Alternative Fixture.

[PurpleGreenRed]

I was racking my brain (no comment) and trying to come up with an alternative fixture to the abomination the AFL release every year. So I came up with this. It's a 25 game fixture (so scrapping the NAB Cup would be obligatory and you would probably need another bye week). I think it would work but not being a traditionalist and the author I probably can't see the flaws in it. Its a two Division (or Conference if you prefer) system. Apologies for the formatting. Didn't transfer nicely from word!
Fixtures are based on this year's final ladder.

West Division

Fremantle, West Coast, Adelaide, Port Adelaide

Victorian Teams (2,4,6,8,10)

Geelong, Essendon, Collingwood, Western Bulldogs, St. Kilda


East Division
Sydney, GWS, Brisbane, Gold Coast

Victorian Teams (1,3,5,7,9)

Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton and Melbourne



Two divisions are set up with the 4 geographical non Victorian teams (First four in each division) as the foundation teams. These teams ALWAYS remain the same and do not move from their respective divisions.

The ten Victorian are ranked on ladder position at the end of the home and away season and ranked 1-10. The odd teams(1,3, 5,7,9) are allocated to the division with the best finishing Non Victorian team. This year that would be Sydney.

The remaining teams (2,4,6,8,10) are allocated to the opposite division.

Teams play all the teams in their division home and away for a total of 16 games.

Teams play all the teams in the opposite division once for a total of 9 games.

The fixtures against the opposite division would be reversed for year 2.

After year 2 the Victorian teams would be re-ranked based on their positions on the ladder in the previous two years and would be allocated to the division with the best Victorian sides going to the division with the best non Victorian team over the previous two years.

This set-up would allow for all teams to play the games they want to play (Derby's, Showdowns, Anzac Day and Queens Birthday games.)

It would allow transparency in the fixturing. You would know who was expected to play who.

It would slightly increase the interstate games Victorian teams would play to 6 per year but would allow the foundation teams to play closer opponents too (ie Freo and WCE v Port and Adelaide) every year limiting,to some degree, the excessive travelling.

TL;DR? Or could it work?

 

[Cobbler]

It's going to be a long off season for some!

 

[sansian]

I like the conference system and think it is the way to go.

Another way to do it is move a vic team to tasmania and have a vic conference and a rest. With 9 teams each. Games against the vic teams rotate home and away each year.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

It's going to be a long off season for some!

It's ALWAYS a long off season!

 

[Clems Knee]

Answering OP.

You've got rid of some of the inconsistencies of the fixture and introduced some others.
At the moment the derbies are the only games we are guaranteed to have two games a year, and if a rivalry develops with Geelong or Sydney then we can have two games a year for a few years with them. With your suggestion, we are locked into two games a year with the Adelaide teams and only one with the Sydney and Queensland teams. I'm not sure if that is such a good thing.

Yes, your system is more transparent. And it avoids the problem of putting the Victorian teams in one conference (Sansian's suggestion), because, like it or not, that is where the core of football is, and unless the grand final gets moved from the MCG, it is important for us to get practice at those grounds.

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

Answering OP.

You've got rid of some of the inconsistencies of the fixture and introduced some others.
At the moment the derbies are the only games we are guaranteed to have two games a year, and if a rivalry develops with Geelong or Sydney then we can have two games a year for a few years with them. With your suggestion, we are locked into two games a year with the Adelaide teams and only one with the Sydney and Queensland teams. I'm not sure if that is such a good thing.

I understand what you're saying mate. I thought that locality was a big thing. Still do. I would rather we knew we were playing Adelaide Oval twice a year, rather than speculate that we were going to Tassie or Brisbane every year.

As much as the media pumps it up, I don't believe the continuing games we have against Geelong, for example, translate into a real "rivalry".
I'm sure Collingwood feel there real rivalry is with Carlton and Essendon (and maybe even Melbourne) and nothing will really change that.
So in essence, yes, my system kind of prevents the development of new "rivalries".

I reckon that's a small price to pay for a more balanced fixture.

 

[Nothing]

25 game fixture is too hard because you'll have some teams play 12 home games, others 13.

2 alternatives
AFL will never go for it, but it's fair - 18 week fixture. Play your 'rival' twice, everybody else once. Rotate home and away over a 2 year cycle. Vic teams can rotate the 'rival' to the AFLs content.

AFL would be all over it, but it's not fair - West, South and North divisions. West consists of Freo, WC and 4 Vic teams. South of Crows, Port and 4 Vic teams. North the QLD and NSW teams and 2 Vic teams. By doing it that way, the AFL could 'almost' guarantee that they always have a NSW team in the finals. Play each team in your division twice, everybody else once. 22 game season. Top 2 from each division plus the 2 next best teams as wildcards. Rotate over a two year period then the vic teams get rotated. The 8 are then graded on total win/loss (so winning division doesn't guarantee a top spot).