The BIGGEST problem in the) AFL that no one is talking about (the lack of success in the industry. One trophy - 19 teams.

[Scotland]

I'll explain it to you how an equalized competition works dummy.

Once every 19 years you should be the best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 2nd-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 3rd-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 4th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 5th- best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 6th-best team

Why in the last 19 years have you never been any of these?

Once every 19 years you should be the 11th-best team

Why in the last 19 years have you been this 4 times?

Once every 19 years you should be the 15th-best team

Why in the last 19 years have you been this 3 times?

My God you are dumb.

That's not very nice.

Once in every 19 posts he is the best poster on BigFooty.

 

[Scotland]

I don't care what's popular. I care what's right.

Here's a little lesson for. Almost NOTHING is popular that advocates change. The usual reaction is "leave the game alone" or words to that affect.

The Cup competition ran over 37 years from 1977 -2013 and had established its own separate history. I believe there has been a re-writing of history with the pre-season Cup - an incorrect narrative that no one cared about it. Sure, it became irrelevant towards the end when the AFL started to introduce gimmicks like 9-point goals and those silly 6-quarter matches featuring three teams. If the AFL were going to treat it with contempt then the fans would turn away.

Let me know your thoughts.

Change is good. Except when it isn't. Then it's bad.

 

[Orfullrules]

Essendon aren’t winning anything. Time to move on.

Yet you troll every Essendon thread. Take your own advice

 

[Dan26]

Why not have a third place play off for the two PF losers? Why not have a game between 17th and 18th to see who gets the wooden spoon and who gets the spatula? It's still the same 18 teams and they still only care about winning one thing.

Jesus Scotland, this is stupid. No one is advocating "playoffs" to determine individual spots. The discussion is about separate trophies available for all 18 (soon to be 19) teams - not playoffs for the wooden spoon. What are you even talking about?

In my lifetime I've seen 14 teams win the AFL premiership. That's 14 teams in 30 seasons with Carlton being the least recent winner. The only teams that haven't won one are St Kilda, a historical loser club, Fremantle, who joined in 1995 and have spent a good part of their history trying to emulate St Kilda, and the two expansion teams who only entered in 2011 and 2012, one of which has made a GF and several prelims. In just the 14 completed seasons with 18 teams there have been 9 different premiership winners.

In the 1970s four teams shared 10 flags in a 12 team comp. In the 1980s four teams shared 10 flags in a 12 team (until 1987) comp. Between 1966 and 1990 Carlton, Richmond, Essendon, Hawthorn and North won flags. You would think that with a 1 in 12 chance over a 24 year period that at least half the teams would win the comp, no? Does it not strike as odd that going from 12 to 14 to 16 to 18 teams we've seen four new entrants to the comp win flags and four teams break premiership droughts dating back to the 60s, 50s and 30s?

20 clubs if you include University and Fitzroy, 129 flags. The top 10 have 115, the bottom 10 have 14. The probability of success for the bottom 10 clubs is more like 1 in 35 years compared to 1 in 9 for the top 10. Probability means drumroll **** all.

The mathematical reality is that no matter how much you spin it, every team in a theoretically equal competition will have a 1 in 19 chance of winning the flag and 18 teams will fail every season. This means there has NEVER been less chance to win. Ever. If that continues, inevitably, there will be 60-70 year droughts. If a team misses their chance once, then 19 years becomes 38. If they miss their chance twice, then 38 becomes 57. You can always play around with stats to suit your argument, but you cannot escape that fact that the chances of success in the national competition have never been lower. That is an undeniable fact.

The average fan doesn't care about mathematics and probability. The AFL isn't a game of chance.

...... that has nothing to do with the number of teams let alone the number of trophies on offer.

Yes it does. Whilst its true that the AFL isn't strictly a game of chance like a literal roll of the dice, it is an equalized competition with a "theoretically" equal chance for all teams. As the number of teams has increased the probability decreases. There is a reason why the Sheffield Shield's least successful team, Queensland, has still won 9 titles. (not including Tassy who only joined in the 1970s). That's because it has only been a 5-team or 6-team comp for it's history. What other league has the least successful team winning nine premierships?

The 32 team NFL has TWELVE teams that have never won the Superbowl. Ever

Notice a theme here? The more teams there are the less your chances of success. it's not rocket science.

And you're right - the average fan doesn't care about mathematics and probability. Yes! Correct! That's what makes it such a sleeper issue. The average fan doesn't understand the long term ramifications

Players and clubs sook about 6 day breaks. No one is introducing 3 days breaks to revive a pre-season comp. Hell it took playing SOO in mid Feb to get that back up and running.

Read the god damn post! I wasn't advocating for three-day breaks. I was pointing out how a cup could possibly work, and I was theorising about the first few rounds being played in the pre-season and the semi-finals and the final on standalone weekends early in the season. Now you might not like that idea and might prefer it all in the -pre-seaosn like it was between 1988 and 2013. That's fine. Or you might not want it at all and prefer more recognition for the minor-premier instead. One again, that's fine. Let's hear your ideas.

They got rid of the three day break mid-season Cup matches in 1988.

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't care what's popular. I care what's right.

Here's a little lesson for. Almost NOTHING is popular that advocates change. The usual reaction is "leave the game alone" or words to that affect.

When the final-8 came in it was unpopular. When the national competiton started it was unpopular in Victoria. Night finals were unpopular.

The facts are that the pre-seaosn Grand Final was popular in the 1990's. It's crowds were big. Since then, the competition has expanded and the amount of opportunities to win things has decreased. Those are not opinions - they are facts.

How you interpret those facts is up to you. Your opinion might be that it is fine to have 19 teams and only one thing to win. I think the lack of opportunities for success is major sleeper issue. Whilst I'm not sold on whether a pre-season cup can logistically fit in, there is no reason not to explore more reward for the team on top of the ladder.

I think the issue is that everyone does think it's fine that there are 18 teams (and growing) and only 1 thing to win. They know a pre-season cup means nothing, even if people enjoyed going to some games in the 90s. The other things you talked about that got backlash served a meaningful purpose, which even traditionalists could acknowledge. This simply doesn't fall into that category and it isn't the same as bringing SOO back (which a lot of people are against but a lot of people had some interest in).

 

[Dan26]

Why in the last 19 years have you never been any of these?

You're proving my point.

We all know the real word, the reality doens't exactly match up to the theoretical probability. That's why we play the games. That's why people buy lotto tickets. The point is that in an equalized competiton, every team theoretically over a long period of time should have the same amount of success. That's how the AFL is set-up.

1 in 19

One team will win. Every year. Not two. Not three. One.

Because of that low chance of winning, many teams for various reasons will miss their chance. It might be bad luck, poor management, bad drafting, whatever, but it won't work out 1 in 19 for everyone, which is my whole point which you've proved. Inevitably, some teams will turn their theoretical 1 in 19 year chance into 38 years, and longer, because the real world doesn't match up to the probabilities.

That is the inevitability of a 19 team comp which has only one chance to win anything in any given year.

To reiterate my quote in the opening of this thread:

"...I don't think the average fan truly understands the mathematics of it. Sure, superficially they do - we all know with 19 teams gives you a 1 in 19 chance. But, if you ask the average fan they still think their team can build via the draft and maybe contend to win a couple of flags in the coming years and that naive mindset persists whether it be 16 teams or 20. Their brain understands superficially, but they don't truly understand the mathematical reality of what more teams truly means.... "

 

[oak79]

I raise this every time someone talks about new teams - we don't need new teams.
Do you want to support a club that you'll be lucky if they Premiership once in your lifetime?

Because for every team that 2 or 3 peats, that pushes others clubs out to 40-60 years between premierships. 4 flags over 20 years is not uncommon - for multiple teams - and that has the same effect.

18 teams is more than enough - ideally it should be 14 ish.

Other than that, the McClelland should be celebrated and made into a much bigger deal for clubs.

The night comp at least afforded teams a chance for another piece of silverware. Outside of the winners, no one cares - but winning fans celebrated it. Much better than meaningless pre-season games - if there isn't a preseason comp, clubs should be left to decide if they want pre-season hit outs, and organise themselves.

 

[Scotland]

The mathematical reality is that no matter how much you spin it, every team in a theoretically equal competition will have a 1 in 19 chance of winning the flag and 18 teams will fail every season. This means there has NEVER been less chance to win. Ever. If that continues, inevitably, there will be 60-70 year droughts. If a team misses their chance once, then 19 years becomes 38. If they miss their chance twice, then 38 becomes 57. You can always play around with stats to suit your argument, but you cannot escape that fact that the chances of success in the national competition have never been lower. That is an undeniable fact.

Except that since more teams have been in the comp, more teams have won it. That's a pretty undeniable fact.

In 1986 Sydney, Melbourne, Footscray, St Kilda, Geelong, Fitzroy all had premiership droughts dating back to the 1960s and earlier. Fitzroy merged (hai Roylion) and St Kilda are St Kilda, but two of those droughts were broken in a 16 team comp and two in an 18 team comp.

In what universe do Sydney fans care that their "chance of success has never been lower" given they won two flags in 7 years after winning nothing for the previous 70?

Yes it does. Whilst its true that the AFL isn't strictly a game of chance like a literal roll of the dice, it is an equalized competition with a "theoretically" equal chance for all teams. As the number of teams has increased the probability decreases. There is a reason why the Sheffield Shield's least successful team, Queensland, has still won 9 titles. (not including Tassy who only joined in the 1970s). That's because it has only been a 5-team or 6-team comp for it's history. What other league has the least successful team winning nine premierships?

The two team Bledisloe Cup has had one team win it every year since 2002. What is your point?

NZ and South Africa haven't stopped winning the Rugby Championship most years because Argentina joined. What is your point?

The Six Nations has two teams with 7 titles, two with 6 and two with none. What is your point?

The 32 team NFL has TWELVE teams that have never won the Superbowl. Ever

Notice a theme here? The more teams there are the less your chances of success. it's not rocket science.

The 30 team NBA has 17 winners since 1977. What is your point?

24 different teams have won the Premier League/First Division. There are 92 teams in the top 4 levels on the pyramid alone, hundreds that can theoretically win the EPL. What is your point?

And you're right - the average fan doesn't care about mathematics and probability. Yes! Correct! That's what makes it such a sleeper issue. The average fan doesn't understand the long term ramifications

The long term ramifications of more teams is dilution of the talent pool. 15 years ago the "chance" of winning the flag was 5.56%. now it's 6.25%. This means precisely **** all. It was 8.33% in the 70s and 80s when less than half the teams won all of the flags.

Read the god damn post! I wasn't advocating for three-day breaks. I was pointing out how a cup could possibly work, and I was theorising about the first few rounds being played in the pre-season and the semi-finals and the final on standalone weekends early in the season.

Yes, and that is nonsense.

The AFL has a mix Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday TV timeslots 25 weeks of the year. They are not giving that up to play a couple of "pre-season" games during the season.

 

[Franc de Borges]

The point being made is a good one.

The only way to bring it back is to actually revive it as it used to be: a straight knockout tournament. Clubs are playing games all this week under the guise of 'unofficial match simulation' or whatever they came up with. This is what the early rounds always were, purely practice matches made up of sides filled with kids.

It was taken seriously for the Grand Final because 1. There was a trophy on the line, 2. It was the last hit-out before the season proper, and 3. Teams played at basically full strength.

We have everything set up to bring it back in 2027 if we simply rebrand the matches we're playing in pre-season now. One official AFL match, then set up your own games if you're knocked out. Those that win through can play whatever strength side they want, though they'll invariably take the last one seriously to be prepared for Round 1.

 

[Scotland]

The point being made is a good one.

The only way to bring it back is to actually revive it as it used to be: a straight knockout tournament. Clubs are playing games all this week under the guise of 'unofficial match simulation' or whatever they came up with. This is what the early rounds always were, purely practice matches made up of sides filled with kids.

It was taken seriously for the Grand Final because 1. There was a trophy on the line, 2. It was the last hit-out before the season proper, and 3. Teams played at basically full strength.

We have everything set up to bring it back in 2027 if we simply rebrand the matches we're playing in pre-season now. One official AFL match, then set up your own games if you're knocked out. Those that win through can play whatever strength side they want, though they'll invariably take the last one seriously to be prepared for Round 1.

Except 18 teams doesn't mesh into a knockout as evenly as 16 did. You would have to have something like 9 games, then a quarters-semis-final knockout. Same principle but just means one team will win and not progress.

The problem with a knockout is that anyone who loses in week one has to entertain themselves for the next 3 weeks, so the losers end up playing each other any way. Which is why we had 'NAB Cup' and 'NAB Community Series'. WC have played Freo a bunch of times in pre-season games because it's logistically just so much easier.

The problem with a pre-season comp is that the players and clubs don't care about it. If you based in last year's finals then Hawthorn finished 8th and travelled to Sydney, and because they won they travelled to Adelaide, and because they won again they travelled back to Melbourne. Had Brisbane beaten Geelong in the QF Hawthorn would've been off the Queensland for their prelim instead. No club wants their pre-season to consist of cross country travel "because they can win a trophy". Realistically in that scenario Hawthorn would rather lose to the Giants and then play a couple of games against WB and Carlton or whoever in Victoria. Because the whole purpose of the pre-season is preparing for the season. Clubs want to manage minutes of star players, try young players in new positions etc.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Doesn’t matter how many different cups soccer teams can win. Only one cup matters in Aussie rules - the Premiership cup.

Having in season competitions, pre-season competitions and any other type of competition to win a cup that isn’t the Premiership cup is just silly.
And nobody would ever take it seriously.

Winning a plastic cup that nobody cares about isn’t a substitution for winning the Grand Final.

I suppose the thing with old mates point is create a cup worth winning. Eg draft picks/points or salary cap/soft cap bonuses

 

[Teen Wolf]

Well it is being talked about, by the players no less. Articles on the topic were published last year (and a subsequent thread on here).

The easiest implementation of a midseason cup with a championship game in say a 20-team comp: the first 9 rounds of the season would have two groups of 10, with teams in the same group all playing each other once for premiership points.

R10 would then be a bye for all teams, except for the leader of each group who play each other for the midseason cup (replacing their matchup fixtured later in the season).

No need for additional H&A games, and practice matches can remain practice matches.

Do you mean something like this:



I like the way snruB thinks. Don't try making a pre-season game more than what it is.

Rather, do more to promote and reward on-field excellence during the H&A season, by setting aside a weekend midway through the year for a new marquee fixture that gives maximum spotlight to two in-form teams.

If say GC and StK were on top of the ladder after a couple months, all stakeholders would be better served to have those two teams take centre stage while they're hot (whereas they might otherwise only play each other at 1pm in Round 20 with long injury lists).

 

[Scotland]

Remember when Port finished top, top, top?

They were memed until they won the 2004 GF. That is how much stock the footy industry places in the genuinely noteworthy achievement of finishing on top of the ladder 3 years in a row. Outside of Port fans no one cares about the 36 SANFL flags or 4 Championships of Australia that they've won. Just like no one cares what North, Hawthorn and Footscray did before 1925. Welcome to the AFL.

 

[Toump Ass]

Regardless of a trophy the clubs are always going to use preseason competition to trial players in different positions, practice set plays, experiment with the gameplan, get some experience to youngsters/ match fitness into players returning from injury etc. etc. etc.

No one is going flat out to win a round robin tournament before the actual season.

 

[Scotland]

Regardless of a trophy the clubs are always going to use preseason competition to trial players in different positions, practice set plays, experiment with the gameplan, get some experience to youngsters/ match fitness into players returning from injury etc. etc. etc.

No one is going flat out to win a round robin tournament before the actual season.

But if there are two trophies to play for then your team has 1 in 9 chance of winning one. That's two times as good as 1 in 18. That is an undeniable fact!

 

[T2B_]

I think its telling that even supporters of success starved clubs (including myself) aren't exactly flocking to support this idea. A lot of people probably aren't interested in a participation trophy or anything that isn't the big one itself.

 

[CobberRodgers]

Competent clubs can swing the odds in their favour. Other clubs being less competent will never be a reason to bring back a trophy and tournament that nobody wants.

100% this.

Just because the AFL likes to promote their “equalisation” it doesn’t give you the right to a cup every 18 years.

You don’t get a medal for poor drafting, poor development, poor list management, poor tactics etc just because you’re due!

My favourite thing about the AFL is that we have one prize. It’s all that matters. And you have to win finals to get it. That’s where legacies are made.

I think that’s what makes it great.

 

[Dark Avenger]

How is this iconic image not on the first page of this dumpster fire.

"Jubilation"

Reminds me of posing for a photo holding some god awful jumper that my grandmother got me for my birthday that I had no intention of ever wearing.

 

[Billy ray]

Reminds me of posing for a photo holding some god awful jumper that my grandmother got me for my birthday that I had no intention of ever wearing.

 

[Dark Avenger]

AFL needs to bring back AFLX. The new rules were fully sick. This meant more to me than the 2021 premiership.

 

[sherb]

I've thought the same thing, ie an 18 (or 19) team competition for one premiership is a bridge too far. We had clubs struggling to win a flag when it was a 12 team comp!

I'm not sure a secondary competition is the answer though. I've always liked the idea of two divisions, with a Grand Final in each, likely then a playoff between the two premiers.

It's just a broad idea though, I have no idea (for instance) on how the divisions would be comprised and whether they would be static or otherwise. But I'm sure that could all be worked out.

I don't think that this is a popular proposal here though, so feel free to come at me.

 

[JayJ20]

I can see the OPs point.

Putting weight on just the one premiership every year doesn't test the best across different competitions.
I acknowledge the limitations of having a sport that is popular in only 4 states of a country with a relatively small population, but there's a lot they have taken from the game.

There's the weird thing they've done with the minor premiership/McClelland Trophy where they include AFLW. It takes away another opportunity. It's strange to have the women's program disadvantage the men's program and vice versa.

The previous system of having the pre-season cup, McClelland Trophy for finishing first and the premiership cup worked because a premiership side that won all 3 cups would be better than those who haven't achieved that.

At the moment, a team can finish 6th, win the premiership and they could have more trophies than the team finishing first, winning the premiership but has a bad AFLW side.

 

[rye]

I'll explain it to you how an equalized competition works dummy.

Once every 19 years you should be the best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 2nd-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 3rd-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 4th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 5th- best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 6th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 7th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 8th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 9th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 10th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 11th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 12th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 13th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 14tb-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 15th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 16th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 17tb-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the 18th-best team
Once every 19 years you should be the worst team

My God you are dumb.

this isnt what an equalised competition is

 

[Thrawn]

I have a low tolerance for people who don't read my posts properly or choose to deliberately ignore key points while taking personal potshots like that idiot mod before.

I will always engage in a genuine discussion with those who want to genuinely engage. I make my points persuasively, I use historical evidence, stats, crowd numbers. I don't mind if people disagree, but when they are stupidly dismissive with one sentence lazy throwaway posts making literally no effort, yeah I get pissed off.

I've been following footy since the 80's, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of what has worked, what hasn't and what can make the AFL better. I've seen more than 95% of people on this forum.

Why do you have post count as other teams?

 

[Toump Ass]

There's the weird thing they've done with the minor premiership/McClelland Trophy where they include AFLW. It takes away another opportunity. It's strange to have the women's program disadvantage the men's program and vice versa.

The incredibly compromised fixture makes the McClelland Trophy pointless anyway.