Big Jack's two divisions

[Dan26]

Roylion,

The national Comp is fantastic. I simply said that GIVEN that the draw is going to be uneven, you might as well try to maximise attendances. We will NEVER fix the fact that any team will play 7 teams twice and 8 teams once, so we might as well maximise attendances, right ? Why not ?

Brisbane will still play 11 home games regardless. Whether you are coming to Vic 6 times or 8, or whether you go to Adelaide once or twice is beside the point.

The bottom line is, there should just be ONE ladder. But those "big drawing" games, should be played as often as possible.

It's what the fans want.

The AFL don't give the fans want the want often, so the least they can do is have Ess-Coll-Carl-Rich play each other twice, as well as WCE-Fre, and P.A-Adel.

You still play everyone at least once over the 22 weeks, so it it plenty of time for the best to rise to the top.

If YOU were the AFL, and you were constricted to 22 rounds (with no alternatives), would you schedule WCE-FRE twice every year ?

Would you also schedule Adel-P.A twice a year ?

I would.

So, if you were the AFL, would you ?

 

[Roylion]

Dan 24, I'll repeat my divisions here, which are markedly different from John Elliott's, with whose system you agreed with.

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.

Pessimistic's groupings are pretty good as well. Both are infinitely better than Elliott's.

Note that under these groupings the blockbusters to maximise attendances are still played, as well as looking after the interstate clubs a little more and allowing the possibility for Lions and Swans supporters to see their team a little more frequently in Melbourne.

For example:
Adelaide vs Port Adelaide twice a year
West Coast vs Fremantle twice a year
Collingwood vs Carlton twice a year
Essendon vs Carlton twice a year.
Less travel for Brisbane Lions and Sydney Swans each season. Instead of a guaranteed five matches "interstate" (I don't include Victoria), they would have three or possibly four matches interstate and therefore the chance of seven or possibly eight matches in Victoria.

Whether Brisbane has six or eight matches in Melbourne may be beside the point from your perspective, (as an Essendon supporter) but to me as a Melbourne-based supporter of the Lions (ex-Fitzroy) its bloody important. It's also important for the Brisbane Lions in cultivating a reasonable sized Victorian membership base, from the remnants of the Fitzroy faithful. They're out there as is evident by the 18,000-20,000 odd Brisbane Lions supporters (the majority of whom would have been Fitroy supporters) that turned up at the preliminary final last year. It's also important for the Lions players to gain experience playing in Victorian conditions and also in front of potentially large crowds of 50,000-60,000,seeing as this is where most of the finals are played. This goes not only for the Lions but also the other five interstate teams.

I'm opposed to any system that takes away the chance of seeing my team as often as possible. I'm am a supporter of the national competition and the 'big picture.' However I think there are far better alternatives to the groupings of clubs that Elliott came up with, which I'll say again, YOU agreed with.

 

[Roylion]

In a story that broke this morning, the AFL is set to introduce two conferences for Season 2001

Conference A is set to be: Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Carlton, Richmond, Fremantle, West Coast, St Kilda and Geelong

while

Conference B will be: Sydney, Brisbane, Collingwood, Essendon, Kangaroos, Bulldogs, Hawthorn and Melbourne.

Infinitely better than John Elliott's two conferences with all the interstate teams in one conference and all the Victorian teams in another. I wonder if the make-up Conference B is telling us something about the future intentions of the Kangaroos and perhaps the Bulldogs.

 

[eagles_forever]

This is in regard to the post from roylion. Even though I am an eagles supporter, I feel that our division is much too easy. For it to only include three top teams in WCE, Carlton and Adelaide is a joke. These teams would dominate the division for years. Anyway thats what I think, what do the others feel?

 

[Power Mad]

What do I think? Geez I wish Port had that draw this year!

 

[Dave]

Interesting that this new system does away with some of the so-called Victorian blockbuster games yet keeps ALL the current non-Victorian derby's. Nice and consistant that.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 07 March 2000).]

 

[Pessimistic]

I thought some more about this since the AFL seem to be considering it. Funny how they wont let the top four in each division qualify for the finals. I think the 'alleged' preferred AFL might fail because it doesn't preserve the so called blockbusters yet has interstate derbies. Yet if the blockbusters were all in one division the clubs in the other division wouldn't be happy. There needs to be preservation of blockbusters/rivalries/ derbies but all other games need to be on a strict rotation that the AFL can't meddle with. I ended up with this model.

Please comment because I'm thinking of sending it to the AFL

The 4 x 4 group system

To ensure fixtures are equal over a three year period

Fixtures must comply with the following simple rules

1. The league is divided into four groups of 4. within each group there are two pairs
For example:

Adelaide + Pt Adelaide Brisbane + Sydney
West Coast + Fremantle Kangaroos + Bulldogs

Carlton + Collingwood Hawthorn + St Kilda
Essendon + Richmond Geelong + Melbourne

2. Every year each team plays the other three teams within its group twice, home and away

3. Each team plays the teams within the other three groups, on a rotating basis over a three year period thus:

In any one year:
Play all four teams within one other group twice, home and away
Play the eight teams in the other two groups once.
Of the teams played once, one team in each pair is played home and the other one away

Thus over three years a team will play the following , using Hawthorn as an example:

Yr 1 Yr2 Yr3 TOTALS
Opponent H/A H/A H/A H/A
St Kilda 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3
Geelong 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3
Melbourne 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3

Carlton 1/1 1/0 0/1 2/2
Collingwood 1/1 0/1 1/0 2/2
Essendon 1/1 1/0 0/1 2/2
Richmond 1/1 0/1 1/0 2/2

Adelaide 1/0 1/1 0/1 2/2
Pt Adelaide 0/1 1/1 1/0 2/2
West Coast 1/0 1/1 0/1 2/2
Fremantle 0/1 1/1 1/0 2/2

Sydney 1/0 0/1 1/1 2/2
Brisbane 0/1 1/0 1/1 2/2
Kangaroos 1/0 0/1 1/1 2/2
Bulldogs 0/1 1/0 1/1 2/2

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Average
Home game v VIC 8 6 7 7
Home game v I/S 3 5 4 4
Away game v VIC 8 6 7 7
Away Game v I/S 3 5 4 4

Comment:
Derbies, Blockbusters and Rivalries can be accommodated and promoted. These are the only games which do not equalise out over a three year period.
For victorian clubs the interstate trips equal out, averaging 4 per year, with a maximum of 5 and a minimum of three - this
has been a big problem in recent years
The draw would similarly even out for interstate clubs
After the three year period, the groups could be re-defined. But some pairings will always remain
As in the proposed two conference system, qualification for finals is the top eight teams. For novelty there could be an award for the top team in each group (sponsorship etc)

I thought about scrapping the ansett cup but I think it has great merit in taking games to development areas, which is essential for our game. I don't think, however, that the power that be will be happy with miniscule crowds turning up to colonial stadium. It obviously can't be run on a shoestring like waverley was.

 

[Pessimistic]

The groups were ambiguous in my post
please note they are as below

Adelaide + Pt Adelaide
West Coast + Fremantle Kangaroos + Bulldogs

Brisbane + Sydney
Kangaroos + Bulldogs

Carlton + Collingwood
Essendon + Richmond

Hawthorn + St Kilda
Geelong + Melbourne

The example table was also cluttered (my tabs got removed
Here it is:

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 TOTALS
Opponent H/A H/A H/A H/A
St Kilda 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3
Geelong 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3
Melbourne 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3

Carlton 1/1 1/0 0/1 2/2
Collingwood 1/1 0/1 1/0 2/2
Essendon 1/1 1/0 0/1 2/2
Richmond 1/1 0/1 1/0 2/2

Adelaide 1/0 1/1 0/1 2/2
Pt Adelaide 0/1 1/1 1/0 2/2
West Coast 1/0 1/1 0/1 2/2
Fremantle 0/1 1/1 1/0 2/2

Sydney 1/0 0/1 1/1 2/2
Brisbane 0/1 1/0 1/1 2/2
Kangaroos 1/0 0/1 1/1 2/2
Bulldogs 0/1 1/0 1/1 2/2

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Average
Home game v VIC 8 6 7 7
Home game v I/S 3 5 4 4
Away game v VIC 8 6 7 7
Away Game v I/S 3 5 4 4

 

[Roylion]

The media report on the proposed conferences for next year came from stated the four Victorian blockbuster clubs (Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood and Richmond) would be divided equally into the two groups.

Have a look at the 11 Victorian 'blockbusters' scheduled for 2000.
Round 2: Essendon vs Richmond at MCG
Round 3: Collingwood vs Carlton at MCG
Round 5: Essendon vs Carlton at MCG
Round 7: Richmond vs Carlton at MCG (Easter)
Round 7: Coll'wood vs Essendon at MCG (Anzac)
Round 10: Richmond vs Collingwood at MCG
Round 17: Richmond vs Essendon at MCG
Round 18: Carlton vs Collingwood at MCG
Round 20: Carlton vs Essendon at MCG
Round 22: Carlton vs Richmond at MCG

Collingood play in four blockbusters, TWICE against Carlton. They are the home team twice.
Essendon play four blockbusters, TWICE against Carlton and are the home team twice.
Carlton play SIX blockbusters, TWICE against the other three heavies and are the home team three times
Richmond play FIVE blockbusters, against Essendon and Carlton twice and are the home team three times.

Certainly under the current system Richmond and Carlton do particularly well and will take the gate revenue three times, Essendon and Collingwood twice.

The derbies between West Coast and Fremantle are played twice a year, with each team taking the gate revenue from the expected sellout once, as is the same as for Adelaide and Port Adelaide. Each is guaranteed 11 home games a year. Likewise Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond all get 11 home games this year as well.. the same as all the interstate clubs.

Under the proposed conference system the Victorian blockbusters per year would be reduced from 11 to six. For example Essendon and Collingwood would play each other twice while Essendon would play Carlton once and Richmond once. Something like this:
Essendon vs Collingwood at Colonial/MCG
Collingwood vs Essendon at MCG
Richmond vs Carlton at MCG
Carlton vs Richmond at MCG
Collingwood vs Carlton at MCG
Essendon vs Richmond at MCG or Colonial.

I don't imagine the proposed grouping of clubs as revealed in the media will meet with much approval from the 'big four', when the full ramifications of the conference scenario are studied in detail.

While we have the 16 team competition, I don't think an equitable draw will ever be achieved. A 14 team competition with 26 rounds is an alternative, but I think that scenario is a long way off as well. I don't mind Pessimistic's system as a viable alternative. A system where the draw mechanisms are transparent and shown to be fair to ALL clubs in the competition, over a period of 3 to 5 years, as well as maintaining as far as possible the good features of the existing draw including derbies, blockbusters and rivalries is well overdue.

 

[Dan26]

Roylion,

Essendon play 6 blockbusters.

We play Carlton twice (Rounds 5 and 20)
We play Collingwood twice (rounds 7 and 22)
We play Richmond twice (rounds 2 and 17)

Please read the draw.

Under the proposd model, each of the "BIG 4", would only play one of the other twice, while they would play the other two once. This is NOT preserving blockbusters at all.

I wonder how the AFL thinks that a 2001 draw with the Bombers playing Collingwood twice, but playing the Blues, and the Tigers once each is preserving blockbusters ? Beats me.

 

[Roylion]

Apologies Dan24. How dare I miss Essendon's matches! Anyway the point of my last posting was that the amount of blockbusters currently played (whether 11 or 13) wouldn't be preserved under the proposed new system. Because of this it probably won't be adopted, as the amount of revenue that the Big Four would lose plus the reduced capacity for bumper crowds will mean the AFL will probably reject the concept as well.