View Full Version : Should the AFL expand to an 18 team competition?
Mr Crow!
13 Apr 2006, 15:51
Should the AFL expand to an 18 team competition?
The AFL has stated I believe recently, that due to the revenue generated from the new TV rights deal, ALL Victorian based clubs will be safe from merger or relocation until at least 2011.
On the other hand, the AFL are showing strong signs that they need to further capitalize on the Northern Market, and ensure 22 games played in both the Western Sydney and Gold Coast market.
Mr Crow!
13 Apr 2006, 16:00
I believe that the AFL should expand to 18 teams.
What would be the logistics of this? Would both new teams start in the same year, to avoid the bye in the regular season, ala West Coast and Brisbane in 1987?
Or would the AFL stagger the introduction of 2 new teams, ie: Fremantle in 1995 and Port Adelaide in 1997. If so, which team would / should come first? Gold Coast or West Sydney? Seems that the current push is with the Gold Coast.
How would the draw be affected? Still have a 22 game season? What '2 game rivalries' would be automatically garunteed each year? Play 17 teams once, and 5 teams twice.
Adelaide v Port
Fremantle v West Coast
Brisbane v Gold Coast
Sydney v West Sydney
So, to make it fair to the interstate teams, it would be for the 5 games where you play a team twice in a season (using Adelaide as an example):
1 Game against intrastate rival - Port Adelaide
2 Game in WA
3 Game in QLD
4 Game in Vic
5 Game in Vic
One of these games, in this case for the Crows... the QLD one, would alternate the following year with NSW. Clear as mud?!
Whilst I'm all for another team in QLD and NSW the problem with going to an 18 team competition is where do the players come from ? Each club would need to build a list of around 30 ready to go players (ignoring a years draft and rookie list which they can use like anyone else). Even allowing each club access to one uncontracted player from each existing club, that fills half a list at best. I suppose they could go for the discards from other clubs - the likes of Woewoedin etc. if they'd started this year.
And as you've noted keeping it a 22 round season compromises the draw even further. If you have 18 teams I'd drop the pre-season competition and go to a 24 round competition. Play 7 teams twice as now. The biggest plus I think would be a final 8 that no longer is having half the teams in it.
Mr Crow!
13 Apr 2006, 16:12
Whilst I'm all for another team in QLD and NSW the problem with going to an 18 team competition is where do the players come from ? Each club would need to build a list of around 30 ready to go players (ignoring a years draft and rookie list which they can use like anyone else). Even allowing each club access to one uncontracted player from each existing club, that fills half a list at best. I suppose they could go for the discards from other clubs - the likes of Woewoedin etc. if they'd started this year.
And as you've noted keeping it a 22 round season compromises the draw even further. If you have 18 teams I'd drop the pre-season competition and go to a 24 round competition. Play 7 teams twice as now. The biggest plus I think would be a final 8 that no longer is having half the teams in it.
Agreed. A final series that represents half of a competition is flawed. Finals are meant to showcase the elite teams of the competition, not including mediocre ones. So, 8/18 looks a lot better then 8/16.
Mr Crow!
13 Apr 2006, 18:27
For those who have voted NO, please state your reasons why. Thanks! :)
I voted no but after reading the posts I agree that it would be a good idea. Any talk from the AFL into expanding?
CharlieG
14 Apr 2006, 15:56
Are there enough AFL-standard players to create another eighty spots on league lists?
Mr Crow!
14 Apr 2006, 16:52
I believe that there would be. There are many kids that miss out come Draft Day... and I believe that after the second round, say from pick 33 onwards, players are pretty much are 'much of a muchness'. Not much between them. So, there is talent.
There are two kinds of players in the AFL. Those who show loyalty to a club like days gone by (ala Chris Grant, when Port chased him), and those who are after $$$. I believe that both clubs would be able to successfully sign at least 2 better than average - to star level quality players.
And don't forget the Shane Tuck's of the world, who was initially given up at the AFL level, only to be a gem hidden away in the SANFL. I am sure that there are plenty of those in the WAFL, SANFL, NT, etc...
CharlieG... to avoid those types of concerns, perhaps new teams entry into the AFL should be staggered, ala Fremantle and Port Adelaide?
CharlieG
14 Apr 2006, 18:09
CharlieG... to avoid those types of concerns, perhaps new teams entry into the AFL should be staggered, ala Fremantle and Port Adelaide?
17 teams? No thanks.
NimChief
14 Apr 2006, 18:46
And as you've noted keeping it a 22 round season compromises the draw even further. If you have 18 teams I'd drop the pre-season competition and go to a 24 round competition. Play 7 teams twice as now. The biggest plus I think would be a final 8 that no longer is having half the teams in it.
Only nerds complain about the draw being compromised if there were more teams. :)
The reasons are that the bye is too complicated and that the draw hurts your eyes because it looks funny as handful of teams play another team twice.
BIG WHOOP!
Get over it and bring in 18 teams. :)
Are there enough AFL-standard players to create another eighty spots on league lists?
Hell yeah that there is enough players to make a couple more teams.
Check out some blokes that play VFL/SANFL.
They are excellent and more then worthy of a spot on a list but are overlooked as they are “considered to old” at the age of 24.
Even see experienced blokes like Woewodin or even Montgomery they were dropped to make way for youth even though they were still up to AFL standards.
In short there are plenty of people that are overlooked and more teams would give them the chance to play at the elite level
.::Stevo::.
14 Apr 2006, 19:15
How about a Tasmanian team?
Sherrinator
14 Apr 2006, 19:20
Definitely expand. Gold Coast deserves and should have a team in the AFL and southport are the ones who should be promoted. I am also hoping that one day the bogans of western sydney dump rugby league and realize that australian football is far better. So i still think that an 18 team comp would be great, but a 17 team one is slightly more feasible, but if the AFL announced that next year their will be 2 new teams, i'd be ecstatic.
Sir_Adrian84
14 Apr 2006, 19:34
Expand, it would mean no loss of supporters from any clubs that left Melbourne. 20 teams with 10 in Vic and 10 I/S would be even better, but problems like talent would be a massive issue here.
18 would be good.
Sir_Adrian84
14 Apr 2006, 19:36
Should the AFL expand to an 18 team competition?
The AFL has stated I believe recently, that due to the revenue generated from the new TV rights deal, ALL Victorian based clubs will be safe from merger or relocation until at least 2011.
On the other hand, the AFL are showing strong signs that they need to further capitalize on the Northern Market, and ensure 22 games played in both the Western Sydney and Gold Coast market.
Is the agreement for 8 games a round or 16 teams because 8 games a round would probably not stop the AFL from having a 17th team before 2011.
Mr Crow!
16 Apr 2006, 12:58
If there was a team at the Gold Coast, do you think that they would play all there games at Cararra, or would they have a few games at the Gabba, ie: for the big clashes, say, against Brisbane, Collingwood, etc.
17 teams? No thanks.
There is no other way to do it if you're going to bring in teams, because the new new teams end up fighting each other for talent and both end up basketcases. The bye for 2 years is just a necessary evil.
Mr Crow!
16 Apr 2006, 14:56
If new teams come in from NSW and QLD, what do you think of the idea of a draft moratorium for, let's say, 5 years? Where only the Brisbane Lions and the new team could draft players from QLD, and same for the Sydney Swans and the new team in NSW.
I believe that there were draft moratoriums in WA and SA when the Eagles and Crows joined the league.
Mr Crow!
18 Apr 2006, 18:48
Seems that people are in favour of an 18 team competition, going by the results so far.
If new teams come in from NSW and QLD, what do you think of the idea of a draft moratorium for, let's say, 5 years? Where only the Brisbane Lions and the new team could draft players from QLD, and same for the Sydney Swans and the new team in NSW.
I believe that there were draft moratoriums in WA and SA when the Eagles and Crows joined the league.
You don't need a moratorium, just let them have first pick. Otherwise you find players who aren't wanted by the new club are stranded. Derek Kickett was a great example, from memory he had to go and play a year in SA just to get on the list of a team that wanted him.
Is the agreement for 8 games a round or 16 teams because 8 games a round would probably not stop the AFL from having a 17th team before 2011.
The agreement with the TV networks is for 8 games a round I think. However it's moot. If the AFL suddenly said Southport and Western Sydney were in as the 17th and 18th teams from 2007 onwards, the TV networks would no doubt say we'll show the extra game a round, but we've already signed an agreement to pay only a certain amount. The AFL wouldn't be able to sell that one game a week extra on top, as how to decide which game it is ?
I don't think the AFL would be too worried anyway. 9 games a round would mean an extra game a week on fox footy - meaning they'd get the 4 crappiest games live instead of the 3 crappiest - making the TV rights worth more the next time around.
The agreement with the TV networks is for 8 games a round I think. However it's moot. If the AFL suddenly said Southport and Western Sydney were in as the 17th and 18th teams from 2007 onwards, the TV networks would no doubt say we'll show the extra game a round, but we've already signed an agreement to pay only a certain amount. The AFL wouldn't be able to sell that one game a week extra on top, as how to decide which game it is ?
That sort of detail would probably be worked out prior to the admission of any new team. The other clubs would demand it.
No doubt though that if the AFL were to have an extra game a round and it had a good timeslot, i.e Sunday or Monday nights, there would be a bit of demand from the TV networks. Foxtel especially, because they're crying out for an exclusive timeslot. You'd probably get an extra $10m, if not more.
Mr Crow!
22 Apr 2006, 16:06
Can't believe that this poll has come back to a neck-and-neck race!
Mr Crow!
3 May 2006, 18:37
Wow! The poll is now evenly split 50/50.
I believe that the AFL needs to put a high priority on expanding the competition by or before 2010.
diablo14
4 May 2006, 00:17
no expansion. how can you add more teams to a comp where nearly half are already going to the AFL cap in hand?
the only way you will get second teams in NSW and QLD are thru relocation.
once all that is in order id look to see how the economy was traveeling in footy terms for ACT, NT and TAS.
Bergerac
4 May 2006, 21:07
I say 18 teams
1 more in QLD
1 in poor old Tassie
Split io 3 divisions of 6 teams . Play other 2 divisions once (12 games) then play your own twice (10 games) = 22 rounds
Marklar_33
4 May 2006, 22:45
I say Yes to 18 teams, but I think that an 18-team league will just bring us closer to mergers and a 16-team league again. I wouldnt be thinking there were many clubs that are willing to take on a merger these days, as the clubs are all established now. Brisbane was still basically a rabble when they took in Fitzroy, but a West Sydney/Gold Coast could easily take in the Kangas before they made a history for themselves.
I dont particularly like the 3 divisions theory, as suggested earlier, because the amount of interstate teams doesnt fit in. You would have one divisions Vic teams always travelling less than the other divs (although its already uneven!), plus you want the chance to have the GFs from the previous year playing twice.
It will all work if the Kangas relocate to Launceston (and bring a siren please!). 9 Vic teams, 9 non-Vic teams. Perfect!
no expansion. how can you add more teams to a comp where nearly half are already going to the AFL cap in hand?
Shocking argument. By that logic, the VFL should never have admitted West Coast or Brisbane in 87 because half the VFL clubs at the time were technically bankrupt. The league was in a much worse state than it is now. At the moment, the league has never been stronger - it's just that there are too many teams in Victoria. Which has f**k all to do with whether a team in another state is viable.
No. Facts are 3 or so sides are struggling as it is. Kangas, Bulldogs, Melbourne.
And they'll be not that much better off up in canberra or Carrara.
[quote=milnedog44]No. Facts are 3 or so sides are struggling as it is. Kangas, Bulldogs, Melbourne.
Moving the competition to 18 teams does not get rid of the fact the AFL still has some crap clubs in Melbourne. The AFL have identified this as a long term problem and moving to an 18 team comp will only prolong this problem.
Cable Guy
9 May 2006, 11:25
I've heard a few people bring up Tassie?
Personally If a melbourne club had to move it wouldn't be such a bad idea!
Richo83
13 May 2006, 15:55
Ther has to be an even number, no byes. Plus, the AFL could really cahs in on the untapped possible growth areas of GC and Tassie.
Mr Crow!
16 May 2006, 15:27
I say 18 teams
1 more in QLD
1 in poor old Tassie
Split io 3 divisions of 6 teams . Play other 2 divisions once (12 games) then play your own twice (10 games) = 22 rounds
I never thought of that structure before... how would the finals work? Top 2 teams from each division?
Mr Crow!
4 Jun 2006, 14:39
Imagine 'Derbys' in NSW and QLD... I think that they would be awesome, and further capture the imagination of the fans in the northern states.
Sir_Adrian84
4 Jun 2006, 14:42
depends on where the teams are situated. 18 teams would be good, but finding places for them may be difficult.
Mr Crow!
4 Jun 2006, 15:20
depends on where the teams are situated. 18 teams would be good, but finding places for them may be difficult.
You have to be kidding! There are plenty of places to choose from!
Northern Queensland
Gold Coast
Western Sydney
Canberra
Hobart
Darwin
3rd teams in WA & SA
Sir_Adrian84
4 Jun 2006, 16:29
You have to be kidding! There are plenty of places to choose from!
Northern Queensland
Gold Coast
Western Sydney
Canberra
Hobart
Darwin
3rd teams in WA & SA
what i meant was how many are feasible now if ever.
Western Sydney is one
possibly a 3rd team in Perth is another.
FootyJunkie
4 Jun 2006, 17:02
I never thought of that structure before... how would the finals work? Top 2 teams from each division?
Play the finals system we have now, 3 division winners and 5 wild card clubs.
Mr Crow!
4 Jun 2006, 17:07
Play the finals system we have now, 3 division winners and 5 wild card clubs.
How would they be ranked into the Final 8?
Would the Division Leaders get positions 1 - 3? What if one of the Wild Card clubs had a better record than one of the Division Leaders, because that is mathematically possible. How would you work it then?
FootyJunkie
4 Jun 2006, 17:25
How would they be ranked into the Final 8?
Would the Division Leaders get positions 1 - 3? What if one of the Wild Card clubs had a better record than one of the Division Leaders, because that is mathematically possible. How would you work it then?
This is what happens in the NFL from time to time. An anomaly that exists when more emphasis is put on winning a division than a winning record (AFC East was a joke last season, Patriots winning the division, then got to host the Jaguars who won 3 more games then them).
I'd prefer one big ladder. A more uneven draw gives the finals series more importance.
what i meant was how many are feasible now if ever.
Western Sydney is one
possibly a 3rd team in Perth is another.
I doubt any team would be feasible now. 30,000 club members don't suddenly jump out from nowhere. You put a team on the Gold Coast or Western Sydney and you're going to have to wait 10 years for them at least to develop a large support base.
And a 3rd team in Perth....the only place I can see it happening in the far away future is Mandurah because they're far enough away from Perth and may have the population in the future. But you're talking 30 years away at the earliest. You put another team in the metro area and they're not going to pick up any fans.
SouthSwans
4 Jun 2006, 19:53
The name West Sydney sucks. Make it Parramatta :D
loose ball get
4 Jun 2006, 20:45
where are they going to get players for 2 more teams
Leg_Spinning_Sensation
4 Jun 2006, 20:58
no, or more specifically not yet.
Teams in the competition right now are struggling and if the AFL brought in new teams that would be doing a dishonour to those clubs, for jumping out the fire line and admitti a couple more clubs which means more money spent on the new clubs while the older clubs suffer and it means less profit and less members if the spots they take up are close to the current cubs.
I'd say it Should Stay a 16 team Competition :thumbsu: don;t need 18 or more
mcgarnacle
5 Jun 2006, 05:14
Restructuring the Victorian market should take precedence over any expansion.
Furthermore, the only viable new markets are the Gold Coast & Western Sydney. Population growth and corporate sponsorship are key for any new/relocated club. Canberra, Tassie, & NT could not sustain an AFL football club in the long-term, no matter the passion of supporters. The sums would not add up.
mcgarnacle
5 Jun 2006, 05:51
I say Yes to 18 teams, but I think that an 18-team league will just bring us closer to mergers and a 16-team league again. I wouldnt be thinking there were many clubs that are willing to take on a merger these days, as the clubs are all established now. Brisbane was still basically a rabble when they took in Fitzroy, but a West Sydney/Gold Coast could easily take in the Kangas before they made a history for themselves.
I dont particularly like the 3 divisions theory, as suggested earlier, because the amount of interstate teams doesnt fit in. You would have one divisions Vic teams always travelling less than the other divs (although its already uneven!), plus you want the chance to have the GFs from the previous year playing twice.
It will all work if the Kangas relocate to Launceston (and bring a siren please!). 9 Vic teams, 9 non-Vic teams. Perfect!
A division system should be in place under the current 16-team setup.
hypothetically
Adelaide
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
West Coast
Brisbane
Bulldogs
Kangaroos
Sydney
Essendon
Geelong
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Carlton
Collingwood
Richmond
St Kilda
divisions maintain regional/traditional rivalries. in the case of the bulldogs/kangas, they have a match in each of Sydney & Brisbane every year to help develop a supporter base in these northern markets with perhaps a longer-term view to a relocation.
18-round home & away season
each team plays:
-teams within division twice (home & away) 6 matches
-teams in other divisions once (two teams from each division home, two teams from each division away - on a rotating basis) 12 matches.
division winners qualify for finals ranked 1 to 4.
4 best performing teams (ex division winners) in the competition qualify ranked 5 to 8.
McIntyre 8 Finals
the inequity at present is that all teams are compared to each other even though they don't have a similar draw. The ideal thing about the division system is that teams are primarily compared to teams within their division who have played similar opponents twice. as each division has their own fixture, the best performing team per division qualifies. then, the next 4 best performing teams from any division make up the last 4 places.
18 rounds means 4 spare weeks so perhaps conduct an in-season knockout competition inviting the top clubs from the WAFL, SAFL & VFL to take part with the AFL clubs.
Very good point. Im not sure if there are enough AFL fans in those northern states to keep new clubs afloat.
That's the thing....unless a team has been there for a reasonable period of time there never will be.
There will never be a stage where a new side on the Gold Coast, West Sydney or upper Jerramungup will be immediately feasible. Every club deserves a chance to build a supporter base.
Sir_Adrian84
5 Jun 2006, 16:59
I doubt any team would be feasible now. 30,000 club members don't suddenly jump out from nowhere. You put a team on the Gold Coast or Western Sydney and you're going to have to wait 10 years for them at least to develop a large support base.
And a 3rd team in Perth....the only place I can see it happening in the far away future is Mandurah because they're far enough away from Perth and may have the population in the future. But you're talking 30 years away at the earliest. You put another team in the metro area and they're not going to pick up any fans.
exactly
No.... a country this size cant handle it. Not enough market to financially have 18 teams in.
In fact, we should really go to 14 odd and merge 4 vic clubs.
Far out! Why would we put another team in either NSW or QLD. Most of the people there don't even follow AFL. It's all rugby league. Why not branch out to somewhere where people actually follow footy, like Tassie! And a third WA team would b stupid does anyone seriously think that any of the freo and eagles supporters would just stop going for there current teams and say "oooooh i might go for this new team". Also the people that are in NSW and Qld that do follow AFL arent going to ditch their teams either. So i say yes to at least one more team but no if it is in either NSW, QLD or WA.
Sandgroper35
6 Jun 2006, 22:49
The AFL should take advantage of their current financial position. Who knows, one day they may be struggling for cash, perhaps because they didn't pursuit these markets earlier. At the moment, they could take a short term loss (a decade or so) so as to establish sides in these markets for future gain. Short term loss for a long term gain. They should start thinking like a business rather than just acting like one.
Far out! Why would we put another team in either NSW or QLD. Most of the people there don't even follow AFL.
You just answered your own question brainiac.