- Aug 21, 2007
- 31,685
- 99,069
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
^this but serious
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's just pointless and hinders the fun of a close grand final^this but serious
It's just pointless and hinders the fun of a close grand final
Stop trying to fine tune everything when it works perfectly fine. Let FIRA be the uber difficult elite comp that you want.
I think the team that comes second last should not be relegated but should instead be guaranteed a finals berth.
But really, I don't think relegations and promotions should be determined from the previous season results (besides reserves premier). There's what, 9 months between seasons. Designers on this board have seen massive turn around in ability and polish in that time.
hint st mork finished 2nd last...guaranteed a finals berth?
hint st mork finished 2nd last
I'd be up for any preseason competition to decide leagues.I like the current system, but after seeing the NZ round robin idea, I think that this could be done with every state/territory/NZ at the start of each season with an all in one poll to vote for the top 2 from each area and that decides the who is in division 1 and division 2, however the current system is still fine.
1 or 2 chances for teams to wear it in any round they want for whatever reason they want.
I want logo round back.
What you are suggesting already exists, I think. It's called the off-season. Except it's more than a week, it's like 9 months. Which means you have roughly literally 4000% more time to fix what's broken and, then, have a clean slate to start the new season with.I think there should be a week break half way through the season, where each entrant has the option to adjust their designs, obviously you can have restrictions to what they can and cannot change.
This way if you are getting beaten every round you have a chance to fix that.
Just a suggestion as what was asked in this thread! no need to be a smartass about it.What you are suggesting already exists, I think. It's called the off-season. Except it's more than a week, it's like 9 months. Which means you have roughly literally 4000% more time to fix what's broken and, then, have a clean slate to start the new season with.
Giving people the option to redo mid-way through the year is outrageously unfair to those who produced quality entries the first time round.
Haha, sorry. I didn't mean for it to come off so rudely. That wasn't my intention.Just a suggestion as what was asked in this thread! no need to be a smartass about it.
My two cents...
I've mentioned this before, but I feel there needs to be a relaxation of the rules surrounding team locations - particularly in respect to teams being promoted from the reserves. Having no more than two teams in each state/territory/NZ (herein referred to a "zones") is far too restrictive IMO. If somebody builds their team through the reserves, they should have the chance to continue that into the seniors if and when promoted, not be forced to change to a location vacated by a relegated team.
And its not like its without precedent, considering the fact that in the three seasons of the NAFL, precisely zero have stuck to the 2 teams per zone rule.
13-14: 3 x VIC, 1 x NSW
14-15: 3 x ACT, 1 x SA
15-16: 3 x TAS, 1 x NT
Now OK, sure there has been extenuating circumstances for these things, whether its a case of fill-in teams being called in at the last minute or teams being promoted early because they are clearly too good for the reserves. Thats fine. But imagine being promoted, told to change your team to a new location (and perhaps this means changing the team entirely - the whole image/brand of your club might be tied to the location and moving it would make no sense), only to find a new team take up a spot at the last second in the very place you originally wanted, and as a third team to boot - the very reason you weren't allowed that location in the first place.
Basically, the NAFL hasn't suffered in any way by not having exactly two teams in each zone. Once the competition starts, I'd bet nobody even notices how many teams are in each zone. All teams in the reserves should be actively encouraged to develop their teams/concepts/brands with the carrot of promotion to the "premier" seniors comp. If this means the numbers aren't completely even, who cares? It hasn't mattered in any of the previous seasons, and it won't matter into the future.
*****************
I'm also an advocate for being more open-minded with regards to promotion into the seniors, though this has been raised already. If there is 3, 4 or 5 players in the reserves who can compete in the seniors, they should be allowed to. If some players in the seniors continually languish mid-range bottom 10 - that is, never challenging for finals but never so bad they get relegated (and I haven't looked to see if this is the case) - and the reserves players are at a higher level, they should be in there. Just because someone has been in seniors since season one shouldn't guarantee them a lifetime place just because they don't finish on the bottom. We keep saying this is the premier competition of the board, so lets not be so restrictive for no particular reason, and let the best of the best compete.