Expansion Too many teams - Risk of break away 'Super League' ?

[RedV3x]

With all this talk of expanding to 22 teams, is there a risk of a smaller 'Super League' being formed?

There is no real talk of 20 teams let alone 22 teams.

22 teams means.....

- Probable higher standard of games due to theoretical "dilution of talent".
- Probable conference system so we have two conference winners and one super bowl winner.

Surely someone with the means would set up a true national league with 8-12 teams, double the salary cap, full h/a fixture.

The current system allows for an AFL match every week in every major city which produces maximum impact.

 

[RedV3x]

I certainly think there is a case for demarcating the administration of the game between the development / grass roots and the professional tier.

Absolutely.
The AFL should run the AFL. The AFLW should run the AFLW.
A world committee should should oversee overseas world organic growth/ direction and umpiring.
A rules (laws) committee should organise AFL laws and non AFL laws.
A development committee should oversee development in Australia and overseas.
Funding should be a set percentage of general revenue.

 

[Freomaniac]

Any new superleague would need to do without....

Any existing clubs (at least in a recognisable sense) because the AFL owns their names, colours, songs, etc.
Lack of players: It'd be years before players get released (existing contracts would need to run out, & AFLPA is heavily funded by the AFL)
Lack of grounds: AFL has contracts with all major existing grounds, which includes some limitations on other events.

Bring in Canberra and Tassie in the comp. 10 non vic sides, 10 vic sides. Let the 10 non vic sides leave and form their own league, you Victorians can have your VFL back.

 

[telsor]

Bring in Canberra and Tassie in the comp. 10 non vic sides, 10 vic sides. Let the 10 non vic sides leave and form their own league, you Victorians can have your VFL back.

Why would the AFL do that?

Also, were it to happen, the Vic comp would dominate....The WA & SA clubs might be strong, but needing to carry the other 6 (+presumably paying for development in those areas) would drag them back too far to be able to keep up with Vic.

 

[ManUtd]

Super rugby is a good example...

It's format is pretty much what a lot of people here seem to say should have happened (fresh start, fixed number of teams per location), but the fact is it's never really gained a huge following and is struggling to survive.

Expanding/raising the existing no1 comp (VFL) and seems to have worked a hell of a lot better. (admittedly, that wasn't really an option for rugby)

The format doesn't matter if you don't have the popularity in the first place. It's why the two most popular leagues in the world, the EPL and NBA, have structures that are complete opposite to one another. And yet they both work because both sports are popular. It doesn't matter what you do with Super Rugby. Unless it becomes a cultural relevance overnight, no format is going to change its fortunes.