20th AFL Team

[Canberra Pear]

Darwin is too small, but it's also so isolated.

For instance, Greater Geelong is about double the population of Darwin, but Geelong is next to the enormous metropolis of Melbourne and draws on country Victoria.

The next closest sizeable town to Darwin is Katherine. It's three hours away and only has 7k people. It's just so remote.

 

[Coolangatta]

It is. If the population elsewhere doubles then the cost of running a team increases and Darwin is even further behind.

Maybe, but 30 years is a long time, 50 even longer. It’s not far fetched to think there won’t be more cost effective ways of running an AFL club by then. All I can say for sure is that they’re at least $15 million short per year of running a club so they’re off the table and they’ll stay off the table if that gap doesn’t improve.

 

[Rob]

Is it though? As the population of Tasmania increased to eventually support a team, was the rest of Australia’s population just stagnant? It wasn’t. I think Darwin will eventually be big enough, and even if there are more financially lucrative choices, it’ll be as popular as Tasmania is, if not more.

Tassie has a team due to vast government subsidies, or at least guarantees. They didn't just suddenly become a viable location.

 

[Coolangatta]

Tassie has a team due to vast government subsidies, or at least guarantees. They didn't just suddenly become a viable location.

Right, so if the NT got the same, then they too could become “viable.”

But there’s no rush. If they were to be propped up as the 20th side, I’m afraid that it could kill any chance of an ACT team because of all the numpties that would think the NT is the only place left to make the game “truly national.”

I feel it’s now or never for the ACT but the NT could pick up the funding it needs in the future. If Darwin could double its population first then at least they could get decent crowds.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Right, so if the NT got the same, then they too could become “viable.”

But there’s no rush. If they were to be propped up as the 20th side, I’m afraid that it could kill any chance of an ACT team because of all the numpties that would think the NT is the only place left to make the game “truly national.”

I feel it’s now or never for the ACT but the NT could pick up the funding it needs in the future. If Darwin could double its population first then at least they could get decent crowds.

There are two issues if Darwin doesn't grow fast enough.

If it grows at the same pace as the rest of Australia, other areas increase their markets, too. If Darwin and Melbourne both double in size, Darwin might be able to push 20k members, but Collingwood and Richmond will be pushing 200k members. Financially, it will be hard for a Darwin team to compete with that. What it takes to run an AFL club will increase in line with the larger markets.

There are also other areas growing that may push Darwin down the list. Sunshine Coast, Cairns, Newcastle or a third SA side may be bad ideas now, but might be more viable than Darwin if it grows too slowly.

Advances in transport will also be hugely important for any future Darwin team.

 

[Coolangatta]

There are two issues if Darwin doesn't grow fast enough.

If it grows at the same pace as the rest of Australia, other areas increase their markets, too. If Darwin and Melbourne both double in size, Darwin might be able to push 20k members, but Collingwood and Richmond will be pushing 200k members. Financially, it will be hard for a Darwin team to compete with that. What it takes to run an AFL club will increase in line with the larger markets.

There are also other areas growing that may push Darwin down the list. Sunshine Coast, Cairns, Newcastle or a third SA side may be bad ideas now, but might be more viable than Darwin if it grows too slowly.

Advances in transport will also be hugely important for any future Darwin team.

Yeah, they’ll probably need funding to survive and compete with other clubs, and I’m not sure who would want to foot the bill for them.

And yes, all of those locations are probably going to be more viable than Darwin is, plus New Zealand, too.

As I imagine expansion to happen every 15 years, we probably won’t get to see a Darwin team happen if it ever does, but I do look forward to seeing who comes after Tassie when they enter.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

In what way do conferences make for a fairer draw? You would still play some teams once and some twice. In fact it would likely make the draw less fair, as one conference would inevitably be stronger than the other. And if you want more finals matches (we don’t), just add them anyway.

This is why I hate the idea of conferences.

The GF could conceivably be between the best team of one conference against the 5th ranked team (or worse) if there was no conferences.

 

[Bjo187]

This is why I hate the idea of conferences.

The GF could conceivably be between the best team of one conference against the 5th ranked team (or worse) if there was no conferences.

The best team still wins the flag though so why does that matter.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

The best team still wins the flag though so why does that matter.

The spectacle.

 

[Rob]

This is why I hate the idea of conferences.

The GF could conceivably be between the best team of one conference against the 5th ranked team (or worse) if there was no conferences.

I would have thought that even with conferences you have crossovers in the finals so you won't get a bad team getting through to the granny.

The point of conferences is to ensure integrity in the fixture - you have it so that everyone in the same conference has exactly the same draw, i.e they play everyone in their conference twice, and everyone else once.

I remember when they had conferences in AFLW - the dumb ****s at the AFL still didn't have equal draws for everyone in the conference, so what was the bloody point of it?

 

[Coolangatta]

Beyond 24 or 25 teams, conferences would become necessary. No club is going to play more than 23-24 games per season, it’d be too long and eat into cricket season.

Other than that, every team can play each other once if there’s less than 26 teams.

But it’s all way too far ahead. We don’t know if they’ll keep adding expansion clubs every 15 years.

When is the last time there’s been an expansion side in the NFL?

It’s going to slow down or stop eventually, we just don’t know when.

But personally, I don’t think they’ll be done at 20. If there’s going to be a 3rd side in WA, you can bet the AFL will consider the possibility of 3rd teams in other states one day. Although, if the ACT is the 20th team, that could be that, especially if the NT is not ever going to be viable.

I really don’t think WA3 will happen if they aren’t the 20th side, but I’m also unsure if ACT will ever happen if they aren’t the 20th side either. I’d prefer the latter.

 

[Bjo187]

I would have thought that even with conferences you have crossovers in the finals so you won't get a bad team getting through to the granny.

The point of conferences is to ensure integrity in the fixture - you have it so that everyone in the same conference has exactly the same draw, i.e they play everyone in their conference twice, and everyone else once.

I remember when they had conferences in AFLW - the dumb *s at the AFL still didn't have equal draws for everyone in the conference, so what was the bloody point of it?

I do agree on this. If not using the 3 grand final model which would be great for a spreading the game and great in a commercial sense, then I'd cross the finals.

Wildcard week you'd have:
4th place conference A v 5th place conference B (vice versa).

Then the following weeks of finals:
1st place conference A v 2nd place conference B (vice versa)
3rd place conference A v 4th place conference B (vice versa) etc etc..

So after the wildcard week it basically reverts to the traditional top 8 finals format, however the divisions cross pollinate throughout the finals series, to ensure the best 2 teams in the competition make the grand final.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I do agree on this. If not using the 3 grand final model which would be great from a spreading the game and commercial sense, then I'd cross the finals.

Wildcard week you'd have:
4th place conference A v 5th place conference B (vice versa).

Then the following weeks of finals:
1st place conference A v 2nd place conference B (vice versa)
3rd place conference A v 4th place conference B (vice versa) etc etc..

So after the wildcard week it basically reverts to the traditional top 8 finals format, however the divisions cross pollinate throughout the finals series, to ensure the best 2 teams in the competition make the grand final.

Thanks.

I thought conference systems didn't converge until the "GF".

 

[Bjo187]

Thanks.

I thought conference systems didn't converge until the "GF".

They usually don't, but it's an option that should be looked at if they are worried about not having the 2 best team in the grand final and if the grand final was staying at only 1 game.

 

[Walshawk]

I would have thought that even with conferences you have crossovers in the finals so you won't get a bad team getting through to the granny.

The point of conferences is to ensure integrity in the fixture - you have it so that everyone in the same conference has exactly the same draw, i.e they play everyone in their conference twice, and everyone else once.

I remember when they had conferences in AFLW - the dumb *s at the AFL still didn't have equal draws for everyone in the conference, so what was the bloody point of it?

So, 28 games? Never going to happen.

 

[Rob]

So, 28 games? Never going to happen.

Yeah 2 conferences went out the window when we went past 16 teams.

18 teams would have to be 3 conferences of 6, 20 teams would be 4 conferences of 5. That's if you wanted to go with conferences.

 

[Bjo187]

Yeah 2 conferences went out the window when we went past 16 teams.

18 teams would have to be 3 conferences of 6, 20 teams would be 4 conferences of 5. That's if you wanted to go with conferences.

No two conferences of 10 is perfect, you play each team in your own conference twice and half the teams in the other conference once. Then the following year you play the other half of teams in the other conference once. It's a much fairer system. Plus you get reward for being conference champions so each team isn't waiting 50 years for some form of acknowledgment, because there are now so many bloody teams in the comp, a number of teams will go 100 years with zero silverware.

 

[_Cerberus_]

because there are now so many bloody teams in the comp, a number of teams will go 100 years with zero silverware.

Which is why we don't expand to yankee land levels in the first place.

Big no to conferences. You will just have the same people sooking about who plays who again anyway. And a big F no from me to playing the same teams in a conference twice each year, will get bored as. And the AFLW debacle showed the biggest reason conferences are terrible. In one season they had the four best teams in the league stacked in the one conference, and poor teams from the other making finals. At least the single tier ladder allows the eight best teams to make the finals, where a conference system could see 2-3 teams much better than some in the other conference, or with better win/loss records, miss out on finals. Wait until you hear the next level melts on that.

We don't need to Americanize every single thing.

Ideally I rather see the league capped at 20 teams. 22 is the super max. But we all know the AFL doesn't give a f**k about fan experience and only think with dollar signs and their shareholders. 24 plus teams in 50 years is a real possibility. Just be grateful you're alive now. Will be loads more supporter bases who will not see a single Premiership in their lifetime in the years ahead. Try being an American sports fan, NFL teams for example have a 1 in 32 year chance of seeing a Superbowl win, which is not realistic given heaps of programs will win multiple etc. More like once in a lifetime odds.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

No two conferences of 10 is perfect, you play each team in your own conference twice and half the teams in the other conference once. Then the following year you play the other half of teams in the other conference once. It's a much fairer system. Plus you get reward for being conference champions so each team isn't waiting 50 years for some form of acknowledgment, because there are now so many bloody teams in the comp, a number of teams will go 100 years with zero silverware.

I’ve always preferred a model of having four conferences of five clubs. Then there’s opportunities for more clubs to win something each season and you can have a much fairer draw, without reducing the number of rounds per season.

For example; play every club in the comp once (19 games) and all clubs in your conference twice (4 games) = 23 game season (11 home, 11 away, one Gather Round).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

And the AFLW debacle showed the biggest reason conferences are terrible. In one season they had the four best teams in the league stacked in the one conference, and poor teams from the other making finals. At least the single tier ladder allows the eight best teams to make the finals, where a conference system could see 2-3 teams much better than some in the other conference, or with better win/loss records, miss out on finals. Wait until you hear the next level melts on that.

The AFLW debacle didn’t occur because all conference systems are flawed, it happened because THEIR conference system was flawed. There are so many ways that you can adjust the finals qualification criteria so good teams qualify and bad teams don’t.

For example:
1. Conference winners automatically qualify, all other qualifiers are based on the best remaining records.
2. Conference winners qualify, other clubs with reasonable records go to a wildcard round to determine the last few finals places.
3. Conference winners and runners up automatically qualify. Best remaining records go to a wildcard round.

As a concept, the AFLW system was lazy and stupid. This doesn’t mean that a more equitable system can’t be developed for a 20+ club men’s comp. They are clearly considering conferences, wildcard rounds etc, which is why they are trialling them in comps like AFLW and VFL. This should (hopefully) mean that they get it right if it’s ever implemented at AFL level.

 

[_Cerberus_]

The AFLW debacle didn’t occur because all conference systems are flawed, it happened because THEIR conference system was flawed. There are so many ways that you can adjust the finals qualification criteria so good teams qualify and bad teams don’t.

For example:
1. Conference winners automatically qualify, all other qualifiers are based on the best remaining records.
2. Conference winners qualify, other clubs with reasonable records go to a wildcard round to determine the last few finals places.
3. Conference winners and runners up automatically qualify. Best remaining records go to a wildcard round.

The AFLW system was lazy and stupid. This doesn’t mean that a more equitable system can’t be developed for a 20+ club men’s comp.

Even the NFL system is flawed, and their system is probably the best of the big leagues over there. Where you get the four division winners, and then the next three teams with the best records regardless of the division they are in. You still get teams finishing 9-7, making finals as a right of way being the Div winner, and a team with 10 wins ends missing out as there is only so many wildcard spots to go around. In the NBA, you get the 10 best teams in each conference making finals. Where you could have 11th ranked team in the west, have 4-5 more wins than the 10th best team in the East who qualify for finals, but they do not.

AFL split into two conferences will likely see the AFL go the route of having the four best teams from each conference making the finals. So it will be inevitable teams with better records miss out as above.

There is no perfect conference system. Personally there is no need for one, as the AFLs current ladder is fine. The only reason we would have one, as another poster above said, is to give fans of teams more things to celebrate. With the increased amount of teams = lower odds of seeing a flag in your lifetime as a fan. If we have two conferences, its really just an extra "minor premiership" trophy. Poor teams are still gonna go many years with nothing to show regardless. Even if we had more than two conferences. The odds of the fixture being made, where you play teams in your own conference twice, is 90% most likely. Which does not solve the issue of fixture fairness, it could even make it worse.

Even if the AFL went with two conference winners, then the six next best teams as you seem to have suggested. Given conferences will likely double up each other fixture wise. You will get the same issue AFLW had. Could get the entire top four last year in one conference, and entire bottom four in the other, and a team slips in with a better W/L because they got to beat up on poor teams twice. Which brings us back to the same issue fans sook about now, some teams getting easier double ups.

At least the AFL single ladder puts the 8 best W/L records in the finals. Conferences won't. All the American leagues have shown that. The worst debate we have at the moment is team A got to play North twice, and team B didn't boohoo! It is less an issue once we hit 20 teams as the double ups will be 3-4 teams at the most. Down from the 7 from a few years back.

If we reach 22 teams, for 21 games and a derby round takes it to two double ups at the most. If fans are still sooking.... Never known any sporting base to complain about fixture as much as the AFL base does.

Lets not turn it into "team A won two more games than team B, and are not playing finals, this system is rigged".

 

[Bjo187]

I’ve always preferred a model of having four conferences of five clubs. Then there’s opportunities for more clubs to win something each season and you can have a much fairer draw, without reducing the number of rounds per season.

For example; play every club in the comp once (19 games) and all clubs in your conference twice (4 games) = 23 game season (11 home, 11 away, one Gather Round).

I see your point but personally I'm not a fan of a bunch of small divisions.

 

[Coolangatta]

Given that no Victorian club will relocate, then it’s probably for the best to cap the comp at 22 teams.

I don’t like the idea of stopping at 20 because I think we need WA3 and ACT.

I’d prefer ACT first in case 20 is the last team and then in about 30 years, WA3 and someone else. That someone else should be the NT if they can secure funding but if they’re ever ruled out then a third team in SA or a second team in Brisbane is probably the next best bet.

 

[_Cerberus_]

Given that no Victorian club will relocate, then it’s probably for the best to cap the comp at 22 teams.

I don’t like the idea of stopping at 20 because I think we need WA3 and ACT.

I’d prefer ACT first in case 20 is the last team and then in about 30 years, WA3 and someone else. That someone else should be the NT if they can secure funding but if they’re ever ruled out then a third team in SA or a second team in Brisbane is probably the next best bet.

I think personally 22 is the perfect number. Even though I rather cap at 20 teams due to the diminishing of the fan experience. Because I agree with your points. We need a team in Canberra, a WA3, and another team likely end up North somewhere (though SA3 in another footy mad state be better). And also it will bring us on the edge of a "fair" fixture AFL fans sook hard for.

Another option is the AFL cuts or relocates one Vic team, make the other Vic teams stronger, to fit in both Canberra and WA3. Keep it at 20. Which won't happen as the team will take it to court fighting tooth and nail, and likely win to stay in. So that will not happen.

22 teams by 2050, and capped at that should be the long term goal. Personally I like to see TAS, Canberra, WA3, SA3, another Northern team, and one less Vic team. Two football mad states enhanced, and a more nationalized competition.

 

[Coolangatta]

I think personally 22 is the perfect number. Even though I rather cap at 20 teams due to the diminishing the fan experience. Because I agree with your points. We need a team in Canberra, a WA3, and another team likely up North somewhere (though SA3 in another footy mad state be better). And also it will bring us on the edge of a "fair" fixture AFL fans sook hard for.

Another option is the AFL cuts or relocates one Vic team, make the other Vic teams stronger, to fit in both Canberra and WA3. Keep it at 20.

Yeah, there’s a few combinations I like:

A. 20 WA3 21 ACT 22 SA3
B. 20 WA3 21 ACT 22 NT
C. 20 ACT 21 NT 22 WA3
D. 20 ACT 21 WA3 22 SA3

I think D is the least likely because I can’t see WA3 or SA3 being on the table as anything other than to even up the number of teams with a safer option.