Expansion AFL Making Conferences

[TradeDraft]

The AFL really are F**king our game up. Can't these idiots JUST LEAVE THE GAME ALONE

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/96547/default.aspx

 

[AG]

lol at the first option. What's the point in having a conference if you play some teams once from the same conference?

If I had to choose from those I'd go with the second option because it is simple. Why do we need a conference though? Have 17 rounds or just do the random draw like always have.

Also 12 teams in the finals is beyond a joke.

 

[Brad Roo]

I actually like this proposal:

• All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions (top six, middle six and bottom six). The top six play each other in the last five games and jostle for ladder positions. The middle six play each other in the last five games and battle for the last available places in the finals (a final eight or 10 could be used). The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention.

It's a lot fairer than what North currently have to put up with.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions (top six, middle six and bottom six). The top six play each other in the last five games and jostle for ladder positions. The middle six play each other in the last five games and battle for the last available places in the finals (a final eight or 10 could be used). The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention.

I'd be fairly confident that suggestion is straight from the pages of Big Footy

 

[Riggy1]

wtf
1) no thanks
2) no thanks
3) **** off
4) I'd prefer not
5) yeah, that's the fairest but it ain't going to happen do to $ that you want

on the preseason model
1) that's ok
2) potential to be huge
3) could be the most entertaining

on the finals model linked
1) hate it
2) even worse
3) just as bad

 

[87Hawk]

I agree. Surely they can just do the fixture how it always as being done. Scrap the pre season comp. Start the season earlier. Do we need to keep following the US. Next we will be wearing body armour and helmets.

 

[Mr Ripper]

The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention.

Group A, Group B and Group Tank.

 

[Riggy1]

I actually like this proposal:



It's a lot fairer than what North currently have to put up with.

It's shit
you've worked your arse off all season long to get to 6th
now you earn the right to play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, while 7th gets to play 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th

it's almost certain 7th after 17 round will jump 6th. Even though 6th has proven to that stage in the season that they're the better team

also, what I dont like about it, is that they're all 22 rounds
I was hoping GOld Coast would force it to 24 rounds (22 games with 2 byes) and then they'd keep the 2 extra rounds for GWS

 

[W.C. Fry]

Anything that makes the fixture more even is a good idea imo.

As it stands atm its just a mess. For an example - Freo has already played both StKilda and Adelaide twice this year - yet not played 5 other teams even once - and play 1 of those sides for the first time in round 21. Its plain unfair atm.

I would be all for having the 3 conferences model. Everyones fixture is even. The only problem with that one is I cant see the AFL dropping down to a 6 team finals series. I am totally against more than an 8 team finals series. A 12 team finals would be a joke.

 

[AG]

Agree with Riggy on that midseason draw based on ladder positions. The AFL are complicating the draw for no reason.

 

[Brad Roo]

It's shit
you've worked your arse off all season long to get to 6th
now you earn the right to play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, while 7th gets to play 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th

North have more pressing i$$ue$ to worry about.

At least under this model we get a chance of playing Essendon, Collingwood or Carlton twice in a season as opposed to constant home games against Freo, Port and West Coast.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Group A, Group B and Group Tank.

Actually the suggestion that came from BF a month or so ago was this group was then allocated draft picks based on how high they finished. I didn't see that in this proposal - but that concept was put forward by a poster on here months ago.


I'd rather see divisions than Conferences. If we do get to 20 teams - i'd rather see 2 divisions of 10 teams - with a relegation/promotion system.

For teams in the top 10 - i want to see them going hell for leather to avoid finishing bottom 2. Plus for the lesser teams - a finals system to see who gets promoted.

I want to see a bigger penalty for finishing last - rather than a reward.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Option 2 only with the finals done different should be top 2 teams of each conferce qualify for finals plus the 2 best performed teams that didn't make top 2 in their conference.

Anyone want to bet that Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon will all be in the same conference and that it wont include any non-victorian sides

Would be something like this:

Western Conference
West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
Victorian Club 1 (North Melbourne)
Victorian Club 2 (Western Bulldogs)

Northern Conference
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
Western Sydney
Victorian Team 3 (Richmond)
Victorian Team 4 (Hawthorn)

Southern Conference (Foundation Clubs that haven't been Relocated)
Collingwood
Carlton
Essendon
Victorian Team 5 (Geelong)
Victorian Team 6 (Melbourne)
Victorian Team 7 (St Kilda)

 

[Underdog]

It's shit
you've worked your arse off all season long to get to 6th
now you earn the right to play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, while 7th gets to play 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th

it's almost certain 7th after 17 round will jump 6th. Even though 6th has proven to that stage in the season that they're the better team

also, what I dont like about it, is that they're all 22 rounds
I was hoping GOld Coast would force it to 24 rounds (22 games with 2 byes) and then they'd keep the 2 extra rounds for GWS

I thought the idea meant those clubs would be locked in that 6. So if 6 lose every game, they will be at the bottom of their group and remain 6th.

 

[W.C. Fry]

It's shit
you've worked your arse off all season long to get to 6th
now you earn the right to play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, while 7th gets to play 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th

it's almost certain 7th after 17 round will jump 6th. Even though 6th has proven to that stage in the season that they're the better team

also, what I dont like about it, is that they're all 22 rounds
I was hoping GOld Coast would force it to 24 rounds (22 games with 2 byes) and then they'd keep the 2 extra rounds for GWS

You dont get it. After each team has played each other once the ladder thirds are locked in. The top 3rd cant drop any lower than 6th. The middle third cant go any higher than 7th.

That model is ok except for the bottom third. What a joke that will be. Who would want to go watch the worst sides tank it out to see who can lose their way to the best draft picks.

 

[Riggy1]

I thought the idea meant those clubs would be locked in that 6. So if 6 lose every game, they will be at the bottom of their group and remain 6th.

fair enough
the 1st 2 sentances disgusted me so I stopped reading that specidic point
It has now become my favourite

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It's shit
you've worked your arse off all season long to get to 6th
now you earn the right to play 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th, while 7th gets to play 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th

it's almost certain 7th after 17 round will jump 6th. Even though 6th has proven to that stage in the season that they're the better team

Fairly sure in that scenario - the worst 6th can finsish - is 6th.

7th to 12th are fighting over spots 7 and 8.

 

[UpForGrabs]

This bit I do like;

The fixture is locked in for three years at a time, meaning clubs play each other four times (twice at home and twice away) over that period.

It's about 10 years too late, but if we can't play each team twice a year, then this is the only step towards a fair draw and not one which is solely based on TV revenue.

 

[Brad Roo]

Fairly sure in that scenario - the worst 6th can finsish - is 6th.

7th to 12th are fighting over spots 7 and 8.

Yep. Tanking in the draft could also be fixed up by having a lottery system for picks in the lower 2 conferences.

The more I think about it, the more I think option 5 is actually much better than the existing model.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So running through them:

1) Dividing the 18 clubs into two conferences - play 13 games against sides in their conference (play five teams twice and three teams once) and nine games against teams from the other conference. At the end of the home-and-away season, between four and six teams from each conference qualify for the finals.

The competition has enough draw inequities without creating them within each conference as well. At least it has the prospect of a final 8 still (no to 12)

2) Dividing the 18 clubs into three conferences - play all teams in the same conference twice (10 games) and the teams in the other two conferences once (12 games). After the end of the home-and-away season either two or four teams from each conference qualify for the finals.

Still has the same old draw inequities but if you are going to have them anyway, you might as well conference them. Obviously Port/Adelaide, West Coast/Freo, Sydney/GWS, Brisbane/Gold Coast and Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon maybe Richmond would end up in a conference, as they will be playing those games twice a year regardless of the format.

I suggest that the two Sydney teams and two Qld teams will end up in the same conference, but I wouldn't want to be the two non-blockbuster Vic teams getting shoved in with them. You could put two of them into the so called blockbuster conference but I can see where a couple of Vic teams would want to be there for an all Vic conference and the prospect of better gate returns.

This leaves room for a final 6 or final 12. Both are unacceptable to me.

I would send through the top 2 from each conference with 2 wildcards from the best of the rest as per the NFL.

3) All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions (top six, middle six and bottom six). The top six play each other in the last five games and jostle for ladder positions. The middle six play each other in the last five games and battle for the last available places in the finals (a final eight or 10 could be used). The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention.

Nooo. Imagine being team 6 in a final 8 competition, but only a game or two separating 6th from 9th. You have to go up against teams above you for the final 5 rounds while team 9 gets 3 games against teams below them and 2 games against teams not too far above them.

If a team was sitting in 6th after round 16, you would strongly consider tanking in round 17 to fall to 7th and have a cruisy run home.

4. All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions. In contrast to the previous model, division one includes the clubs that are first, sixth, seventh, 10th, 13th and 18th on the ladder. Division two is the clubs who are second, fifth, eighth, 11th, 14th and 17th. Division three is made up of those that are third, fourth, ninth, 12th, 15th and 16. Clubs play the others in their division in the final five games of the season, then the top two or four from each division qualify for the finals.

This would work well actually. Might create scheduling problems for fans, might cause extra travel for some teams, but it is random and all teams can be affected by it. I wouldn't divide them into conferences to decide who is going through though. They can be divided into conferences for the purpose of the draw but the ladder should still reflect all 18 teams and the top 8 go through.

5. The fixture is locked in for three years at a time, meaning clubs play each other four times (twice at home and twice away) over that period.

The fairest way, so obviously the best ..... BUT will the AFL take the financial risk? They do like their blockbusters and derbies.

 

[jedi master]

I actually like this proposal:

• All teams play each other once in rounds one to 17. After round 17, clubs are reallocated into three divisions based on their ladder positions (top six, middle six and bottom six). The top six play each other in the last five games and jostle for ladder positions. The middle six play each other in the last five games and battle for the last available places in the finals (a final eight or 10 could be used). The bottom six play each other in the last five games, but they are already excluded from finals contention

It's a lot fairer than what North currently have to put up with.

What, so five weeks out from the finals, have a mini-finals series? And then commence the real finals?

What a load of crapola ... Doubt AFL clubs would like that either

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Option 2 & 5 are the best provided they alter option 2's final system

Personally I think the fairest option of decideing which vic teams go into which conference would be a random draw but that will never happen.

 

[Brad Roo]

What, so five weeks out from the finals, have a mini-finals series? And then commence the real finals?

What a load of crapola ... Doubt AFL clubs would like that either

How is the best sides playing against each other, bad for the game?

 

[UpForGrabs]

I'm vehemently opposed to the splitting up of the competition after a certain number of rounds. Makes the league look like a joke.

Conferences might work - but again, I've got severe reservations as it will mean that this will be the breakdown;

1) Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Geelong, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs.
2) West Coast, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle, Brisbane, Sydney, GC, GWS, North Melbourne.

Just so the AFL could still have their blockbusters (also to ensure a VIC team in the Grand Final).

The other thing about conferences is that it throws up the possibility that the two best teams in the league can never play in the GF against each other because they're in the same conference.

 

[pinion]

i'm all for making the draw more systematic, but these ideas are almost all terrible

1. conferences. don't want them. i don't want to see a complicated looking ladder, just give me 1-18 in a list the way you always have

2. has merit, but there's no need to have teams in separate conferences. use last year's ladder to rank the teams into conferences, use the conferences as a guide to making the draw equitable, then show all teams on the one ladder

3. i'm not 100% sure how this one works - does the performance of round 1-17 count, or are final positions based only on the last 5 weeks? either way, it leaves too many teams with nothing to play for at the end of the season, and if only the last 5 weeks are counted then it really disadvantages a team hit by injuries at the wrong end of the year. if this model were around last year the cats probably would have missed the top 4

4. is a great way to avoid any interesting games what so ever in the last few weeks of the season. the best team to challenge the top team is 7th?

5. perfect, but can't see the AFL doing away with rivals playing twice per year

pre-season comp:

don't care, work on the number of games the season needs to be and work backwards as to how much time there is before the season starts. practice matches suit me fine.

finals:

don't touch the 8!