Changes to AFL from 2010

[titan_uranus 25,016]

There's a bit of talk around at the moment about the things that could/will change as the competition expands.

Incredulously, there seems to be talk of expanding the number of teams that play finals. I think 8 will be perfect for when we have 17/18 teams. That way it's less than 50%, making finals that more exclusive. Plus it reduces the likelihood of teams making the finals with an even (or sub-par) win-loss record (e.g. Essendon last year). Some even think 10 teams should play finals. Ridiculous.

I'm not entirely sure about the length of the season. It could be 17 rounds, playing each other team once, or 18, with one bye. Or it could be 22, as is now, just with less matches against teams who've already met once in the season. 24 is another number that's floating around.

There's also talk of bringing in Supergoals. On the one hand, I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and would prefer not to tinker with basic rules like the scoring system. But on the other hand, rewarding goals from outside 50 is going to (hopefully) place an emphasis on improving long kicking, and will get higher-scoring matches, which are good things.

Interested to know what people here think.

Edited March 21, 2010 by titan_uranus

[45HG 1,539]

Final 8: More exclusive (more than half of the teams making the finals would be outrageous) and the system in place at the moment is pretty fair.

24 rounds: Play every team once and 7 teams twice just like now. Not too fussed on this, however. Wouldn't like to go to 17 as it's too short IMO and highly doubt the AFL would agree to it with the less televised matches. Don't mind the idea of a season where you can play everyone twice but it's simply too long for a sport like Aussie Rules.

Abolutely no Supergoals: Tinkers with the scoring too much, the game is already confusing enough, if people want higher scoring games you can just change goals to 10 points and points to 3.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,048]

I don't see the need for any of these changes to occur.

Final 8 works quite well, and as mentioned it would become a bigger thing to make the finals if it were less than half of the competition getting in. I wouldn't mind if they reduced the number of teams though. That could be fun.

There is no need to add any rounds. We already play every team once. All it means is that there is a bye incorporated (for a season) and less repeat fixtures. Given how many players struggle to make it through the home and away season as is, any additional games could be ruinous.

And as for supergoals, hell no. They have too much potential to change games. Players like Stewart Dew and Paul Wheatley would suddenly become gold. We've seen how quickly a few supergoals can change a game in the NAB cup. We don't need to see it happen in a grand final.

[Gorgoroth 12,950]

If super goals come in, I leave.

The AFL is different enough each year, that would just finally kill it for me.

[Chook 15,013]

No, no, NO, NO, NO supergoals. Worst idea ever.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

just leave it alone PLEASE...i want the Premierships we win to mean something

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

If they bring supergoals in, I'll be [censored]. It changes the fabric of the game. All records up until the time they change it will become less relevant...

The game's changed enough as it is, and I'll be buggered if it's gotten "better" under the current administration. There have been a handful of improvements, but the hardness is slowly evaporating, and that's a great shame.

Enough's enough.

[Chook 15,013]

just leave it alone PLEASE...i want the Premierships we win to mean something

Won't they mean more when there are more teams? Also, the best team is still the best team regardless of how many teams make finals.

[Carlos Danger 380]

9 teams. 50% in the finals, 50% not. Seems logical for an 18 team competition.

24 rounds. The more, the better, even if it is at the expense of the NAB cup.

No supergoals, I love the supergoals and it's a great addition to the NAB cup but not in the season proper. "Genuine supergoals" are great but 50 meter penalties accounted for more than half of the supergoals this year, would become an embarrassing trend if introduced into the home & away season.

[Gooner 9]

9 teams. 50% in the finals, 50% not. Seems logical for an 18 team competition.

24 rounds. The more, the better, even if it is at the expense of the NAB cup.

No supergoals, I love the supergoals and it's a great addition to the NAB cup but not in the season proper. "Genuine supergoals" are great but 50 meter penalties accounted for more than half of the supergoals this year, would become an embarrassing trend if introduced into the home & away season.

I don't mind the idea of adding supergoals. However, I agree with the issue of the 50m penalties resulting in supergoals.

How about this for an alternative? Allow supergoals, but if a 50m penalty is given, the player can choose to kick with the man on the mark on the 50m line for a supergoal, or take the normal goal.

As for the other options, I don't like the expanded finals, but I like the expanded season. The closer you get to play every side home and away the more even the competition is.

[Inner Demon 1]

For Christ's sakes just leave the bloody game alone.

I've got no problem with rule changes focussed on player safety, but messing with something as fundamental as the scoring is going way too far.

Stop it.

[olgreydingo 51]

Why to we need to keep changing the bloody game. Why doesn't AD consult the biggest steak holders in the game, US the fans !!!! I am sick and tied of people like Gerard Healy, and alike wanting to consistently changing the game, at this rate in 10 years who knows what it will look like. I rather go back to 12 teams just based here in Vic!

[45HG 1,539]

So few rule change proposals would actually, in my view, enhance the game (the only reason you woul change rules anyway)

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Won't they mean more when there are more teams? Also, the best team is still the best team regardless of how many teams make finals.

i am meaning more having 10 teams in the finals, and the fact that the years fixture is becoming more loaded towards crowd maximising rather than a fair draw.

The AFL Draw is a total disgrace now-it is designed to line the pockets of shareholders and nothing else.

Considering how physically brutal the game is every club should expect a 7 day break between games.

Don't tell me it cannot be done-it can. it would just cost the AFL more $$

[Gooner 9]

The thing I like about the supergoal is that it's worked in the NBA.

The NBA didn't have a 3 point line until relatively recent times (30-40 years ago). I think that's added another dynamic to the game and makes it a lot more enjoyable, particularly when there's only a couple of points in it and a three pointer can win or tie the game.

[Maric Legend 0]

The thing I like about the supergoal is that it's worked in the NBA.

The NBA didn't have a 3 point line until relatively recent times (30-40 years ago). I think that's added another dynamic to the game and makes it a lot more enjoyable, particularly when there's only a couple of points in it and a three pointer can win or tie the game.

I'm sorry but terrible and not valid argument. Basketball is VERY different to football, basketball is all about scoring efficiency, youre automatically given possession and automatically within range to score, its about getting good looks.

Football, the main part of the game is associated within getting within scoring distance. If a guy takes a mark inside 50, would they then consider kicking it back out to a man just outside 50? Silly.

What about if a mark is taken right on 50, and its worth 6 points instead of 9? The umpire deciding whether the mark is in one spot or say, a macan have such a large impact?

Would the player streaming down the wing, preparing to kick the ball to a leading forward, not only have to factor in who to kick it to but whether they will be inside or outside 50 when they mark it?

Would we now find a new skill in the game, after taking a mark inside 50, going back to take the kick, but when lining up, going off the line of the mark at the last second?

Arrgh, just the idea of it makes me angry, it won't work and its unnecessary. How the AFL can even consider it is beyond me. There's already enough controversy about the interpretations of basic bumping rules. This will take it to the nth degree.

Ridiculous.

[Eth 4]

Finals have to be 8 teams. That way it's more exclusive. Besides, having a 9 team finals series is going to confuse everybody, because I don't see how it's going to work and it'll probably take 6 weeks, where as 4 is much nicer, as it's just about all in September. 10 teams is just too many, as you'll see more teams like Essendon of last year get in with less wins than losses. Just keep it at 8, it's what we're familiar with.

[titan_uranus 25,016]

Finals have to be 8 teams. That way it's more exclusive. Besides, having a 9 team finals series is going to confuse everybody, because I don't see how it's going to work and it'll probably take 6 weeks, where as 4 is much nicer, as it's just about all in September. 10 teams is just too many, as you'll see more teams like Essendon of last year get in with less wins than losses. Just keep it at 8, it's what we're familiar with.

How a final 9 could work:

1. Extra elimination final - 8th vs 9th beforehand, then the finals run as they are currently

2. Group system - a much more confusing system grouping the 9 teams into 3 groups of 3, where the higher team always has the home ground advantage. The top 3, plus the next best team go through to prelims.

3. 1st gets a bye, other 8 teams play in 'pre-qualifiers'. Worst team gets eliminated, then 8 remaining teams play finals under the current system.

Just goes to show that a Final 8 works best, and thus should be retained when we expand.

[CarnTheDees 52]

8 team final series is the right number however in an 18-team competition, if you combined it with a longer season then you are only going to have more dead rubbers towards the end of the season where the only thing to play for is improving your draft picks...

WARNING: PURE FANTASY AHEAD

Looking ahead to the long term future of AFL (50+ years with a significant population increase in Australia) - I could see (or should I say I would love to see) a two-tiered top-division with maybe 12 teams in each playing each other twice a season (Like the EPL and English Championship) with the state-based leagues below that. Adding promotion/relegation to the top-divisions reduces the dead-rubbers and adds genuine interest to almost all games.

E.g. it could start like:

AFL 1 - 12 teams (current teams), bottom 1, 2 or 3 go down.

AFL 2 - 12 teams (remaining current teams + Tas + 5 biggest state teams), bottom 2 go down to their respective state league, top 1, 2 or 3 go up.

4 State leagues: VFL, SANFL, WAFL, combined QLD, NSW, NT) - top 2 teams from each four play off in a seeded final 8 and top two go up to AFL 2.

Biggest challenge is managing finances and getting more venues in each city that are big enough. Also distributing the player pool (when low-level teams go up etc) would be a challenge, the draft would need a huge overhaul.

OR MORE REALISTICALLY:

Just have the two top divisions and keep the state leagues separate:

AFL 1 - 12 teams (current teams), bottom 2 or 3 go down.

AFL 2 - 12 teams (remaining current teams + Tas + 5 biggest state teams or new franchises - maybe Darwin, Canberra), top 2 or 3 go up.

This way the draft could remain largely unchanged.

Edited March 23, 2010 by CarnTheDees

[Chook 15,013]

8 team final series is the right number however in an 18-team competition, if you combined it with a longer season then you are only going to have more dead rubbers towards the end of the season where the only thing to play for is improving your draft picks...

WARNING: PURE FANTASY AHEAD

Looking ahead to the long term future of AFL (50+ years with a significant population increase in Australia) - I could see (or should I say I would love to see) a two-tiered top-division with maybe 12 teams in each playing each other twice a season (Like the EPL and English Championship) with the state-based leagues below that. Adding promotion/relegation to the top-divisions reduces the dead-rubbers and adds genuine interest to almost all games.

E.g. it could start like:

AFL 1 - 12 teams (current teams), bottom 1, 2 or 3 go down.

AFL 2 - 12 teams (remaining current teams + Tas + 5 biggest state teams), bottom 2 go down to their respective state league, top 1, 2 or 3 go up.

4 State leagues: VFL, SANFL, WAFL, combined QLD, NSW, NT) - top 2 teams from each four play off in a seeded final 8 and top two go up to AFL 2.

Biggest challenge is managing finances and getting more venues in each city that are big enough. Also distributing the player pool (when low-level teams go up etc) would be a challenge, the draft would need a huge overhaul.

OR MORE REALISTICALLY:

Just have the two top divisions and keep the state leagues separate:

AFL 1 - 12 teams (current teams), bottom 2 or 3 go down.

AFL 2 - 12 teams (remaining current teams + Tas + 5 biggest state teams or new franchises - maybe Darwin, Canberra), top 2 or 3 go up.

This way the draft could remain largely unchanged.

Which could conceivably cause Melbourne to drop out of the highest league of the code it invented. I wouldn't want that to happen.