Equalisation - the facts and the premiership merry-go-round

[Rotayjay]

Equalisation isn't the hottest topic in the world of the AFL, but it's perennially brought up because it directly affects all of us two million-odd fans. If we didn't each want our team to win flags, we wouldn't be supporters.

Equalisation measures such as the salary cap, draft, and 'luxury tax' have their supporters and detractors. Some extol the virtues of such measures, while others bemoan what they perceive as the watering-down of equalisation, and still others call for equalisation to be scrapped and allow truly strong clubs to float to the top.

Five months ago, Hawthorn pulled it off and won their third flag in a row. This sparked debate as to whether dynasties were becoming the rule rather than the exception.

What if you look at the long-term record of the last half-a-century? In each given ten-year-period, how many teams won the premiership? How many were one-flag-wonders and how many were dynasties and super-teams?

2006-2015: five premiers (WCE, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney)

1996-2005: six premiers (NM, Adelaide, Essendon, Brisbane, Port, Sydney)

1986-1995: five premiers (Hawthorn, Carlton, Collingwood, WCE, Esssendon)

1976-1985: five premiers (Hawthorn, NM, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon)

1966-1975: five premiers (St Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn, NM)

The consistency of the pattern is remarkable: each of the last five decades has seen five or six different premiers. Interestingly, the pattern extends back into the pre-equalisation era. Overall, there have been 13 different premiership-winning clubs in the last 50 years. 10 of those 13 teams have won a flag since 1996. Is 13 different premiers in 50 years a good return for a league that spent the majority of that time with less than 15 clubs? Of course, premierships are not the only metric of 'how even' the competition is - since 1987 when the salary cap was introduced, every club except GWS and Gold Coast has played in a preliminary final.

 

[Kwality]

I see equalisation as practised by the AFL as a financial measure, a form of manipulation by HQ & unrelated to who wins premierships.

As for the OP I'd suggest he stick to the national comp only for comparative purposes, the days of the state days comps are not relevant other than to soft soap the relevance of some clubs.

Is a flag the only measure of success or did the Saints have a successful era under Ross?
Are the Tiges enjoying success under Dimma?

IMHO the answer for both the Saints & Tiges is definitely yes !!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The return is probably no better or worse than the NRL which doesn't have draft or concessions, just a cap. They have a couple of clubs who can't win a flag as well.

So what is the conclusion here? That equalisation measures don't go far enough to change the trend or thst statistically equalisation measure are a waste of time when it comes to ultimate success?

I'd suggest that all teams bar the latest 2 playing in a preliminary in the National Comp is a good thing but wonder how this stacks up pre-draft. Certainly we see teams still spend years in the wilderness.

 

[adammania9]

The return is probably no better or worse than the NFL which doesn't have draft or concessions, just a cap. They have a couple of clubs who can't win a flag as well.

So what is the conclusion here? That equalisation measures don't go far enough to change the trend or thst statistically equalisation measure are a waste of time when it comes to ultimate success?

I'd suggest that all teams bar the latest 2 playing in a preliminary in the National Comp is a good thing but wonder how this stacks up pre-draft. Certainly we see teams still spend years in the wilderness.

Hmmm... do u mean NRL? Because the NFL draft is the biggest draft in the world.

Unrelated to your comment though, even with the NFL draft, the Super bowl winners are close to the same every year. Giants have won a couple recently, and the Patriots still dominate, and the Browns still suck.

Is the draft really making leagues equal? NRL doesn't ave one and they have different grand finals every year.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Hmmm... do u mean NRL? Because the NFL draft is the biggest draft in the world.

Unrelated to your comment though, even with the NFL draft, the Super bowl winners are close to the same every year. Giants have won a couple recently, and the Patriots still dominate, and the Browns still suck.

Is the draft really making leagues equal? NRL doesn't ave one and they have different grand finals every year.

Yes NRL. Phone auto corrects to NFL.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Equalisation sounds great in theory. I'd like to see it put into practice.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Hmmm... do u mean NRL? Because the NFL draft is the biggest draft in the world.

Unrelated to your comment though, even with the NFL draft, the Super bowl winners are close to the same every year. Giants have won a couple recently, and the Patriots still dominate, and the Browns still suck.

Is the draft really making leagues equal? NRL doesn't ave one and they have different grand finals every year.

I suspect with the NFL It is more about retention. Players won't stay somewhere where the city is dull, facilities bad, people are hayseeds. Like the AFL they long for success and historical big clubs in big cities.

 

[Papa G]

5/12 is nearly 42%
5/18 is only 28%

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Equalisation isn't the hottest topic in the world of the AFL, but it's perennially brought up because it directly affects all of us two million-odd fans. If we didn't each want our team to win flags, we wouldn't be supporters.

Equalisation measures such as the salary cap, draft, and 'luxury tax' have their supporters and detractors. Some extol the virtues of such measures, while others bemoan what they perceive as the watering-down of equalisation, and still others call for equalisation to be scrapped and allow truly strong clubs to float to the top.

Five months ago, Hawthorn pulled it off and won their third flag in a row. This sparked debate as to whether dynasties were becoming the rule rather than the exception.

What if you look at the long-term record of the last half-a-century? In each given ten-year-period, how many teams won the premiership? How many were one-flag-wonders and how many were dynasties and super-teams?

2006-2015: five premiers (WCE, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney)

1996-2005: six premiers (NM, Adelaide, Essendon, Brisbane, Port, Sydney)

1986-1995: five premiers (Hawthorn, Carlton, Collingwood, WCE, Esssendon)

1976-1985: five premiers (Hawthorn, NM, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon)

1966-1975: five premiers (St Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn, NM)

The consistency of the pattern is remarkable: each of the last five decades has seen five or six different premiers. Interestingly, the pattern extends back into the pre-equalisation era. Overall, there have been 13 different premiership-winning clubs in the last 50 years. 10 of those 13 teams have won a flag since 1996. Is 13 different premiers in 50 years a good return for a league that spent the majority of that time with less than 15 clubs? Of course, premierships are not the only metric of 'how even' the competition is - since 1987 when the salary cap was introduced, every club except GWS and Gold Coast has played in a preliminary final.

i don't think that dynasties becoming the new norm but we are seeing the same sides continually challenging over a longer period of time. there isn't much change in the top 4 from season to season (which we universally accept as the extent of realistic flag challengers) freo hawthorn and sydney have all been there the last 3 years in a row. i remember a similar pattern with geelong, st kilda, bulldogs and collingwood in late 00s, and port bris collingwood in early 00s.

it's just something that is inherent to the nature of our sport. in our sport (despite the efforts of free agency) contending is built from list development PERIOD. free agency is only a tool that the contending sides should use to plug up holes. we won't see any 'worst to first' on the back of free agents. so the sides that develop their lists well will be rewarded with a sustained period of contention. the problem is that sides struggle to develop their list will spend years on the bottom with little headway. but there are no shortcuts.

it's not a good or bad thing as such, it's just the nature of the sport and teams will just have to do their best to excel in that environment.

 

[Kwality]

Equalisation sounds great in theory. I'd like to see it put into practice.

Specifics?

I challenge you Asc, your lot have been given priority choices in the name of equalisation ... that didn't work. Yes I know, all clubs have their failures, but ....

Then there is the supposed inequality of Friday nights & game time slots in the Melbourne market, I say supposed because favoured treatment did nothing for the Blues.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

5/12 is nearly 42%
5/18 is only 28%

That's not to say that the extra 6 teams back then would have changed that formula. Only 1 of the 7 added clubs have won a flag in the last 10 years at any rate.

I do get the point that if equalisation is the goal, then that number should be creeping up.

7 of 10 flags were won by non Vic sides in the preceding 10 years. 4 of those with a cost of living/retention allowance. We reacted back then, maybe we need to see a bit more time pass to decide what is an anomaly and what isn't.

 

[KC17]

I wrote a paper recently that touched on this (focused on whether the draft and salary cap was on shaky legal ground with regards to restraint of trade) and the spread of premiers over an extended period is pretty good when compared with other major sporting leagues around the world, the Premier League being the obvious example. The key thing is that 'equalisation' policies aren't always implemented to give clubs an equal chance at winning a premiership, but rather to ensure their financial viability. I think a big part of the reason we see dynasties occurring is that players are prepared to take large pay cuts to keep a premiership side together, which is less frequent in other world sports.

 

[Mr Magic]

I see equalisation as practised by the AFL as a financial measure, a form of manipulation by HQ & unrelated to who wins premierships.

As for the OP I'd suggest he stick to the national comp only for comparative purposes, the days of the state days comps are not relevant other than to soft soap the relevance of some clubs.

Is a flag the only measure of success or did the Saints have a successful era under Ross?
Are the Tiges enjoying success under Dimma?

IMHO the answer for both the Saints & Tiges is definitely yes !!

Nope, Tigers are not having success now, get real!!!!

Having said that GWS and Gold Coast gifted premierships to the Hawks and expansion put equalisation on a back seat!

 

[manicmagpie]

2006-2015: five premiers (WCE, Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney)

1996-2005: six premiers (NM, Adelaide, Essendon, Brisbane, Port, Sydney)

1986-1995: five premiers (Hawthorn, Carlton, Collingwood, WCE, Esssendon)

1976-1985: five premiers (Hawthorn, NM, Carlton, Richmond, Essendon)

1966-1975: five premiers (St Kilda, Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn, NM)

The problem with these figures is bolded. The pre-draft zones era resulted in just 5 clubs winning every single flag for 23 years (1967-1989).

The same period of time after 1989 (1990-2012) yields 11 different premiers.

The same period of time before zones (1944-1966) gives you 9 different premiers (would be 10 if you extended it just one more year back to 1943). This from just 12 teams competing!

The zones era was the least competitive era in footy history. Since the draft kicked in we've had it much better.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Specifics?

I challenge you Asc, your lot have been given priority choices in the name of equalisation ... that didn't work. Yes I know, all clubs have their failures, but ....

Then there is the supposed inequality of Friday nights & game time slots in the Melbourne market, I say supposed because favoured treatment did nothing for the Blues.

Fixture - fair allocation of home/away games against teams over a period of time (or at least a transparent way of determining the fixture as detailed many times elsewhere) instead of guaranteed return games each year; rotation of prime time games - doesn't have to be completely equal but some teams getting 8 or 9 and other 0 or 2 every year is ridiculous (and I'm not just talking about Vic clubs)

Draft - priority access to academy players and father/son picks should go

Salary cap - remove the salary floor; don't let clubs "bank" salary space to use in future years (95% year 1 & 2, 110% year 3); remove Additional Services Agreements; stop 3rd party deals especially those linked directly to a club contract (Judd/VISY, Cloke/Channel 9 etc)

That's just a start.

 

[SunsSupporter]

Equalisation needs to be the top priority of the AFL at the moment in my opinion. The game is boring right now, simple as that. Who wants to watch Hawthorn pump Brisbane on a Sunday afternoon when you can watch a much closer game of NRL? The fact that Hawthorn have won 3 in a row is a bad thing for the sport. Going into the season there are no more than 10 teams that can make the finals. At least 4 games a round are pretty much over at half-time. It's boring.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It's perfect how it is. Teams jump up and down the ladder every year, there's a decent spread of premiers but the stronger teams can still cash in and win multiple flags if they're good enough. People talk about the same teams perenially dominating, but it's not really the case. Despite all the hype, Geelong and Collingwood have both fallen away badly in the last couple of years. Sydney have been thereabouts for years due to AFL assistance. Hawthorn have had a good run but it's not exactly unprecedented. They've made the finals 8 times in 9 years and are now a very old side. It's unlikely to continue on indefinitely. If you want an example of inequality look at the EPL or NBA. You can pretty much sum up the entire NBA history as follows:

1940/50s: Minneapolis Lakers era
1960s: Celtics era
1970s: A variety of teams won
1980s: Lakers/Celtics era
1990s: Bulls era
2000s: Lakers/Spurs era

You can't really do that with the AFL. Look at the premier league champions (since 1992):

Manchester United: 13
Chelsea: 4
Arsenal: 3
Manchester City: 2
Blackburn: 1

And here are the Western Conference champions in the NBA from 1999-2014 (bold when on to win the championship):

Spurs
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Spurs
Lakers
Spurs
Mavericks
Spurs
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Mavericks
Thunder
Spurs
Spurs

That's 10/16 titles between two teams, and 13/16 finals with one of those two teams.

The AFL isn't even close to something like that.

 

[Scotland]

Fixture - fair allocation of home/away games against teams over a period of time (or at least a transparent way of determining the fixture as detailed many times elsewhere) instead of guaranteed return games each year; rotation of prime time games - doesn't have to be completely equal but some teams getting 8 or 9 and other 0 or 2 every year is ridiculous (and I'm not just talking about Vic clubs)

There is no such thing as a 'fair' fixture with 18 clubs and 22 games.

 

[SunsSupporter]

There is no such thing as a 'fair' fixture with 18 clubs and 22 games.

Absolutely agree. Season should be 17 games.
Makes every game count for more, is much fairer. It's part of what makes the NFL so great.

 

[Scotland]

The reason teams like Hawthorn are able to stay strong is because the salary cap is a bit meaningless with front and back ended contracts.

If the AFL were serious about the salary cap they'd make all contracts of a standard form of $x per year over y years. I.e. Sydney could pay Lance Franklin whatever they want per year so long as they can afford it in the first year. None of this $100k one year, $1m the next business that clubs carry on with.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

It's perfect how it is. Teams jump up and down the ladder every year, there's a decent spread of premiers but the stronger teams can still cash in and win multiple flags if they're good enough. People talk about the same teams perenially dominating, but it's not really the case. Despite all the hype, Geelong and Collingwood have both fallen away badly in the last couple of years. Sydney have been thereabouts for years due to AFL assistance. Hawthorn have had a good run but it's not exactly unprecedented. They've made the finals 8 times in 9 years and are now a very old side. It's unlikely to continue on indefinitely. If you want an example of inequality look at the EPL or NBA. You can pretty much sum up the entire NBA history as follows:

1940/50s: Minneapolis Lakers era
1960s: Celtics era
1970s: A variety of teams won
1980s: Lakers/Celtics era
1990s: Bulls era
2000s: Lakers/Spurs era

You can't really do that with the AFL. Look at the premier league champions (since 1992):

Manchester United: 13
Chelsea: 4
Arsenal: 3
Manchester City: 2
Blackburn: 1

And here are the Western Conference champions in the NBA from 1999-2014 (bold when on to win the championship):

Spurs
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Spurs
Lakers
Spurs
Mavericks
Spurs
Lakers
Lakers
Lakers
Mavericks
Thunder
Spurs
Spurs

That's 10/16 titles between two teams, and 13/16 finals with one of those two teams.

The AFL isn't even close to something like that.

the one sidedness in the nba is down to the fact that there are only 5 players on the court so superstar players have a massive impact. i think every final for the last 15 years has had either duncan, kobe or lebron playing in it. i think the pistons won it in the 00s with a socalled team of journeymen, but by in large to win the nba you need superstars. nba is a superstar league and no amount of equalization can change that.

just like in the NFL you need an elite quarterback. either peyton manning, tom brady or ben roethlisberger has been in 13 of the last 15 superbowls. without that you can't compete unless you have an exceptionally talented roster.

we don't have such reliance on single players in our sport. lebron moving to the cavs made them instant contenders and made his old championship winning heat team irrelevent. gary ablett is one of the greatest of all time and he went the suns and they still suck, and the cats won the flag the year he left. our sport is all about overall list development not about superstars...

as for soccer well there's absolutely no equality in that...

 

[Scotland]

as for soccer well there's absolutely no equality in that...

Maybe not, but it is pure competition.

Everyone plays everyone, home and away. The team with the most amount of points at the conclusion of this is crowned champions.

 

[TheTrademark]

The Salary cap and draft are each undermined.

If players decide as a group to be paid under market value each to keep a group together and succeed, the cap is worthless. This has been discussed in context of both Geelong and Hawthorn in recent years. I reckon players who play in finals should have payments paid to them that must be then included in the cap. That is for example $50000 per final win total for the team. So the premiers need to scrap $150000 from their salary cap each year due to this premium. That moves players around and equalises the conp. (NB the exact number should be high enough to cause impact but not too high to decimate the team).

The draft is compromised by poor development (Melbourne in late 00s). Having a good team helps development as having good players and moderate success are good to build a prosperous environment to develop. Ie a Hawthorn pick 18 is more likely to develop successfully then a carlton number 1? I appreciate you need good management too. Maybe the above will help distribute the experience.

Having good facilities also helps i feel as does having a BigFooty department. I feel that could be evened out also.

I wonder if there is a role for all clubs to be able to have academies to develop players that they can poach from anywhere in Oz and at younger ages. There needs to be an independent education monitor to ensure all players are educated with schooling outside footy at am adequate level also. It would bring the best out of prospective players and you could then scrap the draft. The salary cap would be more important then as clubs could poach different clubs juniors (this is an nrl system modified for a national program and including adequate pastoral care).

I think the above will help with equalisation. (Nb examples using clubs are for demonstration only)

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Maybe not, but it is pure competition.

Everyone plays everyone, home and away. The team with the most amount of points at the conclusion of this is crowned champions.

i agree with that premise. it's definitely fairer. and that's the criticism of the finals/playoffs model. the team can be the best 51 weeks of the year and 2nd best for 1 week and not have a trophy to show for it. but for pure entertainment value you can't beat finals/playoffs.

 

[Furn2]

Footy will never be like the NRL because of the type of game it is.

Once you get a good side together it's generally gong to be good for a while. There's a number of reasons why this is the case more so in footy than other sports.

1. More players: losing or gaining a player has less effect.

2. Complicated structures and game plans: once you get a good coach and players that are well drilled you stay competitive despite personnel changes. The opposite is true for struggling teams.

3. The game itself: footy is almost unique on that you have to win the ball in a contest constantly, As well as defend and attack. This means that good teams are hard to upset because you have to beat them in 3 areas usually.

4. High scoring: in other codes you can be dominated in possession and territory but not be scored on and steal a win. Not on footy so much.

5. Culture of loyalty and success: AFL players are generally more loyal to their teams than other codes and will not necessarily go where the make the most money.

6. Off field culture: footy is a game where doing the right things off field is super important and again when teams get it right or wrong it's hard to turn around.

So for these reasons I don't think any measures short of forcing the top teams to give the bottom teams Thier 10 best players every year would see a different winner every year like some seem to want.