AFL Conferences & Fixturing

[telsor]

And Docklands is mainly for the benefit of Vic clubs. At the moment I doubt clubs like West Coast, Port Adelaide & Sydney are benefitting now, or in the future from Docklands.

Mainly? We can hope, but even if it's 90% to the Vic clubs, that other 10% if still a nice return for the non-vic clubs considering they did nothing to earn it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Still got the Vic centric goggles on.

So being unable to dispute the facts, you play the man...

Care to show me where I'm wrong?

The vast majority of the AFLs money comes from Vic.

My club is 1,000km away down south. If the competition wasn't national, most Vic clubs, including your own, wouldn't be around to whinge AND YOU KNOW THAT!!!!!

No, actually it's WA & SA clubs that wouldn't be around. Vic clubs had to cut their spending, and plan B was to stop paying transfer fees. Football in WA & SA relied on these for their existance, so they would have been the ones who collapsed (indeed, WA did anyway and needed to be bailed out by their government...check out how WAFC came into being).

Football generally would be smaller if the VFL hadn't expanded, but Vic football is and was the one essential element of the national league, and without that, where would the Northern states be AFL-wise?

You can thank us any time you like.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Rolling draw. There's no need to match up/ handicap top 6.

 

[mcgarnacle]

definitely reckon the League should progress to a grouping structure.

18 teams fitting into a 22 regular season match per team structure says it all.

arguments re how many teams have missed out due to the schedule doesn't carry much weight. perception of fairness is crucial.

groupings (fixed) also enhances current rivalries and promotes others on a consistent basis. with so many teams in the League now, rivalries have been watered down and seem only relevant to the SA & WA clubs, or when both VIC matchday clubs are competitive.

group 1: ADE - FRE - PA - WCE
group 2: BL - GC - GWS - SYD
group 3: ESS - GEE - HAW - NM - WB
group 4: CAR - COL - MEL - RIC - STK

can still maintain the current number of regular season games, but groups allow the scheduling of matches to be common for all teams within the group, i.e., opponents and h&a conditions.

all group winners proceed to finals and then next best 4 teams league-wide. hence, all teams from one group could still conceivably qualify for the finals.

after sorting out qualy, seedings would then be based on season record/pts, but if a group winner and non-group winner are tied on same points, the group winner gets the higher seeding. seedings for tied group winners and tied non-group winners would be decided by head-to-head record first, then %.

obviously, the final ladder would be different based on a different schedule, but using the final 2015 ladder as an example, the seedings would be:
1 - FRE (G1)
2 - WCE (G1)
3 - HAW (G3)
4 - SYD (G2)
5 - RIC (G4)
6 - WB (G3)
7 - ADE (G1)
8 - NM (G3)

so no different in this case. but perception of the schedule process and qualification would be enhanced.

 

[jim boy]

play each other once + finals

Cup-style competition on regular weekends throughout the season

 

[Fonetiks]

definitely reckon the League should progress to a grouping structure.

18 teams fitting into a 22 regular season match per team structure says it all.

arguments re how many teams have missed out due to the schedule doesn't carry much weight. perception of fairness is crucial.

groupings (fixed) also enhances current rivalries and promotes others on a consistent basis. with so many teams in the League now, rivalries have been watered down and seem only relevant to the SA & WA clubs, or when both VIC matchday clubs are competitive.

group 1: ADE - FRE - PA - WCE
group 2: BL - GC - GWS - SYD
group 3: ESS - GEE - HAW - NM - WB
group 4: CAR - COL - MEL - RIC - STK

can still maintain the current number of regular season games, but groups allow the scheduling of matches to be common for all teams within the group, i.e., opponents and h&a conditions.

all group winners proceed to finals and then next best 4 teams league-wide. hence, all teams from one group could still conceivably qualify for the finals.

after sorting out qualy, seedings would then be based on season record/pts, but if a group winner and non-group winner are tied on same points, the group winner gets the higher seeding. seedings for tied group winners and tied non-group winners would be decided by head-to-head record first, then %.

obviously, the final ladder would be different based on a different schedule, but using the final 2015 ladder as an example, the seedings would be:
1 - FRE (G1)
2 - WCE (G1)
3 - HAW (G3)
4 - SYD (G2)
5 - RIC (G4)
6 - WB (G3)
7 - ADE (G1)
8 - NM (G3)

so no different in this case. but perception of the schedule process and qualification would be enhanced.

I don't mind the concept of the progression from groups into finals, the main concern I have is not enough flexibility or variety in contests throughout the season. Only playing 3 or 4 other sides, 7 or 5 times in a year leaves a bit to be desired. At worst I think we should play every team once, and just rotate the fixture home team the following season, with perhaps an extra rivalry round. At 18 or 19 rounds with a bye, it leaves plenty of time for an FA Cup style knock out competition squeezed throughout the season too perhaps? Now we're getting really adventurous....

 

[flamingEMBERS]

I don't mind the concept of the progression from groups into finals, the main concern I have is not enough flexibility or variety in contests throughout the season. Only playing 3 or 4 other sides, 7 or 5 times in a year leaves a bit to be desired. At worst I think we should play every team once, and just rotate the fixture home team the following season, with perhaps an extra rivalry round. At 18 or 19 rounds with a bye, it leaves plenty of time for an FA Cup style knock out competition squeezed throughout the season too perhaps? Now we're getting really adventurous....

The last 5 games of the year should just be rotated so that you don't play the same teams twice for minimum 3.5 years. That is the single handed best and most logically equal way to do it.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

3 Conference of 6 Teams each Conference has 2 divisions.
Play Both Divisions of your Conference Home & Away and Play One Division from both of the other 2 conferences Home and One Division for both the other Conferences Away. 22 Game Season. Fixture swapped each year.

Conference 1
Division A
West Coast
Essendon
Footscray
Division B
Fremantle
Carlton
Richmond

Conference 2
Division A
Sydney
Port Adelaide
Melbourne
Division B
Adelaide
Greater Western Sydney
Collingwood

Conference 3
Division A
Brisbane
St Kilda
North Melbourne
Division B
Gold Coast
Hawthorn
Geelong

Top Team from each conference makes up the top 3 wild cards for positions 5-8.

Possibility for Conference make up to be changed (rotation of Vic teams between conferences) every 4 or 6 years in line with broadcast rights.

 

[Matchu]

What about a conference system that uses a bit of mathematics to ensure equality each season? We already have a system that splits AFL teams into three groups to create the upcoming season's draw so why not go a step further and use this method to introduce conferences? Essentially, you split the Victorian teams based on their ladder positions and the positions of non-Vic clubs. Having SA/WA in one conference and QLD/NSW together in another just makes sense so you base the strength of each conference on the positions of those teams. This is how it would look based on the 2015 ladder:

Conference A
Fremantle - 1
West Coast - 2
Adelaide - 7
Port Adelaide - 9
Total - 19

Conference B
Sydney - 4
GWS - 11
Gold Coast - 16
Brisbane - 17
Total - 48

A considerably higher total in Conference B indicates that Conference A is much stronger and should be dealt more higher ranked Vic teams for this hypothetical 2016 conference system. Firstly, to avoid one conference being really uninteresting, I think the top two Victorian teams should be split into each conference so they have at least one really strong Vic team each that can get fans interested. So let's say we put Hawthorn (3rd) in Conference A and Richmond (5th) in Conference B. Now we have to consider how to fairly distribute the remaining eight Victorian teams.

That initial total is very lopsided in favour of Conference A so I'm going to go ahead and put the Bulldogs (6th) and North Melbourne (8th) into Conference A. Then I'll place Geelong (10th) and Collingwood (12th) into Conference B. The remaining Victorian teams are then split one by one and it ends up looking like this:

Conference A
Fremantle - 1
West Coast - 2
Hawthorn - 3
Bulldogs - 6
Adelaide - 7
North Melbourne 8
Port Adelaide - 9
Melbourne - 13
Essendon - 15

Conference B
Sydney - 4
Richmond - 5
Geelong - 10
GWS - 11
Collingwood - 12
St Kilda - 14
Gold Coast - 16
Brisbane - 17
Carlton - 18

Two conferences of nine teams and they play each other twice to account for 18 rounds. On face value, that seems like Conference B will have a much easier draw but we're already doing this every year with the three groups of six that heavily determines the draw. It gives the weaker non-Vic teams a better chance of finals as well as the weaker Vic teams. The Victorian flavour of each conference changes each year based on performances. At the very least, each Victorian team is leaving their home state a minimum of four times and that will likely become a higher number when you add in inter-conference games.

Then you have the remaining six inter-conference rounds to further look into equalisation. Maybe you want a higher up Victorian team in Conference B to travel to Perth and face the Dockers in an inter-conference game because they haven't played there in a while and they are both top 8 teams from last year. You probably don't want a team like West Coast flying all the way to Brisbane/Gold Coast every year because it is a very long flight and the two QLD teams performed poorly last year when compared to the Eagles' 2nd placing. It's all about working out the fairest inter-conference games in that particular year while keeping in mind the last few years as well. You also have traditional games like the ANZAC Day game that will eat up inter-conference games so perhaps you want to give Collingwood a trip over to Perth seeing as they'll likely play two games against the 15th ranked Essendon.

The finals system is an interesting one because because logic would say it's not really necessary to enforce a conference finals system. You could just go with the top eight system we've had for decades and that ensures the teams with the best H&A records are still making the finals each year. Now that may mean six teams from one conference and two teams from another some years but that will be dealt with accordingly in the off season in an attempt to even the conferences again. There really isn't a fair way to ensure equal participation from both conferences without forcing it but more often than not you'd see at least three teams from either conference in the finals and an even four split would likely be a regular occurrence.

I hope that all makes sense and I think it's the most dynamic way to introduce conference without risking the concept becoming stale and boring. Any thoughts?

 

[mcgarnacle]

I don't mind the concept of the progression from groups into finals, the main concern I have is not enough flexibility or variety in contests throughout the season. Only playing 3 or 4 other sides, 7 or 5 times in a year leaves a bit to be desired. At worst I think we should play every team once, and just rotate the fixture home team the following season, with perhaps an extra rivalry round. At 18 or 19 rounds with a bye, it leaves plenty of time for an FA Cup style knock out competition squeezed throughout the season too perhaps? Now we're getting really adventurous....

Under the format I described, every team will play each other at least once.

It is the teams in the same group that play each other twice.

The critical part of the format is that every team from the same group has the same fixture for approx 90% of all games in a given season. For example, if COL in group 4 travel to Perth to play WCE, then all the other teams in group 4 - CAR, MEL, RIC, STK - will too. On the flip side, all the teams in Group 4 would play all teams in Group 2 - BL, GC, GWS, SYD - at home in a given season. This rotates every year.

And this is the reason at least one team from each group must qualify for the finals - each group has their own common schedule.

The groupings I have provided try to maintain regional and historic rivalries as much as possible. It will also strengthen these. Rivalries in the AFL, particularly the VIC clubs, are being watered down now unless the two teams are both competitive. What we should aim for is big rivalry games every week. Rivalries are the bread and butter of any sports comp.

 

[Fonetiks]

Under the format I described, every team will play each other at least once.

It is the teams in the same group that play each other twice.

The critical part of the format is that every team from the same group has the same fixture for approx 90% of all games in a given season. For example, if COL in group 4 travel to Perth to play WCE, then all the other teams in group 4 - CAR, MEL, RIC, STK - will too. On the flip side, all the teams in Group 4 would play all teams in Group 2 - BL, GC, GWS, SYD - at home in a given season. This rotates every year.

And this is the reason at least one team from each group must qualify for the finals - each group has their own common schedule.

The groupings I have provided try to maintain regional and historic rivalries as much as possible. It will also strengthen these. Rivalries in the AFL, particularly the VIC clubs, are being watered down now unless the two teams are both competitive. What we should aim for is big rivalry games every week. Rivalries are the bread and butter of any sports comp.

Ahh... apologies for the misunderstanding, that makes much more sense.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Ooooh, a thread on conferences. This is an original idea. Hmmm lets go round and round in circles and see whose rip-off of an international competition is better.

Seriously, I reckon were almost tracking at one of these threads every 2 or 3 months now... We basically already have something similar in place with the groupings of 6 and that will never be fair anyway because nobody can predict each teams improvement/decline, it is foolish to try.

Hate to be in that camp, but why are people so obsessed with trying to **** with the status quo? The league will never be equal, it is the nature of sport. Deal with it.

 

[Fonetiks]

Ooooh, a thread on conferences. This is an original idea. Hmmm lets go round and round in circles and see whose rip-off of an international competition is better.

Seriously, I reckon were almost tracking at one of these threads every 2 or 3 months now... We basically already have something similar in place with the groupings of 6 and that will never be fair anyway because nobody can predict each teams improvement/decline, it is foolish to try.

Hate to be in that camp, but why are people so obsessed with trying to **** with the status quo? The league will never be equal, it is the nature of sport. Deal with it.

Thanks ChunkyDuckling.
I started the thread because I'm new to BF and couldn't find an existing one to talk about a slightly different spin on the idea of conferences...
If the idea of this topic is so boring to you, why bother coming into the thread to comment? Let us mere mortals quibble over it instead.

But hey, thanks for your terrific contribution, I guess now we can all finally go back to sleep knowing the AFL is as good as it will ever be, and not even worth talking about any more.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Thanks ChunkyDuckling.
I started the thread because I'm new to BF and couldn't find an existing one to talk about a slightly different spin on the idea of conferences...
If the idea of this topic is so boring to you, why bother coming into the thread to comment? Let us mere mortals quibble over it instead.

But hey, thanks for your terrific contribution, I guess now we can all finally go back to sleep knowing the AFL is as good as it will ever be, and not even worth talking about any more.

I did contribute. I pointed out there is already a quasi conference setup with teams being grouped into 6 for the following years fixturing. Its kind of fair, but involves predicting the following season like most other suggestions ITT, I dont think that works.

Just because my contribution didn't line up with yours no need to be a sarky little bitch.

 

[Fonetiks]

Hahaha
Nice backpedal attempt. I'm fine with a difference of opinion (and there's been plenty), but maybe have another read of your OP. If anyone was being a sarky little bitch, it was you buddy.

 

[Billy ray]

The problem with any conferencing for fixturing purposes is that most people have posted groups which have WA/SA teams in one, NSW/QLD teams in another and the vics in one or two other groupings.
As a Suns fan I don't want to have to play GWS and Syd twice a year.
And I'm sure say port fans don't want to play the WA teams twice every year.
We all want to play the big teams like Coll, hawks, rich etc etc.
But that's not fair either

Rolling draw is best over several years.
The five extras you play in year 1 are different from year 2 are different from year 3. Repeat.
Chosen alphabetically or something

And you must play a team home then away and then home again etc.
No two home games in a row against any team when you play that team next.

 

[shintemaster]

The problem with any conferencing for fixturing purposes is that most people have posted groups which have WA/SA teams in one, NSW/QLD teams in another and the vics in one or two other groupings.
As a Suns fan I don't want to have to play GWS and Syd twice a year.
And I'm sure say port fans don't want to play the WA teams twice every year.
We all want to play the big teams like Coll, hawks, rich etc etc.
But that's not fair either

Rolling draw is best over several years.
The five extras you play in year 1 are different from year 2 are different from year 3. Repeat.
Chosen alphabetically or something

And you must play a team home then away and then home again etc.
No two home games in a row against any team when you play that team next.

Agree.

What you have outlined is perfectly fair and simple. The fact that it isn't getting proposed and isn't already in place simply indicates that the AFL has no interest in a fixture with either of those two qualities.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Agree.

What you have outlined is perfectly fair and simple. The fact that it isn't getting proposed and isn't already in place simply indicates that the AFL has no interest in a fixture with either of those two qualities.

The thing is you could easily plan it out so you have "the big traditional rivalries" split evenly throughout the cycle. This would make these "rivalries" more special.

 

[AdsGoNads]

3 Conference of 6 Teams each Conference has 2 divisions.
Play Both Divisions of your Conference Home & Away and Play One Division from both of the other 2 conferences Home and One Division for both the other Conferences Away. 22 Game Season. Fixture swapped each year.

Conference 1
Division A
West Coast
Essendon
Footscray
Division B
Fremantle
Carlton
Richmond

Conference 2
Division A
Sydney
Port Adelaide
Melbourne
Division B
Adelaide
Greater Western Sydney
Collingwood

Conference 3
Division A
Brisbane
St Kilda
North Melbourne
Division B
Gold Coast
Hawthorn
Geelong

Top Team from each conference makes up the top 3 wild cards for positions 5-8.

Possibility for Conference make up to be changed (rotation of Vic teams between conferences) every 4 or 6 years in line with broadcast rights.

Does this include promotion and relegation?

I'd love to see Norwood promoted and the Crows relegated

 

[Bombermania]

I would be more open to conferences if all the SANFL, WAFL and VFL sides plus a team in Tassie and Canberra were included or you had all the state league sides.

But if the competition stayed at 18 sides I would leave it has it currently is with each side playing each other once (17 matches) then based on the previous season's ladder, split the comp into two, the top nine playing each other and the bottom nine playing each other, this would give you a 25 game H&A season.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Does this include promotion and relegation?

I'd love to see Norwood promoted and the Crows relegated

No the divisions are just for fixturing A's & B's don't mean anything as to position just the groups you'll play home or away that year. Each Conference would have it's own mini ladder and there would be an overall ladder that would show where teams are in relation to making the finals.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

As a Suns fan I don't want to have to play GWS and Syd twice a year.

Under mine you wouldn't, the teams at the extreme distances are in there own conferences with 4 vic sides and the shorter distances are in the same conference with 2 vic side and each team is pretty much guaranteed to get 2 or 3 of the big clubs at home each year and travel to each state at least once and only a single long trips a year.

i.e. Suns would play Hawthorn Home & Away and Essendon at Home and Collingwood at Home one year and the next they play Hawthorn Home & Away and Carlton at Home and Richmond at Home. and they'd only be making one trip to perth, adelaide and sydney a year.

 

[Mr_Nyah]

The biggest impediment to a fair draw is the number of 'guaranteed' games the AFL tries to squeeze in, among others including:

- interstate teams playing their state rivals twice every year
- Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond, Carlton playing each other twice every year
- Geelong and Hawks playing twice every year

Unless you commit to scrapping this, there is no fair way to generate the fixture. A conference system only overcomes this if it isn't built to facilitate these games. That is, including Collingwood and Essendon in the same conference deliberately to make sure they play each other twice a year defeats the whole purpose of the conference system. If it's a byproduct of a fair conference system - great. But don't deliberately structure the conferences to enable it.

Off the top of my head, I think 3 conferences of 6 teams would be best, something like:

East:
- GC
- Brisbane
- Collingwood
- Melbourne
- Saints
- Sydney

West:
- WCE
- Fremantle
- NM
- WB
- Adelaide
- Essendon

South:
- Port
- GWS
- Geelong
- Hawks
- Richmond
- Carlton

Play each team in your conference twice (10 games), play each team outside your conference once per year (12 games), home and away over a 2 year period. Groups could use some tweaking, but it looks relatively fair with the Vic/Interstate balance.

Won't happen, and if the AFL ever introduced conferences (which they won't), it's absolutely guaranteed that they'd compromise for money (4 interstate teams and 2 of NM, WB, Melbourne, Saints in each of two conferences, and the 6 bigger Vic clubs in the other conference). Still interesting to think about.

 

[Bombermania]

- Essendon, Collingwood, Richmond, Carlton playing each other twice every year

Yet this season, we (Essendon) only play Collingwood once.

 

[dockerfemme]

Your comment on guaranteed games is true to some extent. There are also things that are inexplicable. Including 2016, the Dockers will have played Essendon 5 years in a row at home and Hawthorn 5 years in a row away. We also played Hawthorn at home in 2014 as we had 'earned' this right by making the Grand Final. This is the first year that Hawthorn have been to Brisbane for a long time, I think, and the Eagles have not been to the SCG for ages.

This approach to fixturing is ridiculous and, despite the total focus on money, they still seem to get so much wrong. The Friday night games in 2015, which were crap, are an example, and the double up of top class games on Saturday nights, such as Dockers v Sydney and Hawthorn v Port.

You would think that aiming on some sort of equity, and stop managing the comp as though the fans and rivalries have not changed since the 1980s, could not do much worse.

 

[saint_]

Why not have conferences based on the previous year ladder position?
A. 1 4 7 10 13 16
B. 2 5 8 11 14 17
C. 3 6 9 12 15 18

Play each team twice in your own conference and the rest once. Would that be fair?