If you still think divisions or conferences are a good idea - get in here and I'll change your mind

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The idea of a conference consisting of Collingwood and six interstate clubs is laughable

 

[10Dulkar]

The uneven draw in the AFL is not desirable, but conferences are not the answer. Especially if you put the bigger richer clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn) in the the same conference/division like many suggest.

Might well be in a minority on here but I actually like the principle of a unified competition even if the fixture list is a bit unbalanced. It is healthy to look to the USA and Europe for ideas and it stimulates some good discussion on here but from my point of view, there's a lot of factors that go into the mix to be weighed up ; some sporting and some commercial, but from 10k miles away, the AFL is actually pretty well set up.

 

[master bate]

Back to the OP - whilst the West is way stronger than the East in the NBA it's prudent to note that the Heat have won the last 2 championships.

It also appears flying West to East isn't as hard as some note at least in basketball.

Back to AFL:
Div 1 (NORTH). QLD and NSW teams
Div 2 (WEST). SA and WA teams
Div 3 (VIC1). Seeded 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 Victorian teams reshuffling yearly
Div 4. (VIC2) Seeded 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 Victorian teams reshuffling yearly

Play 3 home and 3 away (in total 6) divisional games (each team twice for the interstate teams, for the Victorian teams skip 1 team away and 1 team home) and then play the other 14 teams once then add 21st and 22nd games against 2 teams from another division that finished in the same place in their division as you last year as a simple equilisation measure (also promotes block buster games by having an extra clash of higher ranked teams from previous years).

• 4 division winners make play offs with 2-4 wild card teams in a final 6 or 8.
• Each Victorian team travels to a Western state twice and Northern state twice. Each interstate team plays 5 away matches against Victorian teams.
• Lessens the burden of travel on interstate teams as they have locked in games in the state closest to them.
• Guarantees finals fever if not games will be spread throughout the country particularly as an expansion state team will be in finals each year. (Also means Sydney can suck a fat one getting hammered by expansion teams and burdened by Lance's contract for the next decade)
• Allows for building the expansion teams in a QLD v NSW rivalry as divisional games are always worth double due to finals implications
• Instead of the final 8 getting established so early in the year and a lot of meaningless games the different combinations of divisional games and divisional ladders could well create a lot more interesting games throughout the year.
• The TV schedule can be based on prime divisional match ups and rivalries instead of just commercial interests which in turn benefits the game.

 

[FootyMaths]

So you sacrifice millions of dollars to the AFL, sacrifice ratings, sacrifice crowds, sacrifice players (making them travel far more than needed) and sacrifice crowd enjoyment (people actually like having 2 derbies) all for the sake of a slightly "fairer" fixture? Either way the best team will win the premiership... so why all this extra silly stuff which hurts the game?

If you want to play the 'long game' and think of the future health of the 18 team competition, then yes, the short term sacrifice is worth it.
You wont sacrifice ratings or crowds in the long term if all teams have a decent shot at winning and have a decent support base. To achieve this, you must remove the bias in the draw to the traditionally stronger/well supported teams, and allow the others to 'grow their brand', develop support and sponsorship revenue.

The short term revenue loss (IF! there is one at all given how AFL dominates the Australian sporting landscape and media) will be paid back ten-fold with 18 strong teams all boasting solid membership bases. Ratings and 'crowd enjoyment' flow from that.

In our system, yes the interstate teams will sometimes miss 2x derbies, but it is a byproduct of the open, fair and transparent system proposed. Equally, Melbourne clubs will miss 2x 'blockbusters' sometimes as well. If fairness is the ultimate agenda and it cant be solved by home/away x 2 times, then this is is one way to progress. As before, it is also transparent. The number f games played against opponents is know after the final siren of the final round. Everyone can work out who plays who next year, and there is no gerrymandering by the AFL HQ..
It will 'hurt' big clubs and derbys in SA/WA (where it matters more), but in the true interests of bettering the whole competition, it is fair.

It is not easy for some to look at the football world outside of their respective club windows... and that is the single greatest hurdle to getting a sensible draw in place. The principle must override loyalties..

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

If you want to play the 'long game' and think of the future health of the 18 team competition, then yes, the short term sacrifice is worth it.
You wont sacrifice ratings or crowds in the long term if all teams have a decent shot at winning and have a decent support base. To achieve this, you must remove the bias in the draw to the traditionally stronger/well supported teams, and allow the others to 'grow their brand', develop support and sponsorship revenue.

The short term revenue loss (IF! there is one at all given how AFL dominates the Australian sporting landscape and media) will be paid back ten-fold with 18 strong teams all boasting solid membership bases. Ratings and 'crowd enjoyment' flow from that.

In our system, yes the interstate teams will sometimes miss 2x derbies, but it is a byproduct of the open, fair and transparent system proposed. Equally, Melbourne clubs will miss 2x 'blockbusters' sometimes as well. If fairness is the ultimate agenda and it cant be solved by home/away x 2 times, then this is fair.
It will 'hurt' big clubs and derbys in SA/WA (where it matters more), but in the true interests of bettering the whole competition, it is fair.




It is not easy for some to look at the football world outside of their respective club windows... and that is the single greatest hurdle to getting a sensible draw in place. The principle must override loyalties..

A conference system wont enhance fairness, it will only impede it.

The draw should be completely even, no doubt.

Financial good fortune/wisdom is generally the difference between the teams that are regularly in premiership contention and those that seem to always be down the bottom of the ladder. In my opinion, the relationship between teams' footy department spending and their success is undeniable. Perhaps it might need to be capped in the future.

The draw is generally pretty good. The best teams are always at the top and the premiers always come from the top 4. The draft system replenishes everyone's lists every year and every club has their chance at a flag if they are run well. In the last 15 years, every team in the competition has made a grand final appearance other than richmond and the bulldogs (both of whom have played finals in that time). That seems more even than anyone could ask for.

 

[Starburns_]

Why these stupid threads keep coming up is beyond me.

It's the off-season and people are bored.

So you sacrifice millions of dollars to the AFL, sacrifice ratings, sacrifice crowds, sacrifice players (making them travel far more than needed) and sacrifice crowd enjoyment (people actually like having 2 derbies) all for the sake of a slightly "fairer" fixture? Either way the best team will win the premiership... so why all this extra silly stuff which hurts the game?

Very much the bolded, eliminating 2 derbies per year is one less game that each of the non-Vic sides gets to play in their home state. Which not only lessens their travel load a little, it gives fans in all states except WA a chance to see their team again (something Victorian supporters get a pretty good deal on).

Your post implies that most of the people involved in football management at the highest level are in it only for the money. That no one has any interest in football outside of cash. That the senior people involved in the football clubs themselves are only interested in money.

You state that Demetriou does not care about supporters, or members, or the clubs, or the players, just money. Where does he think the money comes from? True much of it comes from TV, but it is only of value to them due to the supporters.

Many of the changes made by the AFL are cost neutral, or cost negative. They are made due to player welfare concerns (head injuries), or competition balance (support for weaker clubs), or game growth. They spend money on development of womens football, grassroots football and international football. Being a mercenary money grubbing pig, why doesn't he scrap the lot and put it in his own pocket?

You sir, have made a generalised, evidence free, imbecilic rant in defiance of common sense, and a reply of No, is frankly more consideration than it deserved.

The people in charge aren't solely motivated by money? Obvious troll, take it to the bay.

 

[FootyMaths]

A conference system wont enhance fairness, it will only impede it.

If you have static conferences, like the US systems, yes it is a divisive factor. If you have a conference system that changes year on year, it reduces (to the point of eliminates) inherent structural imbalance. Its a long read, but I would request you read this, detailing the mechanics.

The draw should be completely even, no doubt.

Financial good fortune/wisdom is generally the difference between the teams that are regularly in premiership contention and those that seem to always be down the bottom of the ladder. In my opinion, the relationship between teams' footy department spending and their success is undeniable. Perhaps it might need to be capped in the future.

Agreed. And this post here shows what happens when imbalance (in spend) happens. Historically that was found in on-field spends, but now it has re-emerged with off-field spends. Needs capping.

The draw is generally pretty good. The best teams are always at the top and the premiers always come from the top 4. The draft system replenishes everyone's lists every year and every club has their chance at a flag if they are run well. In the last 15 years, every team in the competition has made a grand final appearance other than richmond and the bulldogs (both of whom have played finals in that time). That seems more even than anyone could ask for.

And agreed... given where football could be (in a more dog-eat-dog system you could have only 5 Melb clubs), the draft and equalization have helped maintain the more nebulous 'social fabric' of footy as we know it. The derided 'socialist' thinking of running footy is imperative, as it cant be considered solely as a business, because it is so much more a part of society, of friendships, loyalty and feelings of belongings than any business can ever foster.

 

[The Swans Blog]

I wonder if anyone actually remembers how the conference system works in the AFL.

It's based on the ladder positions for every team (inc. finals) from the previous season in blocks of 6, not location based. It's designed so improve a lower ranked teams chances of making the finals, whilst making it harder for traditionally strong opponents to maintain their position. It also removes the larger team bias that existed and traditional rivalry matches regardless of ladder positions. Eg. Collingwood/Carlton and Carlton/Richmond playing each other frequently.

It also fixes some of the travel inequalities that some teams experienced, such as Port & Sydney traveling to Skilled Stadium almost every single year instead of playing Geelong at their home grounds.

Quite frankly I'm surprised to see someone bitch about a balanced system based on results rather than something based on bias and financial windfalls.

Seriously.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Yep, it's this thread again. However I think now is an appropriate time to prove my point. Have a look at the standings in the NBA this year:

Conference inbalances will develop and quality teams will be denied a finals series they deserve. The West has been the superior conference for over a decade now but it's reaching farcical levels. 13 of the best 16 teams come from the Western Conference, yet five of them will miss out on the playoffs to accomidate 5 teams that can't even win 50% of their games in the insipid "Leastern" Conference. The West lead interconference games 77-33 this year, that's a 70% winning ratio!!!!

The uneven draw in the AFL is not desirable, but conferences are not the answer. Especially if you put the bigger richer clubs (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn) in the the same conference/division like many suggest.

You've only convinced me that you're a bit of a troll.

I've already posted, but I'll post again after reading your op post.

1. conferences are based on previous season results in blocks of 6, not by region, location or travel
2. teams within conferences are equally matched
3. some travel imbalances are corrected or removed
4. team and fixture bias is balanced or removed in some cases, whilst some traditional rivalries will still exist
5. lower ranked teams like brisbane, suns, carlton and adelaide have genuine chance of making the finals
6. lowest ranked teams play more games between themselves than against other higher placed teams for fairness and opportunity to move up the ladder

conference system in NBA is completely different and comparing NBA conference system to AFL is idiotic and you sir should close your account and be done with AFL.

 

[The Swans Blog]

So for those who haven't bothered to do any research:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-28/full-statement-from-the-afl

THE AFL today wrote to all clubs to advise the AFL Commission had approved a change to the 22-match fixture structure whereby each club would now have two byes through the season comprising 22 matches across 25 weeks, starting from next year’s 2014 Toyota AFL Premiership Season.

As part of the introduction of a second bye to better manage the workload on players and clubs throughout the year, the premiership season will now commence with a split round across the weekends of March 14-16 and March 21-23 (five matches and four matches respectively on those two weekends).

The pre-season period will be revitalised to feature two matches per Club scheduled nationally, with a continued focus on regional areas that don’t normally host premiership matches, as well as matches in metropolitan areas and managing the travel load across all teams. In place of the NAB Cup Grand Final, the AFL is currently considering options for a representative-style game in the final week of the pre-season, together with intra-club matches for all teams, before round one gets underway.

AFL General Manager - Broadcasting, Scheduling and Major Projects Simon Lethlean said the first group of club byes were likely to be across rounds 8-10 (three weeks of six matches per round) with the second group of club byes to be placed in the run to the finals in the region of rounds 18-19 (one week of five matches and one week of four matches). All up, clubs would each play 22 games across 25 weeks through March 14-16 (week one of round one) to August 29-31.

The structure for the Toyota AFL Finals Series remains unchanged from the current top eight format.

Separately, Mr Lethlean said the AFL Commission had also approved a more formalised ‘weighted’ rule to govern the five double match-ups for each club as part of the premiership season.

In the construction of each year’s fixture, the final ladder will be grouped into the top six teams, middle six teams and bottom six teams with regard to better managing the equality of double match-ups for all clubs the following season.

· Sides ranked 1-6 on the ladder will have a minimum of two double-meetings with other top six sides and a maximum of three meetings with sides ranked 1-6. They will have a minimum of one double-meeting of sides ranked 7-12 and a maximum of two double-meetings of sides in the 7-12 range. They will have either no double meetings or a maximum of one double meeting with a side ranked 13-18.

· Sides ranked 7-12 on the ladder will have a minimum of one double-meeting with sides ranked 1-6 on the ladder and a maximum of two meetings with sides ranked 1-6. They will have a minimum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 7-12 and a maximum of three double-meetings of sides 7-12. They will have a minimum of one double-meeting of sides ranked 13-18 and a maximum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 13-18.

· Sides ranked 13-18 on the ladder will have either no double meeting or a maximum of one double meeting with a side ranked 1-6. They will have a minimum of one double-meeting with sides ranked 7-12 and a maximum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 7-12. They will have a minimum of two double-meetings of sides ranked 13-18 and a maximum of three double-meetings of sides 13-18.

“The weighting of second-time match ups for clubs enables the AFL to better deal with the key requirement of equality, as well as continuing to ensure that our venue obligations and our broadcast obligations can be met,” Mr Lethlean said.

“Retaining a pre-set fixture for each season ahead, rather than re-fixturing the final rounds of the season after all clubs have played each other once across 17 rounds, better enables the AFL to manage travel loads of the non-Victorian clubs in particular, and ensure that key games such as Derbies, Showdowns, Q Clashes and major blockbusters can be accommodated twice in a season,” he said.

Mr Lethlean said there was no determination to increase the season-length beyond 22 matches at this stage, and nor was there any appetite to altering the structure of the finals at this stage.

“The introduction in recent seasons of the new teams in the Gold Coast Suns and the GWS Giants, combined with the creation of a new match schedule for the broadcasting of games within the current five-year television contract, has introduced significant new complexities into the fixture process.

“It was therefore recommended there be no change to the existing 22-round home and away season, but the Commission did require an increased focus on fixture optimisation, and on and off-field equalisation across all of the 18 clubs, as well as approving the incorporation of the second bye and endorsing an earlier commencement for the Premiership Season” he said.

The AFL is still in the process of considering a representative match in the final week of the pre-season in lieu of a pre-season grand final before round one, and it is expected this will be determined over the coming weeks.

 

[Starburns_]

That isn't actually a true conference system, it's just a weighted fixture.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Conferences or divisions won't work in the AFL system as it is. The best one would be VIC vs the rest, but it's still 10 v 8 teams.

West + SA vs East? 4v14

By state?
10/2/2/2/2

How do you fairly split up the VIC teams? By region? Suddenly Geelong is with WA by virtue of being the western based VIC club. Rubbish like that.

Divisions will only work when there's an equal distribution of teams across the nation, and that's not going to happen in our life time, not unless all state leagues except Victoria merged their best 2 teams with the national competition.

Weighted draws is a temporary solution to a rather difficult problem. It won't solve the disadvantages that some clubs experience, especially those that aren't self-sufficient (St Kilda, Dogs) or those clubs that continually make bad decisions (St Kilda especially), but it does take a step in the right direction for equality.

The draw is probably more balanced and equal than it has been in years. I don't think you'll find too many people who'll look at the draw and complain. I'm pretty damn happy as a Swans supporter that we aren't playing Hawks, Cats & Pies in the final 4 rounds for the 3rd year running.

 

[FootyMaths]

That isn't actually a true conference system, it's just a weighted fixture.

...and so much of it is still at the discretion of the AFL.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

...and so much of it is still at the discretion of the AFL.

South East Geelong St Kilda Collingwood North Melbourne Melbourne Hawthorn Carlton Essendon Bulldogs Richmond
Mid East Sydney GWS
North East Brisbane Lions Gold Coast
Mid South Port Adelaide Adelaide
West WCE Freo.

Every couple of years a half arsed attempt to organize a carnival. Ends in a piss up and no-one can remember the scores.

 

[Blackas87]

2 conferences of 9 that change each year based on the results of the previous year. 5 vic clubs in each conference and 4 interstate clubs in each division. play the other clubs in your conference twice and play the other 9 clubs once for a total of 25 games a season.

Ranking last years clubs.

Victoria
Hawthorn - con 1
Geelong - con 2
Carlton - 1
Richmond - 2
Collingwood - 1
Essendon - 2
North Melbourne - 1
Western Bulldogs - 2
St Kilda - 1
Melbourne - 2

Interstate
Fremantle - Con 2
Sydney - Con 1
Port Adelaide - 2
Adelaide - 1
Brisbane - 2
West Coast - 1
Gold Coast - 2
GWS - 1

Conference 1
Hawthorn
Sydney
Carlton
Adelaide
Collingwood
West Coast
North Melbourne
GWS
St Kilda

Conference 2
Fremantle
Geelong
Port Adelaide
Richmond
Brisbane
Essendon
Gold Coast
Western Bulldogs
Melbourne

 

[blaze036]

Conferences will simply never work with the way the AFL teams are distributed.

Current system is very good

 

[Dalphonso]

Best model is the English Premier League. Everyone plays each other home and away twice. That would be too easy though.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So if I understand this thread people want conferences and divisions because the current system is unfair because some teams get an easier run then others.

The proposed solution being that instead of making the system as fair as possible by adjusting who you play based on form in the previous years, you just take clusters of teams play each other for all eternity regardless of how good/s**t they are?

So what would people think if the 3 best team's in the comp end up in the same conference or division?

It becomes impossible for the best team's in the comp to play each other on the big stage and leads to s**t grand finals.

Imagine for example if Geelong, Freo, Sydney and hawthorn were all in a division?

Or the entire top 8 had been in the same conference?

Because eventually these things will occur the strongest team's sooner or later won't make playoffs based on the strength of their conference.

Whilst weak teams make grand finals and don't stand a chance.

Theres only 2 solutions to inequality
Either a 38 round season where everyone plays each other twice with two byes and no finals
Or a 20 round season, everyone plays each other once, two byes, regular finals system and home ground advantage is rotated each year.

Anything else does not achieve equality so what's the point? Why do people really want a conference system? It sure as s**t isn't for equality.

 

[FootyMaths]

So if I understand this thread people want conferences and divisions because the current system is unfair because some teams get an easier run then others.

The proposed solution being that instead of making the system as fair as possible by adjusting who you play based on form in the previous years, you just take clusters of teams play each other for all eternity regardless of how good/s**t they are?

So what would people think if the 3 best team's in the comp end up in the same conference or division?

It becomes impossible for the best team's in the comp to play each other on the big stage and leads to s**t grand finals.

Imagine for example if Geelong, Freo, Sydney and hawthorn were all in a division?

Or the entire top 8 had been in the same conference?

Because eventually these things will occur the strongest team's sooner or later won't make playoffs based on the strength of their conference.

Whilst weak teams make grand finals and don't stand a chance.

Theres only 2 solutions to inequality
Either a 38 round season where everyone plays each other twice with two byes and no finals
Or a 20 round season, everyone plays each other once, two byes, regular finals system and home ground advantage is rotated each year.

Anything else does not achieve equality so what's the point? Why do people really want a conference system? It sure as s**t isn't for equality.

Not an issue if you re-draw them every year based on combined ladder.
-Conferences get re-drawn every year to eliminate bias.
-Not 'geography based', which is daft.
-Each of the three conferences have teams from 2 of the previous seasons top 6, 2 from the mid 6 and 2 from the bottom 6. FOR BALANCE!
-Conf winner guaranteed 'double chance' in finals, last double chance to best record of 2nd placed teams.
-Remaining 4 finalists are selected from 'best record' of teams from 2nd to 4th in each conference.
-Retain a 22 game season - play 5 in conference h/a (10 games) and other 6 teams in 2 conference 1x (12 games).
-Finals as they are now.
-Draft as it is now.

 

[Blackas87]

So if I understand this thread people want conferences and divisions because the current system is unfair because some teams get an easier run then others.

The proposed solution being that instead of making the system as fair as possible by adjusting who you play based on form in the previous years, you just take clusters of teams play each other for all eternity regardless of how good/s**t they are?

So what would people think if the 3 best team's in the comp end up in the same conference or division?

It becomes impossible for the best team's in the comp to play each other on the big stage and leads to s**t grand finals.

Imagine for example if Geelong, Freo, Sydney and hawthorn were all in a division?

Or the entire top 8 had been in the same conference?

Because eventually these things will occur the strongest team's sooner or later won't make playoffs based on the strength of their conference.

Whilst weak teams make grand finals and don't stand a chance.

Theres only 2 solutions to inequality
Either a 38 round season where everyone plays each other twice with two byes and no finals
Or a 20 round season, everyone plays each other once, two byes, regular finals system and home ground advantage is rotated each year.

Anything else does not achieve equality so what's the point? Why do people really want a conference system? It sure as s**t isn't for equality.

you could have 2 conferences but 1 overall ladder, for example, the top teams from each conference would take 1 and 2 on the ladder, the team with more points and % would get 1st spot, the other 2nd. the teams that finished 2nd in each conference would finish in 3rd and fourth. 3rd in the conference would take 5th and 6th spots, 4th in the conference would take 7th and 8th. Or you could play 1st from conference A play 2nd from conference B and visa versa in the qualifying finals and 3rd in a play 4th in b in the elimination finals.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Best model is the English Premier League. Everyone plays each other home and away twice. That would be too easy though.

Except that it is physically impossible.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Not an issue if you re-draw them every year based on combined ladder.
-Conferences get re-drawn every year to eliminate bias.
-Not 'geography based', which is daft.
-Each of the three conferences have teams from 2 of the previous seasons top 6, 2 from the mid 6 and 2 from the bottom 6. FOR BALANCE!
-Conf winner guaranteed 'double chance' in finals, last double chance to best record of 2nd placed teams.
-Remaining 4 finalists are selected from 'best record' of teams from 2nd to 4th in each conference.
-Retain a 22 game season - play 5 in conference h/a (10 games) and other 6 teams in 2 conference 1x (12 games).
-Finals as they are now.
-Draft as it is now.

Or 17 rounds of normal footy 2 bye rounds And 4 double up games just like we have next season.
The only change required is changing the double up games to ladder based instead of gate based.
Not some contrived bullshit from the US.

 

[jatz14]

Not an issue if you re-draw them every year based on combined ladder.
-Conferences get re-drawn every year to eliminate bias.
-Not 'geography based', which is daft.
-Each of the three conferences have teams from 2 of the previous seasons top 6, 2 from the mid 6 and 2 from the bottom 6. FOR BALANCE!
-Conf winner guaranteed 'double chance' in finals, last double chance to best record of 2nd placed teams.
-Remaining 4 finalists are selected from 'best record' of teams from 2nd to 4th in each conference.
-Retain a 22 game season - play 5 in conference h/a (10 games) and other 6 teams in 2 conference 1x (12 games).
-Finals as they are now.
-Draft as it is now.

How is that not basically the current system, tweaked for irelevance?

 

[SizeMatters]

Hell no. Will only further allow the VIC teams to have an unfair advantage. More money per game, less travel time than other conferences, and it will just recreate the VFL, with anything outside those conferences worthless. I would support it if 4 VIC clubs relocated to QLD, SA, WA and NSW respectively...will never happen as all those states can't support another AFL club.

 

[Albert Ross]

Not an issue if you re-draw them every year based on combined ladder.
-Conferences get re-drawn every year to eliminate bias.
-Each of the three conferences have teams from 2 of the previous seasons top 6, 2 from the mid 6 and 2 from the bottom 6. FOR BALANCE!
-Draft as it is now.

Now in addition to draft position, my incentive to tank includes trying to lever myself into the weaker conference. Win!