.



Hawthorn Hawks

2018 finish: 4th place, 15-7, 120.1%, +330 points.

Last year: 12th place (10-11-1) and out of finals, breaking a six-year streak of double-chances. If you’ll recall, Alastair Clarkston has “lost his touch”, was “too old”, the game “had passed him by”. Fortunately for the faithful, he apparently doesn’t read the news. (Only his text messages from Darwin.)

Pre-season predictions: Dinny Navaratnam over at had the Hawks coming in sixth – closer than anyone else came to their top 4 finish. The consensus placement was 10th place, under the conflicting assumptions that they would be better than last year but that the dynasty was over. We had them 10th as well. 9th was actually the most common guess (the ultimate compromise), balanced out by a few crash-and-burns.

ELO-FF Ratings: Starting almost dead average at 50.7 (eighth place tie w/ Melbourne), Hawthorn rose almost immediately to 64.3 after R4, and hit a season high of 65.8 in R21. If they hadn’t have played Brisbane, they might have risen all season long; as it is, they lost seventeen rating points from their two losses to the Lions in R9 and R17, two drops that they had to crawl back up from into the mid-60s each time. Fortunately for them, Brisbane won’t be in finals until NEXT year. The Hawks are currently sporting a rating of 64.2, placing them fourth.

Other weekly ranking services: Are not nearly as bullish on the Hawks, it seems: nobody else has them higher than seventh, and generally they’ve been less volatile in most other systems (except the Wooden Finger, where those Brisbane losses knocked the Hawks for a loop each time).

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 13-8-1, +198 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-5-2, +222 predictions: 13-9, +128

“Pick-A-Winner”: 16.5 wins, 5.5 losses

The Roar*: 17.5-4.5; individual picks were 86-45

The Age: 14-8; individual picks were 174-90

CrowdBet percentages: 16-6; total percentage was 1543% win, 657% lose.

(My personal picks had them going 17 and 5.)

Against The Spread: 14-8 versus the early line point spread this season.


Melbourne Demons

2018 finish: 5th place, 14-8, 131.4%, +550 point margin. (They were making durned sure they weren’t going to miss finals on percentage THIS year!)

Last year: 9th place by a mere 0.4826% to West Coast, 12-10. (Had Collingwood’s last goal been a behind and Vince’s last behind been a goal, that alone would have made up the gap.) So it seems extremely appropriate that it was against the Eagles that they broke the hoodoo last week.

Pre-season predictions: The consensus was seventh place, with the range from fourth to eighth and the occasional lack-of-faith out-of-finals guess. This one was pretty accurate.

ELO-FF Ratings: Started at 50.7 (tied for eighth), fell to 45.7 after R5, and then FIGURED IT OUT, leaping to 80.4 after R10. There were only three “circuit-breaker” games that moved teams ten or more points in one game – and Melbourne moved up after two of them in back-to-back games in R8-9. Then, they fell back to 70 by the bye, but two upsets of top 8 teams have them edging above the premiers at 75 in second place right now.

Other weekly ranking services: The three-week span in R8-9-10, where the Demons leaped 28 points in the ELO-FF ratings had varying effects on the other systems, but it brought them out of mediocrity in all of them. The Arc, for example, moved Melbourne from 10th to 4th in those three weeks, cutting the gap to Richmond in half. They’re currently top three in every system.

Week-by-week prediction records: If anything, these suggest the Demons still underperformed on game day…

Betting line: 15-6-1, +306 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 17-5, +350 predictions: 17-5, +307

“Pick-A-Winner”:  14 wins, 8 losses

The Roar*: 16.5 – 5.5; individual picks were 92-29.

The Age: an incredible 18-4; individual picks were 216-48 (second only to Richmond),

CrowdBet percentages: just 12-10; total percentage was 1326% for, 874% against.

(My personal picks also had them going 18-4, although I picked against them in R22.)

Against The Spread: 15-7 versus the early line point spread this season, best in the league. Make of that what you will.



Sydney Swans

2018 finish: 6th place, 14-8, 109.5%, +158 point margin

Last year: 5th place (14-8), despite starting 0-6. Nevertheless, they failed in the semifinals at Geelong after winning 15 of 17.

Pre-season predictions: The consensus was third place, behind Adelaide and GWS.

ELO-FF Ratings: After starting with the second-best rating and ticking slightly up to lead with 76.6 after game one, they’ve never rediscovered that lofty perch. Over the next four months, they never fell below 66, however – until that fateful loss to Gold Coast in R18 and subsequent beatdown by the Bombers the next Friday. They dropped fifteen points to 51 and are only now back near their previous territory, sitting at 60.1 right now, in a clump of seven teams between 60-65 in fourth through tenth.

Other weekly ranking services: Very similar all season – started in the penthouse, wandered about the top half most of the season, stared into the abyss (below the Roos after R20 just about everywhere) and currently sit between 7th and 11th in every system.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 15-5-2, +272 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-6-1, +279 predictions: 16-6, +255

“Pick-A-Winner”: 14.5 wins, 7.5 losses

The Roar*: 16-6; individual picks were 83-38.

The Age: 13.5-8.5; individual picks were 171-93.

CrowdBet percentages: 17-5; total percentage was 1552% win, 648% loss.

(My personal picks had them going 15-7.)

Against The Spread: 11-11 versus the early line point spread this season. “As expected.”



Greater Western Sydney Giants

2018 finish: 7th place, 13-8-1, 114.3%, +237 point margin, not that it’s mattered since round five.

Last year: 4th place (14-6-2) – the first club with consecutive draws since Carlton in 1921. Lost to eventual premiers Richmond at the MCG in front of 94000 Tiger fans and 258 Giant fans.

Pre-season predictions: The consensus opinion (before the onslaught of injuries hit) was that the Giants were the Greater of the Sydneys, predicted to be in second place at year’s end. Cam Rose of The Roar had them pegged in seventh, as did Michael Whiting of, and nobody considered them missing finals as a reasonable possibility, although after falling to 4-5-1 in R10, it was more likely that not, statistically.

ELO-FF Ratings: The Giants started at 60.9, a tenth of a point behind the Cats in the battle for fifth. (The top three were all in the 70s.) A huge R1 victory over an overrated Bulldogs team propelled them towards a high of 70.7 after R4, but they fell all the way to 42.5 after the aforementioned R10. With Josh Kelly back, they started a gradual climb that reached a seasonal peak of 71.3 three weeks ago, but the latest set of injuries dropped them back into the bottom of that 60-65 pack, just above the Swans.

Other weekly ranking services: Unlike us, most systems saw the Giants peak in R2 or R3. Of course, we all have graphs shaped like a valley, the riverbed being around R10 or so, with a canyon lip here at the end.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 14-8, +265 points

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-7, +278 predictions: 17-5, +281

“Pick-A-Winner”: 16.5 wins, 5.5 losses

The Roar*: 15-7; individual picks were 82-39.

The Age: 16-6; individual picks were 176-88.

CrowdBet percentages: 15-7; total percentage was very similar: 1483% win, 717% lose.

(My personal picks had them at 16-6.)

Against The Spread: Just 8-14 versus the early line point spread this season. Hard to live up to expectations when your injured list could beat your playing list.



Geelong Cats

2018 finish: 8th place, 13-9, 131.6%, +491 point margin.

Last year: 2nd place, 15-6-1. Lost to Richmond, defeated Sydney, lost to Adelaide in the preliminary final. Adding Ablett back into the mix apparently gained them negative 2.5 wins this season.

Pre-season predictions: Fifth place, although the grouping in slots 3-4-5 was extremely close between the Swans, Tigers, and Cats. (At least all three made finals.) Adelaide Docker and I were alone on our tree limb predicting they would fail to return to the final eight, both of us placing them in tenth. (In every one of the past 11 years, and 15 of the past 16, either two or three new teams have made finals, although I wouldn’t have guessed Adelaide to miss if you’d given me nine guesses.)

ELO-FF Ratings: Started grouped with GWS in fifth at 61.0. Strong wins over GWS and the Magpies moved them up to 72.0 after R8; poor performances against Essendon and Carlton dropped them to 60.5 after R10. Since then, they stayed within that range until the 23-goal run against Fremantle and 100-point rout of the Suns shot them past Richmond to 80.4, the highest score in the league.

Other weekly ranking services: You could just about determine how immediately flexible a rating system is by where the Cats finished the season. Those of us with very responsive formulas have the Cats at or near first place; others which take a broader view still see the Cats as a work in progress. US Footy still has them in eighth, amazingly, but they use a wide-angle lens…

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: Odds makers had them winning 16 and losing 4, with 2 even bets. +331 points.

ELO-FF forecasts: 15-6-1, +339. predictions: 17-5, +344.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 14.5 wins, 7.5 losses

The Roar*: 16.5 – 5.5; individual picks were 89 and 32.

The Age: 15-7; individual picks were 165-99.

CrowdBet percentages:17-5; total percentage was 1601% win, 599% loss.

(My personal picks had them going just 13-9.)

Against The Spread: 12-10 versus the early line point spread this season.



North Melbourne Kangaroos

2018 finish: 9th place, 12-10, 108.9%, +160 point margin.

Last year: 6-16, just a R23 victory away from the wooden spoon.

Pre-season predictions: It seemed unlikely that the Roos would out-Brisbane Brisbane this year, but that’s what they did. Before the season, only Gold Coast was a longer-shot at the premiership, and they were not-coincidentally tied with the Lions in most odds-makers’ minds.

ELO-FF Ratings: Needless to say, North started way south on the ELO ladder, at 37.5 and in 15th place. They reached their peak at 63.4 and sixth place at midseason, R11. They ended the season just above 50, the first of the bottom section in 11th place.

Other weekly ranking services: Were all shaped exactly the same, and precisely the opposite of GWS – a mountain peaking mid-season. They ended every list at the tail end of the lead pack, either 11th or 12th with Port Adelaide.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 8-13-1, – 30 points.

ELO-FF forecasts: 10-11-1, +48 predictions: 10-12, +8

“Pick-A-Winner”: 11.5  wins, 10.5 losses

The Roar*: 9.5 – 12.5; individual picks were 55-66.

The Age: 9.5 – 12.5; individual picks were 118-134.

CrowdBet percentages: 8 and 14; total percentage was 935%.

(My personal picks had them going 10-12.)

Against The Spread: 10-12 versus the early line point spread this season.



Port Adelaide Power

2018 finish: 10th place, 12-10, 107.6%, +126 point margin.

Last year: 6th place, 14-8. Lost (painfully) on an overtime, after-the-siren goal on a free kick that SA fans will undoubtedly tell you was questionable at best. They cleverly spared themselves that pain this season.

Pre-season predictions: Like the year before, the consensus was sixth place. The range of forecasts roamed from second to tenth; I freely confess to be one of those thinking the additions to their already-strong roster would push them into contention for the championship this season. (And when they were 11-4, they seemed poised to do so.)

ELO-FF Ratings: They were in fourth place with a rating of 62.4 in March. Two quick wins pushed them to 68, their high point this season. Three poor games dropped them 14 points, but they returned to a hillock of 63.7 after their R14 defeat of the Demons. However, only a pathetic performance by the Bulldogs against them in R19 kept the Power from reducing their rating in each of their final eight games, incredibly ending the season below average, at 49.0.

Other weekly ranking services: As we said above, they started well, looked like a threat, and ended either 11th or 12th on everyone’s list. You know – like in real life.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: The Power were favored by pundits in 17 games this season, expected to go 17-5 with a +296 margin.

ELO-FF forecasts: 14-8, +235. predictions: 13-9, +208.

“Pick-A-Winner”:  13 wins, 9 losses.

The Roar*: 13-9; individual picks were 79-42.

The Age: Also 13-9; individual picks were 169-95.

CrowdBet percentages: 15-7; total percentage was 1430% to win, 770% to lose.

(My personal picks had them going 13-9, too.)

Against The Spread: The Power went just 9-13 versus the early line point spread this season.



Essendon Bombers

2018 finish: 11th place, 12-10, 105.1%, +94 point margin.

Last year: They were also 12-10, but last year that was enough to get them into the #7 slot in finals. Their 106.5% was 0.8 above eighth-place West Coast and 1.3 above ninth-place Melbourne.

Pre-season predictions: Almost universally, the Bombers were considered borderline finals candidates – over 2/3 of the predictions I found listed Essendon either eighth or ninth. There were more guesses higher up in the finals than below ninth place, so the overall consensus was that the Bombers would make finals in eighth place. (I had them in sixth.)

A tale of two seasons: In R1-8, they were 15th place, below Gold Coast; over R9-23, only Richmond and Collingwood bettered their 10-4 record.

ELO-FF Ratings: Matching the above stat, the starting rating of 46.4 dropped to 35 after their R8 loss to Carlton, and since then they had a steady climb, setting a new season high in each of the last five weeks, ending at 63.2, reaching sixth place.

Other weekly ranking services: While the general shape was similar across the board, the ending spot varied from ninth (FMI) up to fifth (Wooden Finger).

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 10-11-1, with a margin of -15.

ELO-FF forecasts: 8-13-1, -33. predictions: Just 6-16, with a margin of -174.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 11 wins, 11 losses.

The Roar*: 11-11; individual picks were 59 and 62.

The Age: 9-13; individual picks were 126-138.

CrowdBet percentages: 10-12; total percentage was 987% to win, 1213% to lose.

(My personal picks had them going just 7-15.)

Against The Spread: The Dons were 13-9 versus the early line point spread this season, indicating the improving nature of the team over the last four months of the season.



Adelaide Crows

2018 finish: 12th place, 12-10, 104.1%, +76 point margin.

Last year: Grand finalist, minor premier, 1st place, 16-5-1. Lost final game last season and injuries denied them a chance to finish the job this year.

Pre-season predictions: The Crows were the betting favorite over the summer, and as the preseason forecasts rolled in it was clear that was the way the pundits felt as well. “Adelaide Docker” had them seventh (perhaps thinking as a hometown cynic, although AD’s forecasts are notoriously random!), as did Travis King of, but generally everyone felt sure they’d remain top three or so.

ELO-FF Ratings: Big losses to Essendon and Collingwood in the first month knocked them from a top 3 rating down into the mid-60s, but it wasn’t until that terrible six-game stretch leading into the 88-32 loss to the Hawks that they really fell, hitting 43.2 as they entered their bye. From that nadir, their lowest rating in the four years we’ve used the ELO-FF, they crawled back up to 60.4 with their R23 win, ending in ninth, in that 4th-10th pack we’ve seen before.

Other weekly ranking services: Wooden Finger is most typical: starting at 25.9 (2nd), they slipped to 21.8 by R7, still 2nd, and then fell below zero (the system median) by R15, an amazingly brief span of time. Had it not been for their final game, that’s where the Crows would have ended; that big win pushed them to 5.7 and tenth.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 16-5-1, +274 points. The bettors believed right up to the end of the season.

ELO-FF forecasts: 10-11-1, +185. predictions: 14-8, +189.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 14 wins, 8 losses.

The Roar*: 15-7; individual picks were 78-43 in favor.

The Age: 12-10; individual picks were 149-115 to the good.

CrowdBet percentages: an unbelievable 17-5; total percentage was 1522% to win, 678% to lose.

(My personal picks had them going 14-8 this season.)

Against The Spread: 10-12 versus the early line point spread this season.



2018 finish: Between 12th and 13th, pretty much all season, although Brisbane made a charge upwards to move it just after the bye, and the Bulldogs and Port could have closed it from both sides given a few more games.

Last year: Almost non-existent; probably between 6th and 7th. In 2016, it was definitely between 7th and 8th once the Kangaroos faded from the top to barely in the final eight.

Pre-season predictions: The biggest gap in the consensus forecasts fell between the top 5 and the rest from sixth down: Adelaide, GWS, Sydney, Richmond, and Geelong. The three below that large break were Port, Melbourne, and Essendon. (Five out of those eight made finals.)


Western Bulldogs

2018 finish: 13th place, 8-14, 77.3%, – 462 point margin.

Last year: 11-11, 10th place.

Pre-season predictions: Consensus was ninth place, with surprisingly few placing them this low. The exception was, ahem, me.

ELO-FF Ratings: “Footscray” started at 45, in 13th, and followed a vague trend downwards towards their season low of 24 after their five-goal performance in R19. Their rating went up as they put a little burst on at season’s end, finishing their season back where they started: 13th, with a rating of 39.7.

Other weekly ranking services: Every other system had the Bulldogs 14th, behind Brisbane. (Ours placed the Lions at 39.5, two tenths below the Doggies.)

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: Favored only five times, 5-17, with a point differential of -308.

ELO-FF forecasts: 5-17, -421. predictions: 6-16, -305.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 4.5 wins, 17.5 losses

The Roar*: Just 4-18; individual picks were 23-98 against.

The Age: 6-16; individual picks were 72-192.

CrowdBet percentages: 5-17; total percentage was 566% win, 1634% loss.

(My personal picks had them going 5-17.)

Against The Spread: 8-14 versus the early line point spread this season, tied for the lowest in the league.



Fremantle Dockers

2018 finish: 14th place, 8-14, 76.2%, -485 point margin.                                                                                                      

Last year: Also 14th place, also 8-14, slightly lower at 74%. So….progress?

Pre-season predictions: Guess what? 14th place. The only specific forecast for 14th place, though, came from the readers poll at The Age. (I had them making finals in the number eight slot.)

ELO-FF Ratings: They started third from the bottom, at 25.7, and ended third from the bottom, at 20.1. There was a slight swell midseason, where they hit the bye at 38.6, but the poor form in the last third of the season brought them back to earth.

Other weekly ranking services: Almost everyone has them 16th at the death, except US Footy, which placed them 15th with St. Kilda below them by a whisker. The general shape of their season couldn’t help but be similar to that described in ELO-FF.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 7-15, – 276 point margin.

ELO-FF forecasts: 4-18, -477. predictions: 6-16, -282.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 5.5 wins, 16.5 losses

The Roar*: 5.5 and 16.5; individual picks were 40-81

The Age: 6-16; individual picks were 71 wins, 193 losses.

CrowdBet percentages: 7-15; total percentage was 751% for, 1449% against.

(My personal picks had them going just 3-19. Kinda hypocritical for someone picking them eighth, but then I saw them play…)

Against The Spread: 10-12 versus the early line point spread this season.



Brisbane Lions

2018 finish: 15th place, 5-17, 89.1%, – 224 point margin. No team with fewer than six wins has ever posted a percentage of 90; the Lions almost did.

Last year: Also 5-17, but 18th place with spoon in hand. Funny how we say they made so much progress this year when the record hasn’t changed.

Pre-season predictions: 15th place, and quite a few folks pegged that back in March.

ELO-FF Ratings: Started in fifteenth (29.6), thanked Hawthorn for providing a ten-point jump in R9, and finally made a significant move with their three-game streak up above 50 for the first time in four years. The last five weeks were probably an adjustment towards the norm, and they ended in 14th at 39.5, barely behind the surging Doggies.

Other weekly ranking services: Because the ELO-FF is more immediate response than most of the other systems we watched, Brisbane’s ELO score was higher (relatively speaking) than its other system scores at first. In the FMI, for example, the Lions didn’t pass WB until R17, and were never caught. If you read the Bulldogs’ piece, you know that Brisbane stayed ahead in everyone else’s system except ours.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 3-19, margin of -396.

ELO-FF forecasts: 6-16, – 303. predictions: 4-18, -318.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 5 wins, 17 losses.

The Roar*: 3-19; individual picks were 22-99.

The Age: 4.5 – 17.5; individual picks were 58-206.

CrowdBet percentages: 2-20; total percentage was 369% up, 1831% down.

(My personal picks had them going 6-16.)

Against The Spread: 11-11 versus the early line point spread this season.


St. Kilda Saints

2018 finish: 16th place, 4-17-1, 75.6%, margin of – 519.

Last year: 11th place, 11-11. “One” for the ages.

Pre-season predictions: Sigh. Boringly, 11th place, just like last year. (I placed them there, too.) NOBODY had them falling so far, so completely out of contention after several competitive years (14th, then 9th, then 11th).

ELO-FF Ratings: Here’s their season in ten words: “Their highest rating for the season was on opening day.” After that (49.8, directly between Hawthorn and West Coast!), they were down to 35 by R4, 29.4 at the bye, and finished the season at 30.7, in 15th place.

Other weekly ranking services: …didn’t see such a moribund pattern. The Arc, for example, had peaks after R9 and a season high peak at R17 – before also finishing in 15th place.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 5-17, margin of -465 points.

ELO-FF forecasts: 5-17, – 348. predictions: 5-17, – 380.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 5.5 wins, 16.5 losses.

The Roar*: 5-17; individual picks were 26-95.

The Age: 5-17 (sensing a theme here!); individual picks were 59-205.

CrowdBet percentages: 5-17; total percentage was 539% win, 1661% loss.

(My personal picks had them going – you guessed it – 5 and 17.)

Against The Spread: 10-12 versus the early line point spread this season.


Gold Coast Suns

2018 finish: 17th place, 4-18, 59.9% (so close to a passing grade!), margin of -874.

Last year: 17th place, 6-16.

Pre-season predictions: 18th place, very slightly below North Melbourne in taking the wooden spoon. Given their preposterous schedule (Metricon was unavailable for the first half of the season), I thought it possible they wouldn’t win a game this year given such a young team, new coach, and so forth. Not often my seasonal forecast can be proven wrong in one rainy game in Cairns…

ELO-FF Ratings: Started at a measly 17.6, dead last. Victories in the first two rounds jumped them up to 28.4; they were still at 19 when their bye came early after the China trip. Then the bottom fell out: they dropped to their season low of 3.2 (positive, at least), after losses to Geelong (at home, finally!) and GWS by a combined score of 255-52 in R11-12. They settled in at 6.9 by season’s end, 17th place; only Carlton’s debacle gave the Suns’ failure perspective.

Other weekly ranking services: The Blue and Gold tour of the bottoms of all these systems: Both teams put up heavy losses to lower their ratings. The FMI always had Gold Coast significantly below Carlton (and they finished 18th); the Suns rose above the Blues’ horizon for good after R20 on the Wooden Finger and US Footy, and after R18 on the Arc.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 2-20, – 688 points.

ELO-FF forecasts: 1-21, – 791 points. predictions: 3-19, -596.

“Pick-A-Winner”: 3 wins, 19 losses.

The Roar*: 1.5 – 20.5; individual picks were an amazing 8 – 113!

The Age: 2-20; individual picks were 40-224.

CrowdBet percentages: 3-19; total percentage was 404% for (hah!), 1796% against.

(My personal picks had them going 3-19.)

Against The Spread: 10-12 versus the early line point spread this season.


Carlton Blues

2018 finish: 18th place, 2-20, wooden spoon, 59.3%, -929 points below.

Last year: 16th place, 6-16, 78%. Regardless of how you cut it, this season was a step back.

Pre-season predictions: Carlton was expected to finish ahead of North and Gold Coast in 16th, although the Lions were projected to pass them (as they did). A handful of predictors had them last, including the publication Big Footy, but no one seriously had them outside of the bottom four (Note the word “seriously”, AdelaideDocker!).

ELO-FF Ratings: Their ELO-FF graph looks a lot like the scoring graph for most of their games: starting within reason, gradually descending to the abyss. They started in 15th, hit a little bounce at 15.2 before win number one, reaching 22.6 at the bye. Then, with the exception of win number two, there was a gradual descent to their final rating of (drum roll please) 0.1, dead last. (By the way, there have been teams wallowing in the negative ratings, most recently Brisbane at one point last season.)

Other weekly ranking services: See the notes for Gold Coast.

Week-by-week prediction records:

Betting line: 1-21, -621 points.

ELO-FF forecasts: 2-20, -663 points. predictions: 5-17, -446

“Pick-A-Winner”: 2 wins, 20 losses.

The Roar*: 1.5 – 20.5; individual picks were 13-108.

The Age: 2-20; individual picks were 47-229.

CrowdBet percentages: 1-21; total percentage was 311% win, 1889% loss.

(My personal picks had them winning three games, none of which they won.)

Against The Spread: 8-14 versus the early line point spread this season.



2018 FBS Football Forecast – 

Click here to go to the blog page for our 130-team forecast for the college football season!


AFL Meta-Player of the Year Update

Originally published in The Roar, Aug 17, 2018

          We’re no more than ten days from the end of the home-and-away season, so even counting finals we’ve only 27 occasions to savor the joy of watching the greatest players perform the greatest sport on the planet.

180 down, 18 to go until the recently-installed week off for teams to try to heal some of their marginally fit players, so to put their best 22 on the grass for the four-week, nine-game premiership tournament. As has been documented by many pundits (our own Ryan Buckland among them), the teams which might have served as more credible challengers – the Eagles, Magpies, Swans, and Crows among them – have suffered such a devastating series of wrenched wings, busted beaks, and crooked claws that none of them will face the so-far injury-averse Tigers with a full nest of their 22 best – or even close to it.

The same scenario arises in the battle for the best player awards. Nat Fyfe was playing at the heights he achieved in his pinnacle season of 2015, but lost his shot at the Brownlow with a suspension in round 12 and his season in round 15 with that hamstring injury (regardless of whether he makes it back this week or next, or not). Similar stories affect so many others this season: Marcus Bontempelli (hips, appendicitis), Josh Bruce (leg), Lance Franklin (foot), Josh Kelly (), Josh J Kennedy ( ), Callum Mills (foot), Nic Naitanui (back), Jaegar O’Meara (hip), Paddy Ryder (hip flexor), Aaron Sandilands (calf), Rory Sloane ()….

Who’s left? Here are the top players on the Following Football “Meta Player Of The Year” scorecard with two rounds remaining in the season:

AFL ranking PLAYER Point Total 80% games*
1 Mitchell, Tom (Haw) 464 10
2 Cripps, Patrick (Car) 400 6
2 Gawn, Max (Mel) 400 10
4 Oliver, Clayton (Mel) 390 5
5 Grundy, Brodie (Col) 373 7
6 Martin, Dustin (Rich) 365 7
7 Fyfe, Nat (Fre) 348 7
8 Franklin, Lance (Syd) 341 6
9 Dangerfield, Patrick (Gee) 325 7
10 Macrae, Jack (WB) 314 5
11 Yeo, Elliot (WC) 293 5
12 Whitfield, Lachie (GWS) 291 3
13 Higgins, Shaun (North) 286 5
13 Gaff, Andrew (WC) 286 5
15 Coniglio, Stephen (GWS) 273 4
16 Selwood, Joel (Gee) 272 1
17 Beams, Dayne (Bris) 271 4
18 Pendlebury, Scott (Coll) 260 5
19 Ablett, Gary (Gee) 257 5
20 Gray, Robbie (Port) 255 4
*games played where the player received recognition as outstanding by at least 80% of our sources. 

Is Tom Mitchell catchable? Yes, but probably only if he has two average or below-par games (his Hawks play St. Kilda and Sydney, teams with decent to good midfields), while either Max Gawn or (maybe) Clayton Oliver goes off against one or both of Melbourne’s last two opponents (West Coast and GWS, two teams more likely to be equipped to stop Oliver than Gawn), in games that the Demons know they must win, OR Patrick Cripps has at least one and probably two three-vote caliber games (Carlton plays both the Bulldogs and Adelaide at Etihad), which means the Blues have to either win or get close to winning those games for him to gather that kind of voting attention.

The two men behind them, Collingwood’s Brodie Grundy and Richmond’s reigning champion Dustin Martin, are capable of reaching the number 464 – but that assumes Mitchell doesn’t even play in games that Hawthorn certainly feels required to (try to) win, and it’s hard to imagine a game where the league leader in disposals doesn’t gather enough ball to garner at least some votes each week, barring injury. And behind Martin, it’s well-nigh impossible to imagine even Buddy Franklin going over one hundred points to the good in two games.

So for me, it looks like the man most likely to prevent Tom Mitchell from at least the Meta-Player of the Year award (and thus the favorite contender for the other versions of the MVP awards surrounding the AFL) is Max Gawn.

What about the Ccleman? Gold Coast made this contest interesting Saturday just by being Gold Coast and giving Jack Riewoldt nothing but clean grass and easy goal opportunities. We all love watching a great forward kick a bag, and don’t misunderstand: Jack Riewoldt IS a great forward, and is having a great season. But it’s not like he kicked 10.1 – Riewoldt had sixteen scores Saturday, scoring 10.6 while being fed constantly by his midfield with the game out of reach by halftime. If he’d bagged fewer than eight, he’d have kicked himself instead of the footy that night. He won’t have quite such an easy time facing either the Bombers or the Bulldogs, even though Richmond will be heavily favored against both.

Meanwhile, the season-long leader, Ben Brown of North Melbourne, showed he had moxie by kicking four against that same tenacious Footscray defense, and goes up against Adelaide and the Saints to finish the season. It’s conceivable that Lance Franklin (currently six behind) or Tom Hawkins (eight back) could lock into a three-way race at the top. I’m convinced Buddy can do anything, but he’s facing a Giants team that’s on a roll and whose back line has been their standouts on this streak. Hawkins has an easier schedule with the Cats – Freo and the Suns – but eight back will require a game like Riewoldt had, where the team spoon-fed the goal chances to him.

So it seems as though it’s probably a choice between Jack Riewoldt of Richmond and Ben Brown of North Melbourne. The quality of competition is pretty even; Riewoldt’s team is better than the Tasmanian’s, but I like the redhead’s heart. I’m picking Ben Brown to hold on and win the Coleman Medal this season.

Now for the Rising Star voting. This is different than the other two most-discussed individual awards, in that there’s no concrete evaluations done during the season to work off of – just nominations. The voting panel will choose their Rising Star winner based on whatever criteria they personally feel drawn to: whether that’s the strength of their 2018 season or their potential for the next ten years is up to them.

The latter is purely subjective, a complete eye test. My eyes like the two Brisbane nominees, Cam Rayner and Alex Witherden; Jaidyn Stephenson of the Magpies, and Tom Doedee of Adelaide. All four should have strong careers barring injury, as will Oliver Florent in Sydney, Jack Higgins in Richmond, and James Worpel of the Hawks.

But regarding their performance this year, we can turn to the meta-PotY scoreboard to compare the 21 nominees so far (two more players will be nominated in rounds 22 and 23).

Rising Star Nominee Round nominated Score that round Total MPotY Points
SY Ben Ronke 8 49 106
AD Tom Doedee 2 8 81
CW Jaidyn Stephenson 4 2 77
BR Cam Rayner 15 9 60
PA Riley Bonner 1 25 59
SY Oliver Florent 11 1 58
BR Alex Witherden 9 2 54
FR Adam Cerra 16 3 54
HA James Worpel 21 26 52
FR Brennan Cox 12 23 49
GE Jack Henry 7 16 47
RI Jack Higgins 18 1 44
CA Paddy Dow 14 3 38
WB Ed Richards 10 1 33
HA Harry Morrison 20 3 30
WC Tom Cole 19 1 23
CW Sam Murray 3 1 23
WC Jake Waterman 6 1 22
SK Hunter Clark 13 1 21
SK Ben Long 5 9 18
GW Sam Taylor 17 2 11
? 22
? 23
No nominees from ES, GC, ME, or NM yet. 

Ben Ronke has had two spectacular games for the Swans that put him well ahead on this rubric, which you’ll recall is designed to recognize players who have games that stand out above their peers rather than to reward the slow-and-steady-wins-the-race types which may be just as important in this particular circumstance. Many of the names on this list have been consistent performers for their teams, but not spectacular. So this chart is only one set of inputs to consider in this case.

That’s always something you need to consider when it comes to using information in any way other than its original intent – it may not be appropriately applicable to other situations. Our Meta-Player of the Year totals are great for evaluating the top of the food chain players, but not particularly helpful in settling which players should fill slots 15-22 on your roster.

Finally, here are our Following Football choices for this weekend’s games: Richmond and Collingwood each by 16; Geelong by 61 (but that won’t account for a Nat Fyfe return…), Giants by 22 (reduce that by one Josh Kelly), Lions by 33, Hawthorn by 31, Bulldogs by 27, Eagles by 8, and Adelaide by 16 to end North’s chances of finals. We’re still projecting Richmond, West Coast, and Hawthorn to have the double chance, although we’re leaning towards Collingwood with the fourth spot over GWS at this moment.

That’s thinking Melbourne will win in R23 at home against the Giants and make the finals in sixth, with Geelong and Port taking the final two spots. If that tips the other direction, however, and the Demons fail to take any top eight scalps in the home-and-away, then the Giants slide back into the top four, Melbourne falls to ninth and Sydney slips up one into eight, behind Collingwood in fifth, Geelong and Port.

Points to Ponder

Originally printed in The Roar, August 8, 2018

The horror of Sunday’s games over the ineptitude of Carlton and Gold Coast, and in particular the maelstrom with Optus as its Oculus, has overshadowed the phenomenal first six games of Round 20. Five of the six games ended with the two combatants within a goal, and the outcome in doubt up until the last few seconds. (Saints, you let us down!) It’s an amazing string of games, almost identical in form: Leader is up several goals in the fourth quarter, then the trailing team comes from behind when we thought they were just about out of it, closes the gap to within a goal, then falls just short of victory.

Seriously, look at the fourth quarters of each of these games:

  1. Richmond is up 23 points at the sixteen-minute mark of Q4. Geelong scores three goals and is within four when Gary Ablett Jr. misses right with his last-minute shot at goal. (To be fair, it’s hard to criticize Gazza for the miss, even as he takes the blame on television. It’s a tough shot, taken under some duress, and was probably a 50-50 shot even for a great shot like the dual Brownlow medalist.) Richmond holds on to win by three.
  2. Hawthorn is up 21 points at the seventeen-minute mark of Q4. Essendon scores three goals over the next thirteen minutes, closing within four. James Worpel scores the “clinching” goal under two minutes to go, and although Travis Colyer snapped another closing goal, that wasn’t enough to catch the Hawks. Hawthorn holds on to win by four.
  3. North Melbourne is up 24 points at the nine-minute mark of Q4. Brisbane scores the next three goals (getting the picture?) to close the lead to just four with several minutes still to go – yet could not get another goal across the line, with Cam Rayner’s missed set shot in the last minute the headline. North holds on to win by three.
  4. Port Adelaide was up 13 at the five-minute mark, lost the lead to the Crows with a Matt Crouch goal before two more Port goals put the Power up ten points at the twenty-minute mark of Q4. Adelaide scores two goals and takes the lead with the now-infamous Josh Jenkins “goal” which – well, let’s just say that his grandma was right. Had the score review agreed with his assessment, this game would’ve gone exactly as the first three. Instead, this is the one game that went the way of the trailing team. Adelaide wins by three.
  5. Sydney is up 18 points after Buddy Franklin kicks his sixth goal a few moments into Q4. They did not score again for 24 more minutes, while the Magpies puts the next three goals (there’s that phrase again!) plus a few minors on the board to take a five-point lead. This is the only one of the five games in which the leading team lost the lead and then gained it back; the Swans took the four points with a toe-poke by young Tom McCartin at the death. Sydney wins by two.
  6. The Western Bulldogs are up by 45 at the end of three quarters. The Saints do mount a little bit of a comeback. They lost by just 35. Oh well.

Does the Brownlow inordinately favor players who simply never miss a game? Or are players who are out for three or four weeks with a relatively minor injury still realistic candidates? The nature of the award’s voting – a game-by-game selection of the three best players on the field during each game – is almost designed to give more of a chance to those star players who make the call every weekend. If you have 66 potential points available to you, and your closest competitor only has, say, 54 available because he missed four games? Are you significantly more likely to tally more votes than that competitor?

Or, does the argument that since you’re most likely only going to poll votes in a handful of those outstanding games, the total number of games played is less important than the total number of “impact” games you’ve played?

Tom Mitchell certainly makes a case for the first argument – he seems to be likely to poll at least a vote or two in every single game – whereas someone like Max Gawn or Lance Franklin, who can utterly dominate games but miss out on the voting entirely on other occasions, make an argument for the second. Last year, Dustin Martin made the case for the hybrid argument: if you’re the outstanding player in all twenty-two games your team plays, you’re going to wipe out any and all competition regardless. But there’s no Dusty in this year’s Brownlow race – not even Dusty himself. I’m betting on Mitchell, who has a handsome lead in the Meta-Player of the Year tabulations we track here at Following Football, although my personal vote would be for Gawn. He’s affected the outcome of more games than anyone else in the league this season.

As an aside, here are the current standings for the top 12 players in our Following Football Meta-Player of the Year for 2018

1 Tom Mitchell, HAW (458 points)

2. Max Gawn, MEL (398 points)

3. Patrick Cripps, CAR (386 points)

4 Clayton Oliver, MEL (385 points)

5. Brodie Grundy, COL (364 points)

6. Nat Fyfe, FRE (348 points)

7. Dustin Martin, RIC (342 points)

8. Lance Franklin, SYD (335 points)

9. Andrew Gaff, WCE (286 points)

10. Jack Macrae, WBD (285 points)

11. Patrick Dangerfield, GEE (283 points)

12. Shaun Higgins, NMK (282 points)

I’ve written about the Carlton debacle a couple of times recently, and Gold Coast’s mess once as well. But you just KNEW going into Sunday’s games that despite the unprecedented slough of close games, those two would be ten-goal routs. Well, we were wrong. They were 16- and 17-goal routs instead.

About the Punch in Perth, the Devastation in the Derby, the Op-tus-sle… enough has been said about it as well, but at the risk of adding to the boxing analogies, I’d like to throw my two cents into the ring.

The irony that the Andrews, Gaff and Brayshaw, are buds makes the incident all the more curious. Reports are that they were on the golf course together earlier in the week, before a big game against each other’s teams (and don’t tell me about the 7-12 Dockers not being a “big game” for the Eagles. It’s the Derby. It’s ALWAYS a big game!). That may very well have been the first of a series of little mistakes leading up to a flash of temper by a Brownlow favorite who could very well have ruined his team’s shot at a premiership this season with one bloody blow to his bro. Most athletes will tell you that when you’re going to be playing your sibling’s or best friend’s team coming up soon, you curtail communications until after the game has passed, at which point the winner takes the loser out for a stiff drink together (or vice versa, depending on taste). I have no interest in prying as to the cause of the outburst, and I haven’t seen it in the media reports, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if something emerging from that get-together in the days leading up to a Western Derby game where they occasionally ran up against one another wasn’t the original spark that got too much oxygen in Optus. (Okay, I’ll stop with the alliteration.)

What about the now-forgotten test game in Cofield on Saturday? They tried using an airport landing strip for a kick-out box that produced eighty-meter torpedoes after a minor score, which will negate the innate offensive advantage of scoring a minor, which will mean a reduction in long-range goal attempts or fancy around-the-body attempts or any other lower-percentage shots that make for great entertainment whether or not they score a goal or a behind. I can easily see the domino effect leading to a more conservative offense, defeating the entire purpose of the rule change.

As for the 6-6-6, I’ve heard nothing but extremely faint praise for the set-up, and while I don’t know that it’s worth giving the refs anything more to keep track of, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to do much harm when the suits shove it down the clubs’ throats, as they undoubtedly will, in order to say they’re doing something to improve the state of the game.

Which, after the 27 hours from 7:30 pm Friday to 10:30 pm Saturday, I’m convinced doesn’t particularly need improving.

Okay, but if you really want to DO something, AFL, fix the implementation of a couple of the other recent “fixes” like the deliberate out-of-bounds, the deliberate rushed behind, and the score review system which, frankly, every sport using it has fouled up to some degree.

See, the real problem is not the officiating. It’s the fact that we as a viewing public are torn between wanting to expose the imperfections of our players by imposing perfection on our equally-human officials. And the officials, frankly, have in every case in every sport spent FAR less time trying to achieve perfection at their craft than the players have at theirs – there’s no financial incentive or personal glory to make them do so. So we think that by adding technology to their bag of tricks, we’ll achieve that perfection. BUT perversely, we actually don’t mind the imperfection of the officials, as long as it isn’t one-sided imperfection, any more than we mind it in our players. So when we introduce the technology to see the flaws of our officials, we force our thinking to believe that “justice demands” perfection, when in reality we forget that justice is usually portrayed as being blind.

Let’s just let the officials do the best job they can, give them the same tools we give the viewing public so they’re not caught with their figurative pants down on a call that was obvious to us sitting at home, and accept any mistakes that come from that as the cost of not spending five hours parsing every nuance of every game in some misguided attempt at “justice”. Even in the five games within one goal in R20, only two of them faced judgments that might have changed the result of the game, and to my knowledge NOBODY has accused any officials of favoritism in making the relevant calls. It’s simply the price of doing business at the speed of sport.

Now, pick your ruckman and let’s ball up!

Round 21 is about to start, and here are our ELO-Following Football picks for the coming weekend’s games: Essendon by 29 over the Saints; Hawthorn by 2 over Geelong; Richmond by 68 over Gold Coast; Port by 10 over West Coast (not accounting for Gaff being missing – it’s going to be higher than 10); Collingwood and the Giants by 22 each over Brisbane and Adelaide, respectively Saturday night; North by 25 on the Bulldogs; Melbourne by 26 against the Swans; and Fremantle by 29 over Carlton to finish the round.

Our current ELO-FF forecast over the final three rounds looks like this: Richmond runs away with the minor premiership at 18-4. The three other double chances will most likely go to Collingwood and West Coast, playing each other in one qualifying final (where will be determined by how they each do in R22), while the Giants go to the MCG for a repeat of the most lopsided fanbase game in footy history. The elimination final games will be hosted by Melbourne and Hawthorn, probably both at the MCG on a Friday/Saturday basis while Richmond gets the Thursday night gig, which will put a possible Magpie home final Friday or Saturday at Etihad, to their dismay. Their opponents should be Port Adelaide (we’re saying against the sixth-seeded Hawks at this point), while the Demons play either Geelong or North Melbourne, depending on which one takes care of its business better than Sydney does. It’s very conceivable that the Cats, Swans, and Kangaroos all finish with thirteen wins, maybe even fourteen, and yet two of the three won’t get into the post-season.

Forecasting beyond that into September is fruitless, in my opinion, because I don’t see anyone beating the Tigers right now at the ‘G when they know it matters. The Eagles, Magpies, Giants – they’re all fighting a slough of player outs, while Richmond hasn’t had a star out more than one game all year. Barring a major player getting knocked out by injury, God forbid, the cup stays in Tiger Land (bum-bum-bum-bum) for one more year.

How bad is TOO bad?

First published in The Roar, July 29th, 2018

Watching the Carlton-Gold Coast Australian Rules football game Saturday, particularly the first half, was an exercise in patience. Even though the Blues gained a split of the season series with the Suns, they still seem doomed to “win” the wooden spoon this season – and watching them play, it isn’t hard to see why.

In seventeen games so far this year, before Saturday’s game at the Metricon, Carlton’s opponents have outscored the Blues by a total of 709 points. Over 41 points per game. Seven-goal losses, every time out.

If you’re a tipping person, you probably don’t bet on Carlton to win very often, nor do you likely favor their cousin in despair, the Gold Coast Suns. Gold Coast started the year with a pair of unexpected wins – one against Carlton, and the other in downright hazardous conditions on the northeast coast in Cairns, where they outswam the Kangaroos 55-39 in a game where every goal came at the same end of the field in torrential rains. They managed a third victory in week five at the Gabba while Brisbane was still learning to walk as a team, figuratively speaking.

Between then and Saturday, they had the same record as the Blues: one win, eleven losses, 510 points in arrears; Carlton’s record is 529 points under par. Had the regular season started in late April, the race for the spoon would be incredibly tight.

And as I detailed in an article a few days ago, combining the results of four distinct rating systems to compare teams, there really isn’t any competition.


My other strong sports passion is American collegiate football, although it has its own set of problems (just like every other sport or anything else, I suppose). Scheduling is one of those problems. Because there are upwards of 750 colleges which sponsor men’s football, setting up fair competition is a bit of a challenge.

There are, by my count, six vast divisions of programs, mostly determined by the amount of money the school is willing to spend on the sport. Conferences are set up within each of those collections – you probably know about the five “Power” conferences and the “Group Of Five” conferences right behind them, although there are actually 14 other conferences in major college football that stage their own championships. (But three of those opt out for various reasons. Never mind. It’s complicated.)

However, that doesn’t mean that teams don’t play each other intra-divisionally when they’re not facing teams in their own conference.

One practice that has drawn disproportionate attention because of the potential of abuse is something called “bodybag” games. A large program (think Alabama as an example) pays a smaller program (think Savannah State as an example, a school that can barely afford to give scholarships) something on the order of one million dollars American to come play them, in their (Alabama’s) stadium, presumably get the tar beaten out of it, with no plan for a “return” game as would be the case if you were scheduling with a “peer” school.

Alabama gets a cheap win, a chance for its alumni to come tailgate barbecue in the parking lot and brag about how good their team is, and far more than that million dollars in the coffer for selling out their 80,000-seat stadium (plus concessions, plus their tv deal, plus…)

Savannah State gets a million dollars added to their athletic department’s budget (minus the cost of traveling to the neighboring state of Alabama), which might very well keep three or four of their other sports afloat. They also get some TV exposure that their conference games against other relatively poor schools would never get (and you know the expression: “any publicity is good publicity”); their players (and recruiters) get to say that they played in that amazing stadium against the multi-time national champs, and they see first hand what “the best” looks like – almost always a plus when you’re a teacher of young men.

Win-win, right?

Except for the notion of a “competitive game”. They’re often called “body-bag games” because the visiting team is figuratively shipped out in a body-bag after the game, having been (figuratively) killed by the (figuratively) murderous championship team.

And some of those games can be truly terrible to watch. 84-0 is not an unusual score when the opponents are that disparate. I chose Savannah State as my example because just a few years ago, they were playing former national champion Florida State and being demolished something like 40-0 at halftime. A storm was bearing down on the Florida State stadium and was expected to arrive within an hour, well before the presumed end of the game as normally configured.

So the two head coaches and the referees agreed before the start of the second half to have a running clock for the rest of the game – the clock never stopped except for a time out, regardless of scores, out-of-bounds plays, turnovers, you name it. Final score: Florida State 55, Savannah State 0, and everyone got out before the worst of the storm hit.

Was that worth the price of admission? Was it worthy of an audience member’s wasted day? Perhaps – I suppose it depends on your point of view. Savannah State got their full paycheck. Florida State got all the gate money, although their concessions were undoubtedly down that game.

If you’re Alabama or Florida State, those games are just glorified scrimmages. They know they’ll have difficult games against teams at their own level (like each other) in their own conference and division. Playing one game against a Savannah State probably comes as a nice break for the coaches and players – the third and fourth string players get to play in a “real game” for their parents to see them in uniform.

There are all sorts of advantages, AS LONG as it’s only one game. If EVERY game is 84-0, it might be non-productive even for the team that’s winning. The University of Connecticut’s women’s basketball team deals with this “problem”.  They’re so far above 98% of their competition that they’ve run off multiple winning streaks recently measured in years, not games. Any game that’s competitive for them is a surprise.

Now put yourself in Savannah’s shoes. It’s a similar argument. You can put up with ONE of those games on your schedule. If you absolutely must, maybe two games spread out would be tolerable. But if you’re losing like that EVERY – SINGLE – WEEK? You’d have to be pretty special to keep playing. (And after taking a few beatings from teams so much stronger than you are, you’d probably run out of healthy players after a few games, too.)

I spent my first year and a half of college at the California Institute of Technology; Caltech for short, before my mother’s cancer brought me back home. Academically it was an amazing, unparalleled school, and it is to academics what Alabama is to college football.

As a sports college? Not nearly as successful. We often brag that our football team hasn’t lost a game since 1993 – because it was disbanded at the end of that season. In 2011, our men’s basketball team famously broke (wait for it) a 26-year long, 310-game losing streak in its conference (against “normal” schools) with a 46-45 last second win. It was national news.

Playing for a team like that gets old really fast. Watching a team playing like that gets old even faster. For seven years, I taught at a high school where the girls’ basketball team went 0-for-my-career there.

140 games: 18 a season plus two playoff games to be eliminated every year. Plus the last seven the season before I arrived – 147 in a row. Nobody wanted to go out for girls’ basketball by the end of my tenure there. (I was the band director, by the way; I had no hand in the basketball program. But I had to put a pep band together for every one of their home games. That became a chore itself for the same reason.)

What creates interest in any kind of competition is some sense of competitive balance – the notion that there’s at least a chance that David will slay Goliath. Whether you’re watching reality television or Aussie Rules footy, you aren’t going to care for very long if you think the outcome is pre-ordained. If the two candidates left for “The Bachelor” to choose from are roughly equal, you’re more likely to watch than if one is intelligent and beautiful, and the second is a hideous, foul-mouthed pedophile. (Of course, if you’re reading a sports column on line, you’re probably not likely to watch regardless of the candidates. Bad example.)

How long will fans keep coming to the grounds or tuning in on television to watch the weekly demolition of a team with no hope of winning? Even a club with the legendary past that the 16-time champion Blues have? They’re not showing reruns of the 1970 grand final, mind you: this is 2018. For the good of the other sixteen teams, there MUST be some sense that what happened a week ago at the Sydney Cricket Grounds is at least possible every week. It doesn’t have to happen more than a couple of times a year at minimum, but if it NEVER happens? Why would you continue to watch an AFL team scrimmage around human witch hats for two-plus hours?

I track the CrownBet numbers that the tipster contest collects each week, and the public perception of the viability of these two clubs is scary. Going backwards from before Saturday’s victory, the percentage of folks who tipped the Blues over their opponent each week was five, nine, thirteen (vs Brisbane), four, and four. For Gold Coast, those same numbers were zero, thirteen (vs Essendon), two, seven, and zero. Those zeroes mean that less than 0.5% of the people tipping that week’s AFL games believed in Gold Coast’s ability to win (against Sydney and Hawthorn, in these cases). The fact that they actually BEAT Sydney is almost immaterial: if nobody thought the Suns could win, nobody would have bothered tuning in to find out. (Following their win over Sydney, Gold Coast was tipped by 89% of those competitors, compared to 11% who correctly chose the Blues.)

In the United States, where I live, the major sports leagues convinced the courts several decades ago that the twenty or thirty different teams in each major league were independent companies, competing with each other economically, and therefore NOT a monopoly and thus not illegal under anti-trust law in our country. But the truth is that without those other companies, no single entity can exist, because they have no other teams to compete against. That’s why there are owners’ meetings; that’s why there’s a competition committee; that’s why they create their licensing agreements as one body. They co-exist as a confederated pool of similarly operated conspirators, not competitors.

The other sixteen teams in the AFL need the Blues and the Suns to be at least marginally competitive. Right now, that’s exactly what they are: marginally competitive. As long as the public continues to see them as no worse than that, then the status quo can continue. If it gets any worse, however, there isn’t any responsible choice but to either artificially prop those two teams up into a more competitive situation, or remove them from the competition for the good of the other teams and the fans. And that’s when the extra draft picks come into play.

But it shouldn’t come to that.

Do you know what it was that got my (sort-of) alma mater of Caltech out of the dungeon and actually into its conference as a valid participant? One player – a 6’10” young man names Nassar al-Rayes – started the turnaround. A legit big man gave those semi-talented players on the outside a little help, and they started winning two or three games in conference every year. Now, young men who actually played basketball in high school consider Caltech a school where they can keep playing as well as get a Nobel-quality education.

One player also brought that high school team of mine back into the realm of winning (occasionally). She was a ball-handling guard who didn’t care what the history of the team was: she was a basketball player, and she wasn’t going to quit to go play soccer with her friends.

Gold Coast has been down this road before. Back in 2010, they convinced a still-young, shaved-head Brownlow winner to be the founding face of the newest AFL franchise. Until injuries slowed him down, that formula worked for the Suns: three wins each of the first two seasons, then eight, then ten… then injuries, then depression, then problems in the culture drove them back to where they started (or worse).

Carlton already has the piece they need to build around, and his name is Patrick Cripps. As of the end of round 18, our meta-Player of the year scoring had him fifth overall, despite playing for a 1-16 team.

The Suns have held out hope that they already have the pieces in place to build around – if not one Ablett, then a combination of Lynch, May, Miller, maybe Young and Witts and Harbrow and Wright….

Maybe. Maybe.

And any good PR department should be able to sell the public on “maybe.”


Rugby Sevens World Cup

I’ve been watching the world championships of rugby sevens on line (and on NBC) from San Francisco. 24 men’s teams and 16 women’s have played 84 games over the course of three days, occasionally resulting in routs like 47-0 but more often in games like I just saw between Samoa and Russia.

Down ten points late, Russia was able to score a try before the time ran out in the second half. As the horn sounded, Russia had the kickoff, now down just three.

Understand that in rugby sevens, like Canadian football, there’s one play after the siren to finish the period. But in order to win, the Russians would have to recover their own kickoff (not as difficult as an American football onside kick – Argentina just won every one of their own kickoffs in the first half of the game I just saw), move the ball downfield without being stopped by penalty, turnover, or whatever else stops the play (there’s SO much I don’t understand about this sport yet!) and score the winning try.

Simple. Not easy, but simple.

So they kicked up in the air, got the jump ball they needed and won it, and began playing the stylized version of option football that is rugby sevens in a desperate hope to score the defining try to win the game. And over the next minute and a half, their desperation was met by equal desperation on the Samoans’ side to produce some of the most dramatic stop-and-start action in any sport I’ve ever seen.

By the time the Russians had reached the shadow of the goal posts and been stopped by the Samoan team, every single player was lying exhausted on the grass, having given every ounce of effort they had.

And truth be told, the difference between winning and losing didn’t amount to very much. I don’t know anything about prize money, but the teams weren’t playing for the title: they were seeking to distinguish 11th from 12th. Eleventh from twelfth. That’s it.

But the pride of victory… the thrill of competition… It doesn’t matter what the sport is, to be honest. You play to win, and assuming you have any form of honor, to win fairly.

It reminds me of a Robert Fulghum story about his next-door neighbor who’s a “professional gambler” – meaning, an insurance agent. Here are the last three morals he lives by…

– About winning: it isn’t important. What matters is how you play the game.

– About losing: it isn’t important. What matters is how you play the game.

– About playing the game: PLAY TO WIN!

Perfect advice for any Christian, whether it’s in athletics or not. As the apostle Paul once wrote, play in such a way as to obtain the prize.

(By the way, both the men and women of New Zealand won the championship.)

Yet another AFL prediction article…

Also published in The Roar, July 16, 2018

          Let’s look at the projections for each team on the run home over the last six rounds of the home-and-away season. For each club, we’ll share our ELO-Following Football rating along with their current record, their up-to-date expectations result (see “The Expectation Game, Redux”, from two weeks ago), and the forecast for each of their six remaining games from the average of our ELO-FF ratings and from CrownBet. (Each one is batting over 2/3 correct for the season, by the way.)

Understand that these predictions are extremely volatile. I made a preliminary version of this before round 17 (R17), hoping to simply make slight adjustments from the results of this weekend’s games. After Saturday’s games, I clung to that delusion while drastically changing numbers for GWS and Brisbane, but once Port lost Sunday I knew I was doomed to spend my World Cup final recalculating every upcoming game. Footy is such a wonderful game!

Any game with a margin of 16 points or more is assumed to be a win (as if such a guess can be justified in this league); any game closer than that is up for grabs. We’ll compare the close win and close loss predictions to come to a balanced guess at the most likely final record after R23 for each team.

Richmond (12-4. 135.0% – ELO-FF rating of 77.1)

CURRENT TOTAL: 12 wins (14.19 expected wins) – 2.19 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: SK (@Eth) – W(by 34 pts); CW (@MCG) – W(20); GE (@MCG) – W(21); GC (@Metr) – W(59); ES (@MCG) – W(22); WB (@MCG) – W(52). 6W, 0L, no ? games.

Predicted final record: 18-4, 1st place; minor premiers.


West Coast (12-4, 122.4% – rating of 64.2)  

CURRENT TOTAL: 12 wins (9.19 expected wins) – 2.81 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: WB (@Opt) – W(45 pts); NM (@Taz) – W?(3); FR (@Opt) – W(33); PA (@AO) – L?(10); ME (@Opt) – W?(10); BL (@Gab) – W?(7). 2W, 3W?, 1L?

Predicted final record: 17-5, 2nd place. (Could range from 14-18 wins)


Sydney (11-5, 117.3% – rating of 66.2)

CURRENT TOTAL: 11 wins (12.57 expected wins) – 1.57 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: GC (@SCG) – W(54 pts) ; ES (@Eth) – W?(3) ; CW (@SCG) – W?(12); ME (@ MCG) – L?(8); GW (@Spot) – L?(5); HA (@SCG) – W(16). 2W, 2W?, 2L?. The two possible losses for the Swans seem more likely to go Sydney’s way than the chance of the Magpies upsetting them in R20.

Predicted final record: 15-7, 3rd place. (Could range from 13-17 wins.)


Collingwood (11-5, 117.6% – rating of 57.8)

CURRENT TOTAL: 11 wins (9.71 expected wins) – 1.29 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: NM (@MCG) – W?(by 12 pts): RI (@MCG) – L(20) ; SY (@SCG) – L?(12); BL (@Eth) – W(19); PA (@MCG) – W?(8); FR (@Opt) – W(20). 2W, 2W?, 1L?, 1L.

Predicted final record: 15-7, 4th place. (Could range from 13-16 wins.)


Port Adelaide (11-5, 115.9% – rating of 56.8)

CURRENT TOTAL: 11 wins (10.43 expected wins) – 0.57 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: GW (@AO) – W?(by 4 pts); WB (@Balla) – W(18); AD (@AO) – W?(3); WC (@AO) – W?(10); CW (@MCG) – L?(8); ES (@AO) – W?(14). 1W, 4W?, 1L? Hard to believe with their new injuries they won’t lose to either GWS or Adelaide, so we’ll say 4-2.

Predicted final record: 15-7, probably 5th place. (Could range from 12-17 wins.)


Melbourne (10-6, 130.2% – rating of 68.1)

CURRENT TOTAL: 10 wins (12.50 expected wins) – 2.50 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: GE (@Geel) – L?(5 pts); AD (@AO) – W?(1); GC (@ MCG) – W(61); SY (@MCG) – W?(8); WC (@Opt) – L?(10); GW (@MCG) – W?(11). 1W, 3W?, 2L?

Predicted final record: 14-8, 6th place on percentage over just about anyone. (Could range from 11-16 wins.)


Geelong (9-7, 119.5% – rating of 63.3)

CURRENT TOTAL: 9 wins (11.19 expected wins) – 2.19 wins BELOW expectations R18-23: ME (@Geel) – W?(5 pts); BL (@Geel) – W(26); RI (@MCG) – L(21); HA (@MCG) – W?(2); FR (@Geel) – W(46); GC (@Geel) – W(57). 3W, 2 close W?, 1L.

Predicted final record: 14-8, 7th place. (Could range from 12-14 wins.)


Hawthorn (9-7, 114.0% – rating of 54.9)

CURRENT TOTAL: 9 wins (11.29 expected wins) – 2.29 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: CA (@Eth) – W(37 pts); FR (@Opt) – W?(13); ES (@MCG) – W?(2); GE (@MCG) – L?(2); SK (@Eth) – W(16); SY (@SCG) – L(16). 2W, 1W?, 1 close W?, 1 close L?, 1L.

Predicted final record: 13-9, 8th place. (Could range from 11-14 wins.)


GWS Giants (9-6-1, 111.1%, rating of 60.9)

CURRENT TOTAL: 9½ wins (10.81 expected wins) – 1.31 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: PA (@AO) – L?(4 pts); SK (@Spot) – W(28); CA (@Eth) – W(41); AD (@Canb) – W?(11); SY (@Spot) – W?(5); ME (@MCG) – L?(11). 2W, 2 close W?, 2 bigger L? more likely to lose more of the W? than they win of the L? games. And that will cost them a shot at finals.

Predicted final record: 12-9-1, 9th place. (Could range from 11.5 to 15.5 wins.)


North Melbourne (9-7, 114.2% – rating of 51.9)

CURRENT TOTAL: 9 wins (6.94 expected wins) – 2.06 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: CW (@MCG) – L?(12) ; WC (@Taz) – L?(3); BL (@ Gab) – L?(2); WB (@Eth) – W(25); AD (@AO) – L?(14); SK (@ Eth) – W(17). 2W, 4L?. Seems likely that the team highest above expectations will steal one of those four close L’s, not that it’ll move them into the top 8.

Predicted final record: 12-10, 10th place. (Could range from 11-15 wins.)


Adelaide (8-8, 98.7% – rating of 49.8)

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (10.19 expected wins) – 2.19 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: BL (@Gab) – W?(1 pt); ME (@AO) – L?(1) ; PA (@AO) – L?(3); GW (@Canb) –L?(11); NM (@ AO) – W?(14); CA (@ Eth) – W(35). Five weeks of close games: 2 W? and 3L?, with a “sure” W at the end.

Predicted final record: 11-11, 11th place. (Could range from 9-14 wins.)


Essendon (8-8, 97.7% – rating of 55.5)

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (6.06 expected wins) – 1.94 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: FR (@Eth) – W(34 pts) ; SY (@Eth) – L?(3); HA (@MCG) – L?(2); SK (@Eth) – W(20); RI (@MCG) – L(22); PA (@AO) – L?(14). 2W, 1L, 3 close L?. Very likely to steal one of those close games, not that it’ll get them into finals.

Predicted final record: 11-11, 12th place. (Could range from 10 to 13 wins.)


Fremantle (7-9, 83.6% – rating of 27.8)

CURRENT TOTAL: 7 wins (4.71 expected wins) – 2.29 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: ES (@Eth) – L(34 pts); HA (@Opt) – L?(13) ; WC (@Opt) – L(33); CA (@Opt) – W(25); GE (@Geel) – L(46); CW (@Opt) – L(20). 1W, 4L, 1L?

Predicted final record: 8-14, 13th place. (Could range from 8 to 9 wins.)


Brisbane (4-12, 91.7% – rating of 53.9)

CURRENT TOTAL: 4 wins (2.42 expected wins) – 1.58 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: AD (@Gab) – L?(1 pts); GE (@Geel) – L(26); NM (@Gab) – W?(2); CW (@Eth) – L(19); GC (@Metr) – W(27); WC (@Gab) – L?(7). 1W, 1W?, 2L, 2 L? If they’re tied with the Bulldogs, their percentage will get them past Footscray or anyone else on this side of the ladder.

Predicted final record: 6-16, 14th place. (Could range from 5 to 8 wins.)


Western Bulldogs (5-11, 73.1% – rating of 28.4)

CURRENT TOTAL: 5 wins (4.06 expected wins) 0.94 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: WC (@Opt) – L(45 pts); PA (@Balla) – L(18); SK (@Eth) – L?(7); NM (@Eth) – L(23); CA (@Eth) – W(18); RI (@MCG) – L(51). 1W, 4L, 1L?.

Predicted final record: 6-16, 15th place. (Could range from 6 to 7 wins.)


St. Kilda (4-11-1, 77.8% – rating of 39.4)

CURRENT TOTAL: 4.5 wins (4.06 expected wins) – 0.44 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: RI (@Eth) – L(34 pts) ; GW (@Spot) – L(28); WB (@Eth) – W?(7); ES (@Eth) – L(20); HA (@Eth) – L(16); NM (@Eth) – L(17). 1W?, 5L.

Predicted final record: 5-16-1, 16th place. (Could range from 4.5 to 5.5 wins)


Gold Coast (3-13, 62.2% – rating of 8.0)

CURRENT TOTAL: 3 wins (1.44 expected wins) 1.56 wins ABOVE expectations

R18-23: SY (@SCG) – L(54 pts) ; CA (@Metr) – W?(9); ME (@MCG) – L(61); RI (@Metr) – L(59); BL (@Metr) – L(27); GE (@Geel) – L(57). 1W?, 5L.

Predicted final record: 4-18, 17th place. (Could range from 3 to 4 wins.)


Carlton (1-15, 60.9%, rating of 12.3)

CURRENT TOTAL: 1 win (2.13 expected wins) – 1.13 wins BELOW expectations

R18-23: HA (@Eth) – L(37 pts); GC (@Metr) – L?(9); GW (@Eth) – L(41); FR (@Opt) – L(25); WB (@Eth) – L(18); AD (@Eth) – L(35). 5L and 1 L?. Not optimistic about a second win anywhere on the run home for the Blues, let alone a third or fourth to escape last place.

Predicted final record: 1-21, wooden spoon, 18th place. (Could range from 1 to 2 wins.)

So, the ELO-FF themselves for this week’s games look like this:

Richmond over St. Kilda by 26 points.

Collingwood over North Melbourne by 12.

Sydney over Gold Coast by 58.

Essendon over Fremantle by 39.

Brisbane over Adelaide by 10.

Geelong over Melbourne by 1.

Hawthorn over Carlton by 37.

West Coast over Western Bulldogs by 48.

Port Adelaide over GWS Giants by 2, although a results-only system like ours doesn’t take injuries into account – I’d take the Giants by a goal or two.

One more topic we’ve looked at before: the “once-around” schedule in the AFL. Simply by ignoring any games where two opponents have played before (there will be five such games for each team in any one season), we can see what a 17-game, “once-around” schedule looks like.

I also monitor a modified version with 18 games, where the one team you face twice is your “derby” partner – Crows v Power, Suns v Lions, Swans v Giants, and Eagles v Dockers. For Victorian clubs, I take the teams that face each other twice, and try to match the most likely “rivals”. This season, that’s Carlton/Collingwood, Essendon/Richmond, Geelong/Hawthorn, Melbourne/Saints, and Bulldogs/Kangaroos.

Of course, since these duplications occur at different times in each team’s schedule (the first repeat happened in R13), right now the clubs haven’t all faced the same number of “original” opponents. But here’s what those two standings look like after R17, including how many games remain for each team against new opponents (or their derby partner) –

          17-game      W       L        T       18-game      W       L        T       GR

Tigers                   11      4        0                           11      4        0        3

Power                    11      4        0                           11      4        0        3

Eagles                   11      4        0                           11      4        0        3

Swans                   9        4        0                           9        4        0        5

Magpies                9        5        0                           10      5        0        3

Demons                9        5        0                           9        6        0        3

Hawks                   9        6        0                           9        6        0        3

Giants                   8        5        1                           8        5        1        4

Kangaroos            8        6        0                           8        6        0        4

Cats                      8        7        0                           8        7        0        3

Crows                    8        7        0                           8        7        0        3

Bombers                8        7        0                           8        7        0        3

Dockers                6        9        0                           6        9        0        3

Bulldogs               5        10      0                           5        10      0        3

Saints                   3        11      1                           4        11      1        2

Lions                    3        11      0                           3        11      0        4

Suns                     3        12      0                           3        12      0        3

Blues                    1        14      0                           1        15      0        2


Last season, the results turned out somewhat differently than the Adelaide minor premier/Richmond championship scenario than we remember in the 22-round schedule world.

GWS had the best once-around record last year, at 12-3-2 (the equivalent of 13-4), with Geelong and Adelaide behind them at 11-6. Richmond led the pack of teams at 10-7, which included West Coast, Sydney, Melbourne (!), and Port Adelaide as finalists.

Ironically, using games actually played (either the game at the actual home site or the second such game, if the first had already been used), the hypothetical finals series ended with number six seed Sydney defeating number four Richmond, using their R13 victory at the MCG, 80-71.

Even more ironically, the 2016 “once around” season placed the eventual “real” champion Western Bulldogs into the top four, but it was Geelong who captured the title from the lower four slots!



We’re taking Belgium in extra time and England with ease to win their respective matches and produce the first rematch World Cup final in my recollection (there might have been one before this – I don’t see it in my history books). If either prediction is wrong, I won’t be astounded: France and Croatia have both played exceptionally well and deserve their spots this week. Good luck to all four teams. 




The Expectation Game, Redux

First published in The Roar, July 2, 2018

        Eight weeks ago, I wrote a piece called “The Expectations Game”, where I gathered eight different predictive sources and compared how each of the 18 men’s AFL squads were faring compared to the week by week expectations of the media and public. (Whose expectations are we averaging, you might ask? Well, yours, mostly: these averages come from combining the various betting sites, tipping competitions, published “experts”, and rating systems across the media.)

Expectations are the name of the game. Both Gold Coast and St. Kilda have three wins this season; the fact that many of us are amazed the Suns have won ANY games makes those three wins an impressive total for Stuart Dew’s team, regardless of how poorly they’ve fared once winter’s hit, while the Saints had figured to gain their third win in April, or May at the latest, rather than on July 1st, and thus their season seems a dismal failure.

Interestingly, before round 15, exactly one team had already surpassed last year’s number of wins (North Melbourne, six last year, although Collingwood just joined this club on Saturday); exactly one team has surpassed last year’s number of losses (Adelaide, also six last year); and exactly one team has surpassed last year’s number of draws (St. Kilda, which went without one last year).

Today, we’re going to take those results from round seven and compare them to what’s transpired over the last seven games, up to and through round fifteen this past weekend. The last line describes what’s expected from their last eight games, estimated from current CrownBet odds and our own ELO-Following Football ratings predictions for those games. (If there’s a likelihood of a close game – forecast within two goals or closer – I’ve marked it as undecided, knowing full well that ALL of these games are up in the air, as R15 proved again last weekend!) Finally, we’ll note what it will take over the last eight rounds for each team to improve on last season’s record (if possible).

Richmond (11-3. 135.3%)

First seven games: 6 wins (6.25 expected wins) – 0.25 below expectations

Next seven games: 5 wins (5.94 expected wins) – 0.94 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 11 wins (12.19 expected wins) – 1.19 wins BELOW expectations

Last eight games: Favored in 7 games, underdog in none, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 18-19 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 15-7: Better than 4-4.

Collingwood (10-4, 121.9%)

First seven games: 4 wins (2.63 expected wins) – 1.37 above expectations

Second seven games: 6 wins (5.31 expected wins) – 0.69 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 10 wins (7.94 expected wins) – 2.06 wins ABOVE expectations

Last eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdog in 2, 2 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 14-16 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 9-12-1: They already have.

West Coast (10-4, 121.0%)

First seven games: 6 wins (4.69 expected wins) – 1.31 above expectations

Second seven games: 4 wins (4.19 expected wins) – 0.19 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 10 wins (8.88 expected wins) – 1.12 wins ABOVE expectations

Last eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdog in 3, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 14-15 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 12-10: Better than 2-6.

Sydney (10-4, 120.8%)

First seven games: 4 wins (5.50 expected wins) – 1.5 below expectations

Second seven games: 6 wins (5.38 expected wins) – 0.62 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 10 wins (10.88 expected wins) – 0.88 wins BELOW expectations

Last eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdog in none, 4 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 14-18 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 14-8: Better than 4-4.

Port Adelaide (10-4, 115.0%)

First seven games: 4 wins (4.38 expected wins) – 0.38 below expectations

Second seven games: 6 wins (4.12 expected wins) – 1.88 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 10 wins (8.50 expected wins) – 1.50 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 5 games, underdogs in none, 3 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 15-18 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 14-8: Better than 4-4.

GWS Giants (8-5-1, 113.7%)

First seven games: 4 ½ wins (5.38 expected wins) – 0.88 below expectations

Second seven games: 4 wins (4.87 expected wins) – 0.87 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 ½ wins (10.25 expected wins) – 1.75 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 2 games, underdogs in 2 games, 4 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 10.5 – 14.5 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 14-6-2: Better than 6-1-1.

Melbourne (8-6, 124.4%)

First seven games: 4 wins (4.38 expected wins) – 0.38 below expectations

Second seven games: 4 wins (6.31 expected wins) – 2.31 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (10.69 expected wins) – 2.69 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdogs in 1 game, 3 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 12-15 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 12-10: Better than 4-4.

Geelong (8-6, 123.2%)

First seven games: 4 wins (4.69 expected wins) – 0.69 below expectations

Second seven games: 4 wins (5.69 expected wins) – 1.69 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (10.38 expected wins) – 2.38 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 3 games, underdogs in 2 games. 3 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 11-14 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 15-6-1: Better than 7-0-1.

North Melbourne (8-6, 113.4%)

First seven games: 4 wins (1.75 expected wins) – 2.25 above expectations

Second seven games: 4 wins (4.06 expected wins) – 0.06 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (5.81 expected wins) – 2.19 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdogs in 2 games, 2 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 12-14 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 6-16: They did that long ago…

Hawthorn (8-6, 113.2%)

First seven games: 5 wins (5.13 expected wins) – 0.13 below expectations

Second seven games: 3 wins (4.37 expected wins) – 1.37 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 8 wins (9.50 expected wins) – 1.50 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 4 games, underdog in 1 game, 3 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 12-15 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 10-11-1: Better than 2-5-1.

Adelaide (7-7, 101.2%)

First seven games: 5 wins (5.19 expected wins) – 0.19 below expectations

Second seven games: 2 wins (5.00 expected wins) – 3.00 below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 7 wins (10.19 expected wins) – 3.19 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 3 games, underdog in 1 game, 4 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 10-14 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 15-6-1: Too late…

Essendon (7-7, 95.2%)

First seven games: 2 wins (3.25 expected wins) – 1.25 below expectations

Second seven games: 5 wins (1.25 expected wins) – 3.75 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 7 wins (4.50 expected wins) – 2.50 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 3 games, underdogs in 3 games, 2 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 10-12 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 12-10: Better than 5-3.

Fremantle (6-8, 85.3%)

First seven games: 3 wins (1.44 expected wins) – 1.56 above expectations

Second seven games: 3 wins (2.94 expected wins) – 0.06 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 6 wins (4.38 expected wins) – 1.62 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 1 game, underdogs in 5 games, 2 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 7-9 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 8-14: Better than 2-6.

Western Bulldogs (5-9, 76.7%)

First seven games: 3 wins (3.00 expected wins) – 0 above or below expectations

Second seven games: 2 wins (0.94 expected wins) – 1.06 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 5 wins (3.94 expected wins) 1.06 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 1 game, underdogs in 6 games, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 6-7 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 11-11: Better than 6-2.

St. Kilda (3-10-1, 73.5%)

First seven games: 1 ½ wins (2.00 expected wins) – 0.50 below expectations

Second seven games: 2 wins (1.06 expected wins) – 0.94 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 3 ½ wins (3.06 expected wins) – 0.44 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 1 game, underdogs in 6 games, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 4.5 – 5.5 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 11-11: Better than 7-0-1.

Gold Coast (3-11, 62.8%)

First seven games: 3 wins (1.44 expected wins) – 1.56 above expectations

Second seven games: 0 wins (0.00 expected wins) – 0 above or below expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 3 wins (1.44 expected wins) 1.44 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 0 games, underdogs in 6 games, 2 games within two goals.

Predicted final record: 3-5 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 6-16: Better than 3-5.

Brisbane (2-12, 83.6%)

First seven games: 0 wins (0.94 expected wins) – 0.94 below expectations

Second seven games: 2 wins (0.56 expected wins) – 1.44 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 2 wins (1.50 expected wins) – 0.50 wins ABOVE expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 1 game, underdogs in 6 games, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 3-4 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 5-17: Better than 3-5.

Carlton (1-13, 63.6%)

First seven games: 0 wins (1.38 expected wins) – 1.38 below expectations

Second seven games: 1 win (0.75 expected wins) – 0.25 above expectations

CURRENT TOTAL: 1 win (2.13 expected wins) – 1.13 wins BELOW expectations

Final eight games: Favored in 0 games, underdogs in 7 games, 1 game within two goals.

Predicted final record: 1-2 wins.

To improve on last season’s record of 6-16: Better than 5-3.

Then, taking their above/below expectations patterns into account, let’s project the possible final standings for the 2018 season.

  • Richmond                    (18-4)              [18-19 wins probable]
  • Sydney                         (17-5)              [14-18 probable]
  • Port Adelaide               (17-5)              [15-18 probable]
  • Collingwood                (16-6)              [14-16 probable]
  • West Coast                   (15-7)              [14-15 probable]
  • North Melbourne          (14-8)              [12-14 probable]
  • Hawthorn                     (13-9)              [12-15 probable]
  • Melbourne                    (12-10)             [12-15 probable]
  • Essendon                      (12-10)             [10-12 probable]
  • GWS Giants                 (11-10-1)         [10.5-14.5 probable]
  • Geelong                       (11-11)            [11-14 probable]
  • Adelaide                      (11-11)            [10-14 probable]
  • Fremantle                     (9-13)              [7-9 probable]
  • Western BD                  (7-15)              [6-7 probable]
  • St. Kilda                       (5-16-1)           [4.5-5.5 probable]
  • Gold Coast                   (5-17)              [3-5 probable]
  • Brisbane                       (3-19)              [2-3 probable]
  • Carlton                         (1-21)              [1-2 probable]

Looking ahead to round 16, the ELO-Following Football rating system haa Collingwood and West Coast with the narrowest predicted margins of victory, both at about ten points (although personally I’m picking the Giants in the upset). It also selects Hawthorn by 14 over the Bulldogs, and all six of the other games to finish with more than three-goal margins of victory for Sydney, Richmond, Brisbane, Port Adelaide, Melbourne and North. (So far this season, the ELO-FF has beaten the oddsmakers 54.8% of the time, and its record straight up is 86-39, ignoring the R5 draw.)

AFL Meta All-Australian teams and rating updates

First published in The Roar – June 8th, 2018

The Meta-AA Midseason Teams

As always, I’ve compiled the consensus teams from all the surrounding presentations of opinions and evaluations of the 2018 AFL season. There are two teams here – one from the totals of the different teams themselves, and another from our year-long point totals, gathered from the game by game evaluations of the outstanding players in each contest from rounds one through 14 (the last “bye” round, so each team has played 13 games – even if each player hasn’t).

First, the “meta-team” from the collection of the various all-Australian teams from different magazines, web pages, and so forth (there were 19 in all):



James Sicily (Haw) – 33 votes              Jeremy McGovern (WCE)

Alex Rance (Rich) – 31                         Paul Seedsman (Adel)

Rory Laird (Adel) – 30                           Elliot Yeo (WCE)

Tom Stewart (Geel) – 28                      Jimmy Webster (SK)

Harris Andrews (Bris) – 22                    Jeremy Howe (Coll)

Shannon Hurn (WCE) – 20                   Tom Jonas (PA)


Nat Fyfe (Frem) – 38 votes                   Shaun Higgins (NM)

Tom Mitchell (Haw) – 31                        Tom Phillips (Coll)

Clayton Oliver (Melb) – 29                     Robbie Gray (PA)

Andrew Gaff (WCE) – 29                       Patrick Cripps (Carl)

Jack Macrae (WBD) – 28                      Steele Sidebottom (Coll)

Dustin Martin (Rich) – 25                       Trent Cotchin (Rich)



Max Gawn (Melb) – 26 votes                 Brodie Grundy (Coll)


Josh Caddy (Rich) – 32 vot                  Lance Franklin (Syd)

Jack Darling (WCE) – 31                      Luke Breust (Haw)

Ben Brown (NMK) – 25                         Adam Treloar (Coll)

Jesse Hogan (Melb) – 22Jack Martin (Gold)

Devon Smith (Ess) – 15                        Charlie Cameron (Bris)

A few notable items I should point out – as with most other evaluations of the 2018 season we’ve seen, Nat Fyfeis the number one player on this list with 38 votes, meaning he was on literally every first team put out there that we’ve seen (and that statement is true for no other player in the league).

The margin between ruckmen is as close as it could get: Gawn had 26 votes, Grundy checked in at 25 votes. Nic Naitanui and Stefan Martin were the others getting votes in our survey of AA teams.

Brisbane’s Harris Andrews, at just 21 years old, looks ready to assume his place on this year’s All-Australian team, where he’ll probably take up residence for the next decade or more.

Meanwhile, Dustin Martin barely squeaked onto the first team this year after an all-everything season in 2017 – and I can’t help but wonder if he’s simply underappreciated this year by comparison only. Like LeBron James in the NBA, he may have already reached a point where he can’t be appreciated at his true level because we’d get tired of giving him the MVP every single year (taking nothing away from the miraculous recovery to form made by obvious Brownlow favorite Fyfe, were the Brownlow less fussy about one-game suspensions).

Just being gone for three games dropped Franklin out of the minds of some of the voters – where he appeared, he was near the top of the forward list, but he was missing from too many polls to catch Devon Smith, just ahead of him.

[An aside: Being American, we selected our teams the way they’re picked over here: rather than pick a four-man bench, we list a starter and a back-up for every position on the field. The choice to include six mids but only five forwards stems from the general use of the ruckman up front during the flow of play, rather than as a midfielder, as well as the prevalence of great ball handlers in the middle of the pitch right now. If you need the four-man interchange, the four highest vote-getters after the starting 18 were Grundy, Higgins, Phillips and Hurn.]


For comparison, here’s what emerges when we used the season-long point totals developed by “Following Football” from all the game-by-game evaluations (which included, by the way, the above votes as well):



James Sicily (Haw) – 200 points           Shannon Hurn (WCE)

Elliot Yeo (WCE) – 181                         Tom Stewart (Geel)

Alex Rance (Rich) – 170                       Paul Seedsman (Adel)

Rory Laird (Adel) – 169                         Jeremy McGovern (WCE)

Harris Andrews (Bris) – 152                  Kade Simpson (Carl)

Tom McDonald (Melb) – 148                 Jeremy Howe (Coll)



Nat Fyfe (Freo) – 350 points                 Steele Sidebottom (Coll)

Tom Mitchell (Haw) – 267                      Robbie Gray (PA)

Patrick Cripps (Carl) – 263                    Trent Cotchin (Rich)

Dustin Martin (Rich) – 239                    Clayton Oliver (Melb)

Jack Macrae (WBD) – 234                    Joel Selwood (Geel)

Shaun Higgins (NM) – 220                    Andrew Gaff (WCE)


Max Gawn (Melb) – 223 points             Brodie Grundy (Coll) – 220 points



Lance Franklin (Syd) – 216 points        Jordan deGoey (Coll)

Jack Darling (WCE) – 201                    Jeremy Cameron (GWS)

Jesse Hogan (Melb) – 189                   Luke Breust (Haw)

Ben Brown (NM) – 186                         Josh Kelly (GWS)

Josh Caddy (Rich) – 150                      Jarrad Waite (NM)


Most of the names from the first team squads overlap, at least by appearing on the second team on the other format. The names that appear at the top of the first teams in both cases are Fyfe, Sicily, and Gawn, who are all first choices at their position regardless of format (and Fyfe remains the high vote-getter on both formats). Josh Caddy makes first team on both, although four other forwards have higher point totals year long (with Lance Franklin first, despite missing three games already this season – imagine his impact had he not had foot problems!).

Those players present on the first teams of both lists are Sicily, Rance, Laird, and Andrews on defense; Gawn at the ruck; Fyfe, Mitchell, Martin, and Macrae in the midfield; and Darling, Hogan, Brown, and Caddy up front. (Had Buddy been healthy all year, it’s likely that all five forwards would have held their spots on both lists!)

There are some players, on the other hand, who seem to have been done wrong in the mid-season voting based on the game-by-game performance evaluations. In particular, Carlton’s Patrick Cripps seems to have gone unrecognized by the vast populace of media types. But he’s been one of the lone bright spots in the Blues’ tragic season, a young player whose time has already arrived.

The other is Elliot Yeo of West Coast, an outstanding defender who has taken over games from time to time as the Eagles ran off ten wins on the trot. He shows up second among all back-liners in the game-to-game surveys, but just ninth in the All-Australian voting.

I’ve included Grundy’s point total to demonstrate, again, how narrow the margin between the two top ruckmen is. They’ve left the other viable candidates in their wake, and there will be no wrong answer in the final decision for the All-Australian ruck between them this season.


Finally, here are the current ELO-Following Football ratings for the eighteen clubs, with their starting point and their high and low water marks for the season in parentheses. All ratings are at the start of round 15 (Richmond gained 2.1 points with their victory against Sydney Thursday night, while the Swans lost the same amount – that’s what an ELO system does):

Richmond      78.0      (77.8 – 84.3 / 69.4)

Sydney            72.4     (75.1 – 76.6 / 65.7)

Melbourne     70.1     (50.7 – 80.4 / 45.3)

Geelong          69.0     (61.0 – 72.1 / 59.4)

Collingwood  64.7     (51.1 – 69.8 / 46.4)

PortAdelaide  63.7     (62.8 – 68.0 / 54.1)

West Coast    59.3     (49.0 – 72.9 / 49.0)

GWS               57.3       (60.9 – 70.7 / 42.5)

N Melbourne 56.1      (37.5 – 63.4 / 33.8)

Hawthorn      56.0     (50.7 – 64.3 / 49.7)

Essendon       52.9      (46.4 – 52.9 / 35.2)

Adelaide          43.2     (73.7 – 76.7 / 43.2)

Fremantle       38.6       (25.7 – 38.6 / 25.0)

Brisbane         32.0     (29.6 – 40.5 / 24.1)

Western BD   30.6      (45.3 – 45.3 / 26.7)

St Kilda           29.4    (49.8 – 49.8 / 29.4)

Carlton          20.1     (35.3 – 37.7 / 15.0)

Gold Coast       5.9     (17.6 – 28.4 /  3.2)



AFL Mid-Season Report Cards

First published in The Roar – June 8th, 2018

          Lots of folks (many of them on The Roar) are cranking out Mid-Season All-AFL teams, and as is my wont, I’ve compiled a meta-team out of all the different Best 22 collections I’ve found (up to seven so far) …

Defenders: *Alex Rance (Ri), *James Sicily (Ha), Jeremy McGovern (WC), Tom Stewart (Gee), Rory Laird (Ad), and Shannon Hurn (WC).

Midfielders: *Nat Fyfe (Fr), Dustin Martin (Ri), Andrew Gaff (WC), Tom Mitchell (Ha), Clayton Oliver (Me), and Jack Macrae (WB).

Forwards: *Josh Caddy (Ri), Tom Phillips (Cw), Jack Darling (WC), Ben Brown (NM), and Jesse Hogan (Me).

Ruck (tie): Max Gawn (Me) and Brodie Grundy (Cw).

Interchange: (second ruck), Jack Higgins (NM), Elliot Yeo (WC), and Paul Seedsman (Ad).

This lineup has five forwards and six midfields just because that’s how the voting broke down – there were five goal-trolls who dominated the voting, not six. Four players were named on every team I found (marked by asterisks) – Alex Rance and Josh Caddy from the Tigers, Nat Fyfe of the Dockers, and the Hawks’ James Sicily.

Unsurprisingly, the teams which dominate the roster are the same one dominating the first half of the season – West Coast (five), Richmond (three), and Melbourne (three). The other multiple membership teams are Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Adelaide, and Collingwood (two each).

An interesting comparison for me comes from the Best 22 roster that emerges from the meta-Player of the Year polling which we track on the Following Football site I run. Here are the top six at each position, plus ruck and interchange:

Defenders: Rory Laird (Ad), Alex Rance (Ri), Shannon Hurn (WC), James Sicily (Ha), Elliot Yeo (WC), and Tom Stewart (Ge).

Midfielders: Nat Fyfe (Fr), Dustin Martin (Ri), Jack Macrae (WB), Tom Mitchell (Ha), Patrick Cripps (Ca).

Forwards: Jack Darling (WC), Jesse Hogan (Me), Lance Franklin (Sy), Ben Brown (NM), Tom Phillips (Cw), and Josh Caddy (Ri).

Ruck: Max Gawn (Me).

Interchange: Brodie Grundy (Cw), Trent Cotchin (Ri), Andrew Gaff (WC), and Steele Sidebottom (Cw).

Only four names out of the 22 vary from the consensus list (and two of those are on the interchange). SO, our meta-POTY scoring looks like it’s matching up fairly well with the popular media consensus.

Perhaps of more interest, then, are the names which lurk in the shadows on the next 22 on our list (after the 26 men on one or both lists above). Many of these players also were recognized by one or two of the media pundits looking for mid-season plaudits to bestow:

Defenders: Tom McDonald (Me), Lachie Hunter (WB), Harris Andrews (Br), Jeremy Howe (Cw), Kade Simpson (Ca)

Midfielders: Robbie Gray (PA), Stephen Coniglio (GW), Adam Treloar (Cw), Dayne Zorko (Br), Ben Cunnington (NM), Joel Selwood (Ge), Shaun Higgins (NM).

Forwards/Rucks: Jarrad Waite (NM), Callum Sinclair (Sy), Stefan Martin (Br), Michael Walters (Fr), Charlie Cameron (Br), Jordan deGoey (Cw), Jack Gunston (Ha), Aaron Sandilands (Fr), Josh J Kennedy (WC), Nic Naitanui (WC).

If you’re considering the entirety of this collection of names, you might be surprised at the spread of names and teams.

Adelaide: Laird, Seedsman (2).

Brisbane: Martin, Zorko, Andrews, Cameron (4).

Carlton: Cripps, Simpson (2).

Collingwood: Phillips, Grundy, Sidebottom, Howe, Treloar, deGoey (6).

Essendon: (0).

Fremantle: Fyfe, Walters, Sandilands (3).

Geelong: Stewart, J. Selwood (2).

Gold Coast: (0).

Greater Western Sydney: Coniglio (1).

Hawthorn: Sicily, Mitchell, Gunston (3).

Melbourne: Gawn, Hogan, Oliver, T. McDonald (4).

North Melbourne: Brown, Higgins, Cunnington, Waite (4).

Port Adelaide: R. Gray (1).

Richmond: Rance, Caddy, Martin, Cotchin (4).

St. Kilda: (0).

Sydney: Franklin, Sinclair (2).

West Coast: Hurn, Darling, McGovern, Macrae, Gaff, Yeo, Kennedy, Naitanui (8).

Western Bulldogs: Macrae, Hunter (2).

Over the players rated among the top 48 in the league over the first half of the season, fully one-sixth of them play for West Coast. That would have shocked us in March; after ten straight wins, perhaps not so much. But it’s more curious that seventh-place Collingwood has the next-highest total of players involved at six.

More curious, notice who’s tied for third with four players? Second place Richmond, third place Melbourne, high-flying North Melbourne….and seventeenth-place Brisbane? Wow….

And the three teams without representatives are Essendon, Gold Coast, and St. Kilda. Okay, the Dons are a bit of a surprise, but not completely out of place. Only Devon Smith received votes in any of the top 22s I’ve noticed. But the two with only one member, to my shock, are the (possible) contenders Port Adelaide and GWS, two teams chock-filled with star players which have apparently not starred so far. There must be six to eight men on each squad who could be in the top 22 in the country this season, but either through injuries, adjustment issues, or simply not playing well enough to get noticed, they’re not.

          Let’s change the subject.

Look at the ELO-Following Football ratings for each team over the course of the first half of the season. Most of the changes won’t surprise the fan following the 2018 season.

Melbourne: Began at 50.7 (equal 8th), hit a low of 46.3 after R5, and has risen six straight weeks until reaching 80.4 after R11 for first place. All of the rating-based rankings I can find have the Demons in first or a close second place.

Richmond: Started in first at 77.8, fell for three weeks to 69.4, rose to a season high of 84.3 after R7, and mostly fell to the second-place rating of 79.7.

West Coast: Starter the season in 11th place below average at 49.0. reached a momentary peak in R4 at 61.4, fell for two weeks but went on the rise to a season high of 72.9 after R9. Currently third with 67.2, far behind both the Demons and Tigers.

Geelong: Began fifth (61.0), fell slightly for three weeks to 59.4 as they figured out how things worked, and then rose for five straight weeks to 72.1 after R8. Currently fourth at 67.1, right behind the Eagles.

Sydney: Started in second place, 75.1, and went up to 76.6 after their opening win. They haven’t hit that rating since: over the last ten rounds, they’ve lost points in six of them and currently sit at a season low of 65.7. When their entire range is only eleven points, they haven’t varied much from the normal, above-average team they always are.

North Melbourne: Started with 37.5, in 14th place. Dropped to 33.8 after their loss to Gold Coast in Cairns. In eight of their next ten games, the ‘Roos have gained points, passing “average” (50) for good in R7 and currently in sixth place at 63.4.

Collingwood: Began at the top of the middle pack, with 51.1 in seventh place. Dropped points in rounds one and two to its season low of 46.5, and rose to its season high in R5 of 61.8; the Pies then dropped points in the next three rounds, and have gained those points back in rounds nine through eleven to reach (coincidentally) 61.8 again, in seventh place.

Port Adelaide: Started the season in fourth place (62.8), and after two great games to start, reaching 68.0…and immediately fell over three games to its season low of 54.1. They’ve bounced around uneventfully since then, currently in eighth at 56.5, a good distance from the teams they trailed.

Hawthorn: Another team with improvement to be made in early 2018. Starting in a tie for 8th at 50.1, the very essence of mediocrity, they went 3-1 and reached 64.3 after R4. Since then, though, they haven’t reached even that peak, and currently have fallen back to ninth with a rating of 51.0, approximately where they started.

Adelaide: One of the three favorites to start the season, the Crows were third at 73.7. Three rounds of non-injury games moved them up to 76.7 and first place. Then the ER-free fall began, and they currently sit at a mediocre 50.1, tenth place.

GWS Giants: Before the injuries, they made a move from their sixth-place start at 60.9 to reach second place at 70.7 behind only Richmond in R4. Since then, though, they’ve free-fallen every week through R10 (hitting 42.5), before moving back to 46.7 after their victory in Adelaide last week.

Essendon: Started at 46.4, 12th place. Won in R1 to reach fifty, hit a low of 35.2 in R8, and currently sits in 12th at 42.4, below where they started.

St. Kilda: Has gained points on their rating only twice, falling from 49.8 (10th) to start the season and currently sits at 37.7, thirteenth place, with a low of 30.9 in R9.

Brisbane: For a team which reached negative rating points last season, the Lions have improved tremendously since then. Starting the season at 29.6, they hit a low of 24.5 in R5 and a high of 40.5 after their win in R10. Currently in 14th place at 37.3.

Fremantle: Boring. Started in 17th place (25.7), dropped a fraction to a season low of 25.0 after a loss in game one, hit a “high” (relatively speaking) of 37.2 after R6, but currently sits at 15th place with 29.6.

Western Bulldogs: Their highest point was their starting point of 45.3, which gave the impression they’d be like last year – in the middle of the pack. Instead, they’re 16th at 28.4, their lowest rating of the year, having fallen quickly and stayed that way.

Carlton: Began at 35.3, 15th place. Moved up to 37.7 from their first game, then dropped to a temporary low of 21 in R4, bounced and landed on a low of 15.3 after R9. Up to 22.6 after a pair of decent games, but still in 17th.

Gold Coast: Started in last at 17.6 (I saw this, added in the three-month road trip, and no Ablett, and thus predicted dead last for the Suns.) They managed to win their first two, reaching 28.4 for a high, and then gradually fell to its current 12.4, by far last in the competition.

          So, who’s improving? Melbourne, North, and Collingwood especially. St. Kilda, Carlton, and Hawthorn have improved the last two weeks as well. In the other direction, Adelaide lowered its rating four weeks in a row, GWS went six straight before beating the Crows, and Fremantle and Gold Coast are on three-week point-drop streaks. Richmond and Geelong ended their two-game point-drop streaks last week.  

Looking at the seven games this week: with a late out of Dustin Martin, perversely, I think the rest of the Richmond squad will step up to prove they’re more than a one-man team. (This was written Thursday afternoon. Could make me look stupid if it’s not printed until after Friday night, but I’ll take that risk!)Tigers by 11!

          Moving on, we think Geelong wins over North by less than the two-goal betting margin; Giants beat the Suns easily; and St. Kilda makes Sydney work for their victory on Saturday. Sunday, our numbers have the Lions beating the Bombers at the Gabba, home field being the key; and Fremantle holding the thinning Crows close but coming up short. Finally, as good as the Magpies have been, Melbourne sees the cameras and possible full house on Monday night as the chance to stamp their premiership credentials:They will smash Collingwood.


Let’s look at the AFL Meta-Player of the Year standings!

First published in THE ROAR May 23rd, 2018

Last week a particularly stupid but handsome columnist, in this very publication, proclaiming the greatness of the national game, used the fact that “thirteen of eighteen teams are at least 4-4 right now – we have plenty of good teams!” to jump to the conclusion that Round 9 was “going to be an exciting week!”

Yeah. About that…

The closest of the nine games was a 28-point Collingwood victory where the Saints were basically never any closer than that throughout the fourth quarter.

The other options were Essendon by 34, Adelaide by 37, Port by 40, North by 43, and Sydney by 59.

And we haven’t even reached Sunday’s debacles. The Eagles 47-point “nailbiter” was the highlight, as expected, following Brisbane’s 56-point upset of Hawthorn (exciting only for the form reversal) and Melbourne’s 18 goal annihilation of the once-proud Carlton Blues.

109-point margins are for the state leagues. And two-goals-fourteen should never happen on the Friday night showcase of the AFL. Or, I would suggest, at any OTHER level of footy, either.

So, rather than whine or pontificate about any of this… Let’s talk about the Meta-Player of the Year standings instead!

As many of you already know and will be bored by reading again, I compile the various “team of the week”, “top three stars of the game”, AFLCA votes, and anything else I can find that identifies the outstanding players of the AFL games that week, into one large database and keep the running total as the “Meta-Player of the Year” scoreboard. It’s like the Brownlow, except that it’s everyone’s opinions combined.

And right after round 9 is a great time to take a look, because with the China break this week for our two world travellers, we won’t have all 18 teams having played the same number of games for the next six weeks. So here we go!

  1. Nat Fyfe, FR 229 points 2 D / 3 P
  2. Jack Macrae, WB 195 points 2 D / 1 P
  3. Tom Mitchell, HA 187 points 0 D / 5 P
  4. Dustin Martin, RI 180 points 3 D / 0 P
  5. Max Gawn, ME 173 points 0 D / 6 P
  6. Jack Darling, WC 167 points 1 D / 2 P
  7. Patrick Cripps, CA 163 points 1 D / 2 P
  8. Lance Franklin, SY 159 points 1 D / 2 P
  9. Trent Cotchin, RI 147 points 2 D / 2 P
  10. Steele Sidebottom, CO 135 points 0 D / 2 P
  11. Brodie Grundy, CO 134 points 2 D / 1 P
  12. Rory Laird, AD 131 points 0 D / 2 P
  13. Ben Brown, NM 130 points 1 D / 2 P
  14. Dayne Zorko, BR 129 points 2 D / 1 P
  15. Robbie Gray, PA 124 points 2 D / 1 P
  16. Joel Selwood, GE 123 points 1 D / 0 P
  17. Stephen Coniglio, GW 121 points 2 D / 0 P
  18. Clayton Oliver, ME 111 points 1 D / 1 P
  19. Patrick Dangerfield, GE 110 points 1 D / 1 P
  20. Jesse Hogan, ME 109 points 0 D / 3 P

For those unfamiliar with our ELO-Following Football statistics, the “D” and “P” stand for “Dominant” and “Prominent” performances. These are (somewhat arbitrary) designations for a player’s game that receives recognition from 90% of our sources (for Dominant) or 80% (for Prominent), and are very rough ways of noting particularly significant performances by a player.

So for a curious example, Gawn has had six of his nine games recognized by 80% of sources.., but none were so “dominant” that 90% of those sources recognized it! And oddly, it was rarely the same sources which excluded Gawn. For Tom Mitchell, who similarly has five “prominent” but no “dominant” performances, it is almost always the fantasy ratings which find fault in his game and keep him from the 90% threshold.  

For comparison, here’s the top ten after round 4:

Mitchell & Franklin (1st – tie) – 130

Martin (3rd) – 128

Coniglio (4th) – 100

Grundy (5th) – 99

Fyfe (6th) – 95

Laird (7th) – 85

Brown (8th) – 83

Sidebottom (9th) – 80

Hogan (10th) – 70

Nat Fyfe’s move up the ladder shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s watched him play: he’s had one prominent game (R7) and two dominants (R5 and R8) since this table. Lance Franklin’s only played two of the five games since this table’s origination, thanks to a bum foot. Jack Macrae doesn’t even appear on this round 4 list – in fact, after R5, Macrae was at just 49 points, not even leading his own 1-4 team (that honor was Lachie Hunter’s). Since then, he’s had two dominants (R7 and R8), one prominent (R6), and a great game in R9 that missed recognition by just one source.

Stephen Coniglio’s drop from fourth to his current 17th parallels his Giants team’s floundering over the last few rounds, which points out the sad overriding truth about this and by extension every evaluative tool we use, whether it’s human or statistical: a player’s perceived greatness is contingent on how good the TEAM he’s on at the time is.

There are corollary versions of this, of course. Should Gary Ablett have won a Brownlow in 2013 playing for the 8-14 Gold Coast Suns? More generally, does “most valuable” imply the TEAM has high value overall, or that the player imparts the most value to his team?

In the NFL, quite often the de facto leader in the MVP race is always the quarterback of the team with the best record in the league. Yet it’s easy to argue that Tom Brady had more impressive seasons when he was carrying an 11-5 on his lonely shoulders, throwing to college rejects for receivers, than when the Patriots went 16-0 and he had a bevy of talent around him.

Was LeBron James more “valuable” when he had Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh alongside him in Miami and won two titles, or when he had almost nobody next to him of “value” (as has too often been the case in his career) and made the finals anyway only to be smashed by the Warriors or Spurs?

On our current meta-POTY list, the top three players are from Fremantle (currently 12th), Western (13th), and Hawthorn (9th). Not coincidentally, none of the three men have a teammate with even half their point totals; they’re at least perceived to be the lone wolf on a team that’s not playing well enough so far to make finals. How valuable can you be if your team is still losing?

The next three, by comparison, are from Richmond (2nd), Melbourne (3rd), and West Coast (1st), and have at least one other teammate in the top 25 (Shannon Hurn is just off the top 20, in 24th at 99 points for the Eagles). Are THEY really more valuable because they’re the linchpins on winning teams, or less valuable because they’re not quite as critical to their club’s success? If Dusty Martin has help from Cotchin, Rance, Caddy, Lambert, Houli, and Riewoldt, he may not have to be “SuperDusty” all the time. On the other hand, Nat Fyfe is probably garnering the three Brownlow votes every time the Dockers win; does that make him more important on a 4-5 team than the brightest star in a 7-2 constellation?

The floor is open for discussion.

In the meantime, as always seems to be the case, the ELO-Following Football crystal ball was correct ⅔ of the time last week (it missed the two upsets, plus our shared preference for Richmond). In round 10, we’re taking Collingwood by 16 on Friday night, and on Saturday it’s Richmond by 42, Sydney by 28, Geelong by 61, the Giants by 12, and West Coast by 20. On Sunday, our system prefers Melbourne by 7 over Adelaide up in Alice Springs, and the Kangaroos by 11 over Fremantle in Perth. Both picks make me a little nervous (the Demons are 1-4 in Alice Springs, and Freo is unbeaten in Optus), but its record is better than mine this season, and momentum means something in this league, so I’ll roll with it. Good luck!

Postscript: This may or may not have any relevance, but we’re also tracking team totals of the POTY voting. Take a look at this table from after round 9 and see if you can find anything worthwhile in the data…besides the obvious fact that the Saints are a mess:

Team Point totals Record
1 West Coast 1037 8-1-0
1 Melbourne 1037 6-3-0
3 Collingwood 1031 5-4-0
4 Adelaide 1005 6-3-0
5 Sydney 1003 6-3-0
6 Richmond 1002 7-2-0
7 Geelong 966 5-4-0
8 North Melbourne 908 5-4-0
9 Hawthorn 886 5-4-0
10 Port Adelaide 885 6-3-0
11 GWS Giants 884 4-4-1
12 Fremantle 880 4-5-0
13 Western Bulldogs 803 4-5-0
14 Brisbane 761 1-8-0
15 Essendon 696 3-6-0
16 Carlton 687 1-8-0
17 Gold Coast 684 3-6-0
18 St Kilda 561 1-7-1

Notes from a humbug

First published in THE ROAR May 14th, 2018

“The game’s too congested!”

“Scoring is down! Shooting accuracy is down!”

“The officiating is terrible!”

“The skill levels are terrible!”

“Where are all the great players today?”

“The bad teams are really bad, and the good teams aren’t as good as they used to be!”

The Game Is Boring!


Your Honor, I present into evidence against the prosecution’s charges against our fair game, Round 8 of this 2018 season. Nine games which encapsulate all that’s right with the game we love.

In Hawthorn hosting Sydney, we had a game with assets galore coming in that did not disappoint. Rivalries. Former GF opponents. Lance Franklin’s two clubs. Two teams which seemed to die at the same time last season, only to resurrect together and now be even again (when we placed our tip, the odds favored a draw; our ELO-Following Football ratings differed by just one-tenth of a point once the MCG was taken into account).

And Hawthorn held the reins into the last five to ten minutes of the game, when suddenly the Swans came up with the last three goals and the win, thanks to a third-gamer scoring seven goals! Unpredictable! With both teams now 5-3, the pressure on the teams ahead of them will continue to be immense. (Despite the long flag-less histories of these franchises in the mid-20th century, modern footy recognizes these as two of the foremost clubs in the league. The AFL is simply better when these clubs are competitive.)

In West Coast’s defeat of the Giants, we saw the way that the fortunes of solid clubs can vary depending on injuries and leadership.  Most folks, myself included, saw even a depleted GWS as favorites over a 6-1 Eagles club flying cross-country and missing the immensely talented Nic Naitanui. Then we watched the Giants lose three more players during the match, and it was too much for the fragile psyches and youthful bodies in orange and charcoal, while the experienced talent from Perth showed what momentum and confidence can do for a team.

In Carlton’s upset of Essendon, we saw the results of resilient effort defeating the lack of effort exhibited by a demoralized team falling far below expectations. Every season, there are surprise risers (more on them later), but by definition there must therefore also be surprise fallers. And while the Eagles and Kangaroos fans are savoring footy heaven so far this season, Essendon and the Saints are experiencing football hell, with just three wins between the two supposed contenders in sixteen chances this season. On the smaller, game-sized scale, of course, it’s also a zero-sum game, and Essendon’s woes gave Carlton reward for effort Saturday, with a thirteen-point victory. Was it perfect, balletic football? No. Was it tense and close and tight and entertaining? Absolutely!

In Melbourne’s rout of the road-weary Suns, we saw the results of two months of travel on the victims of the Commonwealth Games. If you ever questioned what the difficulties of playing on the road, review the eight weeks of the Gold Coast season: a surprising pair of early victories to start the year; two defeats in WA to teams that we now realize are better than we thought; then valiant efforts against Adelaide and the Bulldogs before finally falling off the table this week. Stewart Dew’s team has been valiant this season – I had them pegged for dead last the moment I saw their schedule – and may get a rejuvenation after a week off following their China visit this week. (Or they may be so used to travel that they’re unfazed by China while Port struggles. I’m not betting that way, though.)

In Port Adelaide’s Showdown victory over their co-tenant Crows, we saw every amazing aspect of what a hometown Showdown can offer. As an American, I can tell you that even in our two-team major sports cities (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, the San Francisco bay area), there’s NO real sense of rivalry between the two hometown teams. Watching the excitement in that stadium when McGovern kicked a goal with 45 seconds and then Motlop topped it 20 seconds later, the only thing I could relate it to is watching a high school rivalry, or maybe two colleges within a few miles of each other. To see two teams that share a stadium, each with a handful of the greatest players in the world on their rosters, competing in front of a rabid and invested fan base, is something I could only imagine and enjoy vicariously from afar.

In Fremantle’s thirty-point win over Saint Kilda, we saw the reconstruction of a former grand finalist, under the leadership of one of the top coaches in the league (with the juicy history of leaving the opponent in the lurch years back!) and the vanguard of a Brownlow medalist who has rediscovered his form after two difficult seasons of injury and recovery. Fremantle is 4-4 now; if they can make it to their bye at 6-6, they may surprise everyone besides me at season’s end (not to brag, but I had them seventh in my pre-season post).

In the Bulldog hard-fought win over the ever-threatening Brisbane Lions, we saw a young team that disproves the notion that winless teams are necessarily bad teams. Despite eight losses on the trot, the Lions are still posting a percentage near 74, higher than the two teams ahead of them on the ladder. (Throw out the Richmond debacle, and they’re at 82.5% for the other seven games.) Cam Rayner is only 18 years old. Alex Witherden is just 19. Allison, Hipwood, Berry, Cox, and McCluggage are each 20. Even Charlie Cameron, Lewis Taylor, Tom Cutler and Sam Mayes are only 23 apiece. Only three players on their extended roster are over 28: Zorko, Martin, and Luke “I thought you were retired” Hodge. IF they can stay together in Brisbane (a huge IF, but the club’s trying to do the right things to make it happen), it’s not hard to picture the Lions being a grand finalist throughout the 2020s.

In the classic contest between this year’s surprise up-and-comers, the host North Melbourne Kangaroos, and last year’s surprise up-and-comers, the reigning Premier Richmond Tigers, we saw the very best of what the modern game has to offer. Richmond played its game throughout the match – free-flowing goals, tough punch-out defense, great work in the midfield. And North, up for every challenge, put its soldiers in Riewoldt’s way, put Brown and Waite and Wood to the posts for a percentage of 11-goals-six, and Ben Cunnington in the middle taking a league record 32 contested possessions (of his 38 overall). And yet, with all the talent on display, it was probably the unlikely and uncharacteristic misses from Coleman leader Ben Brown in the last five minutes (who had been an inerrant 26.7 at that moment in the season), that prevented the Kangaroos from going 13.4 instead of 11.6, which would have made for a draw (all other things being equal).

And in Geelong’s game against Collingwood,… well, Gazza’s goal towards the end of the first half was pretty cool. I guess eight out of nine isn’t bad; and the other games look better by comparison.

Now, Your Honor, about the charges against scoring and skills and accuracy…

One of the difficult things for casual observers to understand when they see teams chipping around, or handballing with seemingly little effect, is that they are fighting against stronger, more versatile defenses than perhaps their predecessors played against. The tendency in sport to stretch the duties of the players at its disposal “stretch” beyond just Aussie Rules. Basketball once had very rigid set positions – as a power forward myself in (VERY lower division) basketball leagues here in the States in my youth, I would never have imagined being asked to be a major ball-handler above the key. Or to play above the key at all, for that matter. Magic Johnson may have been the first to change that, and today the “Greek Freak” and LeBron James lead their respective NBA teams from the point, despite the “F” by their position titles.

American football players are increasingly “hyphenated” in their duties, and the Major Leagues are learning to appreciate the Japanese phenom pitcher/hitter Shohei Ohtani, pitching on one day and hitting on others. Strikers and fullbacks roam interchangeably across the soccer-football pitch at times today.

And in today’s AFL, it’s nothing to have Jack Riewoldt or Mason Cox back in protection, especially late in a game, or to see defenders moving forward with goal-sneaking opportunities (occasionally “their first in their AFL careers”, because they hadn’t previously been asked to DO that). Midfielders often push into the front 50, and even defenders are tested in the forward line because “great athletes can play anywhere”.

The coaching schemes, too, are more complex and strategic, and not just in footy, either. The reason in every sport is the same: better video coverage of every opponent allows for better game-planning against them. Better resources (thank you internet, among other sources) allows for better coaching of players, even at the AFL level.

Congestion? Call the tackled ball as the rules are written and you’ll see the improvement immediately. We don’t need zones or fewer players on the field.

Scoring is down? Defenses are better. Shooting accuracy is down? Right now, through eight rounds, only the Saints and Bulldogs have kicked fewer goals than behinds, and the Doggos are at 49%. Leaguewide, AFL Tables lists the goal/behind percentage above 56.5% after Round 8.

The officiating is terrible? The skill levels are terrible? I’m sorry, but watching this week’s games, I’ll beg to differ. (Subjective conversation, I know.)

Where are the great players today? A few of them, like Lance Franklin or half the Giants’ stars, are languishing in the training rooms, but I can’t read that question with a straight face and watch Dustin Martin, Nat Fyfe, Jack Macrae, Tom Mitchell, Ben Brown, Max Gawn, Heath Shaw, Stephen Coniglio, Jeremy Howe, Dayne Zorko, Brodie Grundy, Aaron Sandilands, Joel Selwood, Paddy Dangerfield and too many others to name on the field every week.

The bad teams are really bad… Which ones? Brisbane? Carlton? Western? Have you watched them play? I mean, really watched them? The “bad” teams are mostly just YOUNG teams, and they make young mistakes. You know – like North did last year.

And the good teams? Richmond right now is as good as any team I’ve seen play this decade. They have no obvious weaknesses. Watching North Melbourne give them a run for their money on Sunday was tremendous – their only flaw was not having the experience when push came to shove.

And the Kangaroos are just 4-4. On any given weekend, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be at least one game that everybody LOSES their bottom dollar on, because a team will rise up and defeat somebody they “had no right” to beat that weekend. No matter how good a tipster you are, you’re going to miss a full one-third of the games because the league’s that competitive.

Your Honor, that’s not a boring sport. That’s a sport with the hallmarks of greatness.

This week: The easy picks – Adelaide over Footscray, Port over Gold Coast, Geelong over Essendon, Sydney over Fremantle, Melbourne over Carlton, and Hawthorn over Brisbane.

The hard ones – Our ELO-Following Football ratings have North as a seven point favorite over the shrinking Giants; we like Collingwood to rebound strongly against the Saints, despite the egg they laid against Geelong; and while betting against a seven-game winning streak at home is unusual, the 2018 Richmond Tigers are an unusual team, and unless something untoward happens to this club, they’ll be favored at least until they lose (and probably until they lose a couple, more likely).

Every visiting club this week is at least 4-4. In fact, thirteen of eighteen teams are at least 4-4 right now – we have plenty of good teams! It’s going to be an exciting week!



First published in THE ROAR, May 8th, 2018

The “Expectations Game” is so much fun to play, isn’t it? It’s what gives a fan the chance to celebrate a 2-20 season… IF the team was expected to go winless! Finding reasons to get hyped about your team is the very definition of a fanatic!

Of course, if you’re a coach, it can be a frustrating game to play.

Ask John Worsfold. Essendon’s 2-5 record isn’t really that bad, but when the expectations have them playing finals footy, it sounds terrible.

Take a look at this chart. The actual won-loss record is on the left, and the combined average expected record after seven games is on the right, with the difference on the far right. (Whose expectations are we averaging, you might ask? Well, yours, mostly: these averages come from combining the various betting sites, tipping competitions, published “experts”, and rating systems across the media.)


North Melbourne        4-3-0    (1.75 wins)       Diff: + 2.25 (Significant +)

Fremantle                   3-4-0    (1.44 wins)       Diff: + 1.56 (Significant +)

Gold Coast                  3-4-0    (1.44 wins)       Diff: + 1.56 (Significant +)

Collingwood                4-3-0    (2.63 wins)       Diff: + 1.37 (Significant +)

West Coast                  6-1-0    (4.69 wins)       Diff: + 1.31 (Significant +)

Western Bulldogs        3-4-0    (3.00 wins)       Diff: zero

Hawthorn                   5-2-0    (5.13 wins)       Diff: – 0.13

Adelaide                      5-2-0    (5.19 wins)       Diff: – 0.19

Richmond                    6-1-0    (6.25 wins)       Diff: – 0.25

Port Adelaide              4-3-0    (4.38 wins)       Diff: – 0.38

Melbourne                  4-3-0    (4.38 wins)       Diff: – 0.38

St Kilda                       1-5-1    (2.00 wins)       Diff: – 0.50

Geelong                       4-3-0    (4.69 wins)       Diff: – 0.69

GWS Giants                4-2-1    (5.38 wins)       Diff: – 0.88 (Significant –)

Brisbane                      0-7-0    (0.94 wins)       Diff: – 0.94 (Significant –)

Essendon                     2-5-0    (3.25 wins)       Diff: – 1.25 (Significant –)

Carlton                       0-7-0    (1.38 wins)       Diff: – 1.38 (Significant –)

Sydney                        4-3-0    (5.50 wins)       Diff: – 1.50 (Significant –)


One of the huge factors in a team’s positive performance is having the same effective line-up week after week. Here’s a list comparing the ladder position of each team with the number of players it has used through seven rounds this season, plus the number of players on their injury list as of Monday this week:

Richmond                    6-1-0                27 players – 3 injuries

West Coast                  6-1-0                27 players – 8 injuries

Adelaide                      5-2-0                29 players – 12 injuries

Hawthorn                   5-2-0                30 players – 4 injuries

GWS Giants                4-2-1                30 players – 10 injuries

Geelong                       4-3-0                32 players – 11 injuries

North Melbourne        4-3-0                26 players – 6 injuries

Sydney                        4-3-0                31 players – 10 injuries

Collingwood                4-3-0                29 players – 11 injuries

Melbourne                  4-3-0                31 players – 9 injuries

Port Adelaide              4-3-0                29 players – 6 injuries

Fremantle                   3-4-0                29 players – 11 injuries

Gold Coast                  3-4-0                31 players (27 through R6) – 10 injuries

Western Bulldogs        3-4-0                35 players – 11 injuries

Essendon                     2-5-0                32 players – 6 injuries

St Kilda                       1-5-1                30 players – 5 injuries

Brisbane                      0-7-0                31 players – 4 injuries

Carlton                       0-7-0                31 players – 12 injuries


It’s notable that the two which seem to be sailing along with the lowest number of player participation problems are the team at the top of the ladder, Richmond, and the team with the highest return over expectations for the year, North Melbourne – arguably, the two teams having the best seasons so far in 2018.

Who else has better-than-average personnel situations? West Coast has only had to use 27 players on its six-game winning streak. Adelaide, Port, Collingwood and Fremantle have all used fewer than 30 bodies, and surprise package Gold Coast had only used 27 before debuting four more on Saturday.

On the far end of the scale, it’s hard to look past the youngest team in the competition over in Footscray, which has already used 35 players through seven rounds. They’ve benefitted from the chance to host Carlton and Gold Coast in the past two weeks, and had a nice couple of games at home in rounds 3 and 4 against a struggling Essendon squad and the Sydney squad that the Kangaroos just upset. Another game in which they’ll start as heavy favorites comes along this weekend hosting Brisbane, making six home games out of eight to start the year, potentially winning against four of those teams with a combined five wins so far. Unfortunately for them, they may not be favored again after that until August.

Geelong has held on well despite being next on the walking wounded list, and many (including me) think not having an aging superstar on the field has actually helped them by forcing Elder Twin Coach into playing more of the speedier youngsters, who’ve shined in the crunches for the Cats alongside “Dangerwood”.

The two Sydney teams have lengthy injury lists, as some other teams do, but more crucially it’s WHO sits on their lists that’s kept them to four wins each so far in 2018. You could beat quite a few teams with their out-lists alone: Lance Franklin, Jeremy Cameron, Brett Delidio, Toby Greene, Dan Hannebury, Josh Kelly, Rory Lobb, Jordan Foote, Tom Scully, Lachie Tiziani, Sam Reid, Lewis Melican, Adam Kennedy, Will Setterfield… that’s a pretty strong training room team!

As we alluded to with the Bulldogs, schedule has a great deal to do with perceived success as well. The Doggies may be four-and-four after this weekend, but nobody’s expecting them to still be at .500 in two months’ time. Similarly, after this Friday’s absolute toss-up game against the Hawks, the Swans may also be four-and-four, but with their next four games being against Fremantle, Brisbane, Carlton, and St. Kilda, nobody expects them to still be ONLY .500 in a month’s time, injuries or not.

For Round 8, we’re staying with the favorites (although we’re tipping under the spread in several cases!), with the notable exception of Friday night’s blockbuster, which as we write is a tossup with the bettors AND the ELO-Following Football computers, where we also have Hawthorn at home as a dead-draw with Sydney. We’re taking the Hawks on a hunch, if Buddy’s still out. Beyond that, we’re taking chalk all the way: Giants, Essendon, Melbourne, Adelaide, Bulldogs, Fremantle, Richmond, and Geelong. (The Bulldogs are the only team we’re tipping over the posted spread, however.)

IF all of that holds (a BIG if!), then the ladder will look like what’s below (we’re calling Hawks/Swans a tie for these purposes!). Compare it with what chalk would have forecast back in week four (as per our article from April 10):

R8 Ladder Previous Forecast
Richmond 7-1-0 (7-1)
West Coast 6-2-0 (5-3)
Adelaide 6-2-0 (6-2)
Hawthorn 5-2-1 (5-3)
GWS Giants 5-2-1 (7-1)
Geelong 5-3-0 (3-5)
Melbourne 5-3-0 (6-2)
Sydney 4-3-1 (6-2)
North Melbourne 4-4-0 (2-6)
Collingwood 4-4-0 (3-5)
Port Adelaide 4-4-0 (7-1)
Fremantle 4-4-0 (4-4)
Western Bulldogs 4-4-0 (2-6)
Gold Coast 3-5-0 (4-4)
Essendon 3-5-0 (3-5)
St Kilda 1-6-1 (1-7)
Brisbane 0-8-0 (1-7)
Carlton 0-8-0 (0-8)


Even with three rounds under our belts to forecast from, we were three full games off in some cases (ahem, Power!). After seven rounds, though, we’re still 44-19, just over that two-thirds mark for the moment. Which only proves one thing, as far as I can tell: one-third of all predictions are completely wrong, and we have no way of knowing in advance which third it’s going to be.

Good luck in your tipping, friends!



Pleasantly Surprised

First published in The Roar, April 30, 2018

So, with the top eight set, we can move on to …. What?

You don’t think it’s settled yet? Au contraire!

We’ve used the ELO-Following Football ratings to project forward over the next several rounds – up to round fourteen, through all the byes, for the convenience of comparison. Here’s what we found as an *EXPECTED* projection, minus significant upsets…

Richmond: 11-2

Geelong, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Sydney: 10-3

Giants: 9-3-1

West Coast, Collingwood: 9-4

Then….there’s a big gap

Port Adelaide and Melbourne: 7-6

North Melbourne: 6-7

And…another gap….

Essendon, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs: 4-9

Gold Coast: 3-10

St. Kilda 2-10-1

Carlton 1-12

Brisbane 0-13 with the highest percentage of any winless team ever….


Our projected top eight solidifies after ten rounds, and then the gap widens as R14 approached.

Now, expectations are notoriously fickle. By experience, one-third of the games anyone forecasts will be upsets the other way. But the projected GAP between the top eight and the other ten gives us pause. For comparison, I consulted three other private sources who use concrete numerical rating systems to “separate the wheat from the chaff”, as the Bible would say. The Arc, the Wooden Finger, and Footymaths all have the same thing: nine teams included in their highest ratings, with the ninth being Port Adelaide. But in all four cases, Port is seventh or eighth and dropping. More to the point, its schedule suddenly gets harder over the next few weeks, pulling the Power down to reality.

Looking at the remainder of the rounds (15-23), however, North Melbourne actually seems to be the team most likely to break into the eight, rather than Port, as we play out the season on the computer. The most common final order we come up with resembles Richmond, Adelaide, Hawthorn, Sydney, Giants, West Coast, Collingwood, and Geelong, with North, Port, and Melbourne the only threats to those eight. Our order may not hold, and we may be wrong about one team somewhere (especially when injuries come into play), but I’ll wager that at least six and more likely seven or eight of those nine-win teams make the finals.


So, as I was saying before being so rudely interrupted…

I started this article intending it to be one of those “good/bad”, “pros/cons” article that throws two columns of items at the reader: “Pleasantly surprised” and “Marginally disappointed”. So I set up the two lists in my notebook and began sorting.

But in this fantastically topsy-turvy 2018 season, a pleasantly surprising thing happened:

The list was insanely out-of-balance towards the positive side.

It really is hard to look at any of the eighteen teams and feel any sense of profound disappointment. Sure, an individual loss is hard to take, and it seems like just about everyone’s thrown a stinker in somewhere. But it seems like there are positives throughout the league this season – even the two winless teams have a great deal to be positive about.

Carlton has talent throughout its line-up: Patrick Cripps, Marc Murphy, Jacob Weitering, Jarrod Garlett, Levi Casboult, Paddy Dow, Kade Simpson, the Curnows, the Silvagnis… And they’ve had games that make you realize how good they WILL be. Will they win this year? Of course, probably more than once or twice. And yet they’re still the spoon favorite…

Brisbane may be the most competitive 0-fer in recent history (bar the occasional rout), and you can’t really be disappointed when you’ve got Hipwood, Witherden, Rayner and McCluggage growing every game, Charlie Cameron and Steff Martin showing their brilliance every game and Luke Hodge coaching the back line. When the Daynes are firing on all cylinders, this is a good team. But there are eighteen good teams in the AFL, and winning is never a given on any particular week.

I’m pleasantly surprised by Richmond’s defense of their premiership so far. It’s hard to argue they’re not the best team in the league, and that wasn’t even true last year until the end of September! I’m pleasantly surprised by Dusty Martin’s post-Brownlow season: he’s playing like last year was no fluke. He simply is that good.

I’m pleasantly surprised in West Coast and Geelong. I had both of them dropping out of the eight this season, and so far I sure look foolish. (Which is fine – I’m used to looking foolish!) It’s not the superstar trio that’s making the Cats successful; their first two losses came when that trio was intact! It’s been Bews, Blicavs, Duncan, Horlin-Smith, Tuohy, Menegola, Ratugolea, Menzel, Kelly, Parfitt, Stewart… yes, and Dangerfield, and Selwood, and Ablett.  

In the Eagles’ case, it’s been the dissed leaders – Elliot Yeo, Shannon Hurd, Luke Shuey, Dom Sheed, Andrew Gaff, Mark LeCras, Jack Darling, Chris Masten, Jeremy McGovern, and even Josh Kennedy and Nic Naitanui. I retract my predictions of failure for these two teams; I’m pleasantly surprised that they’ve found the way.

I’m pleasantly surprised in the renaissance of Nat Fyfe and Lance Franklin. Two of the greatest players of their generation have returned to the top of their games, and it’s a privilege to be able to watch them play at their best.

I’m pleasantly surprised by Ben Brown leading the Coleman race by four goals already. He’s going to be legendary before his career is over.

I’m pleasantly surprised Rory Laird is up there with Tom Mitchell leading the league in disposals. Laird lurks behind Sloane and Betts and Walker and so many other Crows – but when you’re leading every midfielder in the league in the most iconic stat in the league? You’re first-team. (And so is Mitchell, Mr. Buckley!)

The ultimate road warriors, the Gold Coast Suns, have somehow come up with a 3-3 record despite only being favored once (and that just barely, in game one in a Cairns deluge). I had them ranked 19th in an 18-team league this year; I’m pleasantly surprised that I was wrong.

Was it actually the subtlest tanking job in history? Last year’s Hawthorn Hawks shot their season by the time ANZAC day had arrived, and although they approached .500 by season’s end, they never felt like a serious threat last season. Alastair Clarkson, my personal choice as the greatest coach of this century, spent games seven through 22 experimenting and reloading last season, and to my pleasant surprise (though there are others, I’m sure, who are not so happy about it!), the Hawks are right back in the thick of things this season after a single year vacationing in September. Expect them to be right there at the end this season.

I’m pleasantly surprised to see North Melbourne so competitive. Yes, their wins three were against teams with a combined record of 5-12-1, but NOBODY had them at 3-3 at this point in the season. Oddsmakers have favored them in exactly ONE game so far: R4, where they were favored by just eight points over a Carlton team they beat by eighty-six.

And I was pleasantly surprised by Sydney’s seven goal fourth quarter Saturday afternoon. I had chalked the game up in Geelong’s win column already, and was checking out Port’s revival against the Kangaroos, when I noticed that the other game had switched leaders. I LOVE that this sport can have a seemingly insurmountable lead, and yet you can’t just put the subs in and sit on that lead! Fifty points isn’t unbeatable!

For that matter, no record is insurmountable until you’re mathematically eliminated. Sydney’s 0-6 start last year is proof of that pudding, as was Richmond’s nine-game winning streak to move from 3-10 and tied for the spoon in R14 to a 12-10 record and the eighth finals spot back in 2014.

I’m pleasantly surprised that we have a season that is so competitive that only three teams have fewer than two losses and only three have fewer than two wins (out of six). Simple math means that ⅔ of the league is within a game of .500, and that means that when Melbourne and Essendon played this Sunday, two tired teams battling at 2-3 to avoid 14th place, we considered them our “disappointments”. Really? Last season, they each finished 12-10. This season, they are still more than in range to finish 12-10 or better, even at 2-4 right now. That’s a disappointment? In 2018, that’s as disappointing as it gets, yes.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised how long a week is in footy this year. It seems like every time a team throws down a shockingly bad effort one week, we are rewarded the following week with a reminder that this league is very balanced. In R1, arguably the worst performance was the 39 points the Kangaroos mustered in Cairns against a young Suns team – the following Saturday, they routed St Kilda by 50. In R2, Richmond was embarrassed in the GF rematch by Adelaide; the next week, they pounded the undefeated Hawks 102-89. So what does Hawthorn do the next round? Destroy the Demons, 115-48.

The worst performance of the year was in R4, put up by Brisbane in their 110-17 defeat. So the following week, of course, they come within one errant Cam Rayner kick from matching Gold Coast. By this logic, we should expect Geelong to rise up against the Giants next Friday, following their trouncing at home by an undermanned Swans team, and North and Carlton to put together miraculous comebacks on Sydney and Adelaide, respectively on Saturday. It’s THAT kind of season.

I’m particularly surprised that I felt pleased that we had another draw so soon. It’s easy to disparage the “kissing your sister” outcome, but what it does for a team, generally, is shift them “out of phase” with their rivals on the ladder. Now, the Giants don’t really care about their percentage, because they won’t be tying those rivals. Instead, unless they score a second tie (which is impossible, right, GWS?), they’ll be two points off in either direction on the premiership point list.

I’m pleased that I get to watch so many transcendent stars perform every week. Dusty, Paddy, Buddy, Nic Nat, Fyfe… Appreciate them while they’re here, my friends!

And I’m happy that we can follow “projects” like my American brethren Mason Cox or the supremely athletic Majak Daw. With the VFL and its sister leagues to build skills in, those borderline performers have a place to hone their skills, rather than (for example) in the NFL, where you either have a job, or you don’t.

Then, I’m also happy to see the stunning entries of new stars breaking in to the AFL, and the joyous celebration that surrounds them – the presentation of their first guernsey, the video of their phone call home with the news (posted on the Web for all to enjoy), the mob celebrations of their first goal in an AFL game. What delights!

I’m happy to see the reverence and traditions of ANZAC Day, even though I am American. I wish our nation took its traditions more soberly.

I’m pleased to live in the era of the internet, where every game is available on-line from half a world away.

I’m pleased to hear the honesty of coaches and players, willing to talk about their mistakes and acknowledge their failings, in a world where too often our public figures are too willing to blame everything on anyone else.

I’m pleased to see women’s footy treated like a real sport.

I’m pleased to see the reduction in player-forced movement between teams – suck it up, boys. Most of us would gladly move out of state to pursue a career improvement.

And I’m always pleasantly surprised that folks like you are interested in my ramblings half a world away. Thanks for taking the time to read, friends, and thanks to my buddies at the Roar for publishing my weekly columns.


Next week’s predictions: After guaranteeing earlier in this article that a third of our predictions will end up being mistaken, it tickles me to tell you our “ELO-Following Football” season record is now 36-18,  exactly two-thirds accurate and one-third upsets! Here’s our ELO-FF point spreads for next week:

Geelong by 6 over GWS; Bulldogs by 18 over Gold Coast; Hawthorn by 25 over Essendon; West Coast by 5 over Port Adelaide; Sydney by 29 over North Melbourne; Adelaide by 51 over Carlton; Richmond by 56 over Fremantle; Melbourne by 11 over St Kilda; Collingwood by 23 over Brisbane.


The Roar – Apr 23 2018

In the 121-year history of the league, only ONCE has a team kicked so accurately that over 60% of its scores during the full season travelled between the big sticks, majors as opposed to behinds. (Keep in mind, the AFL and its predecessors don’t distinguish between a poor kick and a rushed behind – to the statisticians, rushed behinds are always credited as inaccurate kicks to the opposition. Lousy, in my mind, but it does simplify things, and as long as it’s equal for everyone…)

That once happened recently, as you might have guessed. (In 1897, the league-wide accuracy percentage was just 39.6% ; last season, it was just shy of 53%, with generally steady improvement in between.) It happened with an otherwise unremarkable 2004 St Kilda team that went 16-6, placed third in the league before losing by a goal to eventual champion Port Adelaide in the preliminary final, and oh yes, kicked 370 goals on the season (highest in the league that year) while only scoring 223 one-pointers that year (5th fewest, no one ahead of them within 100 goals of the Saints).

Why were they so much higher that season? Honestly, I struggle to find one specific reason. In 2004, their opponent kicking accuracy was also remarkably high (57%, second highest in the AFL), so there may have been a bit of a Paul Westphal “offense-trumps-defense” attitude that year. (Whoops! Sorry! In my native US right now, “trumps” is a dirty word.)

But the Saints were well above average throughout the decade, from their lowest point, gaining just six wins in 2000-2001 combined  (when they still kicked 56%), through those landmark near-championship seasons of 2009 and 2010 (except for the one year in 2007 when they not only had more minors than majors for the only time in that stretch, but missed the finals as well).

In 2004, Fraser Gehrig kicked 103 goals and just 38 behinds. Nick Riewoldt went 67.32, Stephen Milne kicked 46.22 for the year, and Brent Guerra was a superb 29.5 on the season. None of the players in double figure goal totals kicked worse than 50% accuracy. That consistency up and down the lineup is undoubtedly part of the reason they achieved a number never seen before or since over a full season.

Sydney demonstrated how important kicking accuracy is Friday night. Ten minutes into the fourth quarter, with Adelaide leading 85-58 – down 27 points at home – the Swans made the last seven scores of the game, holding the Crows scoreless over the final twenty minutes. Simple math tells us that had they made five goals two, they would have won; four goals three, and they draw. Over the first four games this season, they had kicked 57.33, kicking with 63% accuracy.

Let John Longmire choose his kickers, and he very likely might have chosen Isaac Heeney, George Hewett, Gary Rohan, and that guy named Buddy. That seems a very promising line-up. 63%? Had he known what was coming, he would have thought, we should be safe.

They converted just two out of seven. Two goals five. The Swans lost by ten.

Kicking accuracy is underrated at times. ¨Good kicking is good footy¨, sure. But maybe we fail to take it to heart in practice, like free throw shooting in basketball, or putting in golf. We will have to see what it costs the Swans down the road in this already extremely tight, unpredictable season.

It cost their cross-town rivals a win this weekend as well. The Giants were at least four goal favorites over the Saints Saturday afternoon, but despite the fact that St. Kilda hardly lived up to the standards of their last-decade predecessors, kicking just 10.13 (under 44 percent for the game; their disposal accuracy was equally weak), the charcoal-and-orange was FAR worse, kicking only nine of their 28 scoring shots between the big sticks and having to settle for a draw with their bottom four opponents at 73 apiece. Kicking 9.19 is poor in the worst of conditions, but under the roof at Etihad, for a top-four team to have its stars miss some of the set shots they missed was nothing short of embarrassing.

When you first hear that two AFL teams have played to a draw, as the Giants have now done in THREE of their last fourteen home-and-away games, do you normally assume, as I do, that they probably scored the same number of goals? I mean, would it not seem unusual to you if one team made up for a lack of a goal with six minor scores, coincidentally just happening to land on the same final total?

No? It’s just me? Hmm…

Regardless of our mutual psychological disorders, it happens to be that the more unusual circumstance is to have an identical scoreline across the board! In the history of the AFL (i.e., since 1990), only 20 of the 48 draws had final scorelines that resembled that of the Giants and Cats in R15 last year (10.8.68 apiece), while fully 58.3% of the games more closely resembled not just Saturday’s game (and the Giants/Hawks draw in R16 last season), but the infamous Collingwood/St. Kilda grand final which put an end to the come-back-next-week method of settling finals matches. (In that first GF, the Saints out-goaled the Magpies 10-9, but the black-and-white had six more single-point jobs; Collingwood won the following week with panache, 108-52.)

The trend extends back to the beginning of the sport. From WW2 until its transformation to the national format, the league produced a whopping 57% (33 out of 58) draws which failed to produce matching scorelines. Since the founding of the VFL in 1897, Saturday’s game was the 158th draw (thank you AFL TABLES for these and many other stats in use on this site!), and a full 56.3% have resulted from one team matching six behinds to a goal for the other side, rather than posting identical major-minor scorecards.

Two quick notes on this before we leave the topic: One is that we noticed that the reason the percentage of identical scorelines is continuing to decrease slightly over the decades because the total scores were getting higher for so long – there are more ways to count to, say, 94 than there are ways to count to 49. Also, because accuracy rates are steadily improving league wide, it has become more likely to have one team kick something like 16.6 to offset 15.12 or even 14.16, than it might have been when the average accuracy rate was in the low forties.

Secondly, it would seem pretty obvious that it would be more likely for the teams to differ by one goal to six behinds than, say, by two goals for one team to twelve behinds for the other. But it will be hard to top the 1948 Grand Final, when Melbourne managed to tie Essendon despite the Bombers connecting on FIFTEEN more scoring shots than the Demons.

You read that right: Melbourne kicked 10.9.69, while Essendon managed a woeful 7.27.69! That game remains, alongside a 1935 clash where Carlton only hit 9.25.79 against Footscray (12.7.79), as one of the only two draws in VFL / AFL history where two drawn teams were separated by as many as three full goals. In the 1948 grand final rematch the following week, by the way, Melbourne defeated the minor premiers 89-50 to take the crown.

The kicking issues are bound to be a problem for clubs again this season, if only from game to game. West Coast let Carlton stay in the match with them Saturday despite ten more scoring shots by kicking 10 goals 19 for the match, while the Blues converted over 50 percent. This season, there have been four matches where the losing team scored more often than the winning squad, which anecdotally is on par with past years (just under once per round). It happens more often than it should, quite honestly, and when it looks like the two Harbour City team performances this weekend, it’s an issue that needs to be addressed in practice the following week, at the least.

It’s too early to evaluate all of Round Five’s results, but here’s a quick look at round six:

Four games look like easy wins for GWS, Hawthorn, Adelaide, and West Coast (over Brisbane, St. Kilda, Gold Coast, and Fremantle respectively). Richmond and Port seem like the preferences in their games (against Collingwood and the Kangaroos), leaving the Bulldogs/Blues, Geelong/Sydney and Essendon/Melbourne games to flip coins over.

I really want to take Footscray Friday against an inferior and injury-racked Carlton team, but it’s hard to after their R5 performances. Neither club deserves a Friday showcase right now, regardless of how competitive the game might end up being. The Swans are the better team in the Saturday matchup, but at Kardinia Park, the lineups will make the difference. And as for the ANZAC aftermath, I want to see how the holiday game performances go before picking a Dons/Demons winner.

Brisbane, Brisbane….

First published in The Roar, April 16th, 2018

Here’s my initial reaction to the 110-17 Lions loss on Saturday. (“Loss” seems like such an inadequate word here. “Demolition”? “Implosion”? “Self-immolation”?)

Step 1: Enter the team into the Witness Protection Program. (Witness to what, you might ask? To its own murder, perhaps; the team at no time Saturday appeared to be participants, so they must’ve been witnesses.)

Step 2: The team is assigned at least two federal agents to aid them in this process.

Step 3: Put uniforms on those agents and play them in next week’s game. They can’t be any worse than the players who wore the lion this weekend.


Seventeen points, believe it or don’t, actually flatters Brisbane’s performance. Until the final two minutes of the third, the Lions had been stuck on FOUR for about a full quarter of play. Zero goals. There were a few times when it seemed a certainty they would put one between the sticks; David Astbury outplayed Stefan Martin for a ball in the third when it seemed the latter had a sure goal coming his way. But for the most part, the Lions never felt as though they had a chance to score. Their defense was laughable at times; their offense ranged the gamut from ineffective to nonexistent. The last of Dustin Martin’s six goals came off a ball sent to him in the goal square by Jack Riewoldt with (I kid you not) a full third of the field between himself and any defensive player.

When young Cam Rayner scored Brisbane’s second goal with eleven minutes left in the game, it prevented the score being the lowest of the AFL’s nationwide history – Fremantle tallied just 1.7.13 against Adelaide’s 130 on July 11 of 2009. Before that, though, you’d have to go back to 1989 to find another score under 17 points in the league (technically the VFL). On that Saturday afternoon, the two predecessors of the Brisbane Lions combined for just 40 points: the Brisbane Bears put just 26 on the board, ironically at the MCG against Richmond as this year’s Saturday afternoon debacle was; and the Fitzroy Lions managed only one goal-eight for 14 points at Princes Park against the Kangaroos. The year before, the Brisbane Bears kicked two-five themselves, losing 80-17 to the Hawks in round 12.

Had the 2018 Lions not put that second goal on the board, you’d have had to go all the way back to 1961 to find a team less fruitful on the board in a game. In fact, it was this very Richmond Tiger franchise which had the dubious honor of being the last team to play a full game stuck in single digits, the last team to play a full game without scoring a single goal, and the lowest-scoring team in the last 65 years in a 91-8 R16 drubbing by St. Kilda on August 12th at Princes Park.

If you wanted to go any lower still, you’d have to go back to a Fitzroy game in 1953 to find it (those Lions scored just once against Footscray, a fourth quarter goal that prevented a shutout!), and to go still lower you’d have to retreat to the 19th century, when the average game scores were in the thirties, to any of a number of (mostly Saints) games. The worst of the defeats those original St, Kilda teams suffered, which went 0-48 its first three seasons, was a description-defying drubbing by the Geelong Cats on the final in-season afternoon of the 1899 season. Trailing South Melbourne (now Sydney) by a game for the final spot in the finals, the Cats apparently decided that they needed make darned sure that IF South lost, they wouldn’t be nipped at the line by percentage. And since South Melbourne was playing Essendon simultaneously on the opposite side of Melbourne, and Geelong couldn’t know for sure what was happening there, they decided to take no chances with the hapless Saints.

162 to one.

Read that again, just to make sure you understand that score.

One hundred and sixty-two… to ONE.

St. Kilda registered a behind sometime in the first quarter, and Geelong score four-goals-seven, leading 31 to 1. With the victory already well in hand, the Cats could have coasted from there. But, as stated, they weren’t going to take any chances in case South Melbourne lost. Essendon was a good team that year, completely capable of beating South, and if they did, Geelong wanted to be ready to step in. So the goals kept piling up. At halftime, they led by 90 points. Before the third quarter ended, they’d broken the league record for points for a full game, set by Essendon against this very Saints squad two games ago at 120. By game’s end, the Cats had 23 goals and 24 behinds, 162 points, to St. Kilda’s solitary point in that first quarter.

It didn’t help. South defeated Essendon 29-13 and took the Grand Finals spot against Fitzroy, where they lost by one, 27-26. But Geelong had at leashed smashed the league’s scoring record, and held it until Essendon did them one point better in 1911. Meanwhile, of course, nobody has erased St. Kilda’s futility from the record book, except perhaps to distinguish the low-scoring era of the 19th century (and even into the first decade or so of the 20th) and give Fitzroy’s one-goal effort a place of reverse-distinction.


Carlton felt safe to put a mere thirty points up Saturday night against the Ben Brown Tasmanian All-Stars, knowing that as long as they surpassed two-goals-five, they wouldn’t be the talk of the footy community this week. Likewise, Adelaide’s script flip from thirty-point favorites to fifty-point losers is likely buried on page two now, as is Port’s fall for undefeated grace, following the record-pressing ineptitude of Queensland’s footy triple royalty.

(By the way, in sixteen AFLW matches, the lady Lions have never been held to just seventeen points, even in the shortened game format used by the women’s league. Their lowest score, interestingly, was 21 points in this year’s Grand Final loss to Footscray, 27-21; before that, it was a 22-15 WIN in round four over Fremantle.)

Since we brought up the Crows’ rout at the claws of the Magpies, it brings up an interesting topic that struck as we were analyzing round four in advance: what percentage of the time do heavy favorites actually win those games? (Or, conversely, how often do heavy underdogs actually pull the upset?) We used data from this season and last to get the beginning of an answer.

With 36 games played thus far in the season, there have been as many as 18 which seem to fall in the “heavy favorite” category. At “Following Football”, we track quite a few prognosticators for accuracy, including how certain they were about the outcome. For ex., there are twelve experts picking games at The Age, and six (counting the poll pick and “mastermind5991”, who posts in-depth picks here weekly as well) at The Roar. also shows percentages for its “crowd bet” for the two hundred thousand folks who tip games on their site. And we also track a half-dozen sources of “point spread” predictions that, for the purposes of this research, we’re going to convert to a guesstimate of probabilities of the favored team winning based on some work done by Matt Cowgill at The ARC, a good site with a similar bent as our Following Football site.

Here are the games from THIS season so far which meet any of these thresholds: 90% of forecasters at the Age/the Roar favor the same team, 90% of the “CrowdBet” tipsters lean towards the same team, or there’s a point spread over 30 points for the favorite, which corresponds mathematically to an 80% expectation of victory for that team.

ROUNDFavorite/UnderdogRoar/AgeCrowdBet  Point spread  UPSET?

1              Richmond/Carlton                   17-1                 96%             no                       no

1               St Kilda/Brisbane                  17-1                 93%            no                        no

1               Port Adelaide/Fremantle       no                    93%            yes                      no

1               GWS/Western                          18-0                92%            no                       no

2                No Melbourne/St Kilda         18-0                 91%             no                     YES

2                 GWS/Collingwood                 18-0                no                no                       no

2                  Melbourne/Brisbane             18-0                90%             no                       no

2                   Essendon/Fremantle           17-1               no                  no                       YES

2                   Sydney/Port Adelaide          18-0               no                 no                          YES

3                    Port Adelaide/Brisbane       18-0              98%              yes                        no (but almost!)

3                     Melbourne/No Melbourne  18-0              91%               no                        no

3                     Adelaide/St Kilda                   17-1             91%               no                        no

3                      Essendon/Western BD         17-1            no                    no                       YES

4                       Adelaide/Collingwood         18-0            96%               yes                      YES 

4                        GWS/Fremantle                   18-0             96%              yes                        no

4                          Richmond/Brisbane          18-0            99%               yes                       no

4                        West Coast/Gold Coast    17-1            96%               yes                      no

4                         Geelong/St Kilda                 17-1             97%               no                        no

                           TOTALS                       (12 up, 5 dn)           (11 up, 2 dn)            (5 up, 1 dn)

                                                                       (70.6%)            (84.6%)               (83.3%)


Interesting totals. Despite the illusion of “90% accuracy”, we’re really not getting any better than about 84% or so.

What about last year’s numbers? For CrowdBet, of all the games where the favorite was at 90% or higher, the favorite went 59-17 (77.6%). Combining the two publication panels, again where the favored winner hit 90% of experts or higher, their record was 72-29 (71.3%). And finally, in the situations where the point spreads from the punters and from Following Football were over thirty, where we therefore expected an 80% probability of victory, the actual record last year was 34-6, a robust 85% accuracy rate but in direct contrast to the percentages we came up with for THIS year’s games so far!


Our predictions for next week, round five? Are you kidding? On a ladder where the top fourteen teams are within a game of the lead? Literally, any of those fourteen are just one overwhelming game away from the top of the ladder – or out of the finals. What an amazing season this is shaping up to be!

Sydney or Adelaide? Good question; ELO-FF says Swans by 2. GWS over SK by several goals. West Coast and Port Adelaide with comfortable space. Fremantle loses a one-point game to the suddenly surging Bulldogs. North or Hawthorn? Good question; we’ll take Clarko in a pinch. Brisbane or Gold Coast? Depends on which team has more pride and was more embarrassed by its last game or two. Brisbane’s more “due”. ANZAC warm-up: all Richmond. ANZAC main event: Collingwood is surging.

Last week: 7-2 (like everyone else, missed on Collingwood and Essendon).

Overall: 21-16. Unremarkable but in this topsy turvy season, well above average.





Where SHOULD your footy team be right now?

Originally printed in The Roar, Monday, April 9, 2018

If you look at the standings early in the season, it’s hard to tell how your team’s actually doing unless you’re paying attention to the competition they and the teams around them have faced so far. Gold Coast’s impressive start comes on the back of three opponents who were all in the bottom third last year; Sydney’s had to repeat last year’s front-loaded schedule that saw them go 0-6 to start 2017, followed by 15-3 the rest of the way. Eventually, it will all balance out. Eventually.

But right now? Here’s a quick way to tell – let’s compare each team’s record with what the various prognostication methods led us to expect of them so far.

Adelaide (currently third, 2-1, 131% [+73 points], ELO-FF rating of 76.7)

     The oddsmakers expected them to win all three games (3-0, +35.5 points). My ELO-Following Football rating system projected them at 2-0-1, +48 points. does weekly predictions, and they thought the Crows should be 2-1, +29 points. The Roar also predicted 2-1; the pundits at The Age said they’d be 1-2, and the CrownBet’s “CrowdBet” percentages suggest that the populace foresaw a 3-0 start to the Adelaide season.

     Overall? About where we all thought they’d be: competitive and towards the top of the ladder. Collingwood, Gold Coast, and Carlton are all coming to Adelaide over the next four weeks – you’d think they should be able to have at least 5-2 under their belts by the time they play Port in R8.

Brisbane (currently 17th, 0-3, 82% [-56], rating of 32.5)

     Oddsmakers, ELO-FF,, The Roar, The Age, and CrowdBet all predicted 0-3 for the Lions so far this season. Point spreads range from -78 to -90.

     Overall? Slightly better than expected, mostly from Sunday’s close game with Port, despite the bagel in the W-column. Guarantee they won’t be 0-8: one (or more) of Richmond, Gold Coast, GWS, Collingwood, or the Bulldogs should give them a win.

Carlton (currently 18th, 0-3, 74% [-84], rating of 29.2)

     Oddmakers predicted 1-2, -27.5 points. ELO-FF predicted 1-2, down 36 points. actually said 2-1, +12 points at this juncture. The Roar, The Age, and CrowdBet all had the Blues at 1-2 at this point in the season.

     Overall? Disappointing – nobody had them winless at this juncture. We won’t be surprised if they go 0-8, however, even with winnable games v. North and Dogs coming up.

Collingwood (currently 14th, 1-2, 90% [-26], rating of 47.8)

According to both the oddsmakers and ELO-FF, the Magpies were expected to be 1-2 with about a one point differential in the red. has them 0-3 (-66 points), while the Roar, the Age, and CrowdBet all forecast a 1-2 start to the season.

      Overall? Right about where we expected them, which isn’t necessarily good news for Magpie Nation. They play the Crows, Dons, Tigers, Lions, and Cats the next five weeks: 1-7 is not impossible, but 4-4 seems unlikely.

Essendon (currently 13th, 1-2, 92% [-25], rating of 42.7)

     Oddsmakers foresaw a 2-1 start, +21.5; our ELO-FF system thought their 2-1 start would have a +5 margin. All the other prognosticators saw a 2-1 start as well, except for The Age, which thought they’d be 3-0 at this point in the season.

     Overall? Disappointing. ELO-FF rating dove nine points last two weeks. Possible they go 1-6 if things go as this game did. (Port, Magpies, Demons, Hawks.)

Fremantle (currently 10th, 2-1, 98% [-6], rating of 31.0)

     Oddsmakers: 1-2. -17. ELO-FF: 1-2. -47. 0-3, -54. All others 1-2.

     Overall? Above expected, thanks partly to the convenience of Gold Coast’s “home” loss this weekend. Rating and percentage indicate it’s somewhat smoke and mirrors. But three of their next five games are winnable; they may not be done surprising us yet.

Geelong (currently 12th, 1-2, 96% [-13], rating of 59.4)

     Oddsmakers thought they’d be 2-0-1, with a tie to Melbourne the only blemish. ELO-FF had a tie to Hawthorn making them 1-1-1. The others are all across the board: said 2-1, as did The Roar; the Age said 1-2, but CrowdBet thought they’d be 3-0 by now.

     Overall? “Dangerwoodlett” is 0-2. (I feel prescient right now.) You could’ve made good money forecasting the Kangaroos ahead of Geelong at this stage. After St. Kilda on Sunday, they get Port, Sydney, and GWS. 2-5 is staring them in the face.

Gold Coast (currently sixth, 2-1, 111% [+22], rating of 26.5 [18th])

     Oddsmakers had them 1-2 at this point, down 28 points. ELO-FF started them in last place, so they’re “supposed” to be 0-3. figured they’d be 2-1 (-1 point), The Roar, The Age and CrowdBet 1-2.

     Overall? Take a wild guess. Even outnumbered at their “home” game in the stands hundreds to one, they held their competitive edge against a Purple Haze that was fortunate for the freebie. 5-2 would not surprise me before their trip to China, and I was the one who originally had them in 19th place this season. (I will eat my Adelaide player later.)  

Greater Western Sydney (currently second, 2-1, 135% [+82], rating of 68.4)

     The oddsmakers and ELO-FF both have them at 2-1 at this stage (+31 and +22 respectively). and The Roar both said 3-0 was their bet; The Age has them 2-0-1 (a tie with Sydney), and CrowdBet at 2-1.

     Overall? They own the highest percentage and margin (even over 3-0 Port), and will be favorites to be 8-1 entering June unless injuries keep mounting. Hard to complain.

Hawthorn (currently eighth, 2-1, 108% [+22], rating of 56.3)

     Oddsmakers said 1-2 (-14.5 points); the ELO-FF had them at 1-1-1 with the aforementioned tie to the Cats in there. thought 1-2 as well, although the Roar has them at 2-1, while the Age and CrowdBet thought 1-2 more likely.

     Overall? Better than most expected. They face Melbourne, North, Saints and Bombers the next four weeks: win three, which they should, and they’ll be favorites  to make finals.

Melbourne (currently fourth, 2-1, 123% [+60], rating of 56.0)

     Oddsmakers have the Demons in a 2-0-1 mode, that tie with Geelong the only battle scar. We have them at 2-1 in the ELO-FF. While predicted a 3-0 start, as do The Roar and The Age, CrowdBet only have them 2-1, and two of my other sources had them at 1-2! All over the place…

     Overall? Kind of in the middle of where they were forecast. Their one loss was by three to the Cats; their two wins were over bottom four quality teams. It’s hard to tell what the Demons really ARE as of yet. Hawthorn, Richmond, and Essendon in rounds 4-6 may tell us a ton more.

North Melbourne (currently 11th, 1-2, 99.6% [-1], rating of 39.7)

     The only one of our quoted sources that expected a single victory out of the Kangaroos so far was our own ELO-FF system…but we thought it would be against Gold Coast, not St. Kilda. Everyone else had them on the way to the spoon at 0-3.

     Overall? Any win is a good win. And they’re at the top of the 1-2 teams right now, above Geelong and Essendon. Hard to complain!

Port Adelaide (currently first, 3-0, 135% [+78], rating of 63.2)

     All across the board, the Power were expected to be 2-1 at this juncture, from 56 to 74 points to the good.

     Overall? One more win than expected, and a big scalp for a supposed “flat-track bully”,  so kudos to the league leaders. Adelaide in round 8 looks like their most likely loss opportunity before travelling to China.

Richmond (currently ninth, 2-1, 101% [+3], rating of 69.4)

     Oddsmakers thought they’d be 2-1; ELO-FF had them at 2-0-1 (tying Adelaide), both and The Age figured the Tigers would be 3-0 by now, while the Roar and CrowdBet both thought 2-1 was more likely.

     Overall? We’ve had them drop ratings points in all three games so far, so the record’s not as impressive as it looks. (Insert “Richmond in ninth place” joke here.) But every game from now until June is winnable, and except for West Coast at Optus, the Tigers should be favored to be no worse than 9-2 going to Port Adelaide in R12.


St. Kilda (currently 15th, 1-2, 73% [-76], rating of 38.0)

     The Saints were universally expected to be 2-1 at this juncture, with wins against Brisbane and North followed by a loss to the Crows.

     Overall? They’ve lost rating points every week (including their win), and only the Dogs have a worse percentage than the Saints. With Geelong, the Giants, Hawthorn, and Melbourne on deck, they’re looking 1-6 squarely in the halo unless something turns around quickly.

Sydney (currently seventh, 2-1, 108% [+22], rating of 73.0)

     The ELO-FF and the oddsmakers had identical 3-0 records for the Swans (both +39 points, in fact). The others run 2-1, 2-1, 2-0-1, and 3-0 (Crowdbet loves the two Sydney squads).

     Overall? A competitive loss to Port this year isn’t embarrassing. They host Adelaide in R5, but otherwise there’s no reason they couldn’t make it to their R14 bye now with at least ten wins, maybe 11 or even 12 if Buddy stays healthy.

West Coast (currently fifth, 2-1, 114% [+37], rating of 55.4)

     The oddsmakers have yet to make the Eagles a favorite, listing them 0-3 so far. ELO-FF has them at 1-2, favoring them this weekend hosting the Cats. All other pundits are similar, either 0-3 ( and Crowdbet) or 1-2.

     Overall? Better than expected, obviously. But Gold Coast, Carlton, and Freo make 5-1 look very manageable. After that, a .500 record probably gets them into September…

Western Bulldogs (currently 16th. 1-2, 67% [-112], rating of 34.8)

     Oddsmakers and ELO-FF have identical 1-2 marks with a -28 margin. Everyone else has the same 1-2 record except The Roar, which figured them with an 0-3 record, having not gone with the crowd and picked West Coast to win in Etihad in R2. (They went with reason and bet against them last week, but so did everybody. No shame there.)

     Overall? The Dogs were at a negative 133 margin after two games. TWO. Ask yourself which is more likely: this week’s defeat of Essendon is the real Footscray, and they’ll play Sydney close at Etihad this Saturday, or the real team is the one the Giants cruised over by eighty-plus in week one, and the “other” Sydney squad will have the chance to beat that mark this weekend.

     Yeah, me too.

     So, looking ahead, what do the pundits see happening in the next couple of rounds?

     The favorites next week are generally going to be Adelaide, GWS, Richmond, Sydney, probably Port, Hawthorn, Geelong, North, and West Coast. In Round 5, expect the favorites to be GWS, West Coast, Port, Hawthorn, and Fremantle, with four games that could be tossups in two weeks: Sydney/Adelaide, Brisbane/GCS, Melbourne/Richmond, and Collingwood/Essendon (depending on how they’re trending by then).

      If that’s the case, we could very well be looking at a ladder that looks something like this in two weeks:

Port Adelaide (5-0)

GWS, West Coast, Hawthorn (4-1)

Sydney, Adelaide, Richmond (4-1 or 3-2)

Fremantle (3-2)

Melbourne, Gold Coast (3-2 or 2-3)

North Melbourne, Geelong (2-3)

Essendon, Collingwood (2-3 or 1-4)

St. Kilda, Western BD (1-4)

Brisbane (1-4 or 0-5)

Carlton (0-5)

       And we were projecting records for most of the teams around Round 8 in this piece…

Port, GWS, Richmond (7-1)

Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney (6-2)

Hawthorn, West Coast (5-3)

Fremantle, Gold Coast (4-4)

Collingwood, Essendon, Geelong (3-5)

No. Melbourne, Western BD (2-6)

Brisbane, St. Kilda (1-7)

Carlton (0-8)

Of course, since the best prognosticators we could find last year were only right ⅔ of the time, as always, take every prediction you read with a grain or seventy of salt!

Week Two of AFL 2018

Originally published in The Roar, April 3, 2018

Does anyone have a handle on the 2018 season yet? I sure don’t.

Four teams are undefeated: GWS and Port (very expected), Hawthorn and Gold Coast (not nearly so much). Four teams are winless: Carlton and Brisbane (understandable), Collingwood and Footscray (a bit more startling).

The first eighteen games produced surprising results – North over the Saints by fifty-two? Fremantle defeating Essendon? – and some classic games – follow Geelong around and watch the fireworks blow! They’re two for two in producing instant classics!

Digging into the numbers a bit deeper may give us a better perspective regarding what’s happening and what’s going to happen in the next few rounds.

Better Than Anticipated: All three of these teams have beaten the spread twice, raised their ELO ratings twice, and shown themselves BTA twice.  

***Gold Coast may have beaten two of last year’s bottom four sides to amass their 2-0 record, but given that I had them in (fictional) “19th place” before the season started, I’m impressed anyway. My ELO-Following Football ratings had them as the lowest rated team in the league, having lost the only top 20 rated player in their history, and yet they’ve persevered with a superb offensive plan, a solid defense, and a never-say-die attitude that only the young are naive enough to maintain. (I wish I was young enough to still have that attitude!). They’ll be tested more deeply soon as they continue on the longest road trip in AFL history: this Saturday, somehow, they become the third AFL team to hold a “home” game at the brand new Optus Stadium as they “host” Fremantle. (To the league’s credit, they then get to stay there to play a “road” game in the same facility against West Coast in round 4. Well played, AFL.)

***Port Adelaide defeated a top team on the road! Stop the presses! More to the point, Sydney had Franklin Crankin’, andPort  still managed to pull away in the late stages Sunday, thanks not only to their new recruits but to star-in-training Riley Bonner, who kicked what felt like the clinching goal Sunday. (And let’s add an additional BTA to ***Lance Franklin, who’s already at a dozen goals for the year, some of the spectacular variety. Everyone in this league can kick one sideways/half-backwards; only Buddy can do it standing on the arc.)

***Hawthorn is good again. I don’t know how it happened, but that I have a sneaking suspicion that they werenever that bad. I wouldn’t put it past the best coach in the league to have cleverly disguised #HawkTank2017 in such a way that made them look old and beyond repair last season, once he saw that they had no shot at a high seed after six games last year. But superstar Tom Mitchell was better than Dangerwoodlett by himself Monday, Ben McEvoy and Liam Shiels are suddenly irreplacable, and Jarryd Roughhead won the game Monday night with a shot that showed he understood the situation perfectly: a behind was as good as a goal right then. It’s hard to beat a smart team that tries hard.

Which, unfortunately, leads to the Poorer Than Expected segment: three teams who have dropped ELO rating points in both games and shown us that a reconsideration of their prospects in 2018 may be in order already.

***Western Bulldogs. Their post mortems from others will probably fill the pages of this publication. No need for me to pile on right now, except to add that playing smart is something they’re not doing right now.

***Saint Kilda was the most disappointing single-game team in round two, although the Dogs take the cake for their current body of work overall. Losing to one of the spoon favorites is one thing; losing to them on the ground you’re used to defending is worse; losing to them by fifty-two is worse still; scoring just five goals-thirteen in perfect weather requires a Saturday morning meeting to make sure you don’t lose the team entirely after two weeks of the season. Their win over Brisbane was more difficult than we expected, but we all thought “perhaps the Lions really ARE moving forward”. Instead, we may need to rethink the Lions as well.

***Collingwood was one of my picks to surprise and move into the final eight this season. After watching their scoring options reduce to the American Pie and a handful of Australian cookies, none of whom seem to be able to bake enough goals to beat teams of substance. If their injured forwards are out for as long as it seems they might be, any team that can score ninety will find the Magpies easy pickings.

What does the ELO-Following Football computer think about Round 3? It’s still obsessing over Round 2, that’s what! It agreed with the crowd on Adelaide, Melbourne, and GWS winning; it lost alongside the crowd with the Roos, Blues, and Bombers losing. We wanted to bet Portside but had too much faith in Buddy, forgetting he was but one man. We saw that the Bulldogs were in trouble but pulled the trigger on them anyway, and we knew the Geelong/Hawthorn game would be a virtual tie but flipped the coin and it landed Cats. Officially, then, the computer went 3-6 but felt like Carlton after Round 1 – a moral victory that feels good and means nothing.

In Round 3, we agree with the oddsmakers giving Collingwood a two-goal margin over Carlton Friday night. Saturday afternoon, we like Port to win but Brisbane to cover, and Melbourne to win but North to cover, mostly because history. In the twilight game, we’re hopping on the Stewie-Dewie train and taking Gold Coast to go three-and-zero in their west coast “home debut”. On Saturday evening, ELO-FF likes the favorites, Sydney and Adelaide, to win and cover, as do I. In the early game Sunday, I’m going to disagree with the computer: it sees Richmondwinning by 25, while I think Hawthorn pulls the upset here. We both like Essendon over the Bulldogs (me more than the computer, because it can’t see the blood in the water), and we both think West Coast will upset the Cats in Optus Sunday afternoon. (West Coast has raised its rating five points already this season, and the Cats have lowered its rating both weeks this season.)

Records: 11-8 overall (for both the human and the ELO-FF).

ELO Observations on round one, round two and the AFLW grand final

Originally published in The Roar, March 29, 2018

The ELO-Following Football AFL rating system did better predicting last week’s games than the human behind it did. Reviewing last week’s forecasts, the only one we both missed – as most folks did – was Adelaide’s loss to Essendon.

I adjusted three of my choices away from the ELO recommendations and was only right with the Gold Coast-North Melbourne slobber knocker. My leans towards Melbourne and Collingwood in closely predicted games turned out to be wrong.

So if you count nailing the women’s final, the ELO-FF system is 8-2, and I’m 7-3. Neither is particularly impressive because it looks like this was a remarkably ‘in-form’ first round.

First rounds are notoriously hard to forecast, especially for systems like mine which are results-based rather than speculative. I make adjustments based on pre-season form, draft and, most importantly, on the projected starting 22 going into a game, but first-round games are hard when the only results available, arguably, belong to a significantly different team from six or seven months ago.

My observations coming out of round one.

Buddy be Buddy
I could watch Lance Franklin play football every day for the rest of my life. He can do things no other player can, plain and simple.

Watching a game like Sunday’s, where he single-handedly kept the Eagles from celebrating the opening of their parking lot-less stadium (does that change when Domain gets torn down? Is that how it’s set up?) was awe-inspiring.

Gazza looked like Geelong Gazza
With the bald head, you can’t tell eight years have passed since Gary Ablett Jr last roamed the field in blue and white. 39 disposals, and he was still zipping around like he was the only one with the tracking device on the footy, knowing where it would end up so he could be there when it happened.

The test will be if he’s still doing that in Round 18. I was surprisingly impressed with Ablett’s debut last weekend, every good game he plays on the road for the Cats should irritate the Suns faithful no end.

Missing stars were noticed
West Coast really could have used Josh Kennedy to counter the Bud; I think he would have made a difference. Hard to believe an Adelaide line-up including Taylor Walker, Brad Crouch and Tom Lynch doesn’t hold onto its lead in the fourth quarter.

You expect to fight your own ‘holes’ mid-season; dealing with them in round one is tough. While there was nothing the Bulldogs were going to do to slow the Giants down much, the horrific injury to Tom Liberatore shot a hole in their hearts early on.

Luke Beveridge

It was a hellish round one for Luke Beveridge and the Dogs. (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)

Moving forward without them is tough, too
Ask Port Adelaide who, despite all the positive vibes coming off their victory and the way their new additions added to their productivity, despite the naysayers’ opinions, are going to have to makeshift their ruck position again with Paddy Ryder out six weeks.

All you need is to be deficient in one key position to lose in this league, and the difference between Ryder and anyone else the Power can put up will be huge.

Debutants shined across the league
Port’s Riley Bonner rightly won the Rising Star nomination for week one, but there were plenty of actual first-game stars.

Talented rookies like Paddy Dow for Carlton, Cameron Rayner for the Lions, and Andrew Brayshaw for Fremantle all looked like they belonged. But so did Esava Ratugolea, a Geelong starter for the first time after waiting his turn last year.

As did Brayshaw’s teammate, Bailey Banfield, who was definitely not a first draft pick and had to prove himself in pre-season to earn his guernsey this week.

It may not be smart to be moving your stars around the field, after all
Hey, let’s put Harry Taylor in the forward line. Oh, crud, we need him on defence more! What about moving Easton Wood to the front? Paging Easton Wood, paging Easton Wood; has anybody seen Mr Wood?

Sometimes you move a star because you have to. But most of the time, it’s worth remembering that those players are stars because they know their positions so well. It takes someone of Patrick Dangerfield’s raw talent to be thrown into an unfamiliar position and excel without any prep. 98 per cent of players can’t do it without a bunch of extra training, at best.

I would argue that this league-wide experimental phase will be short-lived.

Before we get too far past, I want to share the results of the AFLW Player Of The Year meta-results, from combining all the sources I can get my hands on for you.

Last year was pretty straight-forward – Erin Phillips was universally acclimated as the MVP in Adelaide’s championship season. This season, it’s not so clear. Courtney Gum? Emma Kearney? Chelsea Randall? Daisy Pearce?

All four had MVP honours from at least one source I found.

Once the votes were totalled, however, it seems the ultimate player of the year is Emma Kearney of the Western Bulldogs! Her total on my meta-tally was 182 points, and led definitively second-placed Chelsea Randall of Adelaide with 165 points, and bronze medalist Kate Lutkins of Brisbane with 148 points.

The rest of the top ten included Daisy Pearce (MEL) – 138, Courtney Gum (GWS) – 136, Elle Blackburn (WB) – 134, Elise O’Dea (MEL) – 131, Alicia Eva (GWS) – 128, Dana Hooker (FRE) – 121, and a tie for tenth between Karen Paxman (MEL) and Sabrina Frederick-Traub (BRI) – both with 114 points.

Blackburn Kearney

Emma Kearney of the Bulldogs (left) celebrates a goal. (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)

Chloe Molloy had the highest point total for the Collingwood Magpies, placing 14th at 104 points. The highest total for Carlton was Brisbane transfer Tayla Harris with 73 points.

For the record, last year’s winner placed 18th with 88 points, despite Phillips missing the first two games of the season for Adelaide this year.

Finally, let’s look at the probabilities going into round two for the men.

The ELO-FF computers pick the same nine winners this week as both the punters and I do, but the margins differ. You take a look and decided who you think’s got it sussed out for Easter weekend.

Adelaide hosts Richmond, and the memories of round six linger over those of the grand final, with the consensus forecast of a Crows victory. As of Monday evening (all punters’ lines are quoted from Monday), the Crows are an 8.5 point choice. My computer says it’ll be a rousing, um, 0.1 point Adelaide victory. I guess that’s when the ball doesn’t hit the behind post, but merely becomes quantumly entangled with it.

I’m taking Adelaide but betting the ‘under 16 either way’ bet on this. It’ll be close.

Good Friday sees North Melbourne play St Kilda, where we commemorate the death of our Lord by watching the Saints crucify their enemies. Every one of us has this as a 19-point victory – nothing either team showed last weekend gave the Kangas any renewed hope in this one.

Carlton and Gold Coast, at Etihad. I don’t think of Etihad as being the home of the Blues, but of their eleven home games this year, six are here and only five are at the MCG. So they’d best get used to it, and this is a good game to start with.

Despite a good result for the Suns in Cairns last Saturday, we all foresee a two-to-four goal win for Bolton’s Boys this weekend. The computer likes Carlton to cover with ease.

Collingwood versus Greater Western Sydney. While the oddsmakers have been in love with GWS for over a year now, I have this as just a single-digit spread on the computer. Still, without the only real tall for the Magpies, as ineffective as he was last week, it’s easy to imagine a Giant domination this Saturday.

Brisbane versus Melbourne, at the Gabba, where the Lions should have good support from the locals if they’re ever going to get it. Optimism runs high, despite an opening loss, and my computer has them covering the 18.5-point spread, though I think we all think the Demons will win the game.

Fremantle takes on Essendon, in the Optus for the first time and, while the Eagles got the first official men’s home game last week, the Dockers’ women’s squad got the first official run-out in February. Will that help the men’s team?

I have Essendon winning by almost double the 9.5-point spread the punters are betting on, so my answer is “no”.

Western Bulldogs versus West Coast. What does it say about the Eagles that the Bulldogs could come off of an 82-point beatdown (that was worse than the score because it seemed like the Doggies just gave up at one point in the second half) and they would still be 7.5-point favourites against them this Sunday?

Both teams lost ELO rating points last week, but the Dogs lost far more than West Coast.

I have it as a two-point game, still in the Dogs favour, but I personally wouldn’t bet on this game unless my life depended on it. Motivation will be the key – how does each team react to their opening loss?

Port Adelaide at Sydney. Here’s the flip side of that previous match. If you want an Easter Sunday theme, the first game represents the empty grave (because believe me, that glass is half-empty), and this represents the resurrection: two teams which made the most of their week one hit-outs and come into Sunday’s game on a positive.

The odds say Swans 15.5; ELO-FF has it at 13.1, and I’m thinking that I’d be afraid to bet against Port right now unless you can promise Buddy week two looks like Buddy week one – which he very likely will, so I’m taking Sydney.

Easter Monday, Geelong ‘hosts’ Hawthorn.

If I were a Geelong supporter, I’d be upset about the result produced by the AFL’s rationale here. Nine of their eleven home games are at their real home, the GMHBA… excuse me, “down at Kardinia Pa-ark.”

But the two games they have to ‘host’ at the MCG, ostensibly to accommodate larger crowds, are against teams whose actual home is the MCG.

In my mind, that cost the Cats a good shot at the premiership last year, having to play Richmond at ‘home’ at the MCG in the qualifying final.

They play the Tigers there in June and Hawthorn there this weekend in their annual Easter Monday blockbuster. Oddsmakers give them 9.5 points to the good, my computer says they only have a 0.2-point advantage.

Make no mistake, this is a road game for Geelong, but beating Melbourne is much more impressive right now than beating the Magpies. I’ll take Geelong for 400, Alex.

To summarise:Adelaide, St Kilda, Carlton, GWS, Melbourne, Essendon, Bulldogs, Sydney, Geelong.
ELO-Following Football record:8-2
My personal record:7-3


AFL Round 1 and AFLW Grand Final predictions!

March 21st, 2018

First of all, we picked the Western Bulldogs to defeat the Brisbane Lions, 33-30, despite playing outside their regular home ground and losing their captain to suspension, in our previous Following Football post (below). Going to stick with that… no reason to change now!

As for the start of the men’s season, we’re off to our normal half-blind start. You never know for sure how the team’s changed from one season to another. But we’ll look at the range of predictions from throughout the realm, and then I’ll provide ours.

Carlton at Richmond, Thursday – Universally, everyone’s picking Richmond by somewhere from five to eight goals, and we think it’ll be towards the higher end of that.

Adelaide at Essendon, Friday – Adelaide is not the universal favorite you might think of the reigning minor premier; both of’s “Pick-a-Winner” experts, Wayne Carey and Campbell Brown, think the Dons are the choice here. Still, we’re taking Adelaide to win a close one on the road.

Brisbane at St. Kilda, Saturday – The consensus here is to say, “Hey, we really like what the Lions are doing so far this young year!… yeah, but the Saints will win.” And we agree. Four goals or so.

Fremantle at Port Adelaide, Saturday – If the Dockers can be competitive at Adelaide Oval against a finals favorite, our Following Footy forecast putting them in the finals will look pretty prescient! Even if they lose by four to eight goals, as predicted, we’re not writing them off yet – Richmond lost big here in round six last fall.

North Melbourne at Gold Coast (Cairns), Saturday – The numbers crunch to say the Kangaroos, and most of the predictions are bucking the numbers and (frankly) hoping that Stuart Dew gets some return for the hard work the Suns have exhibited this summer. We’re sentimental, too. Suns in a squeaker, maybe only because of the heated conditions and the fact that the Kangaroos have looked terrible so far this pre-season.

Collingwood “at” Hawthorn, Saturday – Both play in the MCG, so there’s not much of an advantage. Nobody’s really risking a bet here, and we’re not expecting anything but a close game, either. Collingwood because we put them in the finals this season.

Western Bulldogs at GWS, Sunday – Giants in a romp. Lowest prediction I’ve seen is sixteen points. Next.

Geelong at Melbourne, Sunday – The oddsmakers have this game dead even. The picks are leaning the way my head is: Geelong hasn’t had the chance to test-drive its terrific trio of midfielders yet, let alone figure out where its goals come from. Demons for us, despite the fact that our ratings (left over mostly from last season) still call for a four point Geelong win.

Sydney at West Coast, Sunday – The grand opening of Optus Stadium, Perth’s grand jewel of a stadium. If it weren’t for that, everyone and his mother would have Sydney waltzing away with this. As it is, we’re still calling for a close Swans victory, about nine points; we’re taking West Coast and the points.


The Final, Definitive, UItimate Prediction for AFL 2018! (Maybe.)

Originally published in The Roar – March 19th, 2018 – 

Each year, I gather the widest range possible of predictions for the sports I cover and write about for various on-line sites in Australia and the United States. Then I weight those predictions as best I can (random YouTubers don’t carry the gravitas of, say, Cameron Rose or anyone else paid to study this stuff), and combine them into one grand Meta-Forecast.

As an example, here was the meta-forecast for the AFLW season just concluded (we’ll touch on the women’s GF at the end of the article)

  1. Melbourne
  2. Adelaide (a close second!)
  3. Brisbane (grand finalist)
  4. Western BD (minor premier and grand finalist)
  5. Carlton (closer to fourth than believable now)
  6. Collingwood
  7. GWS
  8. Fremantle

We tend to cling to the previous year’s outcomes more than we should. For example, every year since the eight-team finals format was adopted, at least two of the eight men’s finals teams have changed (sometimes three, never yet more than four). This empirical “rule” is well-known and almost legendary in its own right. And yet it’s almost infallible that the vast majority of predictions will fail to have even two changes on their list.

Consider our meta-prediction from the 2017 men’s season. Here’s the 2016 standings, the meta-prediction for 2017 we compiled from a similarly vast array of sources, and the actual 2017 results:

2016 results      >>>>> Meta-prediction for 2017    >>>>> Final 2017 ladder

  1. Sydney         >>>>>GWS Giants     >>>>>      Adelaide
  2. Geelong      >>>>> Western Bulldogs     >>>>>     Geelong
  3. Hawthorn      >>>>> Sydney Swans     >>>>>     Richmond
  4. GWS     >>>>>  Adelaide Crows      >>>>>     GWS
  5. Adelaide     >>>>> Geelong Cats      >>>>>     Port Adelaide
  6. West Coast     >>>>> West Coast Eagles     >>>>>     Sydney
  7. Western BD     >>>>> Hawthorn Hawks      >>>>>    Essendon
  8. No Melbourne      >>>>> St. Kilda Saints     >>>>>     West Coast
  9. St Kilda     >>>>> Melbourne Demons      >>>>>    Melbourne
  10. Port Adelaide     >>>>> Collingwood Magpies      >>>>>    Western BD
  11. Melbourne      >>>>> Port Adelaide Power     >>>>>     St. Kilda
  12. Collingwood      >>>>> Fremantle Dockers     >>>>>     Hawthorn
  13. Richmond     >>>>> Essendon Bombers     >>>>>     Collingwood
  14. Carlton     >>>>> Richmond Tigers     >>>>>     Fremantle
  15. Gold Coast      >>>>> North Melbourne Kangaroos     >>>>>     No Melbourne
  16. Fremantle     >>>>> Gold Coast Suns     >>>>>     Carlton
  17. Brisbane      >>>>> Carlton Blues     >>>>>     Gold Coast
  18. Essendon      >>>>> Brisbane Lions      >>>>>    Brisbane

The extent of our “adventurous predictions” for finals as a mass community (and I’m including myself in this to some extent) is to have recognized that the Kangaroos released all their veterans and were going into rebuilding mode, so we replaced them with the ninth place team sliding into eighth.

Ooooh… Going out on a limb there, aren’t we?

But while it’s true that singly we don’t generally risk major moves, the other issue that clogs up the waterworks here is that even when individuals do, we all predict DIFFERENT major moves, and those often cancel each other out. As many people who thought Port and Richmond were going to move into finals, there were a comparable number who thought they’d fall LOWER instead.

(Side note: I must confess that I was one of those. And I’m MOST embarrassed by my prediction of Port Adelaide not making finals, because that failure violated the most ironclad rule if you’re looking for a team to move up the next year: Port had too high a percentage for their record in 2016. When that’s a significant gap – and the Power was 10-12 with a 106% in 2016! – it almost guarantees a big improvement in record the following year. I’m NOT making that mistake again: Collingwood was 9-12-1 last year but was just three goals short of even in percentage. I’m expecting them to sneak into finals this season, as per my column two weeks ago.)

In fact, each of the errors we made in our forecasts last year is explicable in hindsight. GWS might have been first (change their two draws to victories and they were!) but for a horror run of injuries last year. Footscray was never a top three team – except for four weeks in September of 2016. They moved from seventh in 2016 to one game out of seventh in 2017. We had Sydney and Hawthorn falling; we just didn’t know how far. Similarly, we had Adelaide and Essendon climbing; we just didn’t know how far. And we almost nailed the bottom four. So, not so bad!

Enough looking backwards. Here’s your 2018 AFL Meta-Forecast!

  1. Adelaide Crows
  2. GWS Giants
  3. Sydney Swans
  4. Geelong Cats
  5. Richmond Tigers
  6. Port Adelaide Power
  7. Melbourne Demons
  8. Essendon Bombers…

Wait a second! Dang it, guys, ya did it again! You replaced a fading West Coast, who was in eighth place and losing their veterans, and simply replaced them with ninth place Melbourne and called it your finals forecast? Have We Learned Nothing From History?

Sigh… Alright, let’s give you a few plaudits before we go on. We didn’t repeat the Bulldog mistake – Richmond’s still a top team, but let’s see them back up their finals run before we acclaim them a dynasty. Fair enough. To be honest, I’ve got them at third again, moving Port up and Geelong down (a looong way down – to 10th, in fact). But that’s a reasonable statement. Similarly, with the exception of our two-team-out rule, it’s hard to argue with most of those teams.

[But we’re going to anyway…Why would Sydney move up? Their schedule’s just as tough in games 1-6 as it was last year, and there’s nothing to suggest an improved Swans team to face it. And yet we don’t see Port moving any higher? THEY actually ADDED pieces to their weaponry!] Going on…

  1. Western Bulldogs
  2. Hawthorn Hawks
  3. St. Kilda Saints
  4. West Coast Eagles
  5. Collingwood Magpies
  6. Fremantle Dockers
  7. Brisbane Lions
  8. Carlton Blues
  9. Gold Coast Suns
  10. North Melbourne Kangaroos

Alright, again, it’s hard to argue with the general feel of this list. I actually tried to put the Suns in 19th place, as insane as their schedule is this season. Down the road, they’ll be tougher and better for it, but this season is going to be a firing squad for the young Suns.

But this looks suspiciously like last year’s final ladder, with the obvious adjustments: Brisbane on the rise (three places? That’s winning just ONE more game. I have them in 12th this year.), West Coast down to 12th (it’s hard to know, but if you’re basing this on history, the Roos fell to 15th last year), and North continuing to rebuild and suffering the consequences because of it.

Doggies, Hawks, and Saints? Last season, they were in the same spots (removing WCE from their position as we have), except that now we think Hawthorn will pass St Kilda? Why?

And I suspect the majority of folks simply don’t know what to do with either Collingwood or Fremantle this season. I have them BOTH in my final eight. There’s some faith involved in that suggestion, true, but I truly believe these meta-predictions are the residue of “move-’em-over” thinking. Where were they last year? Yeah, that’s about right…Move ‘em over. But looking at their schedules, their pre-seasons, and frankly the lack of progress above them? I wrote this all out in this space a couple of weeks ago, but nothing I’ve watched has changed my opinion: I’m starting the season thinking these are the two new teams in finals, not Melbourne or St Kilda.

(Mind you, I’d love to be wrong, especially the part about the Demons and Saints missing out on finals yet again. Talk about starving fan bases! Tigerland and Bulldog Nation just had their moments of glory – let’s see a finals victory or two for Melbourne and St Kilda sooner rather than later!)

Comment on the following combinations below – whichever pairings intrigue you. Every one of these pairings interests me! Pick any of the dozen and comment below…

Which team will have the better record after Round 23?

*** Optus Opening) Fremantle or West Coast?

*** SA Special) Adelaide or Port? (Or do you wanna wait for the Grand Final to decide that?)

*** Opera House Oracle) Greater Western Sydney or – what, “Greater Eastern” Sydney? (The two were flipping back and forth between second and third throughout the tally.)

*** Queensland Quandry) Brisbane Babes or the Gold Coast Wanderers?

*** 19th Century Knockdown) Carlton or Collingwood? (The officials will be wearing white jackets…)

*** Dangerfield Dilemma) Geelong or Adelaide? (Notice there’s already an Ablett Answer…)

*** War of the West) Eagles or Bulldogs? (Which West Will Win?)

*** Spoon Shindig) North Melbourne or Gold Coast? (These two were nip-and-tuck throughout the tally. Or do you have a third contender in mind?)

*** Tasmanian Tussle) Hawthorn or the Kangaroos?

*** Etihad Edict) Western Bulldogs or St Kilda Saints?

*** ANZAC Trio) Collingwood, Essendon, or Melbourne? (Richmond gets to sip champagne from its Grand Final chalice and just watch this season…)

Finally, let’s take an ELO-Following Football look at Saturday’s AFLW Grand Final, which should come close to selling out Ikon Park if it doesn’t actually do so. (Best case scenario for the AFL: three seats short of capacity.)

Western Bulldog and Melbourne Demon fans alike knew it was coming – they were just surprised it took until there were ninety seconds to go before Brooke Lochland slammed home the winning goal Saturday night. With the wind at their back, the third-quarter lead was never going to be large enough to hold up against the Dogs’ scoring prowess, and yet the Demons kept them out of the sticks for that winning score for a lo-ong time.

And with their collapse over the last twenty minutes Sunday afternoon, the Adelaide Crows made sure that they wouldn’t have the chance to defend their title. Instead, the team they defeated for the prize last year, the Brisbane Lions, stood up when the challenge was there to be won Friday night and took second place when it seemed like a shot in the dark. But losses by the Demons and Crows landed the Lions where they were last year: in the Grand Final.  

So, who wins this Saturday? The minor premiers or the defending minor premiers?

The Doggies are slight favorites (2.1 points) on the ELO-Following Football ratings, as well as with the punters (5.5 on CrownBet as of Sunday night), but then the Lions were favored last year by more than that and still lost. Technically, the Bulldogs are the home team this weekend, but they haven’t even played at Ikon Park this season, and when they played Carlton there last year, they lost 54-48. Brisbane, ironically, HAS played at Ikon this year, defeating the Blues there in round three for Carlton’s first loss of the season, 40-18.

Over the last three games, ever since that 86-point game against Carlton, Western has failed to match what its rating says it should have done in each game, despite winning two of them by narrow margins. (The same is true for the professional odds, except that Saturday’s game was a wash, depending on when you bet.) Meanwhile, Brisbane had the same three-game streak until the surprise blowout of GWS last weekend. The question becomes, was that a change of circumstance for the 4-3 Lions, or a trend that makes them more likely to stay hot this Saturday?

The two teams played up at South Pine in Round Two this season, with the Lions favored in a battle of 1-0 teams but then losing their first regular season game ever to the Bulldogs, falling 33-24 in a pretty competitive game. That’s about the result I expect to see happen again this weekend, only closer; call it 33-30 instead. It should be a competitive game, so pull up a chair and watch! The AFL’s done their auxiliary league a solid by not putting any men’s matches in the opening slot on Saturday, so you’re not going to “miss anything”!

After all, in this most parity-packed season in the history of just about any league imaginable, we can only hope and pray that the league’s Grand Final will hold suit!


Parity Achieved!

Originally published in The Roar – March 13, 2018 – Aussie Rules

If you were going to create a league with parity as your goal, you’d have to go to some great lengths to out-do what the AFLW has accomplished in 2018. No team has fewer than two losses OR two wins in their first six games, and with only one week to go, five of the eight teams can still make the Grand Final.

Roger Vaughn has already done a nice piece laying out the possibilities for Round Seven in terms of possible championship pairings, so there’s no need to repeat those except to bring up  the following: About a year ago, I wrote a piece for this magazine detailing the post-season structures of about a dozen major sports leagues around the world, and determined that the healthiest playoff structure a league can have was one where about 40% of the teams made the post-season, with some sort of home-field or bye advantage for the highest placing teams. (The AFL men do exactly that – 44% of the 18 teams reach finals, and the double chance gives the top two and four significant advantages.) So for the eight-team AFLW, a three-team finals would be ideal, with teams 2 and 3 playing for the right to meet the minor premiers in the Grand Final.

While the AFLW didn’t veer from its two-team final on paper, it’s reassuring to see that on Saturday evening, the de facto semi-final between the Demons and Bulldogs will take place, the winner to host the Grand Final the following week!

So back on point…

Rather than tell you the possibilities for determining a champion, let’s consider what the result might be if the following occurred…

  • Brisbane defeats GWS by ten, say, 40-30,
  • Fremantle and Carlton play to a 300-300 draw. (We’re dreaming here to improve their percentages.)
  • Melbourne and Western play to a 275-275 draw (same thing in reverse), and
  • Collingwood defeats Adelaide by one, 31-30.

Isn’t this just about the most parity-ridden ladder you’ve ever seen?

  1. Western Bulldogs               4-2-1 (554/463) 119.7%
  2. Melbourne Demons          4-2-1 (522/482) 108.3%
  3. Brisbane Lions                      4-3-0 (224/202) 110.9%
  4. GWS Giants                             3-3-1 (230/218) 105.5%
  5. Adelaide Crows                     3-3-1 (228/227) 100.4%
  6. Collingwood Magpies       3-4-0 (259/252) 102.8%
  7. Fremantle Dockers             2-4-1 (471/508)   92.7%
  8. Carlton Blues                           2-4-1 (425/561)   75.8%

I mean, change just a couple more games into upsets during the season, and this could have been an eight-team finals race all the way to the final round! Say what you want about the level of athleticism or skill – and deal with it, people! Biologically, female athletes aren’t going to jump as high or kick as far as male athletes, although they still outshine anything I could do on the pitch – but there’s no denying the competitiveness and the effort put forth by AFLW players who are continuing to improve and raise the quality of the game as they do. I enjoy watching both genders of our league for the same reason I enjoy watching men’s and women’s basketball. They’re two different games, played under similar rules.

Okay, you’ve gotten me started, so let me finish this argument: If you want to complain about the “quality gap” between men’s and women’s footy (or any other comparable sport – football, hockey, whatever), tell me why you would still watch youth sports. Or the Paralympics. Or any other sporting event which doesn’t involve the very best athletes in the world in that sport.

Enjoy the AFLW for what it is: a competitive league in the sport we love, with athletes we’ve come to know and admire and care about.

For the record, our ELO ratings and I both see the Bulldogs winning the minor premiership Saturday night, and GWS’s win that afternoon being the deciding factor in making them the visiting team (at 4-2-1) the following week in the Grand Final.


Change of topic – I haven’t touched on the meta-player of the year award recently. Readers of my columns know I gather votes from as many diverse knowledgeable sources as I can and combine them into one overall “meta-award”, and with some of the votes still out for round six, here’s the current standings for, let’s say, five-and-a-half rounds

  1. Chelsea Randall, Adelaide – 129 points
  2. Emma Kearney, WB – 127 points
  3. Daisy Pearce, Melbourne – 122 points
  4. Kate Lutkins, Brisbane – 119 points
  5. Elle Blackburn, WB – 113 points
  6. Courtney Gum, GWS – 101 points
  7. Elise O’Dea, Melbourne – 97 points
  8. Alicia Eva, GWS – 89 points
  9. Chloe Molloy, Collingwood – 86 points
  10. Ebony Marinoff, Adelaide – 85 points

Six teams are represented here. Carlton’s leading vote-getter is still Brianna Davey at 62 points, although Tayla Harris is at 45 as we speak and could still pass her; and Fremantle’s fairest is Kara Donnellan, who has 79 points and is in twelfth place overall.

Not surprisingly, the Bulldogs and Demons lead the overall vote standings, with the Lions just behind and Carlton pulling up the spoon in this department as well. Also not a shock, Emma Kearney leads the league in “dominant” performances through five rounds – a dominant performance being one which receives recognition or votes from at least 90% of our sources in a round. (R3, 4, and 5 were all such games for Kearney, and R2 was a “prominent” performance, denoting a player earning recognition from 80% or more of our sources.) Pearce, Lutkins, and Gum are right behind her on this table as well.

NEXT WEEK: our preview of the AFLW grand final, and all of your forecasts gathered into one grand “meta-forecast” for the 2018 AFL men’s season!



Who Will Win? Let’s look at the evidence!

Originally published in The Roar – March 4, 2018 – Aussie Rules

Let’s start with the “easy” one to predict: the AFLW.

I say “easy” just because we have a preponderance of evidence pointing towards a conclusion that’s just three weeks away at this point. But just like the men’s version, the evidence seems to point completely different directions from week to week. Carlton was atop the ladder after week two…and hasn’t won since. Adelaide was dead after week two, and now sit comfortably above the Blues at 3-2, within striking distance of a return trip to the Grand Final. And in Round Four, an unbeatable Melbourne club hosted a winless Collingwood. So of course, the Magpies won by 34 points.

But looking at the R5 standings, let’s consider what’s left for each team to make the final:

Western: 4-1-0, 177%, rating of 62.2. Last two games: at GWS, v. Melbourne.

Plays at GWS and hosts Melbourne. Neither are gimmes, but will be favored in both, and either win guarantees a spot in finals, and that percentage virtually guarantees hosting it. Even if they were to lose both, somehow, they might still make it with a loss from any three of the four clubs behind them. Pencil them in to the Grand Final.

Brisbane: 3-2-0, 122%, rating of 55.7. Last two games: v Collingwood, at GWS

Favored in both games; should end up 5-2 with a percentage above 120, which under almost every scenario imaginable would be enough to make finals. Even though Melbourne’s playing better, it’s Brisbane’s spot to lose.

Melbourne: 3-2-0, 103%, rating of 52.0. Last two games: at Carlton, at Western.

Favored big next week (must win something like 50-11 to catch Lions percentage); MUST win finale at Whitten Oval to go 5-2 and hope they can get a percentage above Brisbane’s (or that the Magpies or Giants upset the Lions). Not unreasonable, but I’ll bet Lions at Dogs instead.

GWS Giants: 2-2-1, 103%, rating of 44.8. Last two games: v Western, v Brisbane.

Has more control over their own destiny than Adelaide does because of who they play. If they win both games, they pass Brisbane and only need the Demons to lose once (and stay ahead of the Crows’ %) to make finals.

Adelaide: 2-2-1, 99%, rating of 55.7. Last two games: Fremantle, at Collingwood.

Winning out is an absolute. THEN, Brisbane and Melbourne must each lose one, and GWS must either lose or be passed on percentage (they’re only one goal ahead of the Crows, though).

Fremantle: 2-3-0, 80%, rating of 41.9. Last two games: at Adelaide, v Carlton

Win out. Brisbane must really lose two (or one and Freo makes up ten goals on them? No.); Melbourne must lose two (or one and lose five goals); and the Giants must lose to Western.

Possible. Not very likely, but possible.

Carlton: 2-3-0, 51%, rating of 39.0. Last two games: v Melbourne, at Fremantle.

Win out. Brisbane and Melbourne must both lost twice. GWS and Adelaide must lose once. Given the combination of opponents, it’s at least possible in theory. Given the way Carlton’s played the last three games, it’s inconceivable.

Collingwood: 1-4-0, 96%, rating of 48.7. Last two games: at Brisbane, v. Adelaide.

It was almost possible! If it weren’t for the fact that GWS hosts Brisbane in round seven, it would have been possible for all four teams with only two losses to lose both of their games, and allow the Magpies to maybe accumulate percentage to overtake them all at 3-4-0 and be in position for that second Finals spot. But then, Carlton and Freo would’ve won two each and stayed ahead of the Pies. Never mind…

Before moving on, I have a JLT scoring question: Let’s say the final siren sounds when the Bulldogs’ Marcus Bontempelli has the ball in hand after a mark just outside the 50. Hawthorn leads by eight points, but with super-goals being worth nine, the Hawks could lose if the Bont makes the kick after the siren. What’s to stop Luke Breust from fouling him and invoking a 50-meter penalty, thereby making it a six-point goal and negating the chance for Western to win? Can they refuse the penalty? Or is this a flaw in the system that isn’t worth caring about in the pre-season?

Alright, let’s do the foolish prognosticating: imagining the men’s outcomes seven months in advance.

First of all, let’s see what the people who make money doing this kind of thing say. The oddsmakers are offering the lowest odds for Sydney, closely followed by Adelaide. The next four teams on their list, depending on which list you’re looking at, are Geelong, the Giants, Richmond and Port Adelaide. The seventh and eighth place teams are generally Melbourne and Essendon, and usually in that order. (Below that, there are two groups of also-rans. The “mayyyyybe” group are Collingwood, the Bulldogs, Hawthourn, St Kilda, and West Coast; the “not a chance” group includes Carlton, Brisbane, the Kangaroos and the Suns; and Fremantle usually sits in the no-man’s land in between.)

Not an unreasonable grouping. If you look at our ELO-Following Football ratings, here’s the only significant differences – Richmond is up there with the Swans and Crows; and we don’t see Melbourne and Essendon as standing out from the five teams grouped immediately below them. And it’s not hard to argue that if you expect Richmond to excel in 2018 the way they did in 2017, you were probably surprised that the Bulldogs didn’t make finals last year, too. (That was our rating system. Oops.)

But have the Dons and Dees separated themselves from the pack to be significantly favored over the six teams most often considered finals contenders? The most reliable indicator of a mid-level team moving up the following year is an abnormally high percentage compared to its win-loss record. None of these contenders had a particularly out-of-line number either direction, but Collingwood was close to 100% despite a 9-12-1 record, so that’s as close to above-average as we saw. Probably not enough by itself to make them the most likely candidate for finals, however.

Their duplicate opponents, though, are Carlton, Richmond, Essendon (all six games at the MCG!), Brisbane, and Fremantle. A 13thplace schedule could be a huge help for them this year, especially if three of their last five games are the Kangaroos, Lions, and Dockers! (And six of their first eight games, including their first two “road” games, are all at the MCG, so they could get off to a great start!) Finally, their ELO-FF ratings are actually (slightly) higher than all of their competitors for those last two September spots. I’m not particularly a Magpie fan, but I’m putting them in my top eight this season.

I’m content to say that Sydney, Adelaide, GWS, Richmond, Port, and Geelong are the obvious six for six of the finals spots which means that it’s an absolute certainty that at least ONE of those six will fall from grace! Remember, in the 24-year history of the eight-team finals, there’s never been fewer than TWO changes from one year’s finalists to the next! The chances of all six staying in finals this season are almost zero. So, which one is the MOST likely to drop out?

Adelaide seems the LEAST likely. Besides having a team on the rise, and being arguably the general public’s favorite, their roster places first on every one of our metrics for this season. And Port Adelaide picked up a ton of talent over the off-season: Steven Motlop, Tom Rockliff, Lindsay Thomas, Jack Watts. It’s hard to see a pretty average schedule throwing this team for a loop and preventing them from at least reaching and more likely surpassing last year’s achievements. Oh, and I’ll start the petition to hold the Grand Final in Adelaide Oval if they both make it there.

Sydney showed signs of frailty last year in March and April, and this season’s opening six could ALSO put a terrible start to their campaign: at West Coast (for the grand opening of Optus, when the Eagles will be highly motivated), v. Port Adelaide, v GWS, Western BD at Etihad, v. Adelaide, and at Geelong. I’m telling you that a record of 1-5 is feasible before they see a string six of non-finalists starting in May. But while that may prevent a double chance, as it did last year, they should still make finals comfortably.

GWS has lost a ton of talent, but they’ve got a ton more behind them. My question would be: did their attitude of entitlement leave with those players, or are they still going to play some games like they can mail it in on talent alone? If it’s the latter, they don’t have the horses to survive the season and make September. If their first JLT game is any evidence, they’re on the right track.

Richmond has a similar question to answer – how do they convert from being the underdog to being the hunted? The advantage they have compared to last year’s Bulldogs is that the Tigers really WERE a top three team last year, whereas Footscray was merely a seventh place team which made a fantastic run. They couldn’t afford to play any less intensely. The signs so far for the Tigers (and the Giants, for that matter) are that they understand the hazards facing them and are at least starting pre-season on the correct foot.

That leaves Geelong. Geelong only has one new part, but how Ablett fits in with Dangerwood is the big question. There were times last year when the Cats simply looked too slow for the game in 2017, and while their newbies helped overcome that on several occasions, it’s hard to imagine that adding an almost 34-year old injury-prone superstar isn’t going to exacerbate that issue. Their ELO-FF rating is already closer to the middle than the top, and their percentage of 117% was the lowest for any top two team in ten years. Geelong is my pick to fall from the top eight.

So, who will the other two teams in finals be? Let’s look at the year-by-year patterns.

On the way up: Essendon (I think?). It’s hard to tell, given what they’ve been through. But it’s easy to give them the feel of upward bound because they’ve survived the ramifications of the drug scandal half-a-decade old.

On the rebound: Fremantle. If Nat Fyfe 2018 is anything like Nat Fyfe 2015…if Michael Walters and Bradley Hill 2018 are like the 2017 models…if Fremantle Nathan Wilson is as good as GWS Nathan Wilson…then the Dockers may indeed be closer to three years ago than the last two years.

On the way down: Hawthorn. Sorry, Alastair. You are the best coach I’ve ever seen. But you don’t have an AFL championship team anymore, and after last year, your uniforms don’t hold the fear for your opponents that they did. Next.

On the way down: West Coast. Second to sixth to a miracle eighth (and a miracle semifinal). Don’t expect another miracle. Next.

On the way… um… St. Kilda. Seemed destined to make finals in 2017 – they had gone from the wooden spoon in 2014 to 14th the next year to 9th the previous year. And yet they never felt like a threat.

On the way up?: Melbourne? Okay, I get it. 17th to 13th to 11th to 9th. The natural progression demands that they move up into a finals position in 2018. But thenwell, see St. Kilda…

I’m taking Essendon and Fremantle to fill out the eight this season. Melbourne and St Kilda could very well become the new perennial bridesmaids – until one of them shows the killer instinct when it matters, like the Tigers did, I’m not jumping on board.

On the other hand, I love what I see happening in Brisbane – I’m expecting big things from them this season. Not top eight big – the league’s got too many good teams for that kind of jump – but maybe a 12th place big? If Hodge is the kind of positive influence that he appears to be from a distance, and (a big) if the AFLX culture shift is to be believed, they could win ten games. Remember, even in last they won five last year, and two more wins would’ve had them in 15th, halfway there.

Gold Coast has the schedule from HELL this season, and they weren’t going to be very good to begin with. Two wins is NOT too low a prediction. I wish I could be more optimistic – I love what I’m hearing from Dew’s camp. But the schedule for the young team is too daunting.

So, let’s put this all together: Top fourAdelaide, Port, Richmond, GWS, in that order.

 Next fourSydney, Essendon, Collingwood, Fremantle.
First four outMelbourne, Geelong, St Kilda, Brisbane.
Middle of nowhereBulldogs, Hawthorn, West Coast, in some order.
Final three, in this order: Carlton, Kangaroos, blank space, Gold Coast.

Check this space in August. I’ll own up to my mistakes, because I guarantee my work:

“We Promise Mistakes Or Your Money Back!”




PrescientAgain, nailed the title game. Did incredibly well on that front. Even had Stanford tied with UW in the North! Oregon’s return to decency, and Colorado’s return to mediocrity.

WoefulThe Arizona schools did better than I thought. And USC never looked like a 12-0 team. But that’s about it.

Score: 8 1/2 out of 10, maybe even nine.


Southeastern Conference

SEC East Division)                       SEC West Division)  

Florida              8-0          (10-2)     Alabama          8-0        (12-0)

Georgia              5-3          (9-3)       LSU                    6-2        (10-2)

Tennessee           5-3       (9-3)       Auburn                6-2        (9-3)

Kentucky            2-6          (5-7)    Texas A&M           4-4        (7-5)

Vanderbilt          2-6         (5-7)   Arkansas                3-5        (6-6)

South Carolina   2-6       (4-8)   Mississippi State    2-6        (6-6)

Missouri             1-7        (5-7)    Ole Miss                 2-6        (6-6)

SEC title game: ALABAMA def. Florida by 11 points.

Prescient: Texas A&M went 7-5? Um, LSU was 10-2? And ‘Bama did win a trophy this year…

WoefulEverything. Auburn won the west, Georgia won the east, Florida fired their coach even before TxA&M did. South Carolina was outstanding, Tennessee was embarrassing. The Mississippis were better than forecast. Missouri started like the team predicted, but transformed miraculously mid-season into a good team. Other than that…

Score: 4 out of 10.

FBS Independents

BYU                    10-3

Notre Dame           7-5

Army-WP              7-5

U Mass                  1-11

Prescient: Army was good, UMass was bad, Notre Dame was good.

WoefulArmy and Notre Dame were actually REALLY good. And BYU forgot that offense is part of the game, too, which is weird for BYU.

Once I typed BYE instead of BYU into my scheduling matrix. The computer refused to correct me. It was that kind of year for the Cougars.

Score: 7 out of 10.

American Athletic Conference

AAC East Division)                            AAC West Division

South Florida      (8-0)    12-0           Tulsa       (7-1)     9-3

Temple     (6-2)      9-3                         Houston       (5-3)     8-4

Central Florida      (5-3)     7-5          Memphis    (5-3)       7-5

East Carolina         (3-5)     3-9         Navy      (4-4)        7-5

Cincinnati        (2-6)     4-8                  SMU        (2-6)      5-7

Connecticut       (0-8)     1-11              Tulane      (1-7)       4-8

AAC title game: USF def. Tulsa by 8 points. 

PrescientWe correctly predicted which teams would be competing in Conference USA this year. That’s almost all we got right.

WoefulWe put Rice ahead of FAU! What more do you want? UAB was amazing, Marshall, UNT, and FIU were far better than expected, and the teams we had at the top weren’t as good as those teams were. A disaster of Biblical proportions.

Score: Negative two out of a million.

Mid-American Conference

MAC East Division)                   MAC West Division)  

Ohio                     (6-2)      9-3    Toledo       (8-0)     11-1

Miami-OH            (5-3)      7-5       Western Michigan    (7-1)     9-3

Akron                   (4-4)      5-7    Northern Illinois     (5-3)    6-6

Buffalo                 (2-6)      4-8    Eastern Michigan     (4-4)     4-8

Kent State             (2-6)      3-9   Central Michigan     (3-5)     4-8

Bowling Green     (1-7)       1-11  Ball State       (2-6)     4-8

MAC title game: TOLEDO def. Ohio by 7 points.

PrescientOn the other hand, we just about nailed the MAC from top to bottom.

WoefulToledo won by more than seven – they were definitely the class of the league this year. Akron was the rising star and made the title game over Ohio, by tiebreaker, but Ohio was the better team in the east this season by rating. WMU fell a bit farther than expected, too. Changing coaches does that.

Score: 8 1/2 out of 10. 

Mountain West Conference

MW Mountain Division)                    MW West Division)

Boise State           (7-1)      9-3      San Diego State     (8-0)     10-2

Colorado State   (6-2)      8-4      Nevada     (4-4)    5-7

Wyoming              (6-2)      8-4        Hawaii      (3-5)    5-7

Air Force              (4-4)      6-6       San Jose State     (2-6)    2-11

New Mexico           (4-4)      6-6       UNLV     (1-7)    2-10

Utah State              (2-6)      3-9     Fresno State     (1-7)   2-10

Mountain West title game: BOISE STATE def. San Diego State by 2 points. 

Prescient: Actually, the vast majority of this was correct, including the Boise victory by a small margin over…

Woeful…the one team that we and everyone else failed to reckon with: Jeff Tedford did an amazing job in his first year at Fresno State, and went 10-3 instead of 2-10. Marvelous job.

Score: 8 out of 10.

Sun Belt Conference

Appalachian State          (8-0)     11-1

Arkansas State               (8-0)       9-3

Troy                                (7-1)       9-3

Idaho                              (5-3)       8-4

UL- Monroe                   (5-3)       5-7

Georgia Southern           (4-4)       6-6

UL-Lafayette                 (4-4)       5-7

South Alabama              (4-4)       5-7

Coastal Carolina            (2-6)       5-7

Georgia State                 (2-6)       3-9

Texas State                     (1-7)     2-10

New Mexico State         (0-8)     1-11

Prescient: The top three were pretty easy to pick. ArkState wasn’t quite as hot as we thought, though. Everyone else in the Sun Belt is mediocre of one flavor or another. ULM did lead ULL, which is usually an upset and did get ULL’s coach dismissed.

WoefulBut we missed one of the best stories of the year by placing NMSU last: they went to their first bowl game in six decades or something like that. (And won!) Idaho wasn’t as good as I’d hoped.

Score: 8 out of 10, I suppose. Maybe just a 7.

Overall, not a bad set of prognostications. C-USA messed us up, but generally we beat the Vegas folks and the Sagarin number crunchers. We’ll have to see how 2018 turns out!