3 Conferences of 6 Teams?

[ATsince1973]

An 18 team competition means very rare glory for most fans - but it wouldn't be hard to fix:

Make 3 conferences of 6
You play teams in your conference twice, home & away - a total of 10 games
You play the other 12 teams once each (6 home, 6 away) - a total of 12 games
That's a 22 round season just like now, no need to bust any TV deals.

A Southern Conference, made up of the 6 Victorian clubs with highest membership.
A Western Conference, made up of SA & WA clubs + 2 small Vic clubs.
A Northern Conference, made up of Qld & NSW clubs + 2 small Vic clubs.
This minimises travel & maximises blockbusters.

September Week 1: Conf Semis
1v4, 2v3 in each conference
September Week 2: Conf GFs
September Week 3: League Semis
(3 winners & highest ranked loser)
September Week 4: AFL GF
That's 12 finals, more teams in, more excitement, more $$$

And at least 3 clubs win silverware every year.
(Opportunity for 3 All-Star inter-conference games too?)

What's not to like? It would be SO EASY to implement.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So basically sign the death kneel of 4 small vic clubs?

vic clubs cannot survive unless they play other vic clubs, as we hear on bigfooty all the time.
the Swans have the largest averages of any club playing a vic team in vic and its not all that impressive.

Just look at freo when they play in vic the crowds just don't show. the only way its viable is if larger vic clubs are spread across all 3 divisions and that is never going to happen.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

RIP Melbourne, Bulldogs, St. Kilda, North.

 

[footyfan1978]

So basically what you are saying is have 22 weeks of home and away games and only eliminate 6 clubs of 18 from the overall AFL premiership race after 22 weeks and positions on ladder count for very little in finals series. Little rewards for 22 weeks and as long as you not in danger of bottom 2 on your ladder of 6 teams can rest players and play funny buggers many weeks leading up to true finals series...Ok..

If this is to appease a Crows fans dealing with tonight's loss I think I'll stick with what we got and one club gets all the glory, thank you very much.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So basically what you are saying is have 22 weeks of home and away games and only eliminate 6 clubs of 18 from the overall AFL premiership race after 22 weeks and positions on ladder count for very little in finals series. Little rewards for 22 weeks and as long as you not in danger of bottom 2 on your ladder of 6 teams can rest players and play funny buggers many weeks leading up to true finals series...Ok..

If this is to appease a Crows fans dealing with tonight's loss I think I'll stick with what we got and one club gets all the glory, thank you very much.

obviously there has to be some changes for it to work as the OP's finals system is *ed. But going fwd some sort of divisional system is only way to solve travel issues and start addressing the issues that the smaller clubs no matter the state suffer from which is playing clubs no one gives a s**t about.

i mean no one cares about playing the dee's not even dee's fans. But year after year if the dee's good or bad become an important game there's more of an incentive to go.

 

[footyfan1978]

obviously there has to be some changes for it to work as the OP's finals system is ******ed. But going fwd some sort of divisional system is only way to solve travel issues

Not sure what travel issues you refer to. Eagles have been in the league close to thirty years now and have travelled further than any club but they seem to cope fine. They had more travel at first. A system where the league has more than one ladder only really could have worked when it was 16 teams. But it would only work if the two ladders where worked to be as even as possible each season. 5 Vic based clubs in each but that never happened. Maybe if we get to 20 teams and a Tassie team in future decades we could re-visit have two ladders of 10 teams but that is not likely to be needed for 20 or so years.

 

[ATsince1973]

Yes, there would need to be some compensation for the 4 small Vic clubs. They'd play 10 inter-Vic games per year, where the bigger clubs get 14. It's not a giant gulf, and it's not as if propping up those small clubs is something new.

 

[ATsince1973]

As for the finals system, it could equally go:

Week 1: 2v3 in each conf
Week 2: Conf GFs
Week 3: AFL Semis (1 lucky loser)
Week 4: AFL GF

That's 9 games just like now.

 

[Rob]

Got no problem with the concept, but the conference selection needs fixing. I'd rather a random selection, or at worst rig it so it's groups of 2 (i.e the 8 non vic teams are grouped with their local counterpart, and split the 10 Vic teams into 5 groups of 2 - let them decide it if you like).

Although if you rank it by membership numbers you'll see Vic clubs top 200,000 members. You reckon the numbers are dodgy now....single game tickets will be a thing of the past, they'll be 1 game memberships. Buying a scarf? Here's a free membership with that. What, you already have 16? Doesn't matter, here's number 17.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'd rather a single ladder, but with some transparency in who you play twice.
Each non-Vic club plays their home state rival twice, the rest done randomly. At least the fix in the fixture isn't there; and Fox could probably draw an audience from the drawing of the double-ups.
the best teams will finish at the top, and the worst ones at the bottom, regardless of who plays who twice. Yes, it means mid-table might come down to the luck of the draw. But if you finish 8th you aren't a shot anyway, hard draw or easy, so it doesn't matter much.

 

[ATsince1973]

Yes, it membership would need careful auditing to precise criteria.
But it's got to be noted that we have an imbalanced system right now. This would give it meaning and transparency. And incentive for Vic clubs to grow their base.

 

[ATsince1973]

And, silverware!
And if the draw is arranged:
5 intra-conference games
12 inter conference games, then 5 intra-conf games,
there'd be more chance of ladder excitement right down the stretch with some "8-point" games between rivals.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

1986 - 12 teams , 22 h&a rounds = fair

Fast forward 30 years 18 teams , 22 h&a rounds = farce

For all the high paid commissioners they cannot even provide a fair competition

Afl = the most unprofessional professional league

 

[Perry Pie]

Its possible to run three conferences and keep the current finals system by seeding the teams according to their conference ladder positions and their perfomance over the season.
To explain, the conference champions are ranked 1, 2, 3 - the ranking is done by the perfomance over the season, the champion with the best record is ranked 1, next best record is 2 and the conference champion with the worst record is ranked 3. The conference runner-ups are ranked 4, 5, 6 by the same method. The 2 third placed teams with the best records fill places 7 and 8. One third placed side misses out.

Not a fan of this myself, just saying it is possible.

As for the conferences, I would suggest Southern (6 Vics), Western (WA + SA and/or NSW and/or QLD teams) and Northern (4 Vic teams + 2 SA or NSW or QLD sides). 3 conferences of 6 teams.
Rotate the SA, NSW, QLD & VIC teams through the Southern & Northern conferences so that the conferences change each season.

 

[ATsince1973]

I could live with rotating conferences. The main thing for me is more interest. 1/6 chance of Winning something. There's not even the pre-season cup anymore!
I follow MLB also - 30 teams! Divisions of 5 make a big difference - you get to know a few other clubs very well, and when you play distant clubs it's interesting too, kinda exotic.

 

[telsor]

Add 2 clubs & have 4 conferences of 5 for 23 games.

West (3 from WA, 2 from SA)
East (2 NSW, 2 QLD & Tas)
Vic1 (5 Vic clubs)
Vic2 (5 Vic clubs)

 

[basashi]

I would say that the problems are:
- lack of travel in the southern conference
- lack of servicing markets, eg, South Australians WANT to see Buddy Franklin, Garry Ablett etc visiting SA occasionally
- potential for undeserved finals (ie, getting a final because you are in a weak conference)
- Boring... fans want to see new teams

False benefits:
- Blockbusters.... Showdowns and Derbies are restricted in how many people can come anyway. Two larger Melbourne clubs playing each other just means two smaller ones playing each other as well.

 

[madmug]

Add 2 clubs & have 4 conferences of 5 for 23 games.

West (3 from WA, 2 from SA)
East (2 NSW, 2 QLD & Tas)
Vic1 (5 Vic clubs)
Vic2 (5 Vic clubs)

I would say that the problems are:
- lack of travel in the southern conference
- lack of servicing markets, eg, South Australians WANT to see Buddy Franklin, Garry Ablett etc visiting SA occasionally
- potential for undeserved finals (ie, getting a final because you are in a weak conference)
- Boring... fans want to see new teams

False benefits:
- Blockbusters.... Showdowns and Derbies are restricted in how many people can come anyway. Two larger Melbourne clubs playing each other just means two smaller ones playing each other as well.

It would be hard to get a fixture which would allow a balance between a decent conference system & decent home & away system. Given the above 20 team 4 conference structure,( which I note has WA3 & Tas1 included) How do we do it?

Well, You could play H&A within a conference & each other team once only (home one year, away the next). That is 23 games. The top two teams in each conference could make a final 8. Or the finals could be the best 4 teams play off, ie each other in neutral venues, so they would play 3 games, best win & percentage gets the cup.

 

[telsor]

It would be hard to get a fixture which would allow a balance between a decent conference system & decent home & away system. Given the above 20 team 4 conference structure,( which I note has WA3 & Tas1 included) How do we do it?

Well, You could play H&A within a conference & each other team once only (home one year, away the next). That is 23 games. The top two teams in each conference could make a final 8. Or the finals could be the best 4 teams play off, ie each other in neutral venues, so they would play 3 games, best win & percentage gets the cup.

Of course I added WA3 & Tas...I've usually described them as the next 2 and always as part of the longer term plan (I can see bringing WA3 & WA4 in together to have benefits, so Tas would get pushed back if that were to happen, but I think the sentiment of Tas would probably outweigh the logic/economics of WA4 in determining the order).

On topic of conferences though, I think the bigger problem is that 23 games means an uneven number of home and away games, so unless every team gets 1 games at a neutral venue (which would allow games in smaller markets, but take away the travel-reduction benefit of conferences) it just adds another issue.

I still think 23 teams playing 22 matches over 23 weeks is the best option in the longer term, but this 20 team 'solution' could be a worthwhile interim step.

 

[basashi]

If you are going to be more likely to play one group of teams than another, then base it on last year's results.

If you fantasise about playing mostly local teams week in and week out, year after year, go follow the VFL or the WAFL or the Trugo or some carp like that.

 

[telsor]

If you are going to be more likely to play one group of teams than another, then base it on last year's results.

If you fantasise about playing mostly local teams week in and week out, year after year, go follow the VFL or the WAFL or the Trugo or some carp like that.

I don't think 4 conferences would change that so much, and it's the easier way of ensuring double ups for games like derbies.

 

[Gigantor]

Hard to imagine the comp would have 20 teams any time soon.

 

[madmug]

Hard to imagine the comp would have 20 teams any time soon.

Probably true, but its an interesting exercise non the less.

Of course I added WA3 & Tas...I've usually described them as the next 2 and always as part of the longer term plan (I can see bringing WA3 & WA4 in together to have benefits, so Tas would get pushed back if that were to happen, but I think the sentiment of Tas would probably outweigh the logic/economics of WA4 in determining the order).

On topic of conferences though, I think the bigger problem is that 23 games means an uneven number of home and away games, so unless every team gets 1 games at a neutral venue (which would allow games in smaller markets, but take away the travel-reduction benefit of conferences) it just adds another issue.

I still think 23 teams playing 22 matches over 23 weeks is the best option in the longer term, but this 20 team 'solution' could be a worthwhile interim step.

Yes, I couldnt see it work any other way, but it would be even over 2 years. I suppose Other systems could be worked out, I was just looking at the simplest way each team could play each other at least once. Anyway all fans would see all clubs at home, usually each year, but some only each 2 years, but at least they would get to see them play.

 

[FootyJunkie]

NORTH EAST
Brisbane
Carlton
Collingwood
Gold Coast
North Melbourne
Sydney

SOUTH EAST
Adelaide
Hawthorn
Melbourne
Port Adelaide
Richmond
St.Kilda

WEST
Essendon
Fremantle
Geelong
Greater Western Sydney
West Coast
Western Bulldogs

 

[footyfan1978]

It is wrong to tell other people to go play outside in the traffic, but