The Cut the Teams/Too Many Teams in Victoria thread

[Colonial]

When they had 16 team comp, what was the TV rights deal?
Anyway, it's all beside the point....people will turn away from the game (crowds and digital media packages) if/when the spectacle and the lopsided thrashings and lopsided talent-levels become more and more of an eye-sore to hardcore fans, who start to question their time/money spent on it.
No point having 9 games a week if the majority of them are a snooze-fest and fans arent watching/paying as much as before.
Again, less is more. Less games in a year, less teams with more even pro-level talent spread thru......each game becomes a blockbuster and you will get HIGHER average crowds and higher average viewers than before.....even if the total numbers might be down (due to less games, the average takes it back up).

Tv ratings and crowds have gone up the last 5 years. But keep scare mongering

 

[El_Scorcho]

When they had 16 team comp, what was the TV rights deal?
Anyway, it's all beside the point....people will turn away from the game (crowds and digital media packages) if/when the spectacle and the lopsided thrashings and lopsided talent-levels become more and more of an eye-sore to hardcore fans, who start to question their time/money spent on it.
No point having 9 games a week if the majority of them are a snooze-fest and fans arent watching/paying as much as before.
Again, less is more. Less games in a year, less teams with more even pro-level talent spread thru......each game becomes a blockbuster and you will get HIGHER average crowds and higher average viewers than before.....even if the total numbers might be down (due to less games, the average takes it back up).

If you think a minor improvement to the "product", and it would only be minor, is worth the financial hit of dropping down from 9 games, you have zero idea how the AFL operates financially.

You act like thrashings wouldn't happen if we culled a few teams, but the nature of the sport dictates that a team that is only slightly better will win comfortably. If you want tighter contests, swap the goals out for soccer goals. Thrashings would still regularly happen with 12 teams, 8 teams or 6 teams.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No they wouldn't, because they've already got enormous elite level football clubs that play at a high level. Why watch the Melbourne Penguins play West Coast when down the road Hawthorn are playing Essendon?

You can't drop one or two Vic teams because of how badly it would hurt the fans. If you dropped all 10, they'd just stop watching AFL and go back to the VFL, which under your scenario would have 10 elite level clubs and be no worse a competition than the new AFL.

You're not getting it.
Hawthorn vs Essendon in the VFL is a bunch of scrubs playing. Semi-pro. A lot of the current VFL players playing in those teams. The players in the current AFL would be the ones filling up the rosters of the Melbourne Rangers vs the Geelong Knights.

Fans would be supporting their Rangers and Knights like the Port Magpies and Norwood Redlegs fans previously supported those teams then had to switch to Power and Crows if they wanted to support a professional league.

Just like the A-League with a bunch of made-up teams. Fans would embrace them. It's NEVER happened in the history of mankind where people born-bred on a sport abandon the sport when asked to start supporting new made-up franchises.

 

[Colonial]

Just like the A-League with a bunch of made-up teams. Fans would embrace them. It's NEVER happened in the history of mankind where people born-bred on a sport abandon the sport when asked to start supporting new made-up franchises.

I beg to differ. I no longer follow league. No Balmain no me.
Also a few nsl fans would disagree with regard to following A-League.

But hey you seem to know it all and want a superrules war.

 

[Pessimistic]

Newcastle fans would be exstatic if they really had won something......

 

[Pessimistic]

You're not getting it.
Hawthorn vs Essendon in the VFL is a bunch of scrubs playing. Semi-pro. A lot of the current VFL players playing in those teams. The players in the current AFL would be the ones filling up the rosters of the Melbourne Rangers vs the Geelong Knights.

Fans would be supporting their Rangers and Knights like the Port Magpies and Norwood Redlegs fans previously supported those teams then had to switch to Power and Crows if they wanted to support a professional league.

Just like the A-League with a bunch of made-up teams. Fans would embrace them. It's NEVER happened in the history of mankind where people born-bred on a sport abandon the sport when asked to start supporting new made-up franchises.

For every a league blockbuster, thers at least ten snooze fests as you put it, and less.

 

[Exe Gesis]

No, given all 10 teams dropped back, they'd stick with Hawthorn or Essendon. When you've got a state of 5,000,000 people, they're easily big enough to go on their own.

People started supporting the WA sides and the Crows because they were playing in the best competition. If you dropped all 10 teams down at the same time, the VFL would be as big as the AFL and there would be just as many VFL fans as AFL fans and all the sponsorship and money that comes with that. The better players follow the dollars.

You are overestimating the point you're trying to make. Players are going to stay in the AFL -- because that's where the money is. They're not gonna play on some bush league oval with 500 people watching, and 50,000 fans arent going to attend a suburban oval where 500 people could watch. I could go on further emphasizing how you are wrong.

 

[dickballsack]

You're not getting it.
Hawthorn vs Essendon in the VFL is a bunch of scrubs playing. Semi-pro. A lot of the current VFL players playing in those teams. The players in the current AFL would be the ones filling up the rosters of the Melbourne Rangers vs the Geelong Knights.

Fans would be supporting their Rangers and Knights like the Port Magpies and Norwood Redlegs fans previously supported those teams then had to switch to Power and Crows if they wanted to support a professional league.

Just like the A-League with a bunch of made-up teams. Fans would embrace them. It's NEVER happened in the history of mankind where people born-bred on a sport abandon the sport when asked to start supporting new made-up franchises.

GG reading through this thread intrigued me at the start then as I kept realising that you are he epitome of the Internet generation. You've clearly never actually ran across a white line willing to test yourself against another individual. Don't try and pretend that you ever have either, you call for the elite to play elite to give you a higher level of entertainment and dismiss anyone else playing in other other that 'dare make it who don't meet your standard'. You are what's wrong with this great, unbelievably tough sport that we love, you watch it looking to pick holes in it and boastfully post on the Internet about it like you can make it better, and all by never actually even understanding what it's all about.

 

[telsor]

Victorians are no different to WA'ns and SA'ns. They would embrace two new made-up franchises just as quickly and as passionately as those philistines further west did.

Not likely.

WA & SA fans recognised that the new clubs were a 'step up' on what they had already.

I struggle to see a scenario where Vic fans would be in that position.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You are overestimating the point you're trying to make. Players are going to stay in the AFL -- because that's where the money is. They're not gonna play on some bush league oval with 500 people watching, and 50,000 fans arent going to attend a suburban oval where 500 people could watch. I could go on further emphasizing how you are wrong.

If you drop 10 Victorian teams down to the VFL, then more than half of the money goes to the VFL.

I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this.

The VFL clubs aren't going to just accept being 2nd tier. Under any circumstances.

 

[Exe Gesis]

If you drop 10 Victorian teams down to the VFL, then more than half of the money goes to the VFL.

I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this.

The VFL clubs aren't going to just accept being 2nd tier. Under any circumstances.

They're not 2nd tier. They're no tier. They're just preserved for the sake of history as a club in some state league now where they belong like the Norwoods and Swan Districts of this nation. Better than to merge all of them and entirely lose their history. And if you DID merge them, they'd still end up being exactly like an entirely new mickey mouse named franchise. So better to preserve them in the state league, which becomes a semi pro farm league anyway.

 

[Interstater]

Hypothetically, if the AFL decided tomorrow that Victoria would only have 6 AFL clubs from 2016, who would they be?

Would some clubs merge, or would some clubs just drop down to the VFL?

I could see:
Geelong/Bulldogs merge (Western Cats)
Carlton/North merge (Northern Blues)
Hawthorn/St Kilda merge (Eastern Hawks)
Richmond/Melbourne merge (Melbourne Tigers)
Collingwood and Essendon stay as is.

6 AFL clubs in Vic, 2 in most other states (see below), 14 club competition

7 games a week would be enough for TV

The one other obvious change though is to move the Suns to Tassie.
The Suns become the Tasmanian Turbo Chooks.

Anzac day gets to stay as is.

 

[El_Scorcho]

They're not 2nd tier. They're no tier. They're just preserved for the sake of history as a club in some state league now where they belong like the Norwoods and Swan Districts of this nation. Better than to merge all of them and entirely lose their history. And if you DID merge them, they'd still end up being exactly like an entirely new mickey mouse named franchise. So better to preserve them in the state league, which becomes a semi pro farm league anyway.

What's the logical sequence of events as you see it?

The Victorian clubs currently have what, 450,000 members, the lifeblood of a club.

The AFL announce that all 10 Victorian AFL teams will be demoted to the VFL and will be replaced by 3 composite sides.

The 10 sides will now effectively play against each other each week.

The broadcast and stadium deals are instantly gone because the AFL have broken their agreements.

Do you think the MCG is going to want to host VFL games, with 450,000 members in their state, who will be playing games against other Vic based sides every week, or the 3 brand new clubs with zero members playing interstate sides every week?

Who wins in this scenario? I can't see that anyone would be better off.

 

[Exe Gesis]

What's the logical sequence of events as you see it?

The Victorian clubs currently have what, 450,000 members, the lifeblood of a club.

The AFL announce that all 10 Victorian AFL teams will be demoted to the VFL and will be replaced by 3 composite sides.

The 10 sides will now effectively play against each other each week.

The broadcast and stadium deals are instantly gone because the AFL have broken their agreements.

Do you think the MCG is going to want to host VFL games, with 450,000 members in their state, who will be playing games against other Vic based sides every week, or the 3 brand new clubs with zero members playing interstate sides every week?

Who wins in this scenario? I can't see that anyone would be better off.

You said there were 9m victorians, enough for 10 teams before. You now have three massive AFL clubs sharing 450,000 members. Over 100,000 members each. Massive money for those clubs and the AFL, same as before, but now the product is better on the field at least.

If a club fell over tomorrow, became insolvent, how would that effect the stadium and broadcast deals? What if carlton and North decided tomorrow to merge out of their own choosing? How would that effect the broadcast and stadium deals? There are always contingencies in place legally.

Also, the mcg will NOT be hosting VFL games. VFL games between port melbourne and Frankston and werribee etc are not played on the mcg. Those teams would just get pushed aside and most of the players now playing in those clubs would instead be playing for the Bulldogs and Saints etc...who all get demoted for life to being a state league club playing on suburban grounds. As they all deserved to be before the AFL went truly national.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hardly, but the point is that too many on BF are perhaps too close to the game to see both what made it the game we love, & how its changed over the last 30 years or so.

Its changed into a form of running rugby. A mass mall with the odd breakout of Australian rules where you beat your man, kick the ball to a guy who marks it.

The professional AFL coaches now coach like other sports, to keep the ball & not lose. Whereas it was a game of attack, attack, attack & kick goals. Its changed from risk taking by kicking to a contest into a more defensive mindset.

If we dont maximise the parts of the game that make it Australian rules, then it becomes just another ball game on TV that in the future may or may not attract support. Its losing its appeal.

I grew up watching TFL tribal football. Football live once a week, thats all we had, & people went. They watched it & read about it. It was Football.

Tv in the 1970's brought the VFL off the pages of the sunday globe into our living rooms. The AFL is the VFL on steroids, it has flooded our TV. The AFL has become a TV product. But its becoming more predictable, boring & losing its magic. Overexposure & constant dissection by 'experts' are killing the mystique & mystery.

The answer is to limit the flooding & ironman gut running by guys who have massive engines & little ability to actually 'play' football.

Peter Hudson wouldnt get a game now. What a player. A genuine football genius.

Bring back our football. Make it easier to play physically, because its bloody hard to be really skillful at it.

You think none of us grew up watching the VFL and its morph into the AFL? And you are somehow more qualifed to tell us about the game because you watched the TFL?

 

[Sausages]

You think none of us grew up watching the VFL and its morph into the AFL? And you are somehow more qualifed to tell us about the game because you watched the TFL?

I think he's giving his opinion and is certainly the best qualified to do that.

 

[madmug]

Hypothetically, if the AFL decided tomorrow that Victoria would only have 6 AFL clubs from 2016, who would they be?

Would some clubs merge, or would some clubs just drop down to the VFL?

I could see:
Geelong/Bulldogs merge (Western Cats)
Carlton/North merge (Northern Blues)
Hawthorn/St Kilda merge (Eastern Hawks)
Richmond/Melbourne merge (Melbourne Tigers)
Collingwood and Essendon stay as is.

6 AFL clubs in Vic, 2 in most other states (see below), 14 club competition

7 games a week would be enough for TV

The one other obvious change though is to move the Suns to Tassie.
The Suns become the Tasmanian Turbo Chooks.

Anzac day gets to stay as is.

You're new at this aren't you.

Firstly its near impossible to change the VFL component of the AFL. Its a Grandfather clause or Historical or land rights or something like that.

Second, no joke names. Tasmanian Turbo Chooks? I guess at least its not a two head joke, but where did you dream that up from? Why not Southern Deep fried Devils or something closer to home like that? Maybe South East Seared Scallops (no no no forget it!)

 

[El_Scorcho]

You said there were 9m victorians, enough for 10 teams before. You now have three massive AFL clubs sharing 450,000 members. Over 100,000 members each. Massive money for those clubs and the AFL, same as before, but now the product is better on the field at least.

If a club fell over tomorrow, became insolvent, how would that effect the stadium and broadcast deals? What if carlton and North decided tomorrow to merge out of their own choosing? How would that effect the broadcast and stadium deals? There are always contingencies in place legally.

Also, the mcg will NOT be hosting VFL games. VFL games between port melbourne and Frankston and werribee etc are not played on the mcg. Those teams would just get pushed aside and most of the players now playing in those clubs would instead be playing for the Bulldogs and Saints etc...who all get demoted for life to being a state league club playing on suburban grounds. As they all deserved to be before the AFL went truly national.

But those 450,000 members aren't going to leave the clubs they've loved all their lives for brand new composite clubs when if they stayed with their clubs, the VFL would be bigger than the AFL?

The AFL wouldn't allow a merger of Victorian sides this year. The broadcast agreement requires 9 games.

Your whole idea wouldn't work for a variety of different reasons. It might have worked if it had happened in the 70s or 80s, but now you're talking about demoting 10 of the biggest sporting clubs in Australia because one disgruntled guy on the internet has a problem he doesn't even properly understand about a sport he's repeatedly shown he doesn't know a lot about.

 

[madmug]

You think none of us grew up watching the VFL and its morph into the AFL? And you are somehow more qualifed to tell us about the game because you watched the TFL?

Me making a comment that addresses the title of the thread has nothing to do with me being 'somehow' more qualified.

Certainly no one can tell you anything.

 

[The_Wookie]

You said there were 9m victorians, enough for 10 teams before. You now have three massive AFL clubs sharing 450,000 members. Over 100,000 members each. Massive money for those clubs and the AFL, same as before, but now the product is better on the field at least.

Yeah because thats how it would work. If you take ALL the traditional teams out and they continue to play each other, then those members and crowds arent going anywhere.

[quote[If a club fell over tomorrow, became insolvent, how would that effect the stadium and broadcast deals? What if carlton and North decided tomorrow to merge out of their own choosing? How would that effect the broadcast and stadium deals? There are always contingencies in place legally.[/quote]

Three massive superclubs would instantly put the league in breach of its MCG contract to play 44 games a year until 2037, and unlikely to reach the minimum crowd targets.

The rest of the league would do what it always has when Carlton are concerned and vote against a merger. Seriously. Carlton tried several times with North, once by buying its shares, and once through negotation, and the rest of the clubs voted against by not wanting to create a superclub. Carlton tried with St Kilda, the clubs said no - dont want a super club.

Also, the mcg will NOT be hosting VFL games. VFL games between port melbourne and Frankston and werribee etc are not played on the mcg. Those teams would just get pushed aside and most of the players now playing in those clubs would instead be playing for the Bulldogs and Saints etc...who all get demoted for life to being a state league club playing on suburban grounds. As they all deserved to be before the AFL went truly national.

haha just get pushed aside. Except we arent talking about port and frankston. You're talking about Collingwood and Essendon at full strength with all their members and supporters. Same for Carlton, Richmond, Hawthorn and Geelong, and even the smaller sides. The MCG would gladly take the opportunity to host these teams, regardless of what the AFL does, not least because the MCG would be hosting less games under the plan.

In fact, Im quite comfortable in my beleif that if the AFL unilaterally was able to move the entire Victorian contingent out of the AFL - something requiring three of those teams to vote to demote enmasse along with every single non victorian club - with the intention of demotion it would a) be buried under injunctions and litigation the likes of which could only be dreamed of by South Sydney and b) ensure the creation of a completely new competition in Victoria and c) would make the new "super teams" irrelevant with a short period.

This might have worked back in '86 before there was really big money in the game, and when club memberships were measured in the low thousands for a lot of VFL clubs. This might have worked if the AFL wasnt born of the VFL Commission and reliant on its board of directors to allow it to go national. This might have worked when the clubs were broke and the league had bugger all money. It wont work now.

This isnt like when the SANFL and WAFL put in composite teams to the AFL. This isnt like removing Fitzroys license. This is literally massive amounts of income, half the leagues clubs, crowds and tv ratings, 2/3rds of its members, plus wider latent non financial suppoirt, all risked on three super teams from scratch, and requiring the Victorian clubs themselves to vote to demote themselves. Never going to happen.

 

[mike123]

Collingwood has Eddie, nuff said...

 

[Furn2]

There's plenty of bad games and relatively average players in the NFL and the EPL. Half the EPL game each week feature one side parking the bus and trying to draw 0-0.

Reducing the teams in the AFL isnt going to solve the problem of the Swans-Suns or Hawks-Saints games because there isnt actually a vast difference in " raw talent" between those teams, the difference is experience , size, maturity etc.

GWS have arguably the greatest array of talent ever assembled but until this year they had won about 10 games in 3 years. You are always going to have some teams rebuilding and some trying to win the flag and no matter how much talent there is one os going thrash the other.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

This Swans-Suns game is yet another perfect example of many examples of why there are far too many teams in the AFL. There is not enough pro-level talent for 18 teams. And when a few injuries occur, you have a whole bunch of mediocre players across the league in a variety of teams.

Sorry for the self-referencing of threads GG, but I posted this about 7 years ago on this board and is line with what you're talking about here.
Cheers,
Ghost

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/time-to-reduce-18-to-16.425051/

 

[Exe Gesis]

Sorry for the self-referencing of threads GG, but I posted this about 7 years ago on this board and is line with what you're talking about here.
Cheers,
Ghost

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/time-to-reduce-18-to-16.425051/

You're a man ahead of his time.

 

[deltablues]

If you drop 10 Victorian teams down to the VFL, then more than half of the money goes to the VFL.

I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this.

The VFL clubs aren't going to just accept being 2nd tier. Under any circumstances.

So it was OK for the SANFL and WAFL clubs to accept 2nd tier, but not the VFL clubs? This sort of comment (no offence to you on a personal level) inadvertently illustrates the mindset of the VFL aka AFL. The AFL national league still has a ways to go...