Expansion 20th AFL team location

[Cubs2Lions]

I see. Better than nothing, I suppose.

Could you see the NRL ever going beyond 20 teams?

Gonna intervene but they definitely will expand post 20 clubs as they believe conferences will fix their problems, as they still need to add Adelaide, Melbourne 2, Brisbane 3 and other cities in the future.

 

[Coolangatta]

Gonna intervene but they definitely will expand post 20 clubs as they believe conferences will fix their problems, as they still need to add Adelaide, Melbourne 2, Brisbane 3 and other cities in the future.

Problem with conferences is you can **** them up easily.

But it's probably the only way if you're gonna go past 20. Or split the league in two, then top teams from each league combine for some kind of super 8, 10, 12 finals series.

It's better for a team to be 9th or 10th on the ladder trying to make the top 5 than 21st on the ladder trying to make the top 8 or 10 imo.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Problem with conferences is you can * them up easily.

But it's probably the only way if you're gonna go past 20. Or split the league in two, then top teams from each league combine for some kind of super 8, 10, 12 finals series.

It's better for a team to be 9th or 10th on the ladder trying to make the top 5 than 21st on the ladder trying to make the top 8 or 10 imo.

Exactly and reckon it would be a massive flop if the NRL did that especially if they put all clubs in NSW in one and the rest of Australia in another like rumours have been like in previous years.

It is the NRL after all though and their stupid ideas

 

[3207]

I see. Better than nothing, I suppose.

Could you see the NRL ever going beyond 20 teams?

Not in my lifetime.

But eventually.

 

[Coolangatta]

Exactly and reckon it would be a massive flop if the NRL did that especially if they put all clubs in NSW in one and the rest of Australia in another like rumours have been like in previous years.

It is the NRL after all though and their stupid ideas

Yeah, surely it'd have to be something like what Cunnington Cartel and I have suggested.

At 21 teams:

Conference 1: 5 Sydney teams
Conference 2: 4 Sydney teams, 1 Newcastle, 1 Canberra
Conference 3: 5 teams
Conference 4: 5 teams

Not sure how you'd slice the rest but obviously keep Perth away from NZ and PNG/Cairns and NQ.

4 conference winners = top 4, 8 best of the rest playoff for spot in top 8 finals series.

 

[Coolangatta]

Although, top 4, a week off, and a double chance seems like a huge advantage over the rest.

Maybe give them a week off and a home final but no double chance.

Once the best of the rest play just go straight up 1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6 etc. Four winners progress to prelim, two prelim winners progress to GF.

Or scrap the playoffs and just have the top 4 conference winners + four best of the rest = top 8. Bit stiff for the best of the rest to have no bye when they might be miles better than a conference winner.

In 5 or 6 team conferences, it allows 5/5 or 5/6 teams from the same conference to qualify if they’re good enough.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Will be the Perth Bears, play 2 games at Bear Park each year.

Do you really think this would work in Perth? WA folk are arguably the most parochial sports fans in the country and they regularly display a strong dislike / distrust for anything that originates from the ‘Eastern States’.

Based on my encounters, I can’t see them warming to a club that has its history and identity attached to Sydney. Surely a new club with a strong WA flavour would be a far better chance of being successful?

 

[3207]

Do you really think this would work in Perth? WA folk are arguably the most parochial sports fans in the country and they regularly display a strong dislike / distrust for anything that originates from the ‘Eastern States’.

Based on my encounters, I can’t see them warming to a club that has its history and identity attached to Sydney. Surely a new club with a strong WA flavour would be a far better chance of being successful?

I think it would, yes, because a new club doesn’t have 100 years of tradition behind it.

The Bears were kinda everyone’s second side (except Manky fans of course) so as long as they’re called the Perth Bears I think it would definitely work.

(My preference is for them to be the Central Coast Bears though and Perth can get its own team up eventually)

 

[Coolangatta]

Do you really think this would work in Perth? WA folk are arguably the most parochial sports fans in the country and they regularly display a strong dislike / distrust for anything that originates from the ‘Eastern States’.

Based on my encounters, I can’t see them warming to a club that has its history and identity attached to Sydney. Surely a new club with a strong WA flavour would be a far better chance of being successful?

Yeah and if the NRL did end up going to conferences, then all the more reason for North Sydney and Perth to have their own separate teams.

 

[threesixpio]

Would LOVE a Darwin team but won’t happen.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Yeah, surely it'd have to be something like what Cunnington Cartel and I have suggested.

At 21 teams:

Conference 1: 5 Sydney teams
Conference 2: 4 Sydney teams, 1 Newcastle, 1 Canberra
Conference 3: 5 teams
Conference 4: 5 teams

Not sure how you'd slice the rest but obviously keep Perth away from NZ and PNG/Cairns and NQ.

4 conference winners = top 4, 8 best of the rest playoff for spot in top 8 finals series.

Okay so thinking about how conferences could work past couple of hours mate and besides the equality factor, your proposal holds well and the end-game could actually be 24 clubs split up in 4 conferences like something below by 2050:

C1: 5 Sydney Clubs + Newcastle Knights
C2: 5 Sydney Clubs (North Sydney Bears included)* + Canberra Raiders
C3: Brisbane Broncos, Gold Coast Titans, Ipswich Jets*, North Queensland Cowboys, Papua New Guinea Hunters*, Sunshine Coast Dolphins^
C4: Adelaide Rams*, Auckland Warriors^, Christchurch Orcas*, Melbourne Falcons*, Melbourne Storm, Perth Quokkas*

*- New clubs formed / returned.
^- Rebranded club

Every club play each other once + play their conference teams again equates to 28 matches. With finals then, you could either go with Top 2 or Top 4 (to continue interest for all clubs) from each conference to be part of the K/O finals system similar to how the FIFA World Cup operates IMO to incorporate a fairer situation for clubs involved, even though it still wouldn’t be 100% mind you and player depth would need to be massively improved furthermore for this proposal to ever see the day of light.

But that was what I was thinking about today Coolangatta and co, wonder what you think about the updated proposal.

 

[Coolangatta]

Okay so thinking about how conferences could work past couple of hours mate and besides the equality factor, your proposal holds well and the end-game could actually be 24 clubs split up in 4 conferences like something below by 2050:

C1: 5 Sydney Clubs + Newcastle Knights
C2: 5 Sydney Clubs (North Sydney Bears included)* + Canberra Raiders
C3: Brisbane Broncos, Gold Coast Titans, Ipswich Jets*, North Queensland Cowboys, Papua New Guinea Hunters*, Sunshine Coast Dolphins^
C4: Adelaide Rams*, Auckland Warriors^, Christchurch Orcas*, Melbourne Falcons*, Melbourne Storm, Perth Quokkas*

*- New clubs formed / returned.
^- Rebranded club

Then with finals, you could either go with Top 2 or Top 4 (to continue interest for all clubs) from each conference to be part of the K/O finals system similar to how the FIFA World Cup operates IMO to incorporate a fairer situation for clubs involved, even though it still wouldn’t be 100% mind you and player depth would need to be massively improved furthermore for this proposal to ever see the day of light.

But that was what I was thinking about today Coolangatta and co, wonder what you think about the updated proposal.

I'm assuming that you'd have, say, a 24-25 game season where you play all the other conferences once + half a conference once and the other half the following year, so every team plays once every two years?

i.e. C1 play twice = 10 games + C2 once = 16 games + C3 once = 22 games + half of C4 = 25 games.

Wouldn't mind a FIFA WC style knockout either, starting from RO16 down to 8, 4 and the GF.

You could even seed them:

Seed 1: conference champions
Seed 2: runners up
Seed 3: 3rd place
Seed 4: 4th place

Seed 1 team plays seed 4 team, seed 2 team plays seed 3 team. Maybe you can't play a team from your own conference? So if the two best teams are from the same conference, they'll play off in the GF.

Keeps everyone on their toes and ensures that where you finish in your conference is important so you can secure more home finals.

For the AFL I wouldn't mind seeing something like:

A: 5 Vic + Tasmania
B: 5 Vic + New Zealand
C: 3 WA, 3 SA
D: 2 NSW, 1 ACT, 3 QLD

Funny thing is, I see more growth potential for AFL than I do for NRL. Either way, there's always ways to slice it up, even beyond 24 clubs which I doubt any of us see in our lifetime.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don't get why the NFL doesn't do that with their 32 teams.

Conference winners = top seeds.
Runners up = second seeds.

Top seeds play second seeds as long as they aren't from the same conference = round of 16, then go to 8, 4, and Superbowl. It's pretty similar to the UCL.

 

[Coolangatta]

Would LOVE a Darwin team but won’t happen.

I wonder if they'd ever seriously consider it if Greater Darwin were to ever reach around 450k.

I think it's interesting that Tasmania got a serious look in when they reached close to 500k.

That's what Gold Coast had to get to, it's interesting that the number didn't go up for what Tassie needed, maybe because they're footy country.

I've been told Darwin would actually need probably double that in 50 years or so because everywhere else will go up, including perhaps the cost of running a club.

But I'd like to think in the future, when adjusted for inflation, there'd be more cost effective ways of running an AFL club, perhaps giving NT and NQ a chance to have teams someday, but maybe it doesn't work like that at all.

P.S. Cubs2Lions I like your NRL club names.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

I'm assuming that you'd have, say, a 24-25 game season where you play all the other conferences once + half a conference once and the other half the following year, so every team plays once every two years?

i.e. C1 play twice = 10 games + C2 once = 16 games + C3 once = 22 games + half of C4 = 25 games.

Wouldn't mind a FIFA WC style knockout either, starting from RO16 down to 8, 4 and the GF.

You could even seed them:

Seed 1: conference champions
Seed 2: runners up
Seed 3: 3rd place
Seed 4: 4th place

Seed 1 team plays seed 4 team, seed 2 team plays seed 3 team. Maybe you can't play a team from your own conference? So if the two best teams are from the same conference, they'll play off in the GF.

Keeps everyone on their toes and ensures that where you finish in your conference is important so you can secure more home finals.

For the AFL I wouldn't mind seeing something like:

A: 5 Vic + Tasmania
B: 5 Vic + New Zealand
C: 3 WA, 3 SA
D: 2 NSW, 1 ACT, 3 QLD

Funny thing is, I see more growth potential for AFL than I do for NRL. Either way, there's always ways to slice it up, even beyond 24 clubs which I doubt any of us see in our lifetime.

Agree with all that especially with the seeding for finals and maybe someday in the next 50 years the AFL could implement something similar, however the issue will always be the public whinging about what happens if a club finishes 3rd in their conference with more wins than someone with less similar to what happen in AFLW back in the day but hopefully public perception change over time.

P.S. Cubs2Lions I like your NRL club names.

Thanks mate, most of the club names have been used before so it wasn’t much of a brainstorming exercise but glad to gain credit where it’s due mind you on some of the newer clubs.

Really like your conference proposal btw as well as everyone else ideas on expansion in both sporting codes ATM even though it was originally meant for AFL but who cares in the end, nice to hear loads of ideas from everyone

 

[Coolangatta]

Agree with all that especially with the seeding for finals and maybe someday in the next 50 years the AFL could implement something similar, however the issue will always be the public whinging about what happens if a club finishes 3rd in their conference with more wins than someone with less similar to what happen in AFLW back in the day but hopefully public perception change over time.

Thanks mate, most of the club names have been used before so it wasn’t much of a brainstorming exercise but glad to gain credit where it’s due mind you on some of the newer clubs.

Really like your conference proposal btw as well as everyone else ideas on expansion in both sporting codes ATM even though it was originally meant for AFL but who cares in the end, nice to hear loads of ideas from everyone

Oh yeah, there'll always be whingers, especially on the internet (though I suppose in the future it'll be the metaverse or some other weird concoction).

I don't know what they thought in the US about the two leagues merging to form the NFL but you don't see people complaining today about it and calling for a de-merger.

Best thing the AFL could do is just ignore the background noise, be bold and implement a conference system past 20 teams.

What's the worst that could happen? People won't watch AFL anymore? I doubt it. Hell, bring back Fitzroy if you need to (I suspect most the whinging would come from Victorians who don't like seeing their VFL change more and more). That'd quieten some of the noise. Throw in a Ballarat team while you're at it - though personally, I wouldn't do either of those.

People will get over it and stay as interested in AFL as they've ever been as long as their team is in it and has a chance to win it.

 

[Coolangatta]

1970 NFL season - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you look at the first season of the NFL when the two leagues merged in 1970, there were 26 teams. 6 conferences, 4 conferences with 4 teams, and 2 with 5 teams.

The 6 conference winners + 2 best placed runners up made the final 8.

That's pretty brutal. It resulted in the LA Rams 9-4-1 and NY Giants 9-5 missing finals, with the inferior Cincinnati Bergers 8-6 and Oakland Raiders 8-4-2 qualifying ahead.

Had they have gone with the top two from each conference + the four best third placed conference teams, they could've gone into a top 16 knockout finals series and no teams with a superior W-L record would've missed out.

Something to think about for potential AFL/NRL conferences.

A 16 team knockout finals series might be too many for 20-21 teams, but at 22 (or 24) teams and beyond, it could be a better system that allows more teams a shot at winning a flag and would silence critics about their chances of winning a premiership.

Could even keep the double chance for highest ranked teams.

Something like (probably can be made better):

A: 1 v 8
A: 2 v 7
A: 3 v 6
A: 4 v 5
B: 9 v 16
B: 10 v 15
B: 11 v 14
B: 12 v 13

C: Four losers of A v four winners of B (highest v lowest ranking seeds)

D: Four winners of A v four winners of C (highest v lowest ranking but no repeat matchups)

E: Four winners of D play each other (highest v lowest ranking but no repeat matchups)

F: Two winners of E play off in GF

Cut throat knockout is pretty cool, though, and probably more plausible if the final ladder is no longer going to be as fair and clean as before.

 

[M Malice]

The Las Vegas Gamblers.

 

[3207]

The Las Vegas Gamblers.

Kenny Rogers to blast through the speakers a-la Gerry and the Pacemakers at Anfield?

 

[Coolangatta]

So we are getting the LA Crocodiles after all, huh.

 

[Coolangatta]

Just thought of a left field top 12 finals system for 20+ teams, which could go out to 16 teams for 24+ teams.

Divide the top 12 teams into four groups of three.

1, 12, 8
2, 11, 7
3, 10, 6
4, 9, 5

Based on 2023 ladder:

Collingwood
Geelong
Sydney

Brisbane
Essendon
GWS

Port
Adelaide
St Kilda

Melbourne
Bulldogs
Carlton

You play the teams in your group once = 2 games. Top ranked teams get 2 home games, second ranked get 1 home game, bottom ranked get 0 home games.

The winners of each group proceed to the preliminary final i.e. 1 v 4, 2 v 3

The winner of each prelim plays in the GF.

That's just 4 finals games, the same as now.

With 16 finalists, you could have 4 groups of 4 playing 3 games (think of it as a mini-finals series in each conference to reduce travel burden).

Instead, the winners of each conference finals would proceed to a final 8 knockout series, so this particular finals series would have an extra two games = 6 finals games. The reason why there'd be two group winners proceeding is just in case the two best teams are from the same conference.

 

[Coolangatta]

A conference finals series with say 24+ teams might look something like this:

Collingwood, Melbourne, St Kilda, Richmond

Brisbane, GWS, Sydney, Gold Coast

Port, Adelaide, Fremantle, West Coast

Carlton, Bulldogs, Essendon, Geelong

Qtr Finals:

Collingwood v Adelaide
Carlton v Melbourne
Brisbane v Western Bulldogs
Port v GWS

Semis:

Pies/Crows v Blues/Dees
Lions/Dogs v Power/Giants

^ Essentially, home and away win-loss record would come into it, with generally the idea of the top ranked team playing the lowest ranked advancers. So, if Port had finished 4th in general home and away W-L record, the Pies would've played the winner of Port/GWS instead of Carlton/Melbourne.

I can think of flaws for the top 12 system, though, like the byes.

Maybe just top 4 get a week off, the rest don't. 1st plays winner of 8 v 12, 2nd plays winner of 7 v 11, and so on. Straight knockout from there.

Another way is just to have three groups of four and the best performed second placed team can progress through to the preliminary finals with the other group winners.

It would be fine for a top 16 system, though.

 

[Coolangatta]

So if three groups of four, you'd get, based on 2023 ladder:

1 Pies
6 Saints
9 Dogs
12 Cats

2 Lions
5 Blues
8 Swans
11 Bombers

3 Port
4 Demons
7 Giants
10 Crows

Winners of each group + best performed second placed team get a week off and proceed to prelims (you'd deserve a week off if you won three away finals in a row, you'd need it).

I reckon you could run a finals system like that, and if you ever got to 24 teams, run four groups of four (you still have to finish top four in your own conference, and conference winners get top four regardless of record).

So if 23 ladder again (doesn't have to be conference based, probably shouldn't be):

1 Pies
8 Swans
12 Cats
16 Hawks

2 Lions
7 Giants
11 Bombers
15 Suns

3 Port
6 Saints
10 Crows
14 Dockers

4 Demons
5 Blues
9 Dogs
13 Tigers

Winners of each group go through to prelims, top teams get three home finals, second get two, third get one, fourth play all away (price to pay).

 

[Coolangatta]

The thing I don't like about the 7 v 10, 8 v 9 wildcard idea is that 7 and 8 don't get a week off. How good was last seasons finals series with the Giants finishing 7th and almost making the GF. If they didn't get a week off, could they have still done as well? I'm not sure.

I'd rather they just leave the final round matchups unknown, but lock in 7 v 10 and 8 v 9, even if they've already played each other twice or at the home ground of 7 and 8.

So the other fixtures would just be normal but those two would be early elimination finals that determine the top 8.

The winners of the wildcard round would get a week off like the other 6 finalists.

This could only be extended to a maximum top 12, though, where you have 5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, and 8 v 9. Any further than that and the top 4 wouldn't have a double chance anymore unless they qualify for finals.


It would help a lot if the bye was the actual reward and we did away with the double chance.

Week 1:

3 v 10
4 v 9
5 v 8
6 v 7

Week 2:

1 v lowest ranked winner
2 v second-lowest ranked winner
etc

Week 3:

Same thing

Week 4:

GF

With 12 teams you could have:

Week 1:

5 v 12
6 v 11
7 v 10
8 v 9

Week 2:

1 v lowest ranked winner
2 v second lowest ranked winner
3 v second highest ranked winner
etc

16 teams:

9 v 16
8 v 15
7 v 14
etc

Week 2:

1 v lowest ranked winner
and so on

 

[neogh]

Par Tassie, what colour do you want to see in an expansion side?

Like to see sky blue, if so for Canberra.

Anything vibrant other AFL clubs seem to avoid.