20th AFL Team

[Roylion]

but they get more fans and its good for the nt as well

The North members would prefer that the club focus their efforts on growing their fan base in Victoria. I don’t think they would really care what was good for the NT.

 

[Rob]

they don't need to since they are not in debt but they get more fans and its good for the nt as well

As long as the AFL are going to pay the bills, no club is going to voluntarily relocate.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Big NO to conferences for me. People seem to forget the disaster that the AFLW conferences were. When you had like 5 of the best 6 teams in the league in one conference or something like that, and poor teams making the finals. Since AFL fans are the biggest and only sooks in the world about whether they play hard or good teams twice. Imagine the outrage of fans if one conference was lopsided as, say the entire current top 8 made up one conference.

All it does is create a second ladder for no reason or gain. If it was about playing teams in your conference more times than the other. Then it will be a boring repeat of fixtures each season. I actually get excited at who we play a second time, and see if its a team we have not doubled up on in a decade. Could end up with an even less fair fixture.

And the best teams may not even make the finals, if they based it on a top four in each conference. The current ladder system is fine, and the more teams will = one less double up fixture and one step closer to the "fair" fixture people sook about. And the best eight teams will make the finals based on win / loss record. Imagine winning two more games, and not making finals over a team in another conference that won two less?

As for a two tier promotion / relegation system. Heaps of reasons why it would not work here.

The current model is fine and can sustain up to 22 teams. And we will all be dead before the AFL expands beyond 20, so would not be to worried about it.

I see things differently in regards to a few of your points:

1. The AFLW conference system was flawed by allowing the top 2 from each conference to progress to a 4 team finals series. A better system is to have the conference winners automatically qualify for finals and then all other qualifiers determined by the best records (from any conference). This ensures that teams with good records in hard conferences can still progress.

2. There is a reason or gain for creating conferences. It’s providing more clubs with the opportunity to win something each year, keep fans engaged and reduce the number of dead-rubber games near the end of the fixture. As mentioned, with more clubs being added, teams will have reduced probability of experiencing success. Other sports leagues with 20+ teams are structured to combat this. In US Sports, teams can win divisional, league, conference championships before progressing to the big dance. In Euro soccer leagues, clubs also vie for European qualification/avoid relegation. We currently have a premiership and nothing. Fine in a 12 team state league, doubtful if sufficient for a 20 team national comp.

3. Conferences could be utilised to make a fixture that’s less random whilst retaining a 23-round season. You see that as a negative, that’s a positive for me. If the double ups were always guaranteed against the same opponents then I think that could help build rivalries within each conference.

4. I agree with you about promotion/relegation; that won’t work for our sport.

 

[Rob]

I see things differently in regards to a few of your points:

1. The AFLW conference system was flawed by allowing the top 2 from each conference to progress to a 4 team finals series. A better system is to have the conference winners automatically qualify for finals and then all other qualifiers determined by the best records (from any conference). This ensures that teams with good records in hard conferences can still progress.

The main reason it was flawed is that the draw was still not even. I think it was a 6 team, 2 conference system that should have meant each team plays 10 games, twice against every team in it's own conference. Instead it was another mishmash of a draw with teams playing all over the place with seemingly no logic to it. I don't even think teams played every team in their own conference. It made the conferences utterly pointless, they may as well have just had 1 ladder.

The good thing about the proposed conference system above is that every team in each conference has the same draw, they play exactly the same opponents twice. I agree with pretty much everything else you said though.

2. There is a reason or gain for creating conferences. It’s providing more clubs with the opportunity to win something each year, keep fans engaged and reduce the number of dead-rubber games near the end of the fixture. As mentioned, with more clubs being added, teams will have reduced probability of experiencing success. Other sports leagues with 20+ teams are structured to combat this. In US Sports, teams can win divisional, league, conference championships before progressing to the big dance. In Euro soccer leagues, clubs also vie for European qualification/avoid relegation. We currently have a premiership and nothing. Fine in a 12 team state league, doubtful if sufficient for a 20 team national comp.

3. Conferences could be utilised to make a fixture that’s less random whilst retaining a 23-round season. You see that as a negative, that’s a positive for me. If the double ups were always guaranteed against the same opponents then I think that could help build rivalries within each conference.

4. I agree with you about promotion/relegation; that won’t work for our sport.

 

[1990crow]

If there was 20 teams you could legitimately look at restructuring the season.

20 round season where everyone plays each other once, with one extra cross town rival game.

Then a top 10 finals series (extra week needed).
So essentially only really lose one week of football.

Could make that week up with State of Origin.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The main reason it was flawed is that the draw was still not even. I think it was a 6 team, 2 conference system that should have meant each team plays 10 games, twice against every team in it's own conference. Instead it was another mishmash of a draw with teams playing all over the place with seemingly no logic to it. I don't even think teams played every team in their own conference. It made the conferences utterly pointless, they may as well have just had 1 ladder.

The good thing about the proposed conference system above is that every team in each conference has the same draw, they play exactly the same opponents twice. I agree with pretty much everything else you said though.

That’s right. They stuffed up the AFLW conferences on so many levels. It was always going to be a poor test case anyway since the league had fewer teams and rounds back then.

 

[Prince Imperial]

the simplest structure would be AFL Vs VFL.
Advantages:
That would appease the Victorians with a retujrn to the VFL.
The VFL grand final would fulfill the MCG contract with the AFL grand final mobile.
Thre big finals - VFL, AFL, superbowl.
More steps on the ladder to make fans happy with more silverwear.

A significant disadvantage would be for Swans and Lions fans in Victoria of which there are a fair number who would get to see their teams less (maybe only twice) and non-Vic fans would complain that the Vic clubs would travel less during the season.

However, overall, I think it would be a great thing as it would turbo charge crowds in Melbourne. The AFL would make more money from Marvel and it could reduce distributions to Melbourne clubs. It could then invest that in junior development across the nation to take on soccer and basketball and video games.

 

[BigChippa52]

The North members would prefer that the club focus their efforts on growing their fan base in Victoria. I don’t think they would really care what was good for the NT.

agree i think its more about the nt than the club but I don't think saints would work out up there but north would

 

[Roylion]

I don't think saints would work out up there but north would

Why?

 

[BigChippa52]

Why?

The fans won't back them, i feel like north would be backed more but the nt deserve their own team if not make a struggling team split home games up there

 

[MelbourneGWS]

The fans won't back them, i feel like north would be backed more but the nt deserve their own team if not make a struggling team split home games up there

I would have thought Canberra or WA3 would be the more likely to be team 20 before a standalone NT team

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I would have thought Canberra or WA3 would be the more likely to be team 20 before a standalone NT team

I agree. Look at the level of government support required for Tassie. A standalone NT club would need way more funding than that considering how small the population is. The Carter review of the business case for the Tassie licence put the concept of co-locations on the agenda. Realistically, I think that’s a more suitable goal for the NT due to the obvious challenges in terms of population, finances, distance and climate.

 

[BigChippa52]

a

I would have thought Canberra or WA3 would be the more likely to be team 20 before a standalone NT team

I agree but the AFL also may not want 22 teams and stick to 20 after Canberra and Tassie so the idea of a team splitting games or relocating to the NT may happen

 

[MelbourneGWS]

a

I agree but the AFL also may not want 22 teams and stick to 20 after Canberra and Tassie so the idea of a team splitting games or relocating to the NT may happen

I agree - given the delay in Tasmania getting a team if its own and how risk averse the AFL has been in expanding after Gold Coast/ GWS, I think it will be a long long time before we expand beyond 20 teams. Splitting games or Victorian teams having exclusive secondary regional markets are more likely after the admission of a 20th team?

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I agree - given the delay in Tasmania getting a team if its own and how risk averse the AFL has been in expanding after Gold Coast/ GWS, I think it will be a long long time before we expand beyond 20 teams. Splitting games or Victorian teams having exclusive secondary regional markets are more likely after the admission of a 20th team?

You’d have to say that’s the most likely outcome for a good 15 years or so after team 20. Unless, in the interim, the game takes off significantly in Qld or NSW.

 

[Bjo187]

You’d have to say that’s the most likely outcome for a good 15 years or so after team 20. Unless, in the interim, the game takes off significantly in Qld or NSW.

The game would have taken off in nsw and qld already had it not been for an anti afl media campaign out of the Sydney (nrl) media for the last however many years. They unfortunately control the national media too. It's the main thing that holds the game back up there.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The game would have taken off in nsw and qld already had it not been for an anti afl media campaign out of the Sydney (nrl) media for the last however many years. They unfortunately control the national media too. It's the main thing that holds the game back up there.

For sure, that’s a factor. However, I think the impact of it is becoming less relevant as consumption of traditional media declines.

 

[madmug]

The game would have taken off in nsw and qld already had it not been for an anti afl media campaign out of the Sydney (nrl) media for the last however many years. They unfortunately control the national media too. It's the main thing that holds the game back up there.

'The game' has been played in NSW & Qld for 150years. I think there are other reasons than 'anti AFL media' to be considered here.

 

[Xtreme]

Darwin, NT or give the people what they want (and a reason for GMHBA existing) - a second team in Geelong!!

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Darwin, NT or give the people what they want (and a reason for GMHBA existing) - a second team in Geelong!!

The NT are clearly keen since they’ve previously had a feasibility study completed. However, I’m not sure how they’d be financially viable as a standalone club. Even 10 years from now they’re predicted to still have fewer than 300k people. Tassie has nearly double that now and have been given much tougher entry requirements than any other club in history, so can’t see the AFL accepting a significantly smaller market.

After pandemic population disruptions, here's where Australia's cities are headed - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

 

[Bjo187]

'The game' has been played in NSW & Qld for 150years. I think there are other reasons than 'anti AFL media' to be considered here.

Are you suggesting the game isn't good enough? Governments in those states in the past tried to ban Australian football. So yes it was played there, but government and now media and the so called Melbourne/ Sydney competitiveness has stunted the potential growth of the game in the northern states.

What do you think the reasons are?

 

[Seedsfan]

Are you suggesting the game isn't good enough? Governments in those states in the past tried to ban Australian football. So yes it was played there, but government and now media and the so called Melbourne/ Sydney competitiveness has stunted the potential growth of the game in the northern states.

What do you think the reasons are?

The fact that people like rugby and rugby league

 

[RedV3x]

'The game' has been played in NSW & Qld for 150years.

Yes it has and despite being "banned' from enclosed ovals and schools the game survived and survived well
up untill professional rugby (rugby league) came along.
Even so Australian Football was much stronger than most people give it credit for.

I think there are other reasons than 'anti AFL media' to be considered here.

Some people state that's there's no such thing as bad publicity.
All the code war, anti-VFL hysteria actually promoted the fact that elite Australian Football had arrived.
All the code war, anti-VFL hysteria did was to reinforce peoples established stances.
What really hurt was the lack of coverage- virtually nil for away games and nothing relative to the size of AFL attendances.
Today, nothing much has changed, but having an AFL home game every week, Swans & Lions premierships have made a difference.

 

[Bjo187]

The fact that people like rugby and rugby league

That's fair enough, but if the game was promoted as an 'alternative' instead of a 'threat'. Instead of

• A Victorian invasion
• 'Us against them' propaganda for 100 years in NSW.
• Instead promoted as 'Australia's own game to be proud of'.

It would probably be comparative to rugby league in size, instead it has been handbraked for 100 years. There are books about this stuff.

 

[Canberra Pear]

The NT are clearly keen since they’ve previously had a feasibility study completed. However, I’m not sure how they’d be financially viable as a standalone club. Even 10 years from now they’re predicted to still have fewer than 300k people. Tassie has nearly double that now and have been given much tougher entry requirements than any other club in history, so can’t see the AFL accepting a significantly smaller market.

After pandemic population disruptions, here's where Australia's cities are headed - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

Plus the fact that only half of that population will be in the one city.

Darwin and Alice Springs are 1500km apart (seven times further than the Launceston/Hobart gap). The NT might reach 300k, but half of the them won't be able to get to most games.