Ladder conference farce

[SunGirl89]

There is nothing wrong the conference system. The only real issue with this years setup is too few teams in the finals.

The shorter the season, the more randomness in outcomes. To overcome that, you need a higher % of teams to play finals to increase the probability that the top 2 will play off in the grand final.

It should have been 3 out of 5 this year, and it should be 4 out of 7 next year.

Some of what you say is true, some of what you say is rubbish. The "only real issue" is too few teams in the finals: this comment to me indicates a lack of depth to your thinking. You are looking at a way of making a bad system less bad, rather than trying to improve the system. Do you even understand the simple but flawed mathematics involved in the AFL's allocation of teams to the conferences?

There is one question and one question only that needs to be answered: what is the best system that could have been implemented, and how, given the known confines and constraints enforced by the AFL? Your suggestion would have enabled Fremantle to make finals which is a plus, although the season would have gone one week longer, which is not a bad thing, but the AFL deemed the season to be nine weeks long, not ten.

You are confusing the "system", with "implementation of the system".

The system is fine, the only issue with its implementation is the number of teams playing finals.

The lopsided conferences is an unfortunate consequence of a conference system.

It's almost like people with your level of thinking were involved in the implementation of this AFLW season. Again, you reiterate this rubbish "the only issue is the number of teams playing finals". Would it have helped? Yes. Was this the only issue or the main issue with this season? No it was not.

 

[Teen Wolf]

It's almost like people with your level of thinking were involved in the implementation of this AFLW season.

But, once again I must point out, there is no need to speculate about who was involved. We already know it was players, coaches, club CEOs, general football and list managers. It's their league and they had a say on the season structure.

Nicole Livingstone mentioned the Competition Committee five or so times in a 4-minute interview regarding this topic on the AFLW website. And, far as I'm aware, nobody on that committee has come out and said they fought against conferences.

 

[Consolaçao]

There’s a reason why only American sporting leagues and a handful of others have adopted conferences. It’s because they’re rubbish. They’ve only ever been implemented (as far as I know) because of geography or because of league mergers.
Let’s cast forward to next year, 14 teams. How many games are they playing? Let’s assume seven. In a random draw where teams have an equal chance of playing each other, each team will miss out on playing six others. These others may be good, bad or average. Teams could get lucky or otherwise.
Does a conference system get rid of this issue? No. It doesn’t (In fact, it seems like AFL in their wisdom will be having each team play a ‘rival’ twice making the inequality potentially even greater).
Not only is the issue of not playing all teams once most definitely still there, but the inequality is accentuated by the fact that (as happened this year) if you’re the third or fourth best team overall, but not the top two in your conference, you won’t be playing finals.
At the end of the day, with an ‘open’ ladder, North are in finals and the fixture has been no less unequal (I can see this happening often btw.. why should the top four sides be evenly distributed across two randomly constructed conferences?)
In my view, conferences are about two things:
- an instinct among Australians to watch what happens in America and uncritically mimic it, and
- the AFL recognising an issue and pretending to fix it. What matters most to the AFL is that they’re *seen* to have resolved it. In this case it seems like some of you are actually convinced.

 

[Teen Wolf]

(In fact, it seems like AFL in their wisdom will be having each team play a ‘rival’ twice making the inequality potentially even greater)

News to me, where did you hear that?

Not only is the issue of not playing all teams once most definitely still there, but the inequality is accentuated by the fact that (as happened this year) if you’re the third or fourth best team overall, but not the top two in your conference, you won’t be playing finals.)

Didn't have to be that way, even with conferences in a 9-week finals-included season.

- the AFL recognising an issue and pretending to fix it. What matters most to the AFL is that they’re *seen* to have resolved it. In this case it seems like some of you are actually convinced.

What do the AFL care if there are conferences or not? Are you saying a majority of the Competition Committee advised against conferences, yet the league still went ahead with them anyway? I repeat: news to me, where did you hear that?

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

The conference system isn't going anywhere. The season will likely influence how finals are determined next year, but 2 conferences of 7 teams won't be going anywhere.

There's nothing especially wrong with the AFLW finals having crossover games. Once you're there and seeded, the rest plays out on the field anyway, whether conference aligned or not. We don't place much importance on the minor premiership, so similarly conference championships aren't really relevant here.

True, although the less crossover you have before the Grand Final, the less risk that the Conferences can be perceived as uneven.

For instance, if there are no home & away crossover, people won't be able to argue definitively that one Conference is stronger then the other, because teams from one Conference keep on winning the crossover games. People might think it, but the controversy will be lessened because they won't be able to prove it.

Same for finals. If the semi-finals are crossovers and both are won by teams from the same Conference, then its an easy argument that one Conference is stronger than the other and the league's integrity is questioned. If the only time the two Conferences meet is in the last game, then that argument is harder to mount.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

There’s a reason why only American sporting leagues and a handful of others have adopted conferences. It’s because they’re rubbish. They’ve only ever been implemented (as far as I know) because of geography or because of league mergers.

I think you are right that Conferences came about because of geography and the Baseball & American Football league mergers.

I disagree with that they are rubbish. They don't have to be. It just depends on how disciplined you want to be in setting up your competition.

I should say that Position A for mine is "one league full home & away" system. However with AFLW moving to 14 teams next year that will never happen. There is now way that the competition have 26 rounds of home & away football.

What can you do?

• Move to a two division promotion/relegation system? There would be blood in the streets
  
  
• Be like the AFL or WAFL? One ladder but a compromised fixture where teams please some teams once but other teams twice. And the exact way the fixture is worked out isn't never fully revealed so there is always the sense that the league administration is manipulating the fixture for commercial reasons? In AFLW you will end up with 14 unique fixtures as every team has a slightly different fixture. Such a system is unfair in its very makeup since no club shares the same fixture as another club.
  
  
• Implement a strict conference system with teams only playing qualifying games within their conference and then a conference championship before a crossover grand final. You have just reduced the risk of unfair fixtures: the teams within each conference are only playing the same teams as everyone else in the conference. If you have play full home & away within the conference, then you end up with only two fixtures across the entire league: one for each conference and every team plays exactly the same fixtures as every other team in their conference. Having a Conference Championship also means the only teams playing finals are the ones that "deserve" to be in the finals for their conference. And if you aren't the Conference Champion then you really can't claim you deserve the right to play off for the Grand Final: after all whoever has won your Conference Championship has just beat you for that right.

I'm not saying that whatever system used by the AFLW will be fair. But a Conference system could be the second fairest system if implemented correctly.

 

[Quokka]

Coming back to geography, imo the third option could work if it was 7 teams on the east coast and 7 west, or something similar but same as the afl there is no obvious split that would be even close to fair. I still think just trying to do the fixture as fair as possible, while acknowledging there will be issues and then running one ladder is as good as any of the alternatives.

 

[Starburns_]

True, although the less crossover you have before the Grand Final, the less risk that the Conferences can be perceived as uneven.

For instance, if there are no home & away crossover, people won't be able to argue definitively that one Conference is stronger then the other, because teams from one Conference keep on winning the crossover games. People might think it, but the controversy will be lessened because they won't be able to prove it.

Same for finals. If the semi-finals are crossovers and both are won by teams from the same Conference, then its an easy argument that one Conference is stronger than the other and the league's integrity is questioned. If the only time the two Conferences meet is in the last game, then that argument is harder to mount.

I'd argue that a lopsided GF due to conference inbalance is worse than knowing there's an imbalance between the conferences (which we'd know anyway because there will be at least one crossover game each next season to prevent byes). The people who don't understand conferences will sook either way, so the AFL shouldn't bother appeasing them and just focus on the best system.

Next year the AFLW will play a season of 6 in conference games plus 1-2 crossovers, a 6 team finals series would also seem likely. This drastically reduces the issues of this year where the games were 4-3 in conference and out, as well as only 2 finals spots per conference.

What will be interesting is whether this year influences the finals format at all, do the AFL make it top 3 from each conference play finals and say stiff s**t to 4th, 3/7 teams were better than you? Or do they make top 2 from each conference automatic finallists, and the final 2 spots are based on overall record (which adds significance to crossover games).

It's an interesting decision, but I just don't feel crossover finals are actually a bad thing. If we use the 2+2+2 system I outlined above with this year's records (assuming the higher finishing side wins) you get a finals system that looks like:

Week 1
Freo vs Melbourne
Geelong vs North

Week 2
Adelaide vs North
Carlton vs Freo

As opposed to:

Week 1
Freo vs North
Geelong vs GWS

Week 2
Adelaide vs Freo
Carlton vs Geelong

I know which one is more compelling viewing there.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

I'd argue that a lopsided GF due to conference inbalance is worse than knowing there's an imbalance between the conferences (which we'd know anyway because there will be at least one crossover game each next season to prevent byes). The people who don't understand conferences will sook either way, so the AFL shouldn't bother appeasing them and just focus on the best system.

Next year the AFLW will play a season of 6 in conference games plus 1-2 crossovers, a 6 team finals series would also seem likely. This drastically reduces the issues of this year where the games were 4-3 in conference and out, as well as only 2 finals spots per conference.

What will be interesting is whether this year influences the finals format at all, do the AFL make it top 3 from each conference play finals and say stiff s**t to 4th, 3/7 teams were better than you? Or do they make top 2 from each conference automatic finallists, and the final 2 spots are based on overall record (which adds significance to crossover games).

It's an interesting decision, but I just don't feel crossover finals are actually a bad thing. If we use the 2+2+2 system I outlined above with this year's records (assuming the higher finishing side wins) you get a finals system that looks like:

Week 1
Freo vs Melbourne
Geelong vs North

Week 2
Adelaide vs North
Carlton vs Freo

As opposed to:

Week 1
Freo vs North
Geelong vs GWS

Week 2
Adelaide vs Freo
Carlton vs Geelong

I know which one is more compelling viewing there.

I reckon wildcards will have a lot of support. So yep, I can easily imagine a situation where we have, say, top 2 in each conference and then next best 2 with crossovers.

 

[Starburns_]

I reckon wildcards will have a lot of support. So yep, I can easily imagine a situation where we have, say, top 2 in each conference and then next best 2 with crossovers.

The AFL talk about wildcards enough for the main competition (even though it's just a dumb finals expansion packaged up as something exciting), so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan all along when they jumped to 14 teams.

2 wildcards in a 4 team finals probably seemed a bit off at the time they structured this season, unfortunately hindsight shows that it would've been better. This AFLW season does feel a lot like a bridge year in many respects, it's backfired in almost every way possible, but fortunately for all concerned it's nearly over and won't be happening again.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

The AFL talk about wildcards enough for the main competition (even though it's just a dumb finals expansion packaged up as something exciting), so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan all along when they jumped to 14 teams.

2 wildcards in a 4 team finals probably seemed a bit off at the time they structured this season, unfortunately hindsight shows that it would've been better. This AFLW season does feel a lot like a bridge year in many respects, it's backfired in almost every way possible, but fortunately for all concerned it's nearly over and won't be happening again.

At least the footy has been good!

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

At least the footy has been good!

Big improvement over Season 1 & 2.

 

[le dominateur]

Conferences looking a lot more even now with Carlton smashing the 2nd best team in Conference A.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SunGirl89]

Conferences looking a lot more even now with Carlton smashing the 2nd best team in Conference A.

What an absurdly ridiculous comment. The fact is that Carlton should never have been given the opportunity, and definitely not at home.

In Round 24, 1991 Fitzroy was last and beat ladder leader West Coast. The Eagles went on to play in the grand final and win the premiership the next year. Maybe Fitzroy was a better team, cos you know, they beat West Coast one time.

Carlton kicked 3 goals and lost by 56 points to last placed St Kilda in 1995. Maybe St Kilda were more worthy of the premiership that year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What an absurdly ridiculous comment. The fact is that Carlton should never have been given the opportunity, and definitely not at home.

In Round 24, 1991 Fitzroy was last and beat ladder leader West Coast. The Eagles went on to play in the grand final and win the premiership the next year. Maybe Fitzroy was a better team, cos you know, they beat West Coast one time.

Carlton kicked 3 goals and lost by 56 points to last placed St Kilda in 1995. Maybe St Kilda were more worthy of the premiership that year.

Are you suggesting this Carlton team are as bad as Fitzroy 1991 or St Kilda 1995?

If not, then you've done a fair job of being ridiculous yourself.

I'd compare us to the New York Giants NFL team who stumbled into a wildcard spot and ended up winning the Superbowl.

Hell, maybe we are the 2016 Bulldogs.

Point is we have been getting better and better every week. We had one bad loss to start the season, a meritorious loss to the Crows in round 2, and a loss to the Cats when we dominated but missed several gimme goals.

Conference B teams only have 3 wins vs Conference A teams and 2 of them were ours. We smashed Freo today. It wasn't an aberration. We have been building.

 

[SunGirl89]

Carlton have done nothing wrong, they did not invent the system or make up the rules, so good luck to them. When you get handed a bit of luck, fairly or unfairly, you still have to make the most of it, and Carlton have. Of all AFLW clubs, I really don't care for Freo so I have no problem with Carlton making the grand final.

The fact is that Carlton should not have been given the opportunity to play finals let alone host one. Carlton got lucky by winning a weak conference and being rewarded with a home final against a team that had to fly 4 hours from the other side of the country. Carlton would not have beaten North today, and would not have beaten Freo away. But things have just fallen in to place for Carlton and good luck to them.

Carlton AFLW 2019 are better than Fitzroy AFLM 1991 and St Kilda AFLM 1995.

I am not overly familiar with NFL history, but I will say that the AFLW 2019 conference system is probably one of the worst systems ever. It cannot be compared to US conference systems that play between 16 and 162 games.

Western Bulldogs AFLM 2016 were a bloody good team, 2 games off 1st over a 22-game season.

You will see next week what the premier standard is in AFLW. Adelaide will destroy Geelong, but I expect Carlton to be more competitive than Geelong.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Suppose Fremantle came up against Carlton at Ikon Park during the regular season in exchange for neither team playing Geelong...

Based on today's result, the Dockers would've finished Round 7 on the same number of wins as both the Blues and Roos but with the lowest % of the three.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think you can point out the farce as far as Geelong are concerned, because they struggled to score the whole season.

If you look purely at the football played, Carlton are comfortable in this company and I'm not sure looking strictly at the ladder in a short season should be the only measure.

 

[footyfan1978]

What I saw yesterday clearly the best or second best team in whole league.
North beat Carlton round one of this. This Carlton team nearly two months later would certainly reverse result on what I saw.
They just started off slowly but now they going, will give Crows good run for their money assuming Crows win as they should. Clearly the team to beat to be premiers.

 

[HongKongRoo]

I don't think anyone wants to see a record lowest score ever in a preliminary final. That's what this conference system has delivered. Carlton may justified a place in the final four but that was pretty embarrassing for Geelong. Honestly I don't see the need for a conference system at all. There is no geographic imperative, we are not divided, like the US into blocks of east and west coast cities.

 

[SunGirl89]

My argument pure and simple is that the league administrators have not done their best to maximise competition fairness and integrity, given known constraints of time and money. Those constraints are a separate argument.

I'm extremely happy for players like Darcy Vescio and Tayla Harris to make the grand final, but the Crows are a class above all.

 

[SunGirl89]

2020 - NON-CONFERENCE SYSTEM (14 teams, 7 rounds, 3 weeks of finals)

POOL A - Teams 1 to 7 from 2018
- Adelaide, Fremantle, Kangaroos, Melbourne, Carlton, Geelong, WBulldogs

Pool B - Teams 8 to 10 from 2018, plus four new teams
- GWS Giants, Brisbane, Collingwood, Gold Coast, Richmond, St Kilda, West Coast

NB: these pools are not conferences, there is a single ladder. The pools only aid in devising the H&A fixture.
Each team plays every other team in their pool, and there is one crossover. Each week there is one crossover match.

It is the fixture that attempts to bring some equality to the competition, not arbitrary conferences. For the fourth successive year,
teams will still have an unequal number of home games which is disappointing. It would be great if the AFL could even this up.
Adelaide/Fremantle - have had 4 home and 3 away games every season, should only have 3 home next year
Brisbane - have had 3 home and 4 away games every season, should have 4 home next year
due for 3 home games in 2020: GWS Giants, Western Bulldogs
due for 4 home games in 2020: Carlton, Geelong, Melbourne, North Melbourne

FINALS: top 6
Week 1 - SF1: 3 v 6; EF2: 4 v 5; bye for 1+2
Week 2 - PF1: 1 v #2-ranked SF winner; PF2: 2 v #1-ranked SF winner
Week 3 - GF: PF1 winner v PF2 winner, hosted by #1-ranked PF winner

 

[SunGirl89]

2020 - CONFERENCE SYSTEM (14 teams, 7 rounds, 3 weeks of finals)

CONFERENCE A - Teams 1,4,5,8 + (9 or 10) from 2018, + two new teams
- Adelaide(1), Kangaroos(4), Melbourne(5), WBulldogs(8), Brisbane(9), Gold Coast, St Kilda
- conference strength based on 2018 results = 27 (ie. 3.7% differential to Conf. B, compared to 25% in 2019)
- Brisbane and Gold Coast added to same conference to ensure local derby match

CONFERENCE B - Teams 2,3,6,7 + (9 or 10) from 2018, + two new teams
- Carlton(2), Fremantle(3), Geelong(6), GWS Giants(7), Collingwood(10), West Coast, Richmond
- conference strength based on 2018 results = 28 (ie. 3.7% differential to Conf. B, compared to 25% in 2019)
- West Coast added to same conference as Fremantle to ensure local derby match

Rankings include grand final, so Carlton becomes #2, all other teams as per H&A record.


A different conference set-up, if you put Collingwood in A then you move the two Qld teams to B:
CONFERENCE A - Teams 1,4,5,8 + (9 or 10) from 2018, + two new teams
- Adelaide(1), Kangaroos(4), Melbourne(5), WBulldogs(8), Collingwood(10), Richmond, St Kilda
- conference strength based on 2018 results = 28 (ie. 3.7% differential to Conf. B, compared to 25% in 2019)

CONFERENCE B - Teams 2,3,6,7 + (9 or 10) from 2018, + two new teams
- Carlton(2), Fremantle(3), Geelong(6), GWS Giants(7), Brisbane(9), Gold Coast, West Coast
- conference strength based on 2018 results = 27 (ie. 3.7% differential to Conf. B, compared to 25% in 2019)
- Brisbane and Gold Coast added to same conference to ensure local derby match
- West Coast added to same conference as Fremantle to ensure local derby match

FINALS: top 3 from each conference
Week 1 - SF1: A2 v B3; EF2: B2 v A3; bye for A1+B1
Week 2 - PF1: A1 v B2/A3; PF2: B1 v A2/B3
Week 3 - GF: PF1 winner v PF2 winner, hosted by #1-ranked PF winner

 

[Dirty Bird]

2020 - NON-CONFERENCE SYSTEM (14 teams, 7 rounds, 3 weeks of finals)

POOL A - Teams 1 to 7 from 2018
- Adelaide, Fremantle, Kangaroos, Melbourne, Carlton, Geelong, WBulldogs

Pool B - Teams 8 to 10 from 2018, plus four new teams
- GWS Giants, Brisbane, Collingwood, Gold Coast, Richmond, St Kilda, West Coast

NB: these pools are not conferences, there is a single ladder. The pools only aid in devising the H&A fixture.
Each team plays every other team in their pool, and there is one crossover. Each week there is one crossover match.

It is the fixture that attempts to bring some equality to the competition, not arbitrary conferences. For the fourth successive year,
teams will still have an unequal number of home games which is disappointing. It would be great if the AFL could even this up.
Adelaide/Fremantle - have had 4 home and 3 away games every season, should only have 3 home next year
Brisbane - have had 3 home and 4 away games every season, should have 4 home next year
due for 3 home games in 2020: GWS Giants, Western Bulldogs
due for 4 home games in 2020: Carlton, Geelong, Melbourne, North Melbourne

FINALS: top 6
Week 1 - SF1: 3 v 6; EF2: 4 v 5; bye for 1+2
Week 2 - PF1: 1 v #2-ranked SF winner; PF2: 2 v #1-ranked SF winner
Week 3 - GF: PF1 winner v PF2 winner, hosted by #1-ranked PF winner

The 6 non-Victorian teams plus north Melbourne should have 4 home, 3 away
Still travel more then then Victorian teams.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Any league that has 7 minor rounds and then 3 weeks of finals just seems silly to me. The AFL should allow for a longer AFLW season, something like a 10 round minor round minimum.