Expansion, A Fair Draw & Prosperity for the AFL in the Future

[glengowan]

The AFL seem to think two new teams in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney are viable and will go ahead. My concern is the pressure these two teams will put on existing AFL clubs and State League competitions (and grass roots competitions and clubs) throughout Australia. The other thing I hate about the AFL is the unfair fixtures. So here is an idea of how the AFL could set itself up to prosper, be a fair sporting competition and strengthen football in general.

The Set Up

A 16 team competition to be split into two conferences.

The Allies Conference to consist of the following teams:
West Coast & Fremantle co-tenants of Stadium WA
Adelaide & Port Adelaide co-tenants of Football Park
Brisbane Lions all home games at the Gabba
Gold Coast all home games at Carrara
Sydney Swans all home games at the SCG
Western Sydney all home games at Olympic Stadium

The Victorians Conference to consist of the following teams:
Collingwood all home games at the MCG
Carlton all home games at Docklands
Essendon all home games at Docklands
St. Kilda all home games at Docklands
Geelong all home games at Kardinia Park
Tasmania Hawks, 8 home games at Launceston, 3 at MCG
Melbourne Tigers all home games at MCG
Western Kangaroos all home games at Docklands

The “New” Clubs

Gold Coast Football Club
- Based at Carrara with all home matches played from there

Western Sydney Football Club
- Based at Blacktown with all home games played at the Olympic Stadium

Tasmania Hawks
- A continuation of Hawthorn
- Based at Waverly
- 8 home games in Launceston, 3 at the MCG

Melbourne Tigers
- A merger of Richmond and Melbourne
- Colours Black, Gold and Red

Western Kangaroos
- A merger of Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne
- Based at Whitten Oval
- Colours Blue and White

The Fixture

Rounds 1-7 1st Leg of Internal Conference matches
All-Star match Victorians vs Allies
Rounds 8-15 vs other conference teams
Rounds 16-22 2nd Leg of Internal Conference matches

The Finals

The top 3 of each conference qualify to take positions 1-6 in the Finals. The position of the 6 teams is based on a merger of the ladders to determine who has the better overall result. These 6 teams get a break between Round 22 and the 1st week of Finals.

“Round 23” is to determine who gets positions 7 and 8 in the finals. 4th placed Victorians plays 5th placed Allies in one elimination game and 4th placed Allies play 5th placed Victorians in the other elimination game.

The Final 8 is then played as a 4 week finals series as it is now.

The Draft & Salary Cap

Would be as it is now except teams would be given the opportunity to use their 4th Round pick on a pre-picked player from their zone. It would be the responsibility, with funding from the AFL, for the clubs to oversee grass roots footy in their zone, including country areas.

The Victorians could have an 8 team “Reserves” and elite under 18 teams instead of the current set up with the AFL.

West Coast and Fremantle would look after the WAFL, Adelaide and Port the SANFL, Brisbane and Gold Coast the QAFL and Sydney and Western Sydney the NSWAFL.

The Problem

5 of the current Victorian clubs would have to change/adapt in order for football in general to go forward.

The Benefits

- A fair draw
- A meaningful representative game
- Maximising attendance
- Keeping standards up
- Allowing traditional state leagues stability
- Growing the game nationally
- Responsibility towards grass-roots football
- Stronger Victorian clubs through less competition

[boncer34]

Haha this will be shot down in about 5 posts.

[dom_105]

Haha this will be shot down in about 5 posts.

I'll give it 4 Bonce.

[steve-o]

I hate the two-conference idea - it doesn't work the way you people want it to.

Post 3.

EDIT: Oooh I know.

Use one of the other "fair draw" "schedule" or "conferences" threads.

[PumpyChowdown]

Actually, I quite like that set up. The only downside I can see is severe inequality in the crowd attendances between the two conferences.

[woosh_era]

So one 'division' hauls its arse all over the country for 6 months while the other drives thier car to each game? Good system.

[McCrann]

The AFL seem to think two new teams in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney are viable and will go ahead. My concern is the pressure these two teams will put on existing AFL clubs and State League competitions (and grass roots competitions and clubs) throughout Australia. The other thing I hate about the AFL is the unfair fixtures. So here is an idea of how the AFL could set itself up to prosper, be a fair sporting competition and strengthen football in general.

The Set Up

A 16 team competition to be split into two conferences.

The Allies Conference to consist of the following teams:
West Coast & Fremantle co-tenants of Stadium WA
Adelaide & Port Adelaide co-tenants of Football Park
Brisbane Lions all home games at the Gabba
Gold Coast all home games at Carrara
Sydney Swans all home games at the SCG
Western Sydney all home games at Olympic Stadium

The Victorians Conference to consist of the following teams:
Collingwood all home games at the MCG
Carlton all home games at Docklands
Essendon all home games at Docklands
St. Kilda all home games at Docklands
Geelong all home games at Kardinia Park
Tasmania Hawks, 8 home games at Launceston, 3 at MCG
Melbourne Tigers all home games at MCG
Western Kangaroos all home games at Docklands

The “New” Clubs

Gold Coast Football Club
- Based at Carrara with all home matches played from there

Western Sydney Football Club
- Based at Blacktown with all home games played at the Olympic Stadium

Tasmania Hawks
- A continuation of Hawthorn
- Based at Waverly
- 8 home games in Launceston, 3 at the MCG

Melbourne Tigers
- A merger of Richmond and Melbourne
- Colours Black, Gold and Red

Western Kangaroos
- A merger of Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne
- Based at Whitten Oval
- Colours Blue and White

The Fixture

Rounds 1-7 1st Leg of Internal Conference matches
All-Star match Victorians vs Allies
Rounds 8-15 vs other conference teams
Rounds 16-22 2nd Leg of Internal Conference matches

The Finals

The top 3 of each conference qualify to take positions 1-6 in the Finals. The position of the 6 teams is based on a merger of the ladders to determine who has the better overall result. These 6 teams get a break between Round 22 and the 1st week of Finals.

“Round 23” is to determine who gets positions 7 and 8 in the finals. 4th placed Victorians plays 5th placed Allies in one elimination game and 4th placed Allies play 5th placed Victorians in the other elimination game.

The Final 8 is then played as a 4 week finals series as it is now.

The Draft & Salary Cap

Would be as it is now except teams would be given the opportunity to use their 4th Round pick on a pre-picked player from their zone. It would be the responsibility, with funding from the AFL, for the clubs to oversee grass roots footy in their zone, including country areas.

The Victorians could have an 8 team “Reserves” and elite under 18 teams instead of the current set up with the AFL.

West Coast and Fremantle would look after the WAFL, Adelaide and Port the SANFL, Brisbane and Gold Coast the QAFL and Sydney and Western Sydney the NSWAFL.

The Problem

5 of the current Victorian clubs would have to change/adapt in order for football in general to go forward.

The Benefits

- A fair draw
- A meaningful representative game
- Maximising attendance
- Keeping standards up
- Allowing traditional state leagues stability
- Growing the game nationally
- Responsibility towards grass-roots football
- Stronger Victorian clubs through less competition

You're crazy mate!

Haven't you noticed how much everyone loves mergers and relocations yet?

[DoggieStyle07]

The Victorian Conference and Australian Conference is a great idea in my opinion. As the original poster has suggested it would bring alot of benefits to the comp to make it fairer and even more financially viable:

- the same draw for every team in each conference = much fairer

- all 'big' victorian based games still get to be played twice a year (which is scheduled in now anyway - and unfairly to the advantage of the big clubs).

- all derby/showdown matches still are played twice a year for non victorian teams

- victorian sides financially benefit from greater attendances from opposition supporters by playing all vic sides twice 'home' and 'away'. Minimises games against non-vic teams with lower attendances.

- non-vic teams benefit from greater building of inter-city based rivalries (similar to A-League), and the non-vic conference has a more national feel. Do teams representing big cities really need or want to play so much against 'suburbs' of melbourne.

- All teams still play all teams in the opposite conference once during the season so existing rivalries between vic clubs and non vic clubs can continue.

Really it is not that much different to what we have now, it is just a fairer and more practical system.

[stephen_bayne]

Perhaps instead of playing only against teams in thier conference they should play the majority of thier games against teams from thier conference with a couple of games against teams from the other conference. Also not sure the Basketball franchise of the same name would agree giving up the name Melbourne Tigers.

[Professor Knowall]

A few comments on the "resurrected VFL"
...The Victorians Conference to consist of the following teams:
Collingwood all home games at the MCG - and all away games too. Docklands is now too small for Collingwood v any Melbourne club (e.g. last Friday nights lock-out against the Saints).
Carlton all home games at Docklands - relocate this criminal cheating scum outfit to West Sydney to become the West Sydney Blues.
Essendon all home games at Docklands - OK
St. Kilda all home games at Docklands - OK
Geelong all home games at Kardinia Park - except v Collingwood, which must be at the MCG.
Tasmania Hawks, 8 home games at Launceston, 3 at MCG - won't happen
Melbourne Tigers all home games at MCG - Send Melbourne to Tasmania instead to become the Tasmanian Devils.
Western Kangaroos all home games at Docklands - OK
...

[Gibbke]

Outside some attendance rationalisation, which would still differ very little from what's currently in place, there is not one single shred of evidence to prove that any of those "benefits" in the very first post will happen.

- A fair draw - how? One league spends every week on a plane, the other spends every week hanging out in the Melbourne CBD.

- A meaningful representative game - you can't be serious...

- Maximising attendance - all you're doing is decreasing Vic home games against interstaters, and by nearly nothing at that...

- Keeping standards up - absolutely no evidence.

- Allowing traditional state leagues stability - absolutely no evidence.

- Growing the game nationally - hmmm...sounds like a corporate buzz phrase...no, there might be a spinoff, but 25 years of the Swans sure tells a story...and do we need to sell Australian Rules to Tassie...?

- Responsibility towards grass-roots football - absolutely no evidence.

- Stronger Victorian clubs through less competition - anyone here heard of the national draft? When these expansion sides are built, they will need a healthy top up of draftees, and as we've already seen, the AFL wants to give just the two new sides the first dozen or so every year for the rest of our lifetimes! And if the Hawks go to Tassie and you have two mergers, you'll see all sorts of little quirks...the big losers will be the old Vics, because they'll be forced to endure slim pickings every November as they go through lean spells no less severe than Carlton's...

[catters05]

20 Teams
19 Rounds

[woosh_era]

14 teams
2 full rounds

[Gibbke]

The biggest myth in footy (alongside many others!) is that there is indeed such a thing as a "fair" or "perfect" draw...

You cannot have a draw where every team gets every aspect equalised with every other team, unless you have 2 teams from every state, make them all share a ground, play the games at the same time, and somehow geographically shift Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane to locations an equal distance from each other. Only once you've done this, and then forcibly relocated Australia's population so that every state has an equal population and therefore an equal demographic base to draw from, killed off any excess supporters so that all are equally supported (Collingwood fans start running now), and lastly up/downsized every stadium so that they are all equal in capacity, will you then address the common grizzle points of plane flights, tv timeslots, player recruitment possibilities, gate receipts, blockbusters for those who have v those who don't...

Me personally, I say that whenever my team takes the field, whether it be the MCG, York Park, Subi or Dubai, they will tackle whoever whenever wherever the same way. And anyone who thinks that everyone playing everyone twice will fix supposed problems, is being a simplistic idiot.

[St Specky]

I don't mind the idea but it has too many flaws to work well.

As pointed out, one conference spends half its time on a plane, one spends time driving to their games. This simply doesn't work.

One idea I wouldn't be opposed to is similar to the OP's.

2 Conferences (An example):

Gold Coast
West Sydney
West Coast
Adelaide
St Kilda
Essendon
Richmond
Hawthorn
Bulldogs

Brisbane
Sydney
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
Carlton
Collingwood
Geelong
Kangaroos
Melbourne

It could change every year. 1 Adelaide team, 1 Sydney, 1 Queensland, 5 Victorian & 1 Perth. You play every team in your conference twice and teams outside your conference once. We could either have one ladder (final 8 as it is now) or two (top 4 from each conference, rankings decided as like one big ladder).

A pretty fair draw IMO.

[Gibbke]

Why would you deny SA and WA fans the two games they want the most - the local showdowns? What's fair about this?

Here's mine:
- 4 conferences (WA-SA, NSW-QLD (both 4 teams), and 2 Victorian ones (both 5) which can be changed every year).
- You play your division twice, and everyone else once.
- The 4 team divisions play an extra game against their respective opposites from the previous season. This makes for a 21-round draw. If you want 22, all 18 teams play their respective opposites.
- Top team makes the top 4, in order of performances, just like the NFL. The next 5-8 of the 8 are the teams with the best records. You then run a normal Top 8.

Here's an example, based on the current ladder (or close):
West---------North--------Vic 1--------Vic 2
1 Adelaide----1 Sydney-----1 Geelong---1 Hawks
2 Port--------2 Brisbane----2 Doggies----2 Collingwood
3 Eagles------3 West Syd--3 Richmond---3 Kangas
4 Freo--------4 GCoast----4 Essendon---4 Saints
---------------------------5 Melbourne--5 Carlton

Top 8:
Adelaide, Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn, and then the 4 next best, no matter which division they come from...then run a top 8...

Advantages - Rivalries, the most important games for all fans, are maintained, and many so-called draw flaws that others complain about are lessened...you won't make travel equitable, but this system does ensure that a team isn't disadvantaged against other teams on the ladder on it (e.g. WA and SA teams with their lengthy travel only need to worry about each other, and the top team gets a top 4 spot - no problem...I'd argue that teams 5-8 have no right to argue anyway if they didn't finish on top). All the Vics want to play the Big 3, all the interstaters want to play their neighbours - this is where they make their real inroads in marketing, the AFL is a business - it's madness not to accomodate this...

On a more cynical note, you can also cater for axed teams. If we lose 2 teams for whatever reason (mergers, relocation, liquidation), they will be Vics, we all know this, so there is room for 2 sides to bite the dust and the draw isn't adversely affected - if anything it becomes more symmetrical...

Disadvantages - like many things, some won't get it...and I like the idea of our current single big ladder as opposed to this NFL-influenced model...

[anthj]

I don't think the Bulldogs will ever merge. If it did happen I would no longer follow AFL. We also actually made a profit last year, and have nearly completed our new facilities at the Whitten Oval. End.

[The Teflon Dean]

The AFL seem to think two new teams in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney are viable and will go ahead. My concern is the pressure these two teams will put on existing AFL clubs and State League competitions (and grass roots competitions and clubs) throughout Australia. The other thing I hate about the AFL is the unfair fixtures. So here is an idea of how the AFL could set itself up to prosper, be a fair sporting competition and strengthen football in general.

The Set Up

A 16 team competition to be split into two conferences.

The Allies Conference to consist of the following teams:
West Coast & Fremantle co-tenants of Stadium WA
Adelaide & Port Adelaide co-tenants of Football Park
Brisbane Lions all home games at the Gabba
Gold Coast all home games at Carrara
Sydney Swans all home games at the SCG
Western Sydney all home games at Olympic Stadium

The Victorians Conference to consist of the following teams:
Collingwood all home games at the MCG
Carlton all home games at Docklands
Essendon all home games at Docklands
St. Kilda all home games at Docklands
Geelong all home games at Kardinia Park
Tasmania Hawks, 8 home games at Launceston, 3 at MCG
Melbourne Tigers all home games at MCG
Western Kangaroos all home games at Docklands

The “New” Clubs

Gold Coast Football Club
- Based at Carrara with all home matches played from there

Western Sydney Football Club
- Based at Blacktown with all home games played at the Olympic Stadium

Tasmania Hawks
- A continuation of Hawthorn
- Based at Waverly
- 8 home games in Launceston, 3 at the MCG

Melbourne Tigers
- A merger of Richmond and Melbourne
- Colours Black, Gold and Red

Western Kangaroos
- A merger of Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne
- Based at Whitten Oval
- Colours Blue and White

The Fixture

Rounds 1-7 1st Leg of Internal Conference matches
All-Star match Victorians vs Allies
Rounds 8-15 vs other conference teams
Rounds 16-22 2nd Leg of Internal Conference matches

The Finals

The top 3 of each conference qualify to take positions 1-6 in the Finals. The position of the 6 teams is based on a merger of the ladders to determine who has the better overall result. These 6 teams get a break between Round 22 and the 1st week of Finals.

“Round 23” is to determine who gets positions 7 and 8 in the finals. 4th placed Victorians plays 5th placed Allies in one elimination game and 4th placed Allies play 5th placed Victorians in the other elimination game.

The Final 8 is then played as a 4 week finals series as it is now.

The Draft & Salary Cap

Would be as it is now except teams would be given the opportunity to use their 4th Round pick on a pre-picked player from their zone. It would be the responsibility, with funding from the AFL, for the clubs to oversee grass roots footy in their zone, including country areas.

The Victorians could have an 8 team “Reserves” and elite under 18 teams instead of the current set up with the AFL.

West Coast and Fremantle would look after the WAFL, Adelaide and Port the SANFL, Brisbane and Gold Coast the QAFL and Sydney and Western Sydney the NSWAFL.

The Problem

5 of the current Victorian clubs would have to change/adapt in order for football in general to go forward.

The Benefits

- A fair draw
- A meaningful representative game
- Maximising attendance
- Keeping standards up
- Allowing traditional state leagues stability
- Growing the game nationally
- Responsibility towards grass-roots football
- Stronger Victorian clubs through less competition

Typical franchise mentality.:thumbsd:

I don't think the Bulldogs will ever merge. If it did happen I would no longer follow AFL. We also actually made a profit last year, and have nearly completed our new facilities at the Whitten Oval. End.

You wouldn't be Robinson Crusoe mate.

A combined 60,000 membership would shrink to about 10,000 in the blink of an eye, and soccer would be entrenched in the multicultural west of Melbourne for ever more.

[cheeky_chilean]

The AFL seem to think two new teams in the Gold Coast and Western Sydney are viable and will go ahead. My concern is the pressure these two teams will put on existing AFL clubs and State League competitions (and grass roots competitions and clubs) throughout Australia. The other thing I hate about the AFL is the unfair fixtures. So here is an idea of how the AFL could set itself up to prosper, be a fair sporting competition and strengthen football in general.

The Set Up

A 16 team competition to be split into two conferences.

The Allies Conference to consist of the following teams:
West Coast & Fremantle co-tenants of Stadium WA
Adelaide & Port Adelaide co-tenants of Football Park
Brisbane Lions all home games at the Gabba
Gold Coast all home games at Carrara
Sydney Swans all home games at the SCG
Western Sydney all home games at Olympic Stadium

The Victorians Conference to consist of the following teams:
Collingwood all home games at the MCG
Carlton all home games at Docklands
Essendon all home games at Docklands
St. Kilda all home games at Docklands
Geelong all home games at Kardinia Park
Tasmania Hawks, 8 home games at Launceston, 3 at MCG
Melbourne Tigers all home games at MCG
Western Kangaroos all home games at Docklands

The “New” Clubs

Gold Coast Football Club
- Based at Carrara with all home matches played from there

Western Sydney Football Club
- Based at Blacktown with all home games played at the Olympic Stadium

Tasmania Hawks
- A continuation of Hawthorn
- Based at Waverly
- 8 home games in Launceston, 3 at the MCG

Melbourne Tigers
- A merger of Richmond and Melbourne
- Colours Black, Gold and Red

Western Kangaroos
- A merger of Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne
- Based at Whitten Oval
- Colours Blue and White

The Fixture

Rounds 1-7 1st Leg of Internal Conference matches
All-Star match Victorians vs Allies
Rounds 8-15 vs other conference teams
Rounds 16-22 2nd Leg of Internal Conference matches

The Finals

The top 3 of each conference qualify to take positions 1-6 in the Finals. The position of the 6 teams is based on a merger of the ladders to determine who has the better overall result. These 6 teams get a break between Round 22 and the 1st week of Finals.

“Round 23” is to determine who gets positions 7 and 8 in the finals. 4th placed Victorians plays 5th placed Allies in one elimination game and 4th placed Allies play 5th placed Victorians in the other elimination game.

The Final 8 is then played as a 4 week finals series as it is now.

The Draft & Salary Cap

Would be as it is now except teams would be given the opportunity to use their 4th Round pick on a pre-picked player from their zone. It would be the responsibility, with funding from the AFL, for the clubs to oversee grass roots footy in their zone, including country areas.

The Victorians could have an 8 team “Reserves” and elite under 18 teams instead of the current set up with the AFL.

West Coast and Fremantle would look after the WAFL, Adelaide and Port the SANFL, Brisbane and Gold Coast the QAFL and Sydney and Western Sydney the NSWAFL.

The Problem

5 of the current Victorian clubs would have to change/adapt in order for football in general to go forward.

The Benefits

- A fair draw
- A meaningful representative game
- Maximising attendance
- Keeping standards up
- Allowing traditional state leagues stability
- Growing the game nationally
- Responsibility towards grass-roots football
- Stronger Victorian clubs through less competition


I really like this "conference" system. except i think i would relocate two victorian clubs to west sydney and gold cosat instead of merging them. Also no sure about the play-offs. just keep the top 8 system that is in place now. Also it could gurantee all the victorian clubs 4 road games a season to (sydney,brisbane,adelaide and perth) which could alternate every season.

[Wednesday]

How about 24 teams. 2 divisions (Div 1 and Div 2). 22 rounds each.

All teams play each other twice.

2 up 2 down every season.

Existing 16 teams plus 8 new.

New teams

Gold Coast
Western Sydney
Canberra
Hobart/Launceston or Tassie (let them work it out)
3rd WA team (new or from WAFL)
3rd SA team (new or from SANFL)
Darwin
1 more team from Sunshine Coast/Townsville/Cairns/Newcastle/Central Coast etc

Introduce 4 teams in 2011 and another 4 in 2015.

[funkyfetlock]

Why would you deny SA and WA fans the two games they want the most - the local showdowns? What's fair about this?

Here's mine:
- 4 conferences (WA-SA, NSW-QLD (both 4 teams), and 2 Victorian ones (both 5) which can be changed every year).
- You play your division twice, and everyone else once.
- The 4 team divisions play an extra game against their respective opposites from the previous season. This makes for a 21-round draw. If you want 22, all 18 teams play their respective opposites.
- Top team makes the top 4, in order of performances, just like the NFL. The next 5-8 of the 8 are the teams with the best records. You then run a normal Top 8.

Here's an example, based on the current ladder (or close):
West---------North--------Vic 1--------Vic 2
1 Adelaide----1 Sydney-----1 Geelong---1 Hawks
2 Port--------2 Brisbane----2 Doggies----2 Collingwood
3 Eagles------3 West Syd--3 Richmond---3 Kangas
4 Freo--------4 GCoast----4 Essendon---4 Saints
---------------------------5 Melbourne--5 Carlton

Top 8:
Adelaide, Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn, and then the 4 next best, no matter which division they come from...then run a top 8...




I like this idea very much. It is equitable and really builds up the local rivalries. :thumbsu:

Can you please send this suggestion to Demetiou?

[Black Falcon]

Gibbke, your conference system based on the NFL makes a whole lot of sense. Its easily understandable and applicable. Each year, turn-about, fans know if they'll be playing any other team at H/A, according to the model.

Rivalries are strengthened, and whatever are the outcomes of the R/M/L/Drop down to VFL scenario for some Melb clubs, the model isn't affected adversely.

I feel the AFL could adopt this NFL model easily, when GC and WS teams are included.

The current draw is a 'lucky dip' completely dependent on when you meet the stronger teams (the order keeps changing) re your teams position on the table. With the above model, you'll know a year in advance. The spectators too could plan their travel to games better. Most wonderfully, every Melb team would have to travel four times per year out of the state!

With the conferences separate to a degree, the Melb confs could vie for the "Victoria Cup" on points, same as the "Allies Cup", much the same as the minor premiership is decided. (See first post on thread)

The Gibbke Model would save on travel for the Interstaters, whilst the Melb folks pining for the old VFL would have more of a semblance of it in the two Melb confs (and Vic Cup).

[Gibbke]

Sweet - two sets of thumbs up. I'm calling it the "Gibbke AFL Schedule System" (just like the "McIntyre Final 8"), slapping a big patent on it, and it's mine, Mine, MINE!!! You heard it here first!

Should be able to buy my lunch every day from now on, if it catches on...:thumbsu:

[Porthos]

It is easy to have a fair draw. Either make it rotational, (you play carlton, then freo, then 14 other clubs and then carlton again, and if you were at home last time, you're away this time) or design the fixture in advance by final placing for the current season. (eg. last year's 1st vs 2nd on Anzac Day)

Conferences are rubbish.

[Paddy_Mac]

I have to say that I like the Gibbke model.

[FootyJunkie]

I have to say that I like the Gibbke model.

Me too, the uneven divisions would throw a lot of people off, but it actually is alright. Some small changes though, first off, I'd re-label the divisions.

South-West: West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port Adelaide
North-East: Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Western Sydney
Victoria Cup: 5 Victorian Clubs
Victoria Shield: 5 Victorian Clubs

I'd stick to 22 games. Structure the fixture so that ...

Victorian clubs get 4 away trips each year, one to WA, SA, NSW and QLD.

Non-Victorian clubs get 10 away trips each year: 5 to VIC, 2 trips to two out of the three other states, with just one trip to the third state. Ideally, non-Victorian clubs should play atleast 2 games each at the MCG and the Dome, however the selling of home games by Victorian clubs may not allow this to always happen.

When the AFL goes to 18 clubs, rank all Victorian clubs from 1-10 based on the previous year's performance and distribute them evenly to the Victorian Cup and Victorian Shield divisions (1st to the Cup division, 2nd to the Sheild division, 3rd to the Cup division etc). At the end of the season, the winner of a Victorian division stays in that division next year to defend the title, but has to defend it against the four unsuccessful clubs from the other Victorian division. In this way, the Victorian divisions change each year with the four unsuccessful Victorian clubs switching divisions.

Agree on keeping the Top 8 Finals Series, just give division winners the double chance. The Non-Victorian clubs have to travel more, but are compenstated by only having to contend with 3 other rivals to win the division title, instead of 4 like the Victorian clubs who get to play 18 games in Victoria (without considering the selling of home games interstate).

[funkyfetlock]

Yep the Gibbke model is a winner for mine.

However I agree with footyjunkie that the labelling of the divisions needs changing. Coming from Townsville, it seems ludicrous to refer to the Brisbane/Sydney division as North or North-East. Can't we just make it the Eastern Division? Just because it is north of Victoria doesn't make it the northern part of Australia.

"The 4 team divisions play an extra game against their respective opposites from the previous season. This makes for a 21 round draw."

The only way this would work though is if the respective opposite was from the other non Victorian division I think.

So from your example - in round 21: (the "East meets West Round")

Sydney would play Fremantle,
Brisbane would play the Eagles,
West Sydney would play Port,
Gold Coast would play Adelaide.

And the Victorian clubs would continue to play with themselves.... they're quite good at that.

[funkyfetlock]

Oh and I think your Round 22 proposal needs changing too Gibbke, otherwise you might get teams playing each other 3 times during the home and away season.

Porthos I was dead against the idea of an NFL conference style system too until I read Gibbke's plan. I think it has great merit and should be seriously considered.

[Tomahawk Worshiper]

I like the 'Wednesday' model.
Stuff conferences...its gotta be all about 2 divisions with relegation much like the english premier league..

As for the 8 extra teams we would need....

West Sydney Warriors
Gold Coast Sharks
Tassie Devils
Broome Bandits
Darwin Storm
Albury/Wodonga Rivermen
Townsville Crocs
Norwood Knights
in addition to the 16 current teams...

This would make 24 teams with a top division (AFL) losing 2 bottom teams to the lower division (AFA)...


Instead of a top 8 have a top 6....

Anyway I reckon that would be much better than a simultanous 2 conference system...

[funkyfetlock]

This is pie in the sky type stuff Tomahawk and completely unsustainable. As much as I would love Townsville to have its own AFL side, it is at least 50 - 100 years away before it would be possible. (Even though we have just had a wonderful new Aussie Rules stadium built and our population growth rate is enormous). Teams like Townsville, Broome, and Darwin would be destined to spend an eternity battling away in the inferior AFA competition attracting only Aunty Betty and her two dogs to every game. It would damage Aussie Rules rather than promote it in these regions.

And if a team like Broome actually did manage to win the AFA and break into the AFL competition I shudder to think how that would turn out.

The idea of having 2 separate competitions based on performance I find destestable and completely unAustralian. The very idea of having two different classes of competition I would think most supporters woud find revolting.

I don't think you have read the Gibbke model properly. It is not a 2 conference model it is a 4 conference model. Just change the word "conference" to "division" if it sounds too American for you. Gibbke's model would make for a better draw than the silly one we have this year that's for certain. I can't believe we've played Port Adelaide twice already and we're only at Round 10.

[Gibbke]

Some good points raised...

How about naming the divisions after great players...you could even do this every year as a promo (e.g. division winner gets to name the player)...wait till Sydney wins it and calls it the Capper Conference! Just thoughts, probably a bit silly and I'm sure the suits would see it as a marketing nightmare...West, North, Vic Blue and Vic White might be the way to go...?

Rd-22 could be Vic v Vic, and West v North...that's only if you have it, of course, because 21 rounds makes it symmetrical...you might have it to keep Vic clubs happy in regards to playing the Big 3, but that's about it...I guess it also levels out the travel for the other two divisions (e.g. a return trip to the other side of the country!)...

The final system ensures that you get representation from all areas of Australia during the finals...whether this is good or not is an argument for the ages, because in 2006 the best 4 teams were all from interstate (so from a footy purist's pov it isn't ideal), but the accountants and the MCC members with their 500 year finals deals would be happier, I guess...

I'm also totally opposed to relegation and promotion - the best way to completely f### up any sport. 92 EPL sides, and only 5 can ever win it. It's ok if you support Man U, but I go for Wolves! Once you're in the 2nd rung, you lose players to 1st div sides, you can't get tv air time, and if you try to enforce a contract you'll be done for restraint of trade - and it's not like the AFL doesn't already have enough loopholes in workplace legislation noone's bothered (or been selfish enough) to exploit yet...imagine a draft where the first 10 picks all go to 2nd div teams - the no.1 pick is already a curse, it would then become a career death sentence...you'd have all sorts of behind the scenes dodgy deals as power teams try to buy the top pick, and if this is done, how does a struggler ever hope to climb back up? The money or the player...what a dilemma...guaranteed to keep the same teams winning every year...the salary cap wouldn't survive, and the draft would die shortly afterwards...

[Black Falcon]

"The 4 team divisions play an extra game against their respective opposites from the previous season. This makes for a 21 round draw."

The only way this would work though is if the respective opposite was from the other non Victorian division I think.

So from your example - in round 21: (the "East meets West Round")

Sydney would play Fremantle,
Brisbane would play the Eagles,
West Sydney would play Port,
Gold Coast would play Adelaide.

And the Victorian clubs would continue to play with themselves.... they're quite good at that.

The Vic clubs play with themselves in the Rivalry Round as well now. As for the Rd 21, yes W3 v E3. Of course Gibbke, we must always allow the thought of the West and East division growing to 5 in the future as well.

21 Rounds allows for a split round to be thrown in to make it up to 22, or a SOO game.

The 'all team ladder' would still be needed to assess the pos 5-8 for the finals re best performed H/A points F/A

The divisional winner would be obvious to any of those in that division, so doesn't need to be separate from the long ladder.

To make the long ladder even more crucial, you could step aside from the NFL model and have it so that the top 8 is decided purely on best performed as per now. You'd still have your divisional champs, but interestingly one division may not have any club worthy of Top 8 entry, and another may have three entries. Now that would spur the divisions on against each other, and provide for no Safe or Sure passage to finals, as per now.

It would also relieve the iniquity of a Safe W1 team being automatically in Top 4 (1,2,3 or 4?) when its long ladder position is below that of a team that secured the wildcard no 6 pos (as per your plan).

Comments? :confused:

PS With the hoo-ha over SOO games, div v div rep games will never happen.

[funkyfetlock]

I like it Black Falcon.

It seems the four ladder system is not appealling to many people. I like the idea of someone from each division being assured of a top 4 spot but if 4 ladders is going to scare people off it is quite easy to modify Gibbke's model into one ladder.

It would mean that the only significance of the divisions would be in designing the draw which would be a shame.

Maybe the idea of a conference system could be introduced slowly to get people used to the idea eg rewards for divisional winners other than a top four spot.

You are probably right about divisional representative games not happening. Personally I have never been able to find a team which I felt represented me at State of Origin Matches and the Divisional rep games would come closer to that. But I still hate the idea of someone from a different state representing me. It just reinforces the fact that my state is not good enough to take Victoria on on our own and need help. This is not a good thing when you are trying to promote the game in NSW and Qld.

[Gibbke]

To be honest, me too! I'd rather have just the one ladder like we've already got. The big difference is I don't have a problem with ANY aspect of the current AFL draw, unlike many who continue to whinge and b!tch and complain that other teams have an advantage over their own team's incompetence.

I support Hawthorn - we don't grizzle about the draw! Would be a bit rich coming from us, seeing as we make 8 trips on a plane every year, and 4 of them are voluntary...and it's not like we've had the performances on the board to demand prime time etc anyway...you turn up, you shut up, and you play - end of story.

But this issue won't go away no matter what happens, so I'm thinking that not only does the draw need to be transparent and fixed, it also needs to be concrete - what is, not what if. Playing your own conference shouldn't be to assist a fairer draw - it should be directly linked to your score on the ladder - none of this hypothetical rubbish. Ideally, you want your 4 teams in any division having the same workload (e.g. all the West sides playing 12 at home, 2 against the opposite city, 5 trips to Victoria, and 2-3 trips to Sydney and/or Brisbane). These 4 teams would fight amongst themselves, and would not be "disadvantaged" by being compared against Collingwood after 18 straight MCG games. It shouldn't be hypothetical. As for the restructuring of the Top 8 to rank all, I'm opposed - I like mine better! You finish on top, you play in the top 4.

It might seem a little unequal when conceivably a team with a better record than a division winner actually misses out on the finals, but that's the system - if we were precious about these things, there would be no GF and no finals anyway - we'd just call the top team the premier. Group systems appear in countless sporting comps, and the top team always progresses, no matter what...if you finish below first, you take your chances...if a dominant side gets second, you'd think if they deserve the top 4 spot they'll overcome their elimination opponents, and then a supposedly weaker top 4 side in the first 2 weeks anyway...

On another note, if the West and North expanded to 5, you'd have 8 division games and 15 non-div games - a 23 round draw. The big problem might be if a Vic side then folds - the symmetry in the interstate divisions suddenly disappears (an extra WA side means extra plane flights for the SA sides)...so you'd think that the priority would be to ensure Vic viability before interstate expansion...none of this would happen anyway, just a thought...

[Ben the Gooner]

How about 24 teams. 2 divisions (Div 1 and Div 2). 22 rounds each.

All teams play each other twice.

2 up 2 down every season.

Existing 16 teams plus 8 new.

New teams

Gold Coast
Western Sydney
Canberra
Hobart/Launceston or Tassie (let them work it out)
3rd WA team (new or from WAFL)
3rd SA team (new or from SANFL)
Darwin
1 more team from Sunshine Coast/Townsville/Cairns/Newcastle/Central Coast etc

Introduce 4 teams in 2011 and another 4 in 2015.

I already had that idea here. (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=45)

[Ben the Gooner]

Why would you deny SA and WA fans the two games they want the most - the local showdowns? What's fair about this?

Here's mine:
- 4 conferences (WA-SA, NSW-QLD (both 4 teams), and 2 Victorian ones (both 5) which can be changed every year).
- You play your division twice, and everyone else once.
- The 4 team divisions play an extra game against their respective opposites from the previous season. This makes for a 21-round draw. If you want 22, all 18 teams play their respective opposites.
- Top team makes the top 4, in order of performances, just like the NFL. The next 5-8 of the 8 are the teams with the best records. You then run a normal Top 8.

Here's an example, based on the current ladder (or close):
West---------North--------Vic 1--------Vic 2
1 Adelaide----1 Sydney-----1 Geelong---1 Hawks
2 Port--------2 Brisbane----2 Doggies----2 Collingwood
3 Eagles------3 West Syd--3 Richmond---3 Kangas
4 Freo--------4 GCoast----4 Essendon---4 Saints
---------------------------5 Melbourne--5 Carlton

Top 8:
Adelaide, Sydney, Geelong, Hawthorn, and then the 4 next best, no matter which division they come from...then run a top 8...

Advantages - Rivalries, the most important games for all fans, are maintained, and many so-called draw flaws that others complain about are lessened...you won't make travel equitable, but this system does ensure that a team isn't disadvantaged against other teams on the ladder on it (e.g. WA and SA teams with their lengthy travel only need to worry about each other, and the top team gets a top 4 spot - no problem...I'd argue that teams 5-8 have no right to argue anyway if they didn't finish on top). All the Vics want to play the Big 3, all the interstaters want to play their neighbours - this is where they make their real inroads in marketing, the AFL is a business - it's madness not to accomodate this...

On a more cynical note, you can also cater for axed teams. If we lose 2 teams for whatever reason (mergers, relocation, liquidation), they will be Vics, we all know this, so there is room for 2 sides to bite the dust and the draw isn't adversely affected - if anything it becomes more symmetrical...

Disadvantages - like many things, some won't get it...and I like the idea of our current single big ladder as opposed to this NFL-influenced model...

I like it, but perhaps going up to 20 teams for equality in each conference.

EDIT:

Add a Tassie team to your Eastern Conference
Add a Perth team to your Western Conference

Victoria 1:
Essendon
Collingwood
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond

Victoria 2:
Geelong
North Melbourne
Melbourne
St Kilda
Bulldogs

Western:
Perth
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide

Eastern:
Sydney
Homebush
Gold Coast
Brisbane
Tasmania

These conferences are chosen on the "interstate side" on geographic proximity, and for Victoria to maximise rivalries.

You play your conference twice (8 games) and the other conferences once (15 games) giving us 25 rounds (including 2 byes).

As there is an odd number of teams, you'd have two byes each year, between rounds 6-10 and rounds 16-20

e.g. Essendon's draw:

R1: v Port Adelaide
R2: v Perth
R3: v Fremantle
R4: v West Coast
R5: v Adelaide

R6: v Collingwood
R7: v Carlton
R8: BYE
R9: v Richmond
R10: v Hawthorn

R11: v North
R12: v St Kilda
R13: v Melbourne
R14: v Geelong
R15: v Bulldogs

R16: v Hawthorn
R17: v Richmond
R18: BYE
R19: v Carlton
R20: v Collingwood

R21: v Sydney
R22: v Brisbane
R23: v Gold Coast
R24: v Homebush
R25: v Tasmania

Or in other words:
R1-5: Vic 1 v Western, Vic 2 v Eastern
R6-10: Intra conference games, including bye
R11-15: Vic 1 v Vic 2, Eastern v Western
R16-20: Intra conference games, including bye
R21-25: Vic 1 v Eastern, Vic 2 v Western

The draw would be done in two stages: firstly selecting which conferences would play off in Rounds 1-5, Rounds 11-15 and Rounds 21-25. From there, the individual rounds would be drawn.

This idea has legs.

[McCrann]

I like it, but perhaps going up to 20 teams for equality in each conference.

EDIT:

Add a Tassie team to your Eastern Conference
Add a Perth team to your Western Conference

Victoria 1:
Essendon
Collingwood
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond

Victoria 2:
Geelong
North Melbourne
Melbourne
St Kilda
Bulldogs

Western:
Perth
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide

Eastern:
Sydney
Homebush
Gold Coast
Brisbane
Tasmania

These conferences are chosen on the "interstate side" on geographic proximity, and for Victoria to maximise rivalries.

You play your conference twice (8 games) and the other conferences once (15 games) giving us 25 rounds (including 2 byes).

As there is an odd number of teams, you'd have two byes each year, between rounds 6-10 and rounds 16-20

e.g. Essendon's draw:

R1: v Port Adelaide
R2: v Perth
R3: v Fremantle
R4: v West Coast
R5: v Adelaide

R6: v Collingwood
R7: v Carlton
R8: BYE
R9: v Richmond
R10: v Hawthorn

R11: v North
R12: v St Kilda
R13: v Melbourne
R14: v Geelong
R15: v Bulldogs

R16: v Hawthorn
R17: v Richmond
R18: BYE
R19: v Carlton
R20: v Collingwood

R21: v Sydney
R22: v Brisbane
R23: v Gold Coast
R24: v Homebush
R25: v Tasmania

Or in other words:
R1-5: Vic 1 v Western, Vic 2 v Eastern
R6-10: Intra conference games, including bye
R11-15: Vic 1 v Vic 2, Eastern v Western
R16-20: Intra conference games, including bye
R21-25: Vic 1 v Eastern, Vic 2 v Western

The draw would be done in two stages: firstly selecting which conferences would play off in Rounds 1-5, Rounds 11-15 and Rounds 21-25. From there, the individual rounds would be drawn.

This idea has legs.

I posted this exact idea on this board a few months ago.

With a few minor differences.

23 Matches - 24 Round Season.

Each team does have 2 byes as you suggest.

There are 14 Round of 10 Matches
10 Rounds of 9 Matches.

Season could be

Rounds 1-5: 9 Matches (10 Teams get a Bye - 10 Bottom teams from previous year)
Rounds 6-19: 10 Matches (Including a Split Round in this period)
Rounds 20-24: 9 Matches (10 Teams get a Bye - 10 Top teams from previous year)

Upshot is each team has 2 byes in a 24 Round Season.

Also, have a Tasmanian team in one of the VIC Divisions (South Division)

Introduce a new team from Newcastle/Central Coast (1.2m+ people by 2020) - into the Northern Division.

Which would mean

WEST: WA (3); SA (2)
NORTH: NSW (3); QLD (2)
CENTRAL: VIC (5)
SOUTH: VIC (4); TAS (1)

Victorian teams could swap around each year between the Central & Southern Regions.

Also

HAVE A UNIFIED LADDER!!!

Top Team in Each Region qualifies for Finals - plus 4 other best performed teams. (Or even 6 other best performed teams) - Based on the Unified Ladder.

As a starter - it would immediately introduce 4 new Cups to be won each year in each Region.

Great Idea - but there really has to be a team on the North Coast to truly make the AFL the National Competition it almost is.

Simply has to be.

[McCrann]

Sweet - two sets of thumbs up. I'm calling it the "Gibbke AFL Schedule System" (just like the "McIntyre Final 8"), slapping a big patent on it, and it's mine, Mine, MINE!!! You heard it here first!
Should be able to buy my lunch every day from now on, if it catches on...:thumbsu:

Forget about the patent - I came up with almost the exact same system in February - on this very board.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10137702&postcount=20

To Quote it again


Ok, here's the start of Plan B

How to organise an 18 Team AFL

(Northern) Michael Voss League
Adam Goodes Cup

Brisbane Lions
Gold Coast
Sydney Swans
West Sydney

(Eastern) Ron Barassi League
Jack Dyer Cup

Carlton
Geelong
Melbourne
Richmond
St. Kilda

(Southern) Kevin Sheedy League
Ted Whitten Cup

Collingwood
Essendon
Hawthorn
North Melbourne
Western Bulldogs

(Western) Polly Farmer League
Fos Williams Cup

Adelaide
Fremantle
Port Adelaide
West Coast

Looks like a big split of teams - but it isn't.

There is a Unified Ladder.

4 League/Group Winners Qualify for Finals
& Next 4 (or 5) Best Teams on the Ladder
(Depending on Top 8 or Top 9)

Note:
WA,SA,QLD,NSW TEAMS
13 Home State Matches (12 Home & 1 Away)
3 or 4 Away State (Non Vic) Matches
7 or 8 Away State (Vic) Matches
1 Development Match (Developing Area)

VIC TEAMS
18 or 19 Home State Matches (12 Home & 6 or 7 Away)
5 or 6 Away State Matches
1 Development Match (Developing Area)

Rolling 2 Year Fixture

25 Rounds Per Year.

YEAR 1Eastern League & Northern League on One Side (Play Each Other Twice)
Southern League & Western League on Other Side (Play Each Other Twice)

YEAR 2Eastern League & Western League on One Side (Play Each Other Twice)
Southern League & Northern League on Other Side (Play Each Other Twice)


Every 2 Years - the split of the Victorian teams can be drawn out of a barrel - or however the AFL want to do it to ensure that the VIC teams change around and meet different teams twice.

Does it seem unfair to the VIC teams because they are in 5 team (mini) Leagues compared to 4 team leagues for the other teams?

IT SHOULDN'T

Look how many home matches each VIC teams is guaranteed in Victoria!

At least 18, depending upon who the "Development Match" is against. Probably 19 if the League Decides to make almost all Development matches (VIC v Non-VIC) Only 2 Teams from VIC need play each other in a Development Match in any given year if this is how the League wants to do it.

25 Rounds
9 Matches Per Round
225 Matches All-Up

The small nature of each League means each team will want to be avoiding last in their league as that means they have to start the next year's Pre-Season Earlier than the other teams.

Last team in Each League plays off for the Right to contest Round 1 of the Pre-Season.

Also, what else does this model do?

It provides an easy slot for a 3rd Perth Team.
Also provides an easy slot for another Northern Team (Newcastle/Central Coast, North Sydney, North Queensland?, even Canberra/ACT?) Whatever.

That is looking further down the track, but it means that if the League were to go from 18-20 teams at some point down the track - It would be a piece of cake to organise.

Before you dismiss it as too complicated.

It ain't.

Think of some of the side benefits of having these mini-leagues.

More local rivalries strengthened.

More matches against local teams.

The chance to win your Regional League each year as well as the Big One!

More celebrations to go around, more good press for the game to go with these celebrations.

For instance, wrapping up your league secures a spot in the finals - though not your rank.

Teams could hoist the regional trophy with a few games to go in the season, but have to play on and keep winning to get the No. 1 ranking in the Final 8/9.

To those who say - we don't want it, its American.

Please, just print out and think about it.

Particularly Victorians, this concept GUARANTEES yes GUARANTEES 18 Matches in Victoria each year for your team. GUARANTEES.

It both takes the game national and brings a more local flavour to much of it.

It "nationalises" with a local touch.

It provides for further expansion without yet more discussion of heartbreak for supporters of Victorian clubs.

It breaks the nexus between growth of the game nationally and loss of clubs in the heartland.

Supporters of clubs like mine, and also Melbourne, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs etc. should really like this plan - it provides a long-term pathway for your club to walkdown that has both the best interests of your club at heart (more matches against Victorian Teams ensures your club has greater revenues) and also has the national expansion of the game at heart.

I can't see the AFL ever needing more than 20 clubs to have Australia covered - though we're nowhere near ready for that at the moment.

This provides for that.

I just ask you, look at this holistically and don't come out with mind-numbing - oh it's so American.

In a big country like ours we should investigate all possibilities for growing our game, and let me tell you, the leagues in America are great successes in terms of going National - we shouldn't dismiss them.

Also, the names I've put in there are just options.

One other thing, think about Brownlow Night.

Each Regional League could award a Best Player in that region award as the votes are tallied on Brownlow night. That means through the night up to 5 awards could be given out (the night could also be streamlined along with this, but that's really another story)

Finally, the other thing this does is Guarantee forever at least 2 Victorian Clubs in the Finals.

Also Guarantees a Northern Club and a Western Club.

BUT

If you're in the strongest League, and you happen to be the 5th Best Club in that League, you can still make the finals - because it is possible for every team in a league to make the finals on the OVERALL LADDER.

[McCrann]

I even did a mock-up of how a ladder could possibly look under this 18 team - 4 regions/leagues format.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10138094&postcount=21

[TheSheik]

There is no need to have 'conferences' especially as it's just another piece of seppo bullsh!t that we don't have to copy.

With the current 16 team competition, what is supposed to happen is that the 8 teams that finished in the final 8 play each other twice and the bottom 8 teams only once. The bottom 8 teams play each other twice and the top teams once.

Now the only reason that this doesn't take place is that the greedy AFL must have Ess, Coll, Rich & Carlton play each other twice regardless of their ladder finshes as they draw the biggest crowds.

So the 'conference' idea supposedly already takes place and if the AFL was serious about having a level playing field, then you wouldn't need to put that seppo rubbish in place anyway.

[funkyfetlock]

Sorry McCrann, here I was heaping praise on the so-called Gibbke model and it was your model all along. So does that mean we call it the McCrann model now or what do you call it?

Whatever it's called, I still think it is a brilliant idea and I hope that it is used in 2012 or 2013 or whenever West Sydney enter the comp.

[McCrann]

Sorry McCrann, here I was heaping praise on the so-called Gibbke model and it was your model all along. So does that mean we call it the McCrann model now or what do you call it?

Whatever it's called, I still think it is a brilliant idea and I hope that it is used in 2012 or 2013 or whenever West Sydney enter the comp.

If it actually ever gets used/implemented - doesn't matter to me in the slightest what its called - I believe a proper model would be good for the game and help grow the game and increase rivalries based on proximity/geograpy.

With an expanded competition it is simply impossible not to have some sort of regional league system - if you want to avoid promotion/relegation.

To those who say - we don't want no "seppo crap." What happens when you get 30 or 32 teams in the AFL - and who's to say it won't happen someday?

How on Earth do you have an even draw then if you won't find a way to split teams up in some manner?

For goodness sake, the first place to split teams up was England! They put in 2 Divisions and made some teams play in an inferior league to manage the greater number of teams! They didn't do that last century - they did it the century before last!

So its not really a "seppo" concept at all - more an English Soccer thing. Why should we blindly reject every idea from overseas?

By the way, Big Footy is not the only place this concept has been introduced - and nor should it. But anyone and everyone who has an idea like this should always send it to AFL House for consideration.

You never know what they might pick up.

[Hawkk]

Pretty hard to argue with a concept where the 3rd most powerful Victorian club moves to a rust bucket that contains 10% of its enormous membership :thumbsu:

I like it, but perhaps going up to 20 teams for equality in each conference.

EDIT:

Add a Tassie team to your Eastern Conference
Add a Perth team to your Western Conference

Victoria 1:
Essendon
Collingwood
Carlton
Hawthorn
Richmond

Victoria 2:
Geelong
North Melbourne
Melbourne
St Kilda
Bulldogs

Western:
Perth
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide

Eastern:
Sydney
Homebush
Gold Coast
Brisbane
Tasmania

These conferences are chosen on the "interstate side" on geographic proximity, and for Victoria to maximise rivalries.

You play your conference twice (8 games) and the other conferences once (15 games) giving us 25 rounds (including 2 byes).

As there is an odd number of teams, you'd have two byes each year, between rounds 6-10 and rounds 16-20

e.g. Essendon's draw:

R1: v Port Adelaide
R2: v Perth
R3: v Fremantle
R4: v West Coast
R5: v Adelaide

R6: v Collingwood
R7: v Carlton
R8: BYE
R9: v Richmond
R10: v Hawthorn

R11: v North
R12: v St Kilda
R13: v Melbourne
R14: v Geelong
R15: v Bulldogs

R16: v Hawthorn
R17: v Richmond
R18: BYE
R19: v Carlton
R20: v Collingwood

R21: v Sydney
R22: v Brisbane
R23: v Gold Coast
R24: v Homebush
R25: v Tasmania

Or in other words:
R1-5: Vic 1 v Western, Vic 2 v Eastern
R6-10: Intra conference games, including bye
R11-15: Vic 1 v Vic 2, Eastern v Western
R16-20: Intra conference games, including bye
R21-25: Vic 1 v Eastern, Vic 2 v Western

The draw would be done in two stages: firstly selecting which conferences would play off in Rounds 1-5, Rounds 11-15 and Rounds 21-25. From there, the individual rounds would be drawn.

This idea has legs.

I like this concept.

With that said, I think we run a massive risk of dilluting the competition if we expand the competition to 20 teams, not just the talent base either.

We've got a unique product that draws massive crowds to every game, with membership bases of all our clubs the envy of almost all competitions around the world. If we cut the product 20 ways, do we risk losing the corporate sponsorship, the huge membership and attendance figures (by world standards) for all our clubs?

[Black Falcon]

OK guys settle.

Instead of the McCrann-Ben-Gibbke model (and whoever else wants a piece of it), it might be best to call it the "Conference Model" with options a, b, c and d.

These options have been expressed above and all have merit. A 20 team system makes sense but we're 20 years away from that. Divisions of 4 & 4 in West and East/North will work with Divisions of 5 & 5 in Vic, if the extra game W-E is played on previous years finish.

Gibbke- we gotta crawl before we can walk with this, so I like McCrann's idea that the division champ is guaranteed a finals spot, which is decided by the long ladder as per now. [SMOG tho, I hope the div champ is never no 9 on long ladder!]

You would tend to think tho, that any div champ would qualify for a spot in the finals, as in top 8 on long ladder.

Fans don't like byes. If the West div plays 6 games against itself and no bye, yet a Vic div plays 8 games against itself with a bye- can you see the problem?

Equal divs offset this. So really, a 16 team model and 20 team model would be easiest to create, tho not with our current geog base of clubs.

If an 18 team model can be developed and accepted and implemented, it would be a spur for the AFL to keep growing towards a 20 team comp.

I like McCrann's point that a place for every Melb team now is at least made, whether or not they can keep it is another thing tho, lest the AFL guarantees such, but with the withdrawal of special grants in '09 to clubs, then they've already indicated the direction they wish to take.

If a Vic div has to drop a team (R/M), then its all skewy again. How does the model cope with that?

We'll probably be able to sell the concept to Vic clubs and NSW/Qld clubs: sticking point could be SA clubs who perhaps don't feel all that west of Melb. But then Port does very well at Subi, and Freo is only winning 53 per cent of home games.

OK back to the overall Options:
a) div champ guaranteed a finals spot decided on LL
b) div champ guaranteed a Top 4 spot
c) two split rounds each year
d) two bye weekends for SOO games

Above based on : each div plays itself twice and the other divs once in a year.

Re new teams to reach 20.
If Freo already had two flags then I'd say yes to another WA club. Poss- next to zero until then.
If NT ever becomes a state and doubles its pop maybe joins West div.
East div- poss Newcastle/Gosford or Canberra or NQ.
Sth divs could include two teams from Tassie, at Launceston and Hobart, based on their internecine rivalry and the more stomachable relocation option for teams from Melb, ie Launceston Hawks and Hobart Demons/Devils. Just a thought. They'd have dual city support.

[Gibbke]

Sorry McCrann, here I was heaping praise on the so-called Gibbke model and it was your model all along.

Oh my god...this man is my exact double!!!

Oh my god...that dog has a fluffy tail!!!

Here Pooch...heh heh...!!!



Damn...my lifelong dream, to have naming rights to the AFL schedule system for all time...shattered...this ain't over - I'm camping outside a patent office tomorrow and getting this rubber stamped with my name all over it...or I'll go to work...depends on my mood...

[Gibbke]

The draw doesn't have to be all bunched up as suggested (5 games v one conference, then 5 games against yourself, yadda yadda...the NFL don't do this, they just have them all over the place. I dare say that the tv networks would like to see things spread around a bit too, because of factors a little more involved than what we write here. 5 metro states for 2 free-to-air networks to negotiate, all with their own little idiosyncracies...let's put it this way, sure West Sydney might be your rivals, but any Swans fan would be hankering for a game against the established power Vics, and you wouldn't want to be waiting until the last quarter of the season for your first matchup...when they all come at once...

[Black Falcon]

OK, we'll call it the Gibbke-Ben-McCrann Conference Model, options a b c d. Now take that pooch out for a walk before he rips your leg off or starts humping, whatever his mood.

[Gibbke]

HAVE A UNIFIED LADDER!!!

Top Team in Each Region qualifies for Finals - plus 4 other best performed teams. (Or even 6 other best performed teams) - Based on the Unified Ladder.

As a starter - it would immediately introduce 4 new Cups to be won each year in each Region.


In 1981, the two Northern leagues in Tassie (the NTFA and the NWFU) played as the Greater Northern League. A combined roster, and a single ladder. The finals system was insane - the top 4 from the old NWFU played their own series, the top 4 from the NTFA the same, both produced a premier (which is exactly what they called it), and then both played off for the GNL GF. The second year, Scottsdale won it after finishing 11th of 15...they were something like 6-13 at the end of the roster season...the NTFA was a 6-team comp (the other was 9), and Scottsdale finished above two other NTFA sides...a sudden burst of form in the finals, and the flag was theirs...

While the system we're advocating here does open the door to an underachiever making the top 4 (have a look at the 2001 AFL ladder and see what could happen in the West Div!), the fact that it clearly separates the divisions every week when you read it in Monday's paper does legitimise it, and additionally, the finals sort everyone out quicksmart. You might be a dodgy top side making it be default as your division leader, but you can't be a dodgy second side and a finalist too...

[Black Falcon]

I don't believe any journo would have any difficulty or problem with publishing the long ladder AND the divisional table on the same sports report.

Yes have a div Cup for each and Brownlow div medals as well (we all love more medals), but the main prize, the Holy Grail will always be the Premiership.

So really, the biggest issue is how do you seed teams into the finals. If you've got a long ladder, it can only be by that.

You can always build in rewards for div champs, as mentioned by someone else, of hosting the first game of Pre Season and main comp. But really "div champ" is a bragging right, which means little to the other divs.

The automatic entry of 'div champ' works in NFL because there are 32 teams in it, 8 divs of 4 teams apiece. Each div champ has home ground adv in the first round of finals of 16 teams (8 guaranteed, 8 wildcard best on long ladder).

Plenty in US argue that its not a fair finals system, as some divs are historically weaker than others. But the cream rises to the top, and the East and North divs (of either the AFC or NFC- two separate conferences) usually clash for the SuperBowl.

The NFL system is extraordinarily complex, but then in a country that can turn the old rugby and softball into chess games played out by coaches who resemble army generals, complete with more stats and stoppages than really should be in any game calling itself a sport- you get the picture.

An Aus conference/divisional system has to be transparent and fair, including its finals system, or it won't fly.

[McCrann]

I don't believe any journo would have any difficulty or problem with publishing the long ladder AND the divisional table on the same sports report.

Yes have a div Cup for each and Brownlow div medals as well (we all love more medals), but the main prize, the Holy Grail will always be the Premiership.

So really, the biggest issue is how do you seed teams into the finals. If you've got a long ladder, it can only be by that.

You can always build in rewards for div champs, as mentioned by someone else, of hosting the first game of Pre Season and main comp. But really "div champ" is a bragging right, which means little to the other divs.

The automatic entry of 'div champ' works in NFL because there are 32 teams in it, 8 divs of 4 teams apiece. Each div champ has home ground adv in the first round of finals of 16 teams (8 guaranteed, 8 wildcard best on long ladder).

Plenty in US argue that its not a fair finals system, as some divs are historically weaker than others. But the cream rises to the top, and the East and North divs (of either the AFC or NFC- two separate conferences) usually clash for the SuperBowl.

The NFL system is extraordinarily complex, but then in a country that can turn the old rugby and softball into chess games played out by coaches who resemble army generals, complete with more stats and stoppages than really should be in any game calling itself a sport- you get the picture.

An Aus conference/divisional system has to be transparent and fair, including its finals system, or it won't fly.

I like the informed debate you've contributed Black Falcon.

Certainly at some stage - if the game is to grow (ie in NSW & QLD) we're going to need to go to 20 teams. (I'd be looking at 2020/25 at earliest though)

In the medium term (20-30 years) there can't be any less than 8 Victorian teams. 8/20 absolute minimum.

Personally, the split I've mentioned is what I envisage for 2025

VIC - 9
NSW - 3
WA - 3
QLD - 2
SA - 2
TAS -1

Tasmania is the dodgiest of those - but I think its important to have the carrot there for Tasmanian football fans to aim at. If Tasmania is included in the long-term plans there is a greater chance that Tasmanians will find a way to make it happen.

As for a 3rd team in NSW - Absolutely. To be taken seriously as a national game there will have to be a 3rd team in the biggest state.

Remember folks, I'm talking about 2020/25 here.

That split also balance nicely with geography - once you move beyond 20 teams and beyond 10 teams in VIC/TAS - things start to get a little messy.

Next logical stop beyond 20 teams is probably 24 teams (although 21 teams with 3 groups of 7 is possible - though not easy on the eye). Getting to 24 teams is certainly not easy.

Where you'd put 4 new teams is anyone's guess - and frankly won't be under consideration until such time as a South African select XXV is able to beat an Australian XXV - yep, we're talking deep into the 21st century folks.

[Black Thunder]

i don't mind the two conferences idea but it has to be even. with 18 teams coming in it won't happen because the AFL won't want to have 2 conferences of 9 teams when they can easily avoid the bye.

but under the current 16 team set up and the 20 team set up we will eventually have (yes it will happen, but probably not for a good while yet) then it'd have no problems with it.

8 teams - random each year, but i know the AFL will want to keep blockbusters so it will mean (Adelaide and Port), (West Coast and Fremantle) and (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon) will be always be grouped together. i'm not a huge fan of this but it would happen, we all know it will happen and so i'm just going to work with it.

i suppose you could do it on a rotational basis:
year one having adelaide, port, wce and freo in one conference, carlton, collingwood, essendon in another.
year two having adelaide, port, carlton, collingwood, essendon in one conference, and wce and freo in another
year three having wce, freo, carlton, collingwood, essendon in one conference, and adelide and port in another.

the other 9, 11 or 13 sides would slot into the two divisions based upon evening the divisions up as much as possible based on the previous seasons results. in a 16-team compeititon the previous seasons placings would want to add as close as possible to 68 in each conference. a few either side wouldn't be a big deal.

i suppose you could also look into having a season with all 7 teams in one conference to complete the full cycle but it mightn't go down so well with the draw becoming predictable for that year, and if those 7 teams were strong or weak it would affect the draw.

anyway, 2 conferences, 8 teams (10 in future), 2 seperate ladders. play each team in conference twice and the other conference once. top 4 from each conference to finals, top team takes the position that 1 and 2 currently occupy, second place become 3 and 4, third place become 5 and 6 and fourht place 7 and 8 and the finals series runs as it is now.

actually you could work it with an 18 team competition in the same format. it would mean 25 games and the draw could be worked easy enough. maybe too much??

[Ben the Gooner]

With that said, I think we run a massive risk of dilluting the competition if we expand the competition to 20 teams, not just the talent base either.

I agree, that is a concern. However, this is a truly long term idea, and certainly not one which should be rushed into. 18 teams is alright under the current system, but when Vlad wants another 2, this should be given some serious consideration.

Instead of the McCrann-Ben-Gibbke model (and whoever else wants a piece of it), it might be best to call it the "Conference Model" with options a, b, c and d.

I demand the Ben and Friends model:p

These options have been expressed above and all have merit. A 20 team system makes sense but we're 20 years away from that. Divisions of 4 & 4 in West and East/North will work with Divisions of 5 & 5 in Vic, if the extra game W-E is played on previous years finish.

I agree that this is a long term idea. There's no chance of this happening until the population of Australia expands enough. Perth could cope with another team, but Tassie might struggle.

Gibbke- we gotta crawl before we can walk with this, so I like McCrann's idea that the division champ is guaranteed a finals spot, which is decided by the long ladder as per now. [SMOG tho, I hope the div champ is never no 9 on long ladder!]

You would tend to think tho, that any div champ would qualify for a spot in the finals, as in top 8 on long ladder.

The finals is an intesting one. I wouldn't mind a system somewhat like the Italian Serie B (yes, I know) model, whereby there is a playoff for the third promotion spot, unless the 3rd placed team finishes the season 10 points above the 4th placed team. For instance, if the division winner finishes 8 points or more outside the eight, they miss out on the automatic spot, and it goes to the team in the overall ladder who qualified. For instance, in a final eight system:

Essendon 92 (:p)
Geelong 80
Hawthorn 78
Brisbane 70
Collingwood 70
Tasmania 68
Homebush 66
North Melbourne 64
Sydney 60
Carlton 60
Port Adelaide 56
Adelaide 56
Gold Coast 54
Perth 54
St Kilda 50
Melbourne 42
West Coast 32
Fremantle 28
Bulldogs 20
Richmond 12

The conference ladders are:
Victoria 1:
Essendon 92
Hawthorn 78
Collingwood 70
Carlton 60
Richmond 12

Victoria 2:
Geelong 80
North Melbourne 64
St Kilda 50
Melbourne 42
Bulldogs 20

Western:
Port Adelaide 56
Adelaide 56
Perth 54
West Coast 32
Fremantle 28

Eastern:
Brisbane 70
Tasmania 68
Homebush 66
Sydney 60
Gold Coast 54

Port Adelaide, as Western Conference winners, missed the 8 by 8 clear points, so therefore do not qualify for an automatic place. However, if they had missed by 4 points, they would qualify through the conference.

Fans don't like byes. If the West div plays 6 games against itself and no bye, yet a Vic div plays 8 games against itself with a bye- can you see the problem?

Equal divs offset this. So really, a 16 team model and 20 team model would be easiest to create, tho not with our current geog base of clubs.

If an 18 team model can be developed and accepted and implemented, it would be a spur for the AFL to keep growing towards a 20 team comp.

As I said before, the current system can work for 18 teams. 20 teams or more is when it starts to become a bit unwieldy.

I like McCrann's point that a place for every Melb team now is at least made, whether or not they can keep it is another thing tho, lest the AFL guarantees such, but with the withdrawal of special grants in '09 to clubs, then they've already indicated the direction they wish to take.

If a Vic div has to drop a team (R/M), then its all skewy again. How does the model cope with that?

Should the AFL go to 20 teams, it has all real population bases in Australia, which are suitable (especially climate wise) for AFL football covered. It can support the Victorian teams, as there's no compulsion to go elsewhere.

We'll probably be able to sell the concept to Vic clubs and NSW/Qld clubs: sticking point could be SA clubs who perhaps don't feel all that west of Melb. But then Port does very well at Subi, and Freo is only winning 53 per cent of home games.

"Women will like what I tell them to like, Honey" - Homer Simpson.
I'm sure they'll be happy with a guaranteed two games against Freo every year:D.

OK back to the overall Options:
a) div champ guaranteed a finals spot decided on LL
b) div champ guaranteed a Top 4 spot

As I said above, the Serie B model should work best for the final eight. However, once we've got a final eight decided, how should they be divided?

I think the 8 point idea should come into play again. In the example above, Geelong finished a clear 10 points above Brisbane, so is given the top four spot ahead of them. Otherwise, Brisbane would get it. In a typical year, the conference winners would get the top 4 spots, but that isn't guaranteed. The same finals system we've got now should be fine.

c) two split rounds each year
d) two bye weekends for SOO games

I think the bye works best, because there is still a guaranteed 6 games each week, with 4 teams (one from each conference) having a bye during rounds 6-10 and 16-20. The real lack of footy during the 2 game weekend makes for a boring weekend, and byes overcome that.

Above based on : each div plays itself twice and the other divs once in a year.

That would be the only reason to go to conferences. If the draw was random, then the current ladder is perfectly fine.

Re new teams to reach 20.
If Freo already had two flags then I'd say yes to another WA club. Poss- next to zero until then.
If NT ever becomes a state and doubles its pop maybe joins West div.
East div- poss Newcastle/Gosford or Canberra or NQ.
Sth divs could include two teams from Tassie, at Launceston and Hobart, based on their internecine rivalry and the more stomachable relocation option for teams from Melb, ie Launceston Hawks and Hobart Demons/Devils. Just a thought. They'd have dual city support.

Perth has the population to support a new team, will have a new stadium by the time this is introduced, and has huge waiting lists for both teams' memberships. That team could survive.

Darwin's conditions are too oppressive for AFL football, especially considering training and the like. They can't play every game at night.

Damn...my lifelong dream, to have naming rights to the AFL schedule system for all time...shattered...this ain't over - I'm camping outside a patent office tomorrow and getting this rubber stamped with my name all over it...or I'll go to work...depends on my mood...

Family guy, Einstein at the patent office.:D

I don't believe any journo would have any difficulty or problem with publishing the long ladder AND the divisional table on the same sports report.

No, it'd only be the really parochial fans who have a problem with it. It's more column space for papers, meaning more pages and more ads. No complaints there.

Yes have a div Cup for each and Brownlow div medals as well (we all love more medals), but the main prize, the Holy Grail will always be the Premiership.

Yes to the cup for divisions (but only a small one: like the playoff final trophy for the Coca-Cola Championship)http://d.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/sp/empics/20080525/12/2594267384-soccer-coca-cola-football-league-championship-play-final-hull-city.jpg

However, a big NO to the Brownlows. There should just be the one Brownlow, like there is now, presented in Grand Final week. A balance between tradition and innovation needs to exist, and 4 Brownlows dilutes the quality of the real best player.

So really, the biggest issue is how do you seed teams into the finals. If you've got a long ladder, it can only be by that.

You can always build in rewards for div champs, as mentioned by someone else, of hosting the first game of Pre Season and main comp. But really "div champ" is a bragging right, which means little to the other divs.

The automatic entry of 'div champ' works in NFL because there are 32 teams in it, 8 divs of 4 teams apiece. Each div champ has home ground adv in the first round of finals of 16 teams (8 guaranteed, 8 wildcard best on long ladder).

I think that there needs to be a balance found - and it's not easy.

A long ladder, and the point of conferences is nullified.
Based entirely upon conferences, or even too much, and there is the risk of diluting the quality of the finals. I think that the 8 (or however many) point rule outlined above is the fairest.

Plenty in US argue that its not a fair finals system, as some divs are historically weaker than others. But the cream rises to the top, and the East and North divs (of either the AFC or NFC- two separate conferences) usually clash for the SuperBowl.

The AFL will want to get the best teams playing off in all parts of the finals, not just the Grand Final, so it will want some sort of system in place to ensure that.

An Aus conference/divisional system has to be transparent and fair, including its finals system, or it won't fly.

The most important aspect to this is that the rules for qualification for the finals through divisions and long ladders needs to be crystal clear at the start of the season, in the eyes of all fans, as well as the administrators.

[Black Thunder]

Next logical stop beyond 20 teams is probably 24 teams (although 21 teams with 3 groups of 7 is possible - though not easy on the eye). Getting to 24 teams is certainly not easy.

Where you'd put 4 new teams is anyone's guess - and frankly won't be under consideration until such time as a South African select XXV is able to beat an Australian XXV - yep, we're talking deep into the 21st century folks.

the competition will expand with the population. 24 teams will happen but you are right it won't be for a good time and things will change.

i really hope the AFL does everything it can to keep all victorian teams going. sometimes people forget that the fact the VFL and AFL has only had two teams fold (University and Fitzroy) and one relocate (South Melbourne) in its entire history is such an achievement and it shows how strong the support for the game is.

I also think it makes the game far easier to understand for newcomes to the sport.

Compare this aspect to the league and the AFL is so far a clear winner its not funny. the NSWRL/ARL/Super League has had a continued history of merged clubs, folded clubs and what not - only the eastern suburbs/sydney city roosters have been in it from start to finish. souths just about have done so and some would argue that Wests and Balmain still exist. But Glebe, the old Newcastle, Newtown, Cumberland and Norths are well and truly gone.

Although it may be a little tough now for clubs like the Roos and the Bulldogs these things tend to be cyclical and they should bounce back. Not too mention a rising population should see them able to attract new supporters and have a large enough supporter base to be rid of the problems they have now.

As for new teams... after 18 i think the next step is an extra team in Perth - same as you, and i've had a bit of a mind shift to a third sydney team. give the second team a short while to settle in and see how they go then hit sydney with another team if they are succesful. Introducing a third sydney team in say, 2040, may struggle to find supporters and most of the population would've taken up supporting either the swans or the second team....

it's a bit of a catch 22 though - the third team only comes in so quickly if the second team is succesful but if the second team is succesful but where would the third team get supporters from??

anyway, thats one to ponder over. but the build up to 20 teams would be a perth team and IMO either a third sydney team or a team in tasmania. either way one of those teams should be happening by the middle of the century.

the other 3 teams:

well its not case of saying here's three teams we want in so lets aim for them (although sometimes you think thats what the AFL does). there should really be a set of about 7 or 8 teams and when the time is right for one of them, they come in...

- logic would dictate a footy state like South Australia could have a third team.
- a fourth team out of WA (probably non Perth)
- a second brisbane team
- a team out of New Zealand
- a team out of South Africa (I'm not so mad keen though on all the travelling teams would have to do for this one though)
- a team from NSW central coast (tough one to see working though but in the future who knows...)
- a team from country Victoria (doubtful)
- a team from Darwin

so there's 8 places with potential for the future. saying things like the central coast is just never going to work for the afl isn't going to help because as i say, you never know what the future is going to hold. for now obviousbly it's not a target but you have to keep your head open.

[Ben the Gooner]

As for new teams... after 18 i think the next step is an extra team in Perth - same as you, and i've had a bit of a mind shift to a third sydney team. give the second team a short while to settle in and see how they go then hit sydney with another team if they are succesful. Introducing a third sydney team in say, 2040, may struggle to find supporters and most of the population would've taken up supporting either the swans or the second team....

it's a bit of a catch 22 though - the third team only comes in so quickly if the second team is succesful but if the second team is succesful but where would the third team get supporters from??

The only way to get supporters when the whole population is united behind a team (as in the Victory here in Melbourne), is to appeal to an identity - either geographical, or ethnic. Ethnicity is not something we want in the AFL - AFL is a game which is very united, regardless of background. Therefore, the only option is to go to a place with a strong sense of community - e.g. Woollongong..

anyway, thats one to ponder over. but the build up to 20 teams would be a perth team and IMO either a third sydney team or a team in tasmania. either way one of those teams should be happening by the middle of the century.

I'd be leaning more towards 2025 - 2030, but yes, they are the growth areas which would get teams.

the other 3 teams:

well its not case of saying here's three teams we want in so lets aim for them (although sometimes you think thats what the AFL does). there should really be a set of about 7 or 8 teams and when the time is right for one of them, they come in...

Agreed completely.

- logic would dictate a footy state like South Australia could have a third team.

Yes, but the population, and Port's support, would need to increase first.

- a fourth team out of WA (probably non Perth)

Yes, but not too far from Perth.

- a second brisbane team

Or the Sunshine coast.

- a team out of New Zealand
- a team out of South Africa (I'm not so mad keen though on all the travelling teams would have to do for this one though)

Those two are probably 50-100 years away, and travel might not be as much of an issue by then.

- a team from NSW central coast (tough one to see working though but in the future who knows...)

Would the population support AFL would be my only concern.

- a team from country Victoria (doubtful)

Doesn't work like in England. In the Premier League, a team like Stoke, or Bristol can build its way up from a pub team to a premier league team. In the AFL, however, new teams must be fully professional, and basically a heavyweight from Day 1. This would only work a long time into the future.

- a team from Darwin

Conditions throughout the year are just too oppressive.

so there's 8 places with potential for the future. saying things like the central coast is just never going to work for the afl isn't going to help because as i say, you never know what the future is going to hold. for now obviousbly it's not a target but you have to keep your head open.

The AFL should be sowing seeds in a big way in all of these places, improving infrastructure slowly, but surely, and generally fostering a bigger interest in the game, so that when the competition is ready to expand, these places are jumping up and down to be included, rather than having a team foisted upon them.