Expansion 20th AFL team location

[Coolangatta]

If the Mighty Giants can go full time up here and get going with the locals, why not a 3rd team, and this time a club that has been around forever. The North Shore Footy club. One of the oldest clubs of any code in Sydney.
Also has more players and sides in divisions than any other club in Australia supposedly.

And before you say "They are the Bombers, no" they were originally known as The Bears.

I mean, I'd personally prefer to see Canberra be the 20th team, then the Giants can go full time in Sydney by 2033. If they do go nuclear, I think a 3rd Sydney and 2nd Brisbane side would be good 21st and 22nd additions to the competition by the 2050s.

 

[Colonial]

I mean, I'd personally prefer to see Canberra be the 20th team, then the Giants can go full time in Sydney by 2033. If they do go nuclear, I think a 3rd Sydney and 2nd Brisbane side would be good 21st and 22nd additions to the competition by the 2050s.

I’m all for a Canberra team as it gets the Giants full time in Sydney.

So Tassie, Canberra, Perth 3, North Shore?

 

[Coolangatta]

I’m all for a Canberra team as it gets the Giants full time in Sydney.

So Tassie, Canberra, Perth 3, North Shore?

Not sure about Perth 3 but can understand the case for it. I think Brisbane 2 would be a good shot by the 2050s, but maybe not if there's no new stadium.

I think you could potentially make a case for 24 teams in <30 years, those four you mentioned + Brisbane 2 and either NZ if work is put into it and demand grows or a 3rd Adelaide team to even up the number of teams.

I'm all for expansion and there are some clever ways you could break up the competition without pro/relegation or conferences (instead, have as many teams play each other once as possible but guarantee double ups for interstate teams).

But this is all hypothetical and the demand has to be there and growth and the club presidents have to vote for it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

You could, quite possibly, if it got to 22 teams, do a top 16 finals system, where the top 8 gets a double chance.

Week One:

QF: 1st v 8th
QF: 2nd v 7th
QF: 3rd v 6th
QF: 4th v 5th
EF: 9th v 16th
EF: 10th v 15th
EF: 11th v 14th
EF: 12th v 13th

Week Two:

QF losers v EF winners sorted by ranking (i.e. 5th v 12th, 6th v 11th, etc)

Week Three:

QF winners v Week two winners sorted by ranking except if they've already played in week one (i.e. 1st v 7th instead of 8th, 2nd v 8th instead of 7th, etc)

Week Four:

Four week three winners v each other based on ranking except if they've already played each other (i.e. 1st v lowest ranked winner apart from 8th, etc)

Week Five:

Two Week Four winners play off in GF

Today on SEN the pipe was saying that he thinks there could seriously be a 26 round season in the future, as the AFL and clubs will come round to the idea of pissing off the praccy games altogether and starting R1 earlier.

If this eventuated then it would really lend itself to an expanded competition. 25 games per club over 26 rounds (one bye for each club, as is the case now). It would work well for a 24 team comp that includes 3rd clubs from WA, QLD, NSW etc (e.g. play every club in the league once and two local rivals twice). As we’ve said before, Victorian clubs could just rotate their double-ups each season.

 

[Coolangatta]

Today on SEN the pipe was saying that he thinks there could seriously be a 26 round season in the future, as the AFL and clubs will come round to the idea of pissing off the praccy games altogether and starting R1 earlier.

If this eventuated then it would really lend itself to an expanded competition. 25 games per club over 26 rounds (one bye for each club, as is the case now). It would work well for a 24 team comp that includes 3rd clubs from WA, QLD, NSW etc (e.g. play every club in the league once and two local rivals twice). As we’ve said before, Victorian clubs could just rotate their double-ups each season.

Yes.

ACT as team 20 then teams 21-24 to be 3rd teams from WA, SA, NSW, and QLD.

Every team plays each other once + two rivals = 25 games.

Top 12 finals system as I've suggested above.

If you were to go beyond that, say, adding NZ, 4th WA, 4th NSW, 4th QLD, NT, 2nd Tasmania, then you'd split the league in two. I can't see most of that happening but you could have even with something that big:

Vic teams + 4 NSW, 1 ACT
The rest

Vic conference play once + four double ups = 18 games + 7 games against other conference = 25 games
The rest play once + four double ups = 18 games + 7 games against Vic conference = 25 games

Top 16 finals system as suggested, taking top 8 from each league and putting it into super 16, with Vic and the rest leaders being top two.

Obviously I do not expect it to get to that many teams (even 24 would be a surprise), but the point is to show that if I can think of a way the competition can evolve, surely they can.

You could even go at 25:

group of 6A
group of 6B
group of 6C
group of 7A

7A plays twice = 12 games + 13 of the others = 25 games
6A plays twice = 10 games + 15 of the others = 25 games
6B plays twice = 10 games + 15 of the others = 25 games
6C plays twice = 10 games + 15 of the others = 25 games

Just keep track of who needs to play who the following year to make sure you play each team once over a two or three year period.

You could have each conference winner be the top 4, the best next 4 5th-8th, the best next 8 9th-16th, then run the top 16 finals series I suggested. Or four playoffs between the best of the rest for spots 5th-8th, that's a 12 team cutoff which is tough but it makes winning the conference so much more important.

Edit: I just realised a 3rd NSW club would require three double ups (because they'd play Canberra twice as well, I'm assuming). In any case, you could expand beyond 22 teams without having to worry about a 3rd in WA or QLD or SA missing out on double ups.

 

[Coolangatta]

Anyway, thinking way ahead as usual and the AFL may have much different plans for the future.

But thinking short-term, 25 games per year would be good for Tassie. Can bump up Hobart games to 8.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

Edit: I just realised a 3rd NSW club would require three double ups (because they'd play Canberra twice as well, I'm assuming). In any case, you could expand beyond 22 teams without having to worry about a 3rd in WA or QLD or SA missing out on double ups.

If SA didn’t have three clubs, then Tassie could go in a ‘pool’ for double-up games with the Power and the Crows, or if NSW and SA had three each then Tassie could be in a pool with Canberra and another (e.g. NZ). There’s different ways of slicing it up depending on how expansion pans out; however, I think it would be great to keep the local derbies as much as possible. It will keep the interest and attendances higher in those states and partly reduce the travel burden that non-Victorian clubs have. The smaller markets will inevitably miss out a bit if they don’t have the population and economic might to warrant a 3rd club.

 

[Coolangatta]

If SA didn’t have three clubs, then Tassie could go in a ‘pool’ for double-up games with the Power and the Crows, or if NSW and SA had three each then Tassie could be in a pool with Canberra and another (e.g. NZ). There’s different ways of slicing it up depending on how expansion pans out; however, I think it would be great to keep the local derbies as much as possible. It will keep the interest and attendances higher in those states and partly reduce the travel burden that non-Victorian clubs have. The smaller markets will inevitably miss out a bit if they don’t have the population and economic might to warrant a 3rd club.

I agree. I think it’s more important than everyone playing each other once but extending the season to 25 games does allow for everyone playing once plus two derbies at 24 teams.

I do think they should look at conferences past 20 teams but again, a lot depends on how the game grows north-east.

I just hope it isn’t some stupid conference system where you have a Victorian conference and the rest and the Vic conference plays each other twice. I could see it being fine if you split it like 5-5-5-6 (I can’t see them doing conferences at 20 teams) but not 10-11 unless the conferences don’t play twice.

But then they wouldn’t be “conferences” any longer and it’d still be hard to “win” anything not gain much reward for it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

I agree. I think it’s more important than everyone playing each other once but extending the season to 25 games does allow for everyone playing once plus two derbies at 24 teams.

I do think they should look at conferences past 20 teams but again, a lot depends on how the game grows north-east.

I just hope it isn’t some stupid conference system where you have a Victorian conference and the rest and the Vic conference plays each other twice. I could see it being fine if you split it like 5-5-5-6 (I can’t see them doing conferences at 20 teams) but not 10-11 unless the conferences don’t play twice.

But then they wouldn’t be “conferences” any longer and it’d still be hard to “win” anything not gain much reward for it.

It will be interesting to see how they structure it, even at 20 clubs. Isn’t the current 18-team fixture determined by all clubs playing each other once and then the teams are divided into 3 groups (top 6, mid and bottom) based on their ladder position from the previous season?

For 20 clubs, there’s a chance they’ll go with a 24 game season and roll out a similar model:

a) 19 games (play every team once) +
b) 1 game against a local rival
+
c) 4 games determined by dividing the previous season’s ladder into 5 groups of 4 clubs (e.g. top 4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, bottom 4).

I know that everyone wants a fairer fixture, but I don’t want less footy either. Seriously, who would want their team to go from playing 23 games per season to 19? The AFL won’t want to offer less content/weeks of footy to broadcasters either, so expansion is a far more probable outcome than retraction.

 

[Coolangatta]

It will be interesting to see how they structure it, even at 20 clubs. Isn’t the current 18-team fixture determined by all clubs playing each other once and then the teams are divided into 3 groups (top 6, mid and bottom) based on their ladder position from the previous season?

For 20 clubs, there’s a chance they’ll go with a 24 game season and roll out a similar model:

a) 19 games (play every team once) +
b) 1 game against a local rival
+
c) 4 games determined by dividing the previous season’s ladder into 5 groups of 4 clubs (e.g. top 4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, bottom 4).

I know that everyone wants a fairer fixture, but I don’t want less footy either. Seriously, who would want their team to go from playing 23 games per season to 19? The AFL won’t want to offer less content/weeks of footy to broadcasters either, so expansion is a far more probable outcome than retraction.

Yes, reducing the number of games to 20 would be a financial self-own and make no sense whatsoever.

And yes, the current fixture is determined that way and I suspect the next setup will be like you outlined.

I'd prefer the top 10 finals setup I outlined which is just doubling up the old McIntyre five system and getting rid of the pre-finals bye so the top two don't have too many byes but they'll probably go for something simpler like the wildcard round then just resume the top 8.

I feel it'd just be a waste of time though as no one is honestly going to expect any team from 7th-10th to make a GF let alone win one when they have to win five finals in a row, including at least four away, without a bye, when 1st-6th all get a bye.

 

[neogh]

Wouldn't a 12-team finals series work like this? In 4 weeks?

Week 1: Elimination Finals (Top 4 teams with a week off)

M1:5 V 12
M2: 6 V 11
M3: 7 V 10
M4: 8 V 9

Week 2: Quarter Finals

M5: 1 V WM1
M6: 2 V WM2
M7: 3 V WM3
M8: 4 V WM4

Week 3: Preliminary Finals

M9: WM5 V WM8
M10: WM6 V WM7

Week 4: Grand Final

 

[Coolangatta]

Wouldn't a 12-team finals series work like this? In 4 weeks?

Week 1: Elimination Finals (Top 4 teams with a week off)

M1:5 V 12
M2: 6 V 11
M3: 7 V 10
M4: 8 V 9

Week 2: Quarter Finals

M5: 1 V WM1
M6: 2 V WM2
M7: 3 V WM3
M8: 4 V WM4

Week 3: Preliminary Finals

M9: WM5 V WM8
M10: WM6 V WM7

Week 4: Grand Final

Pretty harsh for the top 4 not to get a double chance but I guess they get a week off at least.

Might as well just go:

1 v 12
2 v 11
3 v 10
4 v 9
5 v 8
6 v 7

Eliminate the four lowest ranked losers, then rearrange matches based on new "ladder" rankings:

1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

1 v 4
2 v 3

1 v 2

If it's gonna be that cut throat.

For 10 you'd go:

1 v 10
2 v 9
3 v 8
4 v 7
5 v 6

Eliminate the two lowest ranked losers, and go from there.

 

[Canberra Pear]

If the Mighty Giants can go full time up here and get going with the locals, why not a 3rd team, and this time a club that has been around forever. The North Shore Footy club. One of the oldest clubs of any code in Sydney.
Also has more players and sides in divisions than any other club in Australia supposedly.

And before you say "They are the Bombers, no" they were originally known as The Bears.

It would be hilarious if there was a Bears from northern Sydney in the AFL before the NRL.

 

[Colonial]

It would be hilarious if there was a Bears from northern Sydney in the AFL before the NRL.

To be fair there was an ARF team in North Sydney before there was one one in League.
Also I think they both became the Bears around the same time.

But yes the media up here would implode.

Always amuses me NSW/NRL media call the ARF coming into Sydney as an invasion, but Aussie Rules was here 20 years before League arrived.

 

[rapidfire7]

18 teams is already too many. Many people are never going to see a premiership in their lifetimes

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Merge the saints and North. And keep it at 18 teams

 

[Colonial]

18 teams is already too many. Many people are never going to see a premiership in their lifetimes

To be fair that was happening before it went to 18 too yeah?

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

To be fair that was happening before it went to 18 to yeah?

i mean

in the last 50 years

13 teams have won a flag, and 3 more have played in a grand final but lost

16/18 seems a pretty good strike rate to see a potential flag in your lifetime

 

[Canberra Pear]

To be fair there was an ARF team in North Sydney before there was one one in League.
Also I think they both became the Bears around the same time.

But yes the media up here would implode.

Always amuses me NSW/NRL media call the ARF coming into Sydney as an invasion, but Aussie Rules was here 20 years before League arrived.

Interesting, didn't realise the club was that old, but yeah, 1903, before the NSWRL even started in 1908. Very cool.

Would be icing on the cake if they redeveloped North Sydney Oval as their base.

 

[eth-dog]

i mean

in the last 50 years

13 teams have won a flag, and 3 more have played in a grand final but lost

16/18 seems a pretty good strike rate to see a potential flag in your lifetime

17 teams have been in a GF in that time. The only one who hasn't is GC.

 

[Walshawk]

No 20th team. 19 is perfect.

• 24 games over 26 rounds
• 11 home games each club leaves 19 neutral games
• Nine at Gather Round then the other 10 played in secondary markets and the clubs rotated each year
• 3 x Canberra plus Albury, Newcastle, Woolongong, Cairns, Townsville, McKay & Coffs Harbour. Only Newcastle & The Gong need new stadiums
• North to adopt NT and play three games in return for a NT Academy
• GWS to Western Sydney full time
• Dogs keep 2 x Ballarat
• Dees & Hawks return all home games to Melbourne

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

17 teams have been in a GF in that time. The only one who hasn't is GC.

i have no idea how i missed essendon in my calculations lol

so its 14 teams have won a flag in 50 years,

 

[eth-dog]

i have no idea how i missed essendon in my calculations lol

so its 14 teams have won a flag in 50 years,

We've only won 4 of them in that time frame haha

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

We've only won 4 of them in that time frame haha

my excuse is my brain just assumed id counted them because of course i had XD

 

[Canberra Pear]

No 20th team. 19 is perfect.

• 24 games over 26 rounds
• 11 home games each club leaves 19 neutral games
• Nine at Gather Round then the other 10 played in secondary markets and the clubs rotated each year
• 3 x Canberra plus Albury, Newcastle, Woolongong, Cairns, Townsville, McKay & Coffs Harbour. Only Newcastle & The Gong need new stadiums
• North to adopt NT and play three games in return for a NT Academy
• GWS to Western Sydney full time
• Dogs keep 2 x Ballarat
• Dees & Hawks return all home games to Melbourne

19 is not perfect.

I know you disagree, but having different "games played" on the ladder throughout the season is unpopular.

And three games is not enough for Canberra.