Conference Systems And AFL Expansion

[Barry_Badrinath]

Have a look at the NBA. Every year we get some gimp eastern conference team with a 37-45 record getting pummeled in the first round, and a western team with a 45-50 win season missing out. This years standings:

http://au.global.nba.com/stats/league/teamConfStandings.xhtml?locale=en

The Suns missed the playoffs despite picking up 48 wins in a stacked Western conference. Meanwhile 48 wins gets you 3rd/4th in the East.

They make it unfair and the AFL has no geographical need for conferences.

 

[1873 United]

Well in the interest of the National brand I have always thought that 2 conferences with home and away would work easiest. Under my system a Melbourne and a National club will always play off in the GF.

League/Conference
All 9 Melbourne clubs

League 2
All interstate clubs plus Geelong.

Clubs are only separated for ladder positions and will be able to play each other throughout the season. OR we could have home and away in the both leagues meaning 16 game league.

 

[mcgarnacle]

If i'm not mistaken if it was similar to the US.

Teams in the same conference can't play each other in the GF only in the "qualifying final"

So in essence if its interstate conference & Victorian conference, there will never be an all Victorian GF and hence never a chance of a showdown or derby GF

NO NO NO NO NO

You wouldn't have a conference system in the AFL. More a grouping system for scheduling and a primary mechanism for direct comparison for qualifying to finals.

'Conferences' as used USA sporting sense is largely misused here. A conference is a higher tier grouping of 2 or more divisions, not an individual grouping at the most basic level. The sooner folks who like to bandy the word 'conference' realise this, the better.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Have a look at the NBA. Every year we get some gimp eastern conference team with a 37-45 record getting pummeled in the first round, and a western team with a 45-50 win season missing out. This years standings:

http://au.global.nba.com/stats/league/teamConfStandings.xhtml?locale=en

The Suns missed the playoffs despite picking up 48 wins in a stacked Western conference. Meanwhile 48 wins gets you 3rd/4th in the East.

They make it unfair and the AFL has no geographical need for conferences.

The NBA permit too many teams to qualify for playoffs.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The AFL regular season as it is structured now and how the league is composed - particularly having 17 teams playing 22 matches each with differing fixtures yet comparing them all together in one ladder is outdated yet moronically persisted with.

The structure of the league has changed yet the fixture is still stuck in the days of the 12-team VFL where a full double round-robin tournament for a regular season was practical.

 

[The_Reaper]

Well in the interest of the National brand I have always thought that 2 conferences with home and away would work easiest. Under my system a Melbourne and a National club will always play off in the GF.

League/Conference
All 9 Melbourne clubs

League 2
All interstate clubs plus Geelong.

Clubs are only separated for ladder positions and will be able to play each other throughout the season. OR we could have home and away in the both leagues meaning 16 game league.

Unfair travel wise.

Plus with our top 8 finals system it should be possible to have Carlton vs Collingwood or Adelaide vs Port Adelaide grand finals.

 

[telsor]

The problem with conferences is always going to be who goes in which one. Travel and how good they other teams draw crowds at your home games would be nigh on impossible to properly address.

 

[Gibbke]

The AFL has said no conferences, so it's all a moot point. But if you were ever going to do it, and you weren't going to drastically cut teams in Victoria, it has to be four conferences - the West, NSW/QLD, and two Victorian ones. The entire point of conferences as the Americans would have it is twofold - to promote rivalry, and to reduce travel.

However, the third benefit is in nulling the argument about what makes an unfair draw. By playing in a 4-5 team conference, you can effectively give every team within it virtually the same draw, meaning that ladder that counts for them only features teams who've gone through the same ordeal to make the finals. Sure, the Vics won't be venturing out of the state every fortnight, but now it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't rank them against the WA sides who travel a long way regularly. When you get to the finals, you can also depart from the NFL model by choosing the finalists a different way - four division winners get spots 1-2-3-4, the next best four get 5-6-7-8, and you run a normal final 8 - no restriction on who gets who in a GF in theory. There are flaws - if the system existed in 2012, the NSW/Q division winner would have only needed to win a quarter of its matches to win the division, so you could put stipulations in to fix this (e.g. 50% WL or the fifth team gets your spot in the top 4). However, you could mix and match the Vics to maximise rivalry with no impact on anyone else, and you create spots for the 19-20th teams if necessary...far more to it than this, there's a thread way back...

 

[HiReception]

The AFL has said no conferences, so it's all a moot point. But if you were ever going to do it, and you weren't going to drastically cut teams in Victoria, it has to be four conferences - the West, NSW/QLD, and two Victorian ones. The entire point of conferences as the Americans would have it is twofold - to promote rivalry, and to reduce travel.

However, the third benefit is in nulling the argument about what makes an unfair draw. By playing in a 4-5 team conference, you can effectively give every team within it virtually the same draw, meaning that ladder that counts for them only features teams who've gone through the same ordeal to make the finals. Sure, the Vics won't be venturing out of the state every fortnight, but now it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't rank them against the WA sides who travel a long way regularly. When you get to the finals, you can also depart from the NFL model by choosing the finalists a different way - four division winners get spots 1-2-3-4, the next best four get 5-6-7-8, and you run a normal final 8 - no restriction on who gets who in a GF in theory. There are flaws - if the system existed in 2012, the NSW/Q division winner would have only needed to win a quarter of its matches to win the division, so you could put stipulations in to fix this (e.g. 50% WL or the fifth team gets your spot in the top 4). However, you could mix and match the Vics to maximise rivalry with no impact on anyone else, and you create spots for the 19-20th teams if necessary...far more to it than this, there's a thread way back...

I had tried to look at how something like that would work, but the problem is that the divisions would be lop-sided (assuming you don't add 2 more teams to make it 4x5), which means you can't do a normal "play everyone once, and everyone in your division again" system as each team would have an imbalanced number of games. Of course, that doesn't matter deciding the division standings, but would make the "Wild Card" slots a mess.

Super Rugby are doing a similar system starting in 2016, but in their case the Aussie and Kiwi teams only play 3 of the other 4 local sides twice, and the others not at all.

As for your point about the interstate teams travelling further over the season than the Vics - again, it won't affect Division standings but will favour the Vics in the second four - and it also creates an issue from a financial standpoint (assuming the clubs themselves pay for flights) giving the interstate clubs a greater monetary burden to overcome.

 

[HiReception]

When the AFL website floated ideas for new seasons, a couple of ideas involved "sectional matches" (to use the term when it was used in the 1897 VFL). Have these fallen by the wayside, is there a key reason it couldn't work?

The two cases basically looked like this:

• Matches 1-17, each team plays each other once.
• After each team plays 17 matches, place them into three groups of six

Option A

• The three groups have an even distribution of good and bad sides
• 1 6 7 12 13 18 | 2 5 8 11 14 17 | 3 4 9 10 15 16
• Each team plays the other five teams in its group a second time
• Whichever team was the away team in their first match hosts the rematch
• These five results can either be used on their own (and have the two group winners + 2 Wild Cards go through) OR add them to the original standings (as each team has played a roughly equally difficult draw).

Option B

• The three groups are used essentially as separate leagues
• 1 2 3 4 5 6 | 7 8 9 10 11 12 | 13 14 15 16 17 18
• Again, each team plays the others in their group, with reversed home team status
• The top-six group are all guaranteed to make the finals, and play these matches for top four status (using only the
• The middle six play for the final two spots in the top eight
• The bottom six can't make the Finals, but play for some sort of incentive (money, draft order, etc).

 

[Gibbke]

I had tried to look at how something like that would work, but the problem is that the divisions would be lop-sided (assuming you don't add 2 more teams to make it 4x5), which means you can't do a normal "play everyone once, and everyone in your division again" system as each team would have an imbalanced number of games. Of course, that doesn't matter deciding the division standings, but would make the "Wild Card" slots a mess.

Super Rugby are doing a similar system starting in 2016, but in their case the Aussie and Kiwi teams only play 3 of the other 4 local sides twice, and the others not at all.

As for your point about the interstate teams travelling further over the season than the Vics - again, it won't affect Division standings but will favour the Vics in the second four - and it also creates an issue from a financial standpoint (assuming the clubs themselves pay for flights) giving the interstate clubs a greater monetary burden to overcome.

The way it would work, if you had the current 18 sides, is two 4 team interstate divisions and two 5 team Vics. If you were West Coast, you'd play 6 home and away matches against WA and SA teams, and then the other 14 teams once. If you were Victorian, you'd play your direct rivals 8 times, and then the other 13 teams once. There is a disparity here which can be alleviated simply - add another derby to the interstaters, for a 21 round season for all. This would imbalance the interstate divisions a little, but only by one game...nothing is ever perfect...!

If you added two new teams, you get 8 plus 15 for the entire season - 23 round season, which would require some negotiation with the player's association, you'd think...

 

[telsor]

The way it would work, if you had the current 18 sides, is two 4 team interstate divisions and two 5 team Vics. If you were West Coast, you'd play 6 home and away matches against WA and SA teams, and then the other 14 teams once. If you were Victorian, you'd play your direct rivals 8 times, and then the other 13 teams once. There is a disparity here which can be alleviated simply - add another derby to the interstaters, for a 21 round season for all. This would imbalance the interstate divisions a little, but only by one game...nothing is ever perfect...!

If you added two new teams, you get 8 plus 15 for the entire season - 23 round season, which would require some negotiation with the player's association, you'd think...

So most teams play each other once, but others play each other 3 times? How does that make a fair fixture?

 

[Gibbke]

When the AFL website floated ideas for new seasons, a couple of ideas involved "sectional matches" (to use the term when it was used in the 1897 VFL). Have these fallen by the wayside, is there a key reason it couldn't work?

The two cases basically looked like this:

• Matches 1-17, each team plays each other once.
• After each team plays 17 matches, place them into three groups of six

Option A

• The three groups have an even distribution of good and bad sides
• 1 6 7 12 13 18 | 2 5 8 11 14 17 | 3 4 9 10 15 16
• Each team plays the other five teams in its group a second time
• Whichever team was the away team in their first match hosts the rematch
• These five results can either be used on their own (and have the two group winners + 2 Wild Cards go through) OR add them to the original standings (as each team has played a roughly equally difficult draw).

Option B

• The three groups are used essentially as separate leagues
• 1 2 3 4 5 6 | 7 8 9 10 11 12 | 13 14 15 16 17 18
• Again, each team plays the others in their group, with reversed home team status
• The top-six group are all guaranteed to make the finals, and play these matches for top four status (using only the
• The middle six play for the final two spots in the top eight
• The bottom six can't make the Finals, but play for some sort of incentive (money, draft order, etc).

Option B is simply horrible. You might as well start the finals after week 17, and not bother with over a month of filler. Right now, Essendon, North, Adelaide, GC and Port are battling for the home advantage in the elimination Finals, never mind simply making it - this battle would be moot if you gave teams 7-8 no chance of playing at home. Option A has merit if you simply continue the ladder, but is terrible if you start again from scratch - I recall my Hawks on no less than three occasions since the merger having shocker seasons but still winning the last 4-5 matches of the season - thanks for the easy ride into the finals! There was one other season in the 1940's where the Saints were axed from the comp at the halfway stage to eliminate the bye caused by Geelong's wartime absence, the only other time where the fixture was fluid before finals...

 

[HiReception]

That's fair enough. Those were just the two options put up in terms of deciding the end of the fixture based on the ladder - although from memory the AFL option actually did use the last 5 on their own.

Alternatively, you could decide the five "double-ups" based on the same formula using the ladder positions from the previous season. That would reduce the logistical problems of the original idea, and you wouldn't even need to be upfront about it, but then it's not as accurate in deciding a "balanced" set of five teams.

 

[Gibbke]

So most teams play each other once, but others play each other 3 times? How does that make a fair fixture?

The "fairness" is in the fact that the teams in the division play an identical draw, which is the reason for the fixture debate in the first place. WC's travel, opposition, everything, would be very different to Collingwood, but virtually identical to Adelaide, Port and Freo - and that's what counts. What Collingwood does means absolutely nothing in terms of those four teams and their finals qualification. Again, the disparity is the extra derby, but that's only if you've got a really weak team in your group - you'd be happy if that team was your three time opponent for the season instead of two. It's also only there because of the 18 team i balance, too. If they got top spot, the method for determining top 8 placement would then pit them against the other three winners in terms of WL and % - no problem here. 16-5 earned by one group of identically draw challenged divisional opponents is no different to 16-5 achieved by another group enduring the same structure of draw but with widely varied conditions - again, they aren't being rated against the other divisions...

Could go on, it's not perfect, but no draw is if 9 teams share the same two home grounds and the Western Australians refuse to pick up their city and move it closer to civilisation. Me personally, I couldn't give a f###, my team's got the hardest draw and I'm loving it. What this does do, however, is address the most bleated complaints about the draw, the same thing Adelaide had to put up with when deservedly finishing 2nd in 2012...

 

[telsor]

The "fairness" is in the fact that the teams in the division play an identical draw, which is the reason for the fixture debate in the first place. WC's travel, opposition, everything, would be very different to Collingwood, but virtually identical to Adelaide, Port and Freo - and that's what counts. What Collingwood does means absolutely nothing in terms of those four teams and their finals qualification. Again, the disparity is the extra derby, but that's only if you've got a really weak team in your group - you'd be happy if that team was your three time opponent for the season instead of two. It's also only there because of the 18 team i balance, too. If they got top spot, the method for determining top 8 placement would then pit them against the other three winners in terms of WL and % - no problem here. 16-5 earned by one group of identically draw challenged divisional opponents is no different to 16-5 achieved by another group enduring the same structure of draw but with widely varied conditions - again, they aren't being rated against the other divisions...

Could go on, it's not perfect, but no draw is if 9 teams share the same two home grounds and the Western Australians refuse to pick up their city and move it closer to civilisation. Me personally, I couldn't give a f###, my team's got the hardest draw and I'm loving it. What this does do, however, is address the most bleated complaints about the draw, the same thing Adelaide had to put up with when deservedly finishing 2nd in 2012...

The only way to even up travel would be to have every team jump on a plane pre game for an equal amount of time to all other teams (and fly around in circles or something). Not sure travel is such a big deal though...Most big sporting comps fly a hell of a lot more than we do and don't seem to consider it a massive deal. Mostly it's just fans (and to a lesser extent, clubs) saying 'look how tough we've got it' in order to either make themselves look better/tougher or to seek some kind of compensation.

Home ground matters for something due to crowd support and weather conditions, but when both teams are in the same city (and their fans can get into the ground), that is pretty much a wash. Is 10 home, 10 away and 2 neutral games appreciably tougher than 6 home, 6 away and 10 neutral games?

Play each team once, rotate the rest and gradually expand until you have enough teams to only play once each in a full season. Some years will be tougher, some easier, but it'll be fair in that it was selected without bias.

 

[specq]

'Conferences' as used USA sporting sense is largely misused here. A conference is a higher tier grouping of 2 or more divisions, not an individual grouping at the most basic level. The sooner folks who like to bandy the word 'conference' realise this, the better.

Actually, that's not true. The word is defined in terms of dividing from the top, not adding up from the bottom.

Conference is simply a name for the first-order subsets of any league. Divisions are subsets of conferences. Look at college football and basketball in the US, for example. The league (the NCAA) is divided into multiple conferences, some of which further divide themselves into divisions and some who don't.

The fact that the NBA and the NFL each have two doesn't mean you can only have two.

I haven't heard anyone suggesting to divide up the AFL into just two conferences with further subsets called divisions whose champions would play each other in a final system where the winners of the conferences would meet up in a superbowl-like grand final. It seems to always just be a way of solving the issue of unbalanced fixturing by having groups of teams play essentially exactly the same schedule so that you can just pick out those that pass through that first test to head into a system more or less identical to today's finals.

So conferences is exactly the right word to be using.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Actually, that's not true. The word is defined in terms of dividing from the top, not adding up from the bottom.

Conference is simply a name for the first-order subsets of any league. Divisions are subsets of conferences. Look at college football and basketball in the US, for example. The league (the NCAA) is divided into multiple conferences, some of which further divide themselves into divisions and some who don't.

The fact that the NBA and the NFL each have two doesn't mean you can only have two.

I haven't heard anyone suggesting to divide up the AFL into just two conferences with further subsets called divisions whose champions would play each other in a final system where the winners of the conferences would meet up in a superbowl-like grand final. It seems to always just be a way of solving the issue of unbalanced fixturing by having groups of teams play essentially exactly the same schedule so that you can just pick out those that pass through that first test to head into a system more or less identical to today's finals.

So conferences is exactly the right word to be using.

You've mis-read my post.

And I've seen many folks on this forum misinterpret the American style grouping system by assuming that grand final opponents will each come from two separate groups.

 

[Colonial]

The only way to even up travel would be to have every team jump on a plane pre game for an equal amount of time to all other teams (and fly around in circles or something). Not sure travel is such a big deal though...Most big sporting comps fly a hell of a lot more than we do and don't seem to consider it a massive deal. Mostly it's just fans (and to a lesser extent, clubs) saying 'look how tough we've got it' in order to either make themselves look better/tougher or to seek some kind of compensation.

Home ground matters for something due to crowd support and weather conditions, but when both teams are in the same city (and their fans can get into the ground), that is pretty much a wash. Is 10 home, 10 away and 2 neutral games appreciably tougher than 6 home, 6 away and 10 neutral games?

Play each team once, rotate the rest and gradually expand until you have enough teams to only play once each in a full season. Some years will be tougher, some easier, but it'll be fair in that it was selected without bias.

Financially it matters. But understand your point regarding travel

 

[FootyJunkie]

super bowel

 

[Gibbke]

super bowel

Sounds like a really s**t idea...

 

[Gigantor]

The AFL has dumped the concept.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Probably came up with that idea deep in the bowels of AFL house

 

[Colonial]

Probably came up with that idea deep in the bowels of AFL house

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

Can't we just agree the idea stinks?

Sadly, it seems to be one that keeps floating to the surface.