Yes, it's totally fair.
That's why we have equalisation measures in place that are NOT fair but make for a more interesting season.
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Expansion IS IT TIME FOR TWO DIVISIONS ??
- Thread starter LordLucifer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That's why we have equalisation measures in place that are NOT fair but make for a more interesting season.
Will never happen. Could you imagine Carlton and Collingwood not playing a single H&A against each other, ditto derbies etc and the AFL being okay with that?
The competition will stay single tier at 20, but if it ever goes beyond 20, I think we’ll see NBA style conferences.
That doesn't make sense....if we had 22 we wouldn't need conferences. 21 games plus maybe 1 double up.
Conferences are about draw integrity, not a lot of point to them outside that. Not that the AFL gives a stuff about integrity much anyway.
I don't know why you think more than 20 teams makes conferences a good idea. When Tasmania enter, we'll likely move to a 24 game season. With that length, you could go to 25 teams (which will probably never happen anyway) and have a basically even draw with everyone playing everyone else once.
Conferences aren't going to happen. There's no need for them.
That's easy - fan fatigue.
With the WAFL and SANFL teams would cycle through.
With the VFL most teams would cycle through.
With the AFL some teams just aren't going to cycle through even with equalisation measures.
In the NFL, with 32 teams they have 8 conferences of 4 NOT 4 conferences of 8.
In the NFL they make a big deal about being a conference winner presumably to maintain fan interest.
In the AFL (and NRL) we don't even applaud the minor premier.
Though we do have have a lot of themed games etc in the AFL.
If the AFL and the AFL broadcaster want to maintain the highest level of interest then they'll have to devote more energy to promoting benchmark achievements.
Yeah, I understand the math, but at a certain point, being 23rd on the ladder in a 24 team comp is just a bridge too far.
I can’t think, off the top of my head, of any major leagues that are single tier with over 20 teams.
Just look at what they say about the VFL now, that it’s too Frankenstein.
IMO it would be very hard for Australians to adopt the NFL style conferences but if you accept equalistion measures then the first step is quite minor.
If we accept that each team has to play every other team at least once (unlike the NFL) then with 20 teams then that's 19 games plus another 3 for 4 team conference or another 4 games with 5 team conference.
Four team conferences ensure more derbies.
Western conference - W.A. and S.A.
Northern conference - Qld and N.S.W.
Big conference - Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Carlton
Eastern conference - Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne
Southern conference - Tasmania, Geelong, Bulldogs, Canberra
EDIT: i would prefer N.M. and Canberra in the same conference though.
If we accept that each team has to play every other team at least once (unlike the NFL) then with 20 teams then that's 19 games plus another 3 for 4 team conference or another 4 games with 5 team conference.
Four team conferences ensure more derbies.
Western conference - W.A. and S.A.
Northern conference - Qld and N.S.W.
Big conference - Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Carlton
Eastern conference - Hawthorn, St. Kilda, Melbourne, North Melbourne
Southern conference - Tasmania, Geelong, Bulldogs, Canberra
EDIT: i would prefer N.M. and Canberra in the same conference though.
Last edited:
Cubs2Lions
Norm Smith Medallist
Ideally, reckon conferences will only take place once 24+ teams are in the competition but your proposal has merit and would help fixturing if conferences were implemented once Tasmania and possibly Canberra's entry in the big league.
Depending on the long-term future and outlook of the AFL landscape once 24 clubs do enter the competition/s, I would personally go 3 divisions of 8 clubs in each resulting in following structure:
Central Conference: Carlton Blues, Collingwood Magpies, Essendon Bombers, Geelong Cats, Hawthorn Hawks, Melbourne Demons, New Zealand Saints*, Richmond Tigers
Northern / Eastern Conference: Brisbane Lions, Canberra Freeze, Darwin-NT Kangaroos*, Gold Coast Suns, Newcastle Hunters, North Queensland Crocodiles, Sydney Swans, Western Sydney Giants
Southern / Western Conference: Adelaide Crows, Fremantle Dockers, Joondalup Bulldogs*, Norwood Scorpions, Perth Sharks, Port Adelaide Power, Tasmania Devils, West Coast Eagles
* - St. Kilda, North Melbourne and Western Bulldogs all relocated to interstate clubs.
Every club would play each team in their conferences twice (H & A) resulting in 14 matches, before playing 4 teams in each of the other two conferences resulting in 8 matches and 22 in total (23 weeks with 1 mid-competition bye).
Top 4 from each conference would play in a 12 team final series as a whole ladder system, which would be calculated and broken in 2 groups of 6 that are played simultaneously as something like:
W1: A5 vs. A11
W1: A7 vs. A9
W2: A1 vs. A7
W2: A3 vs. A5
W3: A1 vs. A3
___________________________
W1: A6 vs. A12
W1: A8 vs. A10
W2: A2 vs. A8
W2: A4 vs. A6
W3: A2 vs. A4
___________________________
W4: A1 vs. A2
It should be noted though that the GF would be played at the home state's venue (providing stadium can reach minimum of 65-70k). As an example, Canberra would have to host the GF at the SCG or Accor and Darwin would have to play at the GABBA given these are just 2 examples of small clubs who wouldn't have appropriate facilities in their own city.
With that model and given the AFL wanting more club success and trophies to be given out, you could also play a bottom 12 final series (teams 13-24) as well to play for a Premiers Plate and cash prize, which would work (in conjunction with premiership finals but earlier timeslots) like:
W1: A17 vs. A23
W1: A19 vs. A21
W2: A13 vs. A21
W2: A15 vs. A17
W3: A13 vs. A15
___________________________
W1: A18 vs. A24
W1: A20 vs. A22
W2: A14 vs. A20
W2: A16 vs. A18
W3: A14 vs. A16
___________________________
W4: A13 vs. A14
This proposal (while not perfect) would be the ideal way of possibly expanding the competition to a far more national audience especially in the east-coast states like NSW & QLD and would limit travel for all clubs involved as best as possible. The only issue regarding this idea is having to relocate 3 VIC clubs interstate, which wouldn't go down too way for their own self-interests but the AFL needs to decide soon if they want to continue being a VIC-dominant competition or a national one where the sport is greatly exposed in every state and territory in Australia.
I think the Wildcard round is a way of the footy public being conditioned to playing slightly less footy in the regular season.
Here is what i think will occur moving forward.
20 teams - Tassie and Canberra or NT (toss of coin)
Play everyone once
Play gather round
= Every team plays 20 games
Total 200 Games
Plus
2 x wildcard games
9 x finals
= 211 Games
At the moment we are at 216 games. (23 x 9 + 9 finals)
TV deals aren't slowing down off losing 5 games, whilst increasing the number of eyes on the wildcard games, compared to the dead rubbers.
You will also see demand for tickets increase when clubs go from hosting 11 home games down to 9 or 10 depending on the season.
Here is what i think will occur moving forward.
20 teams - Tassie and Canberra or NT (toss of coin)
Play everyone once
Play gather round
= Every team plays 20 games
Total 200 Games
Plus
2 x wildcard games
9 x finals
= 211 Games
At the moment we are at 216 games. (23 x 9 + 9 finals)
TV deals aren't slowing down off losing 5 games, whilst increasing the number of eyes on the wildcard games, compared to the dead rubbers.
You will also see demand for tickets increase when clubs go from hosting 11 home games down to 9 or 10 depending on the season.
I hate wildcard round.
What they should do is have gather round and wildcard round be one in the same.
1 v 2, 3 v 4, 5 v 6, 7 v 10 (loser eliminated), 8 v 9 (loser eliminated), the rest.
Highest ranked teams get the AO games, lower ranked get the smaller grounds. Or whatever state it’s played.
Then just have a normal top 8 finals series after that with the pre finals bye.
But if they really want to expand the finals series, then just go to conferences and be done with it.
20 teams, 4 conferences, 5 teams each conference.
Conference winner = top four, week off.
8 best of the rest playoff for spot in finals.
Then finals series is straight knockout, 8 down to 4 down to 2.
There’s gonna be more than 20 teams one day so I think conferences will eventually happen whether people like it or not
That is wildly convoluted.
Fair call. Wouldn’t have a problem with them keeping the top 8 as is.
- Moderator
- #114
I don't see the need for two conferences for the home and away season. I doubt the competition will move much beyond 20 teams, so have 19 home and away rounds where every team plays each other once. Even with 22 teams have a 21 round home and away.
Having said that, for the finals I'd prefer to top ten teams to be divided into two finals conferences where two final 5s to play off. One final five to be ladder positions 1,3,5,7,9 and the other 2,4,6,8 and 10.
Soemthing like this, and for clarity, I'm going to assume the higher placed team wins every final.
Week 1
1 bye, and 2 bye
Qualifying Final 3 vs. 5 and 4 vs. 6 (Winner to play 1 and 2. Loser to play winners of elimination final)
Elimination Final 7 vs. 9, 8 vs. 10 (Loser to be eliminated, winners to play losers of Qualifying final. (more often Teams 9 and 10 would be eliminated)
Week 2
First Semi: 5 vs. 7, 6 vs. 8 (Losers eliminated)
Second Semi: 1 vs 3, 2 vs. 4 (winners through to the Final and have another bye, losers play winners of First semi final in Preliminary.)
Week 3
1st Preliminary final: 3 vs. 5 (loser eliminated, winner through to final)
2nd Preliminary final: 4 vs. 6 (loser eliminated, winner through to final)
Week 4: Final 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4 (winners through to Grand Final and losers eliminated
Week 5: Grand Final 1 vs. 2 (Winner is season premier)
13 finals matches. Currently the final eight has nine games.
Obviously this could be tinkered with such as giving the team finishing 1 a greater advantage and maybe go 1,4,6,8,10 and the other 2,3,5,7 and 9. Possibly a crossover could be factored in as well to avoid a repeat of final games.
Having said that, for the finals I'd prefer to top ten teams to be divided into two finals conferences where two final 5s to play off. One final five to be ladder positions 1,3,5,7,9 and the other 2,4,6,8 and 10.
Soemthing like this, and for clarity, I'm going to assume the higher placed team wins every final.
Week 1
1 bye, and 2 bye
Qualifying Final 3 vs. 5 and 4 vs. 6 (Winner to play 1 and 2. Loser to play winners of elimination final)
Elimination Final 7 vs. 9, 8 vs. 10 (Loser to be eliminated, winners to play losers of Qualifying final. (more often Teams 9 and 10 would be eliminated)
Week 2
First Semi: 5 vs. 7, 6 vs. 8 (Losers eliminated)
Second Semi: 1 vs 3, 2 vs. 4 (winners through to the Final and have another bye, losers play winners of First semi final in Preliminary.)
Week 3
1st Preliminary final: 3 vs. 5 (loser eliminated, winner through to final)
2nd Preliminary final: 4 vs. 6 (loser eliminated, winner through to final)
Week 4: Final 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4 (winners through to Grand Final and losers eliminated
Week 5: Grand Final 1 vs. 2 (Winner is season premier)
13 finals matches. Currently the final eight has nine games.
Obviously this could be tinkered with such as giving the team finishing 1 a greater advantage and maybe go 1,4,6,8,10 and the other 2,3,5,7 and 9. Possibly a crossover could be factored in as well to avoid a repeat of final games.
Last edited:
Why should 1, 3, and 5 play higher-ranked teams?
Other than that, I agree about H/A.
I don't really care about WA3 and SA3. AFL IMO would like a presence in NQ, I still think ACT as team 20 and maybe one day NT and NQ come in. Don't have to have NZ etc.
But AFL's a great game, grow it where you can, and just figure out how to structure comp as you go along. You don't say no to team 23 etc because you don't know how to shape the comp, you figure it out as you go along.
But if 22 teams: play once across 21 games. 10 home, 10 away, 1 gather round. If 24, 23 games. If ever more than 24 which would presumably be 70+ years away, I think that's when you look at conferences. You may consider it beyond 20 just to give clubs something else to play for.
I like your finals system but flip it around: 1 gets 4,6,8,10, 2 gets 3,5,7,9.
- Apr 29, 2016
- 13,335
- 11,613
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Sure. Have all the clubs kissed by Father/sons and NGA's in one division (Collingwood, Dogs, Brisbane, etc.) and the rest in the other division. It's not an even comp anyway so may as well just have diff divisions.
- Moderator
- #117
That could happen to give the first placed team a greater advantage than the second placed team.
Consolidation Vs expansion ?
Canberra is consolidation with a good opportunity for growth.
WA3, SA3 even NT are consolidation, so I'm not interested.
The AFL was well under way in N.Z. and in fact the statistics for N.Z. were much better than GWS w.r.t. participation.
GWS is the hardest sell because of the amount of negative activity (and GWS has to be applauded for their effort)
New Zealanders may follow rugby but at worst indifferent to the Aussie game not derogatory as in some places.
The AFL hasn't started on theoretical target population centres like Newcastle, Wollongong, Townsville etc.
Auckland and Newcastle would be good targets for expansion after Canberra. Biggest untapped populations that aren’t too far away from Australia that could work. I’ve often said a 3rd WA and 2nd Brisbane for 21-22 but like you said, WA3 would be consolation and Brisbane kinda would be too since they already have a team. I mean some places like GC aren’t going to have more than one team.
Similar threads
