Major changes to the league are near

[ausfatcat]

Surely something has to change or the league fixtures will just get messier when we get more teams, and more teams is inevitable.

I couldn't think of a more complicated system than what you have propsed, it needs to be as simple as possible so everyone can follow.


Simple when/if (and it is a big if) the AFL gets to 20 teams final 10.

 

[D-N-R]

I don't have a problem with the idea of a two tiered competition. I think it has alot of merit (although we need a bigger league).

However, the problems I see with your model are as follows.

1 - The team that finishes top of the 2nd division has played a season against weaker opponents than the team that finishes 8th in the 1st division, yet gets a golden parachute into the finals and leap-frogs 4 [correction 5!!] teams in the process. I don't see this as being fair.

2 - The way the relegation finals are set up, as many as three teams from the lower division could get up, but as few as one (the winner of that league) could get up. This could lead to a situation where the 1st division has only one team changing per year and supporters in the lower tier getting frustrated and giving up the game because their team is getting nowhere near the top division.

3 - There could be a huge loss in revenue (for AFL and the clubs) if some of the big rivals are in opposing divisions for a few years.

I think a fairer system would be as follows.

Assume an 18 team competition with two divisions of 9.

Each team plays each other in their division H&A and each team in the other division once (let's call these Cup games) for a total of 24 games - (this means that there isn't a bye either, as the odd teams from each division will play each other that week).

9th from the first division is automatically relegated to 2nd division at the end of the season.

8th spot from 1st division (and a place in the finals) can be taken by the top team from the 2nd division if that team has more points than from H&A and Cup games (which is likely) and has a better record in those Cup games than the team from the 1st division. This means that the team from 2nd division has to have beaten more teams from the 1st division than the team from the first division has beaten from the 2nd division. If this is the case, then 8th is relegated as well.

Teams that are promoted from 2nd division would be decided by the following.

1st place is an automatic promotion (and possible finals appearance).

First Week of 2nd Division Finals -
2nd plays 3rd, the winner is promoted and the loser plays team from 1st division.

Second Week -
Loser of 2nd vs 3rd plays the 7th placed from 1st division after finals (this team cannot be the one that is promoted to finals series from 2nd division).

1st Division Finals.
Top eight as per normal. Top 4 teams are safe from relegation. 5th to 8th could be relegated.

Week 1 Elimination Finals (losers not including a promoted team).
Winners safe and continue finals as normal.
Two losers are graded based on losing percentage. Worst loser (8th after finals) is relegated. 7th place after finals plays the loser of the 2nd vs 3rd play-off in 2nd division.

Week 1 Elimination Finals (losers including a promoted team).
Winners safe and continue finals as normal.
The team that has not been promoted and loses, automatically goes into the play-off against the loser of the 2nd vs 3rd play-off in 2nd division regardless of whether it has a better or worse % than the other team that has been promoted.
*These elimination finals would have to be played simultaneously to avoid any manipulation of the final positions.

I think this type of system would be better than the one you have proposed, as there would be 2 promotions and possibly a third at the end of the season, rather than just one and possibly 3. This allows the top tier to be refreshed more often and allow teams a greater chance at the big prize.

Also, this system allows for all teams to play each other in the season, keeping punters and promoters happy. These additional Cup games could have their own table and a finals system based on this could be played as a pre-season competition the next year, which would give that competition some meaning. However, this would have to be a top 8 finals series or something similar as involving all teams would mean too many games and a bloated schedule.

It includes the extra finals in the lower tier, which adds more value to the product, and finishing first in the lower division actually means something (i.e. automatic promotion, rather than just a home final or second chance). The lower tier could have a more complex finals system (2nd to 5th) but this extra week means it runs out of sync with the top 8 finals series and would allow the play-off team from the 1st division an extra week off, which I think gives them an unfair advantage.

Problems I envisage will be if the AFL becomes a 20 team comp. Two tiers of 10 teams, with a H&A and Cup games would amount to 28 games in a season plus finals which is starting to stretch it. You could then revert to two autonomous competitions, but having half the competition not playing each other (especially your Coll/Ess blockbusters etc.) would damage the value and revenue of the competition too greatly.

 

[D-N-R]

The best thing about divisions is that the AFL can keep their FIXture, but also remove the inequity. The can play the rivalry games twice a year, move teams around the country, and factor in selling games interstate. So long as teams compete directly within their division (and can get a guaranteed top 4 spot by beating the rest of their division), then its a fairer system than we have now.

I kind of agree on the champion names. You'd want someone who represented the teams in that division, but no-one wants to play in a division named after their bitter rivals.

Maybe it could be named after popular AFL commissioners. Imagine the action as Carlton and Essendon battle to become champions of "Demetriou division". Watch Brisbane and Sydney go to the wire in "Oakley conference". And wouldn't it be great seeing Freo take on North in the "Jackson league".

The problem with set divisions though, is 4 or 5 of the best teams could be in one division and likewise 4 or the 5 weakest teams could be in another division. This means a strong team in a weak division can get to belt the other teams in that division twice a year and earn themselves a spot in the finals based on who they played rather than how good they are. I know that they all get to play each other at least once, but this system is just another way of doing what we do now, which is the problem. It also means that some strong teams (which may merit a place in the finals) miss out because they have had to play other finals contenders twice and this has affected their ladder position.

I posted this in another thread (although I think it got lost with Melbourne and Freo fans arguing over who has the worst crowds) and I think it has some merit.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=646217&page=5

Basically, the league is divided into two groups based on ladder position. 1,3,5....15 and 2,4,6....16. These teams play each other in their group H&A and each team in the opposing group once either H or A. These groups are of about equal strength, so who you play once or twice is about equal to anyone else in the competition. In a 16 team comp this is 22 games. In an 18 team comp, 25 games a season.

As soon as the games are selected based on rivalries, ground takings and TV ratings, all objectivity and fairness is lost before a ball is bounced and we might as well keep it as it is.

 

[FootyJunkie]

Demetriou division

yuck

 

[Jonno_]

Actually, all the problems of the draw should be fixed when the league expands to 18 teams.

3 divisions of 6 teams. Something along the lines of:

Division 1:
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Adelaide
Port Adelaide

Division 2:
West Coast
Fremantle
St Kilda
Bulldogs
Geelong
North Melbourne

Division 3:
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
West Sydney
Hawthorn (playing home games against divisional rivals in Tassie)
Melbourne (playing home games against divisional rivals in Darwin/Canberra)

Teams play their own division twice, and the other divisions once. This means that all main rivalries are accounted for, and the draw is fair and balanced. The top team from each division automatically gets a top 4 spot, along with the best second-placed team. Then, the 4 teams with the next best records round out the top 8. Finals are the same.

Priority picks are shifted to the pre-season draft, not the AFL draft (which makes a lot more sense, since it allows the club to sign an uncontracted player who can make the team immediately better, not a 17-yo who won't help the team for 3-4 years). The team in the league with the worst record gets pick 1 in the draft, the same as now.

Promotion/Relegation is a terrible system. Teams at the bottom bounce up and down like yo-yos, losing good players every time they go down (as players want to play at the highest level). You lose rivalries, in particular in the lower league. And there is little evidence to suggest it actually makes teams try harder in the short term.

Top, top post. I would absolutely love this too. Imagine playing Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Adelaide or Port every week. Every game would be a blockbuster, cept for Port.

And we might win something!

 

[Snooperclyde]

I couldn't think of a more complicated system than what you have propsed, it needs to be as simple as possible so everyone can follow.


Simple when/if (and it is a big if) the AFL gets to 20 teams final 10.

I will break it down for you, it really is quite simple.

Split level home and away season

Part A - AFL

AFL – would comprise twelve teams that would play each other twice, one home game and one away game, equaling twenty-two rounds. (straight forward).
The top seven teams would then go on to compete in the AFL final Eight. (Same finals system as now, the eight position being filled from the ACFL = div2)

The remaining five teams from this league (eight through twelve) would go on to play off in the AFL Qualifying finals. (Normally season over but they enter a play off for the right to remain in the AFL = div1)

 

[Snooperclyde]

Part B Australian Football Challenge League – would comprise all other teams that would play each other over twenty rounds. (exactly the same system as now. play each other X times each and a computer draw for the remaining games).

The top four teams 1v4 and 2v3 would then play off in a knockout finals competition in rounds 21 and 22 of the regular season.

(Round 21
1v4
2v3

Round 22
the winners of both games in round 21 play off, leaving one team)

The winner competing in the AFL FINAL EIGHT series. (eight position as mentioned in the above post PART A. While getting that privilege this team would have very little chance of taking out the premiership but it would be possible. they also gain automatic entry to the AFL = div 1 the following year).

The three other finalists to go on to play in the AFL Qualifying Finals. (join the teams that finished 8 through 12 in the AFL = div 1, for the right to play in the AFL = div 1 the following year).

The remaining teams from this league could receive priority draft picks, at a cost, as they will automatically enter the AFCL div 2 the following season and miss all finals.

This League can expand or contract.
(The reasons this league can change in size
1) New team enters
2) A team folds or two are amalgamated if in financial trouble)
The benefit for footy is that the AFL = div 1 is never compromised.

 

[Snooperclyde]

Part 3 AFL QUALIFYING FINALS



Thewinners of the four Qualifying Finals fill the remaining places in the following season’s AFL = div1. The losing teams relegated to the AFCL. = div2

An eight teams finals competition over two weeks as below.
(Six extra finals will excite fans from eight teams whose season would normally be over and the extra boost in revenue would be a bonus).


Week 1


1st Qualifying Final - 8th AFL v 11th AFL (winner = season over and in the AFL = div1 next year)

2nd Qualifying Final - 9th AFL v 10th AFL (winner = season over and in the AFL = div1 next year)

1st Relegation Final - 12th AFL v Lowest ranked loser of the AFCL Finals. (Winner to compete in qualifying final 4, loser is relegated to the div 2)
2nd Relegation Final - The other two teams from the AFCL knockout finals. (Winner to compete in qualifying final 3, loser relegated to div 2)

Week 2


3rd Qualifying Final – Loser QF1 v Winner RF2 (winner = season over and in the AFL = div1 next year, loser to div 2)

4th Qualifying Final – Loser QF2 v Winner RF1 (winner = season over and in the AFL = div1 next year, loser to div 2)

These finals coincide with the AFL = div 1 finals but are over within two weeks which allows the
focus to shift fully to the two preliminary finals and then the GF of div 1.

The reality is that these teams and their supporters would normally have season over, but under this system they have finals to experience and that would be a bonus for players and supporters.

 

[Snooperclyde]

Part 4 Summary

The positives this tiered league would produce, far out way the negatives an ever-expanding competition would bring to the existing format.

• Valuable finals experience for the players and provide an intriguing end to the season for the lower placed clubs.
• Expansion of the League is normally met with much resistance. This model would actually benefit from further expansion in the future, as this would occur in the AFCL, leaving the AFL 100% fair.
• One team is guaranteed, and as many as three teams from the AFCL (div 2) can gain entry to the AFL (div 1) the following season.
• It is possible, however unlikely, to win the premiership from the AFCL. Any team able to do this would fully deserve their win.
• Tanking would be a discussion of the past, as gaining priority picks would come at a considerable cost.
• True equality for the teams competing in the AFL.
• In theory, many more games during the regular season would be competitive, clubs and supporters would benefit.

Entry into the AFL is not a right but a privilege that will be hard earned, so any new teams would enter the competition though the AFCL.
The new teams would benefit from entry into the AFCL, as they would be able to start with very young lists then mature into the competition.

Tasmania is an AFL state and should not be neglected, as it may be lost!
Melbourne is forecast to be the most populated city in Australia. So the future may provide support for all the steeped in history and tradition Melbourne based clubs.
Western Australia is growing rapidly and a third AFL team from this state is not too far down the track.

 

[Snooperclyde]

I don't have a problem with the idea of a two tiered competition. I think it has alot of merit (although we need a bigger league).

However, the problems I see with your model are as follows.

1 - The team that finishes top of the 2nd division has played a season against weaker opponents than the team that finishes 8th in the 1st division, yet gets a golden parachute into the finals and leap-frogs 4 [correction 5!!] teams in the process. I don't see this as being fair.

2 - The way the relegation finals are set up, as many as three teams from the lower division could get up, but as few as one (the winner of that league) could get up. This could lead to a situation where the 1st division has only one team changing per year and supporters in the lower tier getting frustrated and giving up the game because their team is getting nowhere near the top division.

3 - There could be a huge loss in revenue (for AFL and the clubs) if some of the big rivals are in opposing divisions for a few years.

.

True they played in div 2 but in time with the priority picks, div 2 teams should hopefully rebound quite quickly.

Div 1 teams that finish 8 through 12 do not really deserve protection and it also eradicates tanking in the main league. The team that finishes 12th can be relegated unless they win 2 consecutive games in the qualifying finals, where as the teams that finish 8 - 11 get the second chance.

Equally the div 2 teams must also win 2 consecutive games to get promoted to div 1.

Xtra thanks for your long and thought out reply DNR, it helped me realize that a thorough simplistic description is required.
I have worked my system all out in my head but delivering those thoughts to others is challenging.

 

[Koutafidamedis]

The problem with set divisions though, is 4 or 5 of the best teams could be in one division and likewise 4 or the 5 weakest teams could be in another division. This means a strong team in a weak division can get to belt the other teams in that division twice a year and earn themselves a spot in the finals based on who they played rather than how good they are. I know that they all get to play each other at least once, but this system is just another way of doing what we do now, which is the problem. It also means that some strong teams (which may merit a place in the finals) miss out because they have had to play other finals contenders twice and this has affected their ladder position.

How is that any different to what happens now?


If in season 2010 Sydney get drawn to play Freo, Rich, Melb and the Roos twice yet Essendon have to deal with St Kilda, Geelong, Bulldogs and Crows twice.

Sydney could end up with a 14-8 record and finish 5th. Yet Essendon who have a stronger side end up with a 10-12 record and finish 9th.

At least this way your competing for finals spots against teams that have the same fixture as you.

I would love the AFL to implement btdg's system.

 

[D-N-R]

How is that any different to what happens now?

It's not, and that's my issue with it. I'll admit it's more transparent but if it doesn't change from what we have now (certain teams play each other because of $$$), what's the point?

If in season 2010 Sydney get drawn to play Freo, Rich, Melb and the Roos twice yet Essendon have to deal with St Kilda, Geelong, Bulldogs and Crows twice.

Sydney could end up with a 14-8 record and finish 5th. Yet Essendon who have a stronger side end up with a 10-12 record and finish 9th.

At least this way your competing for finals spots against teams that have the same fixture as you.

I would love the AFL to implement btdg's system.

It's only the teams that are in your group that have the same fixture as you. Essendon (using your example) have 8 games against the top 4 teams, whilst Sydney gets 4, but gets 8 against the bottom teams. You've basically supported my argument against btdg's system with your example, but have somehow come to the conclusion that this is ok?

Also btdg states that the top team from each group will get a top 4 spot, meaning Sydney (assuming they finish top of their group) get a free ride into the top four (home finals, double chance) when they might not really deserve it.

For btdg's system to work, the groups would have to be seeded based on their ladder position from the previous year. 1,4,7,10,13,16 in one group, 2,5,8,11,14,17 in the second group and 3,6,9,12,15,18 in the third group. That way each of the groups is of about equal strength. This is done in several other leagues including the world cup qualifiers in Europe, to ensure that the best teams don't knock each other out before the finals series and weaker teams aren't given a free ride to the finals. If a weak team (one that has finished sub top eight the previous year) can get up in one of these groups and can snatch a top spot and finals place, then they will have deserved it.

Basically, if we don't have an even H&A system where all teams play each other twice, then there needs to be a random element to the draw to at least give it the appearance that it hasn't been rigged. I appreciate that btdg's system could fall into this category, however, as we've both demonstrated, this system has it's flaws. With seeded groups the only way it could be manipulated is to try and rig a teams position on the table by throwing games. I think this would be very difficult given all the variables and ultimately pointless.

(plus playing the same teams twice every year gets ****ing boring)

 

[D-N-R]

True they played in div 2 but in time with the priority picks, div 2 teams should hopefully rebound quite quickly.

Div 1 teams that finish 8 through 12 do not really deserve protection and it also eradicates tanking in the main league. The team that finishes 12th can be relegated unless they win 2 consecutive games in the qualifying finals, where as the teams that finish 8 - 11 get the second chance.

Equally the div 2 teams must also win 2 consecutive games to get promoted to div 1.

Xtra thanks for your long and thought out reply DNR, it helped me realize that a thorough simplistic description is required.
I have worked my system all out in my head but delivering those thoughts to others is challenging.

No problems about the reply. I've thought about this alot and I'm glad the topic's come up for discussion.

I still think having the top team from Div 2 getting a spot in the finals series (and jumping over 5 teams to get there) poses some problems on fairness. It almost makes being in the second tier and winning more attractive than being in the top tier and struggling to make the eight. Teams might start 'tanking' from the first division to get a spot in the eight more easily, and they would only have to finish top four of Div 2 to do that.

I think that if you are going to have relegation and promotion, there has to be a reward for finishing top of the group and punishment for finishing bottom. In your 12 league comp, I think two automatic promotions / relegations and one play-off is about right, and this allows the top eight to remain untouched and the two or three teams that don't make it lose the right to challenge the next year.

 

[Furn]

Here is an idea i came up with for an 18 team comp. The key to it is that the teams are separated into 3 groups of 6 and after 17 rds cant finish better than a team in the higher group.

Maybe i should send this to the AFL.

here is my idea.
17 rds all teams play each other once.

At the end of the 17 rounds the teams are split into 3 groups of 6.

Top 6, middle 6 and bottom 6. Each of the teams in these 3 groups then play each other once making up the 22 games.

Now, the teams from the top six keep there points from the 17 games and play on only playing each other until the order of the top 6 is finalised. THis way you get to see the top sides play each other more often.

The middle six also keep there points from the 17 games and play each other with the top 2 of this group after 22 games in total playing in the elimination finals against the bottom 2 of the top 6.

A middle 6 team cannot pass a top 6 side even with more total wins as they have had easier opposition over the 5 extra games. To make the top 4 you have to make the top 6 1st.



The draft order for the bottom 6 is fixed after 17 rds. However, these clubs do not keep there points and play in a new round robin where the winner moves up 3 places in the draft and the runner up 2 places and 3rd 1 place.(if possible of course)

This way there is no point losing these games and if your last you have to try to win to keep your top pick.

the finals are played as normal with the top 4 and the bottom 4 coming from the middle 6.

Its very different but would keep interest up at the end of the season.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Promotion/relegation is horrible and will kill any team who gets stuck in the bottom.

Exactly. No player worth his salt will want to play below the top level. Clubs being relegated would lose players and sponsors and never recover.

 

[D-N-R]

Exactly. No player worth his salt will want to play below the top level. Clubs being relegated would lose players and sponsors and never recover.

Being stuck in the bottom of the league with few wins and zero chance of playing finals is what happens now. Ask melbourne fans. I don't think a relegation / promotion system would be much different to what happens now. As teams improve, they move up the table and challenge in the finals (promotion) and teams at the top drop off and fail to make finals (relegation). With the draft etc players can't just jump ship or it would happen now. Even the sponsorship issue is about the same, although I would favour a system which had all teams compete against each other, even if there were two divisions (see my earlier posts).

It's not my favourite method, but it could be viable.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Being stuck in the bottom of the league with few wins and zero chance of playing finals is what happens now. Ask melbourne fans. I don't think a relegation / promotion system would be much different to what happens now. As teams improve, they move up the table and challenge in the finals (promotion) and teams at the top drop off and fail to make finals (relegation). With the draft etc players can't just jump ship or it would happen now. Even the sponsorship issue is about the same, although I would favour a system which had all teams compete against each other, even if there were two divisions (see my earlier posts).

It's not my favourite method, but it could be viable.

I don't agree. Bottom teams now are still part of The Big League. Two divisions is an entirely different scenario and would create a class gulf akin to that between Test and Shield cricket. Second division would be a poor relation in terms of exposure and clubs wouldn't be able to attract enough money to pay top players. And how would you organise the draft? You'd either have the best players in the country potentially spending their careers playing second-tier footy, or doing a Nathan Buckley. Unworkable.

 

[West123]

When did 20 teams become so unmanageable? EPL has 20 teams, NBA/NFL has 30 teams, MLB/NHL has heaps as well.

I think the reason why people are getting worried is that people won't be able to watch every / most games every week.

Here's a thought if we are talking divisions though - Victorian Division & National Division

You have 10 vics in one
2 x SA, 2 x QLD, 2 x NSW, 3 x WA, TAS

Play 19 H/A's (one head to head against each team).
Top 8 for each division (4 weeks).
GF Vic v National.
We currently have a 26 round comp this would be 24. The two extra weeks could be State of Origin (Start of Year based on last season) and Divisional All Star match (Mid Year based on first half of the season).

Not that I have a problem with simply extending the current format.

 

[Perry Pie]

Actually, all the problems of the draw should be fixed when the league expands to 18 teams.

3 divisions of 6 teams. Something along the lines of:

Vic Group:
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Hawthorn (playing home games against divisional rivals in Tassie)
Melbourne (playing home games against divisional rivals in Darwin/Canberr

Mixed group:
West Coast
Fremantle
St Kilda
Bulldogs
Geelong
North Melbourne

National Group:
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
West Sydney
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
..........................
Promotion/Relegation is a terrible system. ...................

I would do something like the 3 "divisions", but just in terms of fixtures. (would call them groups) One ladder, finals as now, every team plays others in their group twice everyone else once. Group 1, 6 Vic teams, Group 2, 6 Non Vic teams, Group 3 mixed. (have changed the team groups from the original post). Teams change groups each season under a set of rules that ensure the mixing is spread.

Not perfect, but transparent with rivalries maintained and traveling minimised.

Promotion/Relegation will not work and would be a financial disaster.

 

[hcd199]

This competition has existed in one-tier form for 113 years, and has coped with numerous expansions: from 8 to 10, 9 to 12, 12 to 14, etc. etc.

The reality is, the competition worked pretty well as it is. Whilst there are issues like tanking that do need to be ironed out, major overhauls of a system that has survived in a pretty similar form for over 100 years does not need to be changed.

And yes, we are heading the way of a 20+ team competition - but what's the issue? Say we have 24 teams. 23 rounds in a season is hardly dissimilar to what we have now. Providing the powers-that-be make the right decision, we end up with an equitable draw, more games, a more 'national' league that doesn't lose its heritage, and probably more benefits. The divisions system, on the other hand, means the teams in the top tier get all the exposure, thus more money. Inequities creep in this way. Also, the system implemented is generally too complex. It works how it is - why change it for the sake of changing it?

 

[Perry Pie]

This competition has existed in one-tier form for 113 years, and has coped with numerous expansions: from 8 to 10, 9 to 12, 12 to 14, etc. etc.

The reality is, the competition worked pretty well as it is. Whilst there are issues like tanking that do need to be ironed out, major overhauls of a system that has survived in a pretty similar form for over 100 years does not need to be changed. .......

Agree, we just need a fixture system that is transparent & fair. One ladder, one competition.

 

[D-N-R]

Agree, we just need a fixture system that is transparent & fair. One ladder, one competition.

I agree also. I don't think the two tiered solution is totally unworkable, however my preference is for a one league system. I keep plugging my own posts but this is the solution I came up with on another thread:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showth...=646217&page=5

I think it works well (if i say so myself). In brief, the league is split in half each year based on where you finish on the ladder (1,3,5...15 in one group and 2,4,6...16 in the other) and these groups play each other within their own group twice and the teams in the opposite group once. With 16 teams, that's 22 games - with 18, 25 games. It's simple (I can explain it in a couple of sentences) and fair (the two groups are of about equal strength, so no team is favoured or disadvantaged by whom they are 'drawn' against).

But doesn't take into account the blockbuster games, so will be rejected out of hand by the AFL.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Western Sydney and Gold Coast will both flop, especially western sydney. You can't make AFL supporters out of people who have no interest in the game.

Definitely agree about West Sydney - even if they spend $200 million on this ridiculous fishing expedition, it's hard to see them getting anywhere much.

Not unless they use the $200 million to bribe people to attend anyway

 

[Ron The Bear]

Definitely agree about West Sydney - even if they spend $200 million on this ridiculous fishing expedition, it's hard to see them getting anywhere much.

Not unless they use the $200 million to bribe people to attend anyway

There will be a lot of free tickets handed out at schools etc.

 

[Perry Pie]

..........

In brief, the league is split in half each year based on where you finish on the ladder (1,3,5...15 in one group and 2,4,6...16 in the other) and these groups play each other within their own group twice and the teams in the opposite group once. With 16 teams, that's 22 games - with 18, 25 games. It's simple (I can explain it in a couple of sentences) and fair (the two groups are of about equal strength, so no team is favoured or disadvantaged by whom they are 'drawn' against).

But doesn't take into account the blockbuster games, so will be rejected out of hand by the AFL.

Like the spirit of your idea, it is perfect except for the problem you highlight. Somehow there needs to be protection for the "blockbuster" games. How about each team has a "pair" eg WC/Freo, Adel/Port, Coll/Ess & so on. Same system as you describe above but with the pair lower in the ladder dragged into the higher teams draw. Will not be as equal as the system you suggest, but will be close.