expansion after 2012

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simple Jack said:
Aside from the fact we've only had 17 teams for one year and it's FAR too small of a sample to provide useful data as a team related trend, all of that is due to CIRCUMSTANCE not the amount of teams in the league.

If the talent was more spread out, not only would each player be able to showcase their skills better, but the league would be more competetive.

By the way.

2009 - 16 teams - Top 4 = 88 games/20 loss/draws = 4.4 wins per l/d
2010 - 16 teams - Top 4 = 88 games/25 loss/draws = 3.52 wins per l/d

So literally one season after another, with the same amount of teams, there was almost exactly the same difference as your claimed statistical significant difference of 15/16 (17 being ignored for obvious previously stated reasons) teams.

The level of domination of the top 4 has SFA to do with the number of teams, it is all about the circumstance of the specific season.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that, regardless of your argument, AFL crowds saw, on average, more losses/draws of the top four AFL clubs when there were 15 clubs rather than 16 clubs.
 
Essendon_Fan said:
I suppose looking at it from your point of view, at least now I know why you want an expanded league,.
Click to expand...

Prey tell, why is that?

Essendon_Fan said:
14 clubs is exactly optimum for a competitive AFL.
Click to expand...

I thought the answer to the universe and all that is "42".

I guess the magical number "14" overrides all issues such as relocation, investment. list management, success cycles, salary cap, zones, draft and rookies and all other equalisation measures.
 
Simple Jack said:
The competition only appears as if the standard has reduced because the talent is too heavily concentrated over too few teams.

If GWS had gotten one of the top 5 players from the top 4 teams and then a reasonable player form everyone else, they would have been competetive.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, the top teams ensured we didnt do that by - get this - signing their good players on long-term contracts once they read the rules on how we could recruit.

Im also not sure how 5 top players - at, say, an average of Mitch Clarke and Chris Judd money - plus a reasonable player from everyone else at, say, $200k, fit in the one salary cap.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

cos789 said:
I guess the magical number "14" overrides all issues such as relocation, investment. list management, success cycles, salary cap, zones, draft and rookies and all other equalisation measures.
Click to expand...

Now you are talking! Just 14 teams of the best AFL players going head-to-head each weekend in 'blood and guts' battles for their club (not for a cash fix) not seen since the '80s.
 
IanW said:
Unsurprisingly, the top teams ensured we didnt do that by - get this - signing their good players on long-term contracts once they read the rules on how we could recruit.

Im also not sure how 5 top players - at, say, an average of Mitch Clarke and Chris Judd money - plus a reasonable player from everyone else at, say, $200k, fit in the one salary cap.
Click to expand...

IMO the teams just didn't sign their "good" players they signed their best players down to as far as they could leaving very little choice. To play AFL you have to be a "good" player.

I don't exactly why the GC and GWS didn't sign more mature players to better balance their young talent but it seemed to be more market driven to sign a marquee player to excite the potential fans. As we have seen with Melbourne, having talent means little if you haven't the right balance. the right balance means having a core of mature players and having players that are prepared to do the hard stuff.

.
 
IanW said:
Unsurprisingly, the top teams ensured we didnt do that by - get this - signing their good players on long-term contracts once they read the rules on how we could recruit.

Im also not sure how 5 top players - at, say, an average of Mitch Clarke and Chris Judd money - plus a reasonable player from everyone else at, say, $200k, fit in the one salary cap.
Click to expand...

You're totally missing my point. I'm not bagging GWS from not doing that, I'm saying if those were the circumstances in which the new team was brought into the league (btw I know it wouldn't have been popular and I'm happy it didn't happen that way), GWS would have been competetive.

By the way, every top four team has (by definition) 5 top 5 players, plenty of reasonable ones, and some rookies/kids.

I think you are getting confused about what I meant, I meant if you take one of the top 5 players from each top 4 team not the top 5 players in the comp.
 
Simple Jack said:
You're totally missing my point. I'm not bagging GWS from not doing that, I'm saying if those were the circumstances in which the new team was brought into the league (btw I know it wouldn't have been popular and I'm happy it didn't happen that way), GWS would have been competetive.
Click to expand...

I agree. But as you alluded to - it would never have happenned that way because of the total resistance.
 
Simple Jack said:
You're totally missing my point. I'm not bagging GWS from not doing that, I'm saying if those were the circumstances in which the new team was brought into the league (btw I know it wouldn't have been popular and I'm happy it didn't happen that way), GWS would have been competetive.

By the way, every top four team has (by definition) 5 top 5 players, plenty of reasonable ones, and some rookies/kids.

I think you are getting confused about what I meant, I meant if you take one of the top 5 players from each top 4 team not the top 5 players in the comp.
Click to expand...

That is correct, for new teams to be competitive they need to poach good players from established clubs, if they do not (and introduce a swathe of new players) they are not competitive.

Now let us assume your scenario was true and GWS was allowed to take one good player from each club (therefore introduce a weaker player to each club), would I be correct in assuming this will weaken each club? To look at it in an absurd fashion, would a 2009 Geelong team with Ablett be able to beat a 2009 Geelong team without Ablett? and once again, using your scenario where each club is diluted evenly, extrapolated to the whole league; an AFL with 14 clubs will have a top four which will be able to beat the top four (that is 1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd etc) of an AFL with 16+ clubs.
 
cos789 said:
Nothing is mentioned of dilution.
Everybody talks about the "talent" in GC, GWS and Melbourne.

Do you think Carlton is ready for relocation because they are diluted with talent?

That is one of the teams that are ready to drop isn't it?

.
Click to expand...

Simple Jack brought up the scenario, I played with it.

I am a proponent of geographical expansion but not club number expansion (for reasons stated). The question you should be asking is would you want to see a Carlton team with Judd play a Darwin team with Betts and Gibbs, or would you prefer to see a Darwin team of Judd, Betts, Gibbs, Swan, Pendlebury play a Tasmanian team of Franklin, Rioli, Mitchell, Riewoldt, Goddard?
 
Essendon_Fan said:
Simple Jack brought up the scenario, I played with it.
Click to expand...

I should note that in playing with the scenario I assume Simple Jack has some limiting factor (eg. salary cap) so that GWS/GCS does not receive one top five player from every club giving both GWS/GCS 16 good players and diluting all other clubs by two, in the process making two invincible clubs and fifteen s**t clubs (Essendon excluded for obvious reasons).
 
lionel_luthor said:
Can't wait for the Moe V Dubbo GF -
Moccasins V Oranges, what an amazing match-up of traditional rivals :D
Click to expand...

I like it!

And at each match between the two teams, to commemorate the occasion, the fans in attendance could each be served freshly-squeezed orange juice, in a moccasin :cool:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Essendon_Fan said:
Yes drop the name "Carlton" off the front of the Darwin Blues, they can keep their colours, players and mascot if they want.
Click to expand...

So you want to drop Carlton (and three other clubs)at a time when crowds are booming. ratings have jumped and the AFL has never been so bouyant and when rival codes are struggling.

Is that what you are saying?
 
Essendon_Fan said:
That is correct, for new teams to be competitive they need to poach good players from established clubs, if they do not (and introduce a swathe of new players) they are not competitive.

Now let us assume your scenario was true and GWS was allowed to take one good player from each club (therefore introduce a weaker player to each club), would I be correct in assuming this will weaken each club? To look at it in an absurd fashion, would a 2009 Geelong team with Ablett be able to beat a 2009 Geelong team without Ablett? and once again, using your scenario where each club is diluted evenly, extrapolated to the whole league; an AFL with 14 clubs will have a top four which will be able to beat the top four (that is 1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd etc) of an AFL with 16+ clubs.
Click to expand...

You're making huge assumptions, which are either categorically wrong, or not proven to be right.

1) Talent identification has reached perfection and is always right - clearly wrong
2) Players that are no good at draft age will never be able to make the standard - clearly wrong
3) A team with 5 great players, A B C D & E will be better than the same team with just A B C & D - not proven to be right, I'll get to this one later.
4) Every player on an AFL list is inarguably better than every player not on one - shown in the last couple of years to be wrong. + links with 2.

Using your Geelong 2009 with Ablett v 2009 without, you are assuming that without Ablett all the other players would maintain their exact output and not improve, with more responsibility to be shared around the other mids.

If you say Ablett provides an output of 5 'good player units', and assume Geelong have 8 mids, if you take all 5 of Abletts gpu's out of the team, all that has to happen for the team to maintain their standard is to have just over half the rest of the mids improve by 1 gpu.

I'm not saying this is what happened, or what would happen, but the fact that it COULD happen proves that your assumption is not unquestionably correct.

Also, consider this: Podsiadly is a better player than Zac Dawson. I don't think anyone would disagree with this statement (if you do let me know and I'll find another example).

If team 'a' loses their best player to an expansion franchise, team 'a' then has one more spot on their list to fill from outside the AFL.

Now say for instance Geelong lost Ablett to another franchise, and with the space on their list, brought in Pods (I know this isn't what happened but I'm using it to illustrate a point).

We've gone from having a league containing;
Ablett
Zac Dawson

To one with
Ablett
Pods
Zac Dawson

Now because Pods is a better player than Zac Dawson, the quality of the league as gone up.

More teams = more spots. If talent identification was perfect and the best 800 odd footballers were in the AFL and every other player not in the AFL was worse, then you would be 100% correct. To fill more spots would mean bringing in lower standard players. But it isn't, so it doesn't.

But aside from all of that, if we follow your hypothesis and take it to an extreme level and get rid of everyone but two teams, we would have 88 AFL listed players.

This competition would no doubt be of a higher standard than now, but what would happen to all the previously great players?

They would look average. The reason we view them as good players is because their performance is better than the majority of those around them, if we get rid of everyone who's performace is worse, they will stop looking as good because their level of ability will be the average, not the exception.

There are no arbitrary performace indicators in football that can be used to determine one player is better than another, there are only comparative ones.
 
cos789 said:
So you want to drop Carlton (and three other clubs)at a time when crowds are booming. ratings have jumped and the AFL has never been so bouyant and when rival codes are struggling.

Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Seems that way doesn't it? Maybe because that is exactly what I am saying.

A league is only as good as its weakest club, I would prefer to watch good AFL footy than concern myself over a few Carlton fans who cannot get up to TIO stadium every second weekend.
 
And quite right too.

If Carlton fans care about their club, they should be damn well dedicated enough to make the commute. They could all use a little more cultural experience anyway.
 
Essendon_Fan said:
Seems that way doesn't it? Maybe because that is exactly what I am saying.
Click to expand...



So you want to drop Carlton (and three other clubs)at a time when crowds are booming. ratings have jumped and the AFL has never been so bouyant and when rival codes are struggling.

So you want to drop Carlton, a team that drew 85k to the MCG and consistantly draws blockbuster crowds wherever it plays and is an absolute icon in Australian football?

Is that what you are saying?
 
Essendon_Fan said:
I should note that in playing with the scenario I assume Simple Jack has some limiting factor (eg. salary cap) so that GWS/GCS does not receive one top five player from every club giving both GWS/GCS 16 good players and diluting all other clubs by two, in the process making two invincible clubs and fifteen s**t clubs (Essendon excluded for obvious reasons).
Click to expand...

I actually said a top 5 player from the top 4 clubs and just a decent player from everyone else, so yes salary cap would be fine.

Essendon_Fan said:
Seems that way doesn't it? Maybe because that is exactly what I am saying.

A league is only as good as its weakest club, I would prefer to watch good AFL footy than concern myself over a few Carlton fans who cannot get up to TIO stadium every second weekend.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is rubbish. A league is only as good as the sum of ALL it's clubs.

Code: 
2011 Averages                         Crowd          Membership   
---------------------------------------------------------------          
Australian Football League            36,425         40,648
Port Adelaide                         23,065       
Brisbane                                             20,792
The league as a total is clearly stronger than it's weakest club.
Edit: I excluded Gold Coast because they are very new, but they would just strengthen my argument in this case.
 
Simple Jack said:
You're making huge assumptions, which are either categorically wrong, or not proven to be right.

1) Talent identification has reached perfection and is always right - clearly wrong
2) Players that are no good at draft age will never be able to make the standard - clearly wrong
3) A team with 5 great players, A B C D & E will be better than the same team with just A B C & D - not proven to be right, I'll get to this one later.
4) Every player on an AFL list is inarguably better than every player not on one - shown in the last couple of years to be wrong. + links with 2.

Using your Geelong 2009 with Ablett v 2009 without, you are assuming that without Ablett all the other players would maintain their exact output and not improve, with more responsibility to be shared around the other mids.

If you say Ablett provides an output of 5 'good player units', and assume Geelong have 8 mids, if you take all 5 of Abletts gpu's out of the team, all that has to happen for the team to maintain their standard is to have just over half the rest of the mids improve by 1 gpu.

I'm not saying this is what happened, or what would happen, but the fact that it COULD happen proves that your assumption is not unquestionably correct.

Also, consider this: Podsiadly is a better player than Zac Dawson. I don't think anyone would disagree with this statement (if you do let me know and I'll find another example).

If team 'a' loses their best player to an expansion franchise, team 'a' then has one more spot on their list to fill from outside the AFL.

Now say for instance Geelong lost Ablett to another franchise, and with the space on their list, brought in Pods (I know this isn't what happened but I'm using it to illustrate a point).

We've gone from having a league containing;
Ablett
Zac Dawson

To one with
Ablett
Pods
Zac Dawson

Now because Pods is a better player than Zac Dawson, the quality of the league as gone up.

More teams = more spots. If talent identification was perfect and the best 800 odd footballers were in the AFL and every other player not in the AFL was worse, then you would be 100% correct. To fill more spots would mean bringing in lower standard players. But it isn't, so it doesn't.

But aside from all of that, if we follow your hypothesis and take it to an extreme level and get rid of everyone but two teams, we would have 88 AFL listed players.

This competition would no doubt be of a higher standard than now, but what would happen to all the previously great players?

They would look average. The reason we view them as good players is because their performance is better than the majority of those around them, if we get rid of everyone who's performace is worse, they will stop looking as good because their level of ability will be the average, not the exception.

There are no arbitrary performace indicators in football that can be used to determine one player is better than another, there are only comparative ones.
Click to expand...


Only if you are assuming I am stating something that I am not (read my posts), the ~80 players introduced (as noted in a previous post) have a normal distribution of talent, this normal distribution will have an average that is below that of the AFL (that does not mean that all the ~80 players are worse than all the players in the AFL) but when these ~80 players are introduced into the AFL the average of the AFL moves down.

RE: Your Ablett example, are you stating that injuries should not matter as this should lead to improved team performance?
 
cos789 said:
So you want to drop Carlton (and three other clubs)at a time when crowds are booming. ratings have jumped and the AFL has never been so bouyant and when rival codes are struggling.

So you want to drop Carlton, a team that drew 85k to the MCG and consistantly draws blockbuster crowds wherever it plays and is an absolute icon in Australian football?

Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...


Yep, I cannot explain it to you in any other way, do you want me to draw you a picture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
NORWOOD EXPANSION
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
Gersman
Gersman

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top