18-5 with Two Divisions

[NoobPie]

OK, I'll preface this with conceding this could only possibly happen following the successful implementations of 17/18-5 system, which looks less likely now.

It was triggered by reading yet another promotion-relegation-from-the-state-leagues thread from the main board.

The idea would be to implement this at the point where two new teams are to be added.

The key features are:
-two divisions of ten would play an 18 round double round robin
-the rankings from this would qualify the team in top 6, middle 6 or bottom 8 groups
-The top and middle 6 will play off for 6 finals spots commencing at the second week of the current finals (i.e. top 6 gets the first 5 and middle 6 gets the last spot
-All of the top 6 would qualify for div 1 in the following season
-the top 3 in the middle 6 would qualify for div 1 in the following season
-the bottom 8 would split into two groups of which the top 2 from each will play off for the final spot the next season




Advantages

The major advantage of this system is that it would radically increase the competitiveness and stakes of games across the competition for the whole season.

There is something to play for (or to avoid) for pretty much every team pretty much to the point there season ends.

You would have several matches between top teams pretty much all year round. Rebuilding teams would be able to develop without being fodder for teams in premiership windows

It would be the least disruptive way of adding in two new clubs (ie Tassie plus WA3)

You would get many of the benefits of pro-rel without the impossibility of establishing it in a game and country that it is not suited to.

Disadvantages

The major disadvantage is that you would lose the guaranteed derby games (there could be none in a season), "marquee" games (i.e. anzac day etc) and the WA teams might have to travel more (though this would be off set on average with the introduction of WA3).

People would certainly criticise this system on the basis of "complexity" I'm sure, and also there is a case that a club stuck in div 2 for long enough might suffer more commercially than they would now in the lower reaches of a single ladder

 

[BringBackTorps]

OK, I'll preface this with conceding this could only possibly happen following the successful implementations of 17/18-5 system, which looks less likely now.[Why?]
The major advantage of this system is that it would radically increase the competitiveness and stakes of games across the competition for the whole season. [Agree]
There is something to play for (or to avoid) for pretty much every team pretty much to the point there season ends.[Agree]
The major disadvantage is that you would lose the guaranteed derby games (there could be none in a season)[BIG Problem for ratings & Crowds] "marquee" games (i.e. anzac day etc)[Why cant 2 different sides play on Anzac Day, Dreamtime, & other marquee games?] and the WA teams might have to travel more[1 extra game] (though this would be off set on average with the introduction of WA3).[No WA3 until PS sold out with capacity crowd nearly every week for WC and Freo; WC & Freo. will hugely oppose intro. of WA3! ; also, AFL correctly wants to expand into NSW or Qld -where 52% of Aust. live, & FAR more growth & $ for AFL than WA3]

People would certainly criticise this system on the basis of "complexity" I'm sure[Fans would eventually understand it], and also there is a case that a club stuck in div 2 for long enough might suffer more commercially than they would now in the lower reaches of a single ladder[BIG problem]

A lot of thought has gone into this -& it would certainly extend much needed interest deep into the season for all teams.

To overcome my highlighted problems above, why cant it be kept as simply a League of 18 teams, with a 9 team (or even 10?) Finals System.
After the 17th Round, have a "Play Off" for teams which finished 9-16 th on the Ladder, to determine the 9th Finalist (17-18 don't deserve to make Finals).
Teams who finished 1-8 th after 17 Rounds could also have their Round Robin Play Off -to determine their Finals 1-8 order.

There should be no reduction in the total no. of games played in a season -Rights $ would drop, & player wages.
Perhaps teams which finished 17-18th should, from Round 18, play each other H & A ie a total of 2 more games. The team that wins/has better % has 6 marbles for the first Round Draft Pick -the other team has 4 marbles for this Pick.
I have not precisely "workshopped" this!

I suspect your Lower 10 teams would have a big drop in Membership Sales in the following year, cf when they were in the Top 10. Their members want to see their own Club play more of the"Top" sides every year, even if they believed pre-season they were unlikely to be Finalists.
The average crowd for VFA Div.2 teams declined considerably, after they were relegated from Division 1. VFA Division 2 average crowds were less then half the Division 1 average.

I support the general principle that it would be beneficial for the AFL to modify its Finals' system, so interest in the competition would be maximised for more fans, for longer. If more teams had a chance "deeper" in the season to make Finals, crowds & Ratings would be higher. Have a 3 year trial.

I don't support Promotion & Relegation in the AFL. Our 2nd Tier is too weak, in standard & financially.

There is no doubt, however, that a major reason for the VFA historically strong crowds & interest was the Promotion & Relegation system. There was VERY strong fan interest in the bottom teams' results up until the LAST H & A Round -such was the fan & Club fear/desperation/"exhiliration" of staying in Division 1.

Fans also knew that some of their great players could leave their VFA Club if it was demoted to Division 2, to transfer to another much higher paying Division 1 Club. Only Div.1 Clubs had the big crowds -occasionally H & A 10,000+, Grand Finals 25-32,317 in the modern era (Record VFA GF crowd was in 1939, 48,238 at MCG.)

Another reason the VFA was so successful was that it was a true suburban competition ie included Clubs in the middle & outer suburbs, spread all over Melbourne-& capitalised on this genuine suburban "tribalism".

The other reason for the VFA big crowds & good TV Ratings (apart from the obvious monopoly it had on Sunday games until 1982) was that it promoted an open game style, good scoring, & gun full forwards: 16-a-side was introduced in 1959.

EDIT

NoobPie,

It is very important (for obvious reasons) for the AFL to attempt to maximise interest in the competition for as many teams as possible - & for as long as possible into the season. I think a new system should be trialed, perhaps for 3 years.
It certainly is a Footy Industry topic of high importance.

Your Thread Heading might be misleading/uncertain. Should it be altered? eg Add "Prolonging Interest Up To Finals Starting"

 

[iameviljez]

Relegation and promotion will create longer-term stratification between the best and worst clubs in the AFL. Players will try and engineer moves out of any club that gets relegated, and the best players will try and shift up into the top tiers after two seasons or so with second-tier clubs.

I like the way you've set it up, though.

 

[NoobPie]

Relegation and promotion will create longer-term stratification between the best and worst clubs in the AFL. Players will try and engineer moves out of any club that gets relegated, and the best players will try and shift up into the top tiers after two seasons or so with second-tier clubs.

I like the way you've set it up, though.

Me neither. I'm ambivalent about the above but I something like this the only way I could see a pseudo-prorel happening in the AFL

 

[iameviljez]

Me neither. I'm ambivalent about the above but I something like this the only way I could see a pseudo-prorel happening in the AFL

The only other way it could happen would be conferences, but that would overly benefit the Victorian sides IMO.

 

[NoobPie]

The only other way it could happen would be conferences, but that would overly benefit the Victorian sides IMO.

You could do the above with conferences, though with equal proportions qualifying


I think with conferences you'd probably split geographically but cleave Victoria in half

i.e.


I've historically been more only slightly less anti conferencing than pro rel

 

[BringBackTorps]

We will not go to 2 extra teams for some time. When will GC & GWS become more self-sufficient financially -probably many years?
WC & Freo., whilst they are not filling PS every week, will ferociously resist WA3. They will not want to cannibalise their supporter base.

Would it not be better & more realistic to work on an 18 team model?
(Unless we cap Football Dept. {non-player wage} spending from the current bloated $10,000,000+ pa per Club, to $5,000,000 pa? This would generate a massive saving for the AFL of $90,000,000 pa in disbursements to Clubs ie reduce the 18 clubs funding by $5,000,000 pa each. Some Clubs have up to 9 assistant coaches, plus additional staff etc. each.
And/or it can be proved that 20 teams, which provide an extra game pw always played in Prime Time on Thursday or Sunday evenings, will add suffiicient additional Broadcast funds -& thus help recoup the funding costs of GC & GWS & a 3rd Northern Club?
My snr. footy Club provides soup & a meal on Thursday nights, after training. Watching an AFL game starting at 7.30 pm in the clubroom is great for team culture/camaraderie!).

Maintaining interest in the season for longer (by more Clubs having the chance to make Finals) would increase crowds & Ratings -& boost Broadcast Rights. This also helps the AFL in funding GC & GWS. It should be remembered when GC was competitive, it was attracting very profitable crowds over 21,000+ (Metricon & GWS, like Tas., Ballarat, Canberra, Darwin have excellent Stadium deals)

Would it be embarrassing if a team which finished 16 th(out of 18) ended up winning the flag?

Perhaps less complicated model would be a Final 10, for 18 Clubs? Or a Final 12, for 20 Clubs?

 

[NoobPie]

Would it not be better & more realistic to work on an 18 team model?

Yep, I am big fan of the 17/18 -5 model.

The model I suggested above was just a throw-it-out-their idea as to how a 17-5 model might transition into a pseudo-2 division model with the new teams coming in at the bottom

 

[Le Grille]

I guess my issue with 17 or 18 - 5 is those games for the lower placed teams, essentially it is putting a whole heap of dead rubbers together, i do see the advantages of having finalists having similar run ins to the finals.

I certainly disagree with more finals spots, in my opinion there should be less.

That said despite i am coming around to a 17 or 18 - 5. I do think the 5 games could be floating fixtures (which it would need to be anyway) and given the better timeslots based on what 'group' they are in which provides a bit more equity and reward for better performed teams.

The only issue would be to give incentives for that last group, I dont think psuedo promotion/relegation would necessarily work, nor divisions.

Honestly Im getting around to a 17 round season and perhaps a round robin "League Cup" type comp to fill in the extra period with prize money and incentives to compete.