20th AFL Team

[Coolangatta]

Also, the St Kilda having to play twice in WA every year argument is nonsense.

If starting off with 20 teams you’d have a Victorian conference.

Two divisions: Victoria East and Victoria West. Division teams play twice, conference teams once. 5 home and 5 away against interstate conference teams.

Interstate conference, north and southwest divisions. North = NSW/QLD/ACT, south west = WA/SA/TAS.

Then it can be tweaked from there.

But the general idea is to give clubs more to play for. Division champions, conference champions, and the big one, GF winners. It’s true that a problem would be no one caring about anything besides the being GF winner but maybe over a generation that would change.

 

[Coolangatta]

I don’t get the appeal of conferences at all.

Why would you want to play the same teams twice every season?

Isn’t that what happens already? Yes we have a weighted fixture, but the AFL still chooses their favourite blockbusters year in, year out.

 

[1990crow]

Canberra makes sense to me. Strengthen the ties between Victoria and Sydney. Force GWS to focus on community uplift in western Sydney and growing their fan base there (which was supposed to be the point).

Then relocate North and Saints to the next markets who should have their own team - Sunshine Coast and WA3.

 

[RedV3x]

Why would you want to play the same teams twice every season?

You must be young because that's the way it was - one home game and one away game for all teams.

I don’t get the appeal of conferences at all.

That's Ok, because you haven't experienced conferences.
Can you imagine a fan of the NFL being told we're going to a straight 32 team league
or the EPL saying that they were going to abolish divisions.
There is a reason for conferences and that is the large number of teams.

 

[Coolangatta]

Canberra makes sense to me. Strengthen the ties between Victoria and Sydney. Force GWS to focus on community uplift in western Sydney and growing their fan base there (which was supposed to be the point).

Then relocate North and Saints to the next markets who should have their own team - Sunshine Coast and WA3.

Yes to the first, no to the second.

I’ve advocated for relocation/mergers before out of concern that too many teams spreads the talent too thin. If population and grassroots keep up this shouldn’t be an issue, though, as the AFL isn’t rushing expansion.

As Walshawk has said, we might not even get to 20 teams, let alone more than that. I think we will but it’ll take a long time.

I like your choices for team 21 and 22, but it would be better if they were brand new teams.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

1. If clubs don’t care currently about finishing top, why would they care about finishing on top of half/third/quarter of the teams? The only thing that counts is winning the GF. That is ingrained in footy culture. A conference final would be seen as the same as a semi final. All focus would be on the next week.

Footy culture can change. If finishing top of a conference gave an automatic free pass to the finals while the rest had to scrap in a wild card round, it would become pretty valuable.

2. How does that make the fixture more fair? Playing fewer teams more often actually increases the likelihood of unfair draws as some conferences will be stronger and some weaker.

It makes it more regular at least, if you had to play every team once and then the same clubs twice. I would imagine that free agents would consider not just whether a club is a flag threat but whether they're in a weaker conference, which means an easier path to the finals (and through the finals).

3. The only way to reduce travel is to have a Vic and non-Vic conference. That way Vic clubs would travel less, but other clubs would still travel the same amount of times. Conferences do not help with this. WC would still travel 20 times. This makes no sense. They might get one extra shorter flight to Adelaide. That is about it.

What if you had four conferences instead of two, each with five teams? There will always be more travel for non-Victorian teams, that's never going to change. The best we can do is reduce the distance travelled, with fewer trips between WA and QLD/NSW.

4. By reducing the range of teams you play twice, you actually make it tougher to continue with the best rivalries - splitting up clubs permanently is not a good idea.

And new ones will form. One rivalry is as good as another. Is there that big a difference between Collingwood-Carlton and Collingwood-Richmond?

The flexibility of the current draw allows for rivalry games to be fixtured as they occur. E.g. Buddy goes to Sydney and instantly there was one of the leagues biggest rivalries for five years.

What, and that's not arbitrary?

 

[Coolangatta]

You must be young because that's the way it was - one home game and one away game for all teams.



That's Ok, because you haven't experienced conferences.
Can you imagine a fan of the NFL being told we're going to a straight 32 team league
or the EPL saying that they were going to abolish divisions.
There is a reason for conferences and that is the large number of teams.

Let’s face it, the AFL will move to conferences eventually if they keep adding teams. A lot of people will complain but they’ll still watch the best league for that sport in the land. The NFL is a massively successful league.

 

[1990crow]

Yes to the first, no to the second.

I’ve advocated for relocation/mergers before out of concern that too many teams spreads the talent too thin. If population and grassroots keep up this shouldn’t be an issue, though, as the AFL isn’t rushing expansion.

As Walshawk has said, we might not even get to 20 teams, let alone more than that. I think we will but it’ll take a long time.

I like your choices for team 21 and 22, but it would be better if they were brand new teams.

I agree it would be better if they were new. I'm not keen to expand past 20 teams though, club fans should have a realistic chance at more than 1 or 2 flags in their lifetime. I think there would be a risk some fans lose interest as a result.

Removing saints and north who aren't economically sustainable in modern AFL, creating a less Victorian dominated league, and moving to grow elsewhere makes the most sense.

 

[1990crow]

Let’s face it, the AFL will move to conferences eventually if they keep adding teams. A lot of people will complain but they’ll still watch the best league for that sport in the land. The NFL is a massively successful league.

Australia is a different market. We don't have college football so most fans only have one team they follow.

 

[Coolangatta]

I agree it would be better if they were new. I'm not keen to expand past 20 teams though, club fans should have a realistic chance at more than 1 or 2 flags in their lifetime. I think there would be a risk some fans lose interest as a result.

Removing saints and north who aren't economically sustainable in modern AFL, creating a less Victorian dominated league, and moving to grow elsewhere makes the most sense.

Haha brave words on BF. It’s complicated. All Vic clubs bring in the TV dollars but I don’t know how much of that is skewed by playing the biggest Vic clubs.

Defenders argue that the club funding model takes into account clubs getting better fixtures financially than others. My counter argument is that the likes of St Kilda and North would get a more profitable fixture if they were as good for ratings as Collingwood and Richmond are, but they aren’t.

So I think the funding model gives good insight into which clubs are big and which aren’t. Semantics though, you could argue some clubs are big and some are juggernauts.

Australia is a different market. We don't have college football so most fans only have one team they follow.

That could change if state leagues become stronger but I’m not sure they will.

 

[RedV3x]

Australia is a different market.

Yes, Australia is a different market, different population, different distribution and different product.

We don't have college football so most fans only have one team they follow.

What has colleges to do with conferences ?
I don't understand what poit you are trying to make with following only one team.
Are you saying Americans follow college and NFL teams ?
I follow the AFL PFL WAAF and WAWFL.

 

[RedV3x]

Removing saints and north who aren't economically sustainable in modern AFL,

Who says that ?

 

[RedV3x]

A lot of people will complain .

As did a lot of people complain when they introduced the weighted fixtures.
People always complain about change.

 

[Dirty Bird]

After all this expansion talk and including my own contributions, it'd be hilariously ironic if there's no more teams ever after Tasmania. It'd suck for Canberra Pear but it is a possibility.

In any case, I've come around tenfold to the idea of conferences if the AFL ever go big but like you said, that may never happen.

Conferences CAN be done right.
But most models is done bad.

You need equality between Vic and Non-Vic.

If we get a WA/SA/Tas conference, NSW/ACT/QLD conference, then 2x Vic conferences. **** off.

But say the 4 conferences involve 1 state filled in with Vic. Absolutely no problem with that.

Sure, some people will b*tch and moan that they get stuck with vic teams they dont care about rather than a larger supported club like any of the big 4 teams. But some sacrifices need to be made.

There's also an idea I saw in the past with the old WAC's plans (before the MWC was formed)
Pods - You keep a few teams together, but rotate with others.

So you could be Brisbane/Gold Coast. You're stuck together perpetually. But you wont be stuck with North Melbourne/Melbourne perpetually. You'd rotate through the Vic teams.

 

[Coolangatta]

Another way of doing the split of a hypothetical 32 team AFL comp is North-West and South-East League.

NW

West Coast Eagles
Fremantle Dockers
Perth Quokkas
Murray Dolphins
Adelaide Crows
Port Adelaide Power
South Adelaide Scorpions
Northern Territory Crocodiles
Sydney Swans
Western Sydney Giants
North Sydney Bears
South Sydney Kings
Brisbane Lions
Gold Coast Suns
North Queensland Sharks
Sunshine Coast Pirates

SE

Carlton Blues
Collingwood Magpies
Essendon Bombers
Richmond Tigers
Hawthorn Hawks
Geelong Cats
Melbourne Demons
St Kilda Saints
North Melbourne Kangaroos
Western Bulldogs
Riverina Rangers
Canberra Rams
Goldfield Miners
Tasmania Devils
North Tasmania Titans
New Zealand Knights

^ Leagues can be arranged differently. Split can begin as early as 20 teams = 2x10, playing twice + 5 against other league = 23 games. Adjust to teams playing each other once accordingly.

16 teams play each other once + 8 teams (4 each home and away) from the other league, rotating twice = 23 games, 11 home, 11 away, 1 neutral. Winners of each top 8 finals series play off in the GF.

Pros: You'd play every team once every second year instead of every four years
Cons: Hard league versus easy league, hard fixture versus easy fixture but latter is already an issue
Cons: Less to win, can only be SW or SE champion or Premiers. Divisions give more clubs a chance to win something.

But 2/32 = 1/16 better than 1/32.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Canberra makes sense to me. Strengthen the ties between Victoria and Sydney. Force GWS to focus on community uplift in western Sydney and growing their fan base there (which was supposed to be the point).

Then relocate North and Saints to the next markets who should have their own team - Sunshine Coast and WA3.

The ONLY reason I'd EVER look at relocating (or merging) teams in Victoria is if we're looking at selling Marvel Stadium and consolidating all Melbourne teams at the MCG. HOWEVER, my issue with that is it basically locks Melbourne into hosting Friday night games perpetually. Which I'm adamantly against. So if that happens, you'd demand no more than 3 games in Melbourne a week
So you'd probably look at 8 teams in Vic and in weeks Geelong don't have a home game at Kardinia Park, there is a game sold elsewhere.

Though - Could you do a turnaround at the MCG where you get 1 set of fans out, and another in between a Saturday afternoon and night game

 

[Coolangatta]

Victorian Conference can only work if the fixture is the same.

So you get to 20 teams, they play each other once + a rival round and maybe a couple others.

Only difference is there's two ladders: Victoria, Interstate

Each has 10 teams and a top 5 finals system. You're much closer to making finals from 10th than you are from 20th. Vic and Interstate have their own finals series.

GF = Vic conference champion versus Interstate conference champion, but get rid of the MCG contract if you're going to do that.

Can keep adding teams to the interstate conference and everyone plays once still works.

If you get to 30 teams (10 Vic 20 interstate) then break up the interstate league into two so now you have three leagues with the interstate leagues having a crossover finals series so it’s still Vic v interstate champion.

By 25 or 26 teams not everyone would play each other once, with rotational meetings to ensure you don’t go a decade without playing a club.

 

[Warwick]

You must be young because that's the way it was - one home game and one away game for all teams.



That's Ok, because you haven't experienced conferences.
Can you imagine a fan of the NFL being told we're going to a straight 32 team league
or the EPL saying that they were going to abolish divisions.
There is a reason for conferences and that is the large number of teams.

I’m old enough to remember H&A matches against all teams. Unfortunately (age wise). And also, I’m not talking about playing ALL teams twice. I don’t want to play the same 5-6 teams twice every year.

Conferences are completely different to divisions.

 

[Coolangatta]

Conferences CAN be done right.
But most models is done bad.

You need equality between Vic and Non-Vic.

If we get a WA/SA/Tas conference, NSW/ACT/QLD conference, then 2x Vic conferences. **** off.

But say the 4 conferences involve 1 state filled in with Vic. Absolutely no problem with that.

Sure, some people will b*tch and moan that they get stuck with vic teams they dont care about rather than a larger supported club like any of the big 4 teams. But some sacrifices need to be made.

There's also an idea I saw in the past with the old WAC's plans (before the MWC was formed)
Pods - You keep a few teams together, but rotate with others.

So you could be Brisbane/Gold Coast. You're stuck together perpetually. But you wont be stuck with North Melbourne/Melbourne perpetually. You'd rotate through the Vic teams.

Yeah, rotations are a good idea. I'd have 4 conferences, 5 teams each. Tempting to do 5 cons with 4 each but since Canberra is my preferred team 20 I'd keep them together with Sydney/GWS.

A: Eagles, Freo, 3 rotating Vic sides
B: Crows, Power, Tasmania, 2 rotating Vic sides (keep Tassie with SA teams to reduce travelling burden)
C: Swans, Giants, Canberra, 2 rotating Vic sides
D: Lions, Suns, 3 rotating Vic sides

 

[Coolangatta]

I mean, you could still have 20 teams in a single tier competition but beyond that is arguably too many.

So if 21 you could start conferences. Suppose ACT and WA3 are next after Tassie you’d go:

3 WA, 2 Vic rotating
2 SA, 1 TAS, 2 Vic rotating
2 NSW, 1 ACT, 3 Vic rotating
2 QLD, 3 Vic rotating

Pretty straightforward. Not hard to update it once the next team comes in after that.

Eventually you’d switch from 6-6-6-5 to 4-4-4-4-4-4, then 6-5-5-5-5-5 to 4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4.

After that, just watch what the NFL did when they added teams 33-40.

 

[terrybull]

In the end you probably need to do what the VFA did when they let in more teams. Two divisions. Promotion and relegation.

10 teams in each division

Final 5 series in both

Premiers division 2 play wooden spooners division 1 for place in division 1 the following year.

Draft picks as now. Team 20 gets 1st pick and so on.

Pre-season cup involving all 20 teams.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

You need equality between Vic and Non-Vic.

You will never, ever get equality between Vic and non-Vic. It would require as many teams in SA and WA as there are in Victoria, and that's never going to happen. I agree it's a good thing if it's more equal, but inequality will only ever be mitigated, never removed.

If we get a WA/SA/Tas conference, NSW/ACT/QLD conference, then 2x Vic conferences. **** off.

But say the 4 conferences involve 1 state filled in with Vic. Absolutely no problem with that.

How do Tasmania and (if they get a team) Canberra fit into this? Does Canberra get thrown into the NSW+Vic conference and Tasmania into the SA+Vic one?

Sure, some people will b*tch and moan that they get stuck with vic teams they dont care about rather than a larger supported club like any of the big 4 teams. But some sacrifices need to be made.

I agree, this is no barrier. It'd be nice to split the big four up into different conferences, but we all know the AFL would never let that happen, they need their blockbusters.

There's also an idea I saw in the past with the old WAC's plans (before the MWC was formed)
Pods - You keep a few teams together, but rotate with others.

I don't like it due to the lack of permanence making rivalries harder to form.

 

[Warwick]

I mean, you could still have 20 teams in a single tier competition but beyond that is arguably too many.

So if 21 you could start conferences. Suppose ACT and WA3 are next after Tassie you’d go:

3 WA, 2 Vic rotating
2 SA, 1 TAS, 2 Vic rotating
2 NSW, 1 ACT, 3 Vic rotating
2 QLD, 3 Vic rotating

Pretty straightforward. Not hard to update it once the next team comes in after that.

Eventually you’d switch from 6-6-6-5 to 4-4-4-4-4-4, then 6-5-5-5-5-5 to 4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4.

After that, just watch what the NFL did when they added teams 33-40.

 

[Warwick]

What about 20 teams, you play every team once, 19 rounds, final 8, one grand final and one premier?

If you played a team at home the year before, you play them away the following year.

No conferences.
No conference play offs.
No rotating teams.
No manufactured rivalries.

 

[Coolangatta]

What about 20 teams, you play every team once, 19 rounds, final 8, one grand final and one premier?

If you played a team at home the year before, you play them away the following year.

No conferences.
No conference play offs.
No rotating teams.
No manufactured rivalries.

They’re not going from 23 rounds down to 19, never gonna happen.

Then again conference’s probably wouldn’t either.

You could run single tier up until 25 teams, 24 rounds, top 12. That’s 1/25 chance of winning a premiership, though, with nothing else up for grabs.

Not sure what they’d do after that if there were ever that many but it probably won’t ever get to that point.