Big Jack's two divisions

[Pessimistic]

How many people agree with Big Jack Elliots proposal for two divisions ? Ironic when he was a big mover and shaker for the VFL becoming AFL in the first place.

Those who might agree might not agree on the split. While there are two vic clubs needed to make up the Interstate division there will be no agreement. Would you want your club to be in the division ? Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Geelong and Melbourne certainly won't like the implied 'dig' that they are in trouble and as good as interstate

My proposal would be for Western and Northern divisions. Western is the WA and SA clubs, Geelong plus Colonial clubs. Northern is Sydney Brisbane and MCG Clubs. Over time a rotation system could be developed where 2-4 clubs switch divisions each year

The Divisions

WESTERN (in geographical order)

Fremantle
West Coast
Port Adel.
Adelaide
Geelong
Essendon
Bulldogs
St Kilda

NORTHERN (in geographical order)
Brisbane
Sydney
Carlton
Kangaroos
Collingwood
Hawthorn
Richmond
Melbourne

This would have distinct advantages

1. IS clubs have less 'cross' country trips such as perth-brisbane

2. Vic clubs play many more games at their home ground as play second games against co-tenants

3. Essendon play carlton, collingwood less but tough - they chose colonial stadium. Essendon should be a MCG club so kangaroos could swap divisions with them

 

[Jaffa]

I don't think having the same groups all the time would be good for football at all.

If you used the two conference system purely as a means of scheduling then I think the idea has some merit. The groups must be selected each season based on the previous seasons finishing positions. If you have permanant groups then you can fall into the trap of one conference being better than the other.

One thing the AFL does have to do is stop the current contrived draw whereby some teams are always playing the other twice etc. I remember in 1991 Collingwood only played Carlton once and the AFL didn't fall apart. I think we might have only played Essendon once as well. The Adelaide derby and the Perth derby don't need to be played twice every year. Until the AFL make the draw open to all combinations it will remain flawed.

Another problem with Big Jack's proposal was to have the two Vic clubs with the interstate clubs. Surely the Vic clubs have to play some of the other Vic clubs twice or their home gate receipts will suffer greatly.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yep, I agree. The biggest problem would be the split. perhaps the teams would accept some rotation of divisions. Unless this is solved the conference method has no future.

I even believe that when the american NFL gets to 32 teams next year they will adopt a new system. Does anyone know what that will be ?

You touched on the inequities in the draw. I agree and particularly insidious are the 'specials' that are used to reward or punish a particular team. I have no problem with maximising attendances (ie not a completely random draw) but there should be some limits.

The example this year is the Carlton-Collingwood game at optus oval. The venue is clearly not suitable for some games (as is geelong)But to prove a point to carlton they schedule there anyway. Have these people never heard of the Hillsborough disaster ? It's a good job Aussies are a placid lot

Perhaps if the AFL made a pact with its clubs fans to keep within certain guidelines for the draw, with an appeal process then we might just start regarding them as having som Integrity, and the press might not play all these 'word games' with them.

Another example. No team should have an inequitable draw just because it's 'wish list' went missing. That was utter crap.

 

[Pessimistic]

I had another idea which might help in making the draw more acceptable to clubs. That is put some rounds out to tender.

Here's how it works. 15 rounds are the same each year where each team plays the other once. each team has 7 home, 7 away and 1 neutral game (crows v port, Bulldogs v essendon etc)If for example the Hawks played eagle at MCG one year, they play in Perth the next year ans so on

The other seven rounds are up for tender. Sometime well before before the season there is a 'draw' meeting where clubs, venues (which could include tassie, ACT etc) all meet and discuss options they might like

Then there is a selection process where clubs in turn nominate opponents, dates and venues (to which they already have an agreement)until all the slots are used up

You might find that 'cashed up' clubs might try to get strugglers to play at their home grounds, and give them a handsome payout for their trouble. Tasmania etc might be able to tender for a few games. The only proviso would be that current agreements with certain grounds are met. It could be that the venues are allowed to bid also.

If it worked well the clubs would be more happy with the draw, an and opportunity to make more money
In these rounds the ground owners would take all the gate, but give the cluns a guaranteed amount. For the other 15 rounds the normal money to home team applies

Other rules:
-One team can only play another twice in total

You would probably find the collingwood -carlton - essendon games popular. But those teams would find competition between the venues in melbourne for the game.
Interstate teams would also be quite keen to make up their quota by enticing other clubs to come and play there. One example is Hawthorn who apparently have a huge WA following. They might feel confident playing Fremantle in Perth twice in the year

If it proved popular there might be a push to play more games each year eg 24 or 26 rounds

 

[Longjohn]

I feel teams that finished in the top eight should play each other twice, and teams that finished in the bottom half should play each other twice.

This would reward teams finishing in the top half with top quality games the next season, and give teams in the bottom half a better chance at making the finals the next year.

With this everyone would know where they stood, there could be no exceptions, while Collingwood are crap they dont get to play Essendon or Carlton twice, and they don't deserve to anyway, when they start playing good football, they will get their chance.

The only problem for me being a Rooboy is that the Kangaroos would always get the tougher draw, as in recent history they have found it hard to miss the finals.

Go Kangaroos, Back to Back.

 

[ruth]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , it is a duck. Welcome to the VFL. The AFL wont be stupid and bring in this change, they can't afford to.What they need to do is have only 14 teams, and no Ansett Cup. Everyone plays each other twice. Fair and equatable. There are 2 unfinancial teams in Melbuorne, North and Doggies.I believe Melbourne and St Kilda have financial problems as well.Surely some computer programmer can come up with appropriate software to make the yearly draw fair, even with 16 teams.
Being a Melbourne Lion the conference system would be really unfair to us ex Fitzroy members, we would never see our team.

 

[Longjohn]

I think Geelong is the most vulnerable at the moment, then you have a handfull of clubs.

As for the Kangaroos, They are paying their bills more then I can say for a few other clubs.

As for special draw concessions they should be outlawed. As should draft concessions, getting first pick for being crap should be enough of a reward.

 

[craney]

Simple to make the draw (over time) more equitable. Play a "rolling draw" i.e the 8 teams you dont plat twice in one year the 1st 7 you do the next & so on including an alternating home & away basis which would stop Carlton never seeming to play in Sydney or Collingwood in Perth.

 

[Power Mad]

Sounds fine - in theory. Unfortunately the AFL would argue that if players want to be paid at the level they are then more $$$ have to be raised, so they have to play all those blockbuster big crowd pulling, high tv rating games as often as possible. The only way to ensure an even draw is to reduce the AFL to 12 (or maybe 14) teams and have everyone play each other twice every season. Then there could be no arguments about hard or easy draws, or certain clubs hardly ever playing in certain places.

 

[Leppa's right foot]

Here's an idea.
How about we have one 'division' with 16 teams in it, one ladder, and the top 8 teams meet in a finals series around... um...September?? (Sound familiar...Its a national competition...lets play EVERY TEAM at least once a year)

But...
*Find a way to make the draw more equatable
*Try out a new finals system for a while

Hey, wait a minute...that's what we've got..
Leave it be...

 

[Dave]

It's a lemon. It has one aim in mind (as with all of Elliott's other grandiose plans) and that's to maximise the profits his club can make. He doesn't give a stuff about the competition as a whole.

As a few others have said, the fairest way is for all clubs to play each other twice, which wont happen until we have 12 teams, or 14 if the AC was ditched. I don't see the 2nd option happening as it will hurt the league & the clubs financially.

With Nth looking as their name suggests, we'll soon have only 9 Vic clubs left, and I don't think it'll be too long before a few others go the way of the Dodo. Once this happens the draw will end up being fairer, as even if teams do not play every other team twice, the number of teams they play once will be reduced.

 

[bluegirl24021972]

I am not in favour of a "static" two conference system. As a Carlton member located in Perth, the prospect of having to travel to Victoria to see my team play is highly unlikely due to financial constraints. I agree with numerous other posters in that if it were to work, the teams in each division would have to rotate.

Whilst I have dislike the West Coast Eagles, the one good thing they have done (as far as I'm concerned) is bring AFL football to Western Australia. At least with the way things are at present, we get (usually) at least one game over here a year and a limited news telecast on other teams in the AFL. If it gets separated in two divisions, you can bet that the WA media will only see fit to report on the division that contains the West Australian sides. Before we go too far on that topic it also should be considered that whilst West Australian teams of course have a very high percentage of support here, the other teams combined would (at least) be 50% of the viewer population surely. And even if my numbers are incorrect, as a footy fanatic, I like to know how ALL of my would-be opponents are faring.

Also my personal opinion is that if a team cannot survive without getting special conditions from the AFL, then perhaps it should be left to die out?? Survival of the fittest (pardon the pun). If the AFL continues to give Sydney (for example only) special financial treatment, how long do they continue for? Shouldn't the board of the Sydney Football Club (eg only) learn to support themselves instead of having to rely on handouts from the AFL. If a club cannot support itself, it should make way for younger, stronger teams to come into the competition.

It sounds really harsh, and coming from someone who is so proud of their club's heritage and history and have supported and followed their club all their life, I know I would be devastated if my club were to "disappear" . But when you look at clubs that have been threatened, and won out in the end (eg Hawthorn), they have become stronger as a result. It all boils down to marketing, and building a niche market.

Finally, for the AFL to continue to grow and prosper in this country, it will eventually have to build a "bigger competition", but perhaps the way to go might be build a bigger seconds national competition, and then the strong teams from that can make their way into a second conference.

ps I am looking forward to the day when Tasmania gets an AFL team - they have waited a VERY long time.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Jaffa; can you just explain why the Western Derby and the Showdown don't need to be played twice a year? I guess you can always get in to your team's games, whether they be home, or away. For some Eagle fans, the away derby is the only chance they have to see them play. Surely the fact that the 4 teams involved already travel twice as far each year than most Vic teams counts for something. [Of course to make the travel aspect fair, each team should play the same number of games in their home STATE

]

With regards to people talking about making the draw even- it'll never happen. The nature of our game is that the teams are so unpredictable. Take Melbourne a couple of years ago -3rd or 4th place, or Essendon or Carlton when they missed the 8 easily. Anyway, this is off the topic.

 

[Dan26]

I think a lot of people tend to miss the point on this topic.

Concerning John Elliots proposal for two divisions. While it is a good means to maximise crowds, why does there need to be two divisions ?????

Essndon, Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, St.Kilda, Melbourne, Ricnond, and the Bulldogs can all play each other twice, as has been suggested. And the other non-victorian clubs also play each other twice along with Geelong and the Kangaroos.

Fine. But you can do this and have ONE ladder. You still have those teams meeting each other the way that has been suggested, but why put them in two groups with seperate ladders ??

Whether they are in two groups, or one big group of 16, each teams win-loss records aren't going to be any different are they ? So you might as well have them all in the one group.

Unfortunately, over 22 rounds, no mater what you do, you cannot have a totally even draw.

Pessimistic, yours was an interesting proposal for the clubs to get together to discuss fixturing, but that doesn't make it more even.

Whoever it was that talked about the "rolling draw" also had an interesting concept. But, while it might even out over the years, on any each INDIVIDUAL year, you are still going to play 7 team twice and 8 team once, so it remains uneven.

Bottom line, no matter which way the draw is structured, we are going to have any given team meeting 7 teams twice and 8 teams once.

Given that this is thie case and we CANNOT change this (unless we go to 30 matches), which of the main methods is the best ?

I think we have to go for the scheduling of the big drawing clubs to play each other twice as John Elliott suggested. The draw is going to be uneven no mater what, so you might as well maximise crowds.

It doesn't affect non-Victorians clubs, as the WA and SA clubs still get their local derbies. The only ones disadvantaged would be the Melbourne Based Lions and Swans supporters who have a reasonable following down here becasue of their Victorian links. They wouldn't get to see their club as much in the flesh, becasue they would be playing non-victorian clubs twice, but that's life.

I'm sorry, but you can't please everyone. When making decisions, these decisions are made to suit 90% of the people, not 10%. If Lions and Swans supporters in Melbourne don't get to see their club as much, that's unfortuate, but they are in the minority, and decisions have to be made to suit the MAJORITY, not the MINORITY.

Each team still plays each other at least once, and 22 weeks is plenty of time to find the years best and most consistently performing team.

But there doesn't need to be two conferences. This doesn't solve anything. You can still have all the teams meeting each other as John Elliott proposed and have them all in one ladder.

 

[Roylion]

As a Melbourne based Brisbane Lion member and supporter (originally Fitzroy), I am in favor of the two division concept, but ONLY for the determining the Home and Away draw. The draw as it stands is an absolute farce. There should still be one ladder and one finals division as it presently stands.

From his comments above Dan 24 should consider working at the AFL because his dismissal of Lions and Swans supporters in Melbourne, who collectively would number AT LEAST 30,000, is typical of the attitude the AFL has had towards the supporters of both clubs since 1982. Obviously Dan 24 has never found himself in the position of many Victorian Lions and Swans supporters in losing their club interstate and having to support them from afar. I'd just like to point out to Dan24 that careful selection of the clubs to go in each division, such as proposed below, would mean that Lion and Swans supporters could still see the club 6-7 times in Melbourne per year and still achieve a far more even and fair draw than the one we have now, as well as allow for, local derbies twice a year in Adelaide and Perth, blockbusters such as Essendon v Carlton, Carlton vs Collingwood (twice a year to generate income from large crowds) and emerging rivalries, such as Western Bulldogs vs. West Coast and SCG co-tenants Kangaroos and Sydney, to occur twice a year.

My divisions would be something like this
DIVISION 1: Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney, Richmond, Melbourne, Hawthorn, Kangaroos
DIVISION 2: West Coast, Fremantle, Western Bulldogs, Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, St Kilda

 

[Dan26]

The best way to maximise attendances would be to have as many Victorian clubs as possible play each ohter twice.

Actually, Roylion, if Brisbane and Sydney were in the "other" non-vitorian group of teams, they would play, say the Roos, and Geelong "away" (as you would be playing them twice), and you would also play 4 of the 8 teams in the other group, "away". That is 6 games in Melbourne under John Elliots proposal.

Like I said, I like the concept, but there doesn't ned to be two divisons, you can play all the necessary matches, and then have them all in one group.

If you had any brains, you would realise that the Lions last year played 6 matches in
Melbourne, and in 2000 you will play 7.

Under the proposal, you would play 6.

What is the difference ???????

If you had any brains, you would realise there would be no difference. You obviously could never work for the AFL yourself as you don't have any common-sense. You should think befre you write, and you would realise that the Lions played 6 games in Melbourne last year, and under Elliots proposal they would also play 6.

I mean, the AFL could do what they have done for the last two years and have the Lions and Swans play 6-7 games a year in Melbourne, with other crowds being down becasue they are not maximising attendances.

OR, they could STILL have the Lions and Swans playing 6 games in Melbourne, while at the same time, maximising attendances of ALL other games, by having as many Victorian sides as possible play each other twice.

It wouldn't disadvantage Brisbane at all. I know currnetly, Essendon, Collingwood and Carlton all play each other twice, but the "crowd maximising" proposal would allow Hawthorn, St.Kilda, Richmond etc to join that group, while STILL ALLOWING Melbourne based Lions and Swans fans to see their club 6 times a year as they do anyway !!!!!

And like I said, the AFL has to make decisions for the MAJORITY not the MINORITY. They are a business. You can't make decisions to keep 10% happy, while the rest are unhappy. Roylion, if you worked for the AFL and made a decision to keep 10%of supporters happy , instead of the other 90%, you would be fired.

By maximising attendance like this, NO clubs are really disadvantaged. You can still see the Lions 6 times a year (as you have been able to do each year anyway).

 

[Jaffa]

In response to Eagle_Fan, what I was getting at was that if you want to try and have some form of fair draw then no club can be treated differently to any other.

 

[Gonzo]

I would suggest that this is Jack Elliot's way of assuring that HIS team (and that is all that Jack Elliot cares about) has a better than even chance of playing off in the finals.

Why not give the Ansett cup the flick (no-one cares about it anyway - and that's coming from a North supporter) and play an extra ten rounds of footy and make it a true 32 round home and away season where each team plays the other twice?

You will probably have to expand the size of the teams lists, however this can be paid for with the extra revenue created by the additional games.

 

[Pessimistic]

I heard Ian Collins on the radio the other day. He mentioned 30 rounds but said thet they thought supporters would be turned off by the extra eight rounds, and that positions would not change that much anyway.

This is quite apart from the wear and tear on the players themselves.

In conclusion I think we should stay as we are, but have the AFL introduce 'integrity in fixturing' which means

Some objective form of measuring whether the draw is fair, have the draw comply with the criteria. eg ensure the travelling aspect of the draw is equal for each team

No 'carrots and sticks' in the draw for the AFL to reach its 'hidden' agenda

Some form of appeal when a club feels it's draw is very unfair

 

[Gonzo]

Pess

I can't believe you managed to include the words "Collo", "AFL" and "integrity" all in the one post - good job!!!

The first thing that Collo does when he starts creating the fixture is match up Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond and Carlton so that they play each other twice.

Got no problem with this at all - but I do have a problem when Collo bleats about how the draw evens itself up over a number of years - it's impossible!!!

Still North got a very favourable draw this year as far as playing level is concerned. Crowd drawing potential - well that's another matter. However Collo seems to think that the latter is more important!!!

My 2 cents!!

 

[Eagle_Fan]

I haven't read the original article on 'Big Jacks' plans, so can someone just tell me, once the two divisions had played the 21 or so rounds, and two separate ladders had been formed, what then? Is he proposing a play-off betwen the two number ones? Or would there be joint premiers? A finals series involving teams from both divisions?
Any way I just can't see it being fair. Whichever way the league is separated, one division will more than likely be significantly stronger than the other. Even if the divisions were based on form from the previous season, there are always dramatic turnarounds (Melbourne in 98).
Perhaps I'll see it differently when I know what he's suggesting.

 

[Shinboners]

Eagle Fan

Big Jack's proposal is to have two divisions of 8. One with Victorian clubs, the other with the non-Victorian clubs plus North Melbourne and one out of Geelong or the Western Bulldogs. Each division would have a final 4 with finals using the old final 4 system. The two division winners after the finals would then play off in the Grand Final.

 

[colley31]

Please note the following points:

1. Who really cares what John Elliott thinks?
2. The guy is full of hot air and has been for the past 20 years.

3. Who listens to him?

4. It has all been a huge publicity stunt by the Herald Sun to sell some papers.

 

[Roylion]

Dan 24, you didn't read my message carefully enough, which in itself suggests a lack of "brains." Of course there would still be six games in Melbourne for the Brisbane Lions, under John Elliott's system! This is what I stated in my first post, if you'll recall.

My beef was first of all with John Elliott's groupings in each division (which you agreed with) and secondly with your summary dismissal of those Lions and Swans supporters, whom YOU stated in your first posting would see less of their team in Melbourne and that in itself was just bad luck. Yes, just the way the AFL thinks, after all their "promises" to Melbourne based supporters of the Lions after the merger. You then contradict yourself in your second posting, by stating that the amount of games would be the same!

You also stated that Brisbane would not be disadvantaged under John Elliott's system. Of course they would, in comparison with Victorian clubs. Apart from a nightmare travel itinery, having a guaranteed two trips to Perth, Adelaide and Sydney each year (far more than most Victorian clubs would under Elliott's proposal, as Adelaide and Port Adelaide have already pointed out in the media as well), the MAXIMUM amount of games the Lions could EVER play in Mebourne in any given season would be six. At the moment they play seven, possibly up to 9 games in some years under the current system. In 1997 they played nine in Victoria, eight in 1998, six in 1999 and seven this year.

With the groupings I suggested earlier the Lions would/could play Adelaide and Port Adelaide away (as well as two games against those clubs at home), Sydney once and one vs, Sydney at home) and the one match against Perth and Fremantle which might both be 'home' matches at the Gabba. This then means that Brisbane would have 11 home games, as normal, three games 'interstate' (non-Victorian) and the capacity to play possibly eight games in Victoria, which are also (which I concede would probably be the absolute maximum). However the chance of seeing perhaps seven-eight games in the odd season is much better than an guaranteed absolute maximum of six games permanently.

In case you've forgotten this is now a national competition, not Victoria vs. the rest of Australia. Those days are gone. Perhaps you should go and follow another competition, where Essendon competes, where all the teams are in one Victorian division - the VFL.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Thanks Colley.
But that's stupid idea. Surely the aim of any competition would be to have the two best teams play off in the Grand Final (PLEASE don't say anything Dan...) - right? But how likely is that? There's always the chance of a lower team beater a team above them (recall Ess v Carl, I think we're all agreed on who SHOULD have won that game). And isn't it also likely that the two best teams could both be in the same division? The GF could end up being played by the 1st and 4th or 5th best teams.
And another thing. If all the interstate teams (+Nth +Geel) are in one division, that won't change the fact they'd have to travel across the country each fortnight. Therefore the GF (and most of the finals) would be between one team that's spent half the year in a plane, and another who may have travelled across town every month or so. That's hardly fair is it?

But then again it is John Elliots idea.