Expansion Canberra

[Coolangatta]

Unfortunately, with only 16 clubs my home state of Tassie would probably never be getting a look in, which would not be ideal for a so-called national competition. I share your concerns that expanding the league makes it harder to for clubs to experience success. This is one of the major reasons why I’m an advocate for conferences, even as soon as we get to 20 clubs.

If only 1/20 clubs can experience the ultimate success each season then it would be good to give clubs something else to contend for (like there is in most other sporting leagues around the world). Our clubs can’t qualify for continental leagues, fight relegation battles etc so we want to avoid situations where a large number of clubs have nothing to contend for year-on-year with the prospect of bulk dead rubber games as we get into the 2nd half of each season. Conferences could help alleviate some of these issues.

I appreciate that many hate the thought of the idea, but some models are certainly better than others and I think if done right, it could actually enhance the competition. The AFL’s current system has spawned from what worked with a 12 club state league so it’s a bit ridiculous for us to keep adding clubs and not make any adjustments.

Coolangatta and I spoke about this the other day. There’s an argument for the league to shut up shop after 20 clubs, but certainly by 22 because there aren’t too many options left after Canberra, WA3 and NQ-NT.

I can think of a few others I would consider a “maybe.”

3rd Adelaide side, 2nd Brisbane side linked to Sunny Coast, 3rd Sydney side linked to Newcastle, New Zealand.

That’s 26 sides, but given that expansion happens every 15-20 years, it would take until the 2090s to get there!

If any of these options ever become viable and profitable, do we deny them because there’s 10 teams in Victoria? Do we ax existing Victorian clubs to make way for new franchises? I think the answer to either of these questions should be a resounding no.

Conferences may be an unpopular idea but they are the only logical solution to expansion. A single tier competition shouldn’t be larger than 20 teams but I don’t think we should stop at 20 teams either just because of that reason.

 

[Coolangatta]

And just on what a 26 team comp would look like:

Western: Eagles, Dockers, Perth, Crows, Port, 3rd Adelaide
VIC EAST (5)
VIC WEST (5)
North-East: Lions, Suns, Carpentaria, 2nd Brisbane, New Zealand
South-East: Swans, Giants, 3rd Sydney, Canberra, Tasmania

23 H & A games. Play conference teams twice and as many other teams from other conferences as possible once on a two year rotational basis.
End of season organised into final 26 ladder.
5 conference winners guaranteed a wildcard playoff round if they do not qualify for top 8.

If all five conference winners did not make the top 8 (pretty much 0% chance of happening), there'd be five wildcard playoffs

4 v highest-ranked conference winner
5 v 2nd highest-ranked conference winner
6 v 3rd highest-ranked conference winner
etc.

As many as 13 teams could make the cut off, otherwise in a regular season it'd just be 5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9 to determine final 8, with any conference winner ranked 13th or lower making it above the lowest ranked teams.

I'm pretty confident that the five conference winners would feature in the top twelve strongest teams in most seasons, though, so it would just pan out as 5 v 12 etc. You'd only have the 4 v 13 game if by some freak happenstance, all five conference winners didn't make the top 12, which is practically impossible.

Anyway, that's one example of how you could structure it. If I can think of it, the AFL could surely come up with something like that if they wanted to change the system.

 

[sverik25]

And just on what a 26 team comp would look like:

Western: Eagles, Dockers, Perth, Crows, Port, 3rd Adelaide
VIC EAST (5)
VIC WEST (5)
North-East: Lions, Suns, Carpentaria, 2nd Brisbane, New Zealand
South-East: Swans, Giants, 3rd Sydney, Canberra, Tasmania

23 H & A games. Play conference teams twice and as many other teams from other conferences as possible once on a two year rotational basis.
End of season organised into final 26 ladder.
5 conference winners guaranteed a wildcard playoff round if they do not qualify for top 8.

If all five conference winners did not make the top 8 (pretty much 0% chance of happening), there'd be five wildcard playoffs

4 v highest-ranked conference winner
5 v 2nd highest-ranked conference winner
6 v 3rd highest-ranked conference winner
etc.

As many as 13 teams could make the cut off, otherwise in a regular season it'd just be 5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9 to determine final 8, with any conference winner ranked 13th or lower making it above the lowest ranked teams.

I'm pretty confident that the five conference winners would feature in the top twelve strongest teams in most seasons, though, so it would just pan out as 5 v 12 etc. You'd only have the 4 v 13 game if by some freak happenstance, all five conference winners didn't make the top 12, which is practically impossible.

Anyway, that's one example of how you could structure it. If I can think of it, the AFL could surely come up with something like that if they wanted to change the system.

Why not just have a 23 or 24 team league without conferences, with each team playing each other once?

Conferences are too inequitable and don't add much benefit IMO.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Why not just have a 23 or 24 team league without conferences, with each team playing each other once?

Conferences are too inequitable and don't add much benefit IMO.

Because with that many teams there’ll be supporters of so many clubs who spend their whole lives without seeing their team even make a granny, let alone win one. They are not meant to be easy to win; however, IMO it would be good if there was more for clubs to compete for throughout a season to keep fans engaged and ensure that great sides can still achieve something even if they don’t have what it takes to go all the way. Having conference championships based on geographical locations/rivalries is the most obvious way of making this happen.

As Coolangatta alluded to, they can also be leveraged create a fixture that allows clubs to play 2 derbies against a few local rivals each season without compromising the fixture too much. Also, if the finals system is structured properly then it can virtually eliminate the inequities that you’re referring to anyway. For example, with 4 conferences of 5 clubs, a 5 week finals series involving 10 clubs could play out like this:

• Top 4 = conference winners. Play qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records from conference winners = host qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records outside of conference winners = host elimination finals.
• Remaining 4 best records from any conference = wildcard round for 7/8th finals spot.
• Pre-finals bye for best 6 teams during WC Round.
• Usual top 8 system in finals weeks 2-5.

W1 - Wildcard Round
W2 - Qualifying and Elimination finals
W3 - Semi Finals
W4 - Prelims
W5 - GF

 

[Walshawk]

Because with that many teams there’ll be supporters of so many clubs who spend their whole lives without seeing their team even make a granny, let alone win one. They are not meant to be easy to win; however, IMO it would be good if there was more for clubs to compete for throughout a season to keep fans engaged and ensure that great sides can still achieve something even if they don’t have what it takes to go all the way. Having conference championships based on geographical locations/rivalries is the most obvious way of making this happen.

As Coolangatta alluded to, they can also be leveraged create a fixture that allows clubs to play 2 derbies against a few local rivals each season without compromising the fixture too much. Also, if the finals system is structured properly then it can virtually eliminate the inequities that you’re referring to anyway. For example, with 4 conferences of 5 clubs, a 5 week finals series involving 10 clubs could play out like this:

• Top 4 = conference winners. Play qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records from conference winners = host qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records outside of conference winners = host elimination finals.
• Remaining 4 best records from any conference = wildcard round for 7/8th finals spot.
• Pre-finals bye for best 6 teams during WC Round.
• Usual top 8 system in finals weeks 2-5.

W1 - Wildcard Round
W2 - Qualifying and Elimination finals
W3 - Semi Finals
W4 - Prelims
W5 - GF

Agree that conferences don’t add anything. No one would care about winning a conference. If Hawks win conference A and Collingwood are in Conference B, I hold nothing over my Pies mates. And a system where you don’t play ever other team at least once would be crap. Conferences simply formalise and perpetuate any inequities in the draw.

 

[Coolangatta]

Because with that many teams there’ll be supporters of so many clubs who spend their whole lives without seeing their team even make a granny, let alone win one. They are not meant to be easy to win; however, IMO it would be good if there was more for clubs to compete for throughout a season to keep fans engaged and ensure that great sides can still achieve something even if they don’t have what it takes to go all the way. Having conference championships based on geographical locations/rivalries is the most obvious way of making this happen.

As Coolangatta alluded to, they can also be leveraged create a fixture that allows clubs to play 2 derbies against a few local rivals each season without compromising the fixture too much. Also, if the finals system is structured properly then it can virtually eliminate the inequities that you’re referring to anyway. For example, with 4 conferences of 5 clubs, a 5 week finals series involving 10 clubs could play out like this:

• Top 4 = conference winners. Play qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records from conference winners = host qualifying finals.
• Best 2 records outside of conference winners = host elimination finals.
• Remaining 4 best records from any conference = wildcard round for 7/8th finals spot.
• Pre-finals bye for best 6 teams during WC Round.
• Usual top 8 system in finals weeks 2-5.

W1 - Wildcard Round
W2 - Qualifying and Elimination finals
W3 - Semi Finals
W4 - Prelims
W5 - GF

Alternatively, you could have the best 8 records outside of conference winners playing each other for a spot in the top 8. 5 v 12, 6 v 11, 7 v 10, 8 v 9. That's if you had 24-26 teams, so 12 would be the cutoff for finals spots.

 

[Coolangatta]

Agree that conferences don’t add anything. No one would care about winning a conference. If Hawks win conference A and Collingwood are in Conference B, I hold nothing over my Pies mates. Conferences simply formalise and perpetuate any inequities in the draw.

Well, that depends on how you structure the conferences. You could alternatively put the big 5 in one conference: Pies, Hawks, Blues, Tigers, Bombers. To be fair, though, there isn't much to get excited about for the smaller Vic clubs one upping each other in the smaller conference. I suppose you could have them all in just one Victorian conference where they only play each other once instead of twice.

In before, "No conferences, cap the comp at 19 or 20 teams." We shall see, I just hope Tassie get through and FWIW the comp I think would've been better off with Gold Coast Kangaroos and Western Sydney Bulldogs, then maybe Canberra Saints, with Tassie coming in as a 17th side and a Northern top end team as the 18th and final.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Agree that conferences don’t add anything. No one would care about winning a conference. If Hawks win conference A and Collingwood are in Conference B, I hold nothing over my Pies mates. And a system where you don’t play ever other team at least once would be crap. Conferences simply formalise and perpetuate any inequities in the draw.

Conferences allow you to play every other team at least once still. Say there are 4 conferences of 5 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (8 games) and those in the other conferences once (15 games) for a total of 23. Or say there are 5 conferences of 4 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (6 games) and those in the other conferences once (16 games) for a total of 22.

 

[Coolangatta]

Conferences allow you to play every other team at least once still. Say there are 4 conferences of 5 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (8 games) and those in the other conferences once (15 games) for a total of 23. Or say there are 5 conferences of 4 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (6 games) and those in the other conferences once (16 games) for a total of 22.

They would go for option A, 4 conferences of 5 teams, if they did conferences, to keep 23 games (don't think we're going back to 22).

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me if you didn't play every team once every year.

Say if there were six teams in four conferences = 24 teams:

Play conference teams twice = 10 games
Play two other conference teams once = 12 games
= 22 games
+ Gather Round so one team out of six from a conference = 23 games

Play the other five teams from that conference you didn't play the following year, so every team would play each other once every two years, and home and away every four years.

I'd rather see expansion continue beyond 20 teams if the market is good for a second Brisbane team, third Sydney team, etc, plus more geographical completion in the top end and ACT.

 

[Walshawk]

Conferences allow you to play every other team at least once still. Say there are 4 conferences of 5 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (8 games) and those in the other conferences once (15 games) for a total of 23. Or say there are 5 conferences of 4 teams. Everyone would play the ones in their conferences twice (6 games) and those in the other conferences once (16 games) for a total of 22.

Sure you could. But what would be the point? What is the benefit?

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Agree that conferences don’t add anything. No one would care about winning a conference. If Hawks win conference A and Collingwood are in Conference B, I hold nothing over my Pies mates. And a system where you don’t play ever other team at least once would be crap. Conferences simply formalise and perpetuate any inequities in the draw.

Of course no one cares about it now, because it’s not a tradition in our sport, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be developed as a meaningful tradition over time. I actually think they could mean something if you were winning them over rivals.

Clubs like St Kilda have won 1 flag in their history, Freo 0. Winning flags will obviously become rarer with more teams in the league, so droughts will become a commonality.

Take the time to read the discussion, we have rarely advocated for a system where teams don’t play every other team at least once - the conferences don’t have to be set up like that. We’re just throwing up ideas, because I personally think it would be ludicrous to just keep humming along with the same old system when we potentially could have double the amount of teams to the old VFL.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

They would go for option A, 4 conferences of 5 teams, if they did conferences, to keep 23 games (don't think we're going back to 22).

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me if you didn't play every team once every year.

Say if there were six teams in four conferences = 24 teams:

Play conference teams twice = 10 games
Play two other conference teams once = 12 games
= 22 games
+ Gather Round so one team out of six from a conference = 23 games

Play the other five teams from that conference you didn't play the following year, so every team would play each other once every two years, and home and away every four years.

I'd rather see expansion continue beyond 20 teams if the market is good for a second Brisbane team, third Sydney team, etc, plus more geographical completion in the top end and ACT.

For sure. I suspect that being a non-Victorian gives you a different perspective on the national competition. The league will quite possibly evolve as it grows and I see that as a positive instead of a negative. Up until the past few months my home state of Tassie has been absolutely shafted for decades. We’re finally getting our chance and I’m looking forward to seeing more communities around the country get their chance as well in the coming decades.

 

[Coolangatta]

For sure. I suspect that being a non-Victorian gives you a different perspective on the national competition. The league will quite possibly evolve as it grows and I see that as a positive instead of a negative. Up until the past few months my home state of Tassie has been absolutely shafted for decades. We’re finally getting our chance and I’m looking forward to seeing more communities around the country get their chance as well in the coming decades.

Agreed. I'd love to see the comp go beyond 20 teams, provided the expansions of 17-18-19-20 end up on a good trajectory. People writing off the Suns and Giants are jumping the gun.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Agreed. I'd love to see the comp go beyond 20 teams, provided the expansions of 17-18-19-20 end up on a good trajectory. People writing off the Suns and Giants are jumping the gun.

The Suns are likely to attain 3 top-10 selections via their academy in this year’s draft. For them it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, and it’ll be happening a lot sooner than a lot of people think. The Giants are a longer-term prospect but it’s still way too early to write them off.

 

[Coolangatta]

The Suns are likely to attain 3 top-10 selections via their academy in this year’s draft. For them it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when, and it’ll be happening a lot sooner than a lot of people think. The Giants are a longer-term prospect but it’s still way too early to write them off.

Hoping Hardwick goes to the Suns next year. No guarantee of success but they need an experienced, multiple premiership winning coach who’s recently been in the game to get more out of their list imo.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Hoping Hardwick goes to the Suns next year. No guarantee of success but they need an experienced, multiple premiership winning coach who’s recently been in the game to get more out of their list imo.

Footy is pretty big on the coast so I reckon they’ll get a decent following when they finally have a period of success. It’s mainly their ineptness that has prevented it from happening already.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Sure you could. But what would be the point? What is the benefit?

I'd argue it's a way to build rivalries for everybody, not just the biggest and most successful teams. Collingwood have about 5 clubs who consider them a hated rival, but St Kilda have none. Familiarity breeds contempt, so playing the same teams twice a year and having to fight them for a guaranteed spot in the finals will breed a more passionate response from supporters. Making the finals more difficult to get to will also make the conference title and the guaranteed finals spot that goes with it more valuable.

 

[Walshawk]

I'd argue it's a way to build rivalries for everybody, not just the biggest and most successful teams. Collingwood have about 5 clubs who consider them a hated rival, but St Kilda have none. Familiarity breeds contempt, so playing the same teams twice a year and having to fight them for a guaranteed spot in the finals will breed a more passionate response from supporters. Making the finals more difficult to get to will also make the conference title and the guaranteed finals spot that goes with it more valuable.

Nah, you can’t force rivalries. They happen organically. Separating teams would be crap. Fans look forward to the once (minimum) game per year against their mates team.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Nah, you can’t force rivalries. They happen organically. Separating teams would be crap. Fans look forward to the once (minimum) game per year against their mates team.

The NFL says otherwise. The Seahawks had to switch to a completely different division and conference to make the numbers work, and left all their old rivals behind and formed new ones that have become just as intense, if not more so.

 

[Walshawk]

The NFL says otherwise. The Seahawks had to switch to a completely different division and conference to make the numbers work, and left all their old rivals behind and formed new ones that have become just as intense, if not more so.

Do you really really think that would work here in the AFL? If the Hawks were separated from any of Cats, Bombers, Blues Pies and perhaps any Vic club, I would give the game away.

The only conferences that could possibly work is Vic and non Vic.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Nah, you can’t force rivalries. They happen organically. Separating teams would be crap. Fans look forward to the once (minimum) game per year against their mates team.

Following on from Johnny Bananas a similar thing occurs in the MLB as well. There are massive rivalries between teams in the same division, since they’re competing against each other for division titles as well as post-season play offs every year. The divisions are organised by geographical location so the rivals are from nearby cities.

I know there are awesome rivalries with our cross-town derbies in the AFL, but Australia also has strong interstate rivalries, which I feel are under-utilised with the current competition structure. Organising the clubs in this way could help make some of those rivalries more prominent for the non-Victorian clubs (e.g. WA and SA clubs, NSW and QLD clubs etc). It’s all well and good for Victorians because your state has 10 clubs and you’re playing derbies every other week, but things can be made better from a national-comp perspective.

As I said previously, conferences can be structured so every club plays each other once. It’s really not that hard to work it out.

With 20 clubs:

• 4 conferences of 5 teams each.
• 23 round season (11 home, 11 away, 1 gather round).
• Play every club once (19 games) and every club from your conference twice (4 more games).

With 22 clubs:

• 2 Victorian conferences of 5 clubs each, 1 southern / western conference of 6 clubs , 1 eastern / northern conference of 6 clubs.
• 23 round season (11 home, 11 away, 1 gather round).
• Play every club once (21 games) and two rivals twice. These could be fixed for non-Vic clubs and rotate each year between the various Vic clubs.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Do you really really think that would work here in the AFL?

Yes. If GWS and the Bulldogs can have a decent interstate rivalry, so can others.

If the Hawks were separated from any of Cats, Bombers, Blues Pies and perhaps any Vic club, I would give the game away.

Okay, that's your call. But I doubt that many people would similarly stop watching the game just because they play another club once a year rather than twice a year.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Yes. If GWS and the Bulldogs can have a decent interstate rivalry, so can others.


Okay, that's your call. But I doubt that many people would similarly stop watching the game just because they play another club once a year rather than twice a year.

It’s a bit dramatic and a bit selfish but we only need to look at the history of this league to see where that sentiment stems from.

 

[Coolangatta]

Do you really really think that would work here in the AFL? If the Hawks were separated from any of Cats, Bombers, Blues Pies and perhaps any Vic club, I would give the game away.

The only conferences that could possibly work is Vic and non Vic.

The Victorian teams could still all play each other once, even if they were split into two conferences.

This can be done at 20 teams, but it can also be done at more than 20 teams. You could have a rotational system of other conferences that you play each year, but ensure that the Victorian conferences come up against each other each year, never rotating away from each other.

The only difference is, you don’t play the Victorian teams that aren’t in your conference twice, but so what, we’ve already had plenty of AFL seasons where Victorian rivals do not play each other twice each year.

So what I’m saying basically is that I can obviously understand the problem with Collingwood not playing Carlton once every year. But if Collingwood didn’t play Sydney every year in the distant future, so what?

There isn’t a big out cry in the American leagues because they don’t all play each other once each year.

Long term I think it should go above 20 teams but hopefully we’ll be around to see what materialises.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Following on from Johnny Bananas a similar thing occurs in the MLB as well. There are massive rivalries between teams in the same division, since they’re competing against each other for division titles as well as post-season play offs every year. The divisions are organised by geographical location so the rivals are from nearby cities.

I know there are awesome rivalries with our cross-town derbies in the AFL, but Australia also has strong interstate rivalries, which I feel are under-utilised with the current competition structure. Organising the clubs in this way could help make some of those rivalries more prominent for the non-Victorian clubs (e.g. WA and SA clubs, NSW and QLD clubs etc). It’s all well and good for Victorians because your state has 10 clubs and you’re playing derbies every other week, but things can be made better from a national-comp perspective.

As I said previously, conferences can be structured so every club plays each other once. It’s really not that hard to work it out.

With 20 clubs:

• 4 conferences of 5 teams each.
• 23 round season (11 home, 11 away, 1 gather round).
• Play every club once (19 games) and every club from your conference twice (4 more games).

With 22 clubs:

• 2 Victorian conferences of 5 clubs each, 1 southern / western conference of 6 clubs , 1 eastern / northern conference of 6 clubs.
• 23 round season (11 home, 11 away, 1 gather round).
• Play every club once (21 games) and two rivals twice. These could be fixed for non-Vic clubs and rotate each year between the various Vic clubs.

If conferences were going to be part of the AFL system in 5-10 years time, 20 teams would be the ideal number for a starting point (albeit one Victorian club would have to be fold, merge or be relegated back to VFL level).

Then, you could put the following clubs in the appropriate conferences with the fixture structure mentioned above by Cunnington Cartel for example:

VIC 1: Carlton | Geelong | Footscray | Hawthorn | Richmond

VIC 2: Collingwood | Essendon | Melbourne | St. Kilda | Tasmania

SA-WA: Adelaide | Darwin | Fremantle | Port Adelaide | West Coast

NSW-QLD: Brisbane | Canberra | Gold Coast | Sydney | Western Sydney

In both the Victorian conferences setup, there would be 4 Victorian metro clubs + 1 country club either in Victoria or Tasmania (Geelong / Hobart), while in the SA-WA & NSW-QLD conferences, both Darwin and Canberra join their respectful divisions to help add the numbers, as shown above.