Four Conference System

Remove this Banner Ad

Mar 21, 2008
4,389
4,008
FNQ
AFL Club
Tasmania
Other Teams
Devils, Tigers & Jackjumpers
I'm happy with things the way they are, to be honest, but if you were going to address the so-called problems in the AFL draw, this is the only way you could do it...

Premises: We're agreed that the best draw is one where every team must travel the same road to make the finals, right? Instantly, you must throw out this notion that a full H&A roster will magically fix everything. It won't. While ten teams share Victoria, two travel 3500km every fortnight, two live in a state with double the average winter temp of everywhere else, and most players are drafted from one state, you'll never reach this utopian state. It's also unacceptable to axe teams...debate that somewhere else...the current reality is this 18 team comp, and it's not going anywhere in the foreseeable future...additionally, the draw must maximise attendances and revenue...the stupidest opinion currently doing the rounds is that we sacrifice money making opportunities just to level these apparent injustices in the draw...

The divisions: West (WC, Freo, Adel, Port), Qld/NSW (4 current teams), and then two Vic divisions of five teams each. The Vic divisions could change from year to year on a whim...it wouldn't affect the others...

The draw: The two 4 team interstate divisions play internally H&A (6 matches). The other games are played at alternating venues, one against each other team (14 games). The two Vic divisions do the same thing (8 matches and 13 matches). A 22 game season is achieved when the interstaters play 2 extra matches against either their own division rivals or against the other interstate div H&A...you'd think they'd go for derbies...The Vics could make up the shortfall with one extra game against any of the other Vic sides...

A team's journey: West Coast plays 6 matches against its rivals. So do the other teams in the West. WC make a trip to Qld and a trip to NSW. So do the other teams in the West. WC play 7 Vic teams at homw and 7 away...so do the - you get the picture! At the end of the minor round, all four teams have endured almost exactly the same conditions, and they make up the Western Divison ladder. Apply the same logic to the Q/N division. Do the same with the Vics, and you get slightly different numbers, but you can engineer it so that every Vic side plays one game in each capital city outside Victoria, and the rest are all-Vic matchups...

The finals: The top team in each division gets a 1-4 spot, and positions 5-8 in the top 8 are made up of the best of the rest. You might see a top 4 team get a better final spot than a team with a better H&A record, but them's the rules - don't grizzle, just do a better job of winning your division! Otherwise, the top 8 remains as it is...

Expansion: If extra teams appear, you'd think they won't be Victorian. Tassie, Canberra, extra WA/SA...they could fit into either of the 4 team divisions. A 20 team comp, if 4 divisions, makes a roster of 8 intra and 15 inter divisional games...the players association might need a bit of persuading since they are adamant that 22 is long enough...maybe take a match off to even up the home and away game load for each team. You could make 5 Divisions by chopping up the Vics (6+16=22, 5 winners plus best 3-4-5, depending how strong the push is for a ten team final series...!)...there are options...

Revenue: The biggest strength of the NFL, where this model is unashamedly copied from, is the rivalry focus of the draw. The derbies are proven money grabbers, and are the favourite matches of fans. The more the better! If they aren't already, the QvN and WAvSA games will also take on extra significance. The Vic divisions don't have to feature the same teams each time, so you can spread the love for home games against Collingwood, preserve the blockbusters mostly, and let the Vics imagine it's all about the VFL again on the ladder, just like the good old days...at least until the finals...! Sold home games have the potential to disturb this balanced travel system in a minor way...since most of them are in Tassie against two Vic sides, it's not that much of an ask for the travelling interstaters, outside the fact that connect flights from WA aren't overly friendly...!

Final thoughts: It ain't perfect, but it's better than most, and if it's such an issue for everyone it fixes any problems. Some divisions might be strong for a while over others, so we'll hear people grizzle over that (as an NFL Rams fans, I'm used to it personally), but you just wear it, and there wouldn't be much to wear anyway. The cream rises to the top regardless - anyone who wins the flag deserves it.
 
could make the finals system more interesting, with a side that would be Top 4 under the current system, having to start their campaign from an elimination final... currently, Week 2 of the finals is a chore to watch with results going the same way 90% of the time

having uneven number of sides in divisions isn't so much of an issue, givining the non-Vic sides one less rival to contend with in their divisions for all the travelling they do for the year compared to the Vic sides... MLB have had uneven number of sides in their divisions for years, and the NFL did for a period too
 
I think that the travel is part of the game. If you play for a WA team, you have a home advantage that you're playing teams who have travelled a long way to get there. But you also have to learn to travel a long way for almost half your away games.
If you play in Melbourne, you get to play a lot of your away games in Melbourne, but you have to then shake up your match prep with flights the rest of the time, playing away from the MCG and the Roof of the Dome, and yes, travelling to Brisbane/Gold Coast where it's warmer and sticker.

That's part of a national competition.

I'd more rather see a way that means that over a rotation of years teams play every other team twice, so that its the luck of the draw whether you hit them twice in a good year or a bad year. Like the NFL where they have a system to ensure over a certain period you play every other team in the competition.

Could look like this:
Non-Vic teams play each other team once (17 games). Play your cross-town again, Showdown, Derby, Q-Clash, Syndey-GWS (18). Play 2 other non-Vic teams again (20). Play 3 Vic teams again (23 games).
Vic teams play each other team once (17 games). Play 3 non-Vic teams again (20). Play 3 Vic teams again (23 games).
Work out a rotation so that if you play a team at home this year, you play them away next year. Work out a rotation so that if you're Adelaide and play Port, Brisbane and Sydney, Collingwood, Melbourne and North twice this year, next year it would be different teams, and you know that you won't double up against those teams again for 3-4 or however many years, until you've doubled up on every other team. Longer-term fairness, and it's luck of the draw whether you're crap and Collingwood amazing the year you play them twice or the other way round.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

In all honesty, I just don't care about the draw! You turn up, you play, you try to win. Simple as that. The importance of fixturing to maximise profit is often overlooked...Collingwood is a very important team hate them or not, and there are specific rules to fixturing the big 3 which they themselves have no say in, which are designed to allow smaller sides to take advantage of their drawing power...the second you start making concessions after making black and white structures, you lose the impact of whatever you were after and you might as well keep the current system...

The system above tries to address the usual gripes about the current draw, providing a structure that works with club requests and not against. I'm not sure a rotation system over the course of several seasons will achieve much though - the usual complaints are within the season and how it impacts on the ladder at the moment, not over how many times a team plays another down the track...

If there's one glaring issue, and I've mulled over this a bit since, it's that there is a potential for a division winner to be extraordinarily bad and still finish above a very good side...the NFL has never seen a team worse than 7-9 get into the playoffs, but they have 32 teams trying to fit into 12 spots...half of our teams play off. I'm especially looking at the Q/N division, imagining a year where the Swans take a dive and the other 3 teams keep on sucking...! Imagine the Swans winning 7-8 matches, GC,GWS and Brisbane all struggling like last year, and then one of this year's WC and Adelaide finishing on a 14-8 record or similar but being forced into elimination, meeting the below par Swans in Week 2 in Sydney after they get smashed in the first QF...maybe a stipulation could be brought in, in that the worst division winner must have a superior record, or at least reach a certain benchmark, to keep that spot if a runner up who would normally take 5th spot has a better W/L record, otherwise they switch places...
 
Change for change's sake.
It creates no real benefit and a hell of a lot of hassles.

There are basically 4 ways to fix "the problems" of the draw, 3 of them (teams re-play based on some division of the previous ladder, teams re-play on a 3 year fixture, or teams re-play completely randomly) create no major hassles, require no heavy lifting and will only result in a fairer system... and then there's this.

Thank heavens the AFL has no truck with this sort of stuff.
 
The difference between the NFL divisions and say a Victorian division, is at least in the NFL, teams still all have to travel. In a Vic only division, they don't. It's a massive, massive advantage. If we go down a divisional path, it must be an even spread of teams or it will just be another advantage to the Victorian teams, which may be the goal any rate.
 
Change for change's sake.
It creates no real benefit and a hell of a lot of hassles.

There are basically 4 ways to fix "the problems" of the draw, 3 of them (teams re-play based on some division of the previous ladder, teams re-play on a 3 year fixture, or teams re-play completely randomly) create no major hassles, require no heavy lifting and will only result in a fairer system... and then there's this.

Thank heavens the AFL has no truck with this sort of stuff.
Well, I did say I couldn't give a rat's arse either...I don't care who or where the Hawks play, as long as they kick their arses...mind you, I am partial to full H&A v Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, and wouldn't mind them playing Brisbane and GC up here again after a few year's break...!

However, your first 3 don't take into account what is official AFL policy and pure commonsense - the draw must maximise profits, at the very least to help clubs survive, and this is why the WA/SA/Qld/NSW teams play 2 derbies a season, matches can be sold, the Big 3 are rotated amongst the other Vic sides to ensure that everyone gets at least one home game against Collingwood, Carlton or Essendon every season, and every team gets to nominate a wishlist for the next year which can be so complex in permutation that these days they shove the entire job onto a supercomputer...looks like "heavy lifting" to me...!

You also cannot back up the statement: "...will only result in a fairer system"...how exactly is any of that potentially "fairer"...? What has the previous season got to do with the current one to the point where you can hang a club's onfield fortunes and bank balance on it? I'd hate to be the team in 2012 that got extra matches against Adelaide, West Coast and Essendon based upon their finishing positions in 2010! The Yanks only do this to decide which two teams out of two remaining opposing conferences are opponents 15 and 16 in any given teams's 16-game draw, so its hardly a scientifically tested procedure...
 
5000 words tells me you do care about this.



The fairest system is every club plays every other club a set number of times, both home & away, over a set time period - and all sides are ranked by the same system (one ladder).


Not that hard to do, either - split up the sides completely arbitrarily (alphabetically, by longitude, coach's favourite colour, whatever - it does not matter).
In year 1 All teams in group A play twice against all other teams in group B, once against the teams in the other groups;
In year 2 twice against group B teams;
Year 3 twice against group C; etc
and all match-ups simply alternate H&A.

Bang, easy done: utter transparency, fixture basically sorted out for the next 100 years, or until they bring in more teams whichever comes first; no extra paperwork, no more bitching & whining, no extra ladders or conferences or confusion.
 
5000 words tells me you do care about this.



The fairest system is every club plays every other club a set number of times, both home & away, over a set time period - and all sides are ranked by the same system (one ladder).


Not that hard to do, either - split up the sides completely arbitrarily (alphabetically, by longitude, coach's favourite colour, whatever - it does not matter).
In year 1 All teams in group A play twice against all other teams in group B, once against the teams in the other groups;
In year 2 twice against group B teams;
Year 3 twice against group C; etc
and all match-ups simply alternate H&A.

Bang, easy done: utter transparency, fixture basically sorted out for the next 100 years, or until they bring in more teams whichever comes first; no extra paperwork, no more bitching & whining, no extra ladders or conferences or confusion.

I like 20 teams, four conferences.
 
I like 20 teams, four conferences.
So the winner of a conference gets (I assume) the guaranteed home double chance that we get for top 4 today. What happens if they're fairly s**t, and a really good side in another conference misses out?
Why should some teams have to fly every 2nd week and others only a few times a year?

All the bad bits of the current system, a few more drawbacks, and no real merits whatsoever that I can see.
 
So the winner of a conference gets (I assume) the guaranteed home double chance that we get for top 4 today. What happens if they're fairly s**t, and a really good side in another conference misses out?
Why should some teams have to fly every 2nd week and others only a few times a year?

All the bad bits of the current system, a few more drawbacks, and no real merits whatsoever that I can see.

There is only one way you can make it 100% even. Play everyone twice, home and away. And it is never going to happen.
 
So... in the abscence of that, or a pretty good compromise (play everyone about twice home & twice away over 3 years, or however it works out).... we should have 4 mini-leagues & 4 mini-ladders?
 
All teams get 1 'local rival' they play twice every year. (mostly to keep the non-Vics happy...in Vic it could be random).

Which give you...
17 games playing teams once.
1 rivalry match.
4 rotation matches ( spread over 16 clubs, so roster they all over a 4 year cycle ).
=22 round season.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I have a much fairer system which will maximise revenue.

Divide the 18 teams into 4 conferences.

1. NSW/QLD Conference (Brisbane, Gold Coast, GWS and Sydney)
Play each other team 7 times (21 games). Extra match for the local derby.
Top team makes it into finals.
2. SA Conference (Adelaide and Port Adelaide)
22 Showdowns. Maximises crowds and TV revenue. Top team makes it into finals. Since a SA team will make the finals then there will be more media interest.
3. VIC Conference (10 Victorian teams).
Play each other twice (18 matches). Conference then split into a championship group (top 5 teams) and losers group (bottom 5). Play each other team in your group once to make up 22 matches. Top team makes finals.
4. WA Conference (Fremantle and West Coast)
Same as SA Conference.

Only four teams will qualify for finals.
Will play each other team once. Grand final will be held at the MCG.

This is clearly better than a rolling draw where each team plays each other twice over a three year period. Also eliminates the impact of travel.
 
Problem arises from the AFL schedualing ess, Coll, Carl & rich twice a yr

Fix this to one where every 3 years you play every other team 4 times, in a rotating fixture, and then the bitching stops

Teams want an EQUAL draw, not so much a fair one

For example, hawthorn has played Carlton once a season for several years outside of 2009, always as the away team

Meanwhile Carlton has played each of those mentioned above twice per season
 
No just no It would be worse then the current problems with the fixture.

The simply fact is once you go into a conference setup you can't go back.

On top of that conferences lead to weak teams and teams that don't deserve a spot in the finals making the finals.

This because the focus is on the beating your conference and if your conference is weak then you are weak. You can be stronger then those in your conference but if the intensity of your games is poor you'll get demolished by interstate teams.


Next it doesn't address the travel issue at all, interstate teams are still traveling over 2000km's a week while vic no vic team would travel further then Geelong for most of the season.

Shortens the season, weakening footy even further in developing states.

This is perhaps the most vic centric and short sighted option I've heard of, the problems it creates are worse then the problems we have now.

Besides it weakens interstate clubs again by taking away big drawing games in the nth comp GWS and Suns are a joke and so is port for SA/WA so much for maximising profits.

All we need is a rotating draw problem solved. As for revenue and income from big games, improve as a side and you won't have to rely on collingwood for your crowds.
 
There's almost no difference in the number of times they get on a plane with this scenario or in real life. In my model, interstaters travel 10 times, just like they do now. The Vics will do it 4 times each. An extra game or two to make it a 22 game season skewers things negligibly. What would be achieved is for each side competing against another on any given division ladder to face the same challenges to get to the finals. Additionally, there's a symmetry to the draw that isn't based on anything as pointless as last year's ladder positions. The point about travel is not how much you do in a season (interstaters will get on a plane regardless), it's how much you do against teams you are directly competing against in order to make the finals...

There is a flaw, as you've said in relative division strength, which I did address above...

And why couldn't we revert back if the conference system didn't work...?

As for maximising profits, sorry, but this model is superior to anything suggested on that front by anyone on this forum - and I can make that statement because I'm yet to see anyone actually come out and say that maximising profit is as important as this concept of an "equal draw". Many here would axe a derby just to have a full H&A, and they would see blockbusters (another word for Vic v Vic) dismantled. This is the height of stupidity, because these games are what the fans want and pull the biggest crowds. Why would you not cram as many as you could? In this model, GWS for example gets a derby, games you can build up as rivalries against Qlders, and 5 against travelling Vics - every two years, with rotating H&A, they will get all of the big crowd pullers. You will not see the current situation where the Hawks haven't been to Brisbane since 2008, and Carlton has played 24 of their 37 games to 2011 in Perth, amongst many imbalances. Two teams are rubbish now - this will even out. The bottom 4 of 2006 was the top 4 of 1999, and so forth...

As for your last statement, that's rubbish. Be as good as North were in the 1990's, and you might still be playing in front of bugger all. West Coast got 62000 to their away game against Collingwood - they've never drawn more than 40000-odd in their entire history away from home before that, even with better teams than the current one. It's not ladder position that draw them in, necessarily, to the point where you can discount the easy bucks by inviting the ferals...!
 
But if as you say it's all about The dollars Then you fail to address that you are weakening The interstate teams by taking away their big games.

Nobody gives a s**t about the suns or GWS or port apart from that s**t fight SA "Darby" those will always be low drawing matches it won't change simply because we don't play the bombers anymore, if as you say it's all about the blockbuster why would you take away the large drawing games from interstate teams?

The only problem with the draw is teams getting an easy path a rotating fixture solves this as The blockbusters don't vanish neither do the derbies. They also aren't cheapened by using them as a cash in.

As for tough bickies rubbish about
better teams missing out on a spot simply because they are in a strong conference, what world do you live in The number one complaint about the draw is teams getting an easy draw vs a hard, the vast majority of fans put The integrity of the draw above revenue.

Your so called solution doesn't change anything other then weaken interstate clubs and make the final spots unrelated to the true strength of each team. It's worse then what we have now!
 
The people who give a s**t about GWS and GC are the fans of those two teams, and with any luck their city rivals. NOONE else will have to play them twice. What's not obvious here? And how are you taking away big drawing fixtures from interstaters when you are guaranteeing a home match against every side over two years...? It doesn't weaken interstaters, what a crock of s**t. Regardless of whatever draw they decide upon, your Swans are guaranteed two games against GWS for all eternity anyway and your memory selectively forgets the pure crap the Swans put out for several years in the early 1990's which the rest of us had to endure on tv (unless we were playing them, then it was great)...

I can understand people not liking the look of the ladder, and the imbalance with division strengths could be an issue. You can fix this, as has been said. But read the bloody thing if you're going to counter it...if it was perfect, it would be AFL policy already...

And the fans will be the first to drop any notion of "integrity of the draw" over revenue if it means their club survives...if you rotate the fixture mindlessly, you axe derbies and blockbusters...think about it...
 
If the AFL wasn't so beholden to media interests the fairest draw would be everyone playing each other once. Much less physical and mental stress on the players too.

:thumbsu: & in the real world, the FIXture would TRY to address fairness, replaced by a rolling draw where there are not 2 x any game every year, they would occur as the draw resulted.

No club would be given protected draws, e.g the Pies could be drawn to play twice in Perth.
 
:thumbsu: & in the real world, the FIXture would TRY to address fairness, replaced by a rolling draw where there are not 2 x any game every year, they would occur as the draw resulted.

No club would be given protected draws, e.g the Pies could be drawn to play twice in Perth.

In the real world, the AFL needs to make a shedload of money so it can sustain a healthy national competition, buy grounds to play on, subsidies Auskick, training referees and a second-tier copmpetition and do all the other things that takes the league and the code forward.

This includes things like two Western Derbies, two Showdowns, the grudge matches including the Melbourne sides and so on.
 
The bottom line for me is you are never going to get a totally 'fair' draw.

Even if you play each team twice, there are form variations to consider. For example, i'm much happier to be getting West Coast in Perth now, than I would have been if we'd played them there in April or May.

I think there are two main benefits of a conference system that outweigh the negatives. One, though you may consider it contrived, it develops and grows rivalries. Look at Dallas and Washington in the NFL. They are nowhere near each other geographically, and have very little in common except they are in the same conference. Yet it has developed into one of the most vicious rivalries in the league.

The thing i'd really like to see happen is for Victorian teams outside of the 'Big 4' develop some genuinely bitter rivalries that put bums on seats no matter where the teams are on the ladder. The only Victorian clubs that have a big ticket rivalry that doesn't involve a 'big 4' club is ourselves and Hawthorn. You can guarantee there's going to be 60k to a game between the two clubs now.

I also have no problem with the 'big 4' clubs playing each other twice, or the intracity games. They draw crowds, generate interest in the game, and as an extension, generate revenue. And whether you like it or not, you need money to run a professional competition professionally.

The other thing a conference system does is give clubs more opportunities to win things. In an 18 team competition, where only one club can win the title each year, that's a lot of clubs going without each year. As we are seeing with more than one club at the moment, the minute the success dries up, they find themselves right on the breadline.

Now i'm not saying a conference or division title is anywhere near as good as winning it all. Of course it isn't. But perhaps for clubs like Footscray, who went close three years in a row without getting anything for it, it would have been some small reward for effort to have won something like a division or conference title. It might have helped a few of their supporters who have stopped coming in the last 18 months to want to hang in there.

You may also say that to go to a system lie this would be rewarding a lot of mediocrity. But as I see it, we are already doing that now. It really wouldn't make that much difference.

I'd break it down something like this....

4 divisions, 5 teams each, 2 conferences (North East and South West)

You play everyone in your division twice, and all other teams once with alternating H&A fixtures each year.

So that would be 23 games a year, only one more than we play now.

There would have to be two extra teams added of course.

You'd have to have the 'big 4' in one division, The 4 WA/SA teams in one, and the 4 Qld/NSW teams in one. Then it would be a matter of how you would break down the other 8 teams fairly. A lot of that would be decided by what two teams came in.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top