Do We Need More Silverware?

[CaptainChardonnay]

I don't really know how the best way to run it is but perhaps something like this;

• 4 pools of 4 teams drawn at random.
• Each team playes each other once. (12 weeks)
• Each team plays one game a month.
• Points are awarded 3 points away win, 2 points home win, One point an way loss.
• Top team each pool play off in a final series. (Make up TBA)
• Top two teams play a GF, location determined by team with highest For/against ratio throughout entire tournament.
• Played on Tuesday nights. Teams playing on Tuesday nights are scheduled to play on the Saturday before and Sunday after.
• Teams may use up to 5 players from their feeder club.
• No more than 12 players selected on Tuesday night are elgible for selection on the following weekend.
• Extended bench of 6.
• 25 minute quarters (No time off)
• Retain split round (No games over this period)
• One week break between preliminary rounds and finals.
• Series to be completed two weeks PRIOR to premiership finals.

Any of the above could be modified but need to keep the game as true to the real thing as possible else it end up being a "mickey mouse" tournament.

 

[Ant85]

I don't think it's such a foolish idea, and the concerns are genuine.

ANZAC day is a good example of how clubs and the industry can get hyped up for a dual that is now in its own league. Whether we can have this similar hype league-wide with an on the side competition is another question.

I guess the most obvious criticism is the feasibility of it. Adding an extra competition means extending playing weeks, further strain on players and club resources, and other issues.

Unless you can somehow reinvigorate the NAB cup for it to mean something and attract interest from clubs and the footy public, I don't see where else we can squeeze a comp.

I don't want to see more than 16 clubs, as it will be too difficult to win the premiership, but it might be a temporary pain we have to deal with until someone from Vic makes way.

 

[mighty tiges]

English soccer can justify having multiple domestic titles because they have 100 (give or take) professional clubs. Italy has at least 40 professional clubs. And it's obvious why the whole of Europe has transnational competitions.

Australian rules football only has 16 (soon to be 18) professional clubs in the entire world. At the professional level there isn't a reasonable base for any additional, meaningful silverware.

Agree.

Perhaps a FA Cup style comp for clubs across all state leagues. Maybe limit the weaker state leagues to their top 4 from the previous year and like the FA Cup have them play in the early knockout rounds to sort out the better teams before the stronger VFL, SANFL, WAFL clubs come in. If you want include also the VAFA top 4 A-grade clubs, premiers and R/Us of country and metro leagues. The AFL puts up some cash distributed across each round and the further a club goes into the later rounds the more cash it gets. A way these clubs could earn some extra cash and the AFL could say it's further helping Aussies rules at the lower levels. Maybe play the Cup Final either the Friday night before the GF, as the curtain raiser to the GF or even give it the weekend after to itself when all leagues have finished for the season. Anyway just an idea to have that critical mass of 100 clubs.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Isnt the easiest way to do this is to follow the NBA and have 2 conferences.

Then you have at least 2 conference champions.

This is the way to do it. In the US, Basketball, Football and Baseball all work this way.

The NFL has Divisional titles, conference titles and the Superbowl.

So 8 divisional titles, 2 conference titles and 1 ultimate title. Each team that wins a divisional title gets to celebrate that title and has a pennant IIRC. It's a badge of honour but the level of importance is in perspective in relation to the Super Bowl title.

To get a conference title you at least need to have two divisions in each conference meaning the spread is 4, 4, 5, 5. That is doable IMO.

The only problem is the draw. Each team in a division must play each other twice to gauge the right winner.

The 4 divisional winners fill positions 1-4 in the finals. The interesting thing here is that a team coming second in one division could have a better record than a team coming first in another division, but that places an emphasis on winning that division.

The other 4 teams in the finals come from those with the best records so you could finish third in your division but have a better record than someone finishing second in their division and still get in.

Working out the conferences is the fun bit.

No doubt the AFL would do this:

Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
West Sydney

So at least one of these growth markets will have a team in the finals, most likely two.

Essendon
Carlton
Collingwood
Richmond
Hawthorn

The top 3 are traditional money spinners for the AFL fixture, the 4th and 5th are examples open to suggestion and depending on each club's position at the time.

Drawback - very unlikely you would ever see more than 2 of the AFL proclaimed blockbuster clubs in the finals together.

Adelaide
Port
West Coast
Fremantle

Again, it makes the odds greater that each state will be represented.

This leaves:

Geelong
St Kilda
North
Bulldogs
Melbourne

Odds are increased that some traditionally cash strapped clubs are guaranteed of a spot in the finals each year. The Cats and Saints have a healthy rivalry as well.

Think about it, most of these teams play each twice under the current fixturing anyway so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Conferences like they do in the States won't work here. we simply don't have enough consumers/viewers to support it. US is a population of 300m +, We are 25m+. Simply can't do it.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Conferences like they do in the States won't work here. we simply don't have enough consumers/viewers to support it. US is a population of 300m +, We are 25m+. Simply can't do it.

In reality the only difference is the way the ladder is divided into divisions. The fixture wouldn't actually change too much and I can't think of any other changes either.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

This is the way to do it. In the US, Basketball, Football and Baseball all work this way.

The NFL has Divisional titles, conference titles and the Superbowl.

So 8 divisional titles, 2 conference titles and 1 ultimate title. Each team that wins a divisional title gets to celebrate that title and has a pennant IIRC. It's a badge of honour but the level of importance is in perspective in relation to the Super Bowl title.

To get a conference title you at least need to have two divisions in each conference meaning the spread is 4, 4, 5, 5. That is doable IMO.

The only problem is the draw. Each team in a division must play each other twice to gauge the right winner.

The 4 divisional winners fill positions 1-4 in the finals. The interesting thing here is that a team coming second in one division could have a better record than a team coming first in another division, but that places an emphasis on winning that division.

The other 4 teams in the finals come from those with the best records so you could finish third in your division but have a better record than someone finishing second in their division and still get in.

Working out the conferences is the fun bit.

No doubt the AFL would do this:

Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
West Sydney

So at least one of these growth markets will have a team in the finals, most likely two.

Essendon
Carlton
Collingwood
Richmond
Hawthorn

The top 3 are traditional money spinners for the AFL fixture, the 4th and 5th are examples open to suggestion and depending on each club's position at the time.

Drawback - very unlikely you would ever see more than 2 of the AFL proclaimed blockbuster clubs in the finals together.

Adelaide
Port
West Coast
Fremantle

Again, it makes the odds greater that each state will be represented.

This leaves:

Geelong
St Kilda
North
Bulldogs
Melbourne

Odds are increased that some traditionally cash strapped clubs are guaranteed of a spot in the finals each year. The Cats and Saints have a healthy rivalry as well.

Think about it, most of these teams play each twice under the current fixturing anyway so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

G'day ODN. Just thought you might be interested in something I posted about 6 years ago in a similar vein to your own suggestion here.

Hope the link works. My post on the issue is about the 6th one on the first page.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70244

Bugger. Don't think it worked !

Here's a cut and paste job.


Here's mine.

League "RED" ..................League "BLUE"

Adelaide........................Carlton
Brisbane........................Fremantle
Collingwood...................Melbourne
Essendon.......................Kangaroos
Geelong.........................Richmond
Hawthorn.......................Sydney
Port................................West Coast
St Kilda...........................Western Bulldogs


- League RED plays every other team in League RED twice, and those in League BLUE once. Vice versa for League BLUE.

i.e 2 X 7 + 1 X 8 = 22 games each

- Two separate ladders, where teams are only judged against those who play against EXACTLY the same opposition EXACTLY the same number of times. (Unlike nowadays!)

- The division of teams is flexible. For arguments sake, I've lobbed Essendon and Collingwood on the same side to their "blockbusters" ... ditto with Richmond and Carlton.
I've also tried to protect the Perth and Adelaide twice-a-year derbies.

- There should also be the same number of "road trips" for EVERY Vic side using this system, and all non-Vic teams have 11 home and 11 games.

- The Leagues could be changed around every year by ballot, design or any other appropriate process, or retained permanently as in the NFL conferences.

- Finals = Top Four on both sides, ala VFL pre-1972.

- Two League winners (decided in the preliminary Finals) play off in Grand Final, however the preliminaries would be swapped over to prevent doubling-up of finals match-ups (See Week Three).

eg. (Assume higher placed teams win all the way through, and higher-placed teams get home-state finals).

Week One

1RED v 2RED..........1BLUE v 2BLUE (both double-chance games)
3RED v 4RED..........3BLUE v 4BLUE (Elimination Finals)


Week Two

1RED and 1BLUE - bye
2RED v 3RED............2BLUE v 3BLUE (Losers eliminated)


Week Three

1RED v 2BLUE............1BLUE v 2RED (Losers eliminated)


Week Four - Grand Final

1RED v 1BLUE


Draft etc ... could be decided on win/loss ratio, and then percentage.

Re-structuring of Leagues for following year could also be decided in the same way, though that's very optional.

It's so simple, even Rex could understand it!

 

[Wallaby]

Two points...

1. You can't recognise the minor premiers until you have a fair draw.

2. Every time I see the 2x8 conference system proposed (which would remove the unequal draw) - in whatever flavour it is (and there are some slight variations) - I have never seen a good argument against it beyond 'We've always had just one Ladder' or 'That's the way the Yanks do it'.
And now that we are heading to an 18-team comp, we've lost the chance - we'd need a 25-round season to have a totally fair draw (or 17 and only play each side once - which means some sides play 9 home games, and some play 8 - so not fair again).

The current uneven draw is the biggest obstacle to the AFL's credibility.

 

[Godzke]

Would take a damn good team to do the treble ... wait, did i just turn another thread into something about barcelona?

Nah but seriously, this idea has merit and was floated (if memory serves me correctly) this time last year by Nick Maxwell. I'll try and find the article that was posted on the AFL website. He had a full format as well from memory, so he gave it plenty of thought.

 

[Beckers]

Two points...

1. You can't recognise the minor premiers until you have a fair draw.

2. Every time I see the 2x8 conference system proposed (which would remove the unequal draw) - in whatever flavour it is (and there are some slight variations) - I have never seen a good argument against it beyond 'We've always had just one Ladder' or 'That's the way the Yanks do it'.
And now that we are heading to an 18-team comp, we've lost the chance - we'd need a 25-round season to have a totally fair draw (or 17 and only play each side once - which means some sides play 9 home games, and some play 8 - so not fair again).

The current uneven draw is the biggest obstacle to the AFL's credibility.

3. How much have Collingwood underachieved considering their favourable draw every season??

 

[witsend]

Why don't we give all the teams that finish 2nd - 16th a Participation Ribbon like they do in Primary School Athletics?

Made me laugh...oh, and...I agree wholeheartedly.
You play for the Flag and if you don't win it ...tough shit!

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Dont know about you guys, but we need some silverware


Our london cup is looking lonely

 

[X_box_X]

Some good ideas. I like this one:

The top eight teams after round 22 playing in the AFL Champions League over three weeks. Instant elimination if you lose, so by the third week you have two teams remaining, who will play in the final. Like the current system, except this system gives the recognition to winning the premiership for being the best team over 22 weeks, not the best team over four weeks.

 

[Godzke]

Can't find Maxwell's thing. But basically, assuming a 16-team comp, you'd have an elimination competition interweaved with the premiership season.

So,

Week 1: Premiership game
Week 2: Premiership game
Week 3: Premiership game
Week 4: Knock-out Round of 16
Week 5: Premiership game
Week 6: Premiership game
Week 7: Premiership game
Week 8: Knock-out Round of 8

and so on...

 

[Ant85]

Can't find Maxwell's thing. But basically, assuming a 16-team comp, you'd have an elimination competition interweaved with the premiership season.

So,

Week 1: Premiership game
Week 2: Premiership game
Week 3: Premiership game
Week 4: Knock-out Round of 16
Week 5: Premiership game
Week 6: Premiership game
Week 7: Premiership game
Week 8: Knock-out Round of 8

and so on...

To do that, we'd need to get rid of the pre-season cup as this would extend the season.

No one wants an extended season, it's too much for the players. If you want a new tournament, you'd have to sacrifice the NAB cup.

 

[Polly]

Maybe a cup competition involving the Sate League clubs and AFL clubs, say every 4 rounds of the regular season we have a Cup round. Games are fixtured from a lottery at the end of each cup round with winners going forward and losers eliminated. First round for example may have Sth Fremantle playing Hawthorn at Fremantle oval or Subi. Typically the AFL clubs would be expected to dominate but just look at the FA cup, you have the minnows popping up every now and then and knocking off a big club. AFL clubs may choose to rest a player or two which would even things up a bit. AFL players not in the first 22 would represent their affiliate clubs.
You could have the comp go for 5 or 6 rounds depending on the number of teams so the regular footy season would go for ~30 weeks.

 

[The Teacher]

Greetings Viewers

Would a Ranfurly Shield - the NZ inter provincial competition established since 1904 - concept work?

I struggle to understand it but here goes my interpretation......

Shield holder - in our case the regning premier starts.
At each home game the shield can be won by the opposition team.
Titleholder continues to defend the cup until lost, creating a record of defences.
The eventual winning opposition team then holds the shield until the beginning of the next season.
The process continues the next season.

Some obvious downsides including infrequent contests involving your team, but that it also its beauty... it may not come around for quite some time making it, dare I say it... special.

Thoughts?

Dicko

 

[Godzke]

To do that, we'd need to get rid of the pre-season cup as this would extend the season.

No one wants an extended season, it's too much for the players. If you want a new tournament, you'd have to sacrifice the NAB cup.

Wasn't there a survey conducted at the start of this season asking players/coaches of whether the NAB cup should be scrapped and the verdict was evenly divided??

Pretty sure the NAB Cup can be scrapped for 2 practice games.

Greetings Viewers

Would a Ranfurly Shield - the NZ inter provincial competition established since 1904 - concept work?

I struggle to understand it but here goes my interpretation......

Shield holder - in our case the regning premier starts.
At each home game the shield can be won by the opposition team.
Titleholder continues to defend the cup until lost, creating a record of defences.
The eventual winning opposition team then holds the shield until the beginning of the next season.
The process continues the next season.

Some obvious downsides including infrequent contests involving your team, but that it also its beauty... it may not come around for quite some time making it, dare I say it... special.

Thoughts?

Dicko

nah doesn't really take my fancy.

 

[numchuks]

All these ideas mentioned are too complicated. Simplest thing to do is:

-Keep the pre-season comp, but get rid of the stupid gimmicky rules and make it a valued comp like it used to be. Award 1 trophy to the winner.

-Bring back the U-19s comp, and scrap the TAC cup. Award 1 trophy to the Premier team.

-Bring back the reserves comp and scrap the current VFL affliations. Award 1 trophy to the Premier team.

-Bring back the lightning premiership. Play it over the one weekend, during the mid-season bye. Award 1 trophy to the best performed team.

-Bring back the Champions of Australia. Play it as an end of season comp, with the Premiers from the VFA/SANFL/WAFL playing against the AFL Premiers and the Pre-Season Premiers. Award 1 trophy to the winner.

-The club that finishes on top of the ladder in the prmiership season, is awarded the McClelland Trophy at their next home game. 1 more trophy.

-And finally, the club that wins the AFL premiership gets a trophy aswell.

That makes a total of 7 cups on offer to keep fans of all clubs intrested in the game, and doesn't change the current structure of the season by much at all

PS. I'd love to see SoO brought back aswell, but I'd be probably be pushing it if I included that

 

[FootyJunkie]

Greetings Viewers

Would a Ranfurly Shield - the NZ inter provincial competition established since 1904 - concept work?

I struggle to understand it but here goes my interpretation......

Shield holder - in our case the regning premier starts.
At each home game the shield can be won by the opposition team.
Titleholder continues to defend the cup until lost, creating a record of defences.
The eventual winning opposition team then holds the shield until the beginning of the next season.
The process continues the next season.

Some obvious downsides including infrequent contests involving your team, but that it also its beauty... it may not come around for quite some time making it, dare I say it... special.

Thoughts?

Dicko

For curiosity sakes, I did start doing a record of "Challenge Shield" wins dating back to the first minor premier, Geelong in 1897.

Collingwood defeat Geelong in Round 1 1898.
Fitzroy defeat Collingwood in Round 2 1898

and so on...

However, my criteria was that the shield could be up for grabs in any pre-determined fixtured Home and Away game (meaning I disregard those Sectional Rounds the league had in the early years which were played when all teams already played eachother twice). What was frustrating was that teams so often would win the shield, then lose it the next week, which made keeping a record quite tiresome.

I might have another crack at it only this time restrict it to "home" games like you say... even though the concept of a "home" game for Melbourne clubs is pretty laughable these days.

 

[AlibiMonday]

I don't think reducing the number of games and having an entirely new competition will work. I would like a sub-competition played out within the normal premiership rounds relating to periods of dominance over another team. For example, there's a Barassi Cup between Melbourne v Sydney that shouldn't be swapped after every match, but should be only done if one team can string 5 wins in a row against the other. If this was the case, then this would be the silverware Sydney would currently hold.

Currently Holding
v Brisbane - (held by Sydney since August 2006)
v Carlton - (held by Sydney since July 2003)
v Fremantle - (held by Sydney since 2008)
v Hawthorn - (held by Sydney since June 2007)
v Melbourne - (held by Sydney since March 1982)
v Kangaroos - (held by Sydney since August 2002)
v Port - (inaugural win by Sydney in May 2009)
v Richmond - (held by Sydney since June 2008)
v Bulldogs - (held by Sydney since May 2007)

Opposition Holding
v Adelaide - (inaugural win by Adelaide in July 2008)
v Collingwood - (held by Collingwood since July 2008)
v Essendon - (held by Essendon since 1943)
v Geelong - (held by Geelong since 1951)
v St. Kilda - (held by St. Kilda since June 1992)
v West Coast - (inaugural win by West Coast since May 1996)


This would add some genuine venom and extra build up to key games where the trophies could swap hands, especially when the change over is reasonably rare.

Another example of Collingwood v Carlton trophy holding periods:

1899-1907 Collingwood
1907-1955 Carlton
1955-1987 Collingwood
1987-present Carlton

 

[Godzke]

Ok, now it's just getting too complicated with intricate systems of cups.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ok, now it's just getting too complicated with intricate systems of cups.

That's why nobody will even back these things, if they require too much thought, the attention span starts to