Fixing the draw

[Consolaçao]

As we all know, the draw is an absolute debacle. Every year we have winners and losers because for the AFL, commercial outcomes come first, and fairness a distant second.

i’m sure i’m not the only one following the Scottish Premier League this year (go Hearts). The Scots make a 38 game fixture involving 12 teams fair by having each team play the other three times. After 33 games, they split the table into top and bottom six, and have teams in each group play each other five times.

Helps to guarantee more meaningful games in latter weeks, and is completely fair.

The AFL could adopt a similar approach once the competition moves to 20 teams. After 19 rounds, we split teams into groups of four based on ladder position. Three more rounds are played to determine final ladder positions within each group. The team that plays home is just the one that played away in the most recent game.

Under this system, we’re guaranteed up to six ladder shaping, high stakes games in each of the final three rounds rather than an AFL enforced late season return leg involving Carlton and Richmond.

For a 24 game season, you could potentially have 1-6 and 7-12 playing each other five times and let the AFL do their commercial optimisation thing with teams ranked 13-20 playing five of the other seven teams in rounds 20-24.

This would also allow for the emergence of new meaningful rivalries, rather than having the AFL dictate that because Richmond v Collingwood was epic in the 1970s, it’s automatically epic now.

Tell me why this is a bad idea.

EDIT: take a look at round 23 and 24. Only two out of 18 games involve two teams currently in the top 8. Absolute fizzer.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The fans get screwed in your proposal. Clubs suddenly are only guaranteed 9 home games, and there is no way membership prices will be discounted to reflect that reduction. If anything, clubs will increase prices to protect themselves from potential lost revenue in the event of fewer home games.

Also we already have the floating fixture, which everybody hates, with times for some H&A games being confirmed six weeks in advance. Now we have to wait for all Round 19 games to be played before getting confirmation of the timeslots plus venues and matchups of Round 20-22? Ridiculous.

And the notion that a game must have two top-8 teams playing each other, or else the match lacks intrigue and finals ramifications, is quite a stretch. Particularly since the finals are top 10 nowadays.

 

[robbieando]

As we all know, the draw is an absolute debacle. Every year we have winners and losers because for the AFL, commercial outcomes come first, and fairness a distant second.

i’m sure i’m not the only one following the Scottish Premier League this year (go Hearts). The Scots make a 38 game fixture involving 12 teams fair by having each team play the other three times. After 33 games, they split the table into top and bottom six, and have teams in each group play each other five times.

Helps to guarantee more meaningful games in latter weeks, and is completely fair.

The SPFL split has years where teams have more away games than home games against teams they are directly competing against. Its not as completely fair as you think.

 

[Consolaçao]

The SPFL split has years where teams have more away games than home games against teams they are directly competing against. Its not as completely fair as you think.

Maybe not.
Fairer than the current mess though?

 

[Consolaçao]

The fans get screwed in your proposal. Clubs suddenly are only guaranteed 9 home games, and there is no way membership prices will be discounted to reflect that reduction. If anything, clubs will increase prices to protect themselves from potential lost revenue in the event of fewer home games.

Also we already have the floating fixture, which everybody hates, with times for some H&A games being confirmed six weeks in advance. Now we have to wait for all Round 19 games to be played before getting confirmation of the timeslots plus venues and matchups of Round 20-22? Ridiculous.

And the notion that a game must have two top-8 teams playing each other, or else the match lacks intrigue and finals ramifications, is quite a stretch. Particularly since the finals are top 10 nowadays.

Good points, though not necessarily intractable.

A bye or a split round could help to address some of these issues.

I accept it’s not perfect, but i’d argue its a massive improvement from what has to be the most compromised approach to scheduling in world sport.

On a side note, when posting here, you should ask yourself the question: “would i say this to this person’s face if they were stood here in front of me”. If the answer is no, rephrase.

You’re a prolific poster on this site but you bring a really shit energy to every discussion.

 

[robbieando]

Maybe not.
Fairer than the current mess though?

We get an equal amount of home and away games for each club (before clubs start selling games off), we also have a split. Its the travel and amount of neutral games that cause the mess.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Good points, though not necessarily intractable.

A bye or a split round could help to address some of these issues.

I accept it’s not perfect, but i’d argue its a massive improvement from what has to be the most compromised approach to scheduling in world sport.

On a side note, when posting here, you should ask yourself the question: “would i say this to this person’s face if they were stood here in front of me”. If the answer is no, rephrase.

You’re a prolific poster on this site but you bring a really shit energy to every discussion.

Stay on topic, please.

Once you've added a bye or split round to maybe slightly improve a tiny portion of the problems I mentioned, the fans are still left with:

fewer guaranteed home games​

worse value for membership​

much less advanced notice of not only when games will be played, but also venue and opposition​

The idea just sucks, and it's not even original, so there's no need to take the criticism personally.

 

[Purple Suit]

As we all know, the draw is an absolute debacle. Every year we have winners and losers because for the AFL, commercial outcomes come first, and fairness a distant second.

i’m sure i’m not the only one following the Scottish Premier League this year (go Hearts). The Scots make a 38 game fixture involving 12 teams fair by having each team play the other three times. After 33 games, they split the table into top and bottom six, and have teams in each group play each other five times.

Helps to guarantee more meaningful games in latter weeks, and is completely fair.

The AFL could adopt a similar approach once the competition moves to 20 teams. After 19 rounds, we split teams into groups of four based on ladder position. Three more rounds are played to determine final ladder positions within each group. The team that plays home is just the one that played away in the most recent game.

Under this system, we’re guaranteed up to six ladder shaping, high stakes games in each of the final three rounds rather than an AFL enforced late season return leg involving Carlton and Richmond.

For a 24 game season, you could potentially have 1-6 and 7-12 playing each other five times and let the AFL do their commercial optimisation thing with teams ranked 13-20 playing five of the other seven teams in rounds 20-24.

This would also allow for the emergence of new meaningful rivalries, rather than having the AFL dictate that because Richmond v Collingwood was epic in the 1970s, it’s automatically epic now.

Tell me why this is a bad idea.

EDIT: take a look at round 23 and 24. Only two out of 18 games involve two teams currently in the top 8. Absolute fizzer.

I think it works for the SPL because there isn't anything bad occuring in the middle of the table. If you fall goal difference between 6th and 7th and miss the top section after 33 games, there isn't a real issue as there aren't any finals or a draft.

In your proposal, you could miss out on 6th by percentage due to bad injuries at the start, be on 7 game winning streak but not force your way into the top 4. Rinse and repeat for all number of positions and scenarios.

I think it has merit but not locking out ladder changes. They just need 18 rounds of everyone playing everyone, a rivalry round (when they release the fixture nearly 2 weeks out) then the final 4-5 rounds being more tailored for games between teams close on the ladder. I assume they will be moving to a 24 round fixture soon due to 19 teams anyway.

 

[Walshawk]

This concept is reasonable. You can still guarantee all club 12 home games. Limited notice for the last 6 games is not the end of the world. For the top teams they are like finals, and we cope with 5/6 days notice of dates and times during the finals series.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You can still guarantee all club 12 home games.

Not true.

At the end of round 19, the top 6 (and 7-12) needs to be made up of exactly 3 teams that have only played 9 home games and 3 teams that have played 10 home games. This can only happen through luck, so there's no guarantee.

 

[Walshawk]

Not true.

At the end of round 19, the top 6 (and 7-12) needs to be made up of exactly 3 teams that have only played 9 home games and 3 teams that have played 10 home games. This can only happen through luck, so there's no guarantee.

No, at the end of Round 19, each time has played 9 home, 9 away (against the other 18 teams) and had a bye.

His system has flaws for the remaining games.

This is better…

After round 19, the top 12 play six games v each other (split the 12 in half (e.g. 1,4,5,8,9,11) for five games, plus one random or derby/rivalry matchup). Top 12 play 6 games over 6 weeks, the have a bye before regular top 8 finals. Bottom 7 play each other once, plus a bye, over 7 rounds.

 

[Teen Wolf]

No, at the end of Round 19, each time has played 9 home, 9 away (against the other 18 teams) and had a bye.

His system has flaws for the remaining games.

OP is talking about a 20-team comp.

After round 19, the top 12 play six games v each other (split the 12 in half (e.g. 1,4,5,8,9,11) for five games, plus one random or derby/rivalry matchup). Top 12 play 6 games over 6 weeks, the have a bye before regular top 8 finals. Bottom 7 play each other once, plus a bye, over 7 rounds.

Throwing in a random extra rivalry match of unequal difficulty simply repeats the same problem that supposedly needs solving.

Secondly, in this 19-team scenario, Adelaide might be in 1st, Brisbane 4th, Carlton 5th, Collingwood 8th, Essendon 9th and Fremantle 11th. If Fremantle played 5 of their first 9 home games against all of those teams, how are they going to get their additional 3 home games?

At least a couple of those clubs (who performed better than the Dockers in the first 19 rounds) would have to play Freo in Perth for a 2nd time. Doesn't seem like a fairer system to me.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

As we all know, the draw is an absolute debacle. Every year we have winners and losers because for the AFL, commercial outcomes come first, and fairness a distant second.

i’m sure i’m not the only one following the Scottish Premier League this year (go Hearts). The Scots make a 38 game fixture involving 12 teams fair by having each team play the other three times. After 33 games, they split the table into top and bottom six, and have teams in each group play each other five times.

Helps to guarantee more meaningful games in latter weeks, and is completely fair.

The AFL could adopt a similar approach once the competition moves to 20 teams. After 19 rounds, we split teams into groups of four based on ladder position. Three more rounds are played to determine final ladder positions within each group. The team that plays home is just the one that played away in the most recent game.

Under this system, we’re guaranteed up to six ladder shaping, high stakes games in each of the final three rounds rather than an AFL enforced late season return leg involving Carlton and Richmond.

For a 24 game season, you could potentially have 1-6 and 7-12 playing each other five times and let the AFL do their commercial optimisation thing with teams ranked 13-20 playing five of the other seven teams in rounds 20-24.

This would also allow for the emergence of new meaningful rivalries, rather than having the AFL dictate that because Richmond v Collingwood was epic in the 1970s, it’s automatically epic now.

Tell me why this is a bad idea.

EDIT: take a look at round 23 and 24. Only two out of 18 games involve two teams currently in the top 8. Absolute fizzer.

Yeah, I’ve also thought about the SPL structure for a while and how it could be adapted to provide a fairer AFL fixture. No one wants to see their AFL club play fewer games each year, so a phase 1 and phase 2 model could be utilised to have greater certainty in the fixture.

Myself and others have previously floated the possibility of conferences after the league gets to 20 clubs. However, last year during the AFL’s meetings about equalisation the possibility of in-season tournaments were raised. That got me thinking that if those were structured properly then we wouldn’t need to resort to conferences.

Anyway, here’s a model that I came up with and tidied up with AI. I think this would arguably build stronger rivalries between clubs than what you proposed, while also fixing a major issue with the AFL competition, which is that there’s nothing else for clubs to try and win each year apart from the premiership cup.

OVERALL SEASON STRUCTURE

• 20 teams - based on Canberra as #20
• 19-round full round robin, followed by 4 games v regional rivals
• Unified AFL ladder over entire 23 game regular season

MARCH–JULY: Fixture Phase 1

NATIONAL HOME & AWAY SEASON (19 ROUNDS)

• Everyone plays everyone once
• 9H / 9A / 1 Gather Round fixture

⸻

ROUND 10 SPLIT ROUND

R10 WEEK A — NORTHERN ROUND

AFL Northern Round

Clubs to host home games Thursday - Sunday:

• Sydney
• GWS
• Brisbane
• Gold Coast
• Canberra

⸻

R10 WEEK B — MID-SEASON DRAFT

AFL Mid-Season Draft - mid week

5 split round games - weekend

Featuring the 10 teams that didn’t play in the Northern Round and are returning from a bye

⸻

JULY–AUGUST: Fixture Phase 2

REGIONAL RIVALRY SERIES (ROUNDS 20-23)

4 clusters of five teams

• Each team plays 4 games (2h, 2a) and has 1 bye over a 5 week period
• To limit the impact of extra byes close to finals, the highest ranked team in each cluster will have a bye during week one of the series, the second ranked will have a bye during week two etc
• The team ranked last in each cluster at the end of R19 will have their bye on the last week of the series
• Regional Rivalry Series games have equal waiting towards overall season results, so the 20 team, H & A season ladder continues until the end of R23 (at which stage it’s used to determine Wild Card and finals match-ups)

⸻

NORTHERN CLUSTER (NSW/QLD/ACT)

(Carey–Dunstall–Hird Shield)

• Sydney Swans
• GWS Giants
• Brisbane Lions
• Gold Coast Suns
• Canberra Rams

⸻

SOUTHERN CLUSTER (WA/SA/TAS)

(Farmer-Williams–Baldock Shield)

• West Coast Eagles
• Fremantle Dockers
• Adelaide Crows
• Port Adelaide Power
• Tasmania Devils

⸻

VIC WEST CLUSTER — Barassi Shield

• Carlton Blues
• Essendon Bombers
• Geelong Cats
• North Melbourne
• Western Bulldogs

⸻

VIC EAST CLUSTER — Matthews Shield

• Collingwood Magpies
• Richmond Tigers
• Hawthorn Hawks
• Melbourne Demons
• St Kilda Saints

⸻

Victorian Cluster Review Cycle:

Every 5 years (fixed cycle), with optional mid-cycle integrity review at 2.5 years

Only these adjustments are allowed:

✔ Allowed changes:

• swap 1–2 clubs between Vic East and Vic West
• re-balance commercial equity (if needed)
• adjust “historical rivalry weighting” considerations

⸻

SHIELD SYSTEM

Each club plays:

• 4 cluster opponents (Phase 1)
• 4 cluster opponents (Phase 2)

➡ Total = 8 games

• Throughout the series, in addition to the season ladder, cluster tables are published to show the aggregate records of each club against their regional rivals for that season
• After R23, the best combined 8-game record wins Regional Shield

⸻

AUGUST–SEPTEMBER

FINALS SERIES

• Wildcard Round (7–10, 8–9)
• Qualifying Finals
• Semi Finals
• Preliminary Finals
• Grand Final

 

[Walshawk]

OP is talking about a 20-team comp.


Throwing in a random extra rivalry match of unequal difficulty simply repeats the same problem that supposedly needs solving.

Secondly, in this 19-team scenario, Adelaide might be in 1st, Brisbane 4th, Carlton 5th, Collingwood 8th, Essendon 9th and Fremantle 11th. If Fremantle played 5 of their first 9 home games against all of those teams, how are they going to get their additional 3 home games?

At least a couple of those clubs (who performed better than the Dockers in the first 19 rounds) would have to play Freo in Perth for a 2nd time. Doesn't seem like a fairer system to me.

In the case Freo might host the same team more than once. Just like in finals.

 

[The Educator]

Not true.

At the end of round 19, the top 6 (and 7-12) needs to be made up of exactly 3 teams that have only played 9 home games and 3 teams that have played 10 home games. This can only happen through luck, so there's no guarantee.

You can guarantee 11 home games though if you are doing the 6-6-7 split and playing 4 or 5 more games.

It is a far better system.

Criticisms such as yours rely on hysteria to make a disadvantage (i.e. the fixture uncertainty in the last 5 rounds) seem far worse than it is, and glib dismissal of advantages - such as having teams playing for keeps against evenly matched teams going for the same ladder positions.

 

[Teen Wolf]

You can guarantee 11 home games though if you are doing the 6-6-7 split and playing 4 or 5 more games.

It is a far better system.

Criticisms such as yours rely on hysteria to make a disadvantage (i.e. the fixture uncertainty in the last 5 rounds) seem far worse than it is, and glib dismissal of advantages - such as having teams playing for keeps against evenly matched teams going for the same ladder positions.

Not without abandoning the initial premise of fairness through additions like rivalry rounds and double-up away games, as conceded by the last poster.

Negativity is bad for business and the AFL does factor this into their decisions. They are particularly influenced by hysteria from powerful clubs like Collingwood who would throw a fit about this system.

 

[The Educator]

Not without abandoning the initial premise of fairness through additions like rivalry rounds and double-up away games, as conceded by the last poster.

This isn't necessarily true. It is more likely they would want do it to keep the return showdown / derby. I don't think they need to retain return Melbourne derbies

Once you hit 20 teams (presumably the next stable number that we will stay at for decades) you could just have 19 games as a single round robin - 9 home , 9 away and the gather round.

Negativity is bad for business and the AFL does factor this into their decisions. They are particularly influenced by hysteria from powerful clubs like Collingwood

Agree totally.

My point was really about your argument. I don't think that you actually think that having the last two home games uncertain until 2* to 6 weeks out is as bad as you are making out.

It is obviously subjective I just don't think it the actually impact on people is substantial. You are clearly not a mug who reacts like andrew dillon killed your grandmother whenever the AFL changes anything.

*maybe even 3 weeks out if you have a bye week and then the AFL owns the first round of matches (rather than home games)

who would throw a fit about this system.

Not convinced that is the case. The pie grows overall as you replace a largely fizzling last 5 weeks with a huge games every week

 

[The Educator]

Yeah, I’ve also thought about the SPL structure for a while and how it could be adapted to provide a fairer AFL fixture. No one wants to see their AFL club play fewer games each year, so a phase 1 and phase 2 model could be utilised to have greater certainty in the fixture.

Myself and others have previously floated the possibility of conferences after the league gets to 20 clubs. However, last year during the AFL’s meetings about equalisation the possibility of in-season tournaments were raised. That got me thinking that if those were structured properly then we wouldn’t need to resort to conferences.

Anyway, here’s a model that I came up with and tidied up with AI. I think this would arguably build stronger rivalries between clubs than what you proposed, while also fixing a major issue with the AFL competition, which is that there’s nothing else for clubs to try and win each year apart from the premiership cup.

OVERALL SEASON STRUCTURE

• 20 teams - based on Canberra as #20
• 19-round full round robin, followed by 4 games v regional rivals
• Unified AFL ladder over entire 23 game regular season

MARCH–JULY: Fixture Phase 1

NATIONAL HOME & AWAY SEASON (19 ROUNDS)

• Everyone plays everyone once
• 9H / 9A / 1 Gather Round fixture

⸻

ROUND 10 SPLIT ROUND

R10 WEEK A — NORTHERN ROUND

AFL Northern Round

Clubs to host home games Thursday - Sunday:

• Sydney
• GWS
• Brisbane
• Gold Coast
• Canberra

⸻

R10 WEEK B — MID-SEASON DRAFT

AFL Mid-Season Draft - mid week

5 split round games - weekend

Featuring the 10 teams that didn’t play in the Northern Round and are returning from a bye

⸻

JULY–AUGUST: Fixture Phase 2

REGIONAL RIVALRY SERIES (ROUNDS 20-23)

4 clusters of five teams

• Each team plays 4 games (2h, 2a) and has 1 bye over a 5 week period
• To limit the impact of extra byes close to finals, the highest ranked team in each cluster will have a bye during week one of the series, the second ranked will have a bye during week two etc
• The team ranked last in each cluster at the end of R19 will have their bye on the last week of the series
• Regional Rivalry Series games have equal waiting towards overall season results, so the 20 team, H & A season ladder continues until the end of R23 (at which stage it’s used to determine Wild Card and finals match-ups)

⸻

NORTHERN CLUSTER (NSW/QLD/ACT)

(Carey–Dunstall–Hird Shield)

• Sydney Swans
• GWS Giants
• Brisbane Lions
• Gold Coast Suns
• Canberra Rams

⸻

SOUTHERN CLUSTER (WA/SA/TAS)

(Farmer-Williams–Baldock Shield)

• West Coast Eagles
• Fremantle Dockers
• Adelaide Crows
• Port Adelaide Power
• Tasmania Devils

⸻

VIC WEST CLUSTER — Barassi Shield

• Carlton Blues
• Essendon Bombers
• Geelong Cats
• North Melbourne
• Western Bulldogs

⸻

VIC EAST CLUSTER — Matthews Shield

• Collingwood Magpies
• Richmond Tigers
• Hawthorn Hawks
• Melbourne Demons
• St Kilda Saints

⸻

Victorian Cluster Review Cycle:

Every 5 years (fixed cycle), with optional mid-cycle integrity review at 2.5 years

Only these adjustments are allowed:

✔ Allowed changes:

• swap 1–2 clubs between Vic East and Vic West
• re-balance commercial equity (if needed)
• adjust “historical rivalry weighting” considerations

⸻

SHIELD SYSTEM

Each club plays:

• 4 cluster opponents (Phase 1)
• 4 cluster opponents (Phase 2)

➡ Total = 8 games

• Throughout the series, in addition to the season ladder, cluster tables are published to show the aggregate records of each club against their regional rivals for that season
• After R23, the best combined 8-game record wins Regional Shield

⸻

AUGUST–SEPTEMBER

FINALS SERIES

• Wildcard Round (7–10, 8–9)
• Qualifying Finals
• Semi Finals
• Preliminary Finals
• Grand Final

Something like this could work too....main issue is the entrenchment of travel advantage and MCG GF

I think you would need to have the regional ladder's have some bearing on finals / wildcard seeding

 

[My_Username]

2 divisions, each with 10 teams. = 18 games (play every other team both H&A).

Finals (for top 5 div 1 teams ) which are both home and away (cumulative score determines winner). = 8 weeks

=26 weeks total.

During finals, there can also be a mini series between the top Div 2 and bottom Div 1 teams for promotion/relegation that runs in parallel with finals.

Extra week or two can include a SOO round.


Ideally draft and salary cap are treated as one list (so team 1 of div 2 gets pick 10, team 10 of div 1 gets pick 11), but perhaps some benefits need to be given to div2 teams to balance out players leaving to play div1 and encourage movement up and down.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Something like this could work too....main issue is the entrenchment of travel advantage and MCG GF

I think you would need to have the regional ladder's have some bearing on finals / wildcard seeding

We’ll never get travel equality when there’s 10 teams from one state. However, the travel advantage could be leveraged against Victorian teams by mandating that they all play a home game(s) in a secondary market (either against each other, or in the home state of non-Victorian teams) to help grow the game. Canberra, Cairns, Darwin, Bunbury, Alice Springs etc. That’s way better for the footy fans in those regions than having the same teams rock up every year. There’s talk of possible future games in Mumbai and LA, so they could be added to the mix.

With the GF, yeah the G provides Vic clubs an unfair advantage, especially the MCG tenants. The fact is though that every other ground (bar Accor) has 40k fewer seats. If we get to a stage in the future with other states having 75k+ grounds then maybe (after the MCC deal expires) it could partially rotate. However, I live in Brisbane and let me tell you the GF here was shit. Melbourne has all the GF traditions and most importantly, the public interest and infrastructure to make it great.

There is talk of WA hosting a SoO carnival in a few years’ time. If that takes off then down the track could potentially have a situation where in a 3 year cycle:

• Melbourne hosts 2/3 GF’s
• Adelaide hosts 2/3 Gather Rounds
• Perth hosts 2/3 SoO Carnival weekends

That gives incentive for each of the big 3 traditional states to build a culture around an event that they mostly ‘own’, while also giving the chance for other states to have their turn in hosting those events. I don’t like the idea of the highest ranked team hosting the GF, because it’s a major event, so it’s not practical to slap it together in the space of one week.

You make a good point about the regional ladders. It could be something like the top 8 of the ladder qualify for finals, and then the last two spots are decided by the two bottom 10 clubs with the best regional records, or two from the strongest region that missed out on finals. Then it would be more of a genuine ‘Wildcard’ system to give a few teams another shot at it who have been disadvantaged by an imperfect model.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

2 divisions, each with 10 teams. = 18 games (play every other team both H&A).

Finals (for top 5 div 1 teams ) which are both home and away (cumulative score determines winner). = 8 weeks

=26 weeks total.

During finals, there can also be a mini series between the top Div 2 and bottom Div 1 teams for promotion/relegation that runs in parallel with finals.

Extra week or two can include a SOO round.


Ideally draft and salary cap are treated as one list (so team 1 of div 2 gets pick 10, team 10 of div 1 gets pick 11), but perhaps some benefits need to be given to div2 teams to balance out players leaving to play div1 and encourage movement up and down.

With a league that’s heavily focused on equalisation measures, I can’t see them going for this. Even though the draw is fairer, it would cause a range of other issues. The same clubs would be stuck down in Div 2 forever. They’d get smaller crowds, lower broadcast revenue, and find player recruitment and retention extremely difficult when compared to the Div 1 clubs.

The relegation battles would be awesome and we’d probably get closer contests across the board, but with the exception of a few clubs at the bottom, we already get a bunch of close contests with the current set up.

 

[My_Username]

With a league that’s heavily focused on equalisation measures, I can’t see them going for this. Even though the draw is fairer, it would cause a range of other issues. The same clubs would be stuck down in Div 2 forever. They’d get smaller crowds, lower broadcast revenue, and find player recruitment and retention extremely difficult when compared to the Div 1 clubs.

The relegation battles would be awesome and we’d probably get closer contests across the board, but with the exception of a few clubs at the bottom, we already get a bunch of close contests with the current set up.

For equalisation, maybe all players on Div2 teams get an immediate 5% pay jump (paid by the AFL as a retention bonus) and clubs in Div2 get a 'bonus' round 2 pick (or maybe only Div2 get access to NGA/Academy/FS picks).

That's just top of my head ideas, but something like that.

Also have lots of opportunity for teams changing up and down every year. (so the promotion/relegation playoff is something like 4 Vs 4).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

For equalisation, maybe all players on Div2 teams get an immediate 5% pay jump (paid by the AFL as a retention bonus) and clubs in Div2 get a 'bonus' round 2 pick (or maybe only Div2 get access to NGA/Academy/FS picks).

That's just top of my head ideas, but something like that.

Also have lots of opportunity for teams changing up and down every year. (so the promotion/relegation playoff is something like 4 Vs 4).

Promotion relegation battles are awesome and keep things interesting the whole season. Fans of European soccer are used to following their clubs at whatever level they’re playing at. Australian sports culture is different though. We have the top tier and then hardly anyone gives a shit about the second tier. It would be a huge cultural change.

Whatever they decide on, I think we’re all considering alternatives because we realise the current (state-league inspired) model is broken, and it will only be exposed further when the league expands to 19 and 20 teams.

 

[The Educator]

One way you could make a kind of promotion and relegation work is where you enable in-season "promotion" and "relegation"

If we are doing 20 teams, have the top 10 and bottom 10 play return round robins for 18 games.

You then split in three groups

First group is the top 5 in the first division and the top team in the 2 division

The next 6 is made up of three teams (6th to 8th) from the top division and 2nd to 4th from the 2nd division

The bottom 2 from the top division and the bottom 6 from the second division are in the bottom 4 group.

This achieves the balance of having greater competitive balance in the first 18 weeks while increasing level of jeopardy / possibility through both divisions.

Second phase could work like many variations of the OP (i.e. 19 - 5 type models)) with an extra twist of using qualification for next season

Eg

Top 6 group play for finals seedings

-first two get home qual finals
-3rd / 4th get away qfs
-5th gets home ellimination final
-6th hosts 2nd wild card final

Second group
-top team gets home eliminaton final
-2nd team hosts first wild card final
-3rd and 4th play away finals
-5th and 6th eliminated and into 2nd division next year

Bottom group

Split in to two groups of 4
-play other three teams in group of 4 and one cross over game
-top two in each group play knockout games against teams in other group
-winners play off
- winner of the overall bottom 8 plays lowest ranked wild card loser for the last spot in division 1 the next season


I.e. next years division 1

=top 5 from the top group in the first phase
=top 2 from the middle group in the second phase (as second cannot be relegated as the top seed in the wild card round)
=3 of either 6th from the top group, 3rd / 4th from the middle group, winner of the bottom group

second division is all the other teams.

This would obviously make showdowns not guaranteed and anzac day lock in impossible so wont happen.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's not a "draw", it's a "fixture". The word "draw" suggests some from of random selection, and that is certainly not the case.