expansion after 2012

[Wonaeamirri33]

I think karratha needs a team, and mt isa too. Oh, oh, and coober pedy is a must! The expansion process is completely flawed if they don't get an AFL club by 2020. Do you lot know people live there too?

Indeed.

As we said before, why should the AFL not embark on such a groundbreaking concept as the Coober Pedy Project? Underground stadiums could be the new wave of the future, damnit!

And surely the increase in ratings and the value of the TV rights alone would justify such a bold move. After all, when has non-existent crowd support ever stopped the AFL from setting up new clubs? Just look at GW$, for example

 

[cos789]

There will always be the weakest club, but my argument is a league is only as good as its weakest club.

Again, I totally agree.

scrapping clubs raises the bar of the minimum entry skill level of players into the AFL.

Yes, but it doesn't do anything to stop a new weakest link being created, in fact it encourages it.

Increasing the number of teams reduces the number of high profile players in the top teams allowing the natural champions to shine more, allowing for more attractive football to be played and the lower teams to be competitive.

 

[J_Moore]

You guys are getting trolled by a master.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You guys are getting trolled by a master.

Quite so

 

[Essendon_Fan]

Again, I totally agree.



Yes, but it doesn't do anything to stop a new weakest link being created, in fact it encourages it.

Increasing the number of teams reduces the number of high profile players in the top teams allowing the natural champions to shine more, allowing for more attractive football to be played and the lower teams to be competitive.

Introducing two new teams to the competition increases the competition by ~80 new players. The AFL will have a Normal Distribution of player ability, that is a few really good players, like Ryder, Watson, Ablett, Selwood, et al a large number of average players, like Swan, Judd, Delidio, Pendlebury et al down to a few crap players, like Gibbs, Betts, Cloke et al.
The 80 new players also have a normal distribution, but their good players are not as good as the AFLs good players, their average players are not as good as the AFLs average players etc, so as a whole the average of the AFL player ability is reduced as a result of adding 80 new players, and the competition suffers as a result.

 

[jethro11]

Introducing two new teams to the competition increases the competition by ~80 new players. The AFL will have a Normal Distribution of player ability, that is a few really good players, like Ryder, Watson, Ablett, Selwood, et al a large number of average players, like Swan, Judd, Delidio, Pendlebury et al down to a few crap players, like Gibbs, Betts, Cloke et al.
The 80 new players also have a normal distribution, but their good players are not as good as the AFLs good players, their average players are not as good as the AFLs average players etc, so as a whole the average of the AFL player ability is reduced as a result of adding 80 new players, and the competition suffers as a result.

Really

 

[intentcity]

Currently the population catchment requirements to sustain an AFL team run well under the 500k per team basis. Theoretically you could sustain 40 AFL teams.

Currently Australia sustains about 40 professional football teams.
There is plenty of room for AFL to expand into and a number of cities available to centre that expansion upon.
For example Canberra, Newcastle, Woolllongong, Townsville.

The only way this would work is with relegation and promotion, maybe 2 x 20 team leagues like EPL.

 

[cos789]

Introducing two new teams to the competition increases the competition by ~80 new players. The AFL will have a Normal Distribution of player ability, that is a few really good players, like Ryder, Watson, Ablett, Selwood, et al a large number of average players, like Swan, Judd, Delidio, Pendlebury et al down to a few crap players, like Gibbs, Betts, Cloke et al.
The 80 new players also have a normal distribution, but their good players are not as good as the AFLs good players, their average players are not as good as the AFLs average players etc, so as a whole the average of the AFL player ability is reduced as a result of adding 80 new players,

Yawn..

and the competition suffers as a result

The suggested dilution of the player talent doesn't necceassrily correlate to a reduction in the standard of play especially when you're talking only 10%.
(2 new teams in 20 = 10%)

Think of it this way.
If WCE had swapped half their team with half the GWS team (that's 50%) there would have been a very entertaining and competitive game.

.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Yes, and if my arse was a jet engine, I could fly interstate under my own steam whenever I wanted!

 

[wal]

The real morons were those involved with Indian Pacific Limited.
If they weren't so quick to jump into bed with the VFL solely to be the first,
we might have a very different league today.

Yeah. Saved Australian football in the state and turned it into a powerhouse at great risk to themselves.

Are you for real? IPL had to be bailed out by the taxpayers.

 

[Essendon_Fan]

Yawn..

The suggested dilution of the player talent doesn't necceassrily correlate to a reduction in the standard of play especially when you're talking only 10%.
(2 new teams in 20 = 10%)

Think of it this way.
If WCE had swapped half their team with half the GWS team (that's 50%) there would have been a very entertaining and competitive game.

.

20 teams would make 4 new teams (from 16) and would give a 20% dilution of talent.

...and in answer to your question I would prefer a 2009 St Kilda Geelong Grand Final (and 2009 season game they played) rather than some 50:50 hash of good and mediocre players. Watch the footage of the two Saints/Cats games in 2009, two teams at their peak, these games would be a rarity with a 20% dilution.

 

[intentcity]

20 teams would make 4 new teams (from 16) and would give a 20% dilution of talent.

I would say that there isn't enough talent as is to sustain the current 18 teams. There's been some spankings lately.

 

[cos789]

20 teams would make 4 new teams (from 16) and would give a 20% dilution of talent.

Threat title = "after 2012"

pay attention.

 

[Essendon_Fan]

I would say that there isn't enough talent as is to sustain the current 18 teams. There's been some spankings lately.

That's exactly what I am talking about

Threat title = "after 2012"

pay attention.

I know what the OP states, I am stating that there should not be an expansion after 2012, but rather a reduction, as an expansion will reduce the calibre of the AFL. We currently have a disproportionate amount of Melbourne clubs and some of these clubs are under-performing like the Bulldogs, Demons and Blues, if these teams merged or moved (to represent more of Australia) we get a high calibre league with more of Australia represented.

 

[cos789]

We currently have a disproportionate amount of Melbourne clubs and some of these clubs are under-performing like the ........, ......... and Blues, .

Mate, if you are gunna troll you have to do the research or you'll be easily pulled up.

Blues are flag favourites , in sensational form - the exact opposite to "under-performing"

 

[Essendon_Fan]

Mate, if you are gunna troll you have to do the research or you'll be easily pulled up.

Blues are flag favourites , in sensational form - the exact opposite to "under-performing"

Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am trolling, the AFL can expand (geographically) by merging and moving clubs and keep the standard of the AFL high, rather than expanding by creating more clubs and reducing the standard of competition.

 

[cos789]

Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am trolling,

So you truly believe the blues are an underperforming club ripe for relocation, merger or forfeit?

You would have enjoyed the SUNS game?
Great to watch eh?
.

 

[kid_a]

Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am trolling, the AFL can expand (geographically) by merging and moving clubs and keep the standard of the AFL high, rather than expanding by creating more clubs and reducing the standard of competition.

I think a few other Victorian clubs would be in line for a 'merger or 'relocation' ahead of Carlton.

 

[Simple Jack]

Just because you disagree with me, does not mean I am trolling, the AFL can expand (geographically) by merging and moving clubs and keep the standard of the AFL high, rather than expanding by creating more clubs and reducing the standard of competition.

The competition only appears as if the standard has reduced because the talent is too heavily concentrated over too few teams.

If GWS had gotten one of the top 5 players from the top 4 teams and then a reasonable player form everyone else, they would have been competetive.

It's only because they chose to load up with kids and then take the scraps of the competition (i.e. players who would have been delisted/retired otherwise) that they are so useless.

Besides, the Gold Coast certainly didn't look like a 'reduced standard' team on Saturday.

The competition will ALWAYS have crap teams. Just like every other competition.

 

[lionel_luthor]

Can't wait for the Moe V Dubbo GF -
Moccassins V Oranges, what an amazing match-up of traditional rivals

 

[Essendon_Fan]

The competition only appears as if the standard has reduced because the talent is too heavily concentrated over too few teams.

If GWS had gotten one of the top 5 players from the top 4 teams and then a reasonable player form everyone else, they would have been competetive.

It's only because they chose to load up with kids and then take the scraps of the competition (i.e. players who would have been delisted/retired otherwise) that they are so useless.

Besides, the Gold Coast certainly didn't look like a 'reduced standard' team on Saturday.

The competition will ALWAYS have crap teams. Just like every other competition.

You are making my argument for me, you are stating for the new teams to be competetive they need to take players already in the competition, which means the players already in the AFL are on average better than players who are not in the AFL.

One way to look at competetiveness vs club number would be to add up the wins and losses of the top four teams, and compare with number of clubs in the league. A more competetive league would have a smaller win rate of the top four teams (also noting that every year there is a crap team). Fortunately I have taken the liberty of doing just that (from 1991 to present);

15 clubs - 2.46, that is ~2.46 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams
16 clubs - 3.37, that is ~3.37 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams
17 clubs - 6.05, that is ~6.05 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams

 

[cos789]

Besides, the Gold Coast certainly didn't look like a 'reduced standard' team on Saturday.

Exactly.....and who were they playing..................hmmm




it's coming back to me now............yes.......Essendon.

Is it that Essendon Fan is not a troll but just jealous of the success of the new expansion club?

.

 

[Simple Jack]

15 clubs - 2.46, that is ~2.46 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams
16 clubs - 3.37, that is ~3.37 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams
17 clubs - 6.05, that is ~6.05 wins for every loss/draw of the top four teams

Aside from the fact we've only had 17 teams for one year and it's FAR too small of a sample to provide useful data as a team related trend, all of that is due to CIRCUMSTANCE not the amount of teams in the league.

If the talent was more spread out, not only would each player be able to showcase their skills better, but the league would be more competetive.

By the way.

2009 - 16 teams - Top 4 = 88 games/20 loss/draws = 4.4 wins per l/d
2010 - 16 teams - Top 4 = 88 games/25 loss/draws = 3.52 wins per l/d

So literally one season after another, with the same amount of teams, there was almost exactly the same difference as your claimed statistical significant difference of 15/16 (17 being ignored for obvious previously stated reasons) teams.

The level of domination of the top 4 has SFA to do with the number of teams, it is all about the circumstance of the specific season.

 

[Essendon_Fan]

Exactly.....and who were they playing..................hmmm


it's coming back to me now............yes.......Essendon.

Is it that Essendon Fan is not a troll but just jealous of the success of the new expansion club?

.

I suppose looking at it from your point of view, at least now I know why you want an expanded league, Sydney did not have much succes when the league was comprised of 14 clubs. 14 clubs is exactly optimum for a competitive AFL.

 

[cos789]

The competition only appears as if the standard has reduced because the talent is too heavily concentrated over too few teams.

Too many teams have put their faith in the mistaken belief of "rebuilding" instead of the proven method of "having the right balance". Geelong were actually fortunate that so players left after the GF that they remain competitive. Unfortunately Just about all AFL clubs locked their senior players into long term contracts.

That has left two new teams heavy on "talent" but short on experience.

Talent is not the issue - it's having the right balance.